Educational Opportunity Fund Program and Community College Student Retention

Abstract

Although the existence of state-funded student support services programs dates to the 1960s, studies on how such programs play a role in student success are scarce. By utilizing unique institutional data and a comprehensive conceptual model integrating multiple theories, this study examines the relationship between the New Jersey educational opportunity fund program and first-semester retention at a community college. Results reveal that educational opportunity fund has a positive effect on student retention, and the effect is consistent across different student subgroups. This study provides empirical evidence for greater government commitment needed to fully fund student support services for historically underserved students in community colleges. Future research is suggested to offer additional insight into the effect of government-funded student support services programs on college student retention.

Keywords

educational opportunity fund support services community college retention

Since the 1940s, as a new means of promoting access to higher education, American community colleges as a sector have played an essential role in providing opportunities for many low-income, first-generation, or minority students who might not otherwise attend college (Crisp & Mina, 2012). As of 2012, an estimated 7.2 million students were enrolled in more than 1,700 community colleges, which accounted for 40% of the total undergraduate enrollment in the United States (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES, 2012]). With a complex mission to extend educational opportunities under an open-door admissions policy while serving a diverse student population (Cohen & Brawer, 2003), community colleges have faced challenges in student retention and graduation. According to NCES, 29% of first-time undergraduate students who started seeking a degree in Fall 2012 attained it within 3 years (NCES, 2017).

To promote retention among disadvantaged college students, many states initiated student support services (SSS) programs such as the accelerated study in associate program (ASAP) in New York and the educational opportunity fund (EOF) program in New Jersey. These statewide programs offer financial aid to cover college costs and student services to promote college access and retention (Berumen, Zerquera, & Smith, 2015; Scrivener, Weiss, Sommo, & Fresques, 2012).

There have been research studies on student retention and dropout rates in higher education but most have focused on this phenomenon at the 4-year institution level. Although community college students account for approximately half of undergraduate students in the United States (NCES, 2012), we know disproportionately little about what happens to community college students, and more importantly whether these students benefit from statewide service support programs with a major financial aid component (Bailey & Morest, 2006).

The purpose of this study was to understand the effects of the New Jersey state-funded EOF program on college student retention at a community college located in New Jersey. The program provides financial aid and programmatic support to promote college access and success for students from backgrounds of economic and educational disadvantage. By examining EOF and non-EOF students with similar characteristics, this study aimed to determine if participation in the EOF program contributes to a higher retention rate, controlling for academic and demographic factors. By understanding the effect of participation in an EOF program on student retention in a community college, we hoped to help administrators at community colleges more effectively address the problem of student retention.

Background of the New Jersey EOF Program

U.S. SSS programs date back to the 1960s. Although these programs vary in the types of services they offer, overall, they help students to successfully begin their college careers, persist in their studies, and ultimately earn degrees. State-funded SSS programs usually provide services such as financial support and academic advisement and counseling (New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education, 2013; Scrivener et al., 2012). The goals of the state programs were to increase the likelihood of students attending, persisting, and graduating from college (New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education, 2013; Swail, Quinn, Landis, & Fung, 2012).

Created by law in 1968, the New Jersey state-funded EOF aims at ensuring college access and success for students from backgrounds of economic and educational disadvantage by providing financial and programmatic assistance. In 2015, for instance, the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education disbursed an appropriation of about 40 million dollars of funds to 61 EOF programs serving over 12,000 students. In addition to the state support received, institutions are required to provide a match of at least 50% of the total budget for campus-based programs. The EOF program assists students who are New Jersey residents and who are capable and motivated to complete higher education but have poor academic preparation and inadequate finances. It provides supplemental financial aid to assist with college costs (such as books, fees, room, and board) that are not covered by the state’s tuition aid grant program (New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education, 2015).

To determine a student’s eligibility for the New Jersey EOF program, he or she must meet the state eligibility criteria: (a) demonstrate an educationally and economically disadvantaged background, (b) be an in-state resident for 12 consecutive months prior to receiving the award, (c) apply for and be accepted into a participating in-state college or university, (d) meet the academic criteria as set by the institution of choice, (e) file a Free Application for Federal Student Aid, and (f) have a gross income based on household size that falls within the state guidelines of the specific academic year the student is applying (New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education, 2013). Since community colleges are open access institutions, the academic criterion has not been used as a factor for determining students’ EOF eligibility.

Research on Effects of State-Funded Student Services Programs

While state-funded SSS programs have existed since the 1960s, studies on the role such programs play in student success at 2-year or 4-year institutions is scarce (Fujita & Oromaner, 1992). There are, however, a few research reports on federally funded SSS programs that are worth discussing first. Chaney, Muraskin, Cahalan, and Goodwin (1998) authored an assessment report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education on federally funded SSS programs. The programs that were studied provided financial aid or counseling services to low-income, first-generation college students, which were similar to the services offered and population served within the EOF state-funded program. The study incorporated 30 SSS program sites and 20 non-SSS sites; both sets of sites were selected in a stratified random sample. The study found that SSS participants were more likely to persist in higher education, accrue more college credits, and earn higher grade point averages (GPAs).

Another report published by the U.S. Department of Education (Zhang, Chan, Hale, & Kirshstein, 2005) also provided support for federally funded SSS programs. The interim report was based on annual performance reports from SSS grantee institutions for the reporting period 1999 through 2003 and found that two thirds of the students participating in SSS programs at 2-year institutions reenrolled the next year compared with 82% of SSS participants at 4-year institutions. Zhang et al.’s (2005) study, however, examined persistence among SSS program participants only. Thus, it is unclear to what extent the SSS programs were effective without comparing participants and nonparticipants.

