Andrew Howard Nichols, Ph.D. Senior Research Analyst The Pell Institute Student Financial Aid Research Network Philadelphia, PA (June, 2011)

 Overview  Definition of Provisional Admission  Rationale  Design  Quantitative  Qualitative  Discussion / Recommendations  Questions and comments 2

 Joint venture with National Association of College Admission Counseling (NACAC)  Funded by the Lumina Foundation for Education  Study is complete & report to be published later this summer (2011) 3

 A mechanism for colleges to enroll students who show potential to succeed in college but may not meet standard or preferred academic qualifications.  Provisionally admitted students are asked to satisfy requirements beyond what is expected of regularly admitted students.  Meet certain academic performance requirements,  Take specific classes or a reduced course load  Utilize or participate in special student services  Provisional admission practices also are referred to by other names, such as conditional admission. 4

 Initial enrollment at a 4-year college is positively related to bachelor’s degree attainment  Programs / policies often include additional support and structure  Help enhance institutional diversity  Relatively unexplored in the research literature 5

 Quantitative: 17-item survey sent to admission office personnel at 1,263 distinct 4-year institutions. 26% response rate.  Administered in Fall 2010 as part of NACAC’s Annual Admission Trends Survey  Qualitative: Document analysis, interviews, & focus group discussions during site visits to 5 four- year campuses with provisional admission programs / policies 6

 Sample (n = 330)  Sample was fairly representative with regard to:  Control– slightly more privates (73%)  Region – S/SW slightly underrepresented  Enrollment – smaller colleges underrepresented  Selectivity  Analysis – frequencies & percentages with crosstabular, correlation, and mean comparison  Control, enrollment, %Pell, and selectivity

 57% (148) of respondents had PA initiatives according to our definition  PA positively related to %Pell and acceptance rate  Average size = 104 (F2009) & 107(F2010)  Larger at public institutions  Size positively related to enrollment  Provisional admits about 5% of full-time, first-time admits in F2010 8

 79% of institutions DIDN’T target specific student populations  Most selective more likely to target selected students  Public more likely to target athletes  Larger schools more likely to target racial/ethnic & 1 st - gen students  Only 18% of institutions conducted special outreach  Selective more likely to reach out

 Program components  Specific courses (62%)  Reduced course load (61%)  Minimum GPA (50%)  Orientation (48%)  Full-time attendance (63%)  70% Private, 33% Public (High %Pell were less likely to require)  Only 18% offered financial support  Required Services  Regular meetings with advisor (88%)  Mandated tutoring (67%)  Peer Mentoring (36%)

 Evaluation & Success  72% indicated they evaluate…something  1 st year GPA (84%)  1 st to 2 nd year retention (82%)  Cumulative GPA (58%)  4 year graduation rate (51%)  6 year graduation – Public (67%), Private (34%)  72% of students in these programs were retained to the second year  Moderate negative relationship between %Pell and 1 st year completion 11

 Provisional admission initiatives can be expanded, particularly at 4yr public institutions  Increase outreach & target services toward historically underrepresented groups  Programs seem fairly successful with 1st year retention – our data compared favorably to IPEDS & ACT data  Long-term impact of these programs needs to be examined. Unable to obtain 6yr graduation rates 12

 The institution must be a 4-year, bachelor degree-granting institution within the United States that receives Title IV funds.  The institution must exceed their respective sector’s percent increase between 1998/99 and 2007/08 in Pell grant recipients.  26.5% for public institutions  28.9% for private institutions

 The institution’s percentage of undergraduates receiving Pell grants must exceed their respective sector’s representation of all Pell grant recipients in 07/08.  30.3% for public institutions  13.6% for private institutions  The institution must have a broad academic focus. Schools were removed if they had a specific focus (e.g., bible colleges, medical, art, etc.)

 Started with over 1,500 institutions  Ended up with slightly over 200  6 item screening survey was sent to schools that were NACAC member institutions  Browsed websites and made phone calls  Invited 13 schools to participate and 5 agreed  Pine Manor College (MA), California State University – Stanislaus (CA), Fayetteville State University (NC), Winthrop University (SC), and Notre Dame College (OH)

 Discovered three PA models  Supplemental tutoring model  Winthrop University  Notre Dame College  Cohort-based curricular instruction model  Pine Manor College  Summer bridge experience model  California State University, Stanislaus  Fayetteville state university 16

 Students Benefits of PA  Provided educational opportunity  Promoted academic success  Academic skill building  Study and time management skills  Helped build confidence  Helped students build relationships  Peer friendships  Connections with faculty 17

 No “best” provisional model  Require academic support  Clearly outline policies and requirements  Involve faculty  Establish early contact  Encourage engagement  Monitor student performance  Maintain contact  Evaluate 18

Andrew Howard Nichols, Ph.D. Senior Research Analyst The Pell Institute