Key Takeaways

As California’s community college students were starting the Spring 2020 term, COVID-19 erupted into a public health crisis and global pandemic that caused massive social, economic, and public health consequences. To support students and institutions in overcoming these unprecedented challenges, the federal government provided CCCs over $4 billion dollars as part of the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF). How did institutions use these funds? And how well did these pandemic recovery activities and investments help reengage students? Our key survey findings and recommendations include:

Both faculty and students benefited from the large infusion of federal. Colleges were able to provide emergency aid, professional development, and expanded student supports and services—including online tutoring as well as counseling, mental health, and basic needs supports. Notably, students were the main beneficiaries among the top spending categories for that part of the funding earmarked for institutional recovery.

Colleges prioritized equity over equality in emergency aid, supports, and services. Instead of providing equal awards to all students, many institutions targeted emergency aid, services, and/or supports to students with the greatest needs. For example, higher amounts of emergency aid went to full-time Pell recipients—a proxy for low-income status—compared their full-time, non-Pell peers.

The funding facilitated transitions to online learning. Many colleges reported investing in supporting faculty, staff, and students with the transition of courses, supports, and services to the online environment. Moving forward, over half of colleges expect to offer more than 40 percent of courses online.

The majority of colleges perceived pandemic aid to be successful in achieving key outcomes. For emergency aid, the highest share of colleges reported that the aid was “very” successful in addressing the economic challenges students faced during the pandemic. On the institutional side, the highest share of colleges reported that aid was “very” successful in supporting the transition to online learning.

Investments that lowered the cost of attending college were perceived to be most successful in supporting students. In open-ended questions about the most successful strategy for student enrollment, student success, and student equity, investments addressing college affordability rose to the top. This included providing emergency aid to students, as well as investments that helped lower the total cost of attendance by providing free books, free or loaned laptops, basic needs support, and forgiving student debt/fines.

Colleges expect to continue offering basic needs support and emergency aid going forward. Though California’s challenging budget situation may affect these plans, colleges intend to continue aid for food insecurity and mental health at the same or an expanded level, and emergency aid at a reduced level. The expected funding sources vary—state and local government funding for student basic needs and mental health, and college foundation for emergency aid.

The survey findings illuminate how HEERF supported students and institutions during a very challenging time. We recommend that colleges prioritize investments to make college more affordable for low-income students, as well as to ensure ongoing funding for the technology and training necessary to support equitable access and success in online courses. Equally important will be the need to evaluate the effects of HEERF-funded pandemic recovery activities.

The COVID-19 pandemic created enormous challenges for students, families, and institutions of higher education. As a result, the state has lost ground on many fronts. Community colleges experienced severe enrollment declines, especially with learners least-represented among college graduates, including Black, Latino, and low-income students (Linden et al. 2022). And while more recent National Student Clearinghouse data (2024) suggest that community college enrollment has begun to pick up, the multiple years of declines, along with the learning loss, will have long-term consequences for Californians—where a college education is one of the surest paths to economic mobility.

Between Fall 2019 and Fall 2021, the community college system lost nearly 300,000 student enrollments (Bulman and Fairlie 2021). The transfer-intending population lost over 150,000 students, with students of color experiencing disproportionately higher declines (Perez et al. 2022). As a whole, the system lost about 15 percent of its enrollment, with significant variation across campuses—from less than 1 percent to 30 percent. Community college funding is closely tied to enrollment, so such a severe decline over such a short period left colleges in dire need of emergency funding.

Concurrently, about 46 percent of students also reduced their course unit load. Students reported that the primary reasons for dropping out or reducing their course load were mental health and stress, the need to care for family, increased work hours to support themselves and their families, poor access to high-speed internet and necessary devices to access course materials, and a lack of workspace to attend online classes and complete assignments (Reed et. al. 2021). This impact varied widely by race/ethnicity, family income level, and college district structure.

