State and postsecondary system leaders face increasing pressure to improve student outcomes and strengthen ties between postsecondary degrees and the workforce. At the same time, fiscal pressures constrain new spending and require greater discipline in spending on high-value, high-return initiatives. The City University of New York’s (CUNY) Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) model offers one of the most rigorously tested initiatives available, proven to double graduation rates at CUNY and replication sites across the country.

With support from ECMC Foundation, Ithaka S+R has worked with the CUNY ASAP replication team over the past year to build a suite of resources that help states and systems explore the benefits of CUNY ASAP by identifying the model’s potential to address the state’s specific needs and priorities. To do this, we produced three related tools:

  1. 50-state data exploration tool: A comprehensive framework and data tool that provides rich insights into how the state is performing across a variety of dimensions.
  2. Return-on-investment estimator tool: A tool that generates estimates of costs and benefits of ASAP replication for individuals, institutions, and states.
  3. Casemaking narrative: A tailored and concise casemaking presentation to help state leaders translate the insights from the above tools for external audiences.

Together, these tools are designed to answer a key question for any state or system considering ASAP: What are the potential postsecondary and economic benefits of replicating the ASAP model for our students, our institutions, and our state?

What are the potential postsecondary and economic benefits of replicating the ASAP model for our students, our institutions, and our state?

The answer to this question depends on a state’s context. Each state has its own unique challenges and strengths when it comes to financing postsecondary education, enrolling and graduating students, and aligning postsecondary and workforce opportunities. A state grappling with workforce shortages in specific industries or occupations would pursue ASAP replication for different reasons than one managing enrollment declines or looking to optimize its financial resources. States also vary in terms of their governance structures, political context, and agency capacity, each of which affects their interest in and ability to enact new programs or initiatives. This blog post focuses on the 50-state data exploration tool and how it can help build a tailored argument for ASAP replication in your state.

Drawing on publicly available data, we identified four arguments that states can use to make the case for ASAP, depending on which challenges loom largest in their context: economic opportunity and workforce alignment, higher education investment, enrollment and performance challenges, and policy readiness. The sections below unpack each case and how advocates, policymakers, and others can use it in conversations with their own stakeholders. The goal of these materials is to help users understand which arguments may be most compelling in their context and how to position the case for ASAP given the needs and priorities of their stakeholders.

Economic opportunity and workforce alignment

In this case, we first measure the extent to which ASAP can improve the state’s credential attainment rate, given its effects on community college graduation rates. State policymakers in states with relatively low associate degree attainment rates may be more receptive to arguments about the opportunity for ASAP to improve those rates. We also include a measure on the size of the state’s population of those who started college but didn’t finish, which speaks to the opportunity to address the issues that lead to students not completing.

🡺 Kentucky, for instance, has a relatively low attainment rate, compared to the national average, and a relatively high rate of residents who started college but didn’t finish. This suggests the opportunity for ASAP to improve outcomes in Kentucky is relatively high.

Next, we measure the extent to which ASAP can contribute to the state’s economy: increasing the number of graduates can help improve the median wage and meet workforce needs. The three measures we include are the wage premium for those with an associate degree relative to a high school diploma, the number of “good jobs” that are available for these graduates,[1] and the unemployment rate. Together, these measures speak to both the state’s need to address economic demand or underperformance and to the benefits that would be conferred to new graduates.

🡺 Kentucky also has a relatively high associate degree wage premium compared to the national average and a relatively high rate of “good jobs.” Yet, they also have a relatively high unemployment rate, which suggests a mismatch between their open jobs and the credentials and skills of their current workforce.

To sum it up: This case works best in states with strong labor market demand for credentialed workers, a meaningful earnings premium for associate degrees relative to high school diplomas, or a large population of adults with some college but no credential.

More effective investment in higher education

In this case, we first look at how much states are spending on higher education relative to their capacity, not just in absolute dollars, but as a share of personal income and on a per-student basis. This helps distinguish states that are spending a lot because they’re wealthy from those that are genuinely prioritizing investment in higher education. States with relatively high levels of effort (the amount a state pays for higher education relative to its capacity to pay) may be most receptive to arguments about optimizing that spending to achieve better outcomes, while states with lower effort may see ASAP as a model for more targeted, high-return investment.

