Anderson, Drew M.; Broton, Katharine M.; Goldrick-Rab, Sara; Kelchen, Robert (2020). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, v39 n3 p720-739. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1257049
Reviewed: June 2021
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received a Bachelor's degree |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
University students;
|
63.63 |
62.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Degree completion from two-year college within 6 years |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Two-year college students;
|
49.21 |
48.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
enrollment in graduate school |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
9 Years |
University students;
|
16.10 |
16.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
transfer to four-year college |
Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG) vs. Business as usual |
9 Years |
Two-year college students;
|
35.75 |
36.10 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 8% | |
| Black | 8% | |
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| White | 79% |
| Hispanic | 4% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 96% |
The study included students from 13 four-year universities and 13 two-year colleges that are in the University of Wisconsin System (UW and UW Colleges) and 16 two-year public institutions that are part of the Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS).
The sample included four cohorts of students corresponding to four academic years (2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011). The study has two independent samples, students attending universities and students attending two-year community colleges. The university assigned sample included 2,220 students in the intervention group and 14,590 students in the comparison group. The sample of students in the two-year colleges included 1,058 students in the intervention group and 2,825 students in the comparison condition. All students in the assigned sample are included in the analytic sample. Across both samples, approximately 57 percent were female, 79 percent were White, 8 percent were Black, and 8 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander. Four percent of students were Hispanic.
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, and possibly because grant notifications were not actually received by students, or because they did not return the verification form.
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.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube