University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Fulfillment of a regional college promise: lessons from the first year, first cohort

(USC Thesis Other)

Fulfillment of a regional college promise: lessons from the first year, first cohort

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE

Fulfillment of a Regional College Promise: Lessons from the First Year, First Cohort

By Eduardo Franco

A Master’s Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the
USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL COUNSELING
May 2019

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 2
ABSTRACT
During the last few years, regional place-based scholarships have expanded opportunities for
students to attain a higher education within their local community. Often named “Promise”
programs, regional place-based scholarships offer tuition benefits as well as contribute to a
college-going culture within high schools, colleges, and universities. The message of “free
tuition for all” is marketable for institutions and easy for students and families to understand,
thereby increasing access to higher education as Promise programs have now spread across the
nation. What remains to be seen is whether that access translates to student retention, persistence,
and completion of academic goals. This study focused on a recently implemented Promise
regional place-based scholarship program at a community college in Southern California.
Through a mixed-methods approach, the outcomes and experiences of a cohort of students within
the institution’s first Promise program were analyzed and compared to a non-Promise, first year
cohort from the year prior to Promise implementation. Academic performance indicators were
analyzed to measure the effect (if any) of Promise on enrollment, academic performance, and
retention. Qualitative interviews with a sample of young, Latinx, and academically persistent
Promise students supplemented cohort-level data and gave insight into student experiences with
the program. Initial findings showed a large growth in enrollment, and statistically similar
academic performance and retention rates between the two cohorts, as well as immense gratitude
from students who received Promise benefits. This study will add to the growing literature on
recent college promise programs, by forming a positive connection between promise programs
and academic support services specifically for these new students. It is the hope that findings will
be able to inform ongoing program development to support retention and academic performance,
as well as inform policy decisions regarding Promise programs and access to higher education.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………. 3

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES…………………………………………………………. 4

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….. 5

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………….. 15

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS……………………………………………………………. 26

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA…...……………………………………………………………….. 39

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS……….. 62

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………. 72

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ……………………………………………….... 76

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 4

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1. Relationship between Regional College Promise and First Year Program (FYP)… 28
Table 1. Eligibility requirements and benefits for receiving the Regional College Promise
scholarship, and for being in the First Year Program……………………………………….... 29
Table 2. Indicators used to measure the effect of Promise on student enrollment, performance,
and persistence, cohorts 2016-17 and 2017-18………………………………………….......... 31
Table 3. Age demographics and other findings of First Year Program, cohorts 2016-17 and 2017-
18……………………………………………………………………………………………... 40
Table 4: Change in enrollment of First Year Program, 2016-17 to 2017-18…………………. 43
Table 5. Change in First Year Program enrollment from feeder high schools in service area that
received outreach services, 2016-17 to 2017-18……………………………………………… 44
Table 6. Initial findings and statistical significance of academic performance of First Year
Program/Promise cohorts, academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18…………………………….. 45
Table 7. Change in percentage of First Year Program/Promise cohorts not in good standing after
Fall semester of their first year, 2016-17 to 2017-18…………………………………………. 47
Table 8. Semester-to-semester (Fall-to-Spring) and year-to-year (Fall-to-Fall) retention rates for
First Year Program/Promise cohorts, 2016-17 and 2017-18…………………………………... 50
Table 9. Characteristics of student interview participants……………………………………... 54

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Over the last decade, and especially in the past few years, the establishment of regional
“place-based scholarships” has increased opportunities for students to attend higher education
institutions across the United States (Perna & Leigh, 2017). Although many variations exist, a
regional place-based scholarship typically offers the financial benefits of waived or discounted
tuition to students living in a particular region or city, and/or attending a specific K-12 school or
college district, who choose to attend a designated institution or district/system (Miller-Adams,
2015). Other benefits may also be associated with this type of scholarship, but the definition of
“place-based scholarship” referred to in this study is one where the scholarship offers financial,
tuition-based benefits. According to Miller-Adams (2015), place-based scholarship programs
“seek to transform their communities” by increasing college access and encouraging “a college-
going culture in both the K-12 system and community as a whole, and support[ing] local
economic development” (p.11).
In the public community college system, regional place-based scholarships are often
called “Promise” programs, due in part to nearly universal eligibility for program benefits. There
is a guarantee that funds will be available to students who meet the requirements to receive them.
The word “Promise” has been adopted by community college place-based scholarships since the
first scholarship of its kind was established in 2005, the Kalamazoo Promise (Perna & Leigh,
2017). Since 2005, the number of Promise programs at the community college level have
expanded to over 200 all over the nation (College Promise, 2017). Requirements to qualify for
community college Promise programs tend to be non-competitive, in the sense that many of
these programs only require local connection to a region and proof of graduation from a local
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 6
high school (or the equivalent, such as a GED) instead of a grade point average requirement.
However, some programs do have other and more selective requirements (Perna & Leigh, 2017).
This study focuses on place-based scholarships at the community college, specifically those that
are labeled as “Promise” programs. The terms “Promise program” and “Promise scholarship”
will be used interchangeably throughout this study, and all further references to “Promise” will
refer specifically to programs within public community college systems, unless stated otherwise.
Retention-focused services for scholarship recipients are sometimes integrated into
Promise programs, although these were not originally included in the first Promise programs.
These can range from mandatory support services such as academic counseling, to a guarantee of
on-campus employment that provides students with opportunities for additional income (Miller-
Adams, 2015; Spradlin, Rutkowski, Burroughs, & Lang, 2010). A common retention-focused
service at the community college is a first year experience program designed to help transition
students into college. There is an abundance of literature on first year experience programs at the
community college (see Literature Review in Chapter Two), but because the influx of Promise
scholarships is recent, there is not yet much research that specifically connects first year
experience programs to Promise programs. Academic support services associated with many
Promise scholarships are not necessarily unique to the scholarship program itself, but can build
off of and connect students to existing programs at the institution. In this sense, Promise can
attract students to a school and support services such as academic counseling can help students
persist and meet their educational and career goals.
In addition to financial and academic benefits received by students, Promise scholarships
have the benefit of giving institutions a simpler and more uniform outreach, recruitment, and
marketing strategy for enrollment purposes which tends to be: “(The) Promise will pay for your
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 7
tuition at our school.” Because community college enrollment has steadily been on the decline
across the nation since 2011 (Juszkiewicz, 2016), Promise programs can help colleges to recruit
students and boost enrollment from their surrounding high schools. Compared to financial aid
jargon within community college systems, such as the “Board of Governors Fee Waiver” and the
“Cal Grant A/B/C” in the state of California, Promise is a much more user-friendly term for
students, parents, and community members to understand and for colleges to market. This can be
especially important in the context of outreaching to first-generation students and families from
immigrant and/or working-class backgrounds, including high school students and adult learners.
Because Promise programs tend be neither merit-based nor need-based (Perna & Leigh, 2017),
the same messaging can be outreached to students of all socioeconomic statuses.
It should also be noted that Promise programs are typically “last dollar” awards given
after need-based state and federal aid is awarded and exhausted (Perna & Leigh, 2017). This
means that students from mid- to higher socioeconomic backgrounds can financially benefit the
most from community college Promise programs since they are less likely to qualify for need-
based aid, while low-income students might actually benefit the least in terms of financial benefit
received (Smith, 2018). Although students from low socioeconomic backgrounds may not
financially benefit as much from “last dollar” Promise programs, the user-friendly and universal
message behind Promise may play a role in whether or not this type of student enrolls at an
institution, or even believes that college is a financial possibility for them and their families.
Research Questions and Methodology
This study examines a Regional College Promise program (Promise) at a community
college in the Southern California area, by looking at the outcomes and experiences of its
inaugural cohort of students during the first academic year of implementation (2017-2018).
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 8
Through a mixed methods approach that relies on an analysis of performance indicators and
student interviews, this study seeks to understand if Promise and its associated benefits had any
effect on student outcomes and student experiences relating to college enrollment, persistence,
and success. This study examines a Promise program within a multi-campus, public community
college district. The study focuses on Promise implementation, student outcomes, and student
experiences at one specific institution within the multi-campus district.
It is important to note that Promise students at this institution are automatically enrolled
into the First Year Program (FYP), and that FYP is the primary provider of academic support for
all Promise students. FYP provides academic counseling, reserved course sections exclusively
for first year students in the program, and other benefits to its first year students who meet
certain program requirements. However, the FYP program has existed for several years before
Promise implementation, and has serviced several cohorts of first year students before Promise
implementation. Thus, the study compares the first cohort of Promise students (who were also
part of FYP), to the last cohort of FYP-only students before Promise implementation.
The research questions that guided this study were:
• What were the first-year outcomes of the Regional College Promise for its first cohort of
students at a specified institution, in terms of enrollment, academic performance and
retention? (The indicators used to measure these outcomes are listed and explained
further in Chapter Three). How do these outcomes compare to the previous First Year
Program cohort, one year before the Regional College Promise was implemented?
• What were the Regional College Promise students’ experiences in terms of their
decisions to enroll, motivation to succeed, and overall performance at the institution? Did
the Regional College Promise affect these experiences?
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 9
To answer the first two questions, I analyzed a number of indicators using a comparative
approach between the two cohorts: the inaugural Regional College Promise cohort (academic
year 2017-18) and the First Year Program cohort that came before them (academic year 2016-
17). Indicators were chosen to serve as proxy measures for college enrollment, persistence, and
success. Where appropriate, some indicators were disaggregated by Fall and Spring semester of
the examined academic year to more closely understand semester-to-semester performance and
persistence. Since the only difference between the 2017-2018 and 2016-2017 FYP cohorts is
Promise implementation and the student knowledge that they are receiving these benefits, it is
the hope that a comparative analysis of indicators between the two cohorts will provide a basis to
measure the effect of Promise. These specific indicators are listed and discussed in Chapter
Three.
To answer the second two questions, I conducted structured interviews with first-time
recipients of Promise benefits, who completed their first academic year in 2017-2018. Student
participants were chosen to be as reflective of the student population of Promise recipients at this
institution as possible, which is predominantly Latino/a (hereafter referred to as Latinx) and
between 17 and 19 years of age. Efforts were made to include a range of student outcomes,
including students who have and have not persisted onto completion of their educational goals,
and students who are and are not in good academic standing with the institution. All interviews
are structured according to Institutional Review Board (IRB) standards as well as ethical
standards defined by the American Counseling Association (ACA). The interview protocol is
listed in Appendix A. The interview process attempted to include students who are not in good
academic standing or who have not persisted towards completion of their educational goals,
including those that have not returned to the institution. Using Rendón (1994) as a theoretical
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 10
framework, efforts were made to validate students’ experiences within the structured interviews
and inform them of institutional resources and options to complete their educational goals. This
approach expanded beyond the notion of simply asking students to share their experiences
without a reciprocal exchange of information or attention to how their educational experiences
may elicit emotional responses. Given the sensitivities that may have risen from this procedure
as well as the intricacies of completing educational goals, interviews were conducted under the
supervision of an academic counselor at the institution.
Statement of the Problem
In 2016 alone, 13 community college Promise programs were established in the state of
California (Rauner, 2016). As of 2016, 34 states had some sort of “free college” legislation under
consideration, pending final action, or fully enacted (Pingel, Parker, & Sisneros, 2016). Given
the recent proliferation of community college Promise programs across the United States and
especially in California, there is much research to do on whether these programs have moved the
needle on student indicators relating to college persistence and success, not just enrollment.
While these programs should be commended for their efforts to increase college access and
affordability in their local communities, they should also be scrutinized to see how they
implement services so that recruited students are retained. This is becoming more significant as
more programs are developed and as this model is moving to a universal form of community
college access nationwide. Furthermore, there is a need to put students at the forefront of
program evaluation, and to consider not only their feedback but their perceptions of how these
programs work, what they offer students, and what they deliver to students.

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 11
Purpose and Significance of the Study
Place-based scholarships such as the Promise program can give a source of hope to
students, especially scholarships based in the community college system. The community college
is one of the great equalizers of our capitalistic society, one that can provide a “fresh start” as an
open-access system in higher education. Equally as important is the notion that a Promise
program can ease financial burden off of students and their families, at least for the first year of
college, and even if students might otherwise qualify for other forms of financial aid. It may not
matter that Promise is a “last dollar” award, if the student believes that Promise is what waives
their tuition, and if the other forms of financial aid are not as easy to understand.
Existing literature on financial aid shows that students’ perceived ability to pay for
college and whether or not they receive financial aid has an effect on college persistence and
completion, especially for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Allen, 1999; Cabrera,
Stampen, & Hansen, 1990; Terkla, 1985). It may follow that Promise, or any student perception
that includes a full tuition waiver could make a difference in whether or not they enroll in the
institution and are motivated to succeed. Due to the fact that many of the Promise programs and
first year programs (and specifically, the Promise program being studied) are marketed towards
recent high school graduates, Promise can have large implications for future generations of
students and our national labor force of college-educated individuals. Enrolling students into
college as soon as they graduate high school is a step towards shaping their educational
trajectory early in life, but may be in vain if programs to help them are not as comprehensive or
student-centered as they could be.

