help with engl -3- due in 24-48 hours

DOI: 10.1002/cc.20485

R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E

Tuition-free promise programs: Implications and lessons learned

Meredith S. Billings1 Denisa Gándara2 Amy Y. Li3

1 Department of Educational Leadership, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA

2 Department of Education Policy and Leadership at Southern Methodist University, 3101 University Blvd Ste. 345, Dallas, Texas, USA

3 Department of Educational Policy Studies at Florida International UniversityDepartment of Educational Policy Studies, ZEB, Miami, Florida, USA

Correspondence Meredith S. Billings, Department of Educa- tional Policy Studies at Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA. Email: [email protected]

Abstract Promise programs are an increasing popular solu- tion to improving college affordability, reducing edu- cational inequities, and promoting economic devel- opment. Promise programs are distinct from other forms of financial aid because they emphasize resi- dency in their eligibility criteria, where students must live and/or attend school in specific locations to be awarded the promise scholarship. In this chapter, we review extant literature on community college promise programs by discussing the prevalence of these pro- grams, their variations in designs, and their funding sources. We also review studies on the effect of these programs on students and institutions. Based on our survey of the literature, we propose several practical recommendations for community college stakeholders that are aimed at improving student access and suc- cess.

In the last two decades, promise programs have been adopted to address issues of col- lege affordability, educational inequity, and economic development (Miller-Adams, 2015; National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2019). Unlike college scholarships with eligibility criteria that focus on academic merit or financial need, promise programs are more likely to emphasize residency. Students need to live and/or attend school within spe- cific geographic boundaries for a set number of years to qualify for the promise scholar- ships (Miller-Adams, 2015). These geographic boundaries are usually public school dis- tricts, towns, cities, counties, or states (Miller-Adams, 2015; Perna & Leigh, 2018).

As promise programs have spread across the United States, the residency-only design of these programs has evolved. Newer promise programs have included more traditional criteria to determine scholarship eligibility, such as academic merit and financial need as well as other criteria such as school attendance rates, course-taking requirements, and/or school discipline records (Billings, 2018; Miller-Adams, 2015; Perna & Leigh, 2018). These design choices affect which students are eligible for the scholarships, the benefits that students receive, and the postsecondary institutions at which students can use the scholarships. There are also concerns that the eligibility criteria and design elements for

New Dir for Community Coll. 2021;2021:81–95. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cc © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 81

82 Tuition-Free Promise Programs

some programs are regressive since scholarship dollars are directed away from low-income students towards wealthier students ineligible for need-based aid (Dowd et al., 2020).

In this chapter, we review the landscape of promise programs whose scholarships can be used only at the community college level, excluding programs applicable to four-year col- leges and universities. We discuss why these programs were adopted, their typical funding sources, and variations in program design features. Then, we summarize literature on the effect of promise programs on students and institutions. We conclude with several practice recommendations for community college stakeholders.

LANDSCAPE OF PROMISE PROGRAMS

As of 2020, at least 14 states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Ken- tucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Ten- nessee) have free community college programs (Farrington, 2020; Teitz, 2019). At least five other states (New York, Indiana, Oklahoma, Washington, and West Virginia) have statewide free college programs that allow students to also attend four-year universities (Farrington, 2020; West Virginia Invests, n.d.). In addition to the statewide programs, there are over 100 local programs that offer scholarships to two-year colleges only (Billings, n.d.). These pro- grams typically cover tuition and sometimes pay for required fees.

The rise of promise programs

Promise programs are often adopted in communities or states with lower educational attainment rates and/or areas that are experiencing an economic decline (Miller-Adams, 2015). The intent is that students will use the scholarships to earn their postsecondary degrees and after graduation, secure jobs in the same geographic location. This increases the stock of college-educated labor, which may attract new businesses to the area or pre- vent current businesses from leaving, all of which may promote economic growth (Miller- Adams, 2015; Miller-Adams & Smith, 2018; NCSL, 2019).

Promise programs may also increase the quality and rigor of the K-12 school system. The “free college” message may cause more students to view college as a possibility, leading them to enroll in courses that are more rigorous or spend more time on academic activities (Miron, Jones, & Kelaher-Young, 2012). The local school district may also respond by offer- ing more advanced-level and college preparatory courses and hosting college awareness events such as college fairs and college application workshops (Miller-Adams, 2015).

Funding sources for promise programs

Promise programs are funded by public entities, private entities, or a combination of the two. They can receive funding from local sources such as local appropriations, sales taxes, and/or property taxes (Kanter, 2020). For instance, the Galesburg Promise is funded by the city of Galesburg, Illinois and provides scholarships to students attending Carl Sandburg College, the local community college (Carl Sandburg College, n.d.). Statewide free commu- nity college programs are typically funded by state sources such as state appropriations, lottery revenues, tax increment financing, and/or tax credits (Boyd & Lubbers, 2017; Kan- ter, 2020). For example, the statewide Tennessee Promise is funded through annual lottery revenues and interest earnings on its endowment and special reserve (Boyd & Lubbers, 2017).

New Directions for Community Colleges 83

The last public source of funding is the federal government. Promise programs can use federal financial aid such as Pell Grants to cover tuition and fees for eligible students. Federal grant aid that gets applied to students’ tuition and fees before promise dollars decreases the program’s cost per student (Kanter, 2020).

