Description
Explanation define non credit entrepreneurship education in community colleges the national perspective.
Non-Credit Entrepreneurship Education in Community Colleges:
The National Perspective
Rozana Carducci
Shannon Calderone
Kyle McJ unkin
Arthur M. Cohen
Robert Hayes
UCLA Community College Studies
September 2005
Project Contact Information
UCLA Community College Studies
3127 Moore Hall, Box 951521
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521
(310) 206-1200
[email protected]
1
Executive Summary
This report summarizes findings from a national survey of non-credit entrepreneurship
and small business management education in American community colleges. Specifically, the
project seeks to identify and document current best practices with respect to non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education and to provide community colleges
with a benchmark for assessing their own progress in meeting established program objectives.
The survey findings also provide community colleges, their communities, responsible state
agencies, and other sources of funding with criteria by which to evaluate the performance of
community colleges in non-credit entrepreneurship education.
A brief review of relevant entrepreneurship education scholarship is presented along with
a detailed description of the survey methodology and research sample (the survey instrument is
included in the report appendix). Drawing upon data collected from 227 participating community
colleges, the research findings presented in this report address the following dimensions of non-
credit community college entrepreneurship training: program content and format, administration
and funding, faculty characteristics, student enrollment, and program assessment.
Key research findings discussed in the report include:
71% of respondents offer non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management
education
A survey of non-respondents resulted in the estimation that 53% of non-respondent
community colleges offer some form of non-credit entrepreneurship education with a
ninety-five percent confidence range of 37% to 69%
76% of participating institutions offer both non-credit entrepreneurship and small
business management education
76% of survey participants report offering both credit and non-credit entrepreneurship
training
2
44% of institutions house non-credit entrepreneurship education within continuing,
community, and adult education administrative units
General college budget, student tuition/fees, and state allocations represent the three most
prominent forms of financial support for non-credit entrepreneurship education
Stand-alone workshops, continuing education courses, and workshop series are the three
most common non-credit entrepreneurship education formats with 49% of survey
respondents reporting the use of four or more different program formats
Lecture, guest speakers, and group work topped the list of non-credit entrepreneurship
instructional methods while business plan development, market analysis reports and
personal development exercises were the three most frequently employed learning
activities
The majority of participating institutions (60%) enrolled less than 200 non-credit
entrepreneurship students
Only 35% of participating institutions report offering non-credit entrepreneurship
programs that target specific demographic groups (e.g., women, racial groups, dislocated
workers)
The majority of institutions rely on adjunct faculty to provide non-credit entrepreneurship
training and over 90% of these instructors possess prior entrepreneurial and small
business management experience
Slightly more than half of participating institutions reported development of a written
statement of non-credit entrepreneurship goals, outcomes, or program evaluation criteria
The majority of institutions (56%) conduct evaluations at the end of each course or
program while only 12% utilize alumni surveys and 18% analyze economic data to gather
assessment data beyond program completion
These empirical findings, elaborated upon in the full report, confirm and extend previous
scholarship on community college entrepreneurship education. Consistent with Hagan’s (2004)
assertion that over 60% of American community colleges offer credit-bearing entrepreneurship
training, the results of this study also reflect extensive community college involvement in the
promotion of economic and workforce development via non-credit entrepreneurship and small
business management education. The impressive breadth and depth of non-credit community
college entrepreneurship training is underscored by survey data which illustrate the diverse range
3
of educational topics, instructional methods, learning activities, and institutional resources
integrated into comprehensive educational programs capable of meeting the diverse
informational and pedagogical needs of community college continuing education students.
Additional insights gleaned from this report include the collaborative nature of non-credit
community college entrepreneurship education (as evidenced by the diverse range of external
funding sources and formal partnerships reported by participating institutions) and the continued
need for assessment practices that effectively measure student learning and program outcomes.
The report concludes with a discussion of additional research topics (e.g., the nature and scope of
collaboration between non-credit and for-credit entrepreneurship initiatives, external resource
development strategies, and innovative assessment practices that measure long-term program
outcomes) that warrant further investigation in the interest of advancing our knowledge of the
important role American community colleges play in cultivating and sustaining entrepreneurial
activity.
4
Introduction
This report summarizes findings from a national survey of non-credit entrepreneurship
and small business management education in American community colleges. Specifically, the
project seeks to identify and document current best practices with respect to non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education and to provide community colleges
with a benchmark for assessing their own progress in meeting established program objectives.
The survey findings also provide community colleges, their communities, responsible state
agencies, and other sources of funding with criteria by which to evaluate the performance of
community colleges in non-credit entrepreneurship education.
The significance of community college entrepreneurship and small business management
education is evident in statistics on the prominent role American entrepreneurial enterprises and
small businesses play in the promotion of local, regional, and national economic growth. A
review of national census, commerce, and labor data reveals that America’s 23 million small
businesses represent 99.7% of all employer firms, employ over half of all private workers,
account for 50% of the private sector output, and generate 60 to 80% of net new jobs annually in
the U.S. (United States Chamber of Commerce, 2005). In addition, the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (GEM), a collaborative research initiative between Babson College and London
Business School, has documented a strong correlation between national entrepreneurial activity
and economic growth as well as a strong relationship among entrepreneurship, education, and
job creation. Specifically, GEM findings reveal that “30% of entrepreneurs with less than a
secondary education expect to remain self-employed over the next five years, while 35% of the
most highly educated entrepreneurs expect to employ 20 or more” individuals (Neck, Zacharakis,
Bygrav, & Reynolds, 2003, p. 6). Despite the abundance of statistics confirming the economic
5
growth associated with entrepreneurialism, additional scholarship is needed to expand our
understanding of the role entrepreneurship and small business management education play in
cultivating and sustaining entrepreneurial activity.
Although a number of scholars have conducted survey research of for-credit
entrepreneurial education programs sponsored by four-year colleges and universities (Solomon,
Duffy, and Tarabishy, 2002; Vesper & Gartner, 2002), relatively few researchers have
systematically examined entrepreneurship and small business management education within the
community college sector—a surprising oversight given the prominence of economic expansion,
community education, and workforce development among the multiple missions of American
community colleges. The role of community colleges in entrepreneurship education is especially
significant because of their place in the national educational system. By their very nature, the
colleges are tied to the local community that they serve. Their students come from that
community; many of them are part time students and they work in that community; they will
very probably make their future life in that community. The businesses in the community look to
the community college to provide their educated workforce; they frequently provide adjunct
faculty for the community college; they provide workplaces for the students while they are
attending the community colleges; they will very likely hire the graduates from their colleges.
Thus, community colleges must be both pragmatic and directed to the immediate needs in
training the labor force for work in the community. All of this makes the community college an
ideal context in which to develop educational programs to create entrepreneurs. Indeed, many
community colleges are already engaged in entrepreneurship education as evidenced by Hagan’s
(2004) assertion that 60% of American community colleges currently offer at least one credit-
bearing course in small business management or entrepreneurship. What is missing from the
6
extant literature on community college entrepreneurship education, however, is a comprehensive
review of non-credit entrepreneurial offerings. A 1994 report prepared by the Center for the
Study of Community Colleges asserted that the majority of community college entrepreneurial
training was offered as non-credit continuing education. Basing this assertion primarily upon a
review of relevant literature and a limited survey of 40 urban community colleges, the authors of
the 1994 report called for additional empirical research to examine the format, content, and
administrative resources of community college non-credit entrepreneurship education.
Unfortunately, this call has remained unanswered. In addition to beginning to fill this gap in the
literature on non-credit community college entrepreneurial education, the survey data presented
in this report also provides valuable insights on the scope and function of external partnerships
and assessment activities, two aspects of entrepreneurship education that have received relatively
little attention in previous survey research.
Prior to presenting the findings from our survey of non-credit community college
entrepreneurship and small business management education, we synthesize relevant
entrepreneurship education research as well as provide a detailed introduction to the survey
instrument and sampling procedures that frame this study.
Relevant Literature
The proliferation of postsecondary entrepreneurship and small business management
education offerings has been well documented in a diverse collection of scholarly articles and
research reports published by numerous education, business, civic, and philanthropic
organizations (Katz, 2003; Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, 2001; Kuratko,
2003; Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy, 2002). In order to establish a context for the findings
presented in this study on the current status of community college non-credit entrepreneurship
7
education, we will briefly review the major themes and key findings of previous
entrepreneurship education scholarship. We begin this literature review with a discussion of
postsecondary entrepreneurship education research conducted on a national scale and then
synthesize the rather limited body of scholarly work focused on entrepreneurship and small
business management education in the community college context.
The National Perspective
In order to better understand the contemporary status and future trajectory of American
entrepreneurship education, it is important to explore the historical roots of this rapidly evolving
academic discipline. In 2003 J erome Katz published a comprehensive chronology of American
entrepreneurship education that begins with the 1876 publication of Francis Walker’s The Wages
Question, “the first major work by an American university academic considering the
entrepreneur” (p. 286). Developed from a review of primary and secondary historical source
documents, examinations of entrepreneurship program websites, and discussions with numerous
entrepreneurship scholars, Katz’s chronology provides valuable insight on three distinct
dimensions of entrepreneurship education growth: courses, infrastructure elements (e.g.,
endowed positions), and publications.
After examining the 100+-item chronology and reviewing trends in course development,
endowment growth, and the proliferation of entrepreneurship journals and textbooks (the number
of entrepreneurship journals has doubled every three years on average), Katz (2003) asserts two
primary findings with implications for the future. The first is that American entrepreneurship
education has reached maturity as evidenced by the emergence of “widely recognized and
consistent” approaches in curricular content and pedagogy, disciplinary specialization (e.g., high-
technology and economic development), and external legitimization of the discipline (for
8
example, US News and World Report national rankings) (p. 294-295). Katz’s second major
finding concerns the growth of entrepreneurship education beyond American business schools.
Katz notes, “Entrepreneurship offerings continue to grow in schools of agriculture, engineering,
the learned professions, and arts and sciences, usually with minimal or no involvement by
business school entrepreneurship faculty” (p. 295). Building upon the historical scaffolding of
the chronology, Katz concludes the article with insights into the challenges entrepreneurship
education will face in the 21
st
century. These problems include: 1) a publication glut “with too
many journals chasing too few good papers” (p. 295), 2) avoiding the stagnation that frequently
accompanies complacency and success, and 3) a narrow entrepreneurship faculty pipeline
stemming from a lack of PhD programs preparing future faculty. Despite these challenges, Katz
asserts, “the good news is that entrepreneurship education is certain to continue as a major and
growing academic discipline worldwide. There are too many academics, too much established
infrastructure, and too much demand from students, firms, and governments to let
entrepreneurship fall into disuse or disarray” (p. 298). The growth and maturity of American
entrepreneurship education captured in Katz’s comprehensive chronology is reinforced by the
findings of two other national surveys of American entrepreneurship education discussed below.
In 1986, Rob Dainow published the results of an entrepreneurship education literature
survey of articles published between 1974 and 1984. The purpose of this research was to "assess
the current state of the art, based on published articles, with a view to identifying the strengths
and weaknesses that can guide future efforts" (p. 10). After reviewing the literature, Dainow
identified "a need for more systematic collection and analysis of data, and more varied
methodologies to build a stronger empirical base" (p. 18). In the interest of building on Dainow's
work through an examination of more recent entrepreneurship education literature, Gorman,
9
Hanlon, and King (1997) surveyed articles published from 1985-1994. The authors identified 92
articles published in seven leading academic journals specializing in entrepreneurship and small
business management and then categorized the papers along three distinct dimensions: 1)
theoretical or descriptive, 2) target market (e.g., student enrolled in the formal educational
system, existing business owners), and 3) content (e.g., entrepreneurial propensity, pre-startup,
post-startup). After carefully analyzing the selected articles, Gorman, Hanlon, and King
identified several major themes that connect contemporary entrepreneurship education
scholarship. First, the authors articulated a "need to distinguish among entrepreneurship,
enterprise and small business management education and to differentiate each of these from
traditional approaches to management education" (p. 18). According to the authors, this theme
was particularly prominent in articles on entrepreneurship teaching strategies and curricular
content. In contrast to the interdisciplinary findings highlighted in Katz’s (2003)
entrepreneurship education chronology, a lack of multidisciplinary approaches in
entrepreneurship education was a second major theme to emerge from the Gorman, Hanlon, and
King literature review. The authors reported, “only three of the twenty nine theoretical articles
drew on fields other than business” (p. 18). This disparity in research findings may be a function
of the journals reviewed by Gorman, Hanlon, and King.
Additional findings discussed by Gorman, Hanlon, and King (1997) included: 1) an
emerging consensus that entrepreneurship can be taught and entrepreneurial attributes fostered
through educational programming, 2) a demonstrated growth in entrepreneurship courses and
programs coupled with a lack of constancy in approach, and 3) the presence of strong evidence
to support the assertion that business owners and managers were often reluctant to participate in
entrepreneurship training programs. The authors concluded the literature survey with
10
recommendations for future areas of investigation that centered on measuring the impact and
effectiveness of comprehensive entrepreneurship education programs rather than continuing to
focus on assessing the outcomes associated with completion of a single entrepreneurship course.
The 1999-2000 National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education conducted by George
Washington University and sponsored by the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership
(Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy, 2002) is the third and final national entrepreneurship education
study reviewed in this report. Based on survey data collected from 240 institutions (13% of
which were two-year colleges), Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy report that in comparison to
previous national surveys, the 1999-2000 survey revealed modest growth in entrepreneurship
education courses and degree programs as well as external funding for entrepreneurship
education chairs, professorships, and centers. The survey findings, disaggregated by institutional
type (2-year, 4-year, and international universities), offer insight on the nature and scope of
entrepreneurship programs (courses vs. degrees), popular pedagogical methods, educational
technology usage, and outreach initiatives (e.g., continuing education opportunities, elementary
school programs, alumni tracking). Across institutional type, the three most popular
entrepreneurship education course topics were small business management, entrepreneurship,
and new venture creation. Case studies, business plan creation, and discussions topped the list of
in-class instructional methods employed by community colleges while internships, on-site
business visits, and small business consulting were the three most popular external classroom
pedagogical methods. The bulk of the report’s discussion, however, focused on surprising
findings related to the limited use of educational technology in contemporary entrepreneurship
education. Survey results indicate that while 52% of participants incorporate required web-based
assignments in their entrepreneurship curriculum, only 30% provide students and entrepreneurs
11
with on-line management and technical assistance and only 21% of participating institutions use
distance-learning technologies in entrepreneurship education. Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy
assert, “Given the tremendous growth in personal, business, and academic technology, one might
assume that a higher percentage of entrepreneurship educators would have adopted and used
various educational technology tools such as the Internet, online chat rooms and distance
learning” (p. 8). The researchers warn that a failure to quickly integrate technological advances
into entrepreneurship education curricula will prevent the field from remaining on “the cutting
edge” and adequately preparing students to meet the demands of entrepreneurship and business
management in the 21
st
century.
Entrepreneurship Education in the Community Colleges
Despite the fact that the 1999-2000 National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education does
include community college program data, the small number of community colleges participating
in this survey (n=31) offers a rather limited portrait of community college entrepreneurship
education. We conclude this literature review with a discussion of entrepreneurship education
research explicitly situated within the context of American community colleges. Although this
body of scholarship is rather limited in comparison to the breadth and depth of the research
carried out in four-year college and university settings, a number of scholars have studied the
growth and development of community college entrepreneurship and small business
management course offerings. Two of the most comprehensive and informative studies are
discussed below.
In 1994, the Center for the Study of Community Colleges submitted a report to the
Kauffman Foundation Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership entitled, Entrepreneurship Training
in American Community Colleges. This report, prepared in support of U.S. Senate Bill 862 (a
12
bill that proposed entrepreneurship education funding for community colleges and historically
black colleges and universities), summarized previous scholarship on entrepreneurship programs
in American community colleges and synthesized survey data collected from 40 community
colleges located in major urban population centers. Among the report’s key finding were: 1)
most community college entrepreneurship education programs are administered as non-credit,
continuing education opportunities, 2) several of the programs focus on fostering
entrepreneurship among particular demographic groups (e.g., women, African Americans), 3)
most community college entrepreneurial education programs are collaborative ventures that
involve public as well as private support, 4) community colleges entrepreneurship instructors are
typically experienced entrepreneurs and business managers with little or no formal pedagogical
training, and 5) participating institutions rarely assess the impact or effectiveness of
entrepreneurial education programs. In addition to this initial report, the Center for the Study of
Community Colleges also prepared two highly informative reports on the status of sixteen
community college entrepreneurship programs funded through the Kauffman Foundation
J umpstart project, a grant program focused on providing entrepreneurship training to African
Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and women (Cohen, Brawer, Kozeracki, 1998, 2000).
In addition to chronicling the development of innovative community college entrepreneurship
programs, the J umpstart reports also highlight the diversity of instructional methods, curricular
content, and collaborative partnerships that characterize community college entrepreneurship
training. Given the small sample size of community colleges represented in the Center’s original
1994 report and two subsequent J umpstart reports, additional empirical research conducted on a
national scale is essential for constructing a more accurate and comprehensive portrait of
community college entrepreneurship education.
13
In 2004 Elizabeth Hagan released the results of a comprehensive survey of for-credit
entrepreneurship education offerings in American community colleges. Her research findings,
gleaned from an extensive review of more than 1,000 community college web sites and the
analysis of survey data collected from 171 community college entrepreneurship education
program directors, offers tremendous insight into the diverse formats, curricula, and instructional
methods that characterize community college entrepreneurship education. In addition, Hagan
also examined the influence of institutional mission, geographic location, and faculty
characteristics on entrepreneurship program growth and decline. Hagan’s significant findings
include survey results which reveal that 73 out of 426 participating institutions (17%) offer
entrepreneurship or small business management degree programs, 131 (31%) award
entrepreneurship certificates, 176 (41%) offer three or more courses in small business or
entrepreneurship, 64 (15%) offer only one course, and 41 (9%) do not currently offer a credit-
bearing entrepreneurship courses. Survey responses also revealed that the primary and secondary
reasons given for the establishment of community college entrepreneurship programs were
community-related (30% combined) and economic-related (16% combined). Only 8% of the
participating institutions identified student-driven interest, demand or need as the primary or
secondary reason driving the development of entrepreneurship and small business management
offerings.