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 12
Theoretical Framework
This study is framed around Rendón’s validation theory, which considers how students
from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds may doubt their academic abilities and may
benefit from “an enabling, confirming and supportive process initiated by in- and out-of-class
agents that foster academic and interpersonal development” (Patton et al., 2016; Rendón, 1994,
p. 46). The student population at the institution of study is majority Latinx, which reflects both
the demographics of the local high school district and the city as a whole. In addition to racial
and ethnic status, Rendón’s theory of validation has been applied to first-generation college
students (Alsonso & Solorzano, 2015). Again, the student population at the institution of study,
and in particular within the First Year Program being studied, is majority first-generation. The
intersection of racial minority and first-generation ensures that students benefit from validation
theory. Rendón suggests that validation may be most powerful when students receive it early on
during their college experience (Patton et al., 2016). The first year of a student’s college
experience is formative, and this study will look at how a program designed to support first year
students actually showed results.
Validation theory will be most useful during the qualitative data collection process, since
this study’s IRB approval process included a designation of conversational interviews where
students may be validated by the interviewer when they are talking about their academic history.
Questions about academic performance and persistence are personal and may elicit emotional
responses from students if they are asked to discuss a less-than-positive college experience. Even
if a student had a positive experience, validation could still benefit their overall development in
college by confirming that they are on the right track and that they should be recognized and
celebrated for their efforts and success (Patton et al., 2016). Lastly, the practice of validation
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 13
aligns with counseling theories that emphasize a positive regard, communication of empathy, and
maintaining a positive relationship between student and counselor (Sharf, 2016). Given that
academic counseling is a large part of community college student support services, validation
theory and counseling should go hand-in-hand, especially when working with a majority-
minority and first-generation student population.
Overall Organization of Thesis
This thesis is organized into five chapters: 1) Introduction, 2) Literature Review, 3)
Research Design and Methods, 4) Presentation of Data Collected, and 5) Analysis/Implications
of Findings. Chapter Two gives a comprehensive review of literature that is relevant to regional
place-based scholarships at the community college, expansion of these programs to a statewide
level, student support services that are integrated into the programs, and the effect of financial
aid on student college-going and persistence. This chapter also includes a discussion of
theoretical frameworks used in previous studies that have analyzed college promise programs, as
well as how Rendón’s validation theory fits into this particular study.
Chapter Three focuses on research design and methods that will be used to operationalize
variables of interest, and collect and analyze data. The components of this mixed methods
approach will be further defined in Chapter Three, along with further explanations of why these
methods were chosen for this study. Site demographics, site selection, interviewee recruitment,
and other variables will be defined, as well as the interview protocol and procedures, and the
process of obtaining quantitative data will also be discussed. All data will be evaluated for
trustworthiness, research bias, and other limitations that may affect any conclusions drawn from
data collected.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 14
Chapter Four presents the data collected, including a comparison of quantitative data
between the two aforementioned cohorts of students, as well as the qualitative data from student
interviews. All quantitative data will be at the cohort level, and all qualitative data will be at the
student level. The data collected will give insight into both the Promise and FYP program
components and benefits as evaluated by student outcomes and narratives. Finally, Chapter Five
restates the purpose and goal of the study, as well as analyzes the findings from Chapter Four to
give a preliminary program analysis of both Promise and FYP at this institution. These findings
are compared to previous, similar studies on Promise and first year programs, and implications
for further research and policy are discussed. The significance of this study, its findings, and
their implications serve as the concluding thoughts.

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of Existing Research Types
Although Promise programs are spreading throughout all types of higher education institutions,
they are still relatively new programs, which means research on program evaluation and its effect on
students is limited (Miller-Adams, 2015; Perna & Leigh, 2017). As discussed in further detail below, the
majority of studies that have evaluated Promise programs have focused on quantitative methods to
measure program effects on college choice, college-going, performance, retention, and graduation. The
specific methods used include a range of regression analyses, such as difference-in-difference analysis,
chi-squared tests, and t-tests to measure the impact of the Promise scholarship on various student
indicators (Carruthers & Fox, 2015; Taylor & Lepper, 2018). Among these quantitative studies, cohorts
of Promise students were typically compared to non-Promise students at the same institution and
statistical differences were observed between the two cohorts over a period of several years. A review of
the available literature shows very limited use of qualitative methods that focus on student perceptions
and experiences as participants of their local Promise program, which indicates a gap in literature that
this study will attempt to fill through a mixed-methods approach (further discussed in Chapter Three).
Specifically, the research question being answered in this study seeks to explore the student experience
regarding whether or not the Regional College Promise affected their decisions to enroll, motivation to
succeed, and overall performance at the institution.
Furthermore, comprehensive analyses of over 200 place-based scholarships that use the term
“Promise” have found a significant diversity in program structure and components, including: student
eligibility requirements, award type (last-dollar vs. first-dollar, full vs. partial, etc.), state sponsorship,
and types of participating institutions where the funds may be used (Miller-Adams, 2015; Perna &
Leigh, 2017). Mirroring the diversity that exists among different Promise program structures, research
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 16
studies on Promise scholarships also vary from larger-scale, comparative, cluster analyses of all Promise
programs in the nation to smaller-scale, descriptive analyses of one local Promise program (Perna &
Leigh, 2017). This chapter will summarize a literature review of program analyses relating to college
promise programs across the United States, organized by: 1) history of local college promise programs,
2) expansion of local college promise to state-level programs, 3) student support services for first year
students at the community college level, and 4) a discussion on the literature on financial aid and how
this affects students’ college enrollment and persistence.
History of Local College Promise Programs
The first college promise program of its kind was the Kalamazoo Promise, which was created in
2005 through donations from a group of anonymous donors and a partnership with local school districts
(Miller-Adams, 2015). The scholarship was to be available “in perpetuity” to any student who graduated
from the Kalamazoo Public Schools (KPS) district, “met minimum enrollment and residency
requirements,” and chose to attend in-state, public institutions of higher education (Miller-Adams,
2015). Scholarship amounts for the Kalamazoo Promise were and are allocated based on the amount of
time that students have been enrolled and residing in the KPS district (Miller-Adams, 2015). In 2005,
these were very unorthodox practices in administering scholarship programs, given that most
scholarship programs at the time allocated funds based on merit or need, not on geographic location
(Miller-Adams, 2009). Unlike most subsequent promise programs, the Kalamazoo Promise is a “first-
dollar” award that students receive before the calculation of other state and federal grant aid. This means
that low-income students can benefit from Promise and non-Promise aid to pay for room and board or
other college costs in addition to tuition and fees (Miller-Adams, 2015). Studies on the original
Kalamazoo Promise have found that the program has led to a reduction in school suspensions, an
increase in college credits attempted, and a “33 percent increase in college completion among
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 17
Kalamazoo students, with especially large benefits among minority and low-income students (Bartik &
Lachowska, 2012; Bartik, Hershbein, & Lachowska, 2015; Hershbein, 2013).
Following the establishment of the Kalamazoo Promise, other communities across the
United States have implemented similar Promise programs, and the number of Promise programs
nationwide has increased from one in 2005 to over 280 in 2017 (Perna & Leigh, 2017). After
nationwide media coverage and interest in the Kalamazoo Promise program structure,
communities all over the United States began announcing similar promise programs as early as
2006, the year after the Kalamazoo Promise was implemented (Miller-Adams, 2015).
Subsequent promise programs tend to differ from the original Kalamazoo Promise, with the
majority of programs structured as “last-dollar” awards that cover tuition and fees only after
other federal and state grant aid has been exhausted, and with restrictions on using the
scholarship at a certain type of institution, mainly at community colleges (Miller-Adams, 2015).
Recent studies have evaluated these programs’ effects on student access and success,
specifically at the community college. Pluhta & Penny (2013) analyzed a Promise program
offered by a community college “in a low-income neighborhood of a large city with a high
proportion of African American and other students of color” (p. 723). Findings showed a high
rate of “quarter to quarter retention” from students who received the scholarship, but few of these
students had placed into college-level English and math courses, and “academic progress at the
end of the first year was modest” (Pluhta & Penny, 2013, p. 723). Taylor & Lepper (2018)
examined a community college promise program, although the student demographics at this
institution were predominantly white and located within a smaller city. These authors found
positive effects of the promise program, including a statistically higher grade point average in the
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 18
first semester when compared to non-promise students, but they found no statistical significance
in semester-to-semester retention between the two student groups (Taylor & Lepper, 2018).
Expansion to Statewide Programs
In 2014, the Tennessee Promise became “the most expansive Promise program to date” by
covering tuition and fees at any community college in the state of Tennessee for all students in the state
(Miller-Adams, 2015, p. 14). This was the first time that a Promise program became state-sponsored,
and the first time since the mid-1900’s that any state offered free community college tuition to all of its
residents (Miller-Adams, 2015). Just four years after the Tennessee Promise was implemented, 16 states
now have fully implemented statewide Promise programs for community college enrollment (Mishory,
2018). In the year after Promise implementation, Tennessee had the highest increase of any state in the
percentage of students who applied for federal financial aid (Jameson-Meledy, 2016). Furthermore,
while community college enrollment throughout Tennessee sharply increased in the year after Promise
implementation, freshmen, in-state enrollment at many of the state’s public four-year universities
declined during this same time (Walker Clark, 2017; Rainwater, 2015; Tamburin, 2015). It is
inconclusive whether or not this decline in university enrollment was caused by the expanded
availability of free community college enrollment, or if other factors contributed more (Walker Clark,
2017; Rainwater, 2015; Tamburin, 2015).
The recent establishment of state-sponsored Promise programs provides a much larger scope and
potential for impact of these types of programs. Most notably for the purposes of this study, the state of
California passed Assembly Bill 19 (Santiago) in 2017, which created a statewide California College
Promise program to allocate funding for first-time, full-time students’ tuition and fees who met certain
eligibility requirements. California became the 16th state to implement a state-sponsored college
promise program, only three years after the first state-sponsored program in Tennessee (Powell, 2018).
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 19
The recent movement towards statewide promise programs is encouraging in terms of the access it can
provide students, however, more research is necessary to analyze the effects of state-sponsored financial
aid programs and how they integrate with previously established local promise programs. It is also worth
examining how academic support programs are integrated into these promise programs, such as
academic counseling. This is an important student retention feature that much of the literature on
promise program evaluation tends to overlook or not discuss in depth.
Support Services at the Community College for First Year Students
A significant amount of literature exists on first year student support programs at the community
college level. Barbatis (2010) interviewed a large group of students who participated in a First Year
Experience (FYE) program and included a wide range of students who were program participants at
some point. These participants included students that persisted onto their second year and students who
dropped out during their first year. Barbatis (2010) found several factors that contributed to students’
completion or non-completion, including precollege characteristics, social involvement, external college
support, and academic integration. Similarly, Hawley & Harris (2005) used a statistical model to predict
whether or not first year students would persist onto their second year based on certain student factors.
These factors included the number of developmental classes they had to take before reaching college
level coursework, whether or not the student was African American or Latino, and the length of time the
student planned on spending at a community college (Hawley & Harris, 2005). Based on which factors
the student possessed, the authors’ model accurately predicted student persistence or non-persistence
over 80% of the time, and the factors listed above tended to have a negative effect on students’
persistence. The factors that contribute to a student’s decision to persist onto their second year may vary
by student population, and should be closely considered when college administrators are designing
programs to increase access at their specific institution.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 20
Existing literature on college promise programs does not explicitly mention the relationship
between college promise and targeted academic support for promise recipients. It focuses mostly on how
students financially benefit from the program, and how this program may affect students’ academic
performance and retention. Miller-Adams (2015) has found that some college promise programs
integrate mandatory support services such as academic counseling, for students to continue to qualify for
financial benefits. However, this analysis of mandatory support services does not specifically look at
how these support services directly affect student performance and persistence. This is another gap in
the literature that this study attempts to contribute to by analyzing the relationship between student
performance/retention and a first year academic support program that is associated with college promise.
Lastly, the support services that integrated within college promise programs are not exclusively
academic in nature. Although not at the community college level, the Purdue Promise at Purdue
University comes with a guarantee of on-campus employment that provides students with opportunities
for additional income (Spradlin, Rutkowski, Burroughs, & Lang, 2010). This is especially significant for
the students from low-income backgrounds, as the Purdue Promise is a last-dollar award that on its own
may not financially benefit students who qualify for state and federal financial aid.
The Effects of Financial Aid on Performance and Persistence
Many studies have considered the effect that motivation has on students’ ability to persist and
complete their educational goals. Allen (1999) found that whether or not a student received financial aid
had a significant effect on their grade point average during their first of college. Along with precollege
academic ability and parents’ education, financial aid was one of three variables that had a significant
impact on both academic performance and persistence (Allen, 1999). Terkla (1985) used a model of
student persistence that included many variables, such as a student’s occupational goal, high school
GPA, and the “institutional character” (p. 14). When controlling for other variables, Terkla (1985) found
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 21
that “56.5% of those receiving financial aid were more likely to complete their degrees as compared to
non-recipients whose chance of completion was only about 43.5% (p. 15). Lastly, Cabrera et al. (1990)
incorporated Tinto’s (1975) student integration theory to explore the effects of “ability to pay” for
college on persistence. The authors found a significant relationship between students’ ability to pay for
college and whether or not they would withdraw from the institution. Specifically, the higher a student’s
socioeconomic status, the less likely the student was to withdraw (Cabrera et al., 1990). This is a
significant point when considering institutions with high populations of students with low
socioeconomic statuses, such as the institution where the Regional College Promise in this study is being
analyzed.
A final point to consider is the distinction between first-dollar and last-dollar awards, and how
this program structure may impact low-income students. As mentioned previously, most promise
programs tend to be last-dollar awards where financial benefits of waived tuition are only offered after a
student has exhausted their federal and state aid. Recent reports on “tuition-free” college programs
indicate that students with the most financial need are not actually receiving any financial benefits from
the program, because promise programs only cover tuition and fees that are already paid for by federal
and state grants (Jones & Berger, 2018; Poutre & Voight, 2018). Low-income students may still have a
large amount of unmet financial need, such as costs associated with housing, transportation, textbooks,
and other supplies (Smith, 2018). Program administrators do not contest the fact that last-dollar
programs do not financially benefit low-income students, but instead focus on the larger scale benefits of
college promise programs. The Tennessee Higher Education Commission (2018) found that the
percentage of low-income students attending college in Tennessee jumped from 45 percent to 54 percent
in the first year after the Tennessee Promise was implemented. Although the majority of these low-
income students did not receive financial benefits from Tennessee Promise, they assert that the optimal
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 22
policy focus should not be on the dollars awarded to students, but instead the optimal access created for
students (Smith, 2018). Other studies have found that one of the most significant benefits of college
promise programs is the simple message that can be communicated to students, which demystifies the
financial aid process by guaranteeing that tuition and fees will be paid for regardless of where the money
comes from (Mishory, 2018). As one study on the Kalamazoo Promise found, “there is now a common
language for the entire community and school system” regarding college affordability and ability to
access (Miron, Jones, & Kelaher-Young, 2012). Following this idea, this particular study helps to
understand how the concept of a common financial aid language might positively impact college-going,
performance, and persistence through the Regional College Promise.
Program Evaluation Methods Used in Literature
The methods that have been used to evaluate promise programs tend to be quantitative,
focused on student academic outcomes, and limited in the number of studies that have been
performed. Pluhta & Penny (2013) compared aggregated student data from the three years before
and the three years after Promise implementation at an urban community college with a high
ethnic minority student population. Their mixed-methods approach includes an analysis of the
scholarship program outcomes for the quantitative methods, and “a narrative history based on the
method of document analysis” for its qualitative methods (Pluhta & Penny, 2013, p. 726). One
significant distinction of these authors’ research design is that their qualitative data did not
include student participants. Instead, data was collected through “agendas, packets, and minutes
from meetings of the board of directors of the affiliated [scholarship] foundation” (Pluhta &
Penny, 2013, p. 726). While still valuable in terms of program evaluation, this study design is an
example of the need for research on this topic to be more student-centered, for student feedback
to be able to inform program development and research.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 23
One other qualitative approach included interviewing students and teachers regarding the
expectations that resulted from the introduction of the Kalamazoo Promise. Jones, Miron, &
Kelaher-Young (2012) interviewed 42 middle and high school students, two years after the
Kalamazoo Promise was implemented. The authors purposefully chose younger students to be
able to gauge the perceptions of a universal college promise program from students who will
qualify for it in the future. Ninety percent of the students interviewed reported that “they intend
to use the Promise” once they reached college age (Jones, Miron, & Kelaher-Young, 2012, p.
39). The authors found that 85 percent of students noted an increase in motivation to succeed in
school on the part of their peers following the announcement and implementation of the
Kalamazoo Promise (Jones, Miron, & Kelaher-Young, 2012). Additionally, teachers at the
middle and high schools that were studied also reported higher levels of expectations for their
students due to the knowledge that college would be a possibility for every student in the next
few years. These findings could indicate that the promise program contributed to a motivating
and college-going culture at the middle and high schools that were surveyed.
Carruthers & Fox (2015) provide a working paper in which they analyze the Knox
Achieves scholarship program, which the precursor for the Tennessee Promise. Carruthers & Fox
(2015) employed a difference-in-differences analysis to measure the effect of receiving the Knox
Achieves scholarship on students’ decisions to attend college, as well as on scholarship
recipients’ academic performance. This study found that Knox Achieves participants were 24.2%
more likely to attend any college and 29.5% more likely to attend community college, but the
cohort of students did not have a statistically significant difference in college credit accumulation
when compared to non-recipients (Carruthers & Fox, 2015). The difference-in-difference method
chosen by these authors uses linear regression that compares differences in the two student
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 24
groups (Promise recipients vs. non-recipients) over time. While it is purely a quantitative
approach, this is one of the only studies on college promise programs that measures the effect of
the scholarship on student enrollment and achievement.
As shown by the research methods used, existing program evaluation literature on college
promise is highly quantitative and tends to only measure the statistical effect of being in the program on
academic indicators. While this study will also be measuring the quantitative effect of a Promise
program, there will also be a qualitative and student-centered component to the evaluation. This will
seek to explore students’ perceptions of and experiences with the financial support associated with
Promise, as well as the academic support offered. Qualitative methods are very limited in the existing
college promise evaluation literature, since few studies focus on students and instead pay more attention
to programmatic elements, administrators, staff, and the institutions themselves (Pluhta & Penny, 2013).
Theoretical Frameworks in the Literature
A range of theoretical frameworks have been used in previous studies on college promise
programs, many of which are economic frameworks, given the financial aid aspect of college promise
programs. In their analysis of the Pittsburgh Promise, Bozick, Gonzalez, & Engberg (2015) use Becker’s
theory of standard human capital investment, which “predicts that youth make cost-benefit calculations
to guide their college enrollment decisions” (p. 2). This theoretical framework was chosen due to its
focus on trade-offs and long-term benefits, both of which are considered by students who were deciding
whether or not to partake in the Pittsburgh Promise (Bozick et al., 2015). The authors claimed that the
Promise program “induced college enrollment by substantially reducing one of the most critical and
immediate short-term costs in the cost-benefit calculation: tuition and fees” (Bozick et al., p. 8).
Although it makes sense to frame college promise studies under economic theories due to the programs’
expansion of financial aid, it is important to note that economic theories assume rational choice and may
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 25
not fully capture the fact that students who are making college enrollment decisions may not have all the
necessary information to make a rational choice. A more student-focused theoretical framework is
appropriate for this study given that its goals are to evaluate a program from the student perspective, as
well as ensure that students are supported within specialized academic programs. Rendón’s (1994)
validation theory is used to frame this particular study with the belief that academic counseling is
essential to student success and that validation should be a part of academic counseling. The First Year
Program being analyzed in the study is primarily a subunit of Counseling services at the institution being
studied, and is an essential component of the Promise program being analyzed.