There is a dearth of evidence that focuses on whether state-funded SSS programs promote community college student retention. Among the few existing studies, a recent community college student success study (Scrivener et al., 2012) targeted the New York state-funded ASAP. ASAP is a multifaceted, long-term program aimed at helping community college students stay in college and graduate. Similar to the EOF program, ASAP targets low-income students who need financial and service support. Early findings of the study suggested that ASAP had a positive effect on retention. Compared with the control group students, those that participated in ASAP were more likely to enroll in any course during the second semester of the study (Scrivener et al., 2012).

While New Jersey’s EOF programs have been one of the major ways for institutions in the state to support students toward success, there is a lack of empirical research for understanding the effectiveness of such programs. A descriptive study of a survey of 36 New Jersey higher education institutions (Donaldson, Mian, Rodriguez, Wang, & Weisenbacher, 2015) found that student retention, graduation, and good academic standing rates for community colleges with EOF programs was 9% higher than the rate of 70% established by the U.S. Department of Education.

In sum, prior research on the effect of EOF programs on student retention in 2-year colleges is very limited. The few studies conducted on EOF programs and community college student retention were descriptive in nature (Nippert, 2000), lacking comprehensive analysis that can provide empirical evidence. The literature indicated an urgent need for a better understanding of the state-funded programs and how effective such state-level funding aimed toward fostering college retention and completion has been working (McLendon, Tuchmayer, & Park, 2010).

Student Retention Theories

To date, student retention has been an important research area in higher education. Numerous studies have disputed various theoretical models, and empirical results provided an increasingly multilayered understanding of the complex maze of factors that help determine student retention (Tinto, 2006–2007). The following section intends to provide a review of three major theoretical perspectives that can guide the study: sociological, interactionist, and economic theories.

The sociological perspective based on Bourdieu’s (1973) social reproduction theory and Clark’s (1960) conflict theory treats students’ decisions to stay in college as the consequence of social hierarchy and social attributes of individuals, institutions, and society. Some of the important individual attributes, including socioeconomic status, race or ethnicity, and precollege traits, directly impact interactions with agents of socialization (Pascarella, 1985; Tinto, 1992). Interactional theories, which emerged in 1970s, view student persistence processes as reflecting the dynamic interaction between the individual and institutions (Tinto, 1992). Models based on this perspective (Bean, 1980; Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Tinto, 1975) proposed that institutional commitment was directly affected by academic integration, precollege academic performance, and college experience such as academic and social integration. Economic theories represented by supply and demand theory also guided research to consider the role college financial aid plays in student retention, because affordability can influence student demand for higher education and commitment for continuous enrollment. Beyond these theories, models on nontraditional student retention (e.g., Bean & Metzner, 1985) also suggest that social integration plays a smaller role in the retention of nontraditional students or students in community colleges, given that community college students are mostly nonresidential.

This study integrates important aspects of the sociological, interactionist, and economic theories and models for nontraditional students into a comprehensive conceptual model. We incorporated the EOF program into our model, because it provides the financial and interactional support that these theories have suggested to be important. The goal of the study was to identify whether students’ participating in EOF is positively related to first-semester retention, controlling for other factors. Given the benefit from the financial support and special student services provided, we hypothesized that participation in the EOF program would promote student retention. The aim of our study was to remedy the gap in the literature and provide important additional insight to the limited research on statewide student service support programs and community college student retention. Through this research, the proposed conceptual framework will be made available for extensive investigations in the future.

Methodology

The following major research questions guided this study:

Controlling for demographic and academic factors and college experience, how does participation in the EOF program relate to community college student first-semester retention?

How are demographic and academic factors and college experience related to first-semester retention?

Are there any differences in these relations across the EOF and the non-EOF comparable groups?

Data Sample

The main data source was unique institutional data from the research site, a community college located in New Jersey. This college was chosen for the study because the EOF program had been in existence at this college since the 1960s, and the student population was large and diverse enough to provide a reasonable sample size for both the EOF group and the non-EOF comparable group. The institutional data provided by the community college were historical, therefore making it possible to include multiple cohorts of data and define student retention at the institutional level.

The sample was made up of 7,105 first-time freshmen broken down into the EOF group (n = 570), which included five cohorts who participated in the EOF program between the 2008 and 2013 academic years. Since the EOF program offers a limited number of spots available each year at the institution, we identified students for the comparison group (n = 6,535) who were qualified but not chosen. Specifically, we chose students by using the gross income and household size variables, two of the main criteria for selecting EOF students.¹ This gave us a comparison group of at-risk students at the same institution who were not able to participate in the EOF program.

Model Specification

For this study, we integrated important aspects of the sociological, interactionist, and economic theories and models for nontraditional students and developed a comprehensive conceptual model to examine EOF programs and student retention in community colleges. In this conceptual model, community college student retention was determined by a combination of demographic characteristics, academic integration, college experiences, and financial factors. The dependent variable was retention at the end of the first semester, a dichotomous variable measuring whether students enrolled at the same institution for the second semester.