With respect to instructional methods utilized in for-credit community college
entrepreneurship courses, Hagan surprisingly asserts, “action and experiential learning methods
are not apparent in the results of the survey” (p. 76). Fifty out of Hagan’s 122 survey respondents
reported “always” using lectures in their community college entrepreneurship courses. Hagan
qualifies this finding with additional survey results that reveal, “although the lecture method is
14
dominant, the respondents also indicated that other methods, especially the use of computers
both on site and in Distance Learning is beginning to become more important” (p. 77) as twenty-
one percent of the respondents report “always” or “very frequently” using computers in
instruction and twenty-six schools reported offering computer-based distance learning programs
in entrepreneurship and small business management. Hagan summarizes the implications of this
data with the assertion, “when it comes to methodology, it appears that community college
instructors are somewhat traditional in their reliance on the lecture method of instruction, despite
research that indicates that the adult learner prefers to be involved in the learning experience, not
preached to” (p. 100).
In addition to program format and content, Hagan was also interested in learning more
about community college entrepreneurship faculty, specifically their personal experience with
entrepreneurship and small business management. Hagan reports, “the 171 community college
representatives who responded to the author’s survey reported that more than 52% of the full-
time instructors and more than 43% of the adjunct instructors have owned a business. In fact
29% of full-time faculty members and 34% of part-time adjuncts currently own a business” (p.
81).
Lastly, Hagan analyzed survey responses with the intention of identifying what influence,
if any, institutional mission, geographic location, or instructor characteristics had on the
establishment and growth of community college entrepreneurship and small business
management programs. A careful review of the data revealed no significant relationship between
any of these factors and program growth. According to Hagan, “the primary outcome of the
research is a determination that small business and entrepreneurship programs are as diverse as
the communities and institutions that house them. They come into existence, grow, or decline
15
and are characterized by factors that are more expansive than attitude, geography, or instructor
characteristics. The diversity and trend toward establishment of new programs suggests that
future research about entrepreneurship education is needed” (p. 2).
Hagan’s (2004) national survey of for-credit community college entrepreneurship
education represents an important contribution to the entrepreneurship education scholarship.
The survey and research findings described below build on and extend Hagan’s work by
providing a comprehensive review of non-credit entrepreneurship education provided by
American community colleges. Reviewed together, these two empirical studies offer a through
and insightful portrait on that national status of community college entrepreneurship education.
Research Design
Entrepreneurship Education Defined
Despite the emergence of consensus on the economic significance of entrepreneurialism,
scholars have not yet reached agreement on a common set of definitions for entrepreneurialism,
small business management, and entrepreneurship education (see, Hagan 2004 for a concise
summary of diverse definitions). A frequent topic of discussion in the relevant literature is
whether or not entrepreneurship and small business management should be treated as
conceptually distinct constructs or combined in the formulation of a comprehensive definition of
entrepreneurship education that spans the business life cycle from creation to maintenance to
decline or transfer (Gartner & Vesper, 1997; Gorman, Hanlon & King, 1997). Although it is
relatively easy to identify conceptual distinctions between entrepreneurship and small business
management—for example, Hagan (2004) asserts that “it is clear that small business
management is about running small businesses and that we can loosely define the overall field of
entrepreneurship as the creation of new business enterprises” (p. 20)—research informed by
16
intuitive logic and real world practice tends to adopt a comprehensive definition of
entrepreneurship education that includes both new business creation as well as ongoing
maintenance. Accordingly, this survey of non-credit community college entrepreneurship
education employs Katz’s (2003) all-inclusive definition of entrepreneurship education as “a
collection of academic disciplines and specialties including entrepreneurship, new venture
creation, entrepreneurial finance, small business, family business, free enterprise, private
enterprise, high-technology business, new product development microenterprise development,
applied economic development, professional practice studies, women’s entrepreneurship,
minority entrepreneurship, and ethnic entrepreneurship” (p. 284). Given this definition, the terms
entrepreneurship and small business management education will be used interchangeably in this
report unless otherwise noted.
Research Sample
Survey respondents were recruited to participate in this project via a two-phase invitation
process. In the first phase of the project, introductory e-mails were sent to 1192 community
college presidents and chancellors listed in the 2004 Higher Education Directory. The e-mail
outlined the objectives of the study and requested that the president or chancellor provide the
research team with the names and contact information of the institutional representatives who
could speak most knowledgeably about the college’s non-credit entrepreneurship education
offerings. Two follow-up recruitment e-mails and one postal mailing were sent to non-
responding community college leaders.
Of the 1192 community colleges contacted in the first phase of the project, 45 withdrew
from the study because they did not currently offer non-credit entrepreneurship education and
380 institutions provided the name of at least one college representative knowledgeable about the
17
institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship offerings. Seventy-one institutions provided multiple
institutional contacts resulting in the creation of an institutional contact database with 457
individual records. Please see Table 1 for a summary of the research sample and response rate
information.
Table 1: Research Sample and Response Rate Summary
Phase 1 Phase 2 Survey Summary
Institutions Persons Institutions Persons Institutions Persons
Total 1192 1192 380 457 184 198 1192
Removed as
duplicate
14
Positive
Response*
380 457 184 198 162 162 162
Does Not Offer
Non-Credit
Entrepreneurship
Education**
45 45 8 8 12 12 65
No Response 767 188 251 10*** 10*** 955
Response Rate 36% 50% 45% 95% 19%
* Positive response numbers listed for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are the number of individuals/institutions that moved
forward to the next phase of the study. The positive response numbers reported in the Survey and Summary columns
are the number of institutions that reported offering non-credit entrepreneurship education.
** Includes those institutions/individuals that selected to withdraw from study prior to completing the survey due to
the absence of non-credit entrepreneurship education at their college.
*** Incomplete surveys that were not analyzed.
In the second phase of the recruitment process, these 457 institutional contacts were
invited via e-mail to complete an on-line survey of the college’s non-credit entrepreneurship and
small business management offerings. Again, two follow-up e-mails were sent to non-responding
institutional contacts. Of the 457 individuals invited to participate in the study, eight withdrew
from the study because their college does not currently offer non-credit entrepreneurship
education and 198 submitted surveys (representing 184 different institutions).
Given the data presented above, response rates can be calculated for each phase of the
study’s recruitment process. In Phase I (contact with 1192 community college presidents and
18
chancellors), 425 institutions
1
(36%) responded to our request for information. In Phase II
(survey invitations sent to 457 individuals at 380 different institutions), 206 individuals
2
(45%)
responded representing 184 different institutions. In summary, the project collected data from
227 community colleges
3
, representing 19% of the 1192 institutions initially contacted.
Non-Respondent Survey
In the interest of augmenting the survey findings presented below, the research team also
conducted a non-respondent survey. Rather than seeking to identify significant differences
between participating institutions and non-participants, the non-respondent survey was designed
to develop an informed estimate of the number of American community colleges engaging in
non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education. After determining the
number of non-respondent institutions in the first phase of recruitment (n=722)
4
, a five percent
sample (n=36) was randomly selected for follow-up. The sample included 32 public community
colleges, 3 private community colleges, and 1 tribal community college. A web search was
conducted with follow-up emails and phone calls as necessary to assess the status of
entrepreneurship and small business education at each institution. It was determined that 19
(53%) of the institutions in the non-respondent survey sample offer some sort of non-credit
entrepreneurship or small business education while 17 (47%) institutions do not. Based on these
non-respondent survey findings, it can be estimated that 53% of the non-responding community
1
Includes the 380 institutions that responded with the names of individuals knowledgeable about the college’s non-
credit entrepreneurship offerings as well as the 45 institutions that indicated they do not currently offer non-credit
entrepreneurship education.
2
Again, includes both the 198 survey respondents as well as the 8 individuals who indicated their college does not
offer non-credit entrepreneurship education.
3
Includes the 174 institutions that submitted complete surveys as well as the 53 institutions that reported offering no
non-credit community college entrepreneurship education.
4
Calculated by subtracting from the original research sample (1192 community colleges) the 380 institutions that
responded with the names of individuals knowledgeable about the college’s non-credit entrepreneurship offerings,
the 45 institutional responses indicating no current non-credit entrepreneurship education offerings, as well as 45
institutions who requested to be withdrawn from the study.
19
colleges offer some form of non-credit entrepreneurship education with a ninety-five percent
confidence range of 37% to 69%. Although this approximation is slightly lower than Hagan’s
(2004) assertion that 60% of American community colleges offer for-credit entrepreneurship and
small business management education, both estimates clearly underscore the important role of
community colleges in preparing the next generation of American entrepreneurs.
Survey Instrument
The development of the survey instrument (see Appendix A) was a collaborative process
informed by the research team’s extensive review of extant literature on entrepreneurship
education and community college non-credit programs. In addition to gathering data that would
add depth to our current understanding of community college involvement in entrepreneurship
and small business management education (Center for the Study of Community Colleges, 1994;
Cohen, Brawer, & Kozeracki, 1998, 2000; Hagan, 2004), the survey instrument was also
designed with the intention of collecting information that would address perceived gaps in
previous research on the topic (e.g., entrepreneurship education funding, assessment criteria,
external partnerships).
To ensure the survey instrument accurately reflected the wide-range of practices taken up
by non-credit entrepreneurial education programs, a pilot test was conducted in the winter of
2005. Respondents were recruited to participate in this initial pilot study via a three-phase
invitation process. Invitations to participate in the pilot survey were sent via email to a total of
forty randomly selected institutional contacts. Of those forty, nine responded affirmatively,
netting eight completed survey responses.
Upon completion of the pilot survey, follow-up phone interviews were conducted using a
protocol drafted by the research team (see Appendix B). The purpose of these follow-up
20
interviews was to solicit specific feedback from pilot respondents on topics related to content
language and terminology, relevance and appropriateness of content questions, technical
reliability and ease, as well as to garner feedback on the look and feel of the survey instrument.
Feedback generated through this two-phase process was used to refine the final survey
instrument for later dissemination. This included substantive changes to the presentation of
specific questions as well as incorporation of additional questions of interest to entrepreneurial
program administrators and practitioners.
The final survey consisted of 20 questions divided into five sections: 1) institutional
information, 2) program information, 3) administration and funding, 4) students, and 5) program
assessment. The survey was administered online and participants were provided with the option
of completing the survey in multiple sittings. Based on feedback gathered from the pilot test, it is
estimated that the survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete.
Data Analysis
Upon a preliminary review of the survey responses, it was determined that fourteen
community colleges were represented in the final survey sample by two different respondents
(i.e., as noted in the discussion of the research sample, 198 individuals submitted survey data
representing 184 different community colleges). Although this was not a surprising finding given
that the community college presidents were provided an opportunity to submit more than one
institutional contact for follow-up communication regarding their college’s non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management offerings, the research team determined that
analysis of the data at the institutional level rather than the individual respondent level would
yield findings of greater utility. It was thus necessary to identify the primary institutional
respondent for each of the community colleges represented more than once in the survey and
21
remove from the database the responses of the secondary contact. Those individuals who self-
identified as the person most responsible for the administration of the college’s non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management offerings were selected as the primary
institutional respondent. In the case that both institutional contacts self-identified as the primary
program administrator, the selection decision was based on the self-reporting of time allocated to
administrative responsibilities (i.e., the individual with a higher percentage of time allocated to
non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management administration was identified as the
primary respondent).
In addition to eliminating the survey responses of fourteen secondary institutional
contacts, ten additional respondents were removed from the final survey database once it was
determined that these individuals had started the survey but not submitted responses beyond
confirming their contact information. The removal of these ten incomplete surveys resulted in a
final database of responses from 174 individuals representing 174 different community
colleges.
5
Although included in the final database, a number of respondents skipped individual
items in the process of completing the survey (perhaps due to a lack of information or the item’s
irrelevance for their particular institution). To account for these missing response items yet retain
the maximum number of survey respondents, missing cases were excluded from analysis on an
item-by-item basis. The number of valid responses (N) included in the analysis of each survey
item is reported in the discussion of key findings.
5
Of the 174 institutions included in the final database, 169 (97%) were public institutions, three institutions
identified as independent non-profit, one institution indicated religious affiliation and one was a tribal college. This
institutional breakdown by governance structure was not surprising given that 90 percent of our original sample
(1192 community colleges) were public institutions.
22
Findings & Discussion
To begin the discussion of survey findings, we offer a brief snapshot of the survey
respondents and provide summary data concerning the number of participating institutions
currently engaged in non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education.
Given that the recruitment process for this study involved extending invitations to those
individuals previously identified by their college president as the person most responsible for the
institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management educational offerings, it
is not surprising to learn that 93% of individuals (n=162) responding to the survey indicate that
their college currently offers some form of non-credit entrepreneurship or small business
management education while only 7% (12 respondents) report that their institution has no
offerings in this area. Given that subsequent survey questions focused exclusively on the
institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings, the 12
respondents who did not report current involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship or small
business management education were immediately directed to the end of the survey and
therefore are not included in subsequent findings.
In addition to the 12 institutions that reported via the survey offering no non-credit
entrepreneurship or small business management education, 53 additional community colleges
selected to withdraw from the study prior to completing the survey due to the absence of non-
credit entrepreneurship or small business management education at their institution
6
. Although
not represented in subsequent findings discussed in this report (due to the fact that these
institutions did not submit completed surveys), the research team did include these institutions in
6
These 53 institutions communicated the status of their non-credit entrepreneurship offerings via direct
communication with the project director.
23
the count of project respondents (see Table 1) given that the colleges did communicate the status
of their non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings. As a result of
combining the program status information of these 53 institutions with the survey data collected
from 174 community colleges, it was determined that 71% of the community colleges that
participated in this research project (162 out of 227 respondents) offer some form of non-credit
entrepreneurship or small business management education.
Of the 160 respondents who reported involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship or small
business management education
7
, 19% (n=31) offer only small business management programs,
5% (n=8) provide only non-credit entrepreneurship education, and 76% (n=121) report their
institutions offer both non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education
(see Figure 1). This high degree of overlap underscores the inextricable connection between the
skills and knowledge essential for launching and managing successful business enterprises and
supports the continuation of research efforts and instructional activities that span the business life
cycle (e.g., start-up, maintenance, growth, and decline/transfer) rather than arbitrarily focus on
one particular stage. Additional survey findings concerning the format and content of these
community college non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management educational
offerings are presented later in this report.
7
Two respondents did not respond to this survey question however subsequent survey answers indicate that their
institution does indeed offer non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education. Although not
included in the analysis for this particular survey item, these two institutions are included as positive responses in
the Survey and Summary columns of Table 1 as well as included in the finding on the number of respondents that
offer non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education.
24
Figure 1: Non-Credit Entrepreneurship &
Small Business Management Offerings (N=160)
5%
19%
76%
Non-Credit
Entrepreneurship Only
(n=8)
Non-Credit Small
Business Mgt.Only
(n=31)
Both Non-Credit
Entrepreneurship &
Small Business
Mgt.(n=121)
In the interest of examining the relationship between non-credit and for-credit
entrepreneurship education in American community colleges, survey respondents were asked to
report the status of credit-bearing entrepreneurship and small business management coursework
on their campus. As Figure 2 illustrates, the overwhelming majority of participating institutions
(76% or n=118) offer both credit and non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education. The documentation of a large overlap in academic and non-credit
entrepreneurship education serves to highlight potential avenues of collaboration and
underscores the increasingly prominent role community colleges play in cultivating American
entrepreneurship.
25
Figure 2: Credit Coursework in Entrepreneurship
& Small Business Management (N=155)
Yes (n=118)
76%
No (n=37)
24%
With respect to the professional roles and responsibilities of the survey respondents
themselves, 94% of the respondents indicated they were the person most responsible for the
administration of their institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
offerings. Although useful as a means of establishing validity for the survey results presented
below, this finding is not surprising given the intentional two-phase recruitment process
described above.
A second measure of the respondents’ involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship and
small business management education is the percentage of time dedicated to the administration
of these programs. Although 94% of respondents identify as the person most responsible for the
administration of their college’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
education offerings, 51% (n=83) report spending less than a quarter of their time fulfilling these
administrative duties. On the other end of the spectrum, 30 respondents (18%) report allocating
more than seventy-five percent of their professional time to the administration of non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education. Figure 3 presents a visual summary
of the time allocation data.
26
Figure 3: Percentage of Time Allocated to Administration of
Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management
Education (N=165)
3%
51%
19%
9%
18%
0 (n=5)
1 - 25% (n=83)
26 - 50% (n=32)
51 - 75% (n=15)
76 - 100% (n=30)
This disparity in allocation of administrative time can be explained by examining the
respondents’ professional titles, which range from Vice President of Community Education to
Director of the Entrepreneurial Studies Institute. As expected, those individuals who hold senior-
level administrative positions which cut across non-credit programs (e.g., Vice President for
Continuing Education) report dedicating less time to the administration of non-credit
entrepreneurship education programs in comparison to those respondents who hold mid-level
administrative positions as program directors or coordinators. Table 2 summarizes the average
time allocated according to the four most popular professional titles of survey respondents.
Table 2: Percentage of Time Allocated to Administration of
Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management
Offerings by Professional Title (N=164)
n
Average
% of
Time
Allocated
Director 79 45%
Program Coordinator/Manager/Associate or Assistant Director 26 41%
Dean or Associate/Assistant Dean 42 33%
Vice President or Associate/Assistant Vice President 17 18%
Although this survey did not ask respondents to provide a detailed list of the professional
tasks associated with their involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship education, the following
discussion of survey findings pertaining to the administration and funding of non-credit
27
entrepreneurship and small business management programs provides valuable insight into the
scope of administrative responsibilities associated with managing programs of this nature.
Administration & Funding
In order to understand the variety of ways in which non-credit entrepreneurial education
programs are both administered and funded, a series of five questions were posed to respondents
focusing upon: (1) the manner in which each respective unit or program was situated within the
larger institutional/college milieu; (2) the range of funding sources utilized by programs to
subsidize programming activities; and (3) the scope and range of external linkages established by
non-credit programs to complement existing entrepreneurial efforts at the college and within the
community at large.