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 26
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Research Design and Approach
This study is an analysis of a Regional College Promise program at a public community
college in the Southern California area; it considers outcomes and experiences of the program’s
inaugural cohort of first-year students during the first year of program implementation (academic
year 2017-18). The outcomes of this cohort are compared to a previous cohort of first-year
students at the same institution, who began their educational journey the year before Promise
implementation (academic year 2016-17). Through a mixed methods approach, this study sought
to understand if Promise and its associated benefits had any effect on student outcomes and
experiences relating to college enrollment, academic performance, and persistence.
A mixed methods approach was chosen for this study in order to more robustly contribute to
existing literature on Promise programs, which are mainly quantitative studies that lack a
qualitative and student-centered approach (see Literature Review in Chapter Two). According to
Creswell (2014), a mixed-methods approach provides two different types of information
regarding a particular issue, the combination of which may provide “a stronger understanding of
the problem or question than either [method] by itself” (p. 215)". A mixed-methods study
involves two types of data collection, data analysis, and an integration of findings that connects
both forms of data (Creswell, 2014). In this case, quantitative data regarding student enrollment,
academic performance, and persistence is meant to be supplemented by student perspectives on
these same topics, in order to more fully gauge if and how Promise affected these students’ first
year outcomes and experiences.
Quantitative data was collected from the institution’s Student Information System (SIS) and
is defined by student indicators relating to enrollment, performance, and persistence. Indicators
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 27
are defined below in Table 3. Qualitative data was collected from seven student interviews of
Promise recipients from cohort 2017-18. Lastly, this study examined a Promise program within a
multi-campus public community college district, and focused on implementation, outcomes, and
experiences at one institution. The research questions that guided the study were:
• What were the first-year outcomes of the Regional College Promise for its first cohort of
students at a specified institution, in terms of enrollment, academic performance and
retention? How do these outcomes compare to the previous First Year Program cohort,
one year before the Regional College Promise was implemented?
• What were the Regional College Promise students’ experiences in terms of their
decisions to enroll, motivation to succeed, and overall performance at the institution? Did
the Regional College Promise affect these experiences?
Background Information
It is important to note that Promise students at this community college are automatically
enrolled into and required to participate in the First Year Program (FYP) to receive Promise
benefits. FYP is the primary provider of academic support for first year students at the
institution, and it is open to both Promise and non-Promise first year students. FYP provides
academic counseling, cohort-style learning communities, and other benefits to any first-year
student who meets certain program requirements. As noted in the Literature Review, many of the
first Promise programs tended to focus on increasing access to higher education, and did not
focus on the academic performance and retention of program participants. As a result, none of
the earliest Promise programs had academic support embedded within the Promise program
itself. This particular program being studied is noteworthy in that it embeds an academic support
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 28
program within a Promise program, and requires students to participate in the academic support
program to be eligible for Promise benefits.
FYP program requirements are almost identical to Promise requirements, which include
full-time enrollment of at least 12 units, and completing a summer orientation. The main benefits
that Promise adds to FYP, is a guarantee of free tuition for the first year, priority course
registration, and access to special initiatives between the city Mayor’s office and the local
Chamber of Commerce, which provide students with opportunities for exclusive internships and
other experiential learning opportunities such as free study abroad trips. Figure 1 and Table 1
below attempt to visualize the differences and similarities between Promise and FYP
requirements and benefits. FYP at this institution has existed for several years before Promise
implementation, and has serviced several cohorts of first year students before Promise
implementation. Thus, the study compares the first cohort of Promise students (cohort 2017-18,
who were also part of FYP), to the last cohort of FYP-only students (cohort 2016-17) before
Promise implementation.

Figure 1. Relationship between Regional College Promise and First Year Program (FYP)

Promise and FYP: first-
year students who
receive the Regional
College Promise
scholarship and are
automatically placed into
the First Year Program
FYP-only: first-year
students who did not
receive the Regional
College Promise
scholarship, but meet First
Year Program requirements
• For cohort 2017-18, this
could be due to not
qualifying for geographical
reasons, or other program
requirements not being met
(See Table 1 below).
• For cohort 2016-17,
Promise did not yet exist.
FYP – all first-year students who meet the program requirements for FYP.
Students cannot receive Promise without being part of FYP.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 29
Table 1.

Eligibility requirements and benefits for receiving the Regional College Promise scholarship,
and for being in the First Year Program.

Eligibility Requirements
Regional College Promise (Promise) First Year Program (FYP)
• Application to a college within the
community college district
• Application to a college within the
community college district

• Graduation from a partnering public
high school district, OR from a
charter high school within the city
limits. First-time college student: no
college units attempted, except for
dual enrollment courses taken in
high school
• First-time college student: no
college units attempted, except for
dual enrollment courses taken in
high school

• FAFSA or California Dream Act
application submitted, regardless of
eligibility for financial aid

• No financial aid application is
necessary
• Eligibility for in-state tuition is
required, including students who
meet AB 540 nonresident tuition
exemption

• Eligibility for in-state tuition is not
necessary
• Completed the college matriculation
process: Assessment, Orientation,
and Counseling
• Completed the college matriculation
process: Assessment, Orientation,
and Counseling

• Participation in a summer
orientation, or two-week summer
bridge program

• Participation in a summer
orientation, or two-week summer
bridge program
• Enrolled in at least 12 units for Fall
and Spring semester of the first year
• Enrolled in at least 12 units for Fall
and Spring semester of the first
year, including Math, English, and a
first-year seminar

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 30
Table 1 (continued).

