Is a College Promise Program an Effective Use of Resources? Understanding the Implications of Program Design and Resource Investments for Equity and Efficiency

Abstract

Also known as “free tuition,” college promise programs are emerging across the United States as a potential mechanism for improving college access and affordability, Whether these initiatives are an effective use of resources depends on whether programs advance societal goals for equity and efficiency. Although some emerging research explores the role of program design, few studies have probed how program design and resource investments influence program outcomes, efficiency, and equity. To address this knowledge gap, this study draws on case studies of programs that offer free tuition to attend four community colleges. Findings illustrate how program outcomes, efficiency, and equity may be influenced by the criteria used to determine program eligibility and the resources invested in the financial award and other program components. We hope the findings are useful to policymakers and institutional leaders, as they strive to allocate resources to advance both efficiency and equity.

Will college promise programs improve or reduce equity? Understanding the contextual conditions that influence program implementation

“…Equity depends on who receives what program content and with what consequences for college enrollment and completion (Perna et al, 2020). Data limitations prevent us from examining how the effects of the studied programs vary by student characteristics.…”

Tuition‐free promise programs: Implications and lessons learned

“…Moreover, programs that are at least partly financed by the college itself or the community college foundation generate less revenue per student than those that are entirely funded by external sources (e.g., state, local, or private funding) (Gándara & Billings, n.d.). A qualitative case study confirms that resources for promise programs come primarily from federal Pell Grants, local appropriations, and donations to a colleges’ foundation, although funding can also come from reallocations away from other college expenses (Perna et al., 2020).…”

“…Case studies of promise programs have found that some eligible institutions create or expand existing programs or processes to promote student success (Burkander, Ballerini et al., 2019; Burkander, Kent et al., 2019; Meehan et al., 2019). For instance, some institutions have paid for a portion of non‐tuition costs (Burkander, Ballerini et al., 2019); increased capacity for data collection and analysis (Perna et al., 2020); increased their investment in advising and academic planning; or streamlined institutional policies and practices to support first‐year students (Meehan et al., 2019; Perna et al., 2020). A case study of an institution in the Midwest found that the institution improved services that could help all students, including non‐promise students, such as offering more open‐source course materials and creating internships.…”

“…A case study of an institution in the Midwest found that the institution improved services that could help all students, including non‐promise students, such as offering more open‐source course materials and creating internships. Institutions also increased their spending on marketing for promise programs (Perna et al., 2020).…”

“…Research has also found that support for promise students can divert resources away from other college functions, including recruitment and services that support non‐promise students. In one example, a college in the West discussed the possibility of investing more in athletics and other services to cater to a younger student demographic (Perna et al., 2020). Thus, campus responses to promise programs are complex and varied.…”