Promising brighter futures: a mixed-methods analysis of the impact of promise programs on BIPOC student outcomes in California and New Jersey

With increasing concerns about rising college costs, policymakers have sought to identify ways to make college affordable. College affordability is particularly important to address equity concerns in both higher education and the workforce, as studies consistently demonstrate disparities in outcomes by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. One policy intervention to alleviate the financial burden of college for students has gained traction: tuition-free college—commonly known as "promise programs.” Promise programs are now present in all fifty states, each with its own criteria and benefits. Researchers have paid particular attention to two types of promise programs, first-dollar and last-dollar, due to their different structures. Focusing on concerns around racial/ethnic equity in higher education, this study examined how program structure influences enrollment and credential attainment for students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC). A mixed-methods design was used to determine the impact of two statewide promise programs—the California College Promise (CCP) and the New Jersey Community College Opportunity Grant (CCOG). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with BIPOC community college students in California and New Jersey to set a baseline understanding of how each promise program influences the student experience. Quantitative enrollment and graduation rate data from the federal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) was then analyzed to inform the qualitative themes identified from the interviews. Interview data demonstrated that students in California had a better understanding of financial aid, lower levels of financial stress, and higher campus engagement than students in New Jersey. IPEDS graduation rate data showed that while California has a better overall BIPOC graduation rate, the impact of New Jersey’s program was greater. The results are examined through a conceptual framework that pairs critical race theory and student development theory.