Benefits to Participant

Regional College Promise (Promise) First Year Program (FYP)
• Last-dollar grant to cover tuition and
mandatory fees during the first year of
college (later extended to the second year,
for students in the first cohort who met
GPA and unit completion requirements)

• Access to register in reserved course
sections of Math, English, and
transferrable electives, which are taught
by selected faculty and closed to the
general public
• Priority registration for as long as
program requirements are met

• Cohort-style learning communities within
reserved course sections
• Access to initiatives between the
community college district, the city
Mayor’s office, and the local Chamber of
Commerce, which provide: internship
placement, networking opportunities,
travel abroad trips, and more

• Smaller counselor-to-student ratio
throughout the student’s college tenure, as
well as access to academic coaches who
supplement the counseling experience
through case management
• All benefits of the First Year Program
(FYP): students who receive the Regional
College Promise are required to
participate in FYP

Research Questions
As noted in Chapter One, the research questions that guided this study were:
• What were the first-year outcomes of the Regional College Promise for its first cohort of
students at a specified institution, in terms of enrollment, academic performance and
retention? How do these outcomes compare to the previous First Year Program cohort,
one year before the Regional College Promise was implemented?
• What were the Regional College Promise students’ experiences in terms of their
decisions to enroll, motivation to succeed, and overall performance at the institution? Did
the Regional College Promise affect these experiences?
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 31
To answer the first two questions, I analyzed a number of indicators using a comparative
approach between the two cohorts: the inaugural Promise cohort (academic year 2017-18) and
the First Year Program cohort that came before them (academic year 2016-17). Quantitative
indicators were chosen to serve as proxy measures for college enrollment, performance, and
persistence. The indicators are as follows:
Table 2.
Indicators used to measure the effect of Promise on student enrollment, performance, and
persistence, cohorts 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Enrollment Indicators Performance Indicators Persistence Indicators
• Full-time enrollment
count of the First Year
Program

• Average grade point average (GPA)
of First Year Program cohort*
• Percentage of students
who remained enrolled
full-time during Spring
semester of their first
year

• Increase/decrease in full-
time enrollment count of
the First Year Program,
specifically from high
schools within the
College’s service area,
that received College
outreach services

• Increase/decrease in percentage of
First Year Program students who
were not in good academic standing
at the end of Fall semester
(defined as either academic or
progress probation)

Academic probation – lower than 2.0
GPA

Progress probation – 50% or less of
attempted units were completed with
a satisfactory grade

• Percentage of students
who remained enrolled
during Fall semester of
their second year (part-
time or full-time)
• Average number of units attempted
and completed by First Year Program
students during their first year*

*This indicator will be disaggregated by Fall and Spring semester of the given cohort’s first
year, to further understand semester-to-semester persistence and performance across cohorts.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 32
Using these indicators, the Promise cohort, or the cohort that began their first year in the
2017-18 academic year, are compared to the previous non-Promise cohort, or the cohort that
began their first year in the 2016-17 academic year. Indicators compared are the same for both
cohorts, with the only difference being the academic year that is being examined. It is the hope
that a cross-examination between the two cohorts leads to an idea of whether or not Promise at
this campus had any effect on student enrollment, performance, and persistence for the first
cohort that received it, with other factors that could influence these measures being considered as
well. A detailed explanation of this cross-examination is in the Methods section below.
Qualitative data is collected through seven student interviews of students from cohort 2017-
18. Students were chosen to interview who represent a range of outcomes, including those that
successfully persisted onto their second year in good academic standing, and those who
persisted, but are currently on academic probation. Students were asked questions relating to
their perceptions of the Regional College Promise benefits and the First Year Program services.
The questions are designed to better understand if Promise influenced their decisions to enroll
into the College, and if they felt that Promise/FYP services contributed to their academic
outcomes at the College. The interview protocol is attached in Appendix A, and some questions
varied depending on what type of educational outcomes the student had. A more detailed
explanation of the methods used for qualitative data collection is found below.
Methods
The site selection was chosen mostly out of convenience, but the Promise program being
examined is notable for its breadth within a large metropolitan city, its recent implementation,
and the institution’s willingness to evaluate their program both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Many community colleges in the southern California area have recently established Promise
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 33
programs as well as FYP programs. As stated previously, the Promise program examined in this
study is a large program within a multi-campus community college district in the Southern
California area. The area served by this district, and especially this institution, is urban, densely
populated, and majority-minority in terms of its student racial and ethnic demographics.
Specifically, the demographics of both the feeder high school district and the college show a very
high Latinx enrollment (74% and 51%, respectively).
Quantitative data collection was originally meant to be completed mostly by the site’s
Office of Institutional Effectiveness. However, requests for cohort-level data went unanswered
and the data had to be extracted manually instead. From the First Year Program’s records and the
college’s Student Information System (SIS), I performed an audit on each student in each cohort
(453 students and 663 students respectively) and extracted the necessary information by hand.
This process took several weeks to complete. The following variables were extracted and coded:
first semester GPA, cumulative GPA after the first year, first semester units attempted, first
semester units completed, whether or not the student was enrolled full-time during Spring
semester of their first year (Y/N), and whether or not the student was enrolled during Fall
semester of their second year (Y/N). The FYP program data had already collected information on
high school attended and birthday of all students, so these variables just had to be coded.
In order to examine this point, a statistical significance was run through Microsoft Excel for
some of the indicators, mainly the ones relating to academic performance. In order to fully
understand statistical significance for all indicators, a more robust software program capable of
performing chi-square analyses would have had to be used. A comprehensive quantitative
analysis with statistical significance of all variables may be the topic of a future study. Lastly, the
quantitative data process can be described as a quasi-experiment, since the two groups of
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 34
students (Promise and FYP-only) are not randomly assigned into their respective groups
(Creswell, 2014). The quasi-experimental design used is a Control-Group Interrupted Time-
Series Design, in which two groups of participants who are not randomly selected (Promise
cohort and FYP-only cohort) are observed over time, with only one group receiving a treatment:
Promise benefits and the student knowledge that Promise benefits were being received
(Creswell, 2014).
Participants to be interviewed for the qualitative portion of the study were originally
meant to be selected through an open recruitment process of all students who went through the
Promise program during the 2017-18 academic year. An interest form was to be electronically
sent to students, which advertised that feedback was being requested from program participants
during the specified period of time. Due to complications regarding quantitative data collection,
the timeline for qualitative data collection was drastically cut short, and a convenience sample
was used instead. The students interviewed were current or former FYP student staff and their
friends, all of whom were part of the inaugural Promise cohort (2017-18). These students had a
range of academic outcomes that was not as diverse as the study originally had hoped to collect.
Specifically, all of the students had successfully persisted onto their second semester of their
second year of college, and most of the participants had higher GPAs than the average for their
cohort. In terms of demographics, the interview sample group was also not as diverse as their
cohort; the students interviewed were all Latinx and between 19-20 years old. It is important to
note that purposeful selection of a representative sample of students to be interviewed, as was the
original plan, may have provided data that would have better answered this study’s research
questions (Creswell, 2014).
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 35
Since the interview process attempted to include students who did not persist onto their
second semester, second year, or are otherwise not in good academic standing with the
institution, it was structured in a way that is similar to an academic counseling session. The
primary purpose of FYP at this institution is to provide academic counseling for all of its
students, and students are required to see a counselor every semester to remain in the program.
Given both the sensitives that may arise from having students share what may be an unsuccessful
college experience, students may benefit from someone validating their experiences and
exploring options to continue in school for those who may wish to do so. This theory is
especially true with first-generation students, and students from minority backgrounds (Rendón,
1994). Since a graduate student researcher conducted student interviews, an academic counselor
at the institution supervised the interview process so that all ethical standards regarding trainee
boundaries were met. The academic counselor’s presence is also important when considering
that students may be at different places in regard to completing specific requirements for
academic programs at the institution and/or transfer to four-year universities.
Data collection followed all Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol. All quantitative
data on student indicators related to student enrollment, performance, and persistence remained
aggregated at the cohort level, which will assure anonymity of student outcomes. All qualitative
data was anonymized, by assigning each student a number instead of names or pseudonyms for
interview participants. Following Creswell’s (2014) guidelines for structuring qualitative
interviews, all students were informed of their rights as study participants, how the findings will
be used, and how the information will be presented anonymously. Interviews were audio
recorded using a software that automatically transcribed the conversation. The audio files were
deleted after final transcription and coding for patterns found within interviews. Interview
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 36
protocol was developed with guidance from the FYP coordinator at the institution of study, so
that the findings from this study may inform ongoing program development at the institution.
Researcher Bias, Trustworthiness of the Data, and Related Issues
During the time of this study, I worked as a counseling assistant for the First Year
Program that I researched. I worked predominantly with the incoming cohort of first year
students who began in the 2018-19 academic year. Despite my professional association with the
program being studied, the 2017-2018 and 2016-2017 cohorts of students in this study went
through the program before I was employed. Although we continue to provide services beyond
the first year, the majority of our program’s focus is on first year students. A possible bias might
be that I am being student-centered and am employed by the institution the study was performed
during the time of the data collection. Working as a counseling assistant at this institution has
provided me with access to program analysis and data that I could not perform the study without,
but it does create a possibility for bias. Furthermore, I am a Latino male who is working with a
predominantly Latinx and majority-minority student population. As a first-generation minority
student who has faced many difficulties while navigating higher education, I find that I
sometimes have a bias in favor of students who share (or who I believe might share) similar
experiences as I did in college. I am conscious of this bias, and also of the need to be an
objective researcher, especially during data collection that involves direct student contact.
Quantitative data, which is related to student outcomes, was pulled directly from the
institution’s Student Information System (SIS). The SIS is able to run queries on multiple
indicators of interest, including the ones listed in Table 2 above. However, the SIS system that is
currently in place was implemented in Summer 2017 and went through a series of system
glitches and errors in the months following its implementation. This was due to the fact that
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 37
decades of student information were transferred from an existing SIS into the new SIS, for all
institutions within the multi-campus community college district. It is uncertain whether any
system glitches caused by the modernization of the SIS may have affected any of the indicator
reports that will be used in the study. Furthermore, the fact that a different SIS was in place at the
institution during the 2016-17 academic year means that all indicators from the 2016-17 cohort
will have gone through a process of extraction from a previous SIS and translation into the
modernized SIS. Some of the data may have been defined differently in previous system, and
any of these distinctions will be made clear during the data analysis chapter. Attention will also
be paid to whether or not these differences in SIS and data availability could affect the
quantitative findings of this study.
Limitations of the Study
As stated previously, a vast majority of students who participated in the Promise program
at this institution were very recent high school graduates who started their college journeys the
Fall semester after their high school graduation. Attention was paid to choosing a diverse group
of study participants that are more representative of community college students in general, but
the quantitative data ended up including a very homogenous group of students in terms of age
and ethnic background. The age range for this group being studied was mostly 17-19 years old,
and the racial/ethnic composition is predominantly Latinx, which provides certain limitations in
generalizing this study’s findings to community college students as a whole, who tend to be older
and more ethnically diverse (Juszkiewicz, 2016). Additionally, both Promise and the FYP at this
institution required students to enroll as full-time students for two semesters, as they were
required to take English, Math, and a first-year seminar during their first year. 71.5% percent of
students at the institution in the 2016-17 academic year were part-time students, which show that
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 38
this population of Promise and FYP students is not a representative sample of the institution’s
students. This is also counter to the literature on community college students in urban settings,
who are majority part-time students due to work, family obligations, or a combination of
different life factors (Baum, Little, & Payea, 2011; Juszkiewicz, 2016).