Based on the conceptual model, the first set of factors was demographics measured by age (Fike & Fike, 2008), gender (Astin, 1993b; Ishler & Upcraft, 2005; NCES, 2012), and race or ethnicity (Gutierrez & Dantes, 2009; NCES, 2012). Age was constructed as a dummy variable indicating whether the student was 23 years and younger, gender as a dummy variable indicating whether the student was male, and race or ethnicity as a dummy variable indicating Asian, Black, Hispanic, and other, with the omitted reference group being White.

The second set of factors was academic integration indicated by remedial education placement (Burley, Butner, & Cejda, 2001) and GPA (Gutierrez & Dantes, 2009; Kiser & Price, 2008). Remedial education placement was measured by three variables, including placement in remedial essay, reading, or math courses. GPA was a numerical variable indicating first-semester GPA.

The third factor was college experience measured by college major (Astin, 1993; Nitecki, 2011; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). College major was represented by dummy variables indicating business, science, technology, and undeclared, with the omitted majors being social sciences and humanities.

Finally, we included our focal variable, the EOF program variable, to indicate the financial and student service support EOF programs provide (Chaney et al., 1998; Fujita & Oromaner, 1992; Scrivener et al., 2012). Based on previous research on the impact of student financial aid and student services on college student retention (Berumen et al., 2015; Chen & DesJardins, 2008; Dowd, 2004; Scrivener et al., 2012; Voorhees, 1985), we hypothesized that participation in the EOF program would impact student retention positively; EOF programs are expected to reduce students’ financial burden and improve academic and social integration, which in turn promote student retention.

We also included a cohort variable to account for any differences across cohorts of students. Five cohorts were used in this study, 2008 to 2013 academic years, so there were four cohort variables, with the first cohort as the reference group. Family income was used to select the EOF and non-EOF comparable groups, therefore income level was homogeneous among this sample and not included in the model.

Lastly, we proposed to include interaction effect terms in the model after the subgroup analysis for the EOF and non-EOF comparison groups. If subgroup analysis revealed some different determinants of first-semester retention between the two groups, we would conduct interaction effect tests to determine if the differences were statistically significant. According to Singer and Willett (2003), a guided search for interaction was crucial when examining the effects of a variable that was central in the study. Our inclusion of the interaction effect terms in the final model helped to account for whether EOF programs’ effects differ according to levels of other important predictors.

Analytic Method and Procedure

Given the binary categorical nature of the outcome variable, logistic regression was used to examine the effects of the EOF program on first-semester community college student retention. The research was conducted in four steps. The first step was data management for analysis. The data were cleaned, and only one case had to be removed due to missing data (gender). Next, descriptive analyses, including means and cross-tabulations, were conducted to understand the retention rates and characteristics of the students in the sample, and any differences between the EOF group and the non-EOF group. Third came a logistic regression analysis for the entire sample to examine the relationship between the EOF program and student retention with all other factors controlled. We then ran the same logistic regression for the subgroups EOF and non-EOF separately to determine if there were any differences in the determinants of student retention between these two groups. Finally, interaction effect tests were applied to understand whether such differences were statistically significant.

Limitations

This study had several limitations that deserve discussion. First, due to the limitation with our data, we were not able to investigate noncognitive factors (Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, 2011; Schmid & Abell, 2003; Voorhees, 1985; Webb, 1989) related to student retention. It is suggested that future researchers may design surveys that integrate such questions and control for the effects of these factors in the model.

Second, the research was based on a single institution’s data, thus the results of our study may not be generalizable to other types of institutions (Kiser & Price, 2008; Nguyen, Hays, & Wetstein, 2010). In addition, ours is a retrospective study limited by the unavailability of more recent years’ data. Institutional data like what we used in this study are often hard to access. Thus, the multiple cohorts of data and specific institutional information in our data provide a rare opportunity to understand EOF programs in community colleges. Researchers are encouraged to replicate this study utilizing more recent data from other community colleges or 4-year institutions in the future.

Finally, in this study, to create our non-EOF comparison group, we used the main eligibility criteria that the research site (community college) applied for selecting EOF students. Given that the EOF program functions on a “first come, first served” basis, students who applied and were chosen for the EOF program may have been more motivated toward working hard and persisting in college. Future studies may consider such latent factors by surveying students to understand their learning attitudes and motivation and then apply propensity score methods to create the non-EOF comparison group and replicate the present study.

Results

Descriptive analyses provide information about the distribution of the variables in the model. As indicated in Table 1, in terms of the demographic characteristics of the sample, about 89.6% were younger than 24 years, 48.3% male, 28.7% White, 12.0% Asian, 12.0% Black, 31.5% Hispanic, and 12.4% other race or ethnicity. About 47.1% were in the essay developmental course, 59.4% in reading developmental course, and 65.5% in the math developmental course, 17.3% majored in business, 19.0% in science, 47.9% in social science and humanities, 11.7% in technology, and 4.1% in undeclared areas. The average first-year college GPA was 1.92. At the end of the first year, 85.2% of the students in the sample were retained in the institution.

Table 1.

Descriptive Summary of the Sample (N = 7,105).

	(%) Mean	SE
First-year retention
Retained	85.2	.004
EOF
EOF	8.0	.003
Age
Younger than 24 years	89.6	.004
Gender
Male	48.3	.006
Race
Asian	12.0	.004
Black	15.4	.004
Hispanic	31.5	.006
Other	12.4	.004
White	28.7	.005
Class year
Cohort 1	18.6	.005
Cohort 2	21.5	.005
Cohort 3	19.8	.005
Cohort 4	20.6	.005
Cohort 5	19.4	.005
Developmental placement
Essay_Dev or not	47.1	.006
Read_Dev or not	59.4	.006
Math_ Dev or not	65.5	.006
College major
Business	17.3	.004
Science	19.0	.005
Social science and humanities	47.9	.006
Technology
Undeclared	11.7	.004
GPA
GPA	1.92	1.48

Note. GPA = grade point average; EOF = educational opportunity fund.

