The Growth of Community Colleges in the American

States: An Application of Count Models to

Institiutional Growth
William R. Doyle
Alexander V. Gorbunov
Peabody College of Vanderbilt University
Peabody #514
230 Appleton Place
Nashville, TN 37203-5721
(615) 322-2904
w.doyle@vanderbilt.edu
September 20, 2007

Abstract
What accounts for the variation in the number of community colleges in the Amer-
ican states? Existing studies point to a number of factors, but there have been few
studies that seek to explain the differential rate of growth of these institutions across
states. We test theories from the economic, sociological, and political science literature
using a multi-level Poisson regression model, utilizing Bayesian methods for estimation
and inference. Our results indicate support for the idea that community colleges grew
in response to changes in state populations, and that states with large number of other
types of institutions of higher education saw slower growth. Little support is found for
theories regarding community colleges as engines of stratification.

Introduction
The establishment of community colleges in the American states stands as one of the

most unique features of our system of postsecondary education. Community colleges

constitute 35% of the enrollment in American higher education, while the colleges them-

selves represent around 25% of all institutions. The size and scope of the community

1
college system in the United States reflects both a desire for educational opportunity

and a structure that can contribute to stratification.

Despite the voluminous literature on community colleges and their importance to

the American system of higher education, one major question about these institutions

remains unanswered. Why did certain states create large systems of community col-

leges, while other states developed few or none of these institutions?

The simplest answer is that large states created more community colleges. How-

ever, size alone does not predict the number of community colleges across states. Some

large states, such as New York have relatively few community colleges (population

19 million—35 community colleges), while some smaller states, such as North Car-

olina have larger numbers of these institutions (population 8.8 million—59 community

colleges) .

This study attempts to determine the characteristics of states that are associated

with the development of community colleges. The creation of community colleges

within the states has been characterized as an effort to both respond to increasing

levels of student demand and also to “coordinate higher education along the lines of a

hierarchically segmented system” (Brint and Karabel, 1989, p. 72). The simultaneous

pressures to both expand access and create more differentiation in systems of higher

education remain today. To better understand how states might respond in the future

to these two pressures, this study attempts to refine our understanding of what may

have driven past changes in policy.

This study is also part of a broader effort to understand the antecedents of state

policy for higher education generally. We still know relatively little about why certain

states are more or less likely to adopt certain policies for higher education. Establishing

the characteristics of states that are associated with one of the most important policy

innovations in the history of higher education will further our knowledge in this area.

2
Literature Review
The literature review looks to past research to understand the following questions:

What explanations have been offered for the emergence of two-year colleges? Further,

setting aside the question of initial establishment, what explanations have been offered

for the differential growth rates of community colleges in the American states?

This literature review focuses on four possible explanations for the development of

community colleges. First, researchers operating from within the economic literature

have argued that the development of community colleges came about as a result of

increased demand for higher education, coupled with business leaders’ interests in

developing more young people with specific vocational skills that did not necessarily

require a bachelor’s degree. Second, many researchers from within the sociological

literature have argued that these institutions were created as a result of broader social

forces, although they disagree about both the nature of those social forces and the

function of community colleges themselves. The class-reproduction perspective argues

that community college development had more to do with broader societal forces that

push toward stratification and inequality in educational opportunity. In contrast, the

functionalists within the sociological framework argue that community colleges were

part of a democratization and expansion in opportunity. The third strand of research

describes the development of these institutions in explicitly political terms, as the result

of a series of decisions made by policymakers in response to specific demands from

constituents and important lobbies. Last, the organizational ecology literature speaks

to the development of community colleges within states in terms of organizational

founders’ ability to fill a particular “niche”, where they would not compete for resources

with other, more established institutions.

We describe each of the four strands below, with a particular emphasis on those

studies which seek to provide explanations for the development of these institutions, as

opposed to characterizing their internal operation and campus environments. Each of

the four approaches suggests specific, testable propositions. We develop these propo-

3
sitions in our conceptual framework.

Economic Perspectives

The first area of research to be considered concerns explanations of community col-

lege emergence that deal primarily with economic considerations. According to this

literature, community colleges were developed as a result of either (1) labor market

conditions the need of technology in trained workforce, the demand for new careers

and retraining, especially during economic crises (Betts and Farland, 1995; Griffith

and Connor, 1994) and (2) consumer demands (Blau et al., 1994). The common view

is that vocational education and training are instrumental to making a nation more

competitive; thus, community colleges among other institutions are directed to serve

the needs of capital through provision of trained workforce (Levin, 2001). Their crit-

ical role in workforce preparation, pre-service training, in-service training and assis-

tance for small business development is greatly influenced by purposive state policies

(Dougherty, 2001). These government policies resulted from the economic concerns:

they emphasized vocationalism, workforce development, commercialism, state compet-

itiveness, and encouraged colleges to become more efficient, productive, accountable to

governments, and responsive to business needs (Levin, 2001). Brint and Karabel (1989)

attribute the community college vocationalization to the fiscal crises of the 1970s, in

which educational services provision to businesses was a major component of adapta-

tion strategies. Many authors mention the demographic factor as one of the leading

causes of the two-year college emergence. The demographic pressures have been ac-

companied by the growing demand for educational opportunity and additional years of

schooling (Witt et al., 1994; Cohen and Brawer, 2003; Blau et al., 2000; Baker, 1994)

and by changing educational needs such as life-long learning (Cain, 1999).

At the same time, some believe that recent increases in technology and changing

educational needs of the nation, have complicated the many-functions-at-one-address

idea. Most of these demands are now met by community colleges, and, as a result, the

latter have lost their leadership role and identity, become less rigorous, served diverse
4
student bodies while trying to recruit new populations (Cain, 1999). Most important is

the observation that, in the pursuit of economic goals, community colleges altered their

missions and moved away from social needs of local communities toward local market

needs, abandoning their earlier goals of accessibility, personal and social development,

and general education (Levin, 2001).

Several studies in this strand provide reliable and extensive data based on the use

of quantitative models. The following factors were found to be related to community

college foundings: state affluence, as measured by per capita income, the existence of

both large manufacturing sectors and diverse industrial sectors, and, partly, compe-

tition (Blau et al., 1994, 2000). These researchers find that community colleges are

responsive, among other factors, to the labor force needs of a diversified economy. Ex-

amining the impact of business cycles on community colleges, Betts and Farland (1995)

find that full-time and part-time enrollments show similar anti-cyclical patterns, in con-

trast to pro-cyclical state and local per-student appropriations. In spite of this failure

to align education policy with labor markets, the recessions drive people into two-year

colleges and provide for their growth.

The economic perspective on the development of community colleges traces their

founding back to a set of specific demands from the workplace. These institutions arose

in the marketplace to meet that demand, ensuring that citizens within state would have

access to the appropriate level of training required for the changing economies of states.

In contrast social theorists to be discussed next see these institutions as being part of

broader social forces, and not necessarily as a necessary outgrowth of particular market

needs.

Social Theories

The next strand of literature describes the development of community colleges as re-

flecting broader societal forces, rather than the specific supply-demand relationships

posited by economists. Within this literature, there are two opposite ideological camps.

The first is the class-reproduction school, which according to Dougherty (1988b) the-
5
orize that “the community college’s fundamental social role is to reproduce the class

structure of capitalist society”(Dougherty, 1988b, p. 354). A second group, described

by Dougherty (1988b) as “functionalists” extol the role of community colleges as de-

mocratizers of access (Pedersen, 1997; Witt et al., 1994).

The elitists of the barrier function promote one overarching idea: two-year institu-

tions have emerged as a means of social stratification and served to keep the undesirable

students out of “genuine” institutions of higher learning. Performing their “cooling-

out” function (Clark, 1960), community colleges help softly deny students of certain

backgrounds and aspirations the entry into the higher levels of educational hierarchy.