The need to care for and financially support their families also caused many students to experience housing and food insecurity and increased medical costs (Black and Taylor 2021). In 2023, nearly two-thirds of students experienced challenges with at least one of these basic needs, and historically underserved students faced much higher rates (RP Group and CEO Affordability, Food, & Housing Access Taskforce 2023). Given the dire circumstances, California community college students were also in need of immediate cash assistance as pandemic lockdowns reduced their ability to attend college, work, and ensure their basic needs were being met.

In recognition of this need, the federal government passed a series of three pandemic relief bills between March 2020 and March of 2021 that allocated $77 billion in emergency funding to higher education institutions across the US by establishing the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF). California received the largest share of funding of any state, as it was provided $10.1 billion or about 13 percent of the total. Between March 2020 and January 2023, CCCs received about $4.4 billion in total funding, of which nearly $1.8 billion was directed to emergency student aid (direct cash support paid to students) and $2.5 billion was directed to institutions (Daniels et al. 2024; Education Stabilization Fund 2023). This funding was intended to provide cash assistance directly to students and to help support colleges as they sought to preserve enrollment, shift instruction and business operations to an online format, and improve health and infrastructure systems (Jackson et. al. 2022). As the pandemic progressed and colleges began to focus on a return to in-person instruction, federal restrictions on the use of pandemic funding loosened and allowed colleges a broader series of recovery efforts to address declines in enrollments and to support student persistence and degree attainment and survey research found that expenditures shifted accordingly (Klempin et al. forthcoming).

With federal funding, the colleges used their pandemic-related challenges to initiate or accelerate new innovation: the growth of online learning, the expansion of basic needs centers, the use of online services and supports, and greater attention to the physical, mental, and financial hardships that can affect students’ academic performance.  They were also able to address some of the affordability challenges that students were facing even before the pandemic. In addition to providing direct cash assistance to needy students, colleges could lower the cost of attendance by providing free books, free or loaned laptops and Wi-Fi hotspots, access to food and housing support, school supplies, child care assistance, and forgiving campus debts and fines.

Throughout the report we explore differences by key college-level demographic, district structure, and college characteristics. We highlight the share of Latino, Black, and low-income students—proxied by Pell Grant and California College Promise Grant receipt. Findings will be useful to state and federal stakeholders and may guide future funding and policy efforts. In addition, evidence gathered may be leveraged to inform campus strategies and resource allocations to effectively reengage students, sustain enrollment, and attain equitable outcomes.

The first section shows how colleges made decisions on eligibility, award amounts, and methods for distributing emergency aid. The second sheds light on how they spent funding allocated for institutional support, such as facilitating the transition to an online modality, discharging student fees, and funding student services and supports. In both, we also provide insight into colleges’ perceived success of their investments. The next section provides a look ahead: main concerns as the pandemic funding ends, plans for continuing services and supports, and how those would be financed. The final section reveals which strategies colleges perceived to be most effective in supporting student enrollment, success, and equity.

One of the primary purposes of the federal Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) was to provide direct support to students via the distribution of emergency aid. These funds were allocated primarily based on the number of full-time-equivalent students enrolled and the share of students receiving federal Pell Grants, which is a proxy for the share of low-income students served. By the end of January 2023, the 114 California Community Colleges received $1.8 billion in emergency aid for students.

In this section, we present findings on how colleges allocated student aid, and college leaders’ perceptions of how successful the funds were in keeping their students in college.

Emergency Student Aid

The single most successful student success strategy the college employed was providing aid to students in order for them to remain enrolled. The pandemic recovery funding supported these efforts by allowing the district to provide direct aid to students and by relieving students of their student debt. —Community College in the Inland Empire

How many students in total received direct emergency student aid?

Within the 63 colleges that reported the number of students who received aid, colleges served a median of 8,740 students through Spring of 2023. We find some variation in this number when looking at district composition (i.e., multi-college districts vs. single-college districts, see text box)—with 28 colleges located in 11 multi-college districts serving fewer students than those located in single-college districts (a median of 7,714 vs. 12,024, respectively).

