Does College Coaching Help Former Dropouts Reenroll in College?

This study investigates whether remote one-on-one college coaching increases reenrollment among low- and middle-income students who previously dropped out of California public colleges. Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial with 8,040 former Cal Grant recipients, assigning half to receive coaching through InsideTrack. Using enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse, they found no significant effect of the coaching offer on reenrollment. The intent-to-treat estimates showed a treatment impact near zero, with confidence intervals excluding increases larger than 2 percentage points. Only about half of treated students engaged with their coach, suggesting limited treatment uptake and minimal impact on reenrollment outcomes.

Full Citation and Link to Article

Lesley J. Turner and Oded Gurantz. (2024). Experimental Estimates of College Coaching on Postsecondary Reenrollment. Education Finance and Policy, 20(2), 214–265. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00430

Extended Summary

Central Research Question

This study examines whether personalized, remote college coaching can increase postsecondary reenrollment among young adults who previously dropped out of college. Specifically, the researchers focus on low- and middle-income individuals in California who had received state financial aid (Cal Grants), attended a public college (either a California State University or community college), and then left without earning a degree. The central research question is: Can offering one-on-one coaching to these former students improve their likelihood of reenrolling in college within a year?

Previous Literature

Previous studies have shown that postsecondary education has strong positive effects on labor market outcomes, including higher lifetime earnings and improved employment prospects. At the same time, college dropout rates remain high, especially among students from low-income backgrounds. Nationally, only about 61% of students complete their degree within eight years of starting college.

Various interventions have been implemented to boost college persistence, such as financial aid, emergency grants, and counseling. High-touch advising models, such as those provided by InsideTrack, have demonstrated positive effects in prior randomized controlled trials when applied to currently enrolled students. For instance, Bettinger and Baker (2014) found that InsideTrack coaching increased persistence and degree attainment among traditional college students. However, there is limited research on whether such interventions can help students who have already dropped out reengage with college.

Prior work has also found mixed results for lighter-touch interventions targeting reenrollment. For example, studies offering information via text messages or small tuition waivers have had modest or no effects on reentry, especially among older or nontraditional students. This study contributes to the literature by focusing on a largely unstudied population—students who left college without a degree and expressed interest in returning.

Data

The study uses administrative data provided by the California Student Aid Commission (CSAC) on students who received Cal Grants between 2014 and 2019. The sample was limited to individuals who received aid for one to three years at either a community college or CSU but then stopped receiving aid, which serves as a proxy for dropping out. Researchers sent email and text outreach to over 130,000 former students, inviting them to opt into a study offering free coaching to support their return to college. The study ultimately included 8,040 students who opted in, with 4,076 randomly assigned to receive coaching.

Outcomes were measured primarily using data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), which tracks enrollment and degree completion at most U.S. postsecondary institutions. Supplemental enrollment and FAFSA submission data were also obtained from CSAC.

Methods

The researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial, assigning half of the 8,040 students who opted in to receive coaching from InsideTrack. This coaching was delivered remotely via phone, text, or video call, and focused on addressing barriers to reenrollment, such as financial aid problems, administrative hurdles, or lack of confidence. Coaches were professionally trained and provided with extensive development to work with nontraditional students.

Randomization was stratified by several variables, including college sector (community college vs. CSU), years of Cal Grant receipt, and cohort year. The primary outcome was reenrollment in any college during the fall term following treatment assignment. Additional outcomes included FAFSA submission and enrollment persistence into a second academic year. The study used intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis and ordinary least squares regressions, with standard errors clustered at the randomization strata level.

To evaluate program engagement, the study also tracked how many students in the treatment group interacted with their coach and the intensity of those interactions.

Findings/Size Effects

The primary finding is that offering coaching had no statistically significant impact on college reenrollment. The overall ITT estimate for fall enrollment was effectively zero, with confidence intervals that ruled out increases larger than 2 percentage points. In the control group, 33% of students reenrolled, compared to an indistinguishable 33% in the treatment group. Subgroup analyses by gender, parental education, prior college sector, and age also showed no meaningful treatment effects.

Among students assigned to the treatment group, about 49% communicated with their coach at least once, and 30% had two or more contacts. The average number of communications for the treatment group was 2.9, mostly via text. These findings suggest low to moderate levels of engagement with the intervention. For students who did engage, the coaching was often focused on resolving financial aid issues, reestablishing eligibility, and navigating institutional processes.

A secondary analysis found marginally positive effects for a small subgroup: students in the first cohort who had not been enrolled in the prior academic year experienced a 3 percentage point increase in reenrollment (from 12% to 15%), significant at the 10% level. However, this group represented less than 2% of the total sample, limiting the practical significance of this finding.

FAFSA submission rates were also unaffected by the coaching offer. Among the control group, 46% submitted a FAFSA during the award year, and the treatment group showed an insignificant 0.4 percentage point increase. Persistence into a second academic year, measured using CSAC data, also showed no significant improvements.

There were slight differences across cohorts. The first cohort (randomized before the pandemic in early 2020) showed a 1.3 percentage point increase in reenrollment, while the second cohort (randomized during the later stages of the pandemic) showed a 1.3 percentage point decline. These effects were not statistically significant, but they suggest that timing and pandemic-related disruptions may have influenced the program’s effectiveness.

Conclusion

This study finds no evidence that offering one-on-one coaching to low- and middle-income former college students increases their probability of reenrolling within a year. Despite previous research showing benefits of InsideTrack coaching for currently enrolled students, this intervention did not produce measurable gains for former students who had dropped out. The limited engagement—only half of treatment group members interacted with their coach—likely contributed to the null results.

The findings suggest that coaching interventions may be less effective for individuals who have already disengaged from college, especially in the absence of strong institutional partnerships or incentives. The challenges faced by these students—including financial aid ineligibility, administrative holds, and life circumstances—are complex and may require more intensive or better-targeted support.

The study was also conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which likely disrupted both student behavior and the delivery of the intervention. Coaches reported spending significant time addressing nonacademic crises such as housing instability and mental health concerns, rather than focusing on reenrollment.

Overall, while coaching remains a promising strategy for certain populations, this study shows its limitations for reengaging dropouts at scale. Future efforts may need to include more rigorous targeting, integration with institutional resources, or additional financial incentives to be effective. Further research is needed to assess whether coaching has longer-term effects on degree completion or postsecondary success, particularly when implemented under less challenging circumstances.