Staying on Track: Early Findings from a Performance-Based Scholarship Program at the University of New Mexico
Miller, Cynthia; Binder, Melissa; Harris, Vanessa; Krause, Kate (2011). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522990
-
examining1,081Students, 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 Performance-based monetary incentives – Miller et al. (2011))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportion of students with GPA of 2.0 or higher and at least 30 credits by the end of the second semester |
Performance-based monetary incentives – Miller et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.43 |
0.34 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Proportion of students with GPA of 2.0 or higher and at least 27 credits by the end of the second semester |
Performance-based monetary incentives – Miller et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.63 |
0.56 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Registered for any courses at 21 day census of first semester |
Performance-based monetary incentives – Miller et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
21 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.98 |
0.99 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned degree by end of tenth semester |
Performance-based monetary incentives – Miller et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
10 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.38 |
0.33 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative number of credits earned by end of fifth year |
Performance-based monetary incentives – Miller et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
91.60 |
91.20 |
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: 61%
Male: 39% -
- 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 Mexico
-
Race White 22% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 61% Not Hispanic or Latino 39%
Study Details
Setting
The study was implemented at University of New Mexico at its Albuquerque Main Campus location. The 18,000 undergraduates and 6,000 graduate students enrolled at the institution reflects the state’s population with the majority of UNM students belonging to minority groups. The UNM is a U.S. Department of Education–designated Hispanic-Serving Institution with Hispanic students accounting for 38.4 percent of entering freshmen at UNM and Native-Americans make up 4.6 percent of UNM entering freshmen. UNM students are at the national average in ACT scores and second-year retention but have graduation rates than are slightly below that average. Approximately 42.5 percent of UNM students graduate in six years compared with 44.6 percent nationally.
Study sample
The full sample included all students eligible for a Pell grant (e.g. low-income). The sample was also 60.8% female and they were 60.6% Hispanic and 21.8% White. Also, 22% of them spoke a language other than English regularly in their home. The first-time entering freshmen were 17 to 18 years of age with few students who were married or have children. In terms of academic performance, close to 40 percent had a high school GPA of 3.5 or higher with the distribution of ACT scores similar to that of students nationwide. Approximately 33 percent of students reported that they were the first in their family to attend college.
Intervention Group
Each freshmen cohort entering the VISTA Scholarship program condition received a $1,000 scholarship per semester in addition to other financial aid, and enhanced academic advising. The scholarship was provided for four consecutive semesters in increments tied to three academic milestones: (1) enrolled at the 21-day census, (2) participated in mid-term evaluations, and (3) met end of semester GPA and earned credit requirements. The enhanced advising component was implemented by a VISTA site coordinator, within the University College Advisement Center, who employed five VISTA advisors. Two VISTA advisors were linked directly to the scholarship. The remaining three VISTA advisers were part of UNM’s general advising program; they were assigned to work with VISTA students along with their general advising load. Advisors were randomly assigned to students. The student-advisor ratio for VISTA staff was 75 to 1 for the first year of the program and 150 to 1 for the second and later years. These relatively low caseloads were designed to enabled advisors to spend more time with their VISTA students, develop and foster a more holistic advising relationship, ensure students had access to early-semester and mid semester advising in order to earn interim payments. To meet the VISTA requirements, students were expected to maintain at least a cumulative 2.0 GPA and acquire at least 57 credits by the end of their fourth semester. Students who do not qualify for the midterm payment could recoup the full payment at the end of the semester provided that they (1) improved their GPA or (2) they raise their earned credits or GPA for the semester by taking winter intersession or summer session courses. Students receive payments in each program semester that they met the milestones.
Comparison Group
This study utilized a business as usual comparison condition. "Students who were selected for the control group …were told that they were not eligible to receive the VISTA scholarship but would continue to receive all financial aid and student services that they would have received had they not participated in the study."
Support for implementation
The support for implementation included hiring of "VISTA Advisors' with a much lower advisor:student ratio than was normally the case at this college. The college employed five VISTA advisors -- two were linked directly to scholarship recipients, and the other three were part of the general advising program and worked with non-VISTA students as well. "These relatively low caseloads allowed the advisors to spend more time with their VISTA students to develop and foster a more holistic advising relationship". Funding for the monetary incentives came from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Open Society Foundation.
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.
-
Binder, Melissa; Krause, Kate; Miller, Cynthia; Cerna, Oscar. (2015). Providing Incentives for Timely Progress toward Earning a College Degree: Results from a Performance-Based Scholarship Experiment. MDRC.
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).