We rely on your tax-deductible donations to support our mission. Donate online →
Most Policy Initiative logo
Browse Research TOPICS

Statewide College Promise Programs

Written by Dr. Brittany Whitley
Published on September 20, 2021
Research Highlights

College promise programs direct scholarship dollars to a specific state, region or institution with the goal of increasing higher education attainment and encouraging local economic development.

  • Most promise scholarships are last-dollar programs that require students to use all available public funds (e.g., Pell grants) prior to being awarded additional funding. Low- income students are the least likely to receive state funds in last-dollar programs.
  • Eligibility requirements (e.g., GPA, residency) and additional program requirements (e.g., credit hours, community service) also influence what populations benefit most from promise programs.
  • Promise scholarships are most often associated with increased college enrollment and completion. Local, first-dollar programs (e.g., Kalamazoo Promise) have demonstrated the strongest positive effects for low-income, non-White and female students.
  • Missouri’s A+ Scholarship has been associated with increased two-year college enrollment and completion among eligible students, but slightly reduced four-year college enrollment in the state.

Executive Summary

College promise programs direct scholarship dollars to a specific state, region or institution with the goal of increasing higher education attainment and encouraging local economic development. The design of promise programs impacts which students are able to access scholarship funds, as well as college enrollment, completion and workforce development within a region. Missouri’s primary statewide promise program is the A+ Scholarship, which funds tuition and fees at participating public community colleges and vocational/technical schools for eligible graduates of A+ high schools.

Limitations

  • Due to significantly different designs between statewide promise programs, there has not yet been enough research to evaluate which elements of promise program design are most important to increase college access and completion.
  • Additional research, particularly in Missouri, is needed to understand the effect of statewide promise programs on keeping students in the state for college and future job opportunities.

Research Background

Program design

As of April 2020, there are 403 place-based scholarship programs that provide financial awards to students pursuing college education in a defined geographic area.1 Statewide promise programs, or place-based scholarships supported by state dollars, exist in over 20 states, including Missouri. Missouri’s primary statewide promise program is the A+ Scholarship, which funds tuition and fees at participating public community colleges and vocational/technical schools for eligible graduates of A+ high schools. The design of statewide promise programs influences their potential impacts on college access, affordability and workforce development in several ways.2-6

First vs. last-dollar programs: First-dollar programs give scholarship recipients their financial award before they receive any other grant or award funding. In contrast, last-dollar programs, such as Missouri’s A+ Scholarship Program, require that students use all available public funds (e.g., Pell grants) prior to being awarded additional funding. Most statewide promise programs are last-dollar scholarships, which means that low-income students who have received the maximum Pell grant allocation often receive fewer or no state scholarship funds, even if they meet the eligibility qualifications of the promise program. In addition to providing financial aid, some state promise programs provide additional student support services like mentoring, counseling, early registration and summer bridge programs. In most last-dollar programs, eligible students whose tuition is fully covered by federal Pell grants typically cannot access the program support available to state promise program participants.

High school student eligibility: Many promise programs have financial and/or merit-based requirements. Other common eligibility requirements include state residency, years of attendance of in-state public schools, and FAFSA completion. Missouri’s A+ program, for example, is a merit- based program that is available to students who (1) are US citizens or permanent residents, (2) graduate from an A+ school that they attended for at least two years, (3) have a 95% overall high school attendance record, (4) complete fifty hours of unpaid tutoring or mentoring during high school, (5) avoid the use of drugs and alcohol, (6) receive a proficient or advanced score on the algebra I end of course exam and (7) graduate with an unweighted GPA of at least 2.5 on a 4.0 scale. Several accommodations have been made to these requirements (e.g., GPA requirements for A+ scholarships) due to COVID-19. While not eligible for the A+ Scholarship, adult learners in Missouri may be eligible for the Fast Track Workforce Incentive Grant.

Program requirements: Programs often require students to maintain a certain level of enrollment, performance and/or community service after college enrollment. Students with additional work and family obligations outside of school may have the most difficulty meeting these obligations. A+ students in Missouri who are enrolled in college must maintain 12 semester credit hours (6 hours during the summer), over a 2.0 cumulative GPA in their first fall semester and over a 2.5 cumulative GPA thereafter.

Program outcomes

Promise programs can increase college enrollment, although the magnitude of the effect depends on the program.2 Participation in the Tennessee Promise Program, for example, is associated with increased community college enrollment due to the reduced financial burden of attending college for some students.7 However, some students reported that the various program requirements (e.g., pre-enrollment meetings, community service, full-time enrollment) created barriers to participation in the program. Local promise programs that provide scholarships to students in a specific county or school district are typically better studied than statewide programs. For example, there is substantial evidence that the first-dollar Kalamazoo Promise increases college enrollment and completion, especially among women, low-income and non-White students.8-10