Promise programs also use private revenues, which come from local and national busi- nesses, community and postsecondary foundations, and individual donors (Kanter, 2020). Several local promise programs in California are partially funded by their respective com- munity college foundations (Rauner, 2016).

Variations in promise program designs

As more promise programs were adopted, communities and states adapted and modified the design to fit their student population, community needs, and budget (Miller-Adams, 2015). These design features affect eligibility criteria, scholarship disbursement mecha- nisms, benefits offered, and scholarship renewal criteria (Dowd et al., 2020).

Differences in eligibility criteria

While promise programs emphasize eligibility based on residency, many programs require additional criteria. The most common criteria for statewide programs are minimum high school GPAs (typically ranging from 2.0 to 3.0), completion of the Free Application for Fed- eral Student Aid (FAFSA), and full-time enrollment during college (Callahan et al., 2019; Harnisch & Lebioda, 2016; Mishory, 2018). For instance, in California, approximately 17% of programs require a minimum high school GPA (usually a 2.0) and almost all programs (92%) require students to attend college full-time (Rauner & Smith, 2020). Full-time enroll- ment, however, may exclude some individuals from participating in the program due to familial or work obligations that prevent them from attending full-time (Dowd et al., 2020).

Some programs require demonstrated financial need. The Oregon Promise has a max- imum Expected Family Contribution (EFC), which was $22,000 for the high school class of 2020; students at or above this EFC are ineligible (Oregon Higher Education Coordinat- ing Commission [OHECC], n.d.). Other programs have less common criteria such as post- graduation residency (Mishory, 2018). For example, the Arkansas Future Grant requires recipients to live and work within the state for three years after earning their associate degree or certificate. If graduates fail to meet this requirement, their grant converts to a loan (Arkansas Department of Higher Education, n.d.).

Program designs inevitably exclude certain students. Adult learners, undocumented stu- dents, and incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals are usually ineligible for state programs (Jones et al., 2020) [See Chapter 6 in this volume for more information on pro- grams for incarcerated individuals]. These restrictions tend to disproportionately affect Black and Latinx students and can further exacerbate educational inequities. Dowd et al. (2020) argue that these restrictive criteria contradict the democratizing purpose of com- munity colleges.

Differences in application of scholarship funds

Another main difference in the design of promise programs is whether the scholarship is disbursed on a first-dollar or last-dollar basis. First-dollar programs apply scholarship

84 Tuition-Free Promise Programs

funds to the tuition bill first, before federal and state grant aid. This allows low-income stu- dents to receive more money than they would have otherwise, as they are able to combine promise scholarship dollars with other aid sources. In contrast, last-dollar designs apply scholarships funds after all other grant aid is exhausted, and tend to subsidize middle- or high-income students who either receive less aid or do not qualify for federal and/or state grants. Promise programs frequently disburse funds on a last-dollar basis because this requires fewer total financial resources. Less common is a “middle-dollar” approach, such as the New Mexico Opportunity Scholarship, which covers the tuition and fee balance after state-aid is applied, but students can still stack federal aid (e.g., Pell Grants) over their promise aid (St. Amour, 2020a).

Differences in benefits offered

Promise programs can pay for tuition, tuition and fees, or expenses beyond tuition such as books and course materials, living expenses, and transportation (Pingel et al., 2016). Rauner and Smith (2020) found that approximately two-thirds (69%) of local promise pro- grams in California only cover tuition and fees. The remaining programs either cover costs in addition to tuition and fees, such as books and/or transportation (23%), or provide stu- dents with one-time grants instead of paying for tuition (8%).

In addition to scholarships, some promise programs provide academic support, stu- dent services, and/or career/workforce support. In California, approximately 60% of local promise programs offer academic support during college (Rauner & Smith, 2020), which can include tutoring, advising, learning communities, student success workshops, or a designated promise counselor. Over half of the California programs (51%) provide stu- dent services such as peer mentoring, success coaching, and workshops on how to navi- gate college, career, or personal lives; 20% offer career/workforce support such as career planning, trainings, lectures, and job shadowing (Rauner & Smith, 2020). Among statewide programs, recipients of the Arkansas’ ArFuture Grant and the Nevada Promise meet reg- ularly with a mentor (Arkansas Department of Higher Education, n.d.; Ballerini et al., 2019).

Differences in renewal criteria

To be eligible for renewal of their promise scholarships, students usually need to maintain full-time enrollment, a minimum college GPA, and not exceed the number of semesters or years of scholarship eligibility (Callahan et al., 2019). Often, the GPA requirement is 2.0 as is the case in statewide programs in Nevada, Oregon, and Tennessee (Ballerini et al., 2019; Burkander, Kent et al., 2019; Meehan et al., 2019). The Delaware statewide program sets a higher minimum GPA of 2.5 (Burkander, Kent et al., 2019).