Since it appears to be a blocked opportunity, community colleges aim to mollify such

students in the face of disappointment, deflect resentment, and keep up educational

motivation. According to Clark, although many features of American life encourage

attending college, there is a wide discrepancy between the hopes of high school gradu-

ates and the means of realizing them in higher education. This provides for inevitable

failure within the college. Junior colleges become a “soft response” alternative to early

dismissal of those with little academic abilities so that to minimize stress both for the

individual and the system (Clark, 1960).

Taking Clark’s argument one step further, the proponents of the social stratification

idea posit that community colleges perform a contradictory task: they simultaneously

provide educational opportunities and serve to divert numerous students from four-

year institutions. They believe that community college vocationalization poses a grave

threat to equal educational opportunity and the dream of social upward mobility (Pin-

cus, 1980). Meeting the need to select and sort students destined to occupy different

positions in the job structure of a capitalist economy, junior colleges were designed as

a buffer between a high school and a four-year college and were never meant to provide

more than a terminal education for majority of its students. In many states they were

originally conceived as inferior institutions aimed at removing students from univer-

sities and providing for exclusion (Cain, 1999; Griffith and Connor, 1994). Brint and

Karabel (1989) posit that it was the junior college expansion of the 1950s and 1960s
6
that made it possible for state higher education institutions to become more exclusive.

On the other hand, the populists—the proponents of the educational opportunity

idea—believe that the major role of two-year institutions is providing broader access

to, and less expensive entry into, higher education (Witt et al., 1994; Pedersen, 1997).

They claim that the primary purpose of two-year institutions is greater inclusion and

trace back the junior college emergence to the local citizens demands (Griffith and

Connor, 1994). In the study of the educational opportunity context, Keith (1996)

seeks to explain the legitimation of a contextual framework within which community

college students get opportunities to transfer to four-year institutions. He finds that

the transfer opportunities depend on the way the community colleges are integrated

into a state’s higher education system.

Social theorists generally agree that community colleges arose as part of broader

trends at play in society, while disagreeing about what those trends might be and

how they specifically resulted in the kinds of institutions we see today. The political

theorists to be described next emphasize the role of individuals’ self-interest and desire

to maximize influence and power, particularly within a governmental setting.

Political Theories

The development of community colleges in the states can also be viewed as a result

of policymakers and citizens acting in their own interests to create these institutions.

Political theorists have identified several possible rationales for the creation of commu-

nity colleges: state governments seeking to expand their educational systems; (Cohen,

2001; Brint and Karabel, 1989) ; elected officials responding to demands and pursu-

ing self-interests (Dougherty, 1994); research universities trying to distance themselves

from vocational and liberal arts education (Griffith and Connor, 1994); higher educa-

tion authorities seeking to expand their own responsibilities; (Kane and Rouse, 1999);

business sector and manufacturing elites hoping to have a supply of workers trained

with public money (Blau et al., 1994; Cohen and Brawer, 2003); local communities

and their leaders looking for ways to enhance community prestige (Griffith and Con-
7
nor, 1994; Dougherty, 1994; Pedersen, 2005); superintendents and teachers seeking for

college-level jobs (Cohen and Brawer, 2003), and high school authorities seeking to

move into postsecondary education(Pedersen, 1997).

Political theorists share a common perspective in suggesting that the motivation of

many involved had less to do with specific educational or demographic pressures, and

more to do with specific groups seeking to maximize their influence and power through

governmental actions. While they may differ on which groups were most important

and how these groups interacted to create institutions, they share a common interest in

development of political power through the creation of these new institutions of higher

education.

Cohen and Brawer (2003) note that the overarching reason for the community

college growth could have simply been an increasing number of demands placed on

schools at every level. Many believe that the original proponents of the idea were

research universities seeking to move away from the liberal arts education towards

more research specialization. These lobbying efforts were supported by local citizens

motivated by a number of desires (Griffith and Connor, 1994; Dougherty, 1988b). There

is evidence that, in comparison with the federal government and local authorities,

state governments have been the most influential constraining force for community

colleges: they accredited colleges, supplied most of their resources, prevented them

from becoming four-year institutions, and pressured to expand vocational training

(Cohen, 2001; Brint and Karabel, 1989). In face of these views, Pedersen (2005; 1997)

posits that junior colleges were often their communities last choice (after failing to

secure traditional institutions or trying to sustain the community status after a private

college closure) and not the outcome of a university lobbying, advocacy of a school

superintendent, or willingness to help a remote university to cope with the influx of

students.

Political theorists suggest that these institutions were not the result of specific la-

bor market demands, nor the part of broader social forces, but instead the result of

efforts by individuals to use public policy for their own ends. The last perspective, de-
8
 scribed next, suggests that these institutions may have been created to fill a particular

organizational “niche”, which existing institutions could not or would not fill.

Organizational Ecology

Organizational ecology as a theoretical approach seeks to understand the development

of organizations from within a given context. In particular, organizational ecologists

focus on the ways in which overall organizational competition for resources and func-

tional differentiation (and subsequent organizational legitimation) affect both the birth

and death of specific organizations. Clearly, this perspective may have much to offer

in terms of understanding the founding of community colleges, yet few studies have

utilized this perspective in order to understand why and under what circumstances

community colleges might be created 1 .

Competition for scarce resources in the organizational ecology literature is tied to

the concept of density, the number of organizational units at any one time within a

defined type of organizational population (Baum and Oliver, 1996). Density has impli-

cations for two key aspects of organizational founding: legitimation and competition.

As (Hannan et al., 1995) state:

According to the theory, as density increases, legitimation increases at

a decreasing rate and competition increase at an increasing rate. Thus,

growth in density from zero mainly legitimates an organizational form, but

continued growth eventually generates enough competition to overwhelm

the effect of legitimation. (Hannan et al., 1995, p. 510, italics in original)

Thus, the creation of organizations is generally thought to follow a U-shaped curve,

increasing from very few, but then decreasing after competition becomes too fierce.

Another key insight from this field is the concept of resource differentiation. This

concept explains the co-existence of related organizations without competition. The key

concept is differentiation, through which organizations specialize in some specific aspect

1
Again, the Blau 2000 study is a notable exception
9
of their expertise, rather than competing broadly with one another. As organizations

differentiate, they can develop into either complementary or even symbiotic partners

in a resource area (Baum and Oliver, 1996; P. and Carroll, 1987).

Much of the literature in organizational ecology has to do with for-profit firms,

which will of course face different pressures for survival and different modes of com-

petition than non-profit entities such as community colleges. However, as Baum and

Oliver (1996) argue in their study of the founding of child-care centers, non-profit or-

ganizations face more challenges in the area of legitimacy—that without strong social

legitimacy, these organizations are much less likely to form and persist, but with social

legitimacy, these organizations are formidable competitors.

The literature has several implications for the founding of the community colleges.

First, the concept of density is key–the size and scope of the system of higher education

in states should play a role in the number of community colleges formed in any year.

Second, the competing pressures of legitimacy and competition will also most likely play

a role. This implies that other similar organizations and previously existing community

colleges may play a role in the founding of additional institutions. Last, the high levels

of social legitimacy that this literature say are required for non-profit firms may serve to

dampen competition between them and instead encourage some form of complementary

relationship.

Founding of Community Colleges: Empirical Results

Two studies on the founding of community colleges merit special attention, both of

which were cited above because of their overlapping approaches to the study of com-

munity college development. Dougherty (1994; 1988b; 1988a) finds that the business

and students demand was too weak to account for the extent of community college

expansion and the degree of responsiveness to their interests. His explanation is that

the community college policy emerged out of combination of demands from the interest

groups and relatively autonomous actions of government officials. The officials could

act on their own in pursuit of their self-interests; however, their actions favored student
10
and business interests. Thus, the main initiative of establishing community colleges

lay with the government officials. Although limiting his analysis to only five states

and relying exclusively on interviews and document examination, Dougherty concludes

that the community college expansion is generally characterized by homogeneity across

the states.

