Aid after enrollment: Impacts of a statewide grant program at public two-year colleges.
Anderson, D. M., & Goldrick-Rab, S. (2018). Economics of Education Review, 67, 148-157.
-
examining4,179Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2019
- Single Study Review (findings for Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GPA |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
First 3 cohorts.;
|
2.23 |
2.23 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Cumulative GPA (2.0 and higher) through first two semesters |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
63.60 |
63.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College GPA |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
2.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
% Earned a degree from any college |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
First 3 cohorts.;
|
29.00 |
30.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Associates degree attainment |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
First 3 cohorts.;
|
19.10 |
19.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of semesters enrolled |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
First 3 cohorts.;
|
3.49 |
3.47 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College-level credits earned |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
First 3 cohorts.;
|
36.93 |
36.31 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrolled (2nd semester) |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
88.00 |
86.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrollment |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
First 3 cohorts.;
|
88.00 |
86.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
First 3 cohorts.;
|
51.70 |
50.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
First 3 cohorts.;
|
28.70 |
27.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
First 3 cohorts.;
|
59.01 |
59.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled, Semester 3 |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
58.90 |
58.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
5 Semesters |
First 3 cohorts.;
|
22.20 |
23.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College-level credits earned |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
10.75 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Credits earned |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
8.94 |
Yes |
-- | ||
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: 59%
Male: 42% -
- 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
Wisconsin
Study Details
Setting
This study examined the effect of the Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG), which offered $1,800 per year to students who were enrolled full-time at public technical or two-year branch colleges in Wisconsin. These students were from low-income families.
Study sample
The sample consists of students who were enrolled in a public technical or two-year branch college in Wisconsin at the start of the study. About 58 percent of the sample was female and about 39 percent had a parent who completed college. The average student age was approximately 19 years. Data on race/ethnicity was only available for students in the University of Wisconsin Colleges; among these students, 81 percent were White. All students in the study were supposed to be eligible for a Pell Grant. Eligibility for a Pell Grant was based on family income, which had to be below approximately $50,000 for the 2008-09 school year. However, the authors describe problems that led to non-eligible students being included in the early cohorts (see the Intervention Group Section below). Almost 50 percent of the sample had an Expected Family Contribution of zero dollars toward college costs.
Intervention Group
The WSG is a grant program designed to reduce the financial burdens of college attendance, and study authors hypothesized it would increase the chances of students completing their college education. The WSG provided students with $1,800 per year, each year in which they were enrolled in a two-year public institution. Students could receive the grant for up to ten semesters provided they: (a) remained enrolled full-time, (b) filed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), (c) maintained Pell Grant eligibility with some remaining unmet need, and (d) made academic progress toward a degree. If students transferred to a public four-year university in Wisconsin, the grant amount increased to $3,500 per year. Students received a letter saying they were being offered the WSG in October of their first year of college. To receive the grant, students had to return a form to verify their eligibility. Of the students who were offered the grant, only 80 percent received it. This was due in part to ineligible students being randomized to study conditions (see the Study Sample Section above), and possibly because grant notifications were not actually received by students, or because they did not return the verification form.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition entailed business-as-usual circumstances. Per the grant design, most students should have received a Pell grant in their first year of college but still have some unmet financial need.
Support for implementation
The study does not describe support for implementation.
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).