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 39
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA
QUANTITATIVE
Quantitative data collection included finding aggregate measures of cohort demographics,
and several indicators relating to student enrollment, academic performance, and retention. As
stated previously, the two cohorts of interest are: 1) the inaugural Promise cohort who began in
the 2017-18 academic year, and 2) the control group, or the First Year Program (FYP) cohort
who began in the 2016-17 academic year, one year before Promise program implemented.
Moving forward, I will refer to the cohorts as 1) Promise cohort, and 2) FYP-only cohort,
respectively. The Promise cohort of students received outreach messaging regarding the College
Promise all throughout their senior year of high school from College staff who paid weekly or bi-
weekly visits to the high school. This outreach helped students through the lengthy matriculation
process, and staff often built relationships with these students that may have influenced their
decisions to enroll. Throughout their first year of college, the Promise cohort knew that their
tuition was being paid for in full, and this was the first time that a cohort of first year students at
the institution had a clear and universal understanding of receiving full tuition waivers.
The Promise cohort had a total of 663 students that started as first-time, full-time students
in the Fall 2017 semester. Each of these students were required to participate in the institution’s
First Year Program (FYP) to receive Promise tuition benefits. As noted in Chapter Three, every
Promise student is an FYP student, but not every FYP student is a Promise student. The non-
Promise FYP students mostly include students who are not eligible for Promise benefits because
they were not recent high school graduates, or were not from the local participating school
district. The 2017-18 FYP cohort had 95 students who were non-Promise FYP. These students
received the same benefits as Promise students, except for free tuition and priority registration.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 40
For the sake of observing students who received Promise benefits, these 95 students will not be
included in aggregate measures of the Promise cohort even though they were all part of the same
support program during the same observed time period.
The FYP-only cohort had a total of 453 students that started as first-time, full-time
students in the Fall 2016 semester. As mentioned previously, the only difference from this cohort
and the Promise cohort were Promise benefits, which were mainly free tuition and priority
registration. The other student support services of academic counseling, reserved course sections,
case management, etc. are identical to what the Promise cohort received one year later. This
provides basis for a clean comparison of the variables of interest (college-going, performance,
and persistence), with a clearly marked treatment, treatment group, and control group. This study
sought to measure the effect that free tuition, including the perception of free tuition, had on
student outcomes and experiences for the Promise cohort.
Cohort Demographics
Table 3.
Age demographics and other findings of First Year Program, cohorts 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Cohort 2016-17, n = 453 Cohort 2017-18, n = 663
Percentage of students who
were 17-19 years old during
their first year of college

88% 96%
Maximum student age in
cohort

36 24

Other findings
Percentage of FYP students who qualified for
California Board of Governors Fee Waiver,
cohort 2017-18
88%
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 41
As may be expected with a first year community college program that recruits from
surrounding high schools, the majority of students are recent high school graduates between the
ages of 17 and 19. Students are not required to be recent high school graduates to participate in
FYP, which accepts any student who has zero college credits completed. In academic year 2016-
17, 88% of students in the FYP were between the ages of 17 and 19 during their first year. The
following year, Promise required students to be recent high school graduates – in academic year
2017-18, they must have graduated high school in June 2017. This requirement caused the
average age of the Promise cohort to be lower than the FYP-only cohort the year before: in
academic year 2017-18, 96% of students who received Promise were between the ages of 17 and
19 during their first year of college. This represents an 8% increase in recent high school
graduates from the year before, although the percentage was already very high. For the Promise
cohort, the 4% of students who were not of typical high school graduation age could represent
students who were held back several years in high school, finished some sort of continuation
program within the school district, or received a GED from within the school district. Maximum
student ages for the FYP-only and the Promise cohorts were 36 and 24 years old, respectively.
Thus, the Promise cohort was more homogenous in terms of student age, likely due to the
requirement that they be recent high school graduates.
In Fall 2016, 45.3% of all students at the observed institution identified as first-
generation college students, and 52.7% of all students received some form of financial aid. These
figures are different than those in the First Year Program and the Regional College Promise,
which serve a much higher percentage of first-generation and low-income students.
Unfortunately, at the time of the study, neither FYP or Promise actively collected or measured
data on its students first-generation status. For future cohorts, a recommendation was made that
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 42
the program provide a screening question for new applicants that will measure whether or not the
student is a first-generation college student. Although this data will be self-reported, a definition
of “first-generation college student” will go along with the question to minimize confusion for
students. While the program does not collect data on these variables, from conversations with the
program coordinator, as well as experience working in the program, the percentage of first-
generation college students in FYP and Promise is an overwhelming majority. This may be due
to the demographics of the feeder high school district where most FYP/Promise students
graduate from, which had 74% Latinx enrollment and 84% eligibility for free or reduced-price
lunch in the academic year 2017-18.
One important thing to consider with low-income students who are in Promise programs,
is that they most likely do not benefit financially from Promise. These students often receive
their tuition paid for by other forms of financial aid. As a last-dollar award, Promise is used to
pay fees once other state-funded grants have been exhausted, or in the case that a student does
not qualify for other aid due to family income. In the two academic years of study, the state aid
that paid for most Promise students’ tuition was the California Community Colleges (CCC)
Board of Governors (BOG) Fee Waiver. The percentage of students who qualified for and
received the Board of Governors Fee Waiver in 2017-18 was 88%. Thus, even though many
students may have been under the impression Promise was paying for their fees, they actually
would have had their fees paid for anyway by other means. This study hypothesizes that due to
technicalities of financial aid sources, the Promise cohort of mostly first-generation college
students will believe Promise gives them free tuition and this will have a positive effect on
enrollment, performance, and persistence for the overall cohort. This hypothesis is explored
more during the student interviews in the qualitative data section.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 43

College-Going (Enrollment) Trends
Table 4.
Change in enrollment of First Year Program, 2016-17 to 2017-18.
2016-17 academic year 2017-18 academic year
Size of First Year Program 453 students 758 students, 663 of which
were Promise eligible

Percentage change in First
Year Program enrollment size
from previous academic year
Data from previous year not
available
67% growth in program size,
46.3% of which may be due
to Promise

From Fall 2016 to Fall 2017, the size of the First Year Program at this institution grew
from 453 students to 758 students. This represents the number of first-time, full-time students
who enrolled in the Fall semester of the respective academic year and opted to be a part of FYP.
Thus, FYP grew by 305 students in the first year that Promise was implemented, an increase of
67% from the previous year. The enrollment increase which may be related to Promise is lower
than that, because only 663 of those 758 students were eligible for Promise due to program
requirements regarding graduation date and location. Therefore, the growth in the FYP that may
be attributed to Promise is from 453 students to 663 students – an increase of 210 students and a
46.3% increase from one academic year to the next. Availability and promotion of the Regional
College Promise may have contributed to the jump in First Year Program enrollment.
For schools within the service region of the College being studied, college-going trends
experienced particularly high increases. The high schools in Table 5 had consistent outreach staff
members who had weekly or biweekly visits to the high school for purposes of facilitating
enrollment from the high school to the College. In academic year 2017-18, the First Year
Program experienced a sizable increase in enrollment from every high school that was in the
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 44
College’s service area and that received College outreach services, with the exception of two
schools. The drop in enrollment from two high schools (A and C), both in the college’s service
area and within a four-mile commute from the college, may highlight the importance of effective
outreach staff to promote college access programs such as Regional College Promise. The fact
that Promise was available to these students does not appear to be enough to automatically
increase enrollment from every high school within a four-mile radius of the College. Given the
fact that the participating high school district is 84% low-income (as defined by students who
qualify for free/reduced school lunch) and majority-minority in student demographics, this may
also point to the significance that college advisors could have in student college-going decisions.
Table 5.
Change in First Year Program enrollment from feeder high schools in service area that received
outreach services, 2016-17 to 2017-18.
Feeder high school (distance) FYP enrollment increase (or decrease) from
Fall 2016 to Fall 2017
A (4 miles) 30.3% decrease
B (3.2 miles) 24.4% increase
C (3.3 miles) 7.7% decrease
D (4 miles) 26.6% increase
E (4 miles) 48% increase
F (3.8 miles) 88% increase
G (3.1 miles) 33.3% increase
I (3.4 miles) 142.8% increase
J (1.6 miles) 107% increase
K (2.1 miles) 183.33% increase
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 45
Student Performance in the First Year
Data collection for academic performance and retention of the two cohorts consisted of
pulling individual student data from the Student Information System, for every student in both
cohorts - 453 and 663 students, respectively. This lengthy process may have been expedited by
the college’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness, but requests for data went unanswered and the
data had to be extracted manually instead over the period of a few weeks. Furthermore, the
Student Information System was completely upgraded in the summer of 2017, which causes
issues in some of the 2016-17 student due to the fact that it was translated from one information
system to another. I have indicated the areas where there were problems with the data, and what
this may mean for overall findings. Tables 6 and 7 include a summary of findings on student
performance in the first year.
Table 6.
Initial findings and statistical significance of academic performance of First Year
Program/Promise cohorts, academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Average units
attempted,
Fall semester

Average
units
completed,
Fall semester

Average Fall
semester
GPA
Average
cumulative
GPA, end of
first year

FYP-only cohort,
2016-17
(n = 453 students)

12.88 8.44 2.58 2.36
Promise cohort,
2017-18
(n = 663 students)

13.66 8.14 2.43 2.25
Statistically
significant
difference?

Yes No Yes No

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 46
Table 6 (continued).

Outcome Group
FYP-only cohort Promise cohort
M SD n M SD n t df
Average
units
attempted,
Fall
semester

12.88 1.75 453 13.66 1.85 663
3.03
E-12
*

1114
Average
units
completed,
Fall
semester

8.44 4.80 453 8.14 5.46 663 .37 1114
Average
Fall
semester
GPA

2.58 1.16
440
**
2.43 1.11
573
**
1.56
E-14
*
1114
Average
cumulative
GPA, end
of first year

2.36 1.04
440
**
2.25 .94
573
**
.07 1114
* p < .05.

**count is less than total cohort count, due to students not having a GPA from withdrawing all of
their courses or otherwise not receiving a grade in courses attempted.

Note: M = Mean. SD = Standard Deviation. n = count.
t = p-value, two-sample t-test assuming equal variance
df = degrees of freedom (n-2)

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 47
Table 7.
Change in percentage of First Year Program/Promise cohorts not in good standing after Fall
semester of their first year, 2016-17 to 2017-18.
Type of probation Change from 2016-17 to 2017-18
Progress probation
(50% or less of units attempted were
completed)

9% increase
Academic probation
(Fall semester GPA is less than 2.0)

2% increase
Both progress and academic probation

2% increase
Initial findings on academic performance show mixed results regarding the effects of
scaling the First Year Program on its students’ outcomes, as the program grew from 453 FYP
students in Fall 2016 to 663 Promise students in 2017. Across all observed students, the average
number of units that were attempted in Fall 2016 was 12.88, and the average number of units that
were completed was 8.44. In Fall 2017, the average number of units attempted was 13.66, and
the average number of units completed was 8.14. To be considered “completed” units, a student
needed to receive a grade of A, B, C, or P in the course – grades of D, F, NP, and W (withdrawn)
were not considered complete. A grade of D is complicated in that it is defined by the College’s
catalog as an “unsatisfactory grade” that may be repeated, since “failure to successfully pass [a]
prerequisite course with a ‘C’ or better may result in exclusion from the sequential course.” The
word “may” indicates that it will not necessarily result in exclusion from the sequential course,
and not all courses that students received a grade of D in had a sequential course (in the case of
electives, for example). Actual institutional policy and inconsistencies in the Student Information
System count some courses as “passing “with a D – mainly in the case of “units completed.” For
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 48
the purposes of this study, a grade of D was considered “not passing” regardless of the course
that was taken, mainly for consistency, and since it is the policy of the First Year Program
counselors to recommend that students retake any course a grade of D is received.
The average Fall semester GPA in academic year 2016-17 was 2.58, and the average Fall
semester GPA in academic year 2017-18 was 2.43. This decrease is statistically significant at the
.05 alpha level. When looking at overall first year GPA, the difference between the average
cumulative GPA after the first year for both cohorts was .11, which was not statistically
significant at the .05 alpha level. The statistically similar first year cumulative GPAs between the
two cohorts may provide evidence that the First Year Program provided services that were
scalable in terms of student outcomes, given the large increase in students served and the
similarity in outcomes. GPA was one variable where imperfect data was often reported – for
some classes, a grade of “D” was counted as “passing” and for some classes a grade of “F” had
no effect on the student’s GPA. This included not only remedial Math and English courses, but
also some college-level electives that were observed to have misleading effects on the GPA
reported in the new Student Information System. Lastly, the cumulative GPA after the first year
includes any courses the student may have taken during high school (i.e. dual enrollment) or the
summer before their first Fall semester, which may have skewed the cumulative average.
One somewhat troubling figure is the percentage of the cohorts that were on progress
probation after Fall semester of their first year. “Progress probation” is designated when a
student completes 50% or less of the total number of units attempted in that semester. Students
fell under this category if they received a grade of D, F, NP, or W in 50% or more of the units
they were enrolled in after the census date of that semester (about two weeks after the first day of
class). The significance of progress probation is that it may lead to disqualification for financial
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 49
aid, and consecutive semesters of progress probation could result in being dismissed from the
institution. From Fall 2016 to Fall 2017, the percentage of students in the FYP/Promise cohorts
that were on progress probation increased by 9%. Progress probation is different than academic
probation, which is defined as having below a 2.0 GPA in units completed that semester. That
figure increased by 2% over the observed time period. The percentage of students on both types
of probation after the Fall semester of their first year also increased by 2% in the observed time
period. In order to gain perspective on whether or not these percentage differences were
statistically significant or not, a chi-square analysis would have had to have been completed,
which was outside of the scope of this study due to limited resources.
Student Persistence (Semester-to-Semester and Year-to-Year)
Student data on semester-to-semester and year-to-year retention was easier to obtain
through manual extraction, since they both focused on whether or not each student in the
respective cohort was enrolled (Y/N), not how a student performed. To count as a Y for
semester-to-semester retention, a student needed to be enrolled full-time in Spring of their first
year, since both FYP and Promise require full-time enrollment throughout the first year. To
count as a Y for year-to-year enrollment, for the purposes of this study, the student needed to be
enrolled at least part-time (i.e. any number of units). Enrollment is finalized after the College’s
census date for that semester, which is about two weeks after the first day of the semester and
when the course schedule becomes finalized. Data shown below does not account for students
who withdrew from all of their courses after the semester’s census date, or any other measure of
academic performance – it only accounts for enrollment and units attempted, not units
completed. Table 8 summarizes the retention rates for the two cohorts of interest in this study.
The statistical significance of the difference in percentages between the two cohorts may be
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 50
calculated through a chi-square analysis, however, due to limited resources, that analysis is
outside of the scope of this study.
Table 8.