Blau et al. (2000; 1994) conducted a quantitative study of community college

foundings in 28 states in the period of their most rapid growth (1942-1979) to test

several hypotheses accounting for their establishment. Using a dynamic, multi-level

model, the researchers conclude that the community college expansion was not directly

related to demand; a diverse economy is important in their expansion, with the large

manufacturing sectors and diverse industrial sectors translating their need for trained

labor into educational policies; manufacturing elites play an important role if there is

a surplus of high school graduates; and the states with Democratic traditions tend to

have higher community college founding rates than states with Republican traditions.

Based on the two-stage contextual analysis and reliable estimation techniques, these

conclusions appear to be well-substantiated.

The Blau study, while an important contribution, has several shortcomings. First,

its panel is limited to four ten year segments, with just 28 states included as part of

the sample. Second, while their model does incorporate a multilevel approach, they

do not employ the types of estimation techniques that allow them to simultaneously

estimate first and second level parameters. Last, their model does not incorporate

state-specific time effects, which, as will be shown later, constitute an important facet

of the differential development of community colleges across states.

From the literature, we find the following propositions regarding the expansion of

community colleges. The economic literature suggests that community colleges formed

as a result of an increased demand for a more educated workforce that did not nec-

essarily require a bachelor’s degree. Social theorists posit that the development of

community colleges served primarily as a tool to further stratify higher education. The

political perspective suggests that ideology and competition for government resources
11
may have determined the development of community colleges within states. Finally,

the organizational ecology literature emphasizes the importance of the existing com-

petition for scarce resources in the area of higher education in a given state.

Conceptual Framework
Our conceptual framework develops on the literature reviewed to posit hypotheses

directly related to each of the theoretical areas outlined previously. We first hypothesize

a simple supply and demand relationship, which would suggest that overall population

size as well as the size of the young population should account for the expansion of

community colleges. We then explore the social stratification literature, which would

suggest that in states where pressures for social stratification are large, we would

expect to see the creation of more community colleges. The political explanation for the

expansion of community colleges would suggest that states with a more liberal ideology

would be more likely to create more community colleges, as these institutions are the

types of solutions that favor equity over an approach that emphasizes funding for more

inegalitarian institutions. Organizational ecology would suggest that the existence

of resources and the presence of other competitors in an organizational “niche” may

influence the rate of founding of new institutions.

Following (Dougherty, 1988b) we look first to the most straightforward explanation

of the expansion of community colleges: states with high levels of population growth

expanded their community college systems in order to provide educational opportuni-

ties for more of their citizens. This includes the young population—it is reasonable

to expect that states with a higher proportion of young people would have been more

likely to build more community colleges.

The economic lens would suggest, in parallel with Betts and Farland (1995), that

community colleges themselves would have been developed in concert with the expan-

sion of the young population, allowing more young people to attain higher levels of

education and training beyond high school.

12
 The demand driven approach would suggest that the growth of eligible populations

should presage the development of a community college sector, as organizational leaders

respond to the perceived need on the part of young people for more education, which

can not be entirely accommodated by the existing system of four-year colleges and

universities.

For the purposes of this study, we examine the extent to which growth in the young

population is related to the establishment of community colleges in the states. While

other populations might also be part of the demand for more community colleges,

we posit that this group should be particularly important for state policymakers and

organizational leaders in their thinking about creating more community colleges.

Social theorists generally posit that community colleges are part of broader social

forces, with class-reproduction theorists suggesting that institutions serve to recreate

the existing social order. We focus in this conceptual framework on the set of hypothe-

ses generated from those who emphasize this social stratification aspect of community

college systems.

Beginning with the “cooling out” theory described by Clark(Clark, 1960), many

have suggested that community colleges were created in order to divert students from

their educational goals. According to this theory, the function of community colleges in

the educational system is to realign individuals’ expectations with their actual status in

a gentle way, cooling them out so that their lack of access to postsecondary education

is not as obvious nor so upsetting as a simple denial of entrance.

Similarly, Brint and Karabel (1989) suggest that instead of becoming engines of

opportunity, community colleges instead diverted students away from fulfilling their

promise in the system of higher education. We suggest that these and other class-

reproduction theories can be broadly grouped under the concept of stratification: the

idea that community colleges, instead of being created to enhance educational oppor-

tunity, were instead designed to increasingly stratify the system, diverting some parts

of the population away from their educational goals.

In general, the social stratification theory would suggest that states with more
13
inequality between classes would have more of a stake in reproducing the existing

order. This could also extend to states with more heterogeneous populations, in which

those populations that traditionally held advantages sought to maintain their status

at the expense of other populations.

Based on this conception of the social stratification literature, we posit two possible

relationships based on the stratification theory. First as more of a state’s young people

are non-white, this theory would suggest that the state would be more likely to expand

its community college system. this follows from the above theory in that privileged

groups in the state would attempt to divert young people from other racial or ethnic

groups from four year colleges by creating a system of community colleges. In addition,

according to many stratification theorists, one of the important roles of community

college is to separate students by race or ethnicity (Brint and Karabel, 1989).

We expect to see more community colleges in states with higher levels of class

inequality, as the class-reproduction literature suggests. states with higher levels of

income inequality should therefore be more likely to put community college systems in

place, as the better-off reserve the four-year institutions for themselves.

We then turn to political explanations. In general, the expansion of community

colleges has been tied to the general policy liberalism that was prevalent in the early

1970’s (Klingman and Lammers, 1984). Like other state and federal projects, commu-

nity colleges represented a large government effort to ensure equality of opportunity

among all citizens (Dougherty, 1988b). It is possible, too that conservative politicians

may have favored the development of community colleges, as they typically are a more

efficient alternative to their four-year counterparts (Kane and Rouse, 1999).

The organizational ecology literature also has several important implications for

this study . The first is the recognition of the influence of existing institutions on

the creation of new institutions. It seems likely that existing institutions might view

the development of a community college system as a threat (Dougherty, 1994, 1988b).

Again, following Dougherty, we hypothesize that states with a more competitive post-

secondary environment will be less likely to develop a community college system, as

14
existing institutions will lobby the legislature to slow or even stop the development of

community colleges. Thus, four-year institutions in these states would seek to deprive

these institutions of the legitimacy that they would need in order to be founded in

larger numbers (Baum and Oliver, 1996).

We also hypothesize that population density will be an important predictor of the

number of community colleges in any year. Many states have an explicit policy that

all citizens should be within a certain range of a community college. If this policy were

followed explicitly, we should find that states with lower population densities created

more community colleges, after controlling for population levels. This also follows

from the organizational ecology literature, which would suggest that in areas where

organizations are less likely to face heavy competition, foundings are more likely.

The organizational ecology literature also emphasizes the importance of the richness

of a given environment for organizational founding. In any state, available resources

will serve as a constraint on the types of actions that can be undertaken. We include

income in the state as an important predictor of this state policy, as legislators can not

develop any policy if they can not draw from a resource base to fund it.

Data and Methods

This paper introduces a new dataset, compiled from a variety of sources, and describing

a long period of development of community colleges in the state. Second, this section

describes the models to be estimated, and the Bayesian framework for estimation and

inference utilized for this study. Both the data and the methods employed have utility

in testing the hypotheses developed in the conceptual framework.

15
 Data

The data for this study come from a unique dataset, compiled from a variety of sources

of state-level data. The data cover all 50 states, for the time period 1969-2002 2 . Data

were drawn from a variety of sources.

The dependent variable in this study is the number of community colleges in each

state in each year. This variable was collected from the Office of Education and Welfare

and later Department of Education statistical compendia, which eventually became the

Digest of Education statistics (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The same source

is also used for the number of public and private four year institutions in each state.

Population data by age and race are available from the National Cancer Insti-

tute Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program (National Cancer Institute,

2007). Young population is defined as the proportion of state population aged 20-

24, while the proportion of the young population that is non white is defined as all

non-white individuals as a proportion of the same (20-24) age bracket.

Income inequality comes from the University of Texas’ income inequality project

(Galbraith and Hale, 2006). The researchers compute this measure by predicting the

Gini coefficient for family income inequality from state-level between-industry wage in-

equality data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Between-industry pay inequality

is computed using Theil’s T statistic. The resulting measure correlates highly with

more infrequently observed inequality data from the Census Bureau.

