Assessing the Impact of Financial Aid on Student Success SHEEO Higher Education Policy Conference August 8, 2012

1 2 3 4 Objectives for our time together Project Overview Louisiana Findings 3 Oklahoma Findings 4 Discussion

About the research partnership

Two papers have already been released on LA findings

Research Questions How does the level and mix of financial assistance affect retention and completion among Pell Grant recipients? Can we observe differences in the retention of Pell Grant recipients versus students in other financial classifications (needy non-Pell recipients and no-need students)?

Research Questions Can we identify flex points in the size and composition of financial aid awards where additional dollars yield diminishing or no returns? Can we help the state’s package aid more efficiently by eliminating “overpayment” to some students and shifting that money to students who might otherwise be inclined to drop out?

Research Questions How do state-based aid programs (TOPS, Go Grant, OK Promise and OTAG) interact with the Pell Grant and with want impact on student retention and completion? What is the best use of the state’s financial aid investments?

Key Project Outcomes for the LA Regents and OSRHE Conduct custom policy research Assist in advancing policy changes as needed Develop report shells based on findings Develop internal capacity to analyze and monitor data in the future

Louisiana findings

High school GPA* was the strongest academic preparation variable Retention Rate High School GPA * 2,817 records (out of 37,251) were missing a high school GPA (they retained at 58%)

Once we control for high school GPA Once we control for high school GPA*, Pell recipients retain as well as other students with demonstrated financial need Retention Rate High School GPA Range

Among Pell recipients, as the percentage of need met with gift aid increases so does student retention All Records % Need Met with Gift Retain Did Not Retain Total Retention Rate <30 1301 1363 2664 48.8% 40 1449 1103 2552 56.8% 50 1622 936 2558 63.4% 60 1308 537 1845 70.9% 70 1136 408 1544 73.6% 80+ 1958 462 2420 80.9% Grand Total 8774 4809 13583 64.6% Chi-Square Results: df 5 value 727.1 p-value <.0001 Increasing the gift percentage from less than 30 percent to 60 percent corresponds to a 22 percentage point increase in the retention rate, while increasing the percentage of need met with gift aid from 60 percent to 70 percent increases retention by only 3 points.

Adding the Go Grant alone increases the percentage of need met with gift aid by 14 percentage points and provides a 5.6 percentage point improvement in retention All pairwise comparisons of means are significant except for retention rate between Pell+TOPS and Pell+GO+TOPS

Oklahoma findings

High school GPA was used as the control for academic preparation because it entered a predictive model we built on the data set Note: In our 2010 work, we used ACT composite as the control variable, but that was not based on a model

Pell Grant recipients retain as well as students in other categories Table 3: Fall-to-Fall Same School Retention by HSGPA Fall 2006, Fall 2007, Fall 2008 HSGPA All Pell Needy, no Range Students Recipients Pell Grant < 3.00 47% 51% 45% 3.00 - 3.49 61% 62% 60% 3.50 - 3.74 71% 70% 73% 3.75 - 4.00 81% 82% 78% GPA missing 53% 54% 57% Total 63% This parity in performance is encouraging given the vast difference in family income between the Pell students ( approx. $20,000) and students with demonstrated financial need without Pell Grants (approx. $56,000)

There is a relationship between the percentage of need met with gift aid and retention among Pell recipients

Retention rates by combinations of Pell Grants and Promise/OTAG

Questions and Discussion