Institutional Location of Non-Credit Entrepreneurial Education Programs
Given the non-credit nature of these educational programs, it is not surprising that 44% of
all respondents indicated that their unit was located in the continuing education, community
education, or adult education arm of their institution (See Figure 4). An additional 22% of all
respondents described their units as being part of an economic and/or workforce development
unit on their campus. By comparison, only 7% of all non-credit programs could be found within
an academic department and 2% of programs are currently located in an administrative
department.
28
Figur e 4: Non-Cr edit Ent r epr eneur ial Pr ogr ams By Inst it ut ional Locat ion (N=164)*
Administrative Unit
2%
Academic Unit
7%
Small Business
Devlp't Center
8%
Economic &
Workforce
Development
22%
Continuing,
Community, or Adult
Educ.
44%
Miscellaneous
1%
Corporate Training
or Professional
Devlp't
16%
*Note: Of the 164 respondents who answered this question, 65 provided multiple responses. As a result, the
percentages presented above are based upon 249 total responses to the survey item.
Funding Sources
A vast majority of non-credit entrepreneurship education programs rely upon general
institutional funds as well as student tuition revenue to subsidize their programmatic activities
(See Figure 5). Seventy-three percent of participating institutions reported reliance on student
fees. Likewise, 53% of responding institutions reported that they relied on the college’s general
operating budget in order to fund their non-credit programs.
External sources of funding also appeared to be an important revenue resource for non-
credit entrepreneurship programs as 47% of all institutions reported receiving state level
allocations. In addition, 26% of institutions mention economic development agencies or
corporations as providing needed resources to support programmatic activities.
It should be noted, however, that while state allocations are indicated as a major external
form of subsidization, it is unclear as to whether college budget monies directed to non-credit
programs are in fact derived from state government funds. Albeit unsupported by our data, there
is the possibility that state allocations directed to non-credit entrepreneurial education programs
29
actually exceed the levels currently reported by survey respondents.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Figure 5: Major Forms of Revenue By Source (N=151)
Student Fees/Tuition
College General Budget
State Government Allocations
Economic Development Agencies
or Corporations
Philanthropic Foundation Grants
For-profit Companies
City/County Govnt. Allocations
Social Service Agencies
While state allocations represent the most substantial and consistent external source of
revenue for our institutional sample, it is interesting to note that the majority of colleges
primarily rely upon internal forms of subsidization offered through the college. Possible
explanations for this pattern may be attributed to: (1) the program’s relative maturity as an
autonomous institutional unit; (2) the type of student population served; (3) the breadth and
depth of courses offered within non-credit units; (4) the relative importance of non-credit
entrepreneurial education programming to those institutions surveyed.
Scope and Function of Institutional Linkages with External Partners
As reflected in the literature, institutional linkages with external partners serve as a core
source of support to entrepreneurial education programs both in terms of funding, expertise,
potential investment, networking, and program management and oversight. Of the one hundred
and fifty-one responses received, 64% of institutions indicated that they maintained formal
linkages with local economic development agencies and/or corporations. This is consistent with
our earlier finding which indicated that these agencies/corporations were important funding
30
resources for non-credit entrepreneurial programs. While city and county governments were less
inclined to offer financial resources, they appear to provide non-remunerative support as
indicated by the 41% of institutions that report them as partners. In addition, for-profit
companies are also frequent partners of non-credit programs as reported by 38% of all
institutions. Finally, 29% of the participating institutions reported partnerships with four-year
colleges or universities and 17% indicated the existence of a formal relationship with one or
more philanthropic foundations.
Interestingly, of the one hundred and fifty one respondents, twenty-three institutions
(15%) indicated that they maintained no formal partnerships or linkages with external sources of
support. Of these institutions, twenty rely upon student fees and tuition as their major source of
programmatic funding. Likewise, seventeen of these institutions offer credit-bearing
programmatic options in addition to their non-credit offerings. Finally, it is worth noting that of
these twenty-three institutions reporting no formal partnerships or linkages, an overwhelming
90% also report having no management or advisory boards. These findings seem to indicate that
programs lacking formal external partnerships may either be in the formative stages of
development or may be oriented towards the internal mandates of their parent institution.
Given the relative frequency with which programs establish external linkages of support,
the functional purpose of these partnerships is of particular importance to understanding how
these arrangements are determined. As represented in Figure 6, external partnerships operate as
a frequent source of support to non-credit programs. In particular, we found that the two most
oft-cited purposes of these partnerships were to provide instructional and/or curricular expertise
(53%) as well as to serve as advisory board members (53%). Additional forms of program
support include contractual and financial contributions (42%) and shared management and
31
programmatic oversight responsibilities (27%). Interestingly, our findings indicate that
mentorship and internship/externship services are the most infrequent forms of support provided
by external partnerships (14% and 11% respectively). This may be due to the fact that programs
that affiliate with external partners are more often focused on local economic needs and small
business development rather than professional development and/or population-specific
interventions. While the existing literature has emphasized the importance of these partnerships
to entrepreneurship education programs, this paper serves as the first instance in which the form
and function of these relationships are descriptively portrayed.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 6: Nature of Formal Linkages & Partnerships
(N=146)
Advisory Board
Participation
Instructional/Curricular
Expertise
Financial Contributions
Contract Agreement
Shared Oversight
Mentorship
Internship/Externship
Resource
Program Information
In addition to gathering data pertaining to the administration and funding of non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management programs, the survey also collected
information regarding the format and content of these educational initiatives.
An overwhelming majority of survey respondents identified stand-alone
workshops/seminars (91%), continuing education courses (81%), and a sequence of
32
workshops/seminars (72%) as the three most popular program formats for their non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management educational offerings. Although these
categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive (it is possible that an institution’s continuing
education program includes entrepreneurship seminars or a sequence of small business
management workshops), the survey results presented in Table 3 clearly demonstrate the
dominance of these three program formats in comparison to other forms of instructional delivery.
Table 3: Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management
Education Program Formats (N=162)
#of Respondents % of Respondents
Stand-alone workshops/seminars 147 91%
Continuing education 131 81%
Sequence of workshops/seminars 116 72%
On-line instruction 76 47%
Conference/Symposium 54 33%
Distance learning instruction 26 16%
Open circuit instructional television 7 4%
Although workshops and continuing education courses are clearly the most common
program formats used in the delivery of non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education, a second analysis of the program format data according to the number of
different formats offered at an institution reveals the existence of tremendous program breadth
within the survey sample. Of the 160 institutions that responded to this survey item, 72% of
participating institutions use three, four, or five different program formats in the delivery of their
non-credit entrepreneurship education (see Figure 7 below). Although this finding may also
speak to the potential overlap of program format categories, the large number of institutions
offering four or more different program formats (n=79, 49%) clearly illustrates a trend in the
development of comprehensive entrepreneurship education programs capable of matching
program delivery method to the diverse instructional needs of students.
33
Figure 7: Breadth of Non-Credit Entrepreneurship &
Small Business Management Educational Offerings (N=160)
15
20
46
44
25
7
3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
#
o
f
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
F
o
r
m
a
t
s
O
f
f
e
r
e
d
# of Respondents
In addition to gathering information on program formats, the survey also asked
respondents to identify the three instructional methods most frequently used in non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management educational offerings. Listed by more than half
of all survey respondents, lecture (84%), guest speakers (63%) and group work (52%) were the
three most popular instructional methods. Somewhat surprising, only one-third of the
respondents reported the use of case studies and slightly more than one-fifth routinely
incorporated online exercises or multi-media in instructional activities. This survey data is
consistent with Hagan’s (2004) research finding that lecture was the instructional method most
frequently used in credit-bearing community college entrepreneurship education and Solomon,
Duffy, and Tarabishy’s (2002) data on the limited use of educational technology (e.g., online
instruction) in contemporary entrepreneurship education. Figure 8 presents a complete summary
of the instructional methods survey findings.
34
Figure 8: Instructional Methods (N=153)
14%
22%
22%
29%
52%
63%
84%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Lecture Guest
speaker
Group
work
Case
study
Online
exercises
Multi-
media
Site visit
#
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Although the two most popular instructional methods (lecture and guest speaker) suggest
the existence of passive learning environments within community college non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education programs, survey findings pertaining
to the three learning activities most frequently assigned to students (see Figure 9) demonstrate a
focus on providing participants with practical and personalized experiences designed to develop
the skills and knowledge necessary for starting and running a business. Seventy-six percent of
respondents ask students to develop a business plan, 60% require participants to produce a
market analysis report, and nearly half of the participating institutions provide students with
personal development exercises. All other learning activities listed on the survey were utilized by
less than a third of respondents.
35
Figure 9: Learning Activities (N=152)
7% 8%
24%
30% 31%
46%
60%
76%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
l
a
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
e
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
/
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
r
e
p
o
r
t
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
s
A
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
l
a
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
O
r
a
l
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
t
e
r
n
s
h
i
p
/
e
x
t
e
r
n
s
h
i
p
C
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
#
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
In response to a question regarding the institutional resources made available to students
enrolled in non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education offerings,
survey respondents identified one-on-one counseling (63%) and a Small Business Development
Center (60%) as the two most frequently offered resources (see Table 4). Basic skills review,
technology resources, networking events, and access to entrepreneurial funding were available at
approximately 40% of participating institutions. The common thread connecting the institutional
resources most frequently made available to aspiring entrepreneurs (e.g., counseling, business
development centers, technology consulting, basic skills review) appears to be a commitment to
providing students with the individualized attention necessary to launch and sustain successful
business ventures.
36
Table 4: Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management
Institutional Resources (N=154)
#of
Respondents
% of
Respondents
One-on-one counseling 97 63%
Small Business Development Center 93 60%
Basic skills review (English, math, computers) 76 49%
Technology resources and/or consultation 70 45%
Networking events 67 44%
Access to entrepreneurial funding 60 39%
Business plan competition 47 31%
New business incubator 37 24%
Mentorship program 36 23%
Internship/externship program 29 19%
To gather insight into the content of non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education, survey respondents were provided with a list of twenty common
business topics and asked to identify the themes addressed in their non-credit entrepreneurship
and small business management offerings. The five most popular topic areas reported on the
survey were: 1) marketing (82%), 2) business planning (81%), 3) small business management
(71%), 4) entrepreneurship (69%) and 5) accounting (66%). In addition, customer management,
finance, human resources, leadership, new venture creation, supervision, information technology,
and taxes were addressed by over 50% of the participating institutions. The number of
respondents offering each topic area listed on the survey (along with the corresponding
percentages) is provided in Table 5.
37
Table 5: Topic Areas Addressed in Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small
Business Management Educational Offerings (N=154)
#of
Respondents
% of
Respondents
Marketing 127 82%
Business planning 125 81%
Small business management 109 71%
Entrepreneurship 106 69%
Accounting 102 66%
Customer management 99 64%
Finance 95 62%
Human resource /Personnel Management 87 56%
Leadership 87 56%
New venture creation/Starting a business 86 56%
Supervision 82 53%
Information technology 80 52%
Taxes 78 51%
Business communication & writing 76 49%
Business law 62 40%
Basic skills review (English, math, computers) 58 38%
Women & minority entrepreneurs 38 25%
Negotiation 35 23%
Creativity/Creative thinking 31 20%
Venture capital 24 16%
Students
In addition to gathering data pertaining to the format and content of community college
non-credit entrepreneurship education, the survey also asked respondents to provide information
on student enrollment and recruitment. Of the 139 participants which shared information
regarding enrollment in non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings
during the 2003-04 academic year, the largest percentage (34%, n=48) reported enrolling
between 0 – 50 students. The second highest enrollment group, representing 20% (n=28) of the
respondents, enrolled between 201 to 500 students. Although 8% (n=11) of the survey
respondents reported enrolling over 1000 students, the majority of institutions (approximately
60%) enrolled less than 200 students. A summary of the student enrollment data is presented
below in Figure 10.
38
Figure 10: 2003-2004 Student Enrollment (N=139)
8%
11%
20%
13%
14%
34%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
-
5
0
5
1
-
1
0
0
1
0
1
-
2
0
0
2
0
1
-
5
0
0
5
0
1
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
-
8
1
0
0
# of St udent s Enr olled
#
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
As discussed earlier in the review of relevant literature, a number of entrepreneurship
education scholars and practitioners have documented the benefits and growing popularity of
entrepreneurial education programs that target specific population groups (for example, women).
Surprisingly, out of the 147 individuals who responded to a survey question regarding the
existence of targeted entrepreneurship education offerings, the majority of survey respondents
(65%, n=96) reported that their institution does not offer population-specific initiatives.
However, among the 51 participating institutions that do offer targeted entrepreneurship
education programs, three groups in particular (i.e., dislocated workers, women, and racial and
ethnic groups) are the primary focus of attention. Figure 11 summarizes the breakdown of
targeted program offerings.
39
Figur e 11: Tar get ed Non-Cr edit Ent r epr eneur ship &
Small Business Management Of f er ings (N=51)
7
17
31
33
36
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Senior Citizens
Youth
Racial and ethnic
groups
Women
Dislocated
workers
T
a
r
g
e
t
G
r
o
u
p
s
# of Respondent s
In addition to gathering information regarding targeted student enrollment, the survey
also captured data pertaining to the position of students within the business life cycle (e.g.,
startup/emerging, growth/expansion, mature/prosperous, transfer/decline). Given that 76% of
participating institutions reported offering both entrepreneurship and small business management
programs, it was expected that respondents would report balanced student enrollment across the
business cycle. A review of the survey data (summarized in Figure 12), however, reveals that the
majority of institutions currently enroll more students seeking information on starting rather than
maintaining businesses. As you can see in the graph below, students enrolled in the
mature/prosperous and transfer/decline phases of business typically account for less than a
quarter of student enrollment while students seeking information on starting a new business
venture were most frequently found to make up over 75% of enrollment. More specifically, 72
out of the 122 participants (59%) who answered this question indicated that over fifty-one
40
percent of their students were involved in the startup and emerging phase of business while only
14 participants (11%) reported over fifty percent of their students currently working within the
growth or maturity phases of the business cycle.
Figure 12: Student Placement within the Business
Life Cycle as a Percentage of Enrollment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Startup Growth Mature Decline
Busi ness Li fe Cycl e
#
o
f
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
1-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
The final student-centered question posed in the survey concerned methods of
recruitment. Survey respondents were asked to rank six different recruitment methods in order of
their effectiveness As Figure 13 illustrates, course catalogs/schedule of classes and print media
(e.g., newspapers and flyers) were the two recruitment methods most frequently ranked first or
second with respect to effectiveness. These findings are not surprising given the fact that non-
credit entrepreneurship training is typically embedded within continuing and community
education administrative units that must market to a wide range of educational interests.
41
Figure 13: Ranking of Student Recruitment Methods
9
11
9
23
27
62
7
5
19
32
46
18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Individual referrrals
Mass media (e.g, radio & television)
Local civic organization/business organizations
Target Mailings
Print media (e.g, newspapers, flyers)
Course Catalog/Schedule of Classes
# of Respondent s
Ranked 1
Ranked 2
Faculty
Consistent with current trends in community college teacher hiring and continuing
education faculty characteristics, our data indicates that a majority of instructors teaching
entrepreneurship courses fall within the category of “adjunct.” Seventy-one percent of the 162
institutions that offer non-credit entrepreneurship education report using adjunct instructors to
teach these courses. By comparison, 34% of institutions report placing volunteer instructors in
their non-credit entrepreneurship education classrooms and only 23% of colleges utilize full-time
faculty.
While most of the instructors within non-credit entrepreneurship classrooms may not be
permanently affiliated with a given institution, a majority of these teachers bring valuable
practical and professional business experience to their teaching. Of the 115 institutions that use
adjunct instructors, 106 (92%) report that their adjunct instructors possess prior entrepreneurial
and small business experience. Similarly, 91% of volunteer instructors and 89% of full-time
faculty teaching entrepreneurship and/or small business management courses possess prior
business experience. What these numbers seem to indicate is that non-credit programs are, more
42
often than not, taught by experienced business and entrepreneurial practitioners; a finding that is
consistent with what is already known about non-credit and continuing education instructional
models.
Program Assessment
In the area of program assessment, 73% of the 144 institutions who answered this survey
item reported that their community college’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
offerings were a medium to high priority for the institution while only a small percentage (5%)
indicated that these offerings were not a priority at all.
Regardless of how they ranked the importance of their non-credit programs, only 53%
(n=77) of the respondents indicated that their institution had a written statement of goals,
outcomes, or program evaluation criteria. From the graph below, one can see that the majority of
statements focused on student learning and satisfaction, business start-ups, community
partnerships, enrollment and economic impact. Surprisingly, only a few of these statements
(36%) saw the goal of program completion as an important outcome of non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education. The representation of these topical
areas demonstrates how written statements often speak to the multiple constituencies served by
these entrepreneurship and small business management programs. They reflect the needs of
students as learners and of communities as supporters and hosts to community colleges.
43
Figure 14: Areas Addressed in Written Statements of
Goals, Outcomes, and Program Evaluation (N=80)
66% 65%
63%
56% 56%
53%
49%
36%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
S
t
a
r
t
-
u
p
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
a
c
u
l
t
y
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
What is not surprising is the strong alignment between written statements and sources of
program funding. For instances, a high percentage of respondents who mentioned economic
impact and community partnerships in their statement (77% and 92%, respectively) reported
receiving support from for-profit companies. Similarly high percentages were reported for
programs that received support from philanthropic foundations and economic development
agencies or corporations. In contrast, programs that did not have a written statement (n=68)
reported receiving more of their funding from student fees as well as the general budget.
Respondents were also asked how frequently they evaluated their non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business courses and programs. The majority of institutions (56%)
reported that they conduct evaluations at the end of each course or program. A slightly smaller
percentage (20%) reported that their institution conducts yearly evaluations. The remaining
respondents reported conducting evaluations every semester (7%), every six months (5%), only
44
occasionally (5%), or not at all (2%) When evaluations are used, the vast majority of
respondents (92%) reported that their institution uses program evaluation surveys, followed by
student and community surveys (40% and 28%, respectively). Alumni surveys appear to be the
least utilized method (12%). While impossible to speculate why some survey methods are used
more than others, it is possible these trends represent wider institutional practices or reflect
resource limitations.