Semester-to-semester (Fall-to-Spring) and year-to-year (Fall-to-Fall) retention rates for First
Year Program/Promise cohorts, 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Fall-to-Spring retention
rate
(full-time only)

Fall-to-Fall retention rate
(full- and part-time)
FYP-only cohort,
2016-17
(n = 453 students)

83%

376 students
67%

304 students
Promise cohort,
2017-18
(n = 663 students)
80.1%

531 students
66.5%

441 students

In academic year 2016-17, 83% of FYP students who began in Fall semester persisted onto their
Spring semester full-time. The following year, 80.1% of Promise students who began in Fall
semester persisted onto their Spring semester full-time. The percentage of students in both
cohorts who persisted part-time is unknown, because these students were dropped from FYP due
to failure to complete program requirements. When I identified the number of students that were
dropped after Fall semester, I did not account for whether or not they were enrolled part-time.
Semester-to-semester persistence rates between the two cohorts were very similar and only
experienced a slight decrease, even though there was a large increase in the number of students
being analyzed. Again, the statistical significance of the difference in percentages between the
two cohorts may be calculated through a chi-square analysis, however, due to limited resources,
that analysis is outside of the scope of this study.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 51
Year-to-year persistence was measured by whether or not a student was enrolled at least
part-time in the Fall semester after their first year (i.e. Fall 2017 and Fall 2018, respectively).
Again, this percentage does not account for students who ended up withdrawing from all of their
courses during their first semester of their second year, or any other measure of academic
performance. The year-to-year persistence rate of the Fall 2016 cohort was 67%, and the year-to-
year persistence rate of the Fall 2017 cohort was 66.5%. The two percentages were almost
identical, which may be promising when considering how much the first-year student body grew
during that time. As this data was also extracted one student at a time, the extraction process
identified students in both cohorts who were dismissed from the institution at the end of the Fall
semester of their second year. Per institutional policy, a student is dismissed from the institution
after their third consecutive semester on progress or academic probation. For students who were
dismissed after the Fall of their second year, this means that they were on some sort of probation
during every semester that they had attempted thus far – Fall and Spring of their first year, and
Fall of their second year. The list of students who were dismissed after their third semester
provided a starting point for recruiting interviewees for the qualitative portion of this study.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 52
QUALITATIVE DATA
Student Interview Participants
Recruitment for student interviews of 2017-18 Promise recipients included a search for
students with a diverse array of outcomes – those who persisted successfully in good academic
standing, those who persisted through academic probation, and those who were dismissed from
the College due to repeated instances of academic probation. Interviews were held under the
supervision of an academic counselor at the institution, due to the possibly sensitive nature of
discussing academic persistence that may be affected by a student’s personal circumstances, as
well as the possibility of technical matters arising during the interviews such as College policies
and university transfer requirements. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) proposal was written
to allow for a conversational approach to interviews where the interviewer could validate student
responses, and offer information and advising to the student on matters that arose during the
conversation instead of conducting a transactional and one-sided exchange of information.
Quantitative data collection identified 11 Promise students who were dismissed from the
institution after Fall of their second year, which meant they had been on academic and/or
progress probation for three consecutive semesters. These students were each contacted for
participation in the study, as well as offered an academic counseling session that would have
explored their options for continuing their studies despite being dismissed. As part of their
dismissal, a registration hold is placed on their account which prevents them from registering for
classes for two consecutive semesters (not including Winter and Summer). The FYP coordinator,
who is also a counselor, agreed to the possibility of waiving the dismissal hold for these students
depending on how the conversation went, so that the student may register for 1-2 courses for the
next semester instead of having to wait for the dismissal hold to be removed on its own. Three
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 53
student appointments were set up, but none of the students showed up to their appointments.
Rainy weather may have contributed to the no-shows that day. Thus, recruitment for the
interviews went towards a convenience sample of current FYP student workers and their friends,
who are all second year Promise students that have persisted onto the Spring semester of their
second year. A total of seven students were successfully recruited for the study. Table 9 includes
a summary of the student demographics.
Students were homogenous in terms of age, ethnic background, and the fact that they
persisted onto their second semester of their second year of college. Although not representative
of the entire population being studied, the sample reflects some trends in First Year Program
demographics at the institution of study. For example, all students were between 17 and 18
during their first year in college, and all students were of Latinx origin. The program of study
was overwhelmingly within this age range (see Table 3), and the feeder high school district from
which most students matriculated into the College was 74% Latinx during the observed time
period. As may be indicated by persistence data shown previously, the fact that these students all
persisted onto the end of their second year may not be representative of the typical FYP student.
In terms of academic performance, including history of academic probation and whether or not
they have completed transfer-level Math and English, the students are a bit more diverse. Lastly,
when reporting quantitative data, I made a decision to report findings in a more succinct manner
that is consistent with the overall themes explored in quantitative data analysis, as opposed to
reporting data in a rich and narrative-style format with pseudonyms that may be more traditional
of structured interviews (Creswell, 2014). Where appropriate, direct quotes were used to
highlight themes in student interviews and overlaps in responses.

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 54
Table 9.
Characteristics of student interview participants.
Student Gender,
Ethnicity
Age Academic
standing
history
Cumulative
GPA at time
of interview
Persistence
history
Transfer-level
Math/English
completed
1 Male,
Latino
19 Academic
probation
(2x)
1.6 Enrolled
continuously
No/Yes
2 Female,
Latina
19 Always in
good
academic
standing
3.6 Enrolled
continuously
No/Yes
3 Male,
Latino
20 Always in
good
academic
standing
3.5 Enrolled
continuously
Yes/Yes
4 Female,
Latina
20 Always in
good
academic
standing
3.0 Enrolled
continuously
No/Yes
5

Female,
Latina
19 Academic
probation
(1X)
2.5 Enrolled
continuously
No/Yes
6

Male,
Latino
20 Always in
good
academic
standing
3.0 Enrolled
continuously

Yes/Yes
7

Male,
Latino
19 Always in
good
academic
standing
2.9 Enrolled
continuously
Yes/Yes