How did colleges decide which students were eligible for emergency aid?

Colleges used multiple criteria simultaneously to decide which students were eligible for the aid. Unsurprisingly, given the federal funding source, the most common method was based on students’ eligibility for Pell Grants/Title IV federal student aid (68%, and statistically significantly different from the other options) (Figure 1). This was followed by a consideration of the students’ estimated family contribution (EFC), which is determined by a student’s Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) (45%). Additionally, 44 percent asked students to attest to their eligibility. Lastly, 8 percent also reported using other means, including students’ enrollment status, the California Dream Act Application (CADAA), and completion of an application process.

In examining variation by college characteristics, we find that multi-college districts are opting to use Pell and EFC as methods to determine eligibility at rates that are significantly higher than single-college districts (Figure 1). Looking across the different regions of the state, we find that colleges in the Los Angeles/Orange County and Inland Empire regions were also more likely to use pre-determined metrics derived from the FAFSA (Technical Appendix Table D1). We find no significant differences in how emergency aid eligibility was determined based on the characteristics of students served at the college (Technical Appendix Table D2).

Prioritizing student need when distributing emergency aid

[The most successful strategy was] focusing on students with high levels of unmet need. The funding supported students who had gaps in basic needs (i.e., housing, food, child care). The funding supported equitable opportunities for these students to achieve their educational goals. —Community College in Los Angeles/Orange County

Colleges had the flexibility to decide the amount of aid to award students. In making such decisions, they often weighed equity (different amounts accounting for student need and/or circumstances) versus equality (same amount to all students). Overall, equity was an important consideration. A higher share of colleges exclusively provided different amounts of aid to students based on needs or circumstances (34%) compared to colleges that offered the same amount to all eligible students (13%) (Figure 2). Many colleges (44%) used a combination of awarding the same amount to all students or different amounts based on students’ needs or circumstances throughout—likely pivoting from one approach to the other as the federal rules detailing which types of students could receive emergency aid were loosened in subsequent pandemic relief bills (see text box).

There is notable variation across the state’s regions, with colleges in the Sacramento area much more likely to award aid based on needs and circumstances and majorities of colleges in the Inland Empire/Desert (60%), Los Angeles/Orange County (53%), Central/Mother Lode (44%), and North/Far North (42%) regions using both approaches.

We also asked about how emergency aid was targeted, and the amounts of aid awarded. Here we find that higher amounts went to Pell Grant recipients—a proxy for low-income status. Full-time Pell recipients received an average of about $1,400, while their full-time, non-Pell peers received about $1,200. Similar patterns are observed among part-time students, where part-time Pell recipients received an average of about $1,100, while their part-time, non-Pell counterparts received just over $800.

Distributing aid to students

For the emergency aid to be most effective, it must reach students who need it in a timely and efficient manner. Most colleges used two primary methods: 56 percent disbursed aid automatically and also asked students to apply for the aid. Another 24 percent exclusively disbursed aid automatically, and only 11 percent exclusively had students apply (Figure 3).

How colleges distributed aid varied based on the college location (Figure 3) and students served (Figure 4). Importantly, compared to colleges that used applications, those in the Central/Mother Lode and in the North/Far North regions were more likely to disburse the emergency aid automatically. They were also more likely to serve higher shares of students who receive Pell and California College Promise grants, and high shares of Latino and Black students (48% and 8%, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in how multi-college and single-college districts decided to distribute emergency aid. Notably, colleges asking students to apply for aid serve higher shares of white students, suggesting this group may have faced stricter policies. It is unclear what drove this, but one college administrator suggested it may be an unintended consequence of colleges’ concerted efforts to better serve and support students underrepresented in higher education.

Across the board, however, the most common practice was to have a combination of automatic awards and awards based on applications. At colleges that used both approaches, one way this worked was by automatically awarding the emergency aid to students who were Pell-eligible and asking students that were to apply for the aid to attest they were affected.