Figure 15: Assessment Methods (N=149)
92%
40%
28%
18%
12%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
/
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
a
t
a
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
l
u
m
n
i
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
Conclusion
The empirical findings presented above serve to confirm and extend previous scholarship
on community college entrepreneurship education. Consistent with Hagan’s (2004) assertion that
over 60% of American community colleges offer credit-bearing entrepreneurship training, the
results of this study also reflect extensive community college involvement in the promotion of
economic and workforce development via entrepreneurship and small business management
education. The impressive breadth and depth of non-credit community college entrepreneurship
45
education first described in Entrepreneurship Training in American Community Colleges (Center
for the Study of Community Colleges, 1994) is underscored by contemporary survey data which
reveals that 71% of participating institutions offer non-credit educational opportunities that span
the business life cycle (from new venture creation to ongoing business management practices)
and approximately 50% employ four or more different program delivery methods (e.g.,
workshops, on-line instruction, seminars). Coupled with survey data that highlight the broad
range of educational topics addressed in non-credit community college entrepreneurship
education (e.g., marketing, business planning, information technology, and human resources),
these survey results confirm the growth of comprehensive non-credit entrepreneurship programs
capable of meeting the diverse informational and pedagogical needs of community college
continuing education students.
Additional insights gleaned from this report include the collaborative nature of non-credit
community college entrepreneurship education (as evidenced by the diverse range of external
funding sources and formal partnerships reported by participating institutions) and the continued
need for assessment practices that effectively measure student learning and program outcomes.
Although both of these points were also mentioned in the 1994 report prepared by the Center for
the Study of Community Colleges, the national survey data presented in this report offers a more
comprehensive and empirically-grounded portrait of contemporary administrative practices.
In addition to addressing existing gaps in the literature on non-credit community college
entrepreneurship education, the survey findings presented in this report also serve to raise new
research questions that warrant additional investigation. For example, although this survey did
collect data on the scope and nature of external funding sources and formal partnerships
developed in support of non-credit community college entrepreneurship education, additional
46
research is needed to develop a more nuanced understanding of program finance and resource
development strategies. This line of questioning may be most effectively addressed through a
series of qualitative case studies that develop comprehensive portraits of non-credit
entrepreneurship education funding patterns as well as enhance our understanding of the manner
in which external partnerships are initiated and the extent to which resource-sharing occurs
through these important linkages. Qualitative case studies may also serve as a valuable means for
gathering additional insight on the nature of collaboration between credit and non-credit
community college entrepreneurship education. Seventy-six percent of participating institutions
offer both credit and non-credit entrepreneurship training, however the current survey research
offers little insight on the nature and scope of collaborative efforts between these two distinct
community college administrative structures (e.g., shared resources, faculty partnerships).
Finally, similar to the research recommendation posed at the end of Entrepreneurship
Training in the American Community Colleges (1994), we conclude this report with a call for
additional research on non-credit entrepreneurship education outcome measures and assessment
practices. Contemporary survey results indicate that the majority of program directors continue
to conduct assessment at the end of each course or seminar and only 12% of participating
institutions have implemented alumni follow-up surveys. Although end-of-course/program
evaluations may be an effective means to capture data on student satisfaction and perceived
knowledge acquisition, they offer community colleges little insight on the long-term impact of
participation in community college entrepreneurship training. What role does non-credit
entrepreneurship education play in the creation of new jobs in the local economy? What is the
relationship between completion of a non-credit community college entrepreneurship program
and business success (e.g., return on investment, rate of expansion, size of labor force, etc.)?
47
How does non-credit community college entrepreneurship education influence regional
economic growth and shape the reciprocal relationship between the college and its surrounding
community? These are important questions that must be addressed via additional research on
entrepreneurship education assessment. American community colleges seeking to increase the
breadth and depth of external investment in entrepreneurship education must develop and
implement assessment practices capable of capturing the individual and collective economic
benefits associated with community college entrepreneurship training.
48
References
Center for the Study of Community Colleges. (1994). Entrepreneurship training in American
community colleges: A report to the Kauffman Foundation, Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership. Los Angeles: Author.
Cohen, A. M, Brawer, F. B., & Kozeracki, C. A. (2000). Jumpstart III Final Report. Los
Angeles: Center for the Study of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED443479)
Cohen, A. M, Brawer, F. B., & Kozeracki, C. A. (1998). Jumpstart I Summary Report. Los
Angeles: Center for the Study of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED416918)
Dainow, R. (1986). Training and education of entrepreneurs: The current state of the literature.
Journal of Small Business and Entreprneurship, 3(4), 10-23.
Hagan, E. R. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: A new frontier for American community
colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(02), 464. (UMI No. 3162992)
Gartner, W. B., & Vesper, K. H. (1997). Executive forum: Measuring progress in
entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship
education, enterprise education and education for small business management: A ten-year
literature review [Electronic version]. International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56-77.
Katz, J . A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education 1876-1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.
Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. (2001). The growth and advancement of
entrepreneurship in higher education: An environmental scan of college initiatives.
Kansas City MO: Author. Retrieved September 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.entreworld.org/Bookstore/PDFs/Futures21/College_Scan.pdf
Kuratko, D. F. (2003). Entrepreneurship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the 21
st
century. Madison, WI: U.S. Association of Small Business & Entrepreneurship.
Retrieved September 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.usasbe.org/pdf/CWP-2003-kuratko.pdf
Neck, H. M., Zacharakis, A. L., Bygrav, W. D., & Reynolds, P. D. (2003). USA 2002 GEM
National Report. Babson Park, MA: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Retrieved
September 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.gemconsortium.org/document.asp?id=287
Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S., & Tarabish, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the
United States: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 65-86.
49
United States Chamber of Commerce. (2005). United States business facts. Washington, D.C.:
Author. Retrieved September 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.uschamber.com/research/bizfacts.htm
Vesper, K. H, & Gartner, W. B. (2002). Compendium of entrepreneur programs. Los Angeles:
Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, University of Southern California.
Retrieved September 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.marshall.usc.edu/web/LloydGreif.cfm?doc_id=1198
50
Appendix A
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management Education
In American Community Colleges: A National Perspective
Introduction
Welcome to the UCLA Community College Studies’ online survey. We are conducting a
national status study of non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
education in American community colleges. Survey findings will be used to identify
current best practices in entrepreneurship education and to provide community colleges
with a benchmark for assessing their own programs.
We appreciate your willingness to participate in this study. The survey should take
approximately 20 minutes to complete. It is not necessary to complete the survey in one
sitting. If you need to exit the survey prior to completion, simply press the “submit”
button at the bottom of the page. This will save the survey responses entered thus far
and allow you to return to the survey at a later time.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please contact the Project
Coordinator, Rozana Carducci, at [email protected] or (310) 206-1200.
Prior to beginning the survey, please indicate that you have read and understand the
following statement regarding your voluntary participation in this project:
Consent to Participate in Research
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management Education in
American Community Colleges: A National Perspective
You have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Arthur Cohen, Dr.
Robert Hayes, and Rozana Carducci (MS) from Community College Studies at the University of
California – Los Angeles. The specific purpose of this research project is to identify current best
practices in non-credit entrepreneurship education and to provide community colleges with a
benchmark for assessing their own programs.
Potential Benefits of Participation
The benefits associated with participating in this study include: 1) the right to request a copy of
the research findings which can be used to inform the development and advancement of your
college’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings and 2) the
opportunity to contribute to the development of a comprehensive national status study of
community college entrepreneurship education which will provide valuable insight on
educational best practices and program assessment.
Confidentiality
Your identity as a participant in this research project will remain confidential. The only people
who will know that you participated in this project are members of the research team. Any and
51
all individual contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number, e-mail, administrative
title) gathered during the course of this study will be securely stored in password-protected
database with access limited to research team members only.
It is anticipated that an analysis of the data collected in this study will be prepared for publication in a
postsecondary journal or presented at a relevant professional conference. The data presented in these
reports will be summarized at the institutional level and will not contain the names of individual
survey respondents or their administrative titles. When referencing a specific institution in an oral
or written presentation of the data, the research team will make sure that no personal information
is included that could reveal a subject’s identity
Participation and Withdrawal
Participation in this study is voluntary. You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you
volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind.
You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which
warrant doing so.
Please click here to indicate that you understand the information provided above and
consent to participate in this study. Once you have given your consent to participate,
you will be automatically directed to the beginning of the survey form.
Survey Instrument
Thank you for consenting to participate in the UCLA study of non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education in American community
colleges. To begin the survey, please fill in the information requested below. Please
remember it is not necessary to complete the survey in one sitting. If you need to exit
the survey prior to completion, simply press the “submit” button at the bottom of the
page. This will save the survey responses entered thus far and allow you to return to the
survey at a later time.
Section 1: Institutional Information
Please provide the following information about your institution:
Institution's Name: _____________
Institution's State: _____________
Your Name: ___________________
Your Title:____________________
Administrative Unit/Department: _____________________
E-mail:_______________________
Mailing Address: ______________
Telephone: ___________________
52
Are you the person most responsible for the administration of your institution's non-
credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings?
Yes _____
No ______
What percentage of your time is dedicated to the administration of your institution's non-
credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings?
Free response _______________
[Note: if respondent answers “No” to first question posed above, the respondent will be
directed to the following two questions]
Please identify the title of the administrator who is most responsible for the
administration of your institution's non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education?
Free response ______________
What percentage of this administrator's time is dedicated to the administration of your
institution's non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education?
Free response _____________
Click here to continue
Section 2: Program Information
1. Which of the following does your institution offer with respect to non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education? Please check all
that apply.
Non-credit entrepreneurship education
Non-credit small business management education
This institution does not offer non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education and has no current plans to develop offerings in this
area.
[Note: If respondent checks item 4 above, s/he will be directed to the end of the survey]
1b. Does your institution currently offer credit coursework in entrepreneurship and small
business management?
Yes______ No _____
[note: only those respondents who indicate they offer non-credit entrepreneurship or
small business management education in question 1 (the first two response options) will
be asked to complete question 1b)
53
Because a study of credit-course programs in entrepreneurship and small business management
has been completed recently, the remaining questions focus specifically on your institution’s
non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education offerings.
2. Please identify the program formats that your institution utilizes in the delivery of
non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education. Please
check all that apply.
Continuing education courses
Stand-alone workshops/seminars
Sequence of workshops/seminars
Conference/Symposium
On-line instructional courses
Distance learning courses
Open-circuit instructional television
Other (Please specify)______________________
2b. For each of the program formats you selected in question 1, please indicate the
number of times these programs or courses are offered in a calendar year. (For
example, please indicate how many non-credit entrepreneurship or small business
management courses are offered each calendar year.)
____ Continuing education courses
____ Stand-alone workshops/seminars
____ Sequence of workshops/seminars
____ Conference/Symposium
____ On-line instructional courses
____ Distance learning courses
____ Open-circuit instructional television
____ Other (Please specify)______________________
3. Please identify the institutional resources available to non-credit entrepreneurship
and small business management students. Please check all that apply.
Small Business Development Center
New business incubator
Access to entrepreneurial funding (e.g., business loans, venture capital, angel
funding)
Mentorship program
Internship/Externship program
Technology resources and/or consultation
Networking events
One-on-one counseling
Business plan competition
Basic skills review (English, math, computers)
54
Other (Please specify) ___________________________
4. Which of the following individual courses or general topic areas are included in
your institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
curriculum? Please check all that apply.
Accounting
Basic skills review (English, math, computers)
Business law
Business communication and writing
Business planning
Creative Thinking
Customer management
Entrepreneurship
Finance
Human resources/Personnel management
Information technology
Leadership
Marketing
Negotiation
New Venture Creation/Starting a business
Small business management
Supervision
Taxes
Venture capital
Women and minority entrepreneurs
Other (Please specify) __________________________
5. Of the following, please identify the three instructional methods most frequently
used in your non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
programs.
Case study
Group work
Guest speaker
Lecture
Multi-media
On-line exercises
Site visit
Other (please specify) ______________________
6. Of the following, please identify the three learning activities most frequently
assigned to non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
students.
Business plan development
55
Internship/externship
Market analysis/research report
Oral presentation
Personal development/self-assessment exercises
Readings
Strategic plan development
Cooperative education
Other (Please specify) _________________________
7. Who is responsible for delivering your institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship and
small business management offerings? (Please report the number of individuals in each
of the following categories.
Full-time college faculty ______
Adjunct instructors who receive compensation (e.g., part-time faculty, consultants,
business leaders, third party vendors) ______
Volunteer instructors who do not receive compensation (e.g, retired executives,
community leaders) ______
8. Please estimate the percentage of your non-credit entrepreneurship and small
business management faculty and facilitators who possess professional
entrepreneurship and small business management experience.
Full-time college faculty ______
Adjunct instructors who receive compensation (e.g., part-time faculty, consultants,
business leaders, third party vendors) ______
Volunteer instructors who do not receive compensation (e.g, retired executives,
community leaders) ______
Section 3: Administration & Funding
9. Which administrative unit is responsible for the oversight of` your college’s non-
credit entrepreneurship and small business management education offerings (e.g.,
continuing education, business department, etc.)? If more than one unit/department
shares in this oversight, please list all departments.
Open response __________________________
10. Please identify the funding sources used to support your college’s non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education? Please check all that
apply.
Student fees/tuition
State government allocations
City/County government allocations
56
Philanthropic foundation grants
For-profit companies
Social service agencies
Economic development agencies or corporations
College general budget
Other (Please specify) ____________________________
11. Has your non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education
program established formal partnerships or linkages with any of the following
organizations? Please check all that apply.
State government
City/County government
Philanthropic foundations
For-profit companies
Social service agencies
4-year college and university
Economic development agencies or corporations
Other (Please specify) ____________________
No formal partnerships or linkages established
11a. If any of the check boxes above are marked….
Please identify the nature of these formal partnerships or linkages? Please identify all
that apply.
Financial contribution
Shared oversight/management
Advisory board participation
Contract agreement
Instructional or curricular expertise (e.g., teaching workshops, guest speakers)
Mentorship of students
Internship/Externship resource
Other (Please specify ________________________
12. Has your college established an entrepreneurship/small business management
advisory or governing board?
Yes
No
Section 4: Students
57
13. Do your non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education
programs target specific populations (e.g., women, underrepresented students,
dislocated workers)?
Yes
No
13a. If yes…
Please identify the target populations. Please check all that apply:
Women
Specific racial and ethnic groups
Dislocated Workers
Senior Citizens
Youth
Other (Please specify) ____________________
14. How many participants were enrolled in your non-credit entrepreneurship and
small business management offerings during the 2003-2004 academic year?
Open response ____________________
15. At what stage of the business life cycle are your non-credit entrepreneurship
and business management students? Please estimate the percentage of
students that fall in each category.
_____ % Startup/Emerging
_____ % Growth/Expansion
_____ % Mature/Prosperous
_____ % Transfer or Decline
16. How do you recruit participants for your non-credit entrepreneurship and small
business management programs? Please rank in order of effectiveness.
_____ Mass media (e.g., radio, television)
_____ Print media (e.g., newspaper, flyers)
_____ Target mailings
_____ Course Catalogs/Schedule of Classes
_____ Promotion within local civic and business organizations
_____ Solicitation of individual referrals from businesses or civic agencies
_____ Other (Please specify) _________________________
Section 5: Program Assessment
17. How high a priority is the development and advancement of your college’s non-
credit entrepreneurship and small business management education offerings?
58
High priority
Medium priority
Low priority
It is not a priority
18. Does your non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
education program have a written statement of goals, outcomes, or program
evaluation criteria?
Yes
No
18a. If yes…
Please identify the categories for which you have you developed written goals,
outcomes, or evaluation measures? Please check all that apply.
Student learning
Faculty performance
Economic impact
Community partnerships
Enrollment
Program completion
Other (Please specify) ___________
19. How often do you evaluate your non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education program?
At the end of each individual course or program
Every semester/quarter
Every 6 months
Yearly
Only occasionally
Other (Please specify) ____________________
20. What methods are used to gather evaluation data on your institution’s non-
credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings? Please
check all that apply.
Program evaluation surveys completed by participants
Student surveys, interviews or focus groups
Alumni surveys, interviews or focus groups
Community/Business surveys, interviews or focus groups
Economic data analysis
Other (Please specify) ________________________
59
Section 6: Miscellaneous
21. May we contact you by phone or email, if we have any follow-up questions?
Yes
No
22. Would you like to receive a copy of our research results?
Yes
No
Thank you for completing this survey. The findings from this research project will be
used to identify current best practices in entrepreneurship education and to provide
community colleges with a benchmark for assessing their own programs. We sincerely
appreciate the contribution of your time and knowledge to this study and look forward to
sharing with you key research findings.
60
Appendix B
Pilot Test Phone Protocol
1) Did you find the introduction to the research project and survey instrument clear or confusing?
2) Did you have any trouble interpreting the survey instructions? If so, what was unclear or
confusing?
3) What was your initial reaction to the definitions of entrepreneurship and small business
management offered at the beginning of the survey? Did you find these definitions of
entrepreneurship and small business management helpful with respect to interpreting the survey
questions?
4) Were the definitions different from your own? If so, how?
If different, did it make completing the survey problematic for you?
5) How long did it take you to complete the survey?
6) Did you experience any technical difficulties while completing the survey?
7) Was there anything about the “look and feel” (color, text size) of the survey that made
completing it difficult or confusing? If so, what issues did you encounter? (Be sure to get
computer and browser information---Mac/PC, Netscape, Internet Explore)
8) Did you utilize the “setup and save” function?
If so, were you easily able to return to the survey when you ready to resume responding?
9) Did you feel the “other” response box gave you sufficient room to list other response options
specific to your institution? (need to probe for how much extra room they want/need)
10) For each question…
a) Did you find yourself looking for response choices that were not there? If so, what were
they?
b) Did you find any of the response choices inappropriate or out of place? Should any
response choices be removed?
c) Would you change the wording of any response items in this question?
11) If you were conducting a national survey of non-credit entrepreneurship education programs,
what questions or information would you find valuable that was not addressed in this pilot
survey
**********************************
Survey Item Specific Questions (Add-On)
Related to Survey Item #1:
61
1. How did you decipher question #1 relative to your own program offerings?
Related to Survey Item #7
2. How did you define the categories provided (full-time faculty, part-time faculty, etc.)?
In retrospect, would it be easier to report faculty participation in terms of actual numbers, or
as it is currently posed, by percentages?
62
doc_225468332.pdf
Explanation define non credit entrepreneurship education in community colleges the national perspective.
