MORE GUIDANCE, BETTER RESULTS?

PrefaceIf approved by Congress, the Obama Administration’s College Access and CompletionFund will provide $2.5 billion to states over five years to help them implement programs to increasecollege completion. This goal is of particular concern to community colleges, which accountfor approximately 40 percent of all college enrollments in this country and where roughlyhalf of all students do not complete their studies within six years. These schools serve disproportionatenumbers of low-income students, students of color, immigrants, and first-generationcollege students, who may need guidance in overcoming such barriers to success as inadequateacademic preparation, the need to juggle school with work and family obligations, financialconstraints, and other personal difficulties.There is widespread belief among community college leaders that strengthening studentservices is key to improving academic outcomes. Unfortunately, student services are severelyunder-resourced at most community colleges: student-to-counselor ratios often exceed 1,000 to1, seriously limiting the assistance that students receive. A recent national survey of enteringcommunity college students found that half did not meet with or recall seeing an adviser duringtheir first four weeks of college. Thus, when policymakers and college administrators point tolow persistence and graduation rates in community colleges, they often look to student supportservices as a possible solution. Such services can include orientation for new students, academicadvising, financial aid counseling, career planning, job placement assistance, and other services.This report presents the results of a study at two community colleges in Ohio that testedthe use of enhanced student services for low-income students. The study was one of a very fewthat has used an experimental design to evaluate community college student services. The student-to-counselorratio in the program was vastly lower than that in a control group, who receivedonly the regular college services, and the program services were more intensive, comprehensive,and personalized. Students in the program group also received a small stipend as anincentive to meet with their counselors. The program, which increased the frequency of academicand financial aid advising, and other student services, generated initial improvements inacademic outcomes and retention rates. However, for the most part, these effects did not persistonce the program ended.While the Opening Doors program in Ohio did not have an effect on students’ longtermoutcomes, it does leave us with a rough template for crafting an improved program and itraises valuable questions for future research. Would enhanced student services have longer-termimpacts, for example, if they were more comprehensive, were offered for a longer period, orwere paired with other reforms? It is our hope that community college administrators and policymakerswill continue to consider alternative frameworks for providing services to strugglingstudents that will help them overcome the barriers they face so they can succeed in school.Gordon BerlinPresidentix