Perceptions of Emergency Student Aid Success

For Student Services, the Emergency Grant made available through pandemic recovery funding was probably the single most important thing we did to support student enrollment, success, and equity. Through this program we provided over $13 million in funding for supplies, technology, child care, healthcare, housing, food, and transportation, etc. We auto-awarded those students who were Pell-eligible and if not Pell-eligible, had students submit an application and attested they were affected. —Urban College in the Bay Area

A clear pattern emerges in terms of whether colleges perceived the investments to be successful in supporting students. Most notably, about three-quarters of colleges reported emergency student aid was either very or somewhat successful in addressing all four areas covered in the survey (Figure 5). This pattern holds for multi-college districts as well, with the majority indicating that the direct student aid was helpful in supporting students’ basic needs and college engagement. Moreover, colleges with higher shares of Latino students were more likely to indicate investments were very successful at helping cover the costs related to the pandemic disruptions and keeping students enrolled (Technical Appendix Table D3).

The single most successful strategy thus far has been the establishment of the inaugural call center. To ensure effective student communication, appropriate software, staff, and space were carefully identified for the implementation of this call center. Initially, contact was initiated through phone calls, which soon expanded to encompass text messages and mass mail broadcasts. The call center staff report to the director of outreach and school relations, who worked with teams from Information Technology & Services (ITS) and Institutional Research and Planning to build and curate various student contact lists to effectively target students based on several factors. To date, over 140,000 phone calls have been made not only to support increased enrollment but also to connect with students and refer to appropriate programs and services. The hiring of a program coordinator, part-time staff and appropriate cloud-based call center system and supplies was supported directly by pandemic recovery funding. —Community College in Los Angeles/Orange County

HEERF’s second key component was to provide institutions themselves resources to help weather pandemic-related challenges. By January 30, 2023, all colleges in the CCC system had received a total of $2.4 billion in institutional aid. Surveyed colleges had spent roughly 76 percent of that aid by early 2023.

How Did Colleges Spend the Institutional Aid?

Colleges allocated their institutional aid to a variety of activities aimed at supporting faculty, staff, students, and the college facilities. There were eight areas where at least three-quarters of colleges allocated pandemic recovery funds: technology hardware (93%), campus safety (93%), equipment and supplies (89%), lost revenue from non-tuition sources (87%), faculty and staff training (87%), distance learning supplies (79%), high-speed internet (76%), and additional emergency aid to students (75%) (Figure 6). Notably, among these top areas, students were the primary beneficiaries of additional emergency aid and benefited also from the investments in distance learning supplies, high-speed internet, and equipment and supplies.

The way colleges allocated their resources reveals where their focus was. Colleges spent the most (15% and 13%, respectively) on campus safety and additional emergency aid to students, and 13 percent on other activities not included in our list, like addressing outstanding student debt, enabling distant learning, and indirect costs related to financial aid outreach (Figure 7).

In terms of the share of funding allocated to the different activities, there are more similarities than differences across multi- and single-college districts. Nevertheless, there are important differences in how multi-college and single-college districts allocated selected activities. The main statistically significant differences that emerge are with the percentage of resources allocated to technology hardware and tuition reimbursement (Technical Appendix Figures D2–D3).

The single most successful strategy to increase student enrollment during the pandemic was the increase in online course offerings. The pandemic recovery funding supported these efforts by covering the cost of providing additional technology to students, providing high-speed internet, and purchasing equipment and software to enable distance learning. —Community College in the Inland Empire

Prioritizing investments in the technology needed for effective online learning was especially important—nearly 60 percent of colleges reported they expect to offer more than 40 percent of their courses online moving forward.  Interestingly, almost 62 percent of multi-college districts expect to offer more than 40 percent of courses online, compared with less than 56 percent for single-college districts (Figure 8). As this expansion in online courses continues, it will be critical to examine their impact on outcomes and equity. This examination is of particular importance given that prior research has found that online courses, for example, have not been particularly effective for the most underserved populations (Hart et al. 2021; Xu and Jaggars 2013, 2016; Johnson and Cuellar Mejia 2014).