Non-Credit Entrepreneurship Education in Community Colleges:
The National Perspective
Rozana Carducci
Shannon Calderone
Kyle McJ unkin
Arthur M. Cohen
Robert Hayes
UCLA Community College Studies
September 2005
Project Contact Information
UCLA Community College Studies
3127 Moore Hall, Box 951521
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521
(310) 206-1200
[email protected]
1
Executive Summary
This report summarizes findings from a national survey of non-credit entrepreneurship
and small business management education in American community colleges. Specifically, the
project seeks to identify and document current best practices with respect to non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education and to provide community colleges
with a benchmark for assessing their own progress in meeting established program objectives.
The survey findings also provide community colleges, their communities, responsible state
agencies, and other sources of funding with criteria by which to evaluate the performance of
community colleges in non-credit entrepreneurship education.
A brief review of relevant entrepreneurship education scholarship is presented along with
a detailed description of the survey methodology and research sample (the survey instrument is
included in the report appendix). Drawing upon data collected from 227 participating community
colleges, the research findings presented in this report address the following dimensions of non-
credit community college entrepreneurship training: program content and format, administration
and funding, faculty characteristics, student enrollment, and program assessment.
Key research findings discussed in the report include:
71% of respondents offer non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management
education
A survey of non-respondents resulted in the estimation that 53% of non-respondent
community colleges offer some form of non-credit entrepreneurship education with a
ninety-five percent confidence range of 37% to 69%
76% of participating institutions offer both non-credit entrepreneurship and small
business management education
76% of survey participants report offering both credit and non-credit entrepreneurship
training
2
44% of institutions house non-credit entrepreneurship education within continuing,
community, and adult education administrative units
General college budget, student tuition/fees, and state allocations represent the three most
prominent forms of financial support for non-credit entrepreneurship education
Stand-alone workshops, continuing education courses, and workshop series are the three
most common non-credit entrepreneurship education formats with 49% of survey
respondents reporting the use of four or more different program formats
Lecture, guest speakers, and group work topped the list of non-credit entrepreneurship
instructional methods while business plan development, market analysis reports and
personal development exercises were the three most frequently employed learning
activities
The majority of participating institutions (60%) enrolled less than 200 non-credit
entrepreneurship students
Only 35% of participating institutions report offering non-credit entrepreneurship
programs that target specific demographic groups (e.g., women, racial groups, dislocated
workers)
The majority of institutions rely on adjunct faculty to provide non-credit entrepreneurship
training and over 90% of these instructors possess prior entrepreneurial and small
business management experience
Slightly more than half of participating institutions reported development of a written
statement of non-credit entrepreneurship goals, outcomes, or program evaluation criteria
The majority of institutions (56%) conduct evaluations at the end of each course or
program while only 12% utilize alumni surveys and 18% analyze economic data to gather
assessment data beyond program completion
These empirical findings, elaborated upon in the full report, confirm and extend previous
scholarship on community college entrepreneurship education. Consistent with Hagan’s (2004)
assertion that over 60% of American community colleges offer credit-bearing entrepreneurship
training, the results of this study also reflect extensive community college involvement in the
promotion of economic and workforce development via non-credit entrepreneurship and small
business management education. The impressive breadth and depth of non-credit community
college entrepreneurship training is underscored by survey data which illustrate the diverse range
3
of educational topics, instructional methods, learning activities, and institutional resources
integrated into comprehensive educational programs capable of meeting the diverse
informational and pedagogical needs of community college continuing education students.
Additional insights gleaned from this report include the collaborative nature of non-credit
community college entrepreneurship education (as evidenced by the diverse range of external
funding sources and formal partnerships reported by participating institutions) and the continued
need for assessment practices that effectively measure student learning and program outcomes.
The report concludes with a discussion of additional research topics (e.g., the nature and scope of
collaboration between non-credit and for-credit entrepreneurship initiatives, external resource
development strategies, and innovative assessment practices that measure long-term program
outcomes) that warrant further investigation in the interest of advancing our knowledge of the
important role American community colleges play in cultivating and sustaining entrepreneurial
activity.
4
Introduction
This report summarizes findings from a national survey of non-credit entrepreneurship
and small business management education in American community colleges. Specifically, the
project seeks to identify and document current best practices with respect to non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education and to provide community colleges
with a benchmark for assessing their own progress in meeting established program objectives.
The survey findings also provide community colleges, their communities, responsible state
agencies, and other sources of funding with criteria by which to evaluate the performance of
community colleges in non-credit entrepreneurship education.
The significance of community college entrepreneurship and small business management
education is evident in statistics on the prominent role American entrepreneurial enterprises and
small businesses play in the promotion of local, regional, and national economic growth. A
review of national census, commerce, and labor data reveals that America’s 23 million small
businesses represent 99.7% of all employer firms, employ over half of all private workers,
account for 50% of the private sector output, and generate 60 to 80% of net new jobs annually in
the U.S. (United States Chamber of Commerce, 2005). In addition, the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (GEM), a collaborative research initiative between Babson College and London
Business School, has documented a strong correlation between national entrepreneurial activity
and economic growth as well as a strong relationship among entrepreneurship, education, and
job creation. Specifically, GEM findings reveal that “30% of entrepreneurs with less than a
secondary education expect to remain self-employed over the next five years, while 35% of the
most highly educated entrepreneurs expect to employ 20 or more” individuals (Neck, Zacharakis,
Bygrav, & Reynolds, 2003, p. 6). Despite the abundance of statistics confirming the economic
5
growth associated with entrepreneurialism, additional scholarship is needed to expand our
understanding of the role entrepreneurship and small business management education play in
cultivating and sustaining entrepreneurial activity.
Although a number of scholars have conducted survey research of for-credit
entrepreneurial education programs sponsored by four-year colleges and universities (Solomon,
Duffy, and Tarabishy, 2002; Vesper & Gartner, 2002), relatively few researchers have
systematically examined entrepreneurship and small business management education within the
community college sector—a surprising oversight given the prominence of economic expansion,
community education, and workforce development among the multiple missions of American
community colleges. The role of community colleges in entrepreneurship education is especially
significant because of their place in the national educational system. By their very nature, the
colleges are tied to the local community that they serve. Their students come from that
community; many of them are part time students and they work in that community; they will
very probably make their future life in that community. The businesses in the community look to
the community college to provide their educated workforce; they frequently provide adjunct
faculty for the community college; they provide workplaces for the students while they are
attending the community colleges; they will very likely hire the graduates from their colleges.
Thus, community colleges must be both pragmatic and directed to the immediate needs in
training the labor force for work in the community. All of this makes the community college an
ideal context in which to develop educational programs to create entrepreneurs. Indeed, many
community colleges are already engaged in entrepreneurship education as evidenced by Hagan’s
(2004) assertion that 60% of American community colleges currently offer at least one credit-
bearing course in small business management or entrepreneurship. What is missing from the
6
extant literature on community college entrepreneurship education, however, is a comprehensive
review of non-credit entrepreneurial offerings. A 1994 report prepared by the Center for the
Study of Community Colleges asserted that the majority of community college entrepreneurial
training was offered as non-credit continuing education. Basing this assertion primarily upon a
review of relevant literature and a limited survey of 40 urban community colleges, the authors of
the 1994 report called for additional empirical research to examine the format, content, and
administrative resources of community college non-credit entrepreneurship education.
Unfortunately, this call has remained unanswered. In addition to beginning to fill this gap in the
literature on non-credit community college entrepreneurial education, the survey data presented
in this report also provides valuable insights on the scope and function of external partnerships
and assessment activities, two aspects of entrepreneurship education that have received relatively
little attention in previous survey research.
Prior to presenting the findings from our survey of non-credit community college
entrepreneurship and small business management education, we synthesize relevant
entrepreneurship education research as well as provide a detailed introduction to the survey
instrument and sampling procedures that frame this study.
Relevant Literature
The proliferation of postsecondary entrepreneurship and small business management
education offerings has been well documented in a diverse collection of scholarly articles and
research reports published by numerous education, business, civic, and philanthropic
organizations (Katz, 2003; Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, 2001; Kuratko,
2003; Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy, 2002). In order to establish a context for the findings
presented in this study on the current status of community college non-credit entrepreneurship
7
education, we will briefly review the major themes and key findings of previous
entrepreneurship education scholarship. We begin this literature review with a discussion of
postsecondary entrepreneurship education research conducted on a national scale and then
synthesize the rather limited body of scholarly work focused on entrepreneurship and small
business management education in the community college context.
The National Perspective
In order to better understand the contemporary status and future trajectory of American
entrepreneurship education, it is important to explore the historical roots of this rapidly evolving
academic discipline. In 2003 J erome Katz published a comprehensive chronology of American
entrepreneurship education that begins with the 1876 publication of Francis Walker’s The Wages
Question, “the first major work by an American university academic considering the
entrepreneur” (p. 286). Developed from a review of primary and secondary historical source
documents, examinations of entrepreneurship program websites, and discussions with numerous
entrepreneurship scholars, Katz’s chronology provides valuable insight on three distinct
dimensions of entrepreneurship education growth: courses, infrastructure elements (e.g.,
endowed positions), and publications.
After examining the 100+-item chronology and reviewing trends in course development,
endowment growth, and the proliferation of entrepreneurship journals and textbooks (the number
of entrepreneurship journals has doubled every three years on average), Katz (2003) asserts two
primary findings with implications for the future. The first is that American entrepreneurship
education has reached maturity as evidenced by the emergence of “widely recognized and
consistent” approaches in curricular content and pedagogy, disciplinary specialization (e.g., high-
technology and economic development), and external legitimization of the discipline (for
8
example, US News and World Report national rankings) (p. 294-295). Katz’s second major
finding concerns the growth of entrepreneurship education beyond American business schools.
Katz notes, “Entrepreneurship offerings continue to grow in schools of agriculture, engineering,
the learned professions, and arts and sciences, usually with minimal or no involvement by
business school entrepreneurship faculty” (p. 295). Building upon the historical scaffolding of
the chronology, Katz concludes the article with insights into the challenges entrepreneurship
education will face in the 21
st
century. These problems include: 1) a publication glut “with too
many journals chasing too few good papers” (p. 295), 2) avoiding the stagnation that frequently
accompanies complacency and success, and 3) a narrow entrepreneurship faculty pipeline
stemming from a lack of PhD programs preparing future faculty. Despite these challenges, Katz
asserts, “the good news is that entrepreneurship education is certain to continue as a major and
growing academic discipline worldwide. There are too many academics, too much established
infrastructure, and too much demand from students, firms, and governments to let
entrepreneurship fall into disuse or disarray” (p. 298). The growth and maturity of American
entrepreneurship education captured in Katz’s comprehensive chronology is reinforced by the
findings of two other national surveys of American entrepreneurship education discussed below.
In 1986, Rob Dainow published the results of an entrepreneurship education literature
survey of articles published between 1974 and 1984. The purpose of this research was to "assess
the current state of the art, based on published articles, with a view to identifying the strengths
and weaknesses that can guide future efforts" (p. 10). After reviewing the literature, Dainow
identified "a need for more systematic collection and analysis of data, and more varied
methodologies to build a stronger empirical base" (p. 18). In the interest of building on Dainow's
work through an examination of more recent entrepreneurship education literature, Gorman,
9
Hanlon, and King (1997) surveyed articles published from 1985-1994. The authors identified 92
articles published in seven leading academic journals specializing in entrepreneurship and small
business management and then categorized the papers along three distinct dimensions: 1)
theoretical or descriptive, 2) target market (e.g., student enrolled in the formal educational
system, existing business owners), and 3) content (e.g., entrepreneurial propensity, pre-startup,
post-startup). After carefully analyzing the selected articles, Gorman, Hanlon, and King
identified several major themes that connect contemporary entrepreneurship education
scholarship. First, the authors articulated a "need to distinguish among entrepreneurship,
enterprise and small business management education and to differentiate each of these from
traditional approaches to management education" (p. 18). According to the authors, this theme
was particularly prominent in articles on entrepreneurship teaching strategies and curricular
content. In contrast to the interdisciplinary findings highlighted in Katz’s (2003)
entrepreneurship education chronology, a lack of multidisciplinary approaches in
entrepreneurship education was a second major theme to emerge from the Gorman, Hanlon, and
King literature review. The authors reported, “only three of the twenty nine theoretical articles
drew on fields other than business” (p. 18). This disparity in research findings may be a function
of the journals reviewed by Gorman, Hanlon, and King.
Additional findings discussed by Gorman, Hanlon, and King (1997) included: 1) an
emerging consensus that entrepreneurship can be taught and entrepreneurial attributes fostered
through educational programming, 2) a demonstrated growth in entrepreneurship courses and
programs coupled with a lack of constancy in approach, and 3) the presence of strong evidence
to support the assertion that business owners and managers were often reluctant to participate in
entrepreneurship training programs. The authors concluded the literature survey with
10
recommendations for future areas of investigation that centered on measuring the impact and
effectiveness of comprehensive entrepreneurship education programs rather than continuing to
focus on assessing the outcomes associated with completion of a single entrepreneurship course.
The 1999-2000 National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education conducted by George
Washington University and sponsored by the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership
(Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy, 2002) is the third and final national entrepreneurship education
study reviewed in this report. Based on survey data collected from 240 institutions (13% of
which were two-year colleges), Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy report that in comparison to
previous national surveys, the 1999-2000 survey revealed modest growth in entrepreneurship
education courses and degree programs as well as external funding for entrepreneurship
education chairs, professorships, and centers. The survey findings, disaggregated by institutional
type (2-year, 4-year, and international universities), offer insight on the nature and scope of
entrepreneurship programs (courses vs. degrees), popular pedagogical methods, educational
technology usage, and outreach initiatives (e.g., continuing education opportunities, elementary
school programs, alumni tracking). Across institutional type, the three most popular
entrepreneurship education course topics were small business management, entrepreneurship,
and new venture creation. Case studies, business plan creation, and discussions topped the list of
in-class instructional methods employed by community colleges while internships, on-site
business visits, and small business consulting were the three most popular external classroom
pedagogical methods. The bulk of the report’s discussion, however, focused on surprising
findings related to the limited use of educational technology in contemporary entrepreneurship
education. Survey results indicate that while 52% of participants incorporate required web-based
assignments in their entrepreneurship curriculum, only 30% provide students and entrepreneurs
11
with on-line management and technical assistance and only 21% of participating institutions use
distance-learning technologies in entrepreneurship education. Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy
assert, “Given the tremendous growth in personal, business, and academic technology, one might
assume that a higher percentage of entrepreneurship educators would have adopted and used
various educational technology tools such as the Internet, online chat rooms and distance
learning” (p. 8). The researchers warn that a failure to quickly integrate technological advances
into entrepreneurship education curricula will prevent the field from remaining on “the cutting
edge” and adequately preparing students to meet the demands of entrepreneurship and business
management in the 21
st
century.
Entrepreneurship Education in the Community Colleges
Despite the fact that the 1999-2000 National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education does
include community college program data, the small number of community colleges participating
in this survey (n=31) offers a rather limited portrait of community college entrepreneurship
education. We conclude this literature review with a discussion of entrepreneurship education
research explicitly situated within the context of American community colleges. Although this
body of scholarship is rather limited in comparison to the breadth and depth of the research
carried out in four-year college and university settings, a number of scholars have studied the
growth and development of community college entrepreneurship and small business
management course offerings. Two of the most comprehensive and informative studies are
discussed below.
In 1994, the Center for the Study of Community Colleges submitted a report to the
Kauffman Foundation Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership entitled, Entrepreneurship Training
in American Community Colleges. This report, prepared in support of U.S. Senate Bill 862 (a
12
bill that proposed entrepreneurship education funding for community colleges and historically
black colleges and universities), summarized previous scholarship on entrepreneurship programs
in American community colleges and synthesized survey data collected from 40 community
colleges located in major urban population centers. Among the report’s key finding were: 1)
most community college entrepreneurship education programs are administered as non-credit,
continuing education opportunities, 2) several of the programs focus on fostering
entrepreneurship among particular demographic groups (e.g., women, African Americans), 3)
most community college entrepreneurial education programs are collaborative ventures that
involve public as well as private support, 4) community colleges entrepreneurship instructors are
typically experienced entrepreneurs and business managers with little or no formal pedagogical
training, and 5) participating institutions rarely assess the impact or effectiveness of
entrepreneurial education programs. In addition to this initial report, the Center for the Study of
Community Colleges also prepared two highly informative reports on the status of sixteen
community college entrepreneurship programs funded through the Kauffman Foundation
J umpstart project, a grant program focused on providing entrepreneurship training to African
Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and women (Cohen, Brawer, Kozeracki, 1998, 2000).
In addition to chronicling the development of innovative community college entrepreneurship
programs, the J umpstart reports also highlight the diversity of instructional methods, curricular
content, and collaborative partnerships that characterize community college entrepreneurship
training. Given the small sample size of community colleges represented in the Center’s original
1994 report and two subsequent J umpstart reports, additional empirical research conducted on a
national scale is essential for constructing a more accurate and comprehensive portrait of
community college entrepreneurship education.
13
In 2004 Elizabeth Hagan released the results of a comprehensive survey of for-credit
entrepreneurship education offerings in American community colleges. Her research findings,
gleaned from an extensive review of more than 1,000 community college web sites and the
analysis of survey data collected from 171 community college entrepreneurship education
program directors, offers tremendous insight into the diverse formats, curricula, and instructional
methods that characterize community college entrepreneurship education. In addition, Hagan
also examined the influence of institutional mission, geographic location, and faculty
characteristics on entrepreneurship program growth and decline. Hagan’s significant findings
include survey results which reveal that 73 out of 426 participating institutions (17%) offer
entrepreneurship or small business management degree programs, 131 (31%) award
entrepreneurship certificates, 176 (41%) offer three or more courses in small business or
entrepreneurship, 64 (15%) offer only one course, and 41 (9%) do not currently offer a credit-
bearing entrepreneurship courses. Survey responses also revealed that the primary and secondary
reasons given for the establishment of community college entrepreneurship programs were
community-related (30% combined) and economic-related (16% combined). Only 8% of the
participating institutions identified student-driven interest, demand or need as the primary or
secondary reason driving the development of entrepreneurship and small business management
offerings.
