
Can Scholarships Alone Help Students Succeed? Lessons from Two New York City Community Colleges
Patel, Reshma; Rudd, Timothy (2012). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED540689
-
examining1,502Students, gradePS
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education–A Practice Guide for College and University Administrators, Advisors, and Faculty
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
-
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education–A Practice Guide for College and University Administrators, Advisors, and Faculty Practice Guide (findings for Need- and performance-based scholarships – Patel & Rudd (2012))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Term GPA |
Need- and performance-based scholarships – Patel & Rudd (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
2.60 |
2.60 |
No |
-- | |
Earned a C average or better in six or more credits |
Need- and performance-based scholarships – Patel & Rudd (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.33 |
0.34 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Enrolled in community college by end of first semester (full-time) |
Need- and performance-based scholarships – Patel & Rudd (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.78 |
0.74 |
No |
-- | |
Enrolled in community college by end of first semester (full-time or part-time) |
Need- and performance-based scholarships – Patel & Rudd (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.96 |
0.95 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Earned degree within five years |
Need- and performance-based scholarships – Patel & Rudd (2012) vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.34 |
0.32 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
College-level credits earned |
Need- and performance-based scholarships – Patel & Rudd (2012) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
41.37 |
39.42 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
New York
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in two New York City community colleges. The two colleges are: Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC) and Hostos Community College, which are both part of the City University of New York (CUNY) system.
Study sample
Program group students were about 70% female. Over half were between the ages of 22 and 26, and 74% were unmarried. About 44% of the program group students were Hispanic and about 36% were African American. Slightly more than half of the program participants were employed (56.5%) and about two-thirds (66.2% had completed 12th grade). Control group participants were generally similar in terms of demographics and background characteristics. In Richburg Hayes et al (2011), the study sample did not include the Fall 2009 Cohort, and only included the first and second program semesters (fall 2008 and Spring 2009), for an overall n of 882 (444 in intervention group and 438 in comparison group).
Intervention Group
There were two intervention groups in the study: (1) students were offered a performance-based scholarship for two semesters (up to $2,600) and (2) students were offered a performance-based scholarship for two semesters plus one summer term (up to $3,900). Scholarships were awarded directly to students, on top of their existing financial aid, at the beginning, middle, and end of each semester, contingent on their continued enrollment and grades. The two intervention groups were combined.
Comparison Group
Students in the control group were not offered a performance-based scholarship, though they were still eligible to receive other financial aid. Implementation analyses reported by the study authors confirmed that scholarship program received a fair test; that is, control students did not have access to a similar program and received significantly less in overall financial aid than students in the scholarship program. This difference is almost entirely due to the performance-based scholarship.
Support for implementation
Both colleges had designated staff to manage and implement the program. In addition, both colleges had coordinators who were responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the program. Implementation data reported in the study indicate that the scholarships were delivered as intended over the duration of the study, there was a high rate of participation among students in the program group, and students in the control group did not have access to a similar program.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Richburg-Hayes, Lashawn; Sommo, Colleen; Welbeck, Rashida. (2011). Promoting Full-Time Attendance among Adults in Community College: Early Impacts from the Performance-Based Scholarship Demonstration in New York. MDRC.
Can Scholarships Alone Help Students Succeed? Lessons from Two New York City Community Colleges
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2013
- Single Study Review (126 KB) (findings for Performance-Based Scholarship Program in New York City)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Earned a "C" or better in six or more credits |
Performance-Based Scholarship Program in New York City vs. Lack of Performance based Scholarship |
2 semesters post program |
Community college students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
Term GPA |
Performance-Based Scholarship Program in New York City vs. Lack of Performance based Scholarship |
2 semesters post program |
Community college students;
|
2.60 |
2.70 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Full time enrollment |
Performance-Based Scholarship Program in New York City vs. Lack of Performance based Scholarship |
2 semesters post program |
Community college students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
Full time or part time enrollment |
Performance-Based Scholarship Program in New York City vs. Lack of Performance based Scholarship |
2 semesters post program |
Community college students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
College-level credits earned |
Performance-Based Scholarship Program in New York City vs. Lack of Performance based Scholarship |
2 semesters post program |
Community college students;
|
5.90 |
5.60 |
No |
-- | |
Credits earned |
Performance-Based Scholarship Program in New York City vs. Lack of Performance based Scholarship |
2 semesters post program |
Community college students;
|
7.00 |
6.80 |
No |
-- | |
Ratio of credits earned to credits attempted |
Performance-Based Scholarship Program in New York City vs. Lack of Performance based Scholarship |
2 semesters post program |
Community college students;
|
0.71 |
0.72 |
No |
-- | |
Developmental credits earned |
Performance-Based Scholarship Program in New York City vs. Lack of Performance based Scholarship |
2 semesters post program |
Community college students;
|
1.10 |
1.20 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 69%
Male: 31% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
New York
-
Race Black 37% Other or unknown 3% White 6% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 44% Not Hispanic or Latino 56%
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).