This new four-part series of briefs covers foundational definitions, data-driven approaches, and dashboards/reporting metrics
Overview: You will learn practical information on building a data-driven approach to career engagement and outcomes at colleges and universities. These briefs may be used separately or together.
Author: Community College Research, Praxis, and Leadership Team at the University of Pittsburgh School of Education
Publication Date: August 2026
Brief 1 of 4
Foundations
This brief establishes the shared language and conceptual foundation for data-driven career engagement. Before metrics are collected, before dashboards are built, and before any survey goes out, the institution’s career services, institutional research, and academic affairs teams must agree on what they are measuring.
This guide provides actionable strategies for community colleges to improve outreach and engagement with racially minoritized adult learners, from pre-enrollment through completion. It blends research, practitioner insights, and real-world examples to help institutions design relationship-centered approaches that better connect with and support these students.
Brief 2 of 4
Building a Data-Driven Approach to Career Engagement and Outcomes
This document builds the data infrastructure that makes tracking both categories possible: identifying the right metrics, mapping the systems that hold relevant data, establishing governance to protect student privacy, and aligning the cross-functional team that will
sustain the work over time.
Brief 3 of 4
Using Career Data
This document addresses how to put the data infrastructure discussed in previous briefs into practice: how to begin analyzing engagement early enough to act on it, how to identify and close equity gaps between different student populations, and how to responsibly connect engagement data to outcome data for analysis.
Brief 4 of 4
Dashboards, Reporting, and Benchmarking
This document addresses how to communicate the resulting data to different audiences, how to benchmark against peer institutions, and how to use the evidence each year to improve programming and resource allocation.
