A book based on a project co-lead by Nancy Kendall and Sara Goldrick-Rab with support from the William T. Grant Foundation.
Systematically examines all key areas of the costs of college; Creates a framework for analyzing college cost impact on student well-being, thus supporting direct policy intervention; Includes data drawn from 18 months of ethnographic research in Wisconsin
A new study at 10 community colleges across the nation reveals that half of
the more than 4,000 community college students surveyed are experiencing
a current or recent mental health condition. Less than half of these students
are receiving any mental health services. Students age 25 and younger are
especially likely to have an untreated mental health condition. As mental
illness can impair academic success and quality of life, there is a clear
need for greater attention to and resources for mental health services and
programs on community college campuses.
Affording living expenses presents a major barrier to degree completion for many community college students. Food, affordable housing, transportation, and childcare are central conditions for learning. Yet with stagnant incomes, rising tuition and living costs, and insufficient support from financial aid and the social safety net, approximately one in two community college students struggle to afford these basic needs.1 Additionally, as many as one in five experience homelessness.2 The College Housing Assistance Program (CHAP), operated by the Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) and Tacoma Community College (TCC), is at the forefront of the nationwide fight to ameliorate homelessness among college students.3 CHAP is one of the country’s first partnerships between a housing authority and a community college and offers a unique model. In contrast to other programs such as student-run shelters, rapid-rehousing, and college-owned affordable apartments, CHAP utilizes government-subsidized housing assistance to provide housing to homeless and near-homeless community college students. This report offers the initial lessons learned from the first external evaluation of CHAP. Successful program implementation is crucial to providing benefits for students, and can be especially challenging in housing programs. We therefore focus on how students experienced the program, where they faced barriers, and where they found support. It is too early in the evaluation process to draw conclusions about the program’s efficacy; these are short-term insights.
Despite overall increases in college-going, college enrollment rates
remain inequitable. Many programs attempt to address these persistent racial/ethnic and social class disparities in college attendance by
intervening in the high school curriculum. Advancement Via
Individual Determination (AVID) is among the longest standing and
prevalent of these college access programs. In this paper, we present
findings from a multi-year evaluation and cost analysis of the AVID/
TOPS program – an enhanced AVID model – in place in Madison
Metropolitan School District (Wisconsin). Taken together, the evaluation’s findings characterize AVID/TOPS as a promising program
model that is associated with an increased likelihood for college
readiness and matriculation, particularly for student groups underrepresented in higher education. We also report on the resources and
costs required to implement the program, and show that the program’s benefits appear to exceed its costs.
Discussions of college costs often focus on tuition and fees, but living cost allowances for room, board, and other expenses account for more than half of the total cost of attending college. The allowances, developed by colleges and universities, also affect student eligibility for federal financial aid and the accuracy of accountability systems. This study examined institutional variation in living cost allowances and assessed the consistency of allowances by comparing them to living cost estimates specific to the college’s region. Results across multiple specifications indicated that nearly half of all colleges provide living-cost allowances at least 20% above or below estimated county-level living expenses.
At least one in three undergraduates attends more than one college, but we know little about how
students decide to transfer. Most studies about transfer are retrospective, quantitative, and/or
restricted to students who complete a transfer, thus missing the process through which students
reach transfer decisions. In contrast, this mixed methods, longitudinal study prospectively
examines a cohort of students across multiple colleges and universities over time. Based on data
from more than 200 interviews with 50 students from low-income Wisconsin families, we find
that about half of students consider transferring, but a substantial percentage ultimately decide to
persist at their initial institution. Other studies have ignored the deliberation process—and
existence—of this group. For all students who consider transfer, we illuminate a process of
discussion and reflection that is shaped by social class and social capital.
This chapter describes how the implementation of the
1996 welfare reform and the 1998 Workforce Investment
Acts affected community colleges’ willingness and
capacity to provide access to postsecondary education and
training for Latinos and other low-income populations.
Despite high prices, many college students do not re-file the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) or file late, making college less affordable. Low-cost technological interventions delivering personalized information and/or advising may improve refiling and academic outcomes, but questions remain regarding the efficacy of this approach at scale. This multi-pronged randomized experiment tested informational and framing text message interventions for a national sample of approximately 10,000 undergraduates. The text outreach caused earlier FAFSA re-filing for some students. However, gains in re-filing during the active intervention period were not sustained after the intervention concluded and did not translate into additional federal financial aid or improved postsecondary persistence or attainment. Implications for the scaling and targeting of nudging are discussed.
While the COVID-19 pandemic affected mental health and increased food insecurity across the general population, less is known about the virus’s impact on college students. A fall 2020 survey of more than 100,000 students at 202 colleges and universities in 42 states reveals sociodemographic variation in self-reported infections, as well as associations between self-reported infection and food insecurity and mental health. We find that 7% of students self-reported a COVID-19 infection, with sizable differences by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, parenting status, and student athlete status. Students who self-reported COVID-19 infections were more likely to experience food insecurity, anxiety, and depression. Implications for higher education institutions, policy makers, and students are discussed.