Can Light-Touch College-Going Interventions Make a Difference? Evidence from a Statewide Experiment in Michigan
Hyman, Joshua (2020). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, v39 n1 p159-190. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1238270
-
examining49,156Students, grades11-PS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for College enrollment intervention)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enroll in any college |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
84.40 |
84.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enroll in any college |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Not specified "Non-White";
|
85.10 |
83.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enroll in any college |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Male;
|
81.80 |
81.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in a selective 4-year college |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
8.40 |
8.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment - 4 year college |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
67.80 |
67.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment - 2 year college |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
16.60 |
16.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Immediately enroll in college |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
82.00 |
82.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enroll in any college |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Female;
|
86.80 |
87.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College persistence into second year (any college) |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
73.90 |
74.20 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College persistence into second year (any college) |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Free or reduced price lunch;
|
61.20 |
60.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College persistence into second year (4-year colleges only) |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
54.60 |
54.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College persistence into third year (any college) |
College enrollment intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
65.30 |
65.40 |
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: 52%
Male: 48% -
Rural, Suburban, 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
Michigan
-
Race Asian 5% Black 6% Other or unknown 4% White 85% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 3% Not Hispanic or Latino 97%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted with a sample of 12th grade students from public high schools in Michigan in urban (10 percent), suburban (54 percent), and rural (36 percent) settings.
Study sample
The sample included 49,156 high-achieving high school seniors who were randomly assigned to either receive a letter encouraging them to consider college or no additional information about college. High-achieving is defined by the author as students who scored at or above the statewide median on the American College Testing (ACT) exam in the 11th grade, which was mandatory in Michigan. A little over half of the students in the total sample were female (52 percent). Eighty-five percent of students were White, six percent were Black, five percent were Asian, and three percent were Hispanic. About a quarter of the students were economically disadvantaged based on free/reduced price lunch status (27 percent) and 2 percent were designated as special education students.
Intervention Group
During fall 2014, when the students were in 12th grade, students in the intervention group received a letter encouraging them to apply to college. The letter provided a QR code directing them to an informational website about the college and financial aid application process. Four versions of the letters were sent, each with a bolded phrase emphasizing a different aspect of the college application process: learn how to apply to college; learn which college is right for them; learn how to make college affordable; and a version with all three topics. Approximately 10 percent of students who received the letter navigated to the website. The author then followed up using administrative data to determine college enrollment and persistence outcomes.
Comparison Group
The students in the comparison group received no additional information as part of the study aside from the ACT score report that all students received in the previous spring.
Support for implementation
The letters and the website, once created, did not require further 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).