Using funding to discharge unpaid fees, pay for food pantries and/or child care centers

Most colleges used institutional aid (63%) to discharge unpaid student fees. An additional 14 percent used both institutional and student emergency aid to discharge unpaid student fees. In fact, only 17 percent indicated they did not use HEERF dollars for this purpose (Technical Appendix Figure D4). Confirming statewide findings from the survey, college administrators participating in the Research Collaboration Council (RCC) who participated in Wheelhouse focus groups indicated that using HEERF to discharge unpaid student fees was common.

In the survey open-ended responses, some colleges shared that discharging student fees was part of a broader strategy used to boost enrollment. For example, as part of an expanded outreach effort, some colleges established call centers and informed students who had dropped out that their fees would be discharged if they returned. Some colleges believed that this, together with information about the new services and support available at the college, including the emergency aid and basic needs support, helped improve college enrollments.

Of the 71 colleges that responded to the survey, 47 had child care centers and 67 had food pantries. Among colleges with child care centers, 32 percent used pandemic recovery funds to support them, and among colleges with food pantries, 36 percent (Figure 9). The relatively low share is not surprising as some colleges indicated they have separate funding streams for these. Indeed, when asked about which funding streams would be used to support food pantries and child care moving forward, the majority of colleges identified state or local sources of funding for both (see Figure 13).

Perceptions of Institutional Aid Success

For Academic Affairs, the quick conversion to remote learning, including the training of faculty to teach online, was probably the most important thing we did. —Community College in the Bay Area

Because of the nature of our programs, keeping many in-person classes open as possible was helpful. Funding was able to help in this effort because we were able to reduce class sizes (to be able to maintain social distancing requirements), have cameras in class to view things close up, and to purchase PPE and other safety items, such as acrylic dividers and air filters. —Community College in Los Angeles/Orange County

Most colleges perceived that investments in institutional aid were very or somewhat successful (Figure 10). Investments in the transition to online learning and those supporting the safe return to in-person instruction were among the top three. We find that eight out of every ten colleges felt those investments were very successful in increasing efficiencies through improved use of technology. Seven out of ten indicated that the aid was very successful in covering the cost of moving instruction online. Investments in a safe return to campus rounded out the top three, with just under three-quarters of colleges (73%) indicating that funds were very successful at improving campus health, safety, and well-being.

Targeting Pandemic Recovery Supports and Services

Expanding our mental health services, adding racial trauma counselors, student focus group led by the mental health steering committee, and augmenting hours for student services and counseling in person and online, making it easier for students to access services. —Community College in Los Angeles/Orange County

For both direct aid and pandemic-related supports and services, a higher share of colleges gave more weight to equity (different amounts accounting for student need and/or circumstances) than to equality (same amount to all students). This applies where institutional relief funding was used to benefit students in some way—a higher share of colleges targeted supports and services to students with the greatest need (56%) (Technical Appendix Figure D5). There was some statistically significant variation by district structure, with single-college districts more likely than multi-college districts to offer supports and services equally (53% vs. 24%). Among the colleges that did target aid, most did so based on financial need, housing insecurity, migrant status, and food insecurity (Figure 11).

HEERF emergency and institutional aid ended in 2023. Do colleges expect to make the aid-funded supports or services available to students after they have spent the remaining funds? Most do, but the scale varies. Those associated with food insecurity and mental health are the most likely—least 20 percent of colleges reported that they would continue to offer them at an expanded level, and about two-thirds would continue to offer them at the current level (Figure 12). Next, while emergency aid was identified as the top way colleges would invest any new pandemic recovery funding, 63 percent indicated that they would continue to offer it but at a reduced level. On the other hand, more than a quarter of colleges indicated they would discontinue free or reduced-price internet and about one out of every five would no longer offer free or reduced-price technology (e.g., laptops, cameras), housing, and child care assistance.