Table 2 describes the participation rate across various student subgroups. The percentages of students who participated in EOF were similar across the two age-groups (8.5% for older than 24 years; and 8.0% for 23 years or younger). Almost the same percentage of males and females (8.0% vs. 8.1%) participated in EOF program. Students across different cohorts, major fields, and developmental courses seemed to have similar representation in EOF.

Table 2.

Distribution of Student Characteristics Among the EOF and Non-EOF Groups.

	EOF (%)(n = 570)	Non-EOF (%)(n = 6,535)
Age
Older	8.5	97.5
Younger	8.0	92.0
Gender
Female	8.1	91.9
Male	8.0	92.0
Race
Asian	8.1	91.9
Black	12.6	87.4
Hispanic	8.4	91.6
Other	10.0	90.0
White	4.2	95.8
Class year
Cohort 1	8.5	91.5
Cohort 2	7.1	92.9
Cohort 3	9.2	90.8
Cohort 4	8.4	91.6
Cohort 5	7.1	93.0
Developmental placement
Non_Essay_Dev	6.5	93.5
Essay_Dev	9.7	90.3
Non_Read_Dev	5.7	94.3
Read_Dev	9.6	90.4
Non_Math_Dev	6.2	93.8
Math_ Dev	9.0	91.0
College major
Business	7.4	92.6
Science	8.2	91.8
Social science and humanities	8.1	91.9
Technology	9.8	90.2
Undeclared	3.4	96.6

Note. EOF = educational opportunity fund.

The EOF participation rate seemed to be similar across minority students but lower for Whites, with 12.6% for Blacks, 8.4% for Hispanics, 8.1% for Asian, 10.0% for other ethnic group, and 4.2% for Whites. A similar percentage of students in developmental courses and nondevelopmental courses were found in the EOF program. In terms of GPA, the EOF group had a similar level of mean GPA (2.09) as the non-EOF group (1.91).

Table 3 describes student demographic and academic characteristics by retention rates for all three samples (entire sample, EOF group, and non-EOF groups). Regarding retention rate by EOF participation, there was a higher retention rate among the EOF participants (91%) than the non-EOF group (86%). Across all three samples, the students who were younger, female, and Asian were more likely to be retained. For example, students who were age 23 years or younger were retained at 86% for the whole sample, 91% for the EOF sample, and 86% for the non-EOF sample. Female students had a higher rate of retention than their male counterparts in all groups. Asian students were retained at a higher rate for the whole group (93%), the EOF group (97%), and the non-EOF group (93%). Science majors in all three groups had higher retention than students in business, social science and humanities, technology, and undeclared. Placement into developmental courses did not show a consistent pattern for retention.

Table 3.

Crosstabs for Student Characteristics and Retention: Whole Sample, EOF, and Non-EOF Samples.

	Whole sample (%)	EOF (%)	Non-EOF (%)
Age
23 years and younger	86	91	86
24 years and older	79	89	78
Gender
Male	84	89	83
Female	87	92	86
Race
Asian	93	97	93
Black	81	94	79
Hispanic	84	91	83
Other	82	83	82
White	87	87	90
Class year
Cohort 1	86	89	86
Cohort 2	83	84	83
Cohort 3	85	94	84
Cohort 4	87	94	87
Cohort 5	85	93	84
Developmental placement
Essay_Dev	84	91	83
Non-Essay_Dev	86	91	86
Read_Dev	86	92	85
Non_Read_Dev	85	89	84
Math_Dev	90	84	83
Non_Math_Dev	88	88	88
College major
Business	85	91	84
Science	86	92	86
Social science and humanities	85	91	85
Technology	85	89	85
Undeclared	80	90	79
EOF
EOF	91	NA	NA
Non-EOF	85	NA	NA

Note. EOF = educational opportunity fund; NA = not applicable.

Although our data demonstrated comparable trends in retention across all samples, we also found some differences. Black students were retained at a higher rate in the EOF group (94%) than for the whole group (81%) and for the non-EOF group (79%). In Cohort 4, the whole sample and the non-EOF sample had higher rates of retention when compared with the other cohorts. In the EOF group, Cohorts 3 and 4 had the same rate of retention (94%).

To test whether the results from descriptive analyses still held after controlling for all factors, we conducted logistic regression based on our proposed conceptual model. Table 4 showed the logistic regression results. The odds ratio of the independent variables represents the ratio of the probability of persistence to the probability of nonpersistence. Since the odds ratio is a multiplicative coefficient, positive effects have odds ratio greater than 1, while negative effects have odds ratios between 0 and 1. Results (Table 4) for the whole sample indicated that EOF was statistically significant in predicting first-semester retention. The odds of EOF students being retained after the first semester were 72% higher than that of non-EOF students (OR = 1.72, p<.001), showing that the EOF program had a positive effect on retention. Other significant predictors included gender, race or ethnicity, developmental courses, and GPA. Specifically, the odds of male students being retained after the first semester were 81% (OR = 0.812, p < .001) of the odds for female students. Students who were Asian had about 140% higher odds of retention than their White peers (OR=2.390, p<.001), while the odds of Black students reenrolling after the first semester were only 80% (OR = 0.80, p < .01) of White students. Students placed into a developmental reading course had higher odds of retention than those who enrolled in an essay or mathematics developmental course (OR=1.367, p < .001), while being placed into mathematics developmental reduced the odds of retention after the first semester (OR=0.597, p < .001). As expected, first-semester GPA was a statistically significant predictor of retention: A one-point increase in GPA score tended to double the odds of being retained to the second semester (OR=2.02, p < .001).