Some promise programs also require students to complete community service hours while in college. Among statewide programs, students need to complete 8 h per semester in Tennessee and Nevada (Ballerini et al., 2019; Meehan et al., 2019) and 10 h per semester in Arkansas (Arkansas Department of Education, n.d.). Tulsa Achieves, a local promise program in Oklahoma, requires 40 h of community service each year (Bell & Gándara, 2021). However, community service requirements are uncommon and have mixed sup- port. Advocates say that such requirements increase student buy-in and encourage stu- dents to give back to their communities, while opponents argue that they create unneces- sary barriers (Callahan et al., 2019; Miller-Adams, 2015; Wermund, 2019). Perna et al. (2018)

New Directions for Community Colleges 85

found that of the approximately 60,000 high school seniors who completed the initial appli- cation for the Tennessee Promise in 2016, only 40% completed the community service requirement.

EFFECTS OF PROMISE PROGRAMS ON STUDENTS

Promise programs improve student outcomes through various mechanisms. These include increasing initial entry into college (Pluhta & Penny, 2013), improving student persistence once enrolled (Carruthers & Fox, 2016; Zumeta & Huntington-Klein, 2020), ensuring greater transfer rates from two- to four-year institutions (Bell & Gándara, 2021), and increasing degree attainment (Bell & Gándara, 2021; Zumeta & Huntington-Klein, 2020). In this sec- tion, we review literature, most of which is descriptive, on the effect of promise programs on student outcomes in community college settings.

Delaware’s SEED scholarship

The Student Excellence Equals Degree (SEED) Scholarship in Delaware was implemented in 2006 as a last-dollar, state-funded program that covers three years of tuition for students pursuing associate degrees from any of the four Delaware Tech campuses or the University of Delaware. To be eligible, students must graduate from a high school in Delaware, have a minimum high school GPA of 2.5, enroll directly into college, and have no felony convic- tions. The SEED program is particularly helpful for middle-income students, whose family incomes disqualify them from receiving the Pell Grant but who still face challenges in pay- ing tuition. About half of SEED students do not receive any federal grant support. SEED grant recipients reported higher first-year retention rates, higher rates of credit accumula- tion, and higher rates of associate degree completion, compared to SEED-eligible students who did not receive the grant. As part of the program, Delaware Tech administrators imple- mented initiatives to improve student success, such as using predictive analytics to iden- tify “at-risk” students and subsequently providing these students with academic services (Burkander, Kent et al., 2019).

Tennessee Promise

The Tennessee Promise enrolled its first cohort in fall 2015, providing last-dollar funding covering tuition and fees for any two-year degree or certificate program in Tennessee. The program also provided participants with a mentor to guide them through college. Students must enter college directly after earning a high school diploma or GED and complete 8 h of community service or job shadowing each semester (Meehan et al., 2019). Demographics of program participants were similar to non-participants in terms of gender, ACT score, average high school GPA, and race/ethnicity (Zumeta & Huntington-Klein, 2020).

During the first fall semester that Tennessee Promise operated, the percent of Ten- nessee high school graduates enrolling in college increased from 58% to 64% (Zumeta & Huntington-Klein, 2020). This rate of college-going maintained its higher level for subse- quent years (Meehan et al., 2019). Community college enrollment was 27% higher during the first year after the program started, and 20% higher during subsequent years (Zumeta & Huntington-Klein, 2020). Although enrollment numbers increased, retention rates did not change, although retention rates were still substantially higher for promise students than

86 Tuition-Free Promise Programs

non-promise students (Tennessee Higher Education Commission [THEC] & Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation [TSAC], 2017, 2019; Zumeta & Huntington-Klein, 2020).

Among the fall 2015 cohort, 21.5% of participants completed a degree or certificate within five semesters—the time limit for aid receipt, compared to a completion rate of 13.8% among students entering the year before promise, and 8.3% among non-promise students in fall 2015 (Zumeta & Huntington-Klein, 2020). After three years, the same cohort of promise participants transferred out at lower rates than non-participants (10.1% versus 12.2%) and fewer were still enrolled (20.6% versus 23.9%). As a whole, 52.2% of promise par- ticipants graduated, transferred, or were still enrolled after three years, compared to 49.9% of the pre-promise cohort (THEC & TSAC, 2019).

Oregon Promise

The Oregon Promise is a middle-dollar program created in 2015 that covers tuition and fees for the first 90 credits (quarterly system) at any in-state community college. The program requires a minimum high school GPA of 2.5, high school graduation or GED receipt, and immediate enrollment into college. The program distributes funding primarily on a last- dollar basis, but even students who have tuition and fees covered by Pell Grants or other scholarships receive $1,000 for other college expenses. The program uniquely allows part- time enrollment, which differs from most other promise programs. Award recipients are required to complete a first-year experience activity at their community college (Burkan- der, Kent et al., 2019).

The percent of high school graduates who enrolled in community colleges was 26.1% in 2015, prior to the program, and 29.3% in 2016 during the first program year, although this increase was reversed in 2017 (OHECC, 2018; Zumeta & Huntington-Klein, 2020). A separate report found that the percent of 18-year-olds who enrolled in community col- leges increased by 4 percentage points (Burkander, Kent et al., 2019). Another study of the Oregon Promise found that compared to similar students in other states, the percent of students enrolling in community colleges in Oregon was 4.0-5.3 percentage points higher among the first two eligible cohorts. This increase was driven by a decline in enrollment at four-year colleges combined with an increase among students who otherwise would not have attended college (Gurantz, 2020).