Legislative ideology as a concept capture to what extent elected officials in the

state are more or less liberal. This measure, as developed by Berry, is based on the

voting record of the congressional delegation from the state (Berry et al., 1998). The

ideological position of state legislators and governors from each party are assumed to be

the same as the members from their party that are sent to the U.S. Congress. Higher

levels on the ideology index indicate a more liberal outlook among those elected to

state government.
2
The first year of this study was chosen as it is the first year that reliable data across the dependent
variable and all of the covariates are available. The last year was chosen as more current information was
not available at the time of writing
16
 Income and population data are drawn from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,

while state land area (the denominator for population density) is available from the

Census Bureau.

Methods

The dependent variable in this study takes on a limited number of positive integer

values, suggesting that the Poisson distribution best describes the underlying data

generating process. The probability density function for the Poisson model in a panel

data setting is:

exp(−λist )λyist
P r(yist |λist ) = (1)
yist !

Where yi is the number of community colleges in state s at time t. The variable λ,

is also known as the “rate”. The Poisson distribution has only the single parameter λ,

which is equal to both the expectation (E(yi st)) and the variance. Failure to meet this

assumption is known as overdispersion.Overdispersion can be handled either through

specifying another distributional link such as the negative binomial, or by modeling. I

take the latter approach in this paper.

The likelihood function for a Poisson regression model is as follows:

exp(−λist )λyist
P r(β|y, X) = (2)
yist !

Where λ = Xβ.

The plan of analysis for this paper is to estimate the underlying model using four

different functional forms. A complete-pooling model, which assumes a common in-

tercept for all states, a no-pooling model, which estimates a separate intercept for all

50 states, a partial pooling model, which pools information to estimate separate inter-

cepts, and a partial pooling model with a state-specific time effect 3 . Each model is

evaluated relative to its overall fit with the data. As we will show, the partial pooling
3
We follow Gelman and Hill (2006) in running models in this order
17
model with a state specific time effect provides the best fit to the data.

This study utilizes a Bayesian framework for inference and estimation. The critical

difference between this approach and a standard (frequentist) approach is that Bayesian

statistics assume that the population parameter under study is a random variable with

some distribution, rather than a fixed point. While a full description of the Bayesian

approach is beyond the scope of this paper, the results are based on posterior density

estimates of population parameters, which are proportional to a prior (a distribution for

the parameters to be estimated postulated by the analyst) times a likelihood. Estimates

are therefore described in distributional terms, not as point estimates with standard

errors. Most of the inferences are drawn using the median, central 50% and central

95% of posterior distributions, which refer to quantiles drawn from the thinned Markov

chains for the parameter or prediction of interest. Given the state of knowledge in this

area, non-informative priors are provided for all parameters of interest.

We utilize a Bayesian framework for estimation and inference for two reasons. First,

we are concerned with estimating models and coefficients for population as opposed

to sample data. As Gill (2001) explains, “in population models variance exists around

coefficients, but this variance is not an indication of estimator reliability. Rather it mea-

sures the variability of the observed effect size (β) subject to models misspecification .

. .” (Gill, 2001, p.340). Given that the coefficients to be reported can not be subjected

to traditional null hypothesis significance testing, reporting their point estimates and

standard errors does not provide enough information to judge the reliability of the es-

timates. Instead, taking the Bayesian perspective that the population parameters are

themselves random variables, and providing a series of probability statements regarding

posterior estimates of these population parameters provides more useful information

than a frequentist approach.

A second motivation for our use of Bayesian methods comes from Gelman and Hill

(2006), who state that the Bayesian approach for estimation and inference “averages

over the uncertainty in all the parameters in the model” (Gelman and Hill, 2006, p.

345). This is particularly helpful, they note, when the number of groups in a multilevel
18
model is relatively small, and the model itself is relatively complex. Given some of the

state-specific effects we wish to estimate, we believe that this approach will provide

better estimates of the population characteristics under study.

Complete Pooling Model

The complete pooling model is the simplest of the models to be considered. Given the

likelihood described above, the rate λ is estimated via:

log(λst ) = α + βxst (3)

With the following prior distributions:

α ∼ N (0, 100)

βk ∼ N (0, 10)

This model in effect assumes that most states’ processes for creating community

colleges can be reliably estimated using a common intercept, along with covariates.

No-Pooling Model

The no-pooling model involves estimating a separate intercept αs for all 50 states,

with a non-informative prior distribution. This is equivalent to a fixed effects model

in econometrics (Greene, 2003).

In the no-pooling (fixed effects) model, the rate λ is estimated using the following

specification:

log(λst ) = αs + βxst (4)

With the following prior distributions

αi ∼ N (0, 10, 000)

βk ∼ N (0, 10)

19
 As with fixed effects, the no-pooling model does not allow for cross-state inferences,

as all of the unit-specific heterogeneity has been absorbed by the αi term. This type of

specification is common in studies where states are the unit of analysis, as a correlation

between state characteristics and predictors can bias results (Greene, 2003; Hausman,

1978).

Partial Pooling Model

The no-pooling model, while providing a reasonable fit to the data, has several draw-

backs. First, it is inefficient, which is not a major concern for this study. Second, it

prevents the analyst from making any cross-unit inferences, since any systematic dif-

ferences are absorbed by the state-specific intercepts. Another approach is to estimate

a partially pooled model, so called because cross-state differences are partially pooled

when estimating separate intercepts for each state. This is commonly referred to as a

“random effects” model in the econometric literature (Greene, 2003; Hausman et al.,

1984). This model has been shown to have superior efficiency in the estimation of

models for count data (Hausman et al., 1984).

To overcome the problem of group effects that correlate with predictors, we use the

within-state means of all predictors to estimate the partially pooled intercept terms.

This is the approach described by Bafumi and Gelman (2006). This approach removes

the state-level heterogeneity that is of concern by controlling for different within state

means in the pooled estimation of state-specific parameters.

The partial pooling model, like the no-pooling model, estimates a separate intercept

for each state. However, unlike the no-pooling model which has an uninformative

prior, the partial pooling model estimates the intercept from the data itself, with a

non-informative prior on the precision of this estimate.

log(λst ) = αs + βxst (5)

The pooled intercept term αi is modeled using state means of all covariates x¯s .

20
 αs ∼ N (µ, σ 2 )
(6)
µ = bxs

With the following prior distributions

βk ∼ N (0, 10)

bk ∼ N (0, 10)

σ ∼ U (0, 5)

The partial pooling model provides a compromise between the two extremes of the

complete-pooling and no-poling models. While the complete-pooling model ignores

important unit-specific heterogeneity in the data, the no-pooling model absorbs all

of the heterogeneity in an intercept term, preventing the analyst from making any

cross-state inferences. Traditionally no-pooling models are used when group effects

and predictors are correlated (Bafumi and Gelman, 2006). Controlling for within-

state means obviates the need for the no-pooling model, which allows for cross-state

inferences.

The emphasis in this study is on the characteristics of states that made them more

likely than other states to develop a system of community colleges. This implies that we

must use cross-state, as opposed to within-state inferences, which are only possible in

the partial pooling models. For this reason, we employ this model—to make cross-state

inferences possible.

Partial Pooling With Time Effects Model

The partial pooling with time effects model is identical to the partial pooling model,

with an additional state-specific coefficient—γ— for time :

log(λst ) = αs + βxst + γs t (7)

21
 The state specific time coefficient has a non informative prior of the form:

γs ∼ N (0, 100)

The effect of adding a state specific covariate on time is to allow each state to have

its own linear growth pattern, which can be modeled directly from the data 4 . The

interpretation of β changes to allow for the impact of covariates beyond what would

have been expected under normal state-level conditions for growth.

With these four models described, we turn to our estimation techniques.

Estimation

All of the above models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques,

specifically a Gibbs sampler. For each model, three separate chains of 100,000 iterations

each was run. The first 50,000 iterations were discarded, and the second 50,000 were

thinned by 50, resulting in 1000 draws from the estimated posterior density from each

chain for each unknown parameter. Missing data were multiply imputed using the

same techniques 5 .