Table 4.

Logistic Regression Results for the Whole Sample.

	OR	SE
Age
23 years and younger	1.200	0.110
Gender
Male	0.812***	0.077
Race
Asian	2.390***	0.159
Black	0.804***	0.112
Hispanic	1.029	0.095
Other	0.965	0.121
Class year
Cohort 2	0.888	0.115
Cohort 3	0.915	0.119
Cohort 4	1.151	0.120
Cohort 5	0.899	0.119
Developmental placement
Essay_Dev	0.987	0.084
Read_Dev	1.367***	0.088
Math_Dev	0.597***	0.092
GPA
First-semester GPA	2.024***	0.029
College major
Business	0.930	0.101
Science	0.921	0.103
Technology	1.031	0.123
Undeclared	0.774	0.166
EOF
EOF	1.721***	0.158

Note. SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio; GPA = grade point average; EOF = educational opportunity fund.

***p < .001.

To understand whether the determinants of student retention differed by group, we conducted subgroup analysis focusing on the EOF and non-EOF groups separately. For the EOF group (Table 5), the only significant factor was first-semester GPA (OR = 2.02, p < .001); there were no gender or race or ethnicity differences in student retention rate found in the EOF group. For the non-EOF group (Table 5), gender, race or ethnicity, developmental courses, and first-semester GPA were significant predictors similar to the whole group analysis.

Table 5.

Subgroup Analysis: Logistic Regression Results for the Non-EOF and EOF Groups.

	Non-EOF group		EOF group
	OR	SE	OR	SE
Age
23 years and younger	1.203	0.114	1.536	0.490
Gender
Male	0.812***	0.079	0.794	0.347
Race
Asian	2.350***	0.162	3.950	0.846
Black	0.769	0.115	1.639	0.530
Hispanic	1.029	0.098	1.024	0.468
Other	1.008	0.125	0.698	0.503
Class year
Cohort 2	0.890	0.119	0.880	0.458
Cohort 3	0.875	0.123	2.031	0.516
Cohort 4	1.132	0.124	1.546	0.518
Cohort 5	0.875	0.123	1.632	0.546
Developmental placement
Essay_Dev	0.989	0.086	0.903	0.365
Read_Dev	1.347	0.091	1.910	0.402
Math_Dev	0.602***	0.094	0.491	0.463
GPA
First-semester GPA	2.025***	0.030	2.035***	0.128
College major
Business	0.942	0.104	0.635	0.479
Science	0.929	0.106	0.730	0.445
Technology	1.071	0.128	0.565	0.479
Undeclared	0.771	0.168	1.089	1.205

Note. SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio; GPA = grade point average; EOF = educational opportunity fund.

***p < .001.

Finally, since the subgroup analysis reveals some different determinants of first-semester retention between the EOF and non-EOF groups, we conducted interaction effect tests to determine if the differences were statistically significant. We included the interaction terms between EOF and significant factors found to be different in the subgroup analysis, including gender, race or ethnicity, developmental courses, and first-semester GPA. Results indicated that the interaction effects were not statistically significant. In other words, the relationships between these determinants and first-semester retention were the same across EOF and non-EOF groups.

Discussion

Summary of Findings

The results of the study revealed that some groups of students were significantly more at risk of dropping out. Specifically, males and Blacks had a lower retention rate in the whole sample and non-EOF sample. Being placed into reading developmental courses was positively related to retention, while math developmental placement was negatively associated with retention in the whole sample and non-EOF sample. First-semester GPA was positively related to retention in all three samples and was the most consistent predictor of first-semester student retention.

Finally, and most importantly, the study hypothesized that participation in the EOF program would be positively related to student retention. Our baseline model analysis for the whole sample indicated that the EOF program, controlling for all other factors, was significant in predicting first-semester retention. Students participating in the EOF program had higher odds of first-semester retention than those students not in the program.

Furthermore, we found from the subgroup analyses that gender and race or ethnicity differences were significant in the non-EOF sample but not in the EOF sample. This finding indicates that the EOF program may have reduced the gender and racial or ethnic disparities in student retention. It is worth noting, however, that the overall Wald test of the model fit for the interaction between EOF and gender or race is nonsignificant, meaning that the positive relationship between EOF and retention is similar across different student subgroups.

Policy Implications

High-risk factors

This research provides evidence that males are at a higher risk of dropping out at the end of the first semester than females for the whole sample, consistent with previous studies (Astin, 1993; Gutierrez & Dantes, 2009; Ishler & Upcraft, 2005; Nippert, 2000; Wohlgemuth et al., 2007). Institutional practitioners may need to take measures at the beginning of male students’ college careers to help prevent them from leaving college after the first semester. Direct outreach efforts targeted at male students would be beneficial. Such efforts may include considering the needs of male students in developing campus activities and workshops, mentoring programs with male faculty to socialize or work on research (Perrakis, 2008; Wood, 2011), and preentry counseling programs to present what is needed to be successful in college (Wood, 2011).