In terms of demographics for Oregon Promise students, Black students and White stu- dents were less likely to receive the scholarship considering their overall representation at community colleges, while Hispanic/Latinx students were more likely to receive promise funds. The representation of Asian students and Pacific Islander students at community colleges overall was similar to those receiving the Oregon Promise (OHECC, 2018; Zumeta & Huntington-Klein, 2020). During the first year of the program, over 60% of funds were awarded to students in the top 40% of family incomes, calculated by EFCs. Yet only 16.6% of funds went to students in the lowest 40% of EFCs, which reflects the program’s last-dollar approach, since these students received benefits only after using Pell Grants (OHECC, 2018).

Nevada Promise

The Nevada Promise is a last-dollar program that covers three years of tuition and fees at any of the state’s four community colleges, with its first eligible cohort in the fall of 2018. Students must be less than 20 years old and have completed a high school diploma or GED.

New Directions for Community Colleges 87

Recipients are required to take one training program, meet with a mentor, and complete 8 h of community service. The effects of the program have differed by college. During the first year of program implementation, one college experienced increases in the number of promise-eligible students enrolled, while a second college experienced declines (consis- tent with overall yearly declines at that college). One college reported increases in the share of Black and Hispanic promise-eligible students, while another college saw decreases (Bal- lerini et al., 2019).

Knox Achieves

Knox Achieves was active from 2008 to 2011, and covered two-year and technical col- leges in Tennessee for students who lived in Knox County, inducing students to shift from four-year to two-year colleges (Carruthers & Fox, 2016). Specifically, eligible stu- dents sorted into community colleges at a rate 3.1-4.9 percentage points higher com- pared to rates prior to the program (11-17% of the relevant control mean), affecting stu- dents who would have otherwise attended a four-year college and students who would not have attended college. Enrollment directly into college increased 3.5-4.0 percentage points (8-9% of the control mean of 46–47%). Compared to non-participants, partici- pants were 24.2 percentage points more likely to enroll in college within nine months of graduation (29.6 percentage points more likely to enroll directly into a community college and 5.2 percentage points less likely to enroll in a four-year college). The Knox Achieves program also influenced persistence; participants were 22% more likely to per- sist during their first two years of college, and earned 6.8 more credits than their non- participant counterparts within two years after high school graduation (Carruthers & Fox, 2016).

Tulsa Achieves

Tulsa Achieves is a last-dollar promise program that covers tuition and fees at Tulsa Com- munity College for students who reside in Tulsa County, Oklahoma and graduate high school with at least a 2.0 GPA. Scholarship recipients are required to participate in a stu- dent success course and complete 40 h of community service each year. When the pro- gram was launched, Tulsa Community College established articulation agreements with four-year universities, and students who participated in Tulsa Achieves became eligible for transfer scholarships (Bell & Gándara, 2021).

Research suggests that Tulsa Achieves eligibility significantly increased the likelihood of transfer from Tulsa Community College to a four-year university and bachelor’s degree attainment (Bell, 2021). Another study examined the differentiated effects of Tulsa Achieves across students from racial/ethnic groups. That study finds that eligibility for Tulsa Achieves increased the likelihood of graduation from Tulsa Community College within three years, but only among White students (Bell & Gándara, 2021). Longer-term out- comes were more positive for Hispanic and Native American students. Hispanic stu- dents who were eligible for Tulsa Achieves were more likely to transfer to a four-year university within four years. Finally, eligibility for Tulsa Achieves increased bachelor’s degree attainment within five years for Native American and Hispanic students (Bell & Gándara, 2021). For Black students, the study did not find significant effects on any of the outcomes in the full period of the study. However, the authors did detect some posi- tive effects of Tulsa Achieves eligibility on Black student outcomes (i.e., associate’s degree

88 Tuition-Free Promise Programs

attainment, transfer, and bachelor’s degree attainment) in pre-recession cohorts (Bell & Gándara, 2021).

Additional studies of program effects

Two studies we include in this review did not indicate the specific programs evaluated, most likely for confidentiality reasons. Perna et al. (2018) conducted interviews with staff and students at high schools and colleges affected by one of four different promise pro- grams offering aid for attending a community college. The authors found that programs provided resources to both participants and non-participants, shifted enrollment from four-year colleges, and increased enrollment among eligible students and even among ineligible students.

Pluhta and Penny (2013) evaluated a program in the Pacific Northwest that covered tuition for one year at a single community college. This program focused on a nearby inner-city high school with a substantial proportion of low-income students. All graduates were eligible for the program, without additional merit or need-based requirements. In the three years before the program, 6.2% of the high school graduating class applied to the col- lege, whereas 60.7% of the class applied to the college during the three years after program implementation, resulting in a nine-fold increase. In addition, prior to the program, 6.2% of the graduating class matriculated during the fall semester at the community college, a rate that rose to 27.8% after program implementation. Scholarship recipients had a 90% fall-to- winter quarter retention rate, compared to a 70% retention rate among the overall college population. In short, the promise program was associated with increases in applications to college, entrance into college, and retention rates (Pluhta & Penny, 2013).