Colleges indicated that state and local government would be the primary source of funding for maintaining continued services and/or supports after HEERF ends (Figure 13). The vast majority indicated this would be the funding source for mental health services (86%) and about two-thirds would use it to address student hunger. Finally, over half indicated state and local funding sources would be the primary support for housing assistance and child care assistance. One notable difference in the future funding source emerges for emergency aid: namely, 43 percent of colleges indicated that their college foundations would cover it; another 36 percent indicated that emergency aid would be covered primarily by state and federal funding.

Expanding or even maintaining these services could be challenging in the near future, however. State revenue projections show that California is looking at a multi-year budget deficit of $38 billion at the same time that the vast majority of federal emergency aid has been exhausted (Legislative Analyst’s Office 2024). Additionally, community college funding is closely tied to enrollment. Though we are seeing a small rebound in enrollment from the large declines during the pandemic, a majority of colleges still have enrollment below pre-pandemic levels. During the pandemic, the state maintained community college funding levels at pre-pandemic amounts regardless of enrollment. If this “hold-harmless” provision is removed and the standard community college funding formula is reimplemented, many colleges could see rapid declines in state funding. This of course would jeopardize some of the programs that colleges found to be successful at retaining and growing enrollments.

Concerns about Aid Ending

Most colleges are somewhat or very concerned about the end of the aid in 2023 (Technical Appendix Figure D6). Only 7 percent replied they are not concerned. Almost four out of five concerned colleges fear the lack of aid will limit their ability to support students with financial or personal emergencies. Colleges also think it will lead to reductions in nonacademic support for students, widening of income and racial gaps, and poor student enrollment and outcomes (Figure 14). Other reasons for concern include the reduction of instructional programs and the increase of stress or burnout among faculty and staff (Technical Appendix Tables D5–D6).

Moving forward, having colleges and districts identify opportunities to leverage district- or systemwide efforts like those supported by the California Virtual Campus and the Online Education Initiative, as well as strategically braiding federal, state, local, and philanthropic support aimed at ensuring digital equity will be key to supporting equitable access and success in online courses.

A set of concluding open-ended survey questions gave college officials the opportunity to reflect on the most successful strategies they used to support student enrollment, success, and equity. In this section, we present findings on the top strategies that emerged and embed quotes throughout to provide rich and thoughtful insights using the colleges’ own words.

Making College More Affordable

A recent PPIC survey found that three out of four parents are concerned about being able to afford college for their children (Baldassare et al. 2022). As such, it is not surprising that investments in making college more affordable for students rose to the top when colleges were asked about the top strategies that supported student enrollment, success, and equity. Just over one-quarter of colleges reported it was among their top strategies to support student enrollment (Technical Appendix Figure D7) and to facilitate student success (Figure 15), and even more indicating it facilitated equity (Technical Appendix Figure D8). Key investments included covering tuition and books, loaning computers or hotspots, discharging unpaid fees, and providing housing assistance and other basic needs supports.

The following quotes provide further insights into how HEERF supported efforts to make college more affordable and how coordinated outreach supported these efforts:

Our single greatest success for enrollment involves direct aid for students. We could run campaigns around financial aid, debt forgiveness, food insecurity, computer/technology assistance, and student housing assistance. These types of assistance were not available prior to the pandemic, and they significantly impacted student enrollment. —Community College in Los Angeles/Orange County

The single most successful strategy to increase student enrollment during the pandemic was allocating institutional HEERF funds to cover balances for students who had withdrawn from the college after 3/13/2020. We conducted a high-touch outreach campaign of 1,820 students. This included three attempted contacts; two phone calls and one email. We personally notified students that we would be covering their past-due balances and invited them back. We offered direct financial aid and counseling assistance to each student. We also allocated funding for technology grants to students with technology needs that prevented them from re-enrolling and taking online courses. We also offered $300 book vouchers to students who had additional financial hardships and needed assistance covering the cost of textbooks. We were able to re-engage 382 students to re-enroll. —Community College in the Far North

Expanding Supports and Services

More than one-third of colleges reported that expanded student supports and services were key in supporting student success and equity (Figure 15; Technical Appendix Figures D8). This expansion included both the use of more holistic student support services—like academic advising, tutoring, mental health and wellness, among others—and the use of online platforms to deliver them. The latter played a key role in facilitating student equity, for example in addressing racial traumas and meeting the needs of student parents and multi-lingual learners.