This study confirmed the findings from previous studies that Black students in community colleges were also at risk of dropping out (Chaney et al., 1998; Cofer & Somers, 2001; Gutierrez & Dantes, 2009; NCES, 2012). Institutions might consider hiring more minority faculty and administrators to help minority students feel more comfortable at the institution (Opp, 2002). Some other practices that might help include support services targeted to Black students, an early warning system so faculty could notify counselors or advisors to assist students having difficulty in class (Wild & Ebbers, 2002), and establishment of a multicultural center to provide a place for minority students to connect and gain social support both from faculty and other students (Landry, 2002).

Another high-risk student group is the academically underprepared students who were identified and allocated into remedial education. Remediation is one of the most difficult issues facing community colleges (Bailey & Cho, 2010; Crisp & Delgado, 2014). Over half (51%) of students seeking an associate degree require remediation (Bosworth, 2010). More rigorous high school curricula need to be created to better align with college curricula to prepare students for postsecondary education (American College Test, 2007; Kun, Kinzie, Bukley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2007). High school teachers need to receive professional developmental training in instructional strategies to better prepare students for the critical and analytical thinking needed for college (Moore, Slate, Edmonson, Bustamante, & Onwuegbuzie, 2010). The quality of the high school curriculum is a key factor in college success (American College Test, 2007). Based on our research, students who placed into mathematics developmental courses, were not retained at the same rate as those placed in other developmental courses supporting the findings from previous studies (Burley et al., 2001; Fike & Fike, 2008). In our sample, more students were placed into math developmental courses than into reading or English courses, suggesting that more needs to be done to determine what factors influence student success in learning math (Zientek, Yetkiner Ozel, Fong, & Griffin, 2013). Policymakers and practitioners cannot change whether a student comes from a low-income family, but they can facilitate more effective learning strategies and influence student motivation (Acee, Cho, Kim, & Weinstein, 2012). Research-based best practices in developmental education can be implemented, including mandatory assessment and placement, and systematic program evaluation (Boylan, 2002).

Finally, as hypothesized, first-semester GPA was the strongest predictor of student retention. Students with a low GPA were at the highest risk for not returning for the second semester. The fact that GPA was the strongest predictor suggests that what happens to the student after he or she enrolls in college may be more important than the influence of precollege variables (Nakajima, Dembo, & Mossler, 2012). Early identification of high-risk students is crucial. It is possible student retention in a community college could be enhanced through institutional policies and practices intended to improve first-semester GPA (Nakajima et al., 2012), such as a mandatory early warning system to help students in the beginning of the semester, before they fail.

EOF programs and retention

This study identified the distinct relationship between EOF programs and community college student retention. In prior research, services provided by SSS programs such as orientation, learning communities, advising, counseling, and mentoring were shown to increase student retention (Alfonso, Bailey, & Scott, 2005; Scrivener et al., 2012). But very little empirical research has comprehensively examined the effect of EOF programs on community college student retention. This study remedied the gap in prior literature. Controlling for demographic factors, academic integration, and college experience, we found the EOF program significant in predicting community college students’ first-semester retention. Findings demonstrating the positive effects of EOF programs suggest important implications for government policymaking. While there is no systematic data on state-funded student service programs, funding for SSS programs by the federal government has been shown to be shrinking. The average amount of award for program participants decreased from $300,280 in 2008 (equivalent to $330,564 in 2015) to $274,983 in 2015 (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). If such a trend continues, students from disadvantaged backgrounds will be very likely to face substantial difficulty in participating in such support services programs in the future. Based on our findings—combined with the trend of decreased funding—we hope institutional administrators and state policymakers proactively evaluate whether the current amount of funding allocated for EOF is sufficient. Greater institutional commitment is needed for policymakers and institutional practitioners to fully fund SSS for historically underserved students. We also hope there will be a greater emphasis on government funding at the federal and state levels to promote student success at community colleges. The state and institutions must work to maintain the mission to increase educational opportunities for these disadvantaged groups.

Future Research

Apart from implications for policymaking and institutional practices, this study suggests areas for further research. First, we hope the comprehensive conceptual model developed in this study will assist institutions in obtaining a better understanding of how such state-funded SSS programs may work for community college student retention. Utilizing this conceptual model and program data in future research may help guide state policymakers in developing effective student services programs and developing partnerships with colleges and universities to strengthen the pipeline between each level of education in support of student success in higher education. Second, the approach used in this research deepened and expanded on the current research on EOF program. Previous studies have struggled in identifying comparable groups (Chaney et al., 1998; Miller, Binder, Harris, & Krause, 2011; Nguyen et al., 2010; Noble, Flynn, Lee, & Hilton, 2008). By using the main criteria for selecting EOF students, which includes gross income and household size, we were able to identify a comparable non-EOF group in a community college. This study provides evidence demonstrating that research based on the created approach can help examine if a SSS program can predict student retention. Third, this study attempted to explore whether the effect of EOF programs on community college student retention may differ by other factors. While subgroup analysis reveals some different determinants of first-semester retention between the EOF and non-EOF groups, the interaction effect tests revealed that the differences were not statistically significant. It is possible that some of the nonsignificant interaction effects may be an artifact of the relatively smaller number of EOF students as compared with the non-EOF group. We suggest that future studies may utilize larger samples of EOF students to further explore the possible differential effects of EOF programs across various student groups. Fourth, the research findings, paired with the limited prior studies on community college student retention reviewed earlier, suggest that more research is needed on community colleges, especially investigating special support services programs designed to improve low-income student retention.