EFFECTS OF PROMISE PROGRAMS ON INSTITUTIONS

Beyond understanding the effects of promise programs on individual students, it is impor- tant to evaluate how these programs affect higher-education institutions. For example, how do enrollments, finances, and operations change when a college affiliates itself with an existing promise program or initiates its own promise program? In this section, we review the small but burgeoning literature on the effects of promise programs on community col- leges.

Effects on college enrollments

Using institution-level data to examine changes at individual institutions, research on the effects of promise programs on college enrollments offer direct implications for what col- leges can expect following the implementation of a promise program. Two recent studies examined the enrollment effects of local promise programs that are affiliated with a sin- gle public, two-year college (Gándara & Li, 2020; Li & Gándara, 2020). Both studies exam- ined a national sample including over 30 such programs. The first study found that these programs increased first-time, full-time enrollments at eligible colleges by 9% to 22%, on average (Li & Gándara, 2020). The second study examined heterogeneous effects of these programs on students with different racial/ethnic and gender classifications (Gándara & Li, 2020). That study found large, positive effects on enrollments of all racial/ethnic and gender groups, except the groups of Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander students.

New Directions for Community Colleges 89

Enrollment effects were largest for Hispanic females (52% increase), Black females (51% increase), Black males (47% increase), and Hispanic males (40% increase). In summary, the promise programs in the study had the greatest effect on the enrollment of racially minori- tized students, especially those classified as females (Gándara & Li, 2020).

Gándara and Li’s (2020) study also examined differences in enrollment effects based on program design features. The authors found that first-dollar programs have a positive effect on the enrollment of White students. Promise programs with income requirements have smaller enrollment effects across demographic groups, except for Black males. Finally, pro- grams that cover full tuition for two years have positive enrollment effects on Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander students.

In addition to the aforementioned studies of promise effects on community college enrollments, two studies have examined the effect of the Tennessee Promise (Bell, 2021; Nguyen, 2020). Nguyen (2020) estimated that enrollments at community colleges in Ten- nessee increased by at least 40% following the implementation of the program, amounting to an average of 500 students per college. A small portion of that increase was due to diver- sion of students away from public, four-year universities in the state (2% decrease in enroll- ment at public, four-year institutions, on average). Bell (2021) identified more modest gains in enrollment at eligible Tennessee institutions compared to Nguyen. Similar to Nguyen, Bell detected substitution effects, in which four-year institutions experienced declines in undergraduate in-state enrollment after promise program implementation.

Effects on finances and operations

A small but growing literature also examines how promise programs affect finances and operations at participating community colleges. These studies have focused primarily on three outcomes: institutional revenues, institutional expenditures, and pricing. In addition, qualitative studies have begun to shed light on institutional responses to promise programs and changes to their operations.

By examining how 33 local promise programs affect revenues at participating commu- nity colleges, Gándara and Billings (n.d.) found that when a community college launches or partners with a promise program, their revenues (total and per student) increase, on aver- age, primarily due to higher revenues from local appropriations. Community colleges with a promise program decrease their dependence on tuition and fee revenue, as a smaller share of their total revenue comes from that source. Last-dollar programs generate more revenue per student than first-dollar programs. 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 pri- vate 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).

Related to changes in revenue, recent studies have examined how colleges with a promise program change their pricing (i.e., tuition, fees, or institutional aid). Delaney and Hemenway (2020) found mixed results in their analysis of promise program effects on tuition prices. When they examined all promise programs that affect two-year institutions, they found a positive effect on in-district tuition (12%), and a positive effect specifically for statewide promise programs that affect two-year institutions (14%). Similarly, Bell (2021) found that two-year colleges eligible for the Tennessee Promise increased their tuition prices, although they also decreased fees charged, following the implementation of the

90 Tuition-Free Promise Programs

program. Delaney and Hemenway (2020) further found that promise programs did not change Pell Grant receipts or institutional financial aid awarded at community colleges with a promise program. This finding is consistent with Dowd et al.’s (2020) argument that promise programs may not be targeting benefits to students with the greatest financial need.

In addition to changes in institutional revenue sources, expenditures can change after a promise program is implemented. In a working paper, Delaney and Hemenway found that spending on instruction, academic support, and student support decreased at community colleges with a promise program. In contrast, the authors found increases in community college spending on areas categorized as “auxiliary enterprises,” which include residence halls and food services. The share of non-student related expenses, including academic support, institutional support, and operations and maintenance, increased at community colleges with promise programs.

Campus responses

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 insti- tutions 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. Institutions also increased their spending on marketing for promise programs (Perna et al., 2020).

However, these improvements are not feasible at all institutions. In Tennessee, campus leaders stated that their ability to invest in additional supports for promise students was hampered by limited resources (Meehan et al., 2019). Similarly, in Nevada, some institu- tions implemented additional supports, but others did not have the resources to do so (Ballerini et al., 2019). In Oregon, institutions initially received additional dollars from the state to implement a first-year experience program, hire a student success team, and pro- vide professional development. However, the state discontinued that funding stream. At least one college used their own resources to continue to fund a staff position to support promise students (Burkander, Kent et al., 2019).