With respect to instructional methods utilized in for-credit community college
entrepreneurship courses, Hagan surprisingly asserts, “action and experiential learning methods
are not apparent in the results of the survey” (p. 76). Fifty out of Hagan’s 122 survey respondents
reported “always” using lectures in their community college entrepreneurship courses. Hagan
qualifies this finding with additional survey results that reveal, “although the lecture method is
14
dominant, the respondents also indicated that other methods, especially the use of computers
both on site and in Distance Learning is beginning to become more important” (p. 77) as twenty-
one percent of the respondents report “always” or “very frequently” using computers in
instruction and twenty-six schools reported offering computer-based distance learning programs
in entrepreneurship and small business management. Hagan summarizes the implications of this
data with the assertion, “when it comes to methodology, it appears that community college
instructors are somewhat traditional in their reliance on the lecture method of instruction, despite
research that indicates that the adult learner prefers to be involved in the learning experience, not
preached to” (p. 100).
In addition to program format and content, Hagan was also interested in learning more
about community college entrepreneurship faculty, specifically their personal experience with
entrepreneurship and small business management. Hagan reports, “the 171 community college
representatives who responded to the author’s survey reported that more than 52% of the full-
time instructors and more than 43% of the adjunct instructors have owned a business. In fact
29% of full-time faculty members and 34% of part-time adjuncts currently own a business” (p.
81).
Lastly, Hagan analyzed survey responses with the intention of identifying what influence,
if any, institutional mission, geographic location, or instructor characteristics had on the
establishment and growth of community college entrepreneurship and small business
management programs. A careful review of the data revealed no significant relationship between
any of these factors and program growth. According to Hagan, “the primary outcome of the
research is a determination that small business and entrepreneurship programs are as diverse as
the communities and institutions that house them. They come into existence, grow, or decline
15
and are characterized by factors that are more expansive than attitude, geography, or instructor
characteristics. The diversity and trend toward establishment of new programs suggests that
future research about entrepreneurship education is needed” (p. 2).
Hagan’s (2004) national survey of for-credit community college entrepreneurship
education represents an important contribution to the entrepreneurship education scholarship.
The survey and research findings described below build on and extend Hagan’s work by
providing a comprehensive review of non-credit entrepreneurship education provided by
American community colleges. Reviewed together, these two empirical studies offer a through
and insightful portrait on that national status of community college entrepreneurship education.
Research Design
Entrepreneurship Education Defined
Despite the emergence of consensus on the economic significance of entrepreneurialism,
scholars have not yet reached agreement on a common set of definitions for entrepreneurialism,
small business management, and entrepreneurship education (see, Hagan 2004 for a concise
summary of diverse definitions). A frequent topic of discussion in the relevant literature is
whether or not entrepreneurship and small business management should be treated as
conceptually distinct constructs or combined in the formulation of a comprehensive definition of
entrepreneurship education that spans the business life cycle from creation to maintenance to
decline or transfer (Gartner & Vesper, 1997; Gorman, Hanlon & King, 1997). Although it is
relatively easy to identify conceptual distinctions between entrepreneurship and small business
management—for example, Hagan (2004) asserts that “it is clear that small business
management is about running small businesses and that we can loosely define the overall field of
entrepreneurship as the creation of new business enterprises” (p. 20)—research informed by
16
intuitive logic and real world practice tends to adopt a comprehensive definition of
entrepreneurship education that includes both new business creation as well as ongoing
maintenance. Accordingly, this survey of non-credit community college entrepreneurship
education employs Katz’s (2003) all-inclusive definition of entrepreneurship education as “a
collection of academic disciplines and specialties including entrepreneurship, new venture
creation, entrepreneurial finance, small business, family business, free enterprise, private
enterprise, high-technology business, new product development microenterprise development,
applied economic development, professional practice studies, women’s entrepreneurship,
minority entrepreneurship, and ethnic entrepreneurship” (p. 284). Given this definition, the terms
entrepreneurship and small business management education will be used interchangeably in this
report unless otherwise noted.
Research Sample
Survey respondents were recruited to participate in this project via a two-phase invitation
process. In the first phase of the project, introductory e-mails were sent to 1192 community
college presidents and chancellors listed in the 2004 Higher Education Directory. The e-mail
outlined the objectives of the study and requested that the president or chancellor provide the
research team with the names and contact information of the institutional representatives who
could speak most knowledgeably about the college’s non-credit entrepreneurship education
offerings. Two follow-up recruitment e-mails and one postal mailing were sent to non-
responding community college leaders.
Of the 1192 community colleges contacted in the first phase of the project, 45 withdrew
from the study because they did not currently offer non-credit entrepreneurship education and
380 institutions provided the name of at least one college representative knowledgeable about the
17
institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship offerings. Seventy-one institutions provided multiple
institutional contacts resulting in the creation of an institutional contact database with 457
individual records. Please see Table 1 for a summary of the research sample and response rate
information.
Table 1: Research Sample and Response Rate Summary
Phase 1 Phase 2 Survey Summary
Institutions Persons Institutions Persons Institutions Persons
Total 1192 1192 380 457 184 198 1192
Removed as
duplicate
14
Positive
Response*
380 457 184 198 162 162 162
Does Not Offer
Non-Credit
Entrepreneurship
Education**
45 45 8 8 12 12 65
No Response 767 188 251 10*** 10*** 955
Response Rate 36% 50% 45% 95% 19%
* Positive response numbers listed for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are the number of individuals/institutions that moved
forward to the next phase of the study. The positive response numbers reported in the Survey and Summary columns
are the number of institutions that reported offering non-credit entrepreneurship education.
** Includes those institutions/individuals that selected to withdraw from study prior to completing the survey due to
the absence of non-credit entrepreneurship education at their college.
*** Incomplete surveys that were not analyzed.
In the second phase of the recruitment process, these 457 institutional contacts were
invited via e-mail to complete an on-line survey of the college’s non-credit entrepreneurship and
small business management offerings. Again, two follow-up e-mails were sent to non-responding
institutional contacts. Of the 457 individuals invited to participate in the study, eight withdrew
from the study because their college does not currently offer non-credit entrepreneurship
education and 198 submitted surveys (representing 184 different institutions).
Given the data presented above, response rates can be calculated for each phase of the
study’s recruitment process. In Phase I (contact with 1192 community college presidents and
18
chancellors), 425 institutions
1
(36%) responded to our request for information. In Phase II
(survey invitations sent to 457 individuals at 380 different institutions), 206 individuals
2
(45%)
responded representing 184 different institutions. In summary, the project collected data from
227 community colleges
3
, representing 19% of the 1192 institutions initially contacted.
Non-Respondent Survey
In the interest of augmenting the survey findings presented below, the research team also
conducted a non-respondent survey. Rather than seeking to identify significant differences
between participating institutions and non-participants, the non-respondent survey was designed
to develop an informed estimate of the number of American community colleges engaging in
non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education. After determining the
number of non-respondent institutions in the first phase of recruitment (n=722)
4
, a five percent
sample (n=36) was randomly selected for follow-up. The sample included 32 public community
colleges, 3 private community colleges, and 1 tribal community college. A web search was
conducted with follow-up emails and phone calls as necessary to assess the status of
entrepreneurship and small business education at each institution. It was determined that 19
(53%) of the institutions in the non-respondent survey sample offer some sort of non-credit
entrepreneurship or small business education while 17 (47%) institutions do not. Based on these
non-respondent survey findings, it can be estimated that 53% of the non-responding community
1
Includes the 380 institutions that responded with the names of individuals knowledgeable about the college’s non-
credit entrepreneurship offerings as well as the 45 institutions that indicated they do not currently offer non-credit
entrepreneurship education.
2
Again, includes both the 198 survey respondents as well as the 8 individuals who indicated their college does not
offer non-credit entrepreneurship education.
3
Includes the 174 institutions that submitted complete surveys as well as the 53 institutions that reported offering no
non-credit community college entrepreneurship education.
4
Calculated by subtracting from the original research sample (1192 community colleges) the 380 institutions that
responded with the names of individuals knowledgeable about the college’s non-credit entrepreneurship offerings,
the 45 institutional responses indicating no current non-credit entrepreneurship education offerings, as well as 45
institutions who requested to be withdrawn from the study.
19
colleges offer some form of non-credit entrepreneurship education with a ninety-five percent
confidence range of 37% to 69%. Although this approximation is slightly lower than Hagan’s
(2004) assertion that 60% of American community colleges offer for-credit entrepreneurship and
small business management education, both estimates clearly underscore the important role of
community colleges in preparing the next generation of American entrepreneurs.
Survey Instrument
The development of the survey instrument (see Appendix A) was a collaborative process
informed by the research team’s extensive review of extant literature on entrepreneurship
education and community college non-credit programs. In addition to gathering data that would
add depth to our current understanding of community college involvement in entrepreneurship
and small business management education (Center for the Study of Community Colleges, 1994;
Cohen, Brawer, & Kozeracki, 1998, 2000; Hagan, 2004), the survey instrument was also
designed with the intention of collecting information that would address perceived gaps in
previous research on the topic (e.g., entrepreneurship education funding, assessment criteria,
external partnerships).
To ensure the survey instrument accurately reflected the wide-range of practices taken up
by non-credit entrepreneurial education programs, a pilot test was conducted in the winter of
2005. Respondents were recruited to participate in this initial pilot study via a three-phase
invitation process. Invitations to participate in the pilot survey were sent via email to a total of
forty randomly selected institutional contacts. Of those forty, nine responded affirmatively,
netting eight completed survey responses.
Upon completion of the pilot survey, follow-up phone interviews were conducted using a
protocol drafted by the research team (see Appendix B). The purpose of these follow-up
20
interviews was to solicit specific feedback from pilot respondents on topics related to content
language and terminology, relevance and appropriateness of content questions, technical
reliability and ease, as well as to garner feedback on the look and feel of the survey instrument.
Feedback generated through this two-phase process was used to refine the final survey
instrument for later dissemination. This included substantive changes to the presentation of
specific questions as well as incorporation of additional questions of interest to entrepreneurial
program administrators and practitioners.
The final survey consisted of 20 questions divided into five sections: 1) institutional
information, 2) program information, 3) administration and funding, 4) students, and 5) program
assessment. The survey was administered online and participants were provided with the option
of completing the survey in multiple sittings. Based on feedback gathered from the pilot test, it is
estimated that the survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete.
Data Analysis
Upon a preliminary review of the survey responses, it was determined that fourteen
community colleges were represented in the final survey sample by two different respondents
(i.e., as noted in the discussion of the research sample, 198 individuals submitted survey data
representing 184 different community colleges). Although this was not a surprising finding given
that the community college presidents were provided an opportunity to submit more than one
institutional contact for follow-up communication regarding their college’s non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management offerings, the research team determined that
analysis of the data at the institutional level rather than the individual respondent level would
yield findings of greater utility. It was thus necessary to identify the primary institutional
respondent for each of the community colleges represented more than once in the survey and
21
remove from the database the responses of the secondary contact. Those individuals who self-
identified as the person most responsible for the administration of the college’s non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management offerings were selected as the primary
institutional respondent. In the case that both institutional contacts self-identified as the primary
program administrator, the selection decision was based on the self-reporting of time allocated to
administrative responsibilities (i.e., the individual with a higher percentage of time allocated to
non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management administration was identified as the
primary respondent).
In addition to eliminating the survey responses of fourteen secondary institutional
contacts, ten additional respondents were removed from the final survey database once it was
determined that these individuals had started the survey but not submitted responses beyond
confirming their contact information. The removal of these ten incomplete surveys resulted in a
final database of responses from 174 individuals representing 174 different community
colleges.
5
Although included in the final database, a number of respondents skipped individual
items in the process of completing the survey (perhaps due to a lack of information or the item’s
irrelevance for their particular institution). To account for these missing response items yet retain
the maximum number of survey respondents, missing cases were excluded from analysis on an
item-by-item basis. The number of valid responses (N) included in the analysis of each survey
item is reported in the discussion of key findings.
5
Of the 174 institutions included in the final database, 169 (97%) were public institutions, three institutions
identified as independent non-profit, one institution indicated religious affiliation and one was a tribal college. This
institutional breakdown by governance structure was not surprising given that 90 percent of our original sample
(1192 community colleges) were public institutions.
22
Findings & Discussion
To begin the discussion of survey findings, we offer a brief snapshot of the survey
respondents and provide summary data concerning the number of participating institutions
currently engaged in non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education.
Given that the recruitment process for this study involved extending invitations to those
individuals previously identified by their college president as the person most responsible for the
institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management educational offerings, it
is not surprising to learn that 93% of individuals (n=162) responding to the survey indicate that
their college currently offers some form of non-credit entrepreneurship or small business
management education while only 7% (12 respondents) report that their institution has no
offerings in this area. Given that subsequent survey questions focused exclusively on the
institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings, the 12
respondents who did not report current involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship or small
business management education were immediately directed to the end of the survey and
therefore are not included in subsequent findings.
In addition to the 12 institutions that reported via the survey offering no non-credit
entrepreneurship or small business management education, 53 additional community colleges
selected to withdraw from the study prior to completing the survey due to the absence of non-
credit entrepreneurship or small business management education at their institution
6
. Although
not represented in subsequent findings discussed in this report (due to the fact that these
institutions did not submit completed surveys), the research team did include these institutions in
6
These 53 institutions communicated the status of their non-credit entrepreneurship offerings via direct
communication with the project director.
23
the count of project respondents (see Table 1) given that the colleges did communicate the status
of their non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings. As a result of
combining the program status information of these 53 institutions with the survey data collected
from 174 community colleges, it was determined that 71% of the community colleges that
participated in this research project (162 out of 227 respondents) offer some form of non-credit
entrepreneurship or small business management education.
Of the 160 respondents who reported involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship or small
business management education
7
, 19% (n=31) offer only small business management programs,
5% (n=8) provide only non-credit entrepreneurship education, and 76% (n=121) report their
institutions offer both non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education
(see Figure 1). This high degree of overlap underscores the inextricable connection between the
skills and knowledge essential for launching and managing successful business enterprises and
supports the continuation of research efforts and instructional activities that span the business life
cycle (e.g., start-up, maintenance, growth, and decline/transfer) rather than arbitrarily focus on
one particular stage. Additional survey findings concerning the format and content of these
community college non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management educational
offerings are presented later in this report.
7
Two respondents did not respond to this survey question however subsequent survey answers indicate that their
institution does indeed offer non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education. Although not
included in the analysis for this particular survey item, these two institutions are included as positive responses in
the Survey and Summary columns of Table 1 as well as included in the finding on the number of respondents that
offer non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education.
24
Figure 1: Non-Credit Entrepreneurship &
Small Business Management Offerings (N=160)
5%
19%
76%
Non-Credit
Entrepreneurship Only
(n=8)
Non-Credit Small
Business Mgt.Only
(n=31)
Both Non-Credit
Entrepreneurship &
Small Business
Mgt.(n=121)
In the interest of examining the relationship between non-credit and for-credit
entrepreneurship education in American community colleges, survey respondents were asked to
report the status of credit-bearing entrepreneurship and small business management coursework
on their campus. As Figure 2 illustrates, the overwhelming majority of participating institutions
(76% or n=118) offer both credit and non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education. The documentation of a large overlap in academic and non-credit
entrepreneurship education serves to highlight potential avenues of collaboration and
underscores the increasingly prominent role community colleges play in cultivating American
entrepreneurship.
25
Figure 2: Credit Coursework in Entrepreneurship
& Small Business Management (N=155)
Yes (n=118)
76%
No (n=37)
24%
With respect to the professional roles and responsibilities of the survey respondents
themselves, 94% of the respondents indicated they were the person most responsible for the
administration of their institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
offerings. Although useful as a means of establishing validity for the survey results presented
below, this finding is not surprising given the intentional two-phase recruitment process
described above.
A second measure of the respondents’ involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship and
small business management education is the percentage of time dedicated to the administration
of these programs. Although 94% of respondents identify as the person most responsible for the
administration of their college’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
education offerings, 51% (n=83) report spending less than a quarter of their time fulfilling these
administrative duties. On the other end of the spectrum, 30 respondents (18%) report allocating
more than seventy-five percent of their professional time to the administration of non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education. Figure 3 presents a visual summary
of the time allocation data.
26
Figure 3: Percentage of Time Allocated to Administration of
Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management
Education (N=165)
3%
51%
19%
9%
18%
0 (n=5)
1 - 25% (n=83)
26 - 50% (n=32)
51 - 75% (n=15)
76 - 100% (n=30)
This disparity in allocation of administrative time can be explained by examining the
respondents’ professional titles, which range from Vice President of Community Education to
Director of the Entrepreneurial Studies Institute. As expected, those individuals who hold senior-
level administrative positions which cut across non-credit programs (e.g., Vice President for
Continuing Education) report dedicating less time to the administration of non-credit
entrepreneurship education programs in comparison to those respondents who hold mid-level
administrative positions as program directors or coordinators. Table 2 summarizes the average
time allocated according to the four most popular professional titles of survey respondents.
Table 2: Percentage of Time Allocated to Administration of
Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management
Offerings by Professional Title (N=164)
n
Average
% of
Time
Allocated
Director 79 45%
Program Coordinator/Manager/Associate or Assistant Director 26 41%
Dean or Associate/Assistant Dean 42 33%
Vice President or Associate/Assistant Vice President 17 18%
Although this survey did not ask respondents to provide a detailed list of the professional
tasks associated with their involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship education, the following
discussion of survey findings pertaining to the administration and funding of non-credit
27
entrepreneurship and small business management programs provides valuable insight into the
scope of administrative responsibilities associated with managing programs of this nature.
Administration & Funding
In order to understand the variety of ways in which non-credit entrepreneurial education
programs are both administered and funded, a series of five questions were posed to respondents
focusing upon: (1) the manner in which each respective unit or program was situated within the
larger institutional/college milieu; (2) the range of funding sources utilized by programs to
subsidize programming activities; and (3) the scope and range of external linkages established by
non-credit programs to complement existing entrepreneurial efforts at the college and within the
community at large.
Institutional Location of Non-Credit Entrepreneurial Education Programs
Given the non-credit nature of these educational programs, it is not surprising that 44% of
all respondents indicated that their unit was located in the continuing education, community
education, or adult education arm of their institution (See Figure 4). An additional 22% of all
respondents described their units as being part of an economic and/or workforce development
unit on their campus. By comparison, only 7% of all non-credit programs could be found within
an academic department and 2% of programs are currently located in an administrative
department.
