Citation
Weiss, M., Brock, T., Sommo, C., Rudd, T., & Turner, M.C. (2011). Serving community college students on probation: Four-year findings from Chaffey College’s Opening Doors Program. New York: MDRC.
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the two-semester Enhanced Opening Doors program at Chaffey Community College near Los Angeles, California. Students in the Enhanced Opening Doors program took a college success course that covered personal goals, study skills, and college rules; students also had to attend a student success center for tutoring sessions.
- The study was a randomized controlled trial. Eligible students were randomly assigned to either the treatment group, which was required to participate in the Enhanced Opening Doors program, or the control group, which was not required to participate in the program. The primary data sources were a baseline survey on the background characteristics of students, students’ transcripts, and degree-attainment information from the National Student Clearinghouse. The study reported outcomes for the four years following random assignment.
- The study found that in any of the follow-up years and cumulatively from the first through fourth follow-up years, the program did not have a significant impact on the number of semesters enrolled in college, the number of cumulative credits earned, enrollment in a four-year college, or earning a degree or certificate.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects would be attributable to the Enhanced Opening Doors program, and not to other factors.
Intervention Examined
The Enhanced Opening Doors Program at Chaffey Community College
Features of the Intervention
In fall 2006 and spring 2007, Chaffey Community College implemented a mandatory two-semester program called Enhanced Opening Doors. The Enhanced Opening Doors program was built upon an earlier Opening Doors program, which was a one-semester intervention in fall 2005 that included three related components: (1) a voluntary three-credit college success course, taught by a college guidance counselor, which covered personal goals, college rules and regulations, and study skills; (2) visits to the student success center, where students would complete exercises addressing skills and personal learning styles, time management, and test preparation; and (3) the provision of counseling services both during and outside the college success course. The Enhanced Opening Doors program shared the same three core features as the original Opening Doors program, but included three substantial changes. First, Enhanced Opening Doors was expanded to a two-semester intervention that mandated enrollment in the three-credit college success course in the first semester and offered a voluntary success course in the second semester. Second, the Enhanced program required that students complete at least five visits to the student success centers in the first program semester. Third, the counselors who taught the college success course were more experienced than those in the original program, and greater emphasis was placed on the importance of meeting with students outside of class.
To participate in the Enhanced Opening Doors program, students had to be on academic or progress probation, have earned fewer than 35 credits toward a degree or credential, hold a high school degree or general educational development certificate, and be part-time or full-time students ages 18 to 34.
Features of the Study
This study was a randomized controlled trial, and randomization occurred at the student level. Eligible students who consented to participate in the study filled out a baseline data form. Then, the students were randomized either to the treatment group, which was required to participate in the Enhanced Opening Doors program, or the control group, which was not required to participate in the program but could access existing college services. There were 444 students randomly assigned, 224 to the treatment group and 220 to the control group.
The authors used data from the baseline data form, students’ transcripts from Chaffey Community College, students’ transcript data from all 112 California community colleges obtained from the California Community College Chancellor’s Office, and the National Student Clearinghouse to measure outcomes related to progress toward degree completion. Impacts were reported as the difference of means between the treatment and control groups, adjusted for the timing of random assignment. This study reported outcomes for three post-program years and cumulatively across the first program year to the end of the third post-program year for a maximum interval of four years following random assignment.
Findings
- The study found no impacts in any of the post-program years, or cumulatively over the four years following random assignment, on the number of semesters enrolled in college, cumulative credits earned, or enrollment in a four-year college.
- The study also found no impacts in any of the post-program years, or cumulatively over the four years following random assignment, on degree or certificate attainment.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The treatment group’s participation in the program was relatively high in the first semester, with 72 percent of the treatment group completing the college success course and 69 percent visiting the success center at least once. However, in the second program semester, participation was much lower. Only 29 percent of the treatment group participated in the optional college success course in the second semester and 29 percent of the treatment group visited the success center at least once. This low participation rate in the second semester might have reduced the potential impact of the program.
The control group members were allowed to sign up for the college success course and visit the success center on their own. Although few control group students actually enrolled in the college success course, about 32 percent of the control group visited the success center at least once in the first semester, compared with 21 percent in the second semester. Because the control group might have also been receiving counseling and tutoring services, the impact of the program could have been dampened.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects would be attributable to the Enhanced Opening Doors program, and not to other factors.