Optimal College Financial Aid: Theory and Evidence on Free College, Early Commitment, and Merit Aid from an Eight-Year Randomized Trial. EdWorkingPaper No. 21-393
Harris, Douglas N.; Mills, Jonathan (2021). Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618296
-
examining4,693Students, grades9-PS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for Merit Aid)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative GPA |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.77 |
1.80 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Grade Point Average (2.5 or above) |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
24.86 |
26.34 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College completion |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
8 Years |
Full sample;
|
2.35 |
1.95 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College completion (2 year institution) |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
8 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.76 |
1.18 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College completion (4 year institution) |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
8 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.56 |
0.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earnings |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
5.04 |
5.06 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ever employed |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
60.74 |
60.15 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Achievement |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
-0.02 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics Score |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
-0.04 |
-0.06 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduated with any credential |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
57.22 |
55.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.81 |
0.81 |
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.
-
11% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
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
Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 6% Black 62% Native American 1% Other or unknown 20% White 11% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
Study Details
Setting
The study included 36 high schools serving ninth through twelfth grade students in Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS). Twenty of the 36 schools were traditional public schools and the others were charter schools.
Study sample
The students in the original assigned sample were 62% Black, 6% Asian, and 11% White. A fifth of students (20%) were Hispanic. Students were an average of 15 years old, and about half were female (49%). The majority (83%) qualified for free and reduced-price lunch, 21% were special education students, and 11% were English learners.
Intervention Group
The Degree Project is a performance-based scholarship. Students receive a $12,000 merit-based scholarship to cover the costs of college. To receive the scholarship, students have to graduate from any MPS high school within four years of starting ninth grade, maintain a 2.5 or higher cumulative GPA (C+/B-), attend school 90% of the time, complete a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) in their senior year and each year of college, and enroll in college within 15 months of their high school graduation.
Comparison Group
Students in comparison schools did not receive the $12,000 scholarships. They were still eligible to apply for other scholarships.
Support for implementation
The lead author designed the program in partnership with the program funder and operator, the Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation and Affiliates, and MPS. The lead author also selected the intervention schools using data from MPS.
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).