The Effects of Means-Tested Private School Choice Programs on College Enrollment and Graduation. Research Report [DC Opportunity Scholarship Program]
Chingos, Matthew M.; Kuehn, Daniel; Monarrez, Tomas; Wolf, Patrick J.; Witte, John F.; Kisida, Brian (2019). Urban Institute. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED601791
-
examining1,776Students, grades2-PS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for DC Opportunity Scholarship Program)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College Enrollment |
DC Opportunity Scholarship Program vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
42.90 |
45.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College Enrollment Full Time |
DC Opportunity Scholarship Program vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
33.10 |
34.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College Enrollment - 4-year public college |
DC Opportunity Scholarship Program vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
22.80 |
23.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
4-year College Enrollment |
DC Opportunity Scholarship Program vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
33.20 |
34.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College Enrollment - 4-year private college |
DC Opportunity Scholarship Program vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
12.10 |
13.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
2-Year College Enrollment |
DC Opportunity Scholarship Program vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
13.00 |
15.10 |
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: 49%
Other or unknown: 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
District of Columbia
-
Race Black 87% Other or unknown 13% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10% Other or unknown 90% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in K-12 public and private schools in Washington, DC.
Study sample
The sample includes only students in low-income families eligible for the intervention—those making no more than 185 percent of the federal poverty level. The average age at the time of lottery application was around 11.8 years. All students were residents of Washington, DC.
Intervention Group
The Washington DC Voucher Program, officially known as the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), is a means-tested private school choice program in Washington, DC. The OSP aims to improve outcomes for students in low-income families by supporting them to attend private schools. Low-income families apply for OSP scholarships for private school tuition. Annually, the program provides 1,200 scholarships that have ranged from $7,500 to $13,534. Eligible families enter a lottery system to determine who receives the limited scholarships. After initial acceptance into the program, family income eligibility is checked annually. Students remain in the program as long as their family income does not exceed the income maximum for continuing participants, which varies across years.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition applied for but did not receive vouchers through the Washington DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). These students either continued attending public schools or enrolled in private schools without receiving OSP scholarships.
Support for implementation
The program is federally funded. Participating private schools must provide data to support evaluation and satisfy requirements for nondiscrimination in admissions and fiscal accountability. The study does not provide specific details on the direct support for implementation.
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.
-
Chingos, Matthew M. (2018). The Effect of the DC School Voucher Program on College Enrollment. Urban Institute.
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).