Trends in Motivation to Enroll
Of the students who attended a high school within the college’s service area, only one
student mentioned an outreach representative that paid regular visits to their high school to help
them through the matriculation process. When asked, one student talked about how she avoided
the college representative at her high school due to her complete disinterest in attending
community college. The student wanted to attend a university and was not even considering
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 55
community college. This particular instance may speak to the stigma that can be associated with
attending a community college as opposed to a university right out of high school. For many
students interviewed, the college was their only option after not getting accepted into their
desired university straight out of high school. Despite an overall low interaction with college
outreach staff while in high school, some students did know about Promise and the fact that it
would cover first year tuition at that institution. Those who knew about it cited Promise as a
reason for choosing this specific institution.
Although many students mentioned convenience and location as a reason to attend this
specific institution, a common theme among students whose high school was outside of the
college’s service area was the desire to attend college away from high school. These students
wanted a fresh start geographically, even if it meant commuting to a college further away
through public transportation when a closer college was an option. From living in a densely
populated area of southern California, students had several options of community colleges within
a 10-mile radius of their homes. These students’ enrollment decisions seem to show that
convenience is not always enough for community college students and other factors play a role
in their college decision-making, perhaps similar to how students decide among universities.
Trends in Financial Aid Knowledge and Access
None of the students interviewed knew the difference between the California Board of
Governors (BOG) Fee Waiver and the Regional College Promise; some students did not know
what BOG was at all. This is a significant point because in many cases it is what ended up
paying for their tuition fees instead of Promise. In the first year that Promise was implemented,
88% of Promise students at the College had their fees paid for by BOG and thus did not
financially benefit from Promise. According to the literature, this is common for Promise
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 56
programs that service low-income students (Poutre & Voight, 2018; Jones & Berger, 2018). The
technical aspect of where the funding came from seems to be irrelevant for students, as long as
the fees are paid somehow. If the student believes that Promise is paying for fees, then it makes
financial aid easier for them to understand: this is supported by the fact that some of the students
did not know what BOG was even though they received it throughout their time in college.
Two students specifically mentioned how they were not eligible for financial aid. The
reasons why were not explored, but for these students Promise meant more to them since it was
the only funding they received while in college. Their tuition was paid for, but other expenses
such as textbooks and supplies had to come out of pocket since these students did not qualify for
financial aid. When it was announced that Promise would be paying for a second year, these
students expressed the most gratitude because they would have had to pay for it themselves or
with help from family. I did not go into the technical aspects of why a student said they did not
qualify for financial aid, but took them at their word. It may be possible that the students did not
fully understand being “financial aid eligible” and that they received the BOG fee waiver without
receiving other grants. Other students talked about how they also received state and federal
grants in addition to Promise, such as the Cal Grant. One student in particular expressed his
immense gratitude for being able to transfer his grants into a savings account each semester once
tuition was paid for, and how much this money will help him as he prepares for university.
Trends in Academic Performance
Since the convenience sampling for these interviews meant recruiting current FYP
student workers and their friends at the college, the students who were interviewed tended to be
in good academic standing throughout their time in college so far. To work as a student worker, a
student must be in good academic standing and making good progress toward their academic
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 57
goal, with few exceptions. These generally well-performing students had mostly well-performing
friends, which also may have skewed the data in favor of well-performing students and away
from the typical FYP student (see average GPA and retention data in earlier section).
All students had completed transfer-level English at the time of interviews, but four of
the seven students who were interviewed had not yet completed transfer level math. Some
students had attempted it and failed, and some had repeatedly failed remedial math courses that
are required before attempting college-level math. Based on a student’s initial score on the math
assessment they are given before starting college, the student may have to complete up to three
remedial, non-transferrable math courses before being able to attempt college-level math. In
some cases, the math course a student places into may have been below a level of math they took
in high school. This study did not consider how a student’s motivation or academic performance
may be affected by having to take a lengthy math sequence or very low-level math courses just
to be able to possibly transfer to a university. In hindsight, it would have been useful to discuss
this when speaking about motivation, overall student experience at the college, and self-efficacy.
Trends in Motivation to Persist
When asked about what motivated students to persist onto Spring semester of their first
year, as well as their second year, all seven of the students said it was partly because they knew it
would be paid for. Promise funding was guaranteed for the first year, even if the student was not
in good academic standing after the first semester, as long as an appeal was submitted to remain
in the program. Toward the end of the students’ Spring semester, it was announced that Promise
would be paying for eligible students’ second year tuition in addition to the first year. Every
student interviewed expressed happiness at the news and how the announcement had an effect on
their decision to continue onto their second year. For example, students shared the following:
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 58
“I was just supposed to do the first year … I just kind of took this first year tuition free just
to get experience of what college was. I was like, okay after the first year I don’t … I’m not
gonna continue, I just wanted to see what school was like … then our second year was
granted to be free… If it wasn’t for the second year then I probably wouldn’t be here…”
“It meant everything. I just like, went home, told my dad, my sister, that I was getting my
second year free…”
“I didn’t qualify for [other] financial aid … I had straight A’s my first year and [so] I felt like
it was a reward, like here’s your second year paid from doing a good job…”
“Without [second year Promise] I don’t know what I would do…”
“I told my parents and they were so happy… (laughter)”
Not only students, but their families were also excited that Promise was offering a “second year
free”. This came as a surprise for each of the students, some of which were already planning to
have to pay out-of-pocket for second year tuition.
To qualify for the second year of Promise, a student had to have a 2.0 cumulative GPA
after Spring of their first year, and must have completed 24 units with a grade of C or better
during the first year. One interesting finding was a student who disclosed that his main
motivation to persist onto second year was the availability of second year Promise to pay his
fees, even though I knew he did not qualify for second year funding due to his academic
standing. It was clear from speaking to the student that he did not know he needed a certain GPA
and units completed for Promise to have continued paying his fees for second year. He believed
that all continuing students were getting their second year free. This student’s fees were paid for
through BOG, but he believed that it was Promise just like some of his peers qualified for. This
made a difference in how that student understood his financial aid package and the knowledge of
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 59
free college was what motivated him to persist. Again, this may speak to the simplicity that
Promise programs can offer institutions to communicate to students that financial aid will not be
an issue, tuition-wise. It did not matter that he did not qualify because the perception of
qualifying for Promise was what motivated his decisions.
Another trend that came up was the use of First Year Program counselors’ names when
discussing motivation to persist. Students routinely gave stories of how a specific counselor was
the one they went to for educational planning and other guidance. Five of the seven interviewees
said the name of their counselor when talking about their decisions to persist and/or the services
that FYP offered them throughout college. This provides evidence for the importance of building
supportive relationships between students and academic counselor within a support program.
Additionally, some students reflected on how much they appreciated being part of a specialized
support program and not having to receive counseling from the general counseling services that
the College offers. Some students had negative experiences with general counseling, which are
the services that are available to all 15,000+ enrolled students at the College. In contrast, FYP
serves less than 1,000 students every year and students are able to book appointments easier and
build more meaningful relationships with counselors due to the smaller counselor-to-student
ratios. The student population that general counseling works with is much different than FYP,
since most non-FYP students tend to be part time students, may work full-time, are often older,
and could be pursuing non-transfer related educational goals. In contrast, FYP serves a mostly
homogenous student population that may make it easier for counselors to help students since the
counselors can give students similar advice and are more used to working with brand new
students who are still transitioning out of high school. Below are some responses when asked
about the use of FYP services:
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 60
“The counselors are good, um, they’re not like general counseling. They try to get on your
level and they do understand that you’re coming straight from high school…”
“I feel like with other [general] counselors, they’re kind of old and they’ll be grumpy, and
I… with you guys [FYP counselors and staff] it’s like I’m comfortable enough to talk about
anything…”
“It’s like taking to a friend, like your counselor from high school. They actually care about
you…”
Academic counseling was the service that most of the interviewees appreciated throughout their
first year and onto their second year. This is not surprising given the extremely limited staffing
of general counseling at the institution, which some students expressed having negative
experiences with.
Lastly, when asked if they would change anything about Promise or FYP, a majority of
students suggested no changes. The students who were interviewed had very positive
experiences with the two programs, which they credited as part of the reason why they were still
at the institution. Again, this may not be representative of the typical FYP student since the
interview sample is skewed towards higher academic performance and persistence. Some
students mentioned how they did not like having so many requirements during the first year
(such as having to take math, English, a freshman seminar, 12 units, etc.), but that they
appreciated all of the requirements now that they were in their second year because they could
see how it set them up for success. For that reason, they would not change the program
requirements. One student did suggest opening up the program to students who are not full-time
and being more flexible with that requirement due to students’ work schedules. Additionally, a
few students expressed the desire to be a little more supported by the program during their
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 61
second year. Since FYP focuses on the first year, second year students are not as often sent
reminders about campus events, opportunities, or reminders to see a counselor. These students
recognized that they did not need as much support anymore, but that it felt strange to go from
such intensive support the first year to a lower level of engagement in the second year. This
finding in particular echoes Rendón’s (1994) validation theory, in this case, the lack of
engagement from out-of-classroom agents was felt by students and the continued validation from
their first year may have been more of a benefit to them.
Overall, the interviewees expressed positive experiences with both Promise and FYP.
Specifically, those who knew about Promise while in high school cited it as a reason for
enrolling at the institution. Convenience and the desire to get away from their local high school
also influenced overall college-going trends. Every student reported that Promise affected their
motivation to succeed, as well as their decisions to persist throughout the first year, and
especially onto the second year. This was true despite the fact that Promise might not have
actually paid for their fees, since students did no have a clear understanding of the difference
between Promise and other financial aid sources that pay for tuition.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 62
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study examined the effect that a Promise program had on student college-going
decisions, academic performance, motivation to persist. The first cohort of students to whom
Promise was available was much larger than the First Year Program cohort before them, but had
similar trends in academic performance and persistence. This may speak more to the quality of
First Year Program services than it does to the effect that Promise had on the examined variables
of interest. Since the two programs are intertwined at the institution of study, this may prove to
show positive outcomes for both the First Year Program and the Regional College Promise
program. Student interviews made the effect of Promise more apparent as it relates to first year
experiences. Specifically, student responses reflected themes of sense of belonging and
relationship building with counselors, which align well with Rendón’s (1994) validation theory
that this study used as a theoretical framework.
Cohort Demographics
As stated previously, the fact that the overwhelming majority of students in both the First
Year Program and the Promise program were between the ages of 17 and 19 was not surprising.
These programs are targeted towards the most recent high school graduates, and could signal an
intentional focus on recent high school graduates by the entities that design and fund these
college retention programs. Full-time enrollment has been seen to contribute highly towards a
student’s chance of graduating and/or transferring to a four-year university in a timely manner
(Belfield & Bailey, 2011), which may explain the institutional focus on these types of students.
Anecdotally, the fact that these students are straight out of high school makes it more likely that
they are able to enroll in college full-time, since the student can keep a similar schedule once
they start college. First-year, full-time students straight out of high school may be more likely to
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 63
view the first year of community college as a continuation of high school, which can have
benefits during the transition period but can also be detrimental in having students take college
seriously or helping them find motivation if they did not have it in high school (Venezia &
Jaeger, 2013). During interviews, students seemed to refute this theory as they talked about how
college was much different and more difficult than high school despite being in classes reserved
for FYP students.
With the introduction of Assembly Bill 19 (Santiago) in California, all Regional College
Promise programs in the state expanded in academic year 2018-19 to include the California
College Promise. Although it is a separate entity, the California College Promise offers identical
benefits as the Regional College Promise, to students who graduated high school in any year,
from any school district, as long as the student has no college credit from any institution
(excluding dual enrollment while in high school). At the institution being studied, California
College Promise students must also go through the First Year Program, are subject to the same
requirements, receive the same benefits, and are identical in every way except how they are
coded in the Student Information System, and the funding source for Promise-funded tuition.
The California College Promise will likely diversify the demographics of future FYP/Promise
cohorts, as institutions no longer have to completely focus on local high schools to recruit
students using the “first year free” as an incentive. The result of this shift in demographics
(relating to student age) may allow for students in these programs to interact more with older,
“nontraditional”, and non-local students than they might have, if Promise were limited to recent
high school graduates from the participating school district.
Given that all seven of the interview participants were Latinx students of “traditional”
college age (i.e. 18-19 during their first year of college), this research may contribute to the
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 64
literature on Latinx, low-income community college students in highly urban areas. A more
diverse sample population may have given more generalizability regarding students in Promise
programs, but this sample is specialized and could be useful when considering that the Latinx
population in the United States is expected to double by 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018).
College-Going Trends
Regional College Promise scholarships can offer institutions a financial incentive to their
students that may push them into full-time enrollment. The message that first year students
receive is, “we will pay for your tuition, but only if you enroll full-time and complete all of our
program requirements, such as Math and English in the first year”. Students who do not know
their fees are paid for anyway through a separate entity may feel like the Promise is the only way
they could have their tuition paid for. To support this, every student who was interviewed
believed that Promise paid for their fees, when the data showed that 88% of all Promise students
had their fees paid for by the Board of Governors (BOG) Fee Waiver instead of Promise. This
false idea may create an ethical dilemma for institutions and Promise program coordinators, as
they are pushing an incentive onto students that may not reflect all information a student needs to
make an informed decision regarding their unit load. Low-income students in particular may feel
pressured into taking full-time units even if their work or family schedule does not practically
allow for it. This is because a low-income student may think that Promise is the only financial
aid available for free tuition. It could be argued that students should be encouraged to take full-
time units due to the literature that shows this increases the likelihood of graduation and transfer
to a university, but it is important to keep in mind that institutions financially benefit from state
appropriations that come from higher full-time student enrollment. This gives institutions an
incentive to withhold information from students regarding eligibility for both Promise and BOG
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 65
financial aid programs. If students were to know that they can get part-time fees covered in full
by the state, and that they didn’t financially need Promise benefits, the Promise cohort may not
have been as large as it was in 2017-18. Some students may have opted to take less than full-time
units if they knew that they didn’t need Promise to receive free tuition.
Additionally, this study showed that a group of mainly high-performing and highly
motivated students did not fully understand the programs they were a part of. While this may not
be so important with regards to where their financial aid comes from, it is important to consider
that some of the students did not know the difference between Promise and FYP. These
programs were meant to be marketed as the same, but they are not the same. Promise provides
two significant benefits besides free tuition – priority registration and the opportunities that come
from being in a network with the city Mayor’s office and the Regional Chamber of Commerce. It
seems that students may not have been fully aware of all the opportunities that were available to
them as Promise students, which should be better promoted for future cohorts. The social capital
that students stand to gain from these opportunities is huge because opportunities include free
international study trips, access to exclusive local internships, and an overall network of
professionals within city government and regional commerce. Rendón (1994) emphasizes the
importance of out-of-classroom validation and Promise benefits should continue to provide this
opportunity for students. Students may feel a further sense of validation if they knew that they
were receiving exclusive benefits through Promise that their first year, FYP-only peers were not
able to access. The financial investment and the symbolic commitment from the city Mayor’s
office and the Regional Chamber of Commerce are out-of-classroom agents that this Promise
program utilizes to show students that they are worthy of such resources dedicated exclusively to
their academic and workforce success.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 66
Student Performance
Inconsistencies within the institution’s Student Information System caused the data on
academic performance and specifically GPA and units completed to be imperfect. A manual
audit of each student’s academic record showed that some college-level courses were coded as to
not affect the GPA at all even with a grade of “F”, and different sections of the same course
would count a grade of “D” as units completed or not completed in some cases. Imperfections in
this academic data can be accounted for in a study, but it may give students a false sense of their
academic record if, for example, they believe that they have units completed when they actually
did not. The multi-college district had just implemented a new Student Information System right
before the Promise cohort enrolled for Fall, and quality control for such a large volume of data is
difficult to achieve. This emphasizes the necessity for students to check in with academic
counselors every semester to go over their academic progress, and the need for counselors to take
a close look at student records without just skimming them over in case of mistakes or glitches.
The use of counselors’ names by Promise students during qualitative interviews shows how
academic counseling is also an out-of-classroom agent that may provide students with validation
that they may not have otherwise received, and whose support contributed to their success
(Rendón, 1994).
The overall differences in academic performance between the two cohorts were mostly
small, with the exception of the increase in students on academic probation. A large number of
students who failed their classes due to nonattendance may have contributed to lowering the
average GPAs, and there is no way to control for students who did not put in effort towards
passing their courses. Either way, the average cumulative GPA after the first year for both
cohorts was below 2.5, which may be discouraging for purposes of transfer to a university. The
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 67
second year tends to be better for students as they have learned to transition into college (Patton
et. al, 2016), so a follow-up study may show that Promise students overall may perform better in
the second year. This would also mean that it would measure only the students who successfully
persisted onto second year, which would no doubt increase the average GPA.
In terms of academic probation, the numbers are high and this reflects national trends in
community college completion and performance, especially for racial and ethnic minorities
(Juszkiewicz, 2016). The institution requested that the percentages of students on academic or
progress probation not be made public, but agreed to a reporting of the percentage increase or
decrease in students on probation during the observed time period. From speaking to the FYP
coordinator, it seems that high numbers of academic probation are just part of the job. Students
are coming in academically unprepared, especially in urban public school settings, and have to
deal with a transition period in addition to that. Working with these students requires a great
amount of patience and empathy as they go through the processes that either adjust them to
college life or cause them to drop out. High levels of academic probation again show the need for
student-centered philosophies such as Rendón’s validation theory.
Student Persistence
From speaking to the FYP coordinator who has seen four cohorts of first-year students go
through the program, it is expected that about 20% of first year students will not persist from Fall
to Spring. The program makes every effort to contact students who are not enrolled in courses
during the first two weeks of Spring semester to see if they need support, and lets students know
that non-enrollment will cause them to be dropped from the program. The 20% drop in students
also includes those who opted to become part-time students for Spring semester, since full-time
enrollment is required throughout the first year. These students unfortunately are also removed
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 68
from the program, which may be a disservice to those whose personal circumstances caused
them to become part-time and who would benefit from more individualized support instead of a
punitive consequence. First year community college programs across the nation tend to focus on
full-time enrollment, mostly because of the positive effects on transfer and graduation. Although
it is a national practice for both first year programs and Promise programs, coordinators and
administrators should keep in mind that part-time students who cannot go full-time may be in
need of more support than a student who is able to go full-time. From an equity standpoint, more
resources should be allocated to support part-time students.
Year-to-year retention was about 2/3 for both cohorts, which shows some attrition, but is
overall more than a majority of students that persist onto second year. These figures also include
part-time enrollment, which is a more accurate measure of retention than what was used to
calculate semester-to-semester enrollment. A future study might longitudinally track students
who went part-time and monitor their progress towards their educational goals over several
years. It is interesting to note that even though all seven students who were interviewed in this
study cited second year Promise as one of the reasons they persisted onto second year, the
difference in year-to-year enrollment from one cohort to the next is only .5%. The two cohorts
had nearly identical year-to-year retention rates, even though the 2016-17 cohort did not have the
clear incentive of free tuition for returning students. Therefore, while Promise may be
incentivizing to students as seen by the qualitative data, Promise students may have persisted
onto their second year either way.
Lastly, it would be interesting to calculate the effect that math and English sequences
with remedial coursework may have had on students’ decisions to persist. Students are less likely
to persist the more remedial classes they have to take (Hawley & Harris, 2005), and it is possible
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 69
that the students who did not come back for either Spring or second year may have been
discouraged by remedial courses. Within this study’s interviewed sample population of Promise
students, a majority of the generally well-performing and motivated students had not completed
transfer-level math halfway through their second year of college. From this data, it is apparent
that math is an obstacle for students to persist onto their academic goals, since college-level math
is a requirement to transfer into a university and sometimes to complete an Associate degree. In
California, AB 705 (Irwin) will soon ensure that students can legally take college-level math and
English during their first semester at a community college, regardless of high school
performance and without the need to take a placement assessment. Future studies should
consider the effect that immediate enrollment into college-level math and English has on first
year students’ academic performance and persistence.
Policy Considerations
As the state of California transitions into sponsoring a statewide Promise program
through AB 19 (Santiago) and the California College Promise, they will face similar questions as
Tennessee did when they became the first state to adopt a statewide Promise program in 2014.
The main question that Tennessee faced from a policy standpoint was whether to focus on
dollars awarded, or access created, and they decided to focus on the latter (Smith, 2018). From a
student-centered viewpoint however, access is not enough and that should not be the optimal
policy focus – student support should be. The Regional College Promise is an example of
integrating student support services within the financial aid program: not just academic
counseling, but opportunities for exclusive internships and travel abroad programs that are
possible through partnerships with the Mayor’s office and the regional Chamber of Commerce.
All of these stakeholders working together for a common goal will ultimately provide more of an
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 70
effect than anything that tuition waivers alone could do; the results of this study that show the
first Promise cohort achieving statistically similar results as the cohort before them is an example
of the positive effects that programs can have even when they are scaled as enrollment increases.
However, as evidenced by the 9% increase in students on progress probation during the first
semester of Promise (i.e. the increase in students who completed 50% or less of attempted units),
quality may suffer when quantity is prioritized. Policymakers need to be careful to find a balance
between the two, as appealing as an increase in raw numbers may be for them. With the
California Community Colleges’ upcoming implementation of a Student-Centered Funding
Formula, the focus on enrollment will shift towards a focus on completion, and the balance
between quality and quantity will be more important than ever.
Conclusion
The overall similarities in outcomes between the two cohorts, despite a large increase in
students served, may show that the First Year Program at this institution is serving their students
well. From a multitude of in- and out-of-classroom supports, qualitative interviews signaled that
relationships with counselors and the perception of free tuition had the greatest effects on student
experiences at the college. As students who participate in Promise programs know very well, the
first year is the hardest, which means that the program itself may produce even better results as
time goes by and growing pains are lessened. Promise programs across the U.S. should continue
to grow as the demand for a college-educated workforce increases and especially as the nation’s
demographics diversify towards a majority-minority population who may not be able to afford
college without financial aid. It can be gathered from this study that even just the perception of
free college is enough to motivate students into succeeding where they may not have considered
going in the first place. In the interest of being student-centered, which all support programs
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 71
should be, Rendón’s (1994) validation theory may prove a valuable starting point for institutions
to develop comprehensive programming for minoritized students. Academic counseling should
be the forefront of this, but we require the full cooperation of faculty and community
stakeholders to fulfill the Promise given to students and realize the hope that these programs
spark in them.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 72
References
Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and persistence.
Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461-485.
Barbatis, P. (2010). Underprepared, ethnically diverse community college students: Factors contributing
to persistence. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(3), 14.
Bartik, T. J., & Lachowska, M. (2012). The short-term effects of the Kalamazoo Promise Scholarship on
student outcomes. Upjohn Institute Working Paper No. 12-186. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research.
Bartik, T. J., Hershbein, B. J., & Lachowska, M. (2015). The effects of the Kalamazoo Promise
scholarship on college enrollment, persistence, and completion. Upjohn Institute Working Paper
No. 15229. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Baum, S., Little, K., & Payea, K. (2011). Trends in community college education: Enrollment, prices,
student aid, and debt levels. College Board Advovacy and Policy Center, Trends in Higher
Education Series.
Belfield, C. R., & Bailey, T. (2011). The benefits of attending community college: A review of the
evidence. Community College Review, 39(1), 46-68.
Cabrera, A. F., Stampen, J. O., & Hansen, W. L. (1990). Exploring the effects of ability to pay on
persistence in college. The Review of Higher Education, 13(3), 303-336.
Carruthers, C. K., & Fox, W. F. (2016). Aid for all: College coaching, financial aid, and post-secondary
persistence in Tennessee. Economics of Education Review, 51, 97-112.
College Promise Campaign. (2017). Annual Report, 2016-2017. Retrieved from
http://collegepromise.wpengine.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/CPC_AnnualReport_2017_SMALL.pdf
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 73
Hawley, T. H., & Harris, T. A. (2005). Student characteristics related to persistence for first-year
community college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 7(1), 117-142.
Hershbein, B. J. (2013). A second look at enrollment changes after the Kalamazoo Promise. Upjohn
Institute Working Paper No. 13-200. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research.
Jameson-Meledy, K. (2016). What are community college ‘promise’ programs and do they provide any
long-term impact on student completion?. Citrus College Institute for Completion. IFC –
Research Brief No. 3.
Juszkiewicz, J. (2016). Trends in community college enrollment and completion data. Washington, DC:
American Association of Community Colleges.
Miller-Adams, M. (2009). The power of a promise: Education and economic renewal in Kalamazoo.
Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Miller-Adams, M. (2015). Promise nation: Transforming communities through place-based
scholarships. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Mishory, J. (2018). The future of statewide college promise programs. Web. Retrieved from
https://tcf.org/content/report/future-statewide-college-promise-programs/
Patton, L., Renn, K., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Quaye, S. (2016). Student development in college: theory,
research, and practice (3
rd
ed,). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer.
Perna, L. W., & Leigh, E. W. (2017). Understanding the promise: A typology of state and local college
promise programs. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 155-180.
Pingel, S., Parker, E., Sisneros, L. (2016, November). Free community college: An approach to
increase adult student success in postsecondary education. Boulder, CO: Education
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 74
Commission of the States. Retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/free-community-college-
an-approach-to-increase-adult-student-success-in-postsecondary-education/
Pluhta, E. A., & Penny, G. R. (2013). The effect of a community college promise scholarship on access
and success. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(10), 723-734.
Rainwater, K. A. (2015, October 5). Tennessee Promise ups enrollment at Chattanooga State, Cleveland
State. Times Free Press. Retrieved from
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/oct/04/tennessee-promise-results-
increased-enrollmen/328625/
Rauner, M. (2016). The college promise in California: A collection of program profiles. San
Francisco, CA: REL-West and WestEd. Retrieved from
https://relwest.wested.org/resources/221
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-51.
Sharf, R. S. (2016). Theories of psychotherapy & counseling: Concepts and cases (6
th
ed.).
Boston, MA: Brooks Cole.
Tamburin, A. (2015, September 12). College enrollment jumps under TN Promise. Tennessean.
Retrieved from https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2015/09/11/college-
enrollment-jumps-under-tn-promise/72096194/
Taylor, J. L., & Lepper, C.W. (2018). Designing the promise: The Salt Lake community college promise
program. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(11), 1-8.
Terkla, D. G. (1985). Does financial aid enhance undergraduate persistence?. Journal of Student
Financial Aid, 15(3), 2.
REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 75
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
United States Census Bureau. (2017). Projected population by single year of age, sex, race, and Hispanic
origin for the United States: 2016 to 2060. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/demo/popproj/2017-popproj.html
Venezia, A., & Jaeger, L. (2013). Transitions from high school to college. The future of children, 117-
136.
Walker Clark, V. L. (2017). Competing with free: An analysis of the effects of Tennessee Promise on
freshman enrollment in four-year colleges and universities. (Doctoral dissertation). Liberty
University. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ref
erer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2532&context=doctoral

