1 of 12

COLLEGE PROMISE:

WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS

Denisa Gándara

Associate Professor, Educational Leadership and Policy

Elizabeth Bell

Assistant Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs

2 of 12

IMPACTS OF COLLEGE PROMISE PROGRAMS

3 of 12

Impact on Student Outcomes

Effect – We DO see this effect.

Large increases in college enrollment (Bartik et al., 2021; Bell, 2021; Bifulco et al., 2019; Carruthers & Fox, 2016; Gándara & Li, 2020; Gurantz, 2020; Nguyen, 2020; Page et al., 2019; Swanson & Ritter, 2020)

Can be larger for low-income students, Black and Hispanic Students (Anderson et al., 2023; Gándara & Li, 2020)

Potential Effects – We CAN see these effects.

Shift Students from Non-Eligible Institutions to Promise-Eligible Institutions

(Bell 2021; Carruthers & Fox, 2016; Page et al., 2019; Perna et al., 2018; Gurantz, 2022)

Increase GPA & Persistence (Bifulco et al., 2019; Page et al., 2019; Swanson et al., 2020; Bell 2021)
Improve Transfer (Bell, 2021; Bell & Gándara, 2021)
Increase Bachelors & Associates Degree Attainment (Bartik et al., 2021; Bell, 2021;

Bell & Gándara, 2021; Swanson & Ritter, 2020; Harris et al., 2018)

Reduce Student Loan Debt (Odle et al., 2021)
Increase Wages, though effects are inconsistent across studies (Carruthers et al., 2020;

Borg et al., 2021; Hershbein 2021)

Let’s start by talking about the impacts on student outcomes and then we will transition to think about WHY college promise programs have been shown to be transformational to students and even to communities and colleges themselves.

First, there is a very consistent finding across programs and across studies that promise programs lead to large and significant increases in college enrollment. This literature in some cases also shows that the enrollment increases are often larger for Black and Hispanic students and in some programs low-income students are also disproportionately impacted, like the Milwaukee Technical college program.

On the other hand, we also know that some of those large increases in enrollment in college come from students who would have otherwise gone to a 4-year college and instead choose to go to a 2-year college first. This displacement of enrollment would be problematic if we didn’t see corresponding increases in 4-year college outcomes, but actually in the only study that examines that question we find increases in bachelors degree completion as well. There is still the question of whether students lose credits in the transfer process which highlights how important it is to have transfer articulation agreements so we can minimize credit loss. But there is also another conversation to be had about affordability that I’m working on right now—perhaps those students that start at a 4-year college actually owe less in student loan debt? My preliminary results suggest that in Oklahoma, this could be the case.

In the last few years, we’ve started to see converging evidence that these programs are effective at improving college enrollment, persistence, transfer, degree attainment, and even reductions in student loan debt

They do this, not only by making college more affordable, but by:

- Reducing uncertainty around costs for students

Some programs also provide high school students support applying for college and financial aid
Many programs provide non – tuition supports to help students navigate and succeed in college

4 of 12

Why do college promise programs improve student outcomes?

Can decrease financial burden
Can enhance perceptions of affordability
Can reduce financial uncertainty
Can make college attendance an expectation
Can improve college-going culture and marshal more college-going supports in high school
Can provide additional supports (academic, navigational, career-related) in college

5 of 12

KEY PROMISE �DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

6 of 12

Key Design Considerations

Eligibility Requirements

Institutions Included

Scholarship Structure

Non-Tuition Supports

Program Financing

Single college, Group of college partners, Only public two-year colleges, All public colleges (two- and four-year), All non-profit colleges (public and private).

First Dollar –Applied to tuition bill before all other aid (stacks onto other aid); Last Dollar –Applied to tuition bill after all other aid; Middle Dollar – Applied to tuition bill after some other aid; Last Dollar Plus –Applied to tuition bill after all other aid plus a stipend regardless of other aid.

Books and other course materials, Transportation, Grants/Stipends, Academic Supports (tutoring, advising, learning communities, designated counselor/advisor), Student Services (peer mentoring, success coaching, workshops), Career/Workforce Supports, Priority Enrollment, Cohort Models, Summer Engagement Activities.