🡺 New Mexico’s level of effort at funding higher education is the highest in the country and more than double the national average. The state also provides a relatively high level of state funding support per student.

Next, we look at how states invest in student financial support, specifically the level of need-based financial aid spending per high school graduate and the share of total aid that is need-based. ASAP’s model is built around eliminating financial barriers for low-income students, so states with an existing orientation toward need-based aid may see ASAP as compatible with their existing priorities.

🡺 New Mexico also provides the most state financial aid per high school graduate, but only a small share of that aid is distributed based on students’ financial need.

To sum it up: This case can work in states that already invest significantly in higher education and are looking to ensure those investments are producing measurable gains in student completion. This case may also work in states that invest at relatively low rates compared to others, as ASAP represents an increase in spending that has concrete evidence supporting it.

Reversing enrollment and completion declines

In this case, we first look at undergraduate enrollment trends at public two-year institutions over recent years. States experiencing sustained enrollment declines face growing pressure to make the most of every student who walks through the door, which is precisely where ASAP’s retention effects are most relevant. States with steeper enrollment declines have the most urgency and the strongest case for a model proven to keep students enrolled and on track.

🡺 Oregon, for instance, has experienced one of the largest declines in community college enrollment in the US between 2019 and 2023, making improving student retention not just an academic imperative but a financial one.

Next, we examine retention and graduation rates across public two-year institutions. These measures reveal how well states are currently serving students once they enroll. States with below-average rates have the most room to grow, and the clearest argument that the status quo isn’t working.

🡺 Oregon also has a relatively low three-year graduation rate that falls well below the national average, suggesting that students and institutions could benefit from ASAP’s comprehensive support model.

To sum it up: This case works best in states where public two-year institutions are struggling to retain students and where improving completion rates would have meaningful consequences for enrollment stability, institutional health, and student outcomes.

Building on policy readiness

In this case, we provide useful context about how the policy environment and key stakeholders are already aligned around student success efforts, and where state stakeholders can build on existing momentum rather than starting from scratch.

We first look at whether a state has the structural and policy conditions that may make them more ready for ASAP implementation. This includes whether the state has adopted policies such as outcomes-based funding, community college promise programs, developmental education reform, and statewide transfer pathways. Next, we consider the extent to which state and system leaders have already engaged with the ASAP replication team specifically. States where system chancellors, higher education agency staff, or legislative champions have already expressed interest, or taken early steps toward partnership, can move more quickly from exploration to implementation.

🡺 North Carolina, which recently adopted a statewide ASAP model, was highly engaged with the CUNY team. The state also had several policy factors to build from, including a coordinated community college system, a system office with capacity to support statewide data reporting and policy guidance, prior Guided Pathways implementation across many community colleges, and existing ASAP replication efforts through Boost and TrACE.

To sum it up: This case works best in states where there is already policy momentum, system-level engagement, or related student success infrastructure that can support ASAP implementation or scaling. Unlike the other cases, this case is less about the size of the need and more about readiness, engagement, and feasibility.

What comes next

The casemaking data tool lets anyone explore the metrics behind each case for a state, compare those metrics to other states, and identify where the strongest arguments lie. These four cases are a starting point, not a checklist. The right argument for a state depends on who the advocate is trying to convince—legislators, governors, system boards, institutional leaders—and what those stakeholders care most about.

For anyone considering bringing ASAP to their state by the 2027-2028 academic year, the ASAP National Replication Collaborative’s Student Success Action Lab offers a structured planning opportunity to move from exploration to action. In the Action Lab, participants will engage with all three tools we created. The casemaking data tool helps participants understand which arguments for ASAP may be most relevant in their state context. The ROI tool can be used to estimate costs and benefits under different implementation scenarios, including the number of institutions participating, the number of students served, and whether certain staff lines or program costs are shared across a system in a coordinated implementation. The PowerPoint deck then brings together the casemaking data and ROI outputs into a comprehensive, evidence-based narrative that states and systems can use with their own stakeholders.

[1] High-opportunity jobs are defined as occupations that are above the state median on three measures: wage, projected growth, and job openings. This metric sums average annual openings across these jobs, then scales the number per 1,000 working-age residents in the state (ages 25–64).