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. While some institutions are able to enhance their supports for students, others are limited in their capacity and resources to serve students adequately.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Certain recommendations for practice emerge from the research we reviewed on promise programs. Studies documented the importance of widespread messaging of programs,

New Directions for Community Colleges 91

such as the Tennessee’s statewide strategy of announcing the program at schools, over social media, on billboards, and on the radio (Meehan et al., 2019). These efforts at spread- ing the word about promise programs, especially when first implemented, are vital to increasing access to college for target populations, such as those students who would not have otherwise considered college.

However, one frequent challenge with promise programs is full transparency on the costs these scholarships cover. For instance, because the Oregon Promise was marketed as “free college,” students and counselors reported feeling misled when they discovered that expenses beyond tuition were not covered (Burkander, Ballerini et al., 2019). In Ten- nessee, some students who were awarded merit-based scholarships expressed frustration that their total promise funding was reduced by the amount of their merit aid, whereas other students who did not receive merit-based aid (because their academic credentials did not qualify) received higher dollar amounts from the Tennessee Promise (Kramer, 2019). In short, more detailed information provided during high school and college would better align student expectations of funding awards with actual awards received.

Furthermore, community colleges should consider offering additional support program- ming for promise students once they enter college, such as the case with the Delaware SEED program (Burkander, Ballerini et al., 2019). Particularly since these students are likely to be unfamiliar with navigating college, investing institutional resources into mentor- ship, advising, and financial aid counseling would help with retention goals. More inten- tional provision of academic supports, such as tutoring and supplementary instruction, would also benefit students with limited academic preparation. Other possibilities are to engage promise students in first-year experience programs or to create a cohort model. As indicated earlier, Delaney and Hemenway (n.d.) found funding declines in instruc- tion, academic support, and student support after promise implementation. Thus, col- leges should carefully evaluate the adequacy of resources channeled to support promise students.

As noted, tuition and fees are only part of the expenses needed for college attendance. Students have other basic needs, including housing and food (Broton & Goldrick-Rab, 2016), and may face challenges paying for unexpected expenses (e.g., medical conditions, car breaking down). Community colleges may wish to consider emergency grants that stu- dents can apply for, and food pantries to help students who face food insecurity.

Another recommendation for practice is for two-year colleges to develop or improve articulation agreements with nearby four-year colleges, as described in Bell and Gándara (2021). Credit loss from two-year colleges to four-year universities is one of the greatest bar- riers to bachelor’s degree attainment for students who start at a community college (Mon- aghan & Attewell, 2015). Facilitating credit transfer, including through articulation agree- ments, would ease the process for students who wish to pursue a credential beyond an associate degree.

Promise program designers and administrators should also consider the potential neg- ative consequences of time-intensive requirements. For instance, the requirement for students to complete community service hours to maintain a scholarship may pose a barrier for students with existing work or family obligations. While community ser- vice may enhance connections to local organizations, more research is needed to deter- mine whether service hours create a barrier for students to renew their promise funding. Similarly, requiring full-time continuous enrollment for scholarship renewal can create barriers for students who are unable to take a full course load (Burkander, Ballerini et al., 2019; Dowd et al., 2020).

Further considerations include expanding eligibility of promise programs to adult and returning students and undocumented students (Carlson et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2020).

92 Tuition-Free Promise Programs

These changes would require logistical support for the additional students who would qualify, but would extend opportunity for students who have historically been marginal- ized in higher education and who could benefit most from promise supports.

CONCLUSION

Promise programs are an important policy innovation for community colleges and may see further attention in the Biden administration with an anticipated national free community college proposal. Given this interest, we need to understand what practices are effective, and what we still need to know about these programs. In this chapter, we provided evidence that these programs are associated with increases in students’ enrollment in and persis- tence at community colleges (Burkander, Ballerini et al., 2019; Burkander, Kent et al., 2019; Burkander et al., 2019; Carruthers & Fox, 2016; Gurantz, 2020; Meehan et al., 2019; Zumeta & Huntington-Klein, 2020). However, we do not always know whether these increased enrollments ultimately lead to increases in degree completion (with some exceptions: Delaware SEED, Tennessee Promise, and Tulsa Achieves), as most programs have not been operating long enough to examine graduation outcomes. It is also important to under- stand whether these programs are adequately addressing college affordability concerns as most of the programs that we reviewed focused on tuition-free college instead of debt- free college. Students may not view college as achievable even with their tuition and fees covered.

In addition to program effects on students, further research should consider program effects on institutions. While we summarized evidence that community colleges with promise programs change their pricing and finances (Bell, 2021; Delaney & Hemenway, 2020, working paper; Gándara & Billings, n.d.), additional evaluations are necessary to determine how programs affect staffing levels, course availability, and other short- and long-term capacity constraints. It is also important to understand the sustainability and stability of promise programs, which could affect the ability of eligible colleges to plan. For instance, some statewide free community college programs in Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Oregon are limited by unstable funding allocations (Douglas- Gabriel, 2020; Harnisch & Lebioda, 2016; St. Amour, 2020b). If demand is higher than the funding available, some eligible students may not receive full scholarships (Harnisch & Lebioda, 2016; St. Amour, 2020b, 2020c), which could affect enrollment and funding at eligible community colleges. By investigating and providing answers to these questions, we can better design and implement promise programs to meet their intended goals of improving college affordability, reducing educational inequity, and promoting economic development.