Empirical studies of EOF program effectiveness have been called for, beyond required reporting of numbers related to enrollment, persistence, and services rendered (Astin, 1993; Banta, 1993; Somchanhmavong, 2009). Given the increasingly diversified demographic and economic characteristics of the student body, ongoing future research in SSS programs will provide insight for improving effectiveness of government-funded SSS programs and improving the quality of education and student success.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

Author Biographies

Aretha Watson is an experienced, innovative administrator and innovator in the field of higher education, Aretha Watson has served as associate dean for Student Services Operations and Planning at the Rutgers School of Nursing since April 2016. At Rutgers, Dr. Watson’s responsibilities include establishing strategic management goals, polices, processes, and programs to enhance student admissions, enrollment, and retention. Among other duties, she oversees undergraduate and graduate admissions, recruitment, registrar, and clinical clearance functions for the nursing school.

Aretha Watson also has been directly responsible for all affiliation agreements with clinical sites. She has directed development and implementation of long-range plans and procedures for her department and worked collaboratively with undergraduate and graduate academic and administrative deans to create administrative policies and procedures.

Rong Chen teaches courses related to public policy in higher education, research design, statistical methods and survey analysis. Her major research interest areas focus on education policy, finance of higher education, college access, choice and degree attainment, educational equity and international higher education. Chen's recent research projects include studies of the impact of federal financial aid and state finance on education opportunity, role of institutions in improving college student degree attainment, undergraduate debt burden and its impact on post-college outcomes and internationalization of the American faculty. She has published articles in Journal of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education and Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research.

She earned her doctorate in higher education from the University of Michigan, and previously served as a faculty member at Beijing International Study University in China. Chen has received research grants from the American Educational Research Association (AERA)/Association for Institutional Research (AIR), and has been selected as a National Academy of Education (NAE)/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellow. She serves on the editorial board of Research in Higher Education.

References

Acee

T. W.

Cho

Kim

J. I.

Weinstein

C. E.

(2012). Relationships among properties of college students’ self-set academic goals and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 32(6), 681–698.

American College Test. (2007). Rigor at risk: Reaffirming quality in the high school core curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/rigor_report.pdf

Alfonso

Bailey

T. R.

Scott

(2005). The educational outcomes of occupational sub-baccalaureate students: Evidence from the 1990s. Economics of Education Review, 24(2), 197–212.

Astin

A. W.

(1993a). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York, NY: Oryx Press.

Astin

A. W.

(1993b). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bailey

Cho

S. W.

(2010). Developmental education in community colleges. Issue brief prepared for the White House Summit on Community Colleges. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Bailey

Morest

V. S.

(2006). Defending the community college equity agenda. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Banta

(1993). Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bean

J. P.

(1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155–187.

10.

Bean

J. P.

Metzner

B. S.

(1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55, 485–540.

11.

Becker

G. S.

(1994). Human capital revisited. In Becker, G. S. (Ed.) , Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3rd ed., pp. 15–28). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

12.

Berumen

J. G.

Zerquera

D. D.

Smith

J. S.

(2015). More than access: The role of support services in the transitional experiences of underrepresented students in a statewide access program. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 45(1), 3.

13.

Bosworth

(2010). Certificates count: An analysis of sub-baccalaureate certificates. Complete College America. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 536837)

14.

Bourdieu

(1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Brown

(Ed.), Knowledge, education and cultural change (pp. 487–510). London, England: Tavistock.

15.

Boylan

H. R.

(2002). What works: Research-based best practices in developmental education. Boone, NC: National Center of Developmental Education.

16.

Braxton

J. M.

Hirschy

A. S.

McClendon

S. A.

(2011). Understanding and reducing college student departure: ASHE-ERIC higher education report. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0787972827.html

17.

Burley

Butner

Cejda

(2001). Dropout and stopout patterns among developmental education students in Texas community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(10), 767–782.

18.

Cabrera

A. F.

Castaneda

M. B.

Nora

Hengstler

(1992). The convergence of two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 63, 143–164.

19.

Chaney

Muraskin

L. D.

Cahalan

M. W.

Goodwin

(1998). Helping the progress of disadvantaged students in higher education: The federal student support services program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(3), 197–215.

20.

Chen

DesJardins

S. L.

(2008). Exploring the effects of financial aid on the gap in student dropout risks by income level. Research in Higher Education, 49(1), 1–18.

21.

Clark

(1960). The “cooling out” function in higher education. American Journal of Sociology, 65, 569–576.

22.

Cofer

Somers

(2001). What influences student persistence at two-year colleges? Community College Review, 29(3), 56–76.

23.

Cohen

A. M.

Brawer

F. B.

(2003). The American community college. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118449819.html

24.

Crisp

Delgado

(2014). The impact of developmental education on community college persistence and vertical transfer. Community College Review, 42(2), 99–117.

25.

Crisp

Mina

(2012). The community college: Retention trends and issues. In Seidman

(Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (2nd ed., pp. 147–166). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

26.

Donaldson

Mian

Rodriguez

Wang

Weisenbacher

(2015). New Jersey student success programs: An inventory and report of promising practices. Retrieved from http://bloustein.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/New-Jersey-Student-Success-Programs-with-Inventory-FINAL-05.07.15.pdf

27.

Dowd

A. C.

(2004). Income and financial aid effects on persistence and degree attainment in public colleges. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 12(21). Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.14507/epaa.v12n21.2004

28.