We moved to Student Success Teams (SST), which are cross-department collaborations between instruction and student services for each instructional pathway, in order to provide a holistic approach to connect with students in multiple ways. We embraced technology and then married that with high-touch services to maintain the humanity of our work. —Community College in the Central Valley

 Increasing Flexibility in Course Modality

The pandemic also led to the sudden shift from an in-person to an online setting. For many students, faculty, and staff, it was the first time they had experienced teaching, learning, and providing supports and services online. In all, 15 percent of colleges indicated that the flexibility in course modality was the top strategy that boosted their enrollment; however, the role played by face-to-face versus online or hybrid varied. One set of responses indicated that enrollments benefited from offering online and hybrid courses—for example, by providing more students flexibility to take courses that fit their schedule, or by allowing dual enrollment courses to be offered without the transportation barrier. However, another set of colleges indicated that re-opening the college and offering in-person courses is what helped boost their enrollment. For both, pandemic recovery funds were considered important in helping provide the necessary conditions to make the flexibility in course modality possible. The following quote provides insights emblematic of these perceptions:

Maintaining a mix of fully online and face-to-face offerings, particularly in disciplines where face-to-face instruction is essential (e.g., skilled trades, nursing and allied health, athletics, fine arts, etc.). Pandemic funding supported these efforts by providing for unique technological solutions and meticulous safety protocols. —Community College in the Central Coast

Prioritizing Student Equity

There was notable overlap in the strategies identified as most supportive of student enrollment, student success, and student equity. For example, the use of pandemic recovery funds to make college more affordable for students featured prominently in all three areas. The use of pandemic funds to expand student supports and services emerged as a top strategy for student success and student equity. We also find the way these strategies were described with respect to equity sometimes varied—placing a stronger emphasis on the equity implications of reaching target populations and on being intentional about engaging in equity-focused work.

Importantly, equity-focused work at the colleges also rose to the top three in terms of strategies perceived to be successful in supporting student equity. Many of these efforts focused on the role of equity-centered professional development and the use of data to uncover and inform equity-focused work at the college. Several colleges indicated working with outside experts, while others specifically noted how the implementation of college or statewide initiatives, like Guided Pathways and AB 705, were used to improve student equity.

Professional development was the most effective equity strategy. These efforts include a cultural curriculum audit; ACUE [Association of College and University Educators] training; Online Teaching Conference; and models for equitable curriculum and pedagogy. —Community College in the Bay Area

The pandemic created daunting challenges for students, families, and institutions of higher education. The federal government provided California Community Colleges billions of dollars in emergency aid to support its students and institutions. Our survey of how they allocated that funding shows that much of it went to supporting students directly through the provision of emergency student aid and expanded student supports and services. Many of these investments addressed college affordability by providing cash transfers in the form of emergency aid to students. They also helped lower the total cost of attendance by providing free books, free or loaned laptops, free or reduced-price internet, access to food pantries, school supplies, child care assistance, as well as housing and transportation supports. It also included forgiving student debts or fines (e.g., parking tickets, overdue tuition, library fines, etc.) that often place holds on a student’s ability to register for courses or even earn their degree (Eaton et al. 2022). In addition, many colleges prioritized equity over equality, targeting emergency aid, services, and/or supports to students with the greatest needs or most dire circumstances.

