Exploring the Role of Tuition-Free Community College for Rural Communities: A Mixed Methods Approach

Abstract

Nationwide, rural students enroll in and graduate from college at lower rates than their non-rural peers. Closing this gap in rural college access matters because individuals with a college education experience higher average earnings and lower rates of unemployment relative to their peers without a college credential. State financial aid programs can be a powerful tool to encourage rural postsecondary enrollment. However, in order for aid programs to affect enrollment behavior, students must be aware of these programs and see the opportunities as aligning with their context and goals.

Guided by Perna’s model of student college choice, this dissertation employed a mixed methods design to explore how to best design and communicate financial aid opportunities to rural students. The first phase of the study used a randomized controlled trial to test whether an informational campaign about Iowa’s statewide tuition-free college program affected rural seniors’ college-going behavior (i.e., whether they filed their FAFSA). I randomly assigned the 279 public rural high schools in Iowa, enrolling approximately 22,000 seniors, to one of three groups: (1) posters, (2) posters + handouts, or (3) control. The poster and handout materials contained information about the scholarship and encouraged interested students to file their FAFSA. Using linear probability modelling and student-level state administrative data, I found no evidence that either treatment arm affected FAFSA filing behavior relative to the control condition. There was also no statistically significant difference in FAFSA filing between the two treatment arms.

In the second phase of the study, I facilitated seven focus groups with rural Iowa high school counselors. I utilized the focus group data to contextualize the experimental findings and to shed light on the ideal design of tuition-free programs for rural students and effective methods of communicating these opportunities. Counselors shared their perspective that the campaign materials were insufficient on their own to influence students’ college-going behavior, though they can serve as useful complementary tools. Rather, providing real-time guidance, such as through one-on-one meetings, is key to providing students with the support needed to navigate the college-going process. Counselors discussed various aspects of the Future Ready Iowa Last-Dollar Scholarship that present barriers for students and can prevent take-up.

Based on these findings, I conclude that the intricacies of the Last-Dollar Scholarship discourage some prospective recipients from using the program and that providing information through a low-touch informational campaign is an insufficient approach to overcome these structural barriers. Iowa limits eligibility for its tuition-free program to specific credentials and low-income students in order to limit state spending and more narrowly align the program with state needs. However, these restrictions run counter to the straightforward guarantee thought to be a key mechanism of the success of tuition-free programs in other states. The uncertainty of whether the Last-Dollar Scholarship will be approved by the legislature each year and whether changes or restrictions will be added to the program makes it difficult for students to rely on the scholarship and incorporate it into their plans. If states and other organizations want to use financial aid programs to increase college access, then they must structure and promote these programs in ways that align with students’ planning and decision-making processes. If states are committed to increasing rural college access, then they must critically evaluate how this population is being served by and experiencing state programs.