Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the recruitment and retention strategies used for the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) within the California State University (CSU) campuses. This study was to determine successful and/or unsuccessful recruitment and retention practices with respect to the EOP and to determine reasons that lead program Directors to reject or reuse certain strategies. Methodology. To conduct this study, the qualitative design, which was a descriptive case study, was utilized. Data were collected through a variety of avenues. Archival data were used to collect information regarding the history of the EOP as well as to collect statistical data. An initial questionnaire was sent to Educational Opportunity Program Coordinators at twenty-three California State University campuses. EOP Coordinators at five selected campuses were interviewed as well. Findings. Various recruitment and retention strategies were shared among the campuses. Some of these shared strategies were more frequently used than others. Some seemed to be rated highly by all the Coordinators; some seemed to be unique. Those institutions that used the unique strategies seemed to consider them of high value. While campus specific strategies seemed to be of importance to a few institutions, they did not seem to be of high value to other institutions. It seemed that recruitment of students was most effective when opportunity for direct contact with interested students was established. All Coordinators believed that their retention strategies were effective, and the majority asserted that the existence of support services for students was equally as important as increasing the number of participants. The Coordinators placed a different value on each strategy. With respect to retention and recruitment strategies, most of the Coordinators indicated that they had no challenge with their retention strategies, and none of these strategies were either of least importance or were discontinued; only one campus indicated no challenge with its recruitment strategies. Considering the recruitment strategies, the majority of studied institutions had not discontinued their existing strategies, even though they pointed out strategies that were least contributing to student recruitment. Implications. Individuals responsible for recruitment and retention of EOP students within the CSU campuses should increase their level of communication to increase information sharing and to improve such strategies. While the quality of support services offered to EOP students should also be a priority for those involved in the retention of EOP students, the Orientation and transition from high school to college need to include both the student and the parents. Also, strategies that are used by the minority of institutions, but which are of high value to those who use them, should be considered and adopted by all institutions to test their effectiveness in recruiting and retaining EOP students. In addition, emphasis needs to be placed on increasing the opportunity for one-on-one contact with students to promote students' confidence in the program and to create an opportunity for them to become closely acquainted with the university of their choice and the Educational Opportunity Program as a whole.