Institutions themselves also benefited greatly from the large infusion of federal emergency relief funding. Many colleges reported investing in supporting faculty, staff, and students with the transition of courses, supports, and services to the online environment. The areas where most colleges invested institutional aid included equipment and supplies, faculty and staff training, lost revenue from non-tuition sources, distance learning supplies, high- speed internet, and additional emergency aid to students. Importantly, among these top areas, students were the primary beneficiaries of additional emergency aid and they also benefited from the investments in distance learning supplies, high-speed internet, and equipment and supplies.

The following recommendations are informed by this survey of pandemic recovery activities and intended to help guide future funding and policy efforts that aim to promote enrollment and equitable outcomes.

Prioritize investments that help lower the cost of attending college for low-income students. College affordability is a prime concern for Californians. We recommend that federal, state, and local institutional funding prioritize investments that help lower the cost of attending college for low-income students. Given the cost concerns and current budget realities, it is more important than ever to support students in meeting their total cost of attendance by weaving various supports, services, and programs that together can help lower the cost of attending college. This could occur, for example, by boosting access to basic needs like the campus food pantry and by supporting students in accessing safety net programs like CalFresh, Medi-Cal, housing assistance, and subsidized child care. College can also be made more affordable through dual enrollment programs like College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP), which provide high school students with access to college courses with free tuition and books. Since online education is expected to continue at high rates, colleges should also prioritize providing free laptops and ensuring that all students have access to an affordable and reliable internet connection. Policy changes and investments aimed at getting all high school graduates to complete the FAFSA, together with state investments in basic needs centers, broadband for all, and the expansion of dual enrollment are well positioned to support these efforts. Equally important will be addressing the challenges to implementing such policy changes.

Build capacity at college foundations to help maintain emergency aid. Emergency aid for financial hardships such as housing and food insecurity should be maintained. An emergency grant can make the difference between staying enrolled and dropping out—low-income students can often be derailed by not having sufficient money for gas, car maintenance, housing, electricity, water, and other basic needs. Fifty-six percent of colleges ranked emergency aid as their top investment if funding continued. Since the primary source of funding to sustain emergency aid going forward would be the individual college’s foundation, the Foundation for California Community Colleges, the system office, or the broader philanthropic community should help colleges build their capacity to grow, sustain, and ensure equity in fundraising efforts.

Consider eliminating institutional fines and fees that can adversely affect enrollment and completion. Changes to college (or district) level policies and practices that can affect student outcomes are among the lowest- hanging fruit. In this case, institutional decisions to impose fines and fees on certain activities have been found to have a disproportionate impact on the neediest students. As most are already cancelling such debts thanks to the pandemic recovery funding, and since such fines are self-imposed, we recommended colleges consider eliminating them. Instead, they could explore non-punitive ways to encourage student retention and success such as automatic renewal of library books, free parking, and for low-income students, automatic free tuition and fees. To defray the potential loss of income, colleges could provide the debt relief and other free services and supports only to low-income students, continuing to charge students who have the ability to pay.

Ensure ongoing investments support equitable access and success in online courses. Our survey finds that colleges prioritized HEERF dollars to ensure that institutions, faculty, staff, and students had access to the technology and training needed to support the online transition. Moving forward, prioritizing and sustaining investments in this area will be key, given that nearly 60 percent of colleges expect to offer more than 40 percent of courses online in the future. Having colleges and districts identify opportunities to leverage district or systemwide efforts like those supported by the California Virtual Campus and the Online Education Initiative, as well as strategically braiding federal, state, local, and philanthropic support aimed at ensuring digital equity will be key to supporting equitable access and success in online courses.

Evaluate the investments’ effectiveness. The volatile budget situation in California heightens the need to evaluate and identify the most effective strategies. Further research will be necessary to help inform the future direction of investments, especially policies that improved college affordability, such as the emergency student aid awards and the provision of basic needs supports. More broadly, expansion of online student supports and services and courses will need assessment. We also need to know whether and how funds used to holistically support the online transition created stronger outcomes. Institutional research offices have capacity constraints, but the Accelerating Recovery in Community Colleges (ARCC) network and the broader policy and academic research community are on track to help fill these gaps.