Heterogeneity Among Pell Recipients
Evidence and Implications
Robert Kelchen and Sara Goldrick-Rab
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Affordability and College Attainment in
Wisconsin Public Higher Education
July 7, 2011
Motivation
• Policymakers are pursuing equity and excellence agendas
simultaneously—aiming to expand access and diversity
while also increasing college completion rates
• One popular proxy for diversity is the percent of low-
income students on campus
• Since most colleges and universities lack information on
family income, Pell Grant receipt is the common measure
Possible Unintended Consequences
• Equity and excellence can conflict: a greater
representation of Pell recipients is associated with lower
graduation rates
• Accountability for completion rates may create incentives
for colleges to “cream” the top tier of Pell recipients
• There is already evidence of fierce competition for high-
ability, low-income students among institutions with
greater resources
Common Assumptions and Potential Problems
• Pell receipt signifies a common set of student
characteristics
• This facilitates a comparison of the presence and
performance of Pell recipients across institutions as a way
to assess institutional performance
• However, this approach implies general homogeneity
among Pell recipients as a group
• It also implies no role for institutions in the sorting of Pell
recipients across colleges and universities
Focus of this Study
We consider the degree to which Pell Grant recipients are
heterogeneous:
1. Across four selectivity tiers of public Wisconsin
universities and both 2-year sectors
2. Across institutions within selectivity tiers and sectors
3. Within institutions
In other words, we ask “Can we simply assume a Pell
recipient is a Pell recipient is a Pell recipient?”
Pell Grant 101
• Students and their families must fill out the FAFSA
• Eligibility is based on an expected family contribution
(EFC)
• Students with an EFC of below $4,041 in 2008-09
academic year were eligible to receive a Pell up to $4,731
• The needs analysis (EFC calculation) is one source of
variation among Pell recipients—it relies on an array of
information about family income and assets
Keeping the Pell Grant
Initial receipt does not ensure continued receipt.
Renewal requires:
1. Refiling a FAFSA
2. Continuing to have a qualified EFC
3. Making “satisfactory academic progress”
• Varies by institution but usually a C average
So—once a Pell recipient, not always a Pell recipient
Pell Characteristics Nationwide (2008-2009)
• 6.1 million recipients
• 28.4% of undergraduates received a Pell
• 41% of recipients were dependents
• 49% of dependents had a zero EFC
• 38% of dependents scored in the lowest quartile on
ACT/SAT, while only 14% scored in the top quartile
Pell Recipients in Wisconsin Public Higher Education
(2008-2009)
• Nearly 60,000 students received Pell Grants
• 20% of university students
• 23% of Wisconsin Technical College System students
• 24% of UW Colleges students
• Rates of retention to the 2nd year of college at universities:
• 76% for Pell recipients vs. 81% for non-recipients
• 6-year bachelor’s completion rates at universities:
• 55% for Pell recipients vs. 68% for non-recipients
Wisconsin Public Higher Education
• 13 public universities (UW)
• Tier 1: Median ACT 25-28 (Universities A-C)
• Tier 2: Median ACT 23 (Universities D-F)
• Tier 3: Median ACT 22 (Universities G-J)
• Tier 4: Median ACT 20-21 (Universities K-M)
• UW Colleges (13 two-year branches)
• Wisconsin Technical College System (16 two-year districts)
Sample for this Study
• Stratified random sample of first-time, traditional-age Pell
recipients who enrolled full-time at a public Wisconsin
college or university in September 2008
• Total number of students=2370
Data
• FAFSA
• Gender, age, parental income and assets, EFC, parental
education, dependency status
• Observed for all students
• ACT scores
• Observed for 52.4% of university students
• National Student Clearinghouse
• Tracks whether a student is enrolled at any institution in
the fall 2009 semester
• Observed for all students
Data
• Self-administered mail survey of students
• 28 pages
• 74% response rate in fall 2008
• Includes the following measures that are often affect
student outcomes but are usually not measured in
national, state, or institutional datasets:
• Motivation and effort
• Social capital (access to information)
• Developmental stage (progress towards adulthood)
Measuring Heterogeneity
We use three approaches:
• Graphical distributions (kernel density plots)
• Standard deviations
• Percentiles of distributions (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th)
Question #1: How do Pell recipients vary across selectivity
tiers and sectors?
• Compared to Tier 1 recipients, Tier 4 Pell recipients:
• Have less economic security and financial capital
• Have clearer goals for the future
• Are farther along the transition to adulthood
• Compared to UW Colleges students, WTCS students:
• Are slightly more willing to sacrifice today for tomorrow
(e.g. they think longer-term)
• Are more confident in their ability to get good grades in
college
• Have fewer financial resources
Within-Tier Variation
Distribution of parental income—Tier 4
0
0
Density
.00001
.00002
Distribution of parental income—Tier 1
0
20000
40000
60000
Parent adjusted gross income
University A
University B
University C
80000
0
20000
40000
60000
Parent adjusted gross income
University K
University L
University M
80000
Within-Tier Variation
Distribution of ACT scores--Tier 4
0
0
.05
.05
.1
Density
.1
.15
.2
.15
Distribution of ACT scores--Tier 1
10
15
20
25
ACT composite score
University A
University B
University C
30
35
10
15
20
25
ACT composite score
University K
University L
University M
30
35
Within-Institution Variation
Financial confidence-University L
Financial confidence—
University A
45.0%
45.0%
40.0%
40.0%
35.0%
35.0%
30.0%
30.0%
25.0%
25.0%
20.0%
20.0%
15.0%
15.0%
10.0%
10.0%
5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Within-Institution Variation
Transition to adulthood-University A
Transition to adulthood-University L
60.0%
60.0%
50.0%
50.0%
40.0%
40.0%
30.0%
30.0%
20.0%
20.0%
10.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Year 2 Pell Renewal Rates by Institution and Tier
UW Colleges
University M
Tier 4
University L
University K
University J
University I
Tier 3
University H
University G
University F
Tier 2
University E
University D
University C
Tier 1
University B
University A
0
20
40
60
Renewal Rate (%)
80
100
Year 2 Persistence Rate by Institution and Tier
Wisconsin Technical College System
University of Wisconsin Colleges
University M
Tier 4
University L
University K
University J
University I
Tier 3
University H
University G
University F
Tier 2
University E
University D
University C
Tier 1
University B
University A
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
Persistence Rate (%)
80.0
100.0
Conclusions
• There is wide variation among Pell Grant recipients
attending Wisconsin’s public colleges and universities
• The differences in students are not strictly linked to the
selectivity of the institutions they attend
• Blunt measures of accountability– such as “Percent Pell”
or “Pell Graduation Rates” may create perverse incentives
• Designing better measures of accountability will require
use of data systems that can better profile students and
their needs