Results
Results are presented for each of the models. We investigate first whether the functional

form for the model adequately fits the data, before proceeding to inferences regarding

the predicted impact of specific covariates.

Pooled Model

The pooled model estimates a standard Poisson regression, with a common intercept

term for all states. This model provides a poor fit to the data. Figure 1 shows the 95%

central interval for the value exp(λ̂) for all states in all years plotted against the actual
4
This follows the approach suggested by Singer and Willett (2003) in their work on longitudinal data
analysis
5
Data for this analysis, along with Bugs code for all models, and R code for all pre- and post-estimation
transformations of data and results can be obtained from the authors upon request.
22
number of institutions in that year. As the figure shows, the model is relatively good

at predicting values for states in the middle of the distribution, but provides a poor fit

for very large states such as California or very small states such as Delaware.

This lack of fit can be summarized in several ways. One relatively straightforward

method is to compare the posterior estimates of exp(λ̂) with the number of community

colleges in the state, and observe the number of times the 50 and 95% intervals do not

include the correct number of community colleges (Gelman et al., 2004).

For the pooled model, the 50% interval includes the true value of community colleges

17% of the time, while the 95% interval includes the true value of community colleges

19% of the time. This indicates relatively poor model fit for the complete-pooling

model.

No-Pooling Model

The no-pooling model, as described above, estimates a separate intercept for every

state, thus removing any time-constant differences among states from the model. In-

terpretation of this model is thus limited to within state changes.

For the no-pooling model, the true value of y lies within the central 50% prediction

interval 30% of the time, while the 95% central predication interval captures the true

value 54% of the time. While an improvement on the pooled model, this method of

estimation also does not fit the data well. A plot of the predicted ranges from the no

pooling model and the actual numbers of community colleges in the states can be seen

in figure 2.

Given the above considerations, these results do allow us to make the following

inferences:

The conceptual framework for this study suggested that states with more young peo-

ple would be more likely to create community colleges to respond to demand. Within

any state, an increase in the young population is associated with an increase in the

number of community colleges (see figure 5). Also, within-state growth in the pro-

portion of the young population that is non-white is also associate with an increasing
23
number of community colleges.

The conceptual framework also suggests that competition from existing institutions

of higher education could slow the development of community colleges within states,

while population density should cause a lower number of institutions to be founded. We

do find that increases in population density also show a positive, although highly un-

certain, relationship with increasing numbers of community colleges. Last, changes in

the number of both public and private four year institutions within any given state are

negatively associated with an increasing number of community colleges. This supports

Dougherty (1994, 1988b) who suggests that the competitive actions of within-state four

year institutions may have slowed the growth of community colleges. This also provides

initial support for the theories derived from the organizational ecology literature.

Partial Pooling Model

The partial pooling model, as described before, estimates separate intercepts for each

state, but generates these estimates from a common distribution. Following Gelman

and Hill (2006), the pooling model understates the variation across units, as figure 1,

shows, while the no-pooling model may overstate the variation, as figure 2 shows. The

partial pooling model represents a compromise between these two extremes.

The partial pooling model does not fit the data any better than the no-pooling

model. In this model, the true value of the number of community colleges lies within

the 50% interval 29% of the time, and within the 95% interval 54% of the time. As

figure 5 shows, this model does provide more efficiency, in that the posterior density

coefficients are estimated in a somewhat narrower range.

As it is constructed, however, the model can not adequately represent state-specific

time trends. Take the example of Louisiana in figure 3. The rapid increase in the

number of community colleges in the state in the last period to be considered is not

modeled well, leading to poor predictive power. For this reason, we consider state-

specific time effects in the next section.

24
 Partial Pooling with Time Effects

The last model to be considered is essentially the same as the partial pooling model,

with the important addition of a state-specific time effect. This allows the estimates in

each state to be conditional on an underlying time trend that is estimated separately

for each state 6 .

The partial pooling model with time effects provides a superior fit to the data. The

true value lies within the 50% predictive interval 43% of the time. The 95% interval

contains the true value 74% of the time. This model works better in capturing the data

than the other models considered in this paper 7 . Figure 4 shows that this model is

better at handling the kind of shocks that occurred in specific states, such as Louisiana,

Georgia, and Minnesota, particularly late in the sample.

Because it provides a better fit to the data, I will consider the results of the partial

pooling with time effects model in the most detail. As mentioned before, posterior

density estimates for the coefficients in the form of medians and 50 and 95% intervals

are plotted for all models in figure 5.

In the conceptual framework, we hypothesize that demand in the form of a large

young population would be a key antecedent of the development of community colleges.

As figure 5 shows, the posterior density of the coefficient for young population in the

state is positive in all model specifications. As the proportion of the population aged

20-24 increased, in most states so did the number of community colleges. Figure 6

shows the predicted impact of an increase in the proportion of population aged 20-24

for four states in the year 1984.

This figure plots the probability of any number of community colleges from 0-100

for each of four states: Illinois, New York, North Carolina, and Washington 8 . In each
6
This model shares much in common with the approach described by Singer and Willett (Singer and
Willett, 2003).
7
Posterior estimates of the deviance information criterion (DIC) were also calculated from all samples.
The DIC for the partial pooling with time effects has the lowest DIC, indicating the best out-of-sample
predictive accuracy of all models (Gelman et al., 2004)
8
These states were chosen because, as figure 1 they have either much higher or lower numbers of commu-
nity colleges than one might expect from a simpler model

25
states, the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile of the posterior predictive density is plotted

for each of the two hypothetical scenarios: under the lower value, the proportion of

young people is set to one standard deviation below the mean, while under the higher

value, the proportion of young people is set to one standard deviation above the mean.

The predicted probability of a given number of colleges m is calculated for every m

from 0-100 via the following:

exp(−µ)µm
P r(y = m) =
m!

Where µ = exp(λ̂). This prediction is carried out for values of λ̂ at each of the

pre-specified quartiles of the posterior predictive density.

The first panel in figure 6 shows the impact of increasing the proportion of young

people on the expected number of community colleges in Illinois. As the figure shows,

the median number of colleges centers around 40 in the lower hypothetical scenario

and around 60 in the higher hypothetical scenario. While the size of the difference

varies, the impact of an increasing proportion of young people can be observed in the

remaining states as well.

This provides support for the demand-side hypotheses from the conceptual frame-

work. State policymakers do appear to be responsive to increases in their young pop-

ulation when building community colleges.

Our next set of hypotheses concerned the class-reproduction theories. We expected

to see that in states with more heterogeneous young populations, more community

colleges would be created. We found mixed evidence on this question. In the no-pooling

and partial pooling models, the coefficient for this variable is positive. However, once

we include a parameter for time, the 95% central density estimate for this coefficient

overlaps with 0.

As figure 5 shows, the predicted impact of the proportion of the young population

that is non-white is positive for most draws from the posterior distribution, but is

highly variable. Figure 8 plots the impact of an increase in the size of the proportion

26
of the population that is non-white on the predicted number of community colleges.

As the figure shows, in all three states the impact is substantively large, but highly

uncertain. The dotted gray lines indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles of the posterior

predictive distribution for λ̂. In each state, these range considerably from the median

estimate. This suggests that although the impact of this variable has been estimated

with some uncertainty, is practical effect may be quite large.

We did not find support for the class-reproduction theory in terms of income in-

equality in the states. In the no-pooling, partial-pooling and time effects model, the

central density estimate for the coefficient on the non-white young population variable

is centered on 0.

Political characteristics were also hypothesized to have an impact on the growth

of community colleges. In our conceptual framework, we posit that states with more

liberal policymakers should be more likely to create more community colleges. Figure

5 shows that liberal ideology has a small but negative relationship with the number of

community colleges across states. Figure 7 shows the predicted impact of an increase in

liberal ideology, using the same method as previously. A the figure shows, the impact

of even fairly large changes in ideology (from one standard deviation above the mean to

one standard deviation below) have a very small impact on the number of community

colleges. While the relationship between liberalism and the building of community

colleges may be statistically significant, it is substantively small.