R E F E R E N C E S Arkansas Department of Higher Education. (n.d.). Arkansas Future Grant (ArFuture). https://scholarships.adhe.

edu/scholarships/detail/arfutures Ballerini, V., Hagood, S., Meehan, K., & Callahan, K. (2019). The case of Nevada Promise: Promise replication in

a different state context. Research for Action. https://8rri53pm0cs22jk3vvqna1ub-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/ wp-content/uploads/2019/12/RFA-Nevada-Case-Study-Dec-2019-FINAL-vb2.pdf

Bell, E. (2021). Estimating the spillover effects of the Tennessee Promise: Exploring changes in tuition, fees, and enrollment. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 50(1), 4

Bell, E., & Gándara, D. (2021). Can free community college close racial disparities in postsecondary attainment? How Tulsa Achieves impacts racially minoritized student outcomes. American Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211003501

Billings, M. S. (n.d.). [Database of local promise programs from 2005–2017]. unpublished raw data.

New Directions for Community Colleges 93

Billings, M. S. (2018). September 18. Understanding the design of college promise programs, and where to go from here. Brown Center Chalkboard, Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center- chalkboard/2018/09/18/understanding-the-design-of-college-promise-programs-and-where-to-go-from- here/

Boyd, R., & Lubbers, T. (2017). Designing sustainable funding for college promise initiatives: State-funded model group. In C. Millet (Ed.), Designing sustainable funding for college promise initiatives (pp. 12–22). ETS.

Broton, K., & Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). The dark side of college (un) affordability: Food and housing insecurity in higher education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48(1), 16–25.

Burkander, K., Ballerini, V., Kent, D. C., & Callahan, K. (2019). The case of Delaware’s Seed Scholarship: A well- established but lesser-known promise program. Research for Action. https://8rri53pm0cs22jk3vvqna1ub- wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/RFA-Delaware-Case-Study-Dec-2019-FINAL- v2.pdf

Burkander, K., Kent, D. C., & Callahan, K. (2019). The case of Oregon Promise: An early adopter focused on broaden- ing access. Research for Action. https://8rri53pm0cs22jk3vvqna1ub-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/ uploads/2019/12/RFA-Oregon-Case-Study-Dec-2019-FINAL-v2.pdf

Callahan, M. K., Kent, D. C., Meehan, K., & Shaw, K. (2019). Affordability, access, and success: A framework for examining statewide college promise programs. Research for Action. https://8rri53pm0cs22jk3vvqna1ub- wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/RFA-CollegePromise-Nov19-final.pdf

Carl Sandburg College. (n.d.). Galesburg Promise. http://www.sandburg.edu/Services/Financial-Aid/ Foundation-Scholarships/Galesburg-Promise.html

Carlson, A., Laderman, S., Pearson, D., & Whitfield, C. (2016). Adult promise program: A pilot design template for states. State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. https://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/ AdultPromiseDesignTemplate.pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.06.001

Delaney, J. A., & Hemenway, B. (2020). A difference-in-difference analysis of “promise” financial aid programs on postsecondary institutions. Journal of Education Finance, 45(4), 459–492.

Delaney, J. A., & Hemenway, B. (n.d.). Inside the black box: A difference-in-difference analysis of shifts in postsec- ondary institution spending patterns in response to “promise” financial aid programs (working paper).

Douglas-Gabriel, D. (2020). October 5. Why 3,000 people are still waiting for Maryland’s community col- lege scholarship. The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/10/03/why-3000- people-are-still-waiting-marylands-community-college-scholarship/

Dowd, A. C., Rosinger, K. O., & Castro, M. F. (2020). Trends and perspectives on finance equity and the promise of community colleges. In L. Perna (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 35). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11743-6_7-1

Farrington, R. (2020). March 25. These states offer tuition-free community college. Forbes, https: //www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2020/03/25/these-states-offer-tuition-free-community- college/?sh=35e54ba014cf

Gándara, D., & Billings, M. S. (n.d.). Local promise program effects on community college revenues: Variation across program-design characteristics (working paper).

Gándara, D., & Li, A. (2020). Promise for whom? “Free-college” programs and enrollments by race and gender classifications at public, 2-year colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(4), 603–627. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0162373720962472

Gurantz, O. (2020). What does free community college buy? Early impacts from the Oregon Promise. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(1), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22157

Harnisch, T. L., & Lebioda, K. (2016). The promises and pitfalls of state free community college plans. AASCU Policy Matters, https://www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/freecommunitycollege.pdf

Jones, T., Ramirez-Mendoza, J., & Jackson, V. (2020). A promise worth keeping: An updated equity-driven framework for free college programs. The Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/A-Promise- Worth-Keeping_An-Updated-Equity-Driven-Framework-for-Free-College-Programs_October_2020.pdf

Kanter, M. (2020). Keeping the college promise: Financial sustainability in the face of the COVID-19 pan- demic (Policy Brief). College Promise. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e44327a52b88927aaaecabd/t/ 5f03a554f6724b5987a8515e/1594074467939/FINAL+Policy+Brief+%232+Keeping+the+College+Promise.pdf

Kramer, J. W. (2019). Bridging high school and college: Supporting enrollment for college-intending high school seniors in Tennessee. Vanderbilt University.