28
Figur e 4: Non-Cr edit Ent r epr eneur ial Pr ogr ams By Inst it ut ional Locat ion (N=164)*
Administrative Unit
2%
Academic Unit
7%
Small Business
Devlp't Center
8%
Economic &
Workforce
Development
22%
Continuing,
Community, or Adult
Educ.
44%
Miscellaneous
1%
Corporate Training
or Professional
Devlp't
16%
*Note: Of the 164 respondents who answered this question, 65 provided multiple responses. As a result, the
percentages presented above are based upon 249 total responses to the survey item.
Funding Sources
A vast majority of non-credit entrepreneurship education programs rely upon general
institutional funds as well as student tuition revenue to subsidize their programmatic activities
(See Figure 5). Seventy-three percent of participating institutions reported reliance on student
fees. Likewise, 53% of responding institutions reported that they relied on the college’s general
operating budget in order to fund their non-credit programs.
External sources of funding also appeared to be an important revenue resource for non-
credit entrepreneurship programs as 47% of all institutions reported receiving state level
allocations. In addition, 26% of institutions mention economic development agencies or
corporations as providing needed resources to support programmatic activities.
It should be noted, however, that while state allocations are indicated as a major external
form of subsidization, it is unclear as to whether college budget monies directed to non-credit
programs are in fact derived from state government funds. Albeit unsupported by our data, there
is the possibility that state allocations directed to non-credit entrepreneurial education programs
29
actually exceed the levels currently reported by survey respondents.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Figure 5: Major Forms of Revenue By Source (N=151)
Student Fees/Tuition
College General Budget
State Government Allocations
Economic Development Agencies
or Corporations
Philanthropic Foundation Grants
For-profit Companies
City/County Govnt. Allocations
Social Service Agencies
While state allocations represent the most substantial and consistent external source of
revenue for our institutional sample, it is interesting to note that the majority of colleges
primarily rely upon internal forms of subsidization offered through the college. Possible
explanations for this pattern may be attributed to: (1) the program’s relative maturity as an
autonomous institutional unit; (2) the type of student population served; (3) the breadth and
depth of courses offered within non-credit units; (4) the relative importance of non-credit
entrepreneurial education programming to those institutions surveyed.
Scope and Function of Institutional Linkages with External Partners
As reflected in the literature, institutional linkages with external partners serve as a core
source of support to entrepreneurial education programs both in terms of funding, expertise,
potential investment, networking, and program management and oversight. Of the one hundred
and fifty-one responses received, 64% of institutions indicated that they maintained formal
linkages with local economic development agencies and/or corporations. This is consistent with
our earlier finding which indicated that these agencies/corporations were important funding
30
resources for non-credit entrepreneurial programs. While city and county governments were less
inclined to offer financial resources, they appear to provide non-remunerative support as
indicated by the 41% of institutions that report them as partners. In addition, for-profit
companies are also frequent partners of non-credit programs as reported by 38% of all
institutions. Finally, 29% of the participating institutions reported partnerships with four-year
colleges or universities and 17% indicated the existence of a formal relationship with one or
more philanthropic foundations.
Interestingly, of the one hundred and fifty one respondents, twenty-three institutions
(15%) indicated that they maintained no formal partnerships or linkages with external sources of
support. Of these institutions, twenty rely upon student fees and tuition as their major source of
programmatic funding. Likewise, seventeen of these institutions offer credit-bearing
programmatic options in addition to their non-credit offerings. Finally, it is worth noting that of
these twenty-three institutions reporting no formal partnerships or linkages, an overwhelming
90% also report having no management or advisory boards. These findings seem to indicate that
programs lacking formal external partnerships may either be in the formative stages of
development or may be oriented towards the internal mandates of their parent institution.
Given the relative frequency with which programs establish external linkages of support,
the functional purpose of these partnerships is of particular importance to understanding how
these arrangements are determined. As represented in Figure 6, external partnerships operate as
a frequent source of support to non-credit programs. In particular, we found that the two most
oft-cited purposes of these partnerships were to provide instructional and/or curricular expertise
(53%) as well as to serve as advisory board members (53%). Additional forms of program
support include contractual and financial contributions (42%) and shared management and
31
programmatic oversight responsibilities (27%). Interestingly, our findings indicate that
mentorship and internship/externship services are the most infrequent forms of support provided
by external partnerships (14% and 11% respectively). This may be due to the fact that programs
that affiliate with external partners are more often focused on local economic needs and small
business development rather than professional development and/or population-specific
interventions. While the existing literature has emphasized the importance of these partnerships
to entrepreneurship education programs, this paper serves as the first instance in which the form
and function of these relationships are descriptively portrayed.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 6: Nature of Formal Linkages & Partnerships
(N=146)
Advisory Board
Participation
Instructional/Curricular
Expertise
Financial Contributions
Contract Agreement
Shared Oversight
Mentorship
Internship/Externship
Resource
Program Information
In addition to gathering data pertaining to the administration and funding of non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management programs, the survey also collected
information regarding the format and content of these educational initiatives.
An overwhelming majority of survey respondents identified stand-alone
workshops/seminars (91%), continuing education courses (81%), and a sequence of
32
workshops/seminars (72%) as the three most popular program formats for their non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management educational offerings. Although these
categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive (it is possible that an institution’s continuing
education program includes entrepreneurship seminars or a sequence of small business
management workshops), the survey results presented in Table 3 clearly demonstrate the
dominance of these three program formats in comparison to other forms of instructional delivery.
Table 3: Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management
Education Program Formats (N=162)
#of Respondents % of Respondents
Stand-alone workshops/seminars 147 91%
Continuing education 131 81%
Sequence of workshops/seminars 116 72%
On-line instruction 76 47%
Conference/Symposium 54 33%
Distance learning instruction 26 16%
Open circuit instructional television 7 4%
Although workshops and continuing education courses are clearly the most common
program formats used in the delivery of non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education, a second analysis of the program format data according to the number of
different formats offered at an institution reveals the existence of tremendous program breadth
within the survey sample. Of the 160 institutions that responded to this survey item, 72% of
participating institutions use three, four, or five different program formats in the delivery of their
non-credit entrepreneurship education (see Figure 7 below). Although this finding may also
speak to the potential overlap of program format categories, the large number of institutions
offering four or more different program formats (n=79, 49%) clearly illustrates a trend in the
development of comprehensive entrepreneurship education programs capable of matching
program delivery method to the diverse instructional needs of students.
33
Figure 7: Breadth of Non-Credit Entrepreneurship &
Small Business Management Educational Offerings (N=160)
15
20
46
44
25
7
3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
#
o
f
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
F
o
r
m
a
t
s
O
f
f
e
r
e
d
# of Respondents
In addition to gathering information on program formats, the survey also asked
respondents to identify the three instructional methods most frequently used in non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management educational offerings. Listed by more than half
of all survey respondents, lecture (84%), guest speakers (63%) and group work (52%) were the
three most popular instructional methods. Somewhat surprising, only one-third of the
respondents reported the use of case studies and slightly more than one-fifth routinely
incorporated online exercises or multi-media in instructional activities. This survey data is
consistent with Hagan’s (2004) research finding that lecture was the instructional method most
frequently used in credit-bearing community college entrepreneurship education and Solomon,
Duffy, and Tarabishy’s (2002) data on the limited use of educational technology (e.g., online
instruction) in contemporary entrepreneurship education. Figure 8 presents a complete summary
of the instructional methods survey findings.
34
Figure 8: Instructional Methods (N=153)
14%
22%
22%
29%
52%
63%
84%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Lecture Guest
speaker
Group
work
Case
study
Online
exercises
Multi-
media
Site visit
#
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Although the two most popular instructional methods (lecture and guest speaker) suggest
the existence of passive learning environments within community college non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education programs, survey findings pertaining
to the three learning activities most frequently assigned to students (see Figure 9) demonstrate a
focus on providing participants with practical and personalized experiences designed to develop
the skills and knowledge necessary for starting and running a business. Seventy-six percent of
respondents ask students to develop a business plan, 60% require participants to produce a
market analysis report, and nearly half of the participating institutions provide students with
personal development exercises. All other learning activities listed on the survey were utilized by
less than a third of respondents.
35
Figure 9: Learning Activities (N=152)
7% 8%
24%
30% 31%
46%
60%
76%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
l
a
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
e
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
/
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
r
e
p
o
r
t
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
s
A
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
l
a
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
O
r
a
l
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
t
e
r
n
s
h
i
p
/
e
x
t
e
r
n
s
h
i
p
C
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
#
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
In response to a question regarding the institutional resources made available to students
enrolled in non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education offerings,
survey respondents identified one-on-one counseling (63%) and a Small Business Development
Center (60%) as the two most frequently offered resources (see Table 4). Basic skills review,
technology resources, networking events, and access to entrepreneurial funding were available at
approximately 40% of participating institutions. The common thread connecting the institutional
resources most frequently made available to aspiring entrepreneurs (e.g., counseling, business
development centers, technology consulting, basic skills review) appears to be a commitment to
providing students with the individualized attention necessary to launch and sustain successful
business ventures.
36
Table 4: Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management
Institutional Resources (N=154)
#of
Respondents
% of
Respondents
One-on-one counseling 97 63%
Small Business Development Center 93 60%
Basic skills review (English, math, computers) 76 49%
Technology resources and/or consultation 70 45%
Networking events 67 44%
Access to entrepreneurial funding 60 39%
Business plan competition 47 31%
New business incubator 37 24%
Mentorship program 36 23%
Internship/externship program 29 19%
To gather insight into the content of non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education, survey respondents were provided with a list of twenty common
business topics and asked to identify the themes addressed in their non-credit entrepreneurship
and small business management offerings. The five most popular topic areas reported on the
survey were: 1) marketing (82%), 2) business planning (81%), 3) small business management
(71%), 4) entrepreneurship (69%) and 5) accounting (66%). In addition, customer management,
finance, human resources, leadership, new venture creation, supervision, information technology,
and taxes were addressed by over 50% of the participating institutions. The number of
respondents offering each topic area listed on the survey (along with the corresponding
percentages) is provided in Table 5.
37
Table 5: Topic Areas Addressed in Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small
Business Management Educational Offerings (N=154)
#of
Respondents
% of
Respondents
Marketing 127 82%
Business planning 125 81%
Small business management 109 71%
Entrepreneurship 106 69%
Accounting 102 66%
Customer management 99 64%
Finance 95 62%
Human resource /Personnel Management 87 56%
Leadership 87 56%
New venture creation/Starting a business 86 56%
Supervision 82 53%
Information technology 80 52%
Taxes 78 51%
Business communication & writing 76 49%
Business law 62 40%
Basic skills review (English, math, computers) 58 38%
Women & minority entrepreneurs 38 25%
Negotiation 35 23%
Creativity/Creative thinking 31 20%
Venture capital 24 16%
Students
In addition to gathering data pertaining to the format and content of community college
non-credit entrepreneurship education, the survey also asked respondents to provide information
on student enrollment and recruitment. Of the 139 participants which shared information
regarding enrollment in non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings
during the 2003-04 academic year, the largest percentage (34%, n=48) reported enrolling
between 0 – 50 students. The second highest enrollment group, representing 20% (n=28) of the
respondents, enrolled between 201 to 500 students. Although 8% (n=11) of the survey
respondents reported enrolling over 1000 students, the majority of institutions (approximately
60%) enrolled less than 200 students. A summary of the student enrollment data is presented
below in Figure 10.
38
Figure 10: 2003-2004 Student Enrollment (N=139)
8%
11%
20%
13%
14%
34%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
-
5
0
5
1
-
1
0
0
1
0
1
-
2
0
0
2
0
1
-
5
0
0
5
0
1
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
-
8
1
0
0
# of St udent s Enr olled
#
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
As discussed earlier in the review of relevant literature, a number of entrepreneurship
education scholars and practitioners have documented the benefits and growing popularity of
entrepreneurial education programs that target specific population groups (for example, women).
Surprisingly, out of the 147 individuals who responded to a survey question regarding the
existence of targeted entrepreneurship education offerings, the majority of survey respondents
(65%, n=96) reported that their institution does not offer population-specific initiatives.
However, among the 51 participating institutions that do offer targeted entrepreneurship
education programs, three groups in particular (i.e., dislocated workers, women, and racial and
ethnic groups) are the primary focus of attention. Figure 11 summarizes the breakdown of
targeted program offerings.
39
Figur e 11: Tar get ed Non-Cr edit Ent r epr eneur ship &
Small Business Management Of f er ings (N=51)
7
17
31
33
36
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Senior Citizens
Youth
Racial and ethnic
groups
Women
Dislocated
workers
T
a
r
g
e
t
G
r
o
u
p
s
# of Respondent s
In addition to gathering information regarding targeted student enrollment, the survey
also captured data pertaining to the position of students within the business life cycle (e.g.,
startup/emerging, growth/expansion, mature/prosperous, transfer/decline). Given that 76% of
participating institutions reported offering both entrepreneurship and small business management
programs, it was expected that respondents would report balanced student enrollment across the
business cycle. A review of the survey data (summarized in Figure 12), however, reveals that the
majority of institutions currently enroll more students seeking information on starting rather than
maintaining businesses. As you can see in the graph below, students enrolled in the
mature/prosperous and transfer/decline phases of business typically account for less than a
quarter of student enrollment while students seeking information on starting a new business
venture were most frequently found to make up over 75% of enrollment. More specifically, 72
out of the 122 participants (59%) who answered this question indicated that over fifty-one
40
percent of their students were involved in the startup and emerging phase of business while only
14 participants (11%) reported over fifty percent of their students currently working within the
growth or maturity phases of the business cycle.
Figure 12: Student Placement within the Business
Life Cycle as a Percentage of Enrollment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Startup Growth Mature Decline
Busi ness Li fe Cycl e
#
o
f
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
1-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
The final student-centered question posed in the survey concerned methods of
recruitment. Survey respondents were asked to rank six different recruitment methods in order of
their effectiveness As Figure 13 illustrates, course catalogs/schedule of classes and print media
(e.g., newspapers and flyers) were the two recruitment methods most frequently ranked first or
second with respect to effectiveness. These findings are not surprising given the fact that non-
credit entrepreneurship training is typically embedded within continuing and community
education administrative units that must market to a wide range of educational interests.
41
Figure 13: Ranking of Student Recruitment Methods
9
11
9
23
27
62
7
5
19
32
46
18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Individual referrrals
Mass media (e.g, radio & television)
Local civic organization/business organizations
Target Mailings
Print media (e.g, newspapers, flyers)
Course Catalog/Schedule of Classes
# of Respondent s
Ranked 1
Ranked 2
Faculty
Consistent with current trends in community college teacher hiring and continuing
education faculty characteristics, our data indicates that a majority of instructors teaching
entrepreneurship courses fall within the category of “adjunct.” Seventy-one percent of the 162
institutions that offer non-credit entrepreneurship education report using adjunct instructors to
teach these courses. By comparison, 34% of institutions report placing volunteer instructors in
their non-credit entrepreneurship education classrooms and only 23% of colleges utilize full-time
faculty.
While most of the instructors within non-credit entrepreneurship classrooms may not be
permanently affiliated with a given institution, a majority of these teachers bring valuable
practical and professional business experience to their teaching. Of the 115 institutions that use
adjunct instructors, 106 (92%) report that their adjunct instructors possess prior entrepreneurial
and small business experience. Similarly, 91% of volunteer instructors and 89% of full-time
faculty teaching entrepreneurship and/or small business management courses possess prior
business experience. What these numbers seem to indicate is that non-credit programs are, more
42
often than not, taught by experienced business and entrepreneurial practitioners; a finding that is
consistent with what is already known about non-credit and continuing education instructional
models.
Program Assessment
In the area of program assessment, 73% of the 144 institutions who answered this survey
item reported that their community college’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
offerings were a medium to high priority for the institution while only a small percentage (5%)
indicated that these offerings were not a priority at all.
Regardless of how they ranked the importance of their non-credit programs, only 53%
(n=77) of the respondents indicated that their institution had a written statement of goals,
outcomes, or program evaluation criteria. From the graph below, one can see that the majority of
statements focused on student learning and satisfaction, business start-ups, community
partnerships, enrollment and economic impact. Surprisingly, only a few of these statements
(36%) saw the goal of program completion as an important outcome of non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education. The representation of these topical
areas demonstrates how written statements often speak to the multiple constituencies served by
these entrepreneurship and small business management programs. They reflect the needs of
students as learners and of communities as supporters and hosts to community colleges.
43
Figure 14: Areas Addressed in Written Statements of
Goals, Outcomes, and Program Evaluation (N=80)
66% 65%
63%
56% 56%
53%
49%
36%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
S
t
a
r
t
-
u
p
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
a
c
u
l
t
y
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
What is not surprising is the strong alignment between written statements and sources of
program funding. For instances, a high percentage of respondents who mentioned economic
impact and community partnerships in their statement (77% and 92%, respectively) reported
receiving support from for-profit companies. Similarly high percentages were reported for
programs that received support from philanthropic foundations and economic development
agencies or corporations. In contrast, programs that did not have a written statement (n=68)
reported receiving more of their funding from student fees as well as the general budget.
Respondents were also asked how frequently they evaluated their non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business courses and programs. The majority of institutions (56%)
reported that they conduct evaluations at the end of each course or program. A slightly smaller
percentage (20%) reported that their institution conducts yearly evaluations. The remaining
respondents reported conducting evaluations every semester (7%), every six months (5%), only
44
occasionally (5%), or not at all (2%) When evaluations are used, the vast majority of
respondents (92%) reported that their institution uses program evaluation surveys, followed by
student and community surveys (40% and 28%, respectively). Alumni surveys appear to be the
least utilized method (12%). While impossible to speculate why some survey methods are used
more than others, it is possible these trends represent wider institutional practices or reflect
resource limitations.