The organizational ecology theories considered in our conceptual framework lead us

to suspect that competition from other institutions would slow the growth of commu-

nity colleges, as would higher levels of population density. State resources, on the other

hand should increase the rate of founding of community colleges. In the no-pooling

and partial pooling model, the coefficient for the number of both private and public

institutions is estimated to be negative. However, in the final specification, the central

posterior density estimates for the private institutions center on 0, while the 50% cen-

tral density estimate for public institutions is negative. This provides partial support

for the idea that competition from public institutions may have slowed the growth of
27
community colleges within states. Given the inclusion of the state-specific time param-

eter in this model, this means that a higher number of public four-year institutions is

associated with lower levels of growth in community colleges in the states.

Conclusion
This paper has attempted to model in a comprehensive fashion the development of

community colleges in the American states. We approach this conclusion by noting

at the outset that the enormous complexity of such a phenomenon cannot be entirely

modeled through the use of only a handful of variables. Yet we also find that using

a relatively parsimonious but flexible model we can accurately predict the range of

community colleges most likely to be found within states.

In terms of our significant findings, we find first of all that community colleges did

indeed appear to grow as a direct result of the rapidly increasing proportion of young

people in states that occurred, particularly during the early part of our sample. This

provides support for the economic perspective examined in the literature review, which

suggested that these institutions came into existence in response to increased demand

for their services. Second, we find some evidence that the proportion of the population

that is non-white is also associated with the growth of these institutions, but we cannot

accurately estimate the substantive importance of this effect. We find a statistically

significant and negative, but substantively small, relationship between the level of state

liberalism and growth in community colleges. Last, we also find evidence that states

with more four year colleges may have seen slower growth in their community college

systems as result of the previously existing four-year institutions.

We derive several implications for the community college literature. First, there is

evidence that states were being directly responsive to their own needs, and less evi-

dence that factors like income inequality or political factors such as ideology impacted

the formation of these institutions. However, politics surely could be at work in the

lobbying efforts of public four year colleges. Much of the qualitative literature points
28
to resistance from these institutions in many states to the formation of community

colleges. The result of this could have been the slower growth of community colleges

in states where four year institutions predominated, as observed in the results.

Based on these specific findings, we suggest the following possible implications for

the theoretical frameworks described in our literature review and conceptual frame-

work. The results as stated do provide some evidence for the propositions derived

from the economic framework, but clearly more work needs to be done in this area.

In particular the specific demands of local labor markets have not been tied to the

development of these institutions. Future research could examine the link between

increased labor market demands for students with some postsecondary education and

the development of community colleges.

The evidence from this study does not provide conclusive proof regarding the social

theories we examined earlier. Certainly, we did not find any evidence that income

inequality can be tied to the development of these institutions. The findings on racial

heterogeneity are not as clear, and suggest the need for a finer-grained approach to

understanding how forces for social stratification may have played a role in the devel-

opment of these institutions.

Our evidence regarding the role of political ideology goes against what we expected,

based on extant theories. Theories regarding the politics of higher education are still

very much under development (McLendon, 2003). It could be that the role of polit-

ical liberalism did not extend to the development of these institutions, although the

substantive impact of this variable is quite small in our analysis.

Last, our findings regarding the impact of four-year institutions on the develop-

ment of community colleges are intriguing. One of the key questions to be answered

about more recent developments in higher education is the role of existing institutions

in the development of for profit institutions of higher education. Given the role of

existing institutions during the time period in this study, we would expect to see that

in many states these organizations would seek to limit the development of alternatives,

particularly those that would impact existing organizational “niches.”

29
 As we move into the 21st century, new organizational forms for higher education

that are as-yet unknown but may be as large in impact as the community college could

develop. This study, by providing some insight into the development of one of the

largest higher education policy innovations in the 20th century, could provide clues as

to the conditions which may favor the development of the new new thing in higher

education.

References
Bafumi, J. and Gelman, A. (2006). Fitting multilevel models when predictors and

group effects correlate. Technical report, Columbia University, New York. 20, 21

Baker, G. A. I., editor (1994). A Handbook on the Community College in America:Its

History, Mission, and Management. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. 4

Baum, J. A. and Oliver, C. (1996). Toward an institutional ecology of organizational

founding. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5):1378–1427. 9, 10, 15

Berry, W. D., Ringquist, E. J., Fording, R. C., and Hanson, R. L. (1998). Measuring

citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-93. American Journal

of Political Science, 42(1):327–348. 16

Betts, J. R. and Farland, L. L. (1995). Safe port in a storm:the impact of labor

market conditions on community college enrollments. Journal of Human Resources,

30(4):741–765. 4, 5, 12

Blau, J. R., McVeigh, R., and Land, K. C. (1994). The expansion of two-year col-

leges:tests of institutional and political economy theories in a dynamic model. Tech-

nical report, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. 4, 5, 7, 11

Blau, J. R., McVeigh, R., and Land, K. C. (2000). The expansion of two-year colleges:a

dynamic, multi level model. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,

24:127–143. 4, 5, 9, 11
30
Brint, S. and Karabel, J. (1989). The Diverted Dream:Community Colleges and the

Promise of Educational Opportunity in America, 1900-1985. Oxford University

Press, New York, NY. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14

Cain, M. S. (1999). The Community College in the Twenty-First Century:A Systems

Approach. University Press of America, Lanham, MD. 4, 5, 6

Clark, B. R. (1960). The ”cooling-out” function in higher education. The American

Journal of Sociology, 65(6):569–576. 6, 13

Cohen, A. M. (2001). Governmental policies affecting community colleges:a historical

perspective. In Townsend, B. K. and Twombly, S. B., editors, Community Col-

leges:Policy in the Future Context, pages 3–22. Ablex Publishing, Westport, CT. 7,

Cohen, A. M. and Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American Community College. Jossey-

Bass, San-Francisco, CA, 4th edition. 4, 7, 8

Dougherty, K. J. (1988a). Educational policy-making and the relative autonomy of

the state:the case of occupational education in the community college. Sociological

Forum, 3(3):400432. 10

Dougherty, K. J. (1988b). The politics of community college expansion:beyond the

functionalist and class-reproduction explanations. American Journal of Education,

96(3):351–393. 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 24

Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The Contradictory College:The Conflicts, Origins, Impacts,

and Futures of the Community Colleges. State University of New York Press, Albany,

NY. 7, 8, 10, 14, 24

Dougherty, K. J. (2001). State policies and the community college’s role in workforce

preparation. In Townsend, B. K. and Twombly, S. B., editors, Community Col-

leges:Policy in the Future Context, pages 129–147. Ablex Publishing, Westport, CT.

4
31
Galbraith, J. K. and Hale, T. (2006). State income inequality and presidential election

turnout and outcomes. Technical Report 33, The University of Texas Inequality

Project, Austin, TX. 16

Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., and Rubin, D. B. (2004). Bayesian Data

Analysis. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, 2nd edition. 23, 25

Gelman, A. and Hill, J. (2006). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/ Hier-

archical Models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 17, 18, 24

Gill, J. (2001). Whose variance is it anyway? interpreting empirical models with

state-level data. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 1(3):400–421. 18

Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

19, 20

Griffith, M. and Connor, A. (1994). Democracy’s Open Door:The Community College

in America’s Future. Boyton/Cook Publishers, Portsmouth, NH. 4, 6, 7, 8

Hannan, M. T., Carroll, G. R., Dundon, E. A., and Torres, J. C. (1995). Organizational

evolution in a multinational context: Entries of automobile manufacturers in bel-

gium, britai, france, germany and italy. American Sociological Review, 60:509–528.

Hausman, J. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(2):1251–

1271. 20

Hausman, J., Hall, B. H., and Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data

with an application to the patents-r & d relationship. Econmetrica, 52(4):909–938.

20

Kane, T. J. and Rouse, C. E. (1999). The community college:educating students at the

margin between college and work. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1):63–84.