Li, A. Y., & Gándara, D. (2020). The “promise” of free tuition at public two-year colleges: Impacts on student enroll- ment. In L. Perna & E. Smith (Eds.), Improving research-based knowledge of college promise programs (pp. 219– 240). American Educational Research Association.

Meehan, K., Hagood, S., Callahan, K., & Kent, D. C. (2019). The case of Tennessee Promise: A uniquely com- prehensive promise program. Research for Action. https://8rri53pm0cs22jk3vvqna1ub-wpengine.netdna-ssl. com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/RFA-Tennessee-Case-Study-Dec-2019-FINAL.pdf

94 Tuition-Free Promise Programs

Miller-Adams, M. (2015). Promise nation: Transforming communities through place-based scholarships. W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Miller-Adams, M., & Smith, E. (2018). Promise scholarship programs and local prosperity. W. E. Upjohn Insti- tute for Employment Research. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=up_ policypapers

Miron, G., Jones, J. N., & Kelaher-Young, A. J. (2012). The impact of the Kalamazoo Promise on student attitudes, goals, and aspirations. American Secondary Education, 40(2), 5–25.

Mishory, J. (2018). The future of statewide college promise programs: A state guide to free college. The Century Foundation. https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2018/03/16161350/Jen_PromiseFinal2-1.pdf

Monaghan, D. B., & Attewell, P. (2015). The community college route to the bachelor’s degree. Educational Evalu- ation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714521865

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2019). A promise is a promise: Free tuition programs and how they work [Paper No. 5]. In A legislator’s toolkit to the new world of higher education. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/ Portals/1/Documents/educ/Free-Tuition-Programs_v03.pdf

Nguyen, H. (2020). Free college? Assessing enrollment responses to the Tennessee Promise program. Labour Eco- nomics, 66, 101882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2020.101882

Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission (OHECC). (n.d.). Oregon Promise frequently asked questions. https://oregonstudentaid.gov/oregon-promise-faq.aspx

Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission (OHECC). (2018). Senate Bill 81 (2015): The Oregon Promise: Report from year three.

Perna, L. W., & Leigh, E. W. (2018). Understanding the promise: A typology of state and local college promise programs. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 155–180.

Perna, L. W., Leigh, E. W., & Carroll, S. (2018). “Free college”: A new and improved state approach to increasing educational attainment? American Behavioral Scientist, 61(14), 1740–1756. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002764217744821

Perna, L. W., Wright-Kim, J., & Leigh, E. W. (2020). Is a college promise program an effective use of resources? Understanding the implications of program design and resource investments for equity and efficiency. AERA Open, 6(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420967633

Pingel, S., Parker, E., & Sisneros, L. (2016). Free community college: An approach to increase adult student success in postsecondary education. Education Commission of the States. https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/ Free-Community-College-An-approach-to-increase-adult-student-success-in-postsecondary-education- pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2011. 592412

Rauner, M. (2016). The college promise in California: A collection of program profiles. REL West at WestEd. https: //californiacollegepromise.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/REL_CollegePromise_Booklet_508.pdf

Rauner, M., & Smith, A. (2020). College promise programs: A description of the California landscape (Research Brief). WestEd. https://californiacollegepromise.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CCPP-Research- Brief-2-022720-final.pdf

St. Amour, M. (2020a). December 8. Free college turned ‘middle-dollar’ scholarship. Inside HigherEd, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/12/08/how-new-mexicos-scholarship-went-free-college- all-assistance-some

St. Amour, M. (2020b). July 7. Free community college moves forward in Connecticut. Inside HigherEd, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/07/07/connecticut-college-system-use-reserve-funds-tuition- free-community-college-program

St. Amour, M. (2020c). October 8. College promise programs wrestle with pandemic realities. Inside Higher Ed, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/10/08/college-promise-programs-face-cuts-uncertainty-and- changes

Teitz, L. (2019). December 19. CT community colleges to offer free tuition. Ctpost, https://www.ctpost.com/news/ article/CT-community-colleges-to-offer-free-tuition-14918860.php

Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC), & Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation (TSAC). (2017). Tennessee Promise annual report 2017. Author.

Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC), & Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation (TSAC). (2019). Tennessee Promise annual report 2019. Author.

Wermund, B. (2019), January 16. The red state that loves free college. Politico, https://www.politico.com/agenda/ story/2019/01/16/tennessee-free-college-000867/

West Virginia Invests. (n.d.). How it works. https://wvinvests.org/how-it-works/ Zumeta, W., & Huntington-Klein, N. (2020). State “free college” programs: Implications for states and independent

higher education and alternative policy approaches. Council of Independent Colleges.

New Directions for Community Colleges 95

A U T H O R B I O G R A P H I E S

Meredith S. Billings is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leader- ship at Sam Houston State University.

Denisa Gándara is an assistant professor in the Department of Education Policy and Leadership at Southern Methodist University.

Amy Y. Li is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at Florida International University.

How to cite this article: Billings, M. S., Gándara, D., & Li, A. Y. (2021). Tuition-free promise programs: Implications and lessons learned. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2021, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20485

Copyright of New Directions for Community Colleges is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.