Financial need, Merit (GPA, attendance, etc.), US citizenship, No degree earned, Minimum credit hour enrollment, Community service or internship, No loan default, Avoiding illegal drug use, Postgraduate residency requirement, Recency of high school graduation

Public Entities – local/state appropriates, taxes, lottery revenues, interest earning on public endowments, federal aid; Private Entities – businesses, philanthropic foundations, individual donors; College Funding – college foundations/development.

Not all programs are equally effective

And that’s because Promise programs vary considerably in their designs

For example, these programs differ in:

The students who are eligible (for example recent high school graduates only or also older adult students)
In the steps students have to take to become eligible (for example – having to complete a certain number of community service hours or fill out forms that re separate from the college application and the standard financial aid form)
In the types of institutions where students can use their scholarship (only two-year institutions or also four-year institutions)
In whether the students can stack on other financial aid
And in the non-tuition supports that are part of the promise program

These are just some of the ways in which these programs differ.

7 of 12

REDUCING ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN

8 of 12

Administrative Burden

Learning Costs: What are the informational barriers/areas of confusion?

Compliance Costs: What are the eligibility/paperwork requirements leading to onerous experiences?

Psychological Costs: What are the psychological burdens?

Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2019). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.

Gándara, D., Acevedo, R. M., Cervantes, D., & Quiroz, M. A. (2023). Advancing a framework of racialized administrative burdens in higher education policy. The Journal of Higher Education, 1-29.

When I talk about administrative burden, what I mean are all of the hassles that people face in trying to access programs, including 3 types of costs.

Learning costs:

To walk you through the framework, I’ll draw from my work examining administrative burden in the Oklahoma’s Promise program. In terms of learning costs, in my interviews and surveys of students, parents, and counselors, it became clear that many students didn’t even know about the program. The state relied on a decentralized network of counselors to disseminate info on the program, but some schools, disproportionately in Black and Brown neighborhoods didn’t have a single school counselor. Thus, one of the learning costs is program awareness.
There were also areas of confusion—for instance, as part of the OK Promise students have to maintain a 3.0 GPA in the core curriculum but many students and families thought that the GPA requirement was an overall GPA requirement which led to serious confusion and some students losing access. There was also an issue understanding the income requirements because it wasn’t clear if it was Adjusted Gross Income or total income, which led to serious confusion over whether students and families were eligible to apply.

Compliance costs:

In order to comply with the OK Promise, students have to fill out significant paperwork, including submitting citizenship documentation and income verification which is often one of the reasons that even icome eligible students don’t gain access to the program.

Psychological costs:

In addition, some students (esp DACA students) feared submitting income information for their parents because they were worried the government would use that information to deport them. These are all examples of a scenario in which the design of the program, and specifically the level of burden can matter.

There are important asymmetries that may create uncertainty and even fear in students when considering the cost of college

9 of 12

How can we reduce uncertainty and informational barriers?

Provide clear and simple messaging that students can attend college tuition free
Offer extensive communication
Avoid misleading students

Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2019). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.

Gándara, D., Acevedo, R. M., Cervantes, D., & Quiroz, M. A. (2023). Advancing a framework of racialized administrative burdens in higher education policy. The Journal of Higher Education, 1-29.

10 of 12

How can we streamline or eliminate onerous requirements?

Reduce paperwork burdens and consider automatic enrollment
Provide staffing/counselors to navigate requirements

Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2019). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.

Gándara, D., Acevedo, R. M., Cervantes, D., & Quiroz, M. A. (2023). Advancing a framework of racialized administrative burdens in higher education policy. The Journal of Higher Education, 1-29.

11 of 12

How can we minimize psychological burdens?

Reduce students’ fear, anxiety, & feelings of stigma
Avoid overly restricting choice (institutions, majors)
Promote sense of belonging
Ensure sustainability of aid

Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2019). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.

Gándara, D., Acevedo, R. M., Cervantes, D., & Quiroz, M. A. (2023). Advancing a framework of racialized administrative burdens in higher education policy. The Journal of Higher Education, 1-29.

12 of 12

THANK YOU!

Denisa Gándara denisa.gandara@austin.utexas.edu

Elizabeth Bell elizabeth.bell@austin.utexas.edu