7, 14
32
Keith, B. (1996). The context of educational opportunity:states and the legisla-

tive organization of community college systems. American Journal of Education,

105(1):67101. 7

Klingman, D. and Lammers, W. W. (1984). The “general policy liberalism” factor in

American state politics. American Journal of Political Science, 28(3):598–610. 14

Levin, J. S. (2001). Public policy, community colleges, and the path to globalization.

Higher Education, 42(2):237262. 4, 5

McLendon, M. K. (2003). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded

research agenda. Educational Policy, 17(1):165–191.

National Cancer Institute (2007). Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (seer)

program (www.seer.cancer.gov) seer*stat database: Populations - total u.s. (1969-

2004). Electronic Resource: http://seer.cancer.gov/popdata/download.html Ac-

cessed June, 2007. 16

P., B. W. and Carroll, G. R. (1987). Competition and mutualism among early telephone

companies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32:400–421. 10

Pedersen, R. T. (1997). Value conflict on the community college campus:an examination

of its historical origins. In Goodchild, L. F. and Wechsler, H. S., editors, The History

of Higher Education, pages 499–509. Pearson Custom Publishing, Boston, MA, 2nd

edition. 6, 7, 8

Pedersen, R. T. (2005). Conflicting interests in the funding of the early two-year

college. In Katsinas, S. G. and Palmer, J. C., editors, New Directions for Community

Colleges:Sustaining Financial Support for Community Colleges, pages 5–17. Wiley

Periodicals. 8

Pincus, F. L. (1980). The false promises of community colleges: Class conflict and

vocational education. Harvard Educational Review, 50:332–61. 6

33
Singer, J. D. and Willett, J. B., editors (2003). Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis:

Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. Ocford University Press, New York. 22, 25

U.S. Department of Education (2001). Digest of education statistics, 2000. Technical

report, National Center for Education Statistics. 16

Witt, A. A., Wattenbarger, J. L., Gollattscheck, J. F., and Suppiger, J. E. (1994).

Americas Community Colleges:The First Century. Community College Press, Wash-

ington, D.C. 4, 6, 7

34
Figure 1: Posterior Predictive Densities and Actual Values for All States, Pooled Model

1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990

AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA
● ●●●
●●●●●●●
●● ● ●●●● ●
●● ●

100 ●●
●

●●

●●

80
60 ●●●
●●
●
●
●

40 ●●●
●
● ●●
●●●●
●●
●
● ●

●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●

●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●● ●
●●

20 ●●●●●
●●●●●●
●●

●●
●
● ●●●

●●●●●
●●●●●
●
●
●●●● ●
●●●●●
●●● ●●●

●●●●●●
●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●● ●●● ●●●
●●
●●
●●●●●●
● ●● ●●●● ● ●●

●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●

●●●
●●●
● ●● ●●
●

●●● ● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●

● ●●●● ●
●●
●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●

HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD
100
80
60
●●● ●● ● ●●●●●● ●●
●● ●●● ● ● ● ●●●
●●●

40
●
●●●●
●●

●●
●●

20
●●● ●
● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●
●●●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●●● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●● ● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●
●●●● ● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●●●
●● ● ●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●

●●
●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●

0
ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH
Community Colleges

100
80
60 ●
● ●
●●●
●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●●●

● ●●●

40
●
●●●
●
●●

●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

●●●●●●
● ●

20
●● ●●●●●●
●●●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●
●●●●●● ● ● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●
● ●●●● ●●●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ●●
●●●●● ●●● ● ●●
● ● ●
●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●●●
●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●
●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●●●
● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●
●●●●● ●● ●● ●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●●● ●●●●●●
●●● ●●●●

NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC
100
80
60
● ● ●●●
●● ●● ●●●●●●● ● ● ●
●●●●●● ● ● ●
●● ●●●
●●
●
●●●
● ●
● ●●●●● ●● ●
●●
●●●●●
●● ●●● 40
20
●●
●●● ●●● ●●
● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●● ●
●●●●●●● ●● ●●● ● ● ●●● ● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●● ●●●
●●●● ● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
●
●●●
●●● ●
●●●● ●
●●● ●● ●● ●●
●● ●
●
●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
0
SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY
100
80
●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●

60 ●●
●●● ●● ●●
●

●●
●

●●

40 ●

●●●
●●●

●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
●●●●
●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

20 ●● ●●
● ● ●●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
● ●
●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●● ●●●● ●●● ●
●●●●●●
●●
●●● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●●●●●●● ●
●
●●●● ● ●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●

1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990

Year

Points indicate actual values, lines indicate 50 and 95% posterior prediction intervals

35
Figure 2: Posterior Predictive Densities and Actual Values for All States, No-Pooling (Fixed
Effects) Model

1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990

AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA
● ●●●
●●●●●●●
●● ● ●●●● ●
●● ●

100 ●●
●

●●

●●

80
60 ●●●
●●
●
●
●

40 ●●●
●
● ●●
●●●●
●●
●
● ●

●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●

●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●● ●
●●

20 ●●●●●
●●●●●●
●●

●●
●
● ●●●

●●●●●
●●●●●
●
●
●●●● ●
●●●●●
●●● ●●●

●●●●●●
●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●● ●●● ●●●
●●
●●
●●●●●●
● ●● ●●●● ● ●●

●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●

●●●
●●●
● ●● ●●
●

●●● ● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●

● ●●●● ●
●●
●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●

HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD
100
80
60
●●● ●● ● ●●●●●● ●●
●● ●●● ● ● ● ●●●
●●●

40
●
●●●●
●●

●●
●●

20
●●● ●
● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●
●●●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●●● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●● ● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●
●●●● ● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●●●
●● ● ●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●

●●
●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●

0
ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH
Community Colleges

100
80
60 ●
● ●
●●●
●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●●●

● ●●●

40
●
●●●
●
●●

●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

●●●●●●
● ●

20
●● ●●●●●●
●●●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●
●●●●●● ● ● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●
● ●●●● ●●●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ●●
●●●●● ●●● ● ●●
● ● ●
●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●●●
●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●
●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●●●
● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●
●●●●● ●● ●● ●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●●● ●●●●●●
●●● ●●●●

NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC
100
80
60
● ● ●●●
●● ●● ●●●●●●● ● ● ●
●●●●●● ● ● ●
●● ●●●
●●
●
●●●
● ●
● ●●●●● ●● ●
●●
●●●●●
●● ●●● 40
20
●●
●●● ●●● ●●
● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●● ●
●●●●●●● ●● ●●● ● ● ●●● ● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●● ●●●
●●●● ● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
●
●●●
●●● ●
●●●● ●
●●● ●● ●● ●●
●● ●
●
●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
0
SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY
100
80
●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●

60 ●●
●●● ●● ●●
●

●●
●

●●

40 ●

●●●
●●●

●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
●●●●
●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

20 ●● ●●
● ● ●●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
● ●
●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●● ●●●● ●●● ●
●●●●●●
●●
●●● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●●●●●●● ●
●
●●●● ● ●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●

1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990

Year

Points indicate actual values, lines indicate 50 and 95% posterior prediction intervals

36
Figure 3: Posterior Predictive Densities and Actual Values for All States, Partial Pooling
Model
1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990

AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA
● ●●●
●●●●●●●
●● ● ●●●● ●
●● ●

100 ●●
●

●●

●●

80
60 ●●●
●●
●
●
●

40 ●●●
●
● ●●
●●●●
●●
●
● ●

●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●

●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●● ●
●●

20 ●●●●●
●●●●●●
●●

●●
●
● ●●●

●●●●●
●●●●●
●
●
●●●● ●
●●●●●
●●● ●●●

●●●●●●
●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●● ●●● ●●●
●●
●●
●●●●●●
● ●● ●●●● ● ●●

●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●

●●●
●●●
● ●● ●●
●

●●● ● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●

● ●●●● ●
●●
●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●

HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD
100
80
60
●●● ●● ● ●●●●●● ●●
●● ●●● ● ● ● ●●●
●●●

