There is no conflict of interest.
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of expanded Pell Grants on program completion. This profile focuses on experiment 2 (very short-term programs, 8 to 15 weeks long). The authors investigated similar research questions for another contrast, the profile can be found here.
- The study was a randomized controlled trial that assigned students to the treatment or control group. Using data from school records and the National Student Clearinghouse, the authors conducted statistical models to compare outcomes between the groups.
- The study found that the expanded Pell Grant was significantly associated with increased program completion at the study school.
- This study receives a low evidence rating. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the expanded Pell Grant; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Features of the Intervention
Pell Grants are a type of federal financial aid for low-income students who are seeking an undergraduate degree or a semester long credential. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education conducted experimental expansions to Pell Grant eligibility. One expansion allowed low-income adults to receive Pell Grants for very short-term (8 to 15 weeks) occupational training programs. The expanded Pell Grant program was implemented at 28 schools nationwide.
Features of the Study
The study used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of the expanded Pell Grant on program completion. The study targeted low-income adults who completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and showed interest in occupational training programs. Of the 2,399 eligible students, 1,488 students were assigned to the treatment group and 911 students were assigned to the control group. Students in the treatment group were offered the expanded Pell Grant by their school as part of their financial aid package, while students in the control group were only offered financial aid provided by the school. In the treatment group, over half of the students were men (62%) with an average age of 31.7 years and an adjusted gross income of $21,610. Students in the control group were primarily men (66%) with an average age of 31.4 years and an adjusted gross income of $23,425.
Study data were obtained from school records on academic progress and attainment, school administrative records, and the National Student Clearinghouse. Study authors used statistical models to compare outcomes between the students in the treatment group and students in the control group.
Findings
Education and skills gains
- The study found a significant relationship between receipt of the expanded Pell Grant and program completion at the study school, where students in the treatment group were more likely to complete their program than students in the control group.
- The study found that both men and women in the treatment group were significantly more likely to complete their program at the study school than those in the control group. This was also true for participants under 25 and over 25, as well as dislocated workers in the treatment group.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
Although the study was a randomized controlled trial, the study had high attrition. In such cases, a study can still receive a moderate causal evidence rating if the analysis controls for possible differences in background characteristics of the treatment and control groups. However, the authors did not account for preexisting differences between the groups before program participation or include control variables for race/ethnicity as required by CLEAR. These preexisting differences between the groups—and not the expanded Pell Grant—could explain the observed differences in outcomes.
Causal Evidence Rating
Additional Sources
Research Guidelines
Review Protocol: Living Systematic Annual Search and Review Protocol
Review Guidelines: Causal Evidence Guidelines