Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been proposed as a mechanism to democratize access to the benefits of apprentice-style scientific research to a broader diversity of students, promoting inclusivity and increasing student success and retention. As we evaluate CUREs, it is essential to explore their effectiveness within the environments of regional comprehensive universities and community colleges, because they are important access points for a wide variety of students. It is also important to address the potential influence of volunteer bias, where students can opt to enroll in either the CURE or a traditional lab, on the outcomes of CUREs. We evaluated a CURE at a regional comprehensive university under conditions both with and without volunteer bias. We find that nonvolunteer students report a lower sense of discovery and relevance of the CURE compared with students who volunteered for the course. Importantly, we also find that our replacement of the traditional lab class with a CURE resulted in lower scores on exams in the associated lecture course among students who are both BIPOC and Pell eligible. We call for additional research on the effects of CUREs at nonresearch-intensive institutions and without volunteer bias, to better understand the impact of these classes. When a traditional lab was replaced with a CURE a Regional Comprehensive Institution, students who are both BIPOC and Pell eligible have lower scores on the exams in the associated lecture course. Also, students who did not volunteer for the CURE report a lower sense of discovery and relevance in the course.