Fike

D. S.

Fike

(2008). Predictors of first-year student retention in the community college. Community College Review, 36(2), 68–88.

29.

Fujita

Oromaner

(1992). The study of attrition at Hudson County Community College (Special Report 92.02). Jersey City, NJ: Hudson County Community College Office of Planning and Institutional Research. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 351083)

30.

Gutierrez

Dantes

(2009). Practical model for the community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(11), 958–961.

31.

Ishler

Upcraft

M. L.

(2005). The keys to first-year student persistence. In Upcraft

M. L.

Gardner

J. N.

Barefoot

B. O.

(Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 27–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Kiser

A. I.

Price

(2008). The persistence of college students from their freshman to sophomore year. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 9(4), 421–436.

33.

Kun

G. D.

Kinzie

Buckley

Bridges

Hayek

J. C.

(2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE higher education report ( Vol.32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

34.

Landry

C. C.

(2002). Retention of women and people of color: Unique challenges and institutional responses. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(1), 1–13.

35.

McLendon

M. K.

Tuchmayer

J. B.

Park

T. J.

(2010). State policy climates for college student success: An analysis of state policy documents pertaining to college persistence and completion. Journal of College Student Retention: Theory & Practice, 11(1), 33–56.

36.

Miller

Binder

Harris

Krause

(2011). Staying on track: Early findings from a performance-based scholarship program at the University of New Mexico. MDRC.

37.

Moore

Slate

J. R.

Edmonson

Bustamante

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2010). High school students and their lack of preparedness for college: A statewide study. Education and Urban Society, 42(7), 817–838.

38.

Nakajima

M. A.

Dembo

M. H.

Mossler

(2012). Student persistence in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(8), 591–613.

39.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). The condition of education, 2012 (NCES 2012045). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144

40.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2017). The condition of education, 2017 (NCES 2017144). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144

41.

New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education. (2013). A vision, a mission, and goals for the New Jersey educational opportunity fund. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/EOF/EOF_Vision.shtml

42.

New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education. (2015). Educational opportunity fund progress report. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/documents/pdf/index/EOFPROGRESSREPORTFINALMay12015.pdf

43.

Nguyen

Hays

Wetstein

(2010). Showing incoming students the campus ropes: Predicting student persistence using a logistic regression model. The Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 18(1), 16–21.

44.

Nippert

(2000). Influences on the educational degree attainment of two-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 2(1), 29–40.

45.

Nitecki

E. M.

(2011). The power of the program: How the academic program can improve community college student success. Community College Review, 39(2), 98–120.

46.

Noble

Flynn

Lee

Hilton

(2008). Predicting successful college experiences: Evidence from a first year retention program. Journal of College Student Development, 9(1), 39–60.

47.

Opp

R. D.

(2002). Enhancing program completion rates among two-year college students of color. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 26(2), 147–163.

48.

Pascarella

E. T.

(1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: A critical review and synthesis. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 1(1), 1–61.

49.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

(2005). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

50.

Perrakis

A. I.

(2008). Factors promoting academic success among African American and White male community college students. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2008(142), 15–23.

51.

Schmid

Abell

(2003). Demographic risk factors, study patterns, and campus involvement as related to student success among Guilford Technical Community College students. Community College Review, 31, 1–16.

52.

Scrivener

Weiss

M. J.

Sommo

Fresques

(2012). What can a multifaceted program do for community college students: Early results from an evaluation of accelerated study in associate programs (ASAP) for developmental education students. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2089460 or https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2139/ssrn.2089460

53.

Singer

J. D.

Willett

J. B.

(2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

54.

Somchanhmavong

S. S.

(2009). Educational opportunity program: A review of the literature and implications for the disadvantaged (Unpublished master’s thesis). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

55.

Swail

W. S.

Quinn

Landis

Fung

(2012). A blueprint for success: Case studies of successful pre-college outreach programs. Retrieved from Educational Policy Institute:http://www.educationalpolicy.org/publications/pubpdf/TG_CASESTUDY.pdf

56.

Tinto

(1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.

57.

Tinto

(1992). Student attrition and retention. In Clark

B. R.

Neave

G. R.

(Eds.), The encyclopedia of higher education (1st ed., pp. 1697–1709). Oxford, England/Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.

58.

Tinto

(2006–2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention, 8, 1–19.

59.

U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Student support services program: Funding status. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/funding.html

60.

Voorhees

R. A.

(1985). Student finances and campus-based financial aid: A structural model analysis of the persistence of high need freshmen. Research in Higher Education, 22(1), 65–92.

61.

Webb

(1989). A theoretical model of community college student degree persistence. Community College Review, 16(4), 42–49.

62.

Wild

Ebbers

(2002). Rethinking student retention in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 26(6), 503–519.

63.

Wohlgemuth

Whalen

Sullivan

Nading

Shelley

Wang

(2007). Financial, academic, and environmental influences on the retention and graduation of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(4), 457–475.

64.

Wood

J. L.

(2011). Leaving the 2-year college: Predictors of Black male collegian departure. Journal of Black Studies, 43(3), 303–326.

65.

Zhang

Chan

Hale

Kirshstein

(2005). A profile of the student support services program, 1998-1999 through 2001-2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

66.

Zientek

L. R.

Yetkiner Ozel

Z. E.

Fong

C. J.

Griffin

(2013). Student success in developmental mathematics courses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(12), 990–1010.