From Cross-Enrollment to Transfer: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial in California Community Colleges

• In Event: Policy Levers for Community College Mobility: New Evidence on Access, Transfer, and Equity

Abstract

California’s tripartite system of higher education was designed to provide accessible transfer pathways from the state’s 116 community colleges to the 23 California State University (CSU) campuses and 9 University of California (UC) campuses. To further strengthen the transfer function, in 1993 California implemented a policy to allow students from any of the three public systems of higher education to simultaneously enroll in a single class per term at a different system at the same cost as their baseline tuition rate (SB1917). Prior research suggests that simultaneous enrollment across sectors is associated with increased rates of transfer (de los Santos & Sutton, 2012; Wang & McCready, 2013) and with increased bachelor’s degree attainment, particularly for community college students (Crisp, 2013; Hindman & Russ-Eft, 2017; Wang & Wickersham, 2014). However, data indicate that few community college students take advantage of this opportunity. Students may be failing to take advantage of cross-enrollment opportunities for several reasons including a lack of information and financial and logistical barriers (Morales-Gracia et al., 2022; Hill et al., 2024). In 2022 and 2023 academic years, we implemented a student-level randomized control trial to improve rates of cross-enrollment between three Southern California Community Colleges and a public four-year university. Treatment students received a two-pronged intervention. First, we addressed information and procedural barriers by providing access to a website that provided accessible aggregated information from the community colleges and the four-year university. We also offered online information sessions and staffed a dedicated email address to answer questions and support students. Second, each participating student was offered financial support including fully covering the course fees plus vouchers to cover textbook, parking, and other course related expenses up to $400 per student. In our treatment group, 1.2% of students applied to cross-enroll and less than 1% successfully cross-enrolled at the four-year university. While our results are statistically significant, the effect of the intervention was small. We attribute this small effect to the administrative and logistical burdens placed on students because of institution-specific enrollment procedures. At the same time, our preliminary analyses indicate that the intervention may have had broader implications for students’ transfer trajectories. We observe a significant positive impact on enrollment at a four-year institution after treatment, suggesting a meaningful improvement in transfer rates even though direct cross-enrollment remained rare. This pattern is consistent with the possibility that the intervention may have influenced transfer through mechanisms beyond cross-enrollment itself, including increased awareness of transfer opportunities, stronger transfer intentions, or more active engagement with the transfer process. To better understand the relationship between strong initial interest in cross-enrollment, low take-up, and potentially meaningful transfer gains, we are examining implementation data such as email logs and workshop attendance records.

Author

• XunFei Li, University of California, Irvine
  Presenting Author