40
●
●●●●
●●

●●
●●

20
●●● ●
● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●
●●●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●●● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●● ● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●
●●●● ● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●●●
●● ● ●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●

●●
●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●

0
ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH
Community Colleges

100
80
60 ●
● ●
●●●
●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●●●

● ●●●

40
●
●●●
●
●●

●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

●●●●●●
● ●

20
●● ●●●●●●
●●●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●
●●●●●● ● ● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●
● ●●●● ●●●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ●●
●●●●● ●●● ● ●●
● ● ●
●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●●●
●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●
●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●●●
● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●
●●●●● ●● ●● ●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●●● ●●●●●●
●●● ●●●●

NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC
100
80
60
● ● ●●●
●● ●● ●●●●●●● ● ● ●
●●●●●● ● ● ●
●● ●●●
●●
●
●●●
● ●
● ●●●●● ●● ●
●●
●●●●●
●● ●●● 40
20
●●
●●● ●●● ●●
● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●● ●
●●●●●●● ●● ●●● ● ● ●●● ● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●● ●●●
●●●● ● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
●
●●●
●●● ●
●●●● ●
●●● ●● ●● ●●
●● ●
●
●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
0
SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY
100
80
●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●

60 ●●
●●● ●● ●●
●

●●
●

●●

40 ●

●●●
●●●

●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
●●●●
●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

20 ●● ●●
● ● ●●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
● ●
●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●● ●●●● ●●● ●
●●●●●●
●●
●●● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●●●●●●● ●
●
●●●● ● ●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●

1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990

Year

Points indicate actual values, lines indicate 50 and 95% posterior prediction intervals

37
Figure 4: Posterior Predictive Densities and Actual Values for All States, Partial Pooling
With Time Effects Model
1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990

AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA
● ●●●
●●●●●●●
●● ● ●●●● ●
●● ●

100 ●●
●

●●

●●

80
60 ●●●
●●
●
●
●

40 ●●●
●
● ●●
●●●●
●●
●
● ●

●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●

●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●● ●
●●

20 ●●●●●
●●●●●●
●●

●●
●
● ●●●

●●●●●
●●●●●
●
●
●●●● ●
●●●●●
●●● ●●●

●●●●●●
●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●● ●●● ●●●
●●
●●
●●●●●●
● ●● ●●●● ● ●●

●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●

●●●
●●●
● ●● ●●
●

●●● ● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●

● ●●●● ●
●●
●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●

HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD
100
80
60
●●● ●● ● ●●●●●● ●●
●● ●●● ● ● ● ●●●
●●●

40
●
●●●●
●●

●●
●●

20
●●● ●
● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●
●●●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●●● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●● ● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●
●●●● ● ●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●●●
●● ● ●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●

●●
●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●

0
ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH
Community Colleges

100
80
60 ●
● ●
●●●
●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●
●●●

● ●●●

40
●
●●●
●
●●

●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

●●●●●●
● ●

20
●● ●●●●●●
●●●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●
●●●●●● ● ● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●
● ●●●● ●●●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ●●
●●●●● ●●● ● ●●
● ● ●
●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●●●
●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●
●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●●●
● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●
●●●●● ●● ●● ●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●●● ●●●●●●
●●● ●●●●

NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC
100
80
60
● ● ●●●
●● ●● ●●●●●●● ● ● ●
●●●●●● ● ● ●
●● ●●●
●●
●
●●●
● ●
● ●●●●● ●● ●
●●
●●●●●
●● ●●● 40
20
●●
●●● ●●● ●●
● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●● ●
●●●●●●● ●● ●●● ● ● ●●● ● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●● ●●●
●●●● ● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
●
●●●
●●● ●
●●●● ●
●●● ●● ●● ●●
●● ●
●
●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
0
SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY
100
80
●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●

60 ●●
●●● ●● ●●
●

●●
●

●●

40 ●

●●●
●●●

●
●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
●●●●
●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●

20 ●● ●●
● ● ●●● ●●●
● ● ●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●
● ●
●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●● ●●●● ●●● ●
●●●●●●
●●
●●● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●
●●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●

0 ●●●●●●●●●●● ●
●
●●●● ● ●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●

1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990 1970 1990

States

Points indicate actual values, lines indicate 50 and 95% posterior prediction intervals

38
 Figure 5: Posterior Estimates of Coefficients, All Models
Complete Pooling Model No Pooling Model

Private Four Year ●

Private Four Year ●

Instititutions Institutions

Public Four Year ●

Public Four Year ●

Institutions Institutions

Per Capita Income ●

Per Capita Income ●

Log of Population ●
Log of Population ●

Density Density

Legislative Ideology ●
Legislative Ideology ●

Income Inequality ●
Income Inequality ●

Non White ●
Non White ●

Young Population Young Population

Young Population ●
Young population ●

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0
−0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Estimate Estimate

Partial Pooling With

Partial Pooling Model
Time Effects Model
Private Four Year ●
Private Four Year ●

Institutions Institutions

Public Four Year ●

Public Four Year ●

Institutions Institutions

Per Capita Income ●

Per Capita Income ●

Log of Population ●
Log of Population ●

Density Density

Legislative Ideology ●
Legislative Ideology ●

Income Inequality ●
Income Inequality ●

Non White ●
Non White ●

Young Population Young Population

Young population ●
Young population ●
−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Estimate Estimate

Points represent medians, black lines indicate central 50%, gray lines indicate central 95%
of posterior estimate

39
 Figure 6: Predicted Impact of Young Population on Number of Community Colleges
Illinois New York
0.06

0.06
0.05

0.05
Predicted Probability

Predicted Probability
0.04

0.04
0.03
0.03

0.02
0.02

0.01

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of Community Colleges Number of Community Colleges

North Carolina Washington

0.06

0.08
0.07
0.05

0.06
Predicted Probability

Predicted Probability
0.04

0.05
0.03

0.04
0.02

0.03
0.01

0.02

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of Community Colleges Number of Community Colleges

Black lines indicate lower value of young population, gray lines indicate upper. 50th and
75th percentile are represented by dotted lines, medians by solid lines

40
 Figure 7: Predicted Impact of Liberal Ideology on Number of Community Colleges
Illinois New York

0.05
0.05

0.04
0.04
Predicted Probability

Predicted Probability

0.03
0.03

0.02
0.02

0.01
0.01

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of Community Colleges Number of Community Colleges

North Carolina Washington

0.05

0.07
0.06
0.04
Predicted Probability

Predicted Probability

0.05
0.03

0.04
0.03
0.02

0.02
0.01

0.01

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of Community Colleges Number of Community Colleges

Black lines indicate lower value of liberal ideology, gray lines indicate upper. 50th and 75th
percentiles of prediction are represented by dotted lines, medians by solid lines

41
Figure 8: Predicted Impact of Non-White Young Population on Number of Community
Colleges
Illinois New York

0.06
0.06
0.05

0.05
0.04

0.04
Predicted Probability

Predicted Probability
0.03

0.03
0.02

0.02
0.01

0.01
0.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of Community Colleges Number of Community Colleges

North Carolina Washington

0.05

0.06
0.04
Predicted Probability

Predicted Probability
0.03

0.04
0.02

0.02
0.01

0.00
0.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of Community Colleges Number of Community Colleges

Black lines indicate lower value of non-white young population, gray lines indicate upper.
50th and 75th percentile are represented by dotted lines, medians by solid lines

42
Figure 9: Predicted Impact of Public Four Year Institutions on Number of Community
Colleges
Illinois New York

0.06
0.06
0.05

0.05
0.04

0.04
Predicted Probability

Predicted Probability
0.03

0.03
0.02

0.02
0.01

0.01
0.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of Community Colleges Number of Community Colleges

North Carolina Washington

0.05

0.06
0.04
Predicted Probability

Predicted Probability
0.03

0.04
0.02

0.02
0.01

0.00
0.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of Community Colleges Number of Community Colleges

Black lines indicate lower value of public four year institutions, gray lines indicate upper.
50th and 75th percentile are represented by dotted lines, medians by solid lines

43