Figure 15: Assessment Methods (N=149)
92%
40%
28%
18%
12%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
/
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
a
t
a
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
l
u
m
n
i
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
Conclusion
The empirical findings presented above serve to confirm and extend previous scholarship
on community college entrepreneurship education. Consistent with Hagan’s (2004) assertion that
over 60% of American community colleges offer credit-bearing entrepreneurship training, the
results of this study also reflect extensive community college involvement in the promotion of
economic and workforce development via entrepreneurship and small business management
education. The impressive breadth and depth of non-credit community college entrepreneurship
45
education first described in Entrepreneurship Training in American Community Colleges (Center
for the Study of Community Colleges, 1994) is underscored by contemporary survey data which
reveals that 71% of participating institutions offer non-credit educational opportunities that span
the business life cycle (from new venture creation to ongoing business management practices)
and approximately 50% employ four or more different program delivery methods (e.g.,
workshops, on-line instruction, seminars). Coupled with survey data that highlight the broad
range of educational topics addressed in non-credit community college entrepreneurship
education (e.g., marketing, business planning, information technology, and human resources),
these survey results confirm the growth of comprehensive non-credit entrepreneurship programs
capable of meeting the diverse informational and pedagogical needs of community college
continuing education students.
Additional insights gleaned from this report include the collaborative nature of non-credit
community college entrepreneurship education (as evidenced by the diverse range of external
funding sources and formal partnerships reported by participating institutions) and the continued
need for assessment practices that effectively measure student learning and program outcomes.
Although both of these points were also mentioned in the 1994 report prepared by the Center for
the Study of Community Colleges, the national survey data presented in this report offers a more
comprehensive and empirically-grounded portrait of contemporary administrative practices.
In addition to addressing existing gaps in the literature on non-credit community college
entrepreneurship education, the survey findings presented in this report also serve to raise new
research questions that warrant additional investigation. For example, although this survey did
collect data on the scope and nature of external funding sources and formal partnerships
developed in support of non-credit community college entrepreneurship education, additional
46
research is needed to develop a more nuanced understanding of program finance and resource
development strategies. This line of questioning may be most effectively addressed through a
series of qualitative case studies that develop comprehensive portraits of non-credit
entrepreneurship education funding patterns as well as enhance our understanding of the manner
in which external partnerships are initiated and the extent to which resource-sharing occurs
through these important linkages. Qualitative case studies may also serve as a valuable means for
gathering additional insight on the nature of collaboration between credit and non-credit
community college entrepreneurship education. Seventy-six percent of participating institutions
offer both credit and non-credit entrepreneurship training, however the current survey research
offers little insight on the nature and scope of collaborative efforts between these two distinct
community college administrative structures (e.g., shared resources, faculty partnerships).
Finally, similar to the research recommendation posed at the end of Entrepreneurship
Training in the American Community Colleges (1994), we conclude this report with a call for
additional research on non-credit entrepreneurship education outcome measures and assessment
practices. Contemporary survey results indicate that the majority of program directors continue
to conduct assessment at the end of each course or seminar and only 12% of participating
institutions have implemented alumni follow-up surveys. Although end-of-course/program
evaluations may be an effective means to capture data on student satisfaction and perceived
knowledge acquisition, they offer community colleges little insight on the long-term impact of
participation in community college entrepreneurship training. What role does non-credit
entrepreneurship education play in the creation of new jobs in the local economy? What is the
relationship between completion of a non-credit community college entrepreneurship program
and business success (e.g., return on investment, rate of expansion, size of labor force, etc.)?
47
How does non-credit community college entrepreneurship education influence regional
economic growth and shape the reciprocal relationship between the college and its surrounding
community? These are important questions that must be addressed via additional research on
entrepreneurship education assessment. American community colleges seeking to increase the
breadth and depth of external investment in entrepreneurship education must develop and
implement assessment practices capable of capturing the individual and collective economic
benefits associated with community college entrepreneurship training.
48
References
Center for the Study of Community Colleges. (1994). Entrepreneurship training in American
community colleges: A report to the Kauffman Foundation, Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership. Los Angeles: Author.
Cohen, A. M, Brawer, F. B., & Kozeracki, C. A. (2000). Jumpstart III Final Report. Los
Angeles: Center for the Study of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED443479)
Cohen, A. M, Brawer, F. B., & Kozeracki, C. A. (1998). Jumpstart I Summary Report. Los
Angeles: Center for the Study of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED416918)
Dainow, R. (1986). Training and education of entrepreneurs: The current state of the literature.
Journal of Small Business and Entreprneurship, 3(4), 10-23.
Hagan, E. R. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: A new frontier for American community
colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(02), 464. (UMI No. 3162992)
Gartner, W. B., & Vesper, K. H. (1997). Executive forum: Measuring progress in
entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship
education, enterprise education and education for small business management: A ten-year
literature review [Electronic version]. International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56-77.
Katz, J . A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education 1876-1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.
Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. (2001). The growth and advancement of
entrepreneurship in higher education: An environmental scan of college initiatives.
Kansas City MO: Author. Retrieved September 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.entreworld.org/Bookstore/PDFs/Futures21/College_Scan.pdf
Kuratko, D. F. (2003). Entrepreneurship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the 21
st
century. Madison, WI: U.S. Association of Small Business & Entrepreneurship.
Retrieved September 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.usasbe.org/pdf/CWP-2003-kuratko.pdf
Neck, H. M., Zacharakis, A. L., Bygrav, W. D., & Reynolds, P. D. (2003). USA 2002 GEM
National Report. Babson Park, MA: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Retrieved
September 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.gemconsortium.org/document.asp?id=287
Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S., & Tarabish, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the
United States: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 65-86.
49
United States Chamber of Commerce. (2005). United States business facts. Washington, D.C.:
Author. Retrieved September 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.uschamber.com/research/bizfacts.htm
Vesper, K. H, & Gartner, W. B. (2002). Compendium of entrepreneur programs. Los Angeles:
Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, University of Southern California.
Retrieved September 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.marshall.usc.edu/web/LloydGreif.cfm?doc_id=1198
50
Appendix A
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management Education
In American Community Colleges: A National Perspective
Introduction
Welcome to the UCLA Community College Studies’ online survey. We are conducting a
national status study of non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
education in American community colleges. Survey findings will be used to identify
current best practices in entrepreneurship education and to provide community colleges
with a benchmark for assessing their own programs.
We appreciate your willingness to participate in this study. The survey should take
approximately 20 minutes to complete. It is not necessary to complete the survey in one
sitting. If you need to exit the survey prior to completion, simply press the “submit”
button at the bottom of the page. This will save the survey responses entered thus far
and allow you to return to the survey at a later time.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please contact the Project
Coordinator, Rozana Carducci, at [email protected] or (310) 206-1200.
Prior to beginning the survey, please indicate that you have read and understand the
following statement regarding your voluntary participation in this project:
Consent to Participate in Research
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management Education in
American Community Colleges: A National Perspective
You have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Arthur Cohen, Dr.
Robert Hayes, and Rozana Carducci (MS) from Community College Studies at the University of
California – Los Angeles. The specific purpose of this research project is to identify current best
practices in non-credit entrepreneurship education and to provide community colleges with a
benchmark for assessing their own programs.
Potential Benefits of Participation
The benefits associated with participating in this study include: 1) the right to request a copy of
the research findings which can be used to inform the development and advancement of your
college’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings and 2) the
opportunity to contribute to the development of a comprehensive national status study of
community college entrepreneurship education which will provide valuable insight on
educational best practices and program assessment.
Confidentiality
Your identity as a participant in this research project will remain confidential. The only people
who will know that you participated in this project are members of the research team. Any and
51
all individual contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number, e-mail, administrative
title) gathered during the course of this study will be securely stored in password-protected
database with access limited to research team members only.
It is anticipated that an analysis of the data collected in this study will be prepared for publication in a
postsecondary journal or presented at a relevant professional conference. The data presented in these
reports will be summarized at the institutional level and will not contain the names of individual
survey respondents or their administrative titles. When referencing a specific institution in an oral
or written presentation of the data, the research team will make sure that no personal information
is included that could reveal a subject’s identity
Participation and Withdrawal
Participation in this study is voluntary. You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you
volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind.
You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which
warrant doing so.
Please click here to indicate that you understand the information provided above and
consent to participate in this study. Once you have given your consent to participate,
you will be automatically directed to the beginning of the survey form.
Survey Instrument
Thank you for consenting to participate in the UCLA study of non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education in American community
colleges. To begin the survey, please fill in the information requested below. Please
remember it is not necessary to complete the survey in one sitting. If you need to exit
the survey prior to completion, simply press the “submit” button at the bottom of the
page. This will save the survey responses entered thus far and allow you to return to the
survey at a later time.
Section 1: Institutional Information
Please provide the following information about your institution:
Institution's Name: _____________
Institution's State: _____________
Your Name: ___________________
Your Title:____________________
Administrative Unit/Department: _____________________
E-mail:_______________________
Mailing Address: ______________
Telephone: ___________________
52
Are you the person most responsible for the administration of your institution's non-
credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings?
Yes _____
No ______
What percentage of your time is dedicated to the administration of your institution's non-
credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings?
Free response _______________
[Note: if respondent answers “No” to first question posed above, the respondent will be
directed to the following two questions]
Please identify the title of the administrator who is most responsible for the
administration of your institution's non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education?
Free response ______________
What percentage of this administrator's time is dedicated to the administration of your
institution's non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education?
Free response _____________
Click here to continue
Section 2: Program Information
1. Which of the following does your institution offer with respect to non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education? Please check all
that apply.
Non-credit entrepreneurship education
Non-credit small business management education
This institution does not offer non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education and has no current plans to develop offerings in this
area.
[Note: If respondent checks item 4 above, s/he will be directed to the end of the survey]
1b. Does your institution currently offer credit coursework in entrepreneurship and small
business management?
Yes______ No _____
[note: only those respondents who indicate they offer non-credit entrepreneurship or
small business management education in question 1 (the first two response options) will
be asked to complete question 1b)
53
Because a study of credit-course programs in entrepreneurship and small business management
has been completed recently, the remaining questions focus specifically on your institution’s
non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education offerings.
2. Please identify the program formats that your institution utilizes in the delivery of
non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education. Please
check all that apply.
Continuing education courses
Stand-alone workshops/seminars
Sequence of workshops/seminars
Conference/Symposium
On-line instructional courses
Distance learning courses
Open-circuit instructional television
Other (Please specify)______________________
2b. For each of the program formats you selected in question 1, please indicate the
number of times these programs or courses are offered in a calendar year. (For
example, please indicate how many non-credit entrepreneurship or small business
management courses are offered each calendar year.)
____ Continuing education courses
____ Stand-alone workshops/seminars
____ Sequence of workshops/seminars
____ Conference/Symposium
____ On-line instructional courses
____ Distance learning courses
____ Open-circuit instructional television
____ Other (Please specify)______________________
3. Please identify the institutional resources available to non-credit entrepreneurship
and small business management students. Please check all that apply.
Small Business Development Center
New business incubator
Access to entrepreneurial funding (e.g., business loans, venture capital, angel
funding)
Mentorship program
Internship/Externship program
Technology resources and/or consultation
Networking events
One-on-one counseling
Business plan competition
Basic skills review (English, math, computers)
54
Other (Please specify) ___________________________
4. Which of the following individual courses or general topic areas are included in
your institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
curriculum? Please check all that apply.
Accounting
Basic skills review (English, math, computers)
Business law
Business communication and writing
Business planning
Creative Thinking
Customer management
Entrepreneurship
Finance
Human resources/Personnel management
Information technology
Leadership
Marketing
Negotiation
New Venture Creation/Starting a business
Small business management
Supervision
Taxes
Venture capital
Women and minority entrepreneurs
Other (Please specify) __________________________
5. Of the following, please identify the three instructional methods most frequently
used in your non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
programs.
Case study
Group work
Guest speaker
Lecture
Multi-media
On-line exercises
Site visit
Other (please specify) ______________________
6. Of the following, please identify the three learning activities most frequently
assigned to non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
students.
Business plan development
55
Internship/externship
Market analysis/research report
Oral presentation
Personal development/self-assessment exercises
Readings
Strategic plan development
Cooperative education
Other (Please specify) _________________________
7. Who is responsible for delivering your institution’s non-credit entrepreneurship and
small business management offerings? (Please report the number of individuals in each
of the following categories.
Full-time college faculty ______
Adjunct instructors who receive compensation (e.g., part-time faculty, consultants,
business leaders, third party vendors) ______
Volunteer instructors who do not receive compensation (e.g, retired executives,
community leaders) ______
8. Please estimate the percentage of your non-credit entrepreneurship and small
business management faculty and facilitators who possess professional
entrepreneurship and small business management experience.
Full-time college faculty ______
Adjunct instructors who receive compensation (e.g., part-time faculty, consultants,
business leaders, third party vendors) ______
Volunteer instructors who do not receive compensation (e.g, retired executives,
community leaders) ______
Section 3: Administration & Funding
9. Which administrative unit is responsible for the oversight of` your college’s non-
credit entrepreneurship and small business management education offerings (e.g.,
continuing education, business department, etc.)? If more than one unit/department
shares in this oversight, please list all departments.
Open response __________________________
10. Please identify the funding sources used to support your college’s non-credit
entrepreneurship and small business management education? Please check all that
apply.
Student fees/tuition
State government allocations
City/County government allocations
56
Philanthropic foundation grants
For-profit companies
Social service agencies
Economic development agencies or corporations
College general budget
Other (Please specify) ____________________________
11. Has your non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education
program established formal partnerships or linkages with any of the following
organizations? Please check all that apply.
State government
City/County government
Philanthropic foundations
For-profit companies
Social service agencies
4-year college and university
Economic development agencies or corporations
Other (Please specify) ____________________
No formal partnerships or linkages established
11a. If any of the check boxes above are marked….
Please identify the nature of these formal partnerships or linkages? Please identify all
that apply.
Financial contribution
Shared oversight/management
Advisory board participation
Contract agreement
Instructional or curricular expertise (e.g., teaching workshops, guest speakers)
Mentorship of students
Internship/Externship resource
Other (Please specify ________________________
12. Has your college established an entrepreneurship/small business management
advisory or governing board?
Yes
No
Section 4: Students
57
13. Do your non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education
programs target specific populations (e.g., women, underrepresented students,
dislocated workers)?
Yes
No
13a. If yes…
Please identify the target populations. Please check all that apply:
Women
Specific racial and ethnic groups
Dislocated Workers
Senior Citizens
Youth
Other (Please specify) ____________________
14. How many participants were enrolled in your non-credit entrepreneurship and
small business management offerings during the 2003-2004 academic year?
Open response ____________________
15. At what stage of the business life cycle are your non-credit entrepreneurship
and business management students? Please estimate the percentage of
students that fall in each category.
_____ % Startup/Emerging
_____ % Growth/Expansion
_____ % Mature/Prosperous
_____ % Transfer or Decline
16. How do you recruit participants for your non-credit entrepreneurship and small
business management programs? Please rank in order of effectiveness.
_____ Mass media (e.g., radio, television)
_____ Print media (e.g., newspaper, flyers)
_____ Target mailings
_____ Course Catalogs/Schedule of Classes
_____ Promotion within local civic and business organizations
_____ Solicitation of individual referrals from businesses or civic agencies
_____ Other (Please specify) _________________________
Section 5: Program Assessment
17. How high a priority is the development and advancement of your college’s non-
credit entrepreneurship and small business management education offerings?
58
High priority
Medium priority
Low priority
It is not a priority
18. Does your non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management
education program have a written statement of goals, outcomes, or program
evaluation criteria?
Yes
No
18a. If yes…
Please identify the categories for which you have you developed written goals,
outcomes, or evaluation measures? Please check all that apply.
Student learning
Faculty performance
Economic impact
Community partnerships
Enrollment
Program completion
Other (Please specify) ___________
19. How often do you evaluate your non-credit entrepreneurship and small business
management education program?
At the end of each individual course or program
Every semester/quarter
Every 6 months
Yearly
Only occasionally
Other (Please specify) ____________________
20. What methods are used to gather evaluation data on your institution’s non-
credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings? Please
check all that apply.
Program evaluation surveys completed by participants
Student surveys, interviews or focus groups
Alumni surveys, interviews or focus groups
Community/Business surveys, interviews or focus groups
Economic data analysis
Other (Please specify) ________________________
59
Section 6: Miscellaneous
21. May we contact you by phone or email, if we have any follow-up questions?
Yes
No
22. Would you like to receive a copy of our research results?
Yes
No
Thank you for completing this survey. The findings from this research project will be
used to identify current best practices in entrepreneurship education and to provide
community colleges with a benchmark for assessing their own programs. We sincerely
appreciate the contribution of your time and knowledge to this study and look forward to
sharing with you key research findings.
60
Appendix B
Pilot Test Phone Protocol
1) Did you find the introduction to the research project and survey instrument clear or confusing?
2) Did you have any trouble interpreting the survey instructions? If so, what was unclear or
confusing?
3) What was your initial reaction to the definitions of entrepreneurship and small business
management offered at the beginning of the survey? Did you find these definitions of
entrepreneurship and small business management helpful with respect to interpreting the survey
questions?
4) Were the definitions different from your own? If so, how?
If different, did it make completing the survey problematic for you?
5) How long did it take you to complete the survey?
6) Did you experience any technical difficulties while completing the survey?
7) Was there anything about the “look and feel” (color, text size) of the survey that made
completing it difficult or confusing? If so, what issues did you encounter? (Be sure to get
computer and browser information---Mac/PC, Netscape, Internet Explore)
8) Did you utilize the “setup and save” function?
If so, were you easily able to return to the survey when you ready to resume responding?
9) Did you feel the “other” response box gave you sufficient room to list other response options
specific to your institution? (need to probe for how much extra room they want/need)
10) For each question…
a) Did you find yourself looking for response choices that were not there? If so, what were
they?
b) Did you find any of the response choices inappropriate or out of place? Should any
response choices be removed?
c) Would you change the wording of any response items in this question?
11) If you were conducting a national survey of non-credit entrepreneurship education programs,
what questions or information would you find valuable that was not addressed in this pilot
survey
**********************************
Survey Item Specific Questions (Add-On)
Related to Survey Item #1:
61
1. How did you decipher question #1 relative to your own program offerings?
Related to Survey Item #7
2. How did you define the categories provided (full-time faculty, part-time faculty, etc.)?
In retrospect, would it be easier to report faculty participation in terms of actual numbers, or
as it is currently posed, by percentages?
62
doc_225468332.pdf