REGIONAL COLLEGE PROMISE 76
Appendix A. Interview Protocol
The goal of this interview is for us to gain student feedback regarding College Promise
and the FYP. We want to understand how our programs feel from the student perspective. We
want you to be as honest as possible, so that we can improve if we need to. Everything you share
will be anonymous. We really appreciate your honesty, and would like for this to be more of a
conversation than an interview.
Interview Questions
• What motivated your decision to enroll as a student at this particular college?
• What did College Promise mean to you as a high school senior or college freshman?
• Do you know the difference between the Board of Governors Fee Waiver and Promise?
• Was your transition from high school to college was easy or difficult? Why?
• What motivated your decision to go onto your second semester? Your second year?
o Or, for students who did not persist: What were the reasons behind you not
continuing your education?
• What did it mean to you when it was announced that your second year would also be paid
for?
o Or, for students who did not persist: Can you see yourself going back to school
and finishing what you started? What would that look like? What support would
you need?
• What was your experience with the Regional College Promise?
• What was your experience with the First Year Program?
• How did these services contribute to your first year of college?
• Is there anything you would change about the College Promise or First Year Program?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract During the last few years, regional place-based scholarships have expanded opportunities for students to attain a higher education within their local community. Often named “Promise” programs, regional place-based scholarships offer tuition benefits as well as contribute to a college-going culture within high schools, colleges, and universities. The message of “free tuition for all” is marketable for institutions and easy for students and families to understand, thereby increasing access to higher education as Promise programs have now spread across the nation. What remains to be seen is whether that access translates to student retention, persistence, and completion of academic goals. This study focused on a recently implemented Promise regional place-based scholarship program at a community college in Southern California. Through a mixed-methods approach, the outcomes and experiences of a cohort of students within the institution’s first Promise program were analyzed and compared to a non-Promise, first year cohort from the year prior to Promise implementation. Academic performance indicators were analyzed to measure the effect (if any) of Promise on enrollment, academic performance, and retention. Qualitative interviews with a sample of young, Latinx, and academically persistent Promise students supplemented cohort-level data and gave insight into student experiences with the program. Initial findings showed a large growth in enrollment, and statistically similar academic performance and retention rates between the two cohorts, as well as immense gratitude from students who received Promise benefits. This study will add to the growing literature on recent college promise programs, by forming a positive connection between promise programs and academic support services specifically for these new students. It is the hope that findings will be able to inform ongoing program development to support retention and academic performance, as well as inform policy decisions regarding Promise programs and access to higher education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Class of 2015: where we lose them & where they go

PDF

Enrollment and financial aid decisions of first-year students at a private institution

PDF

The psychosociocultural model as it relates to Latino/a college students and their academic success: a literature review

PDF

First-year persistence of rural high school graduates at four-year, urban colleges and universities

PDF

Dual-enrollment program implementation to address the problem of college affordability as a barrier to student access and a contributing factor toward student debt

PDF

The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice

PDF

Injecting warm fuzzies into cold systems: defining, benchmarking, and assessing holistic, person-centered academic advising

PDF

The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college

PDF

Experiential learning curriculum supporting guided pathways in California community colleges

PDF

Incorporating social and emotional learning in higher education: a promising practices based development of authentic leadership

PDF

The contribution of family members to first-generation college student success: a narrative approach

PDF

Increasing student persistence at a community college from a faculty perspective

PDF

Native Hawaiian student success in the first-year: the impact of college programs and practices

PDF

Examining Financial Well-being and Financial Stress: Experiences of Low-income and First-generation Postsecondary Students

PDF

Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities

PDF

Increasing student persistence at a community college from an administration perspective

PDF

In pursuit of higher education: external and internal factors influencing the decision to attend college among Cambodian-American students

PDF

Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution

PDF

Honorary mention: the untold stories of minoritized community college honors students

PDF

Impact of mentoring on former pre-college program participants: gaining while giving back

Asset Metadata

Creator Franco, Eduardo (author)

Core Title Fulfillment of a regional college promise: lessons from the first year, first cohort

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Master of Education

Degree Program Educational Counseling

Publication Date 05/01/2019

Defense Date 03/21/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag college access,college enrollment,college performance,college persistence,college promise,community college,financial aid,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,program evaluation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Corwin, Zoe (committee member), Venegas, Kristan Monique (committee member)

Creator Email eduardo.franco94@gmail.com,eduardof@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-162539

Unique identifier UC11660730

Identifier etd-FrancoEdua-7383.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-162539 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FrancoEdua-7383.pdf

Dmrecord 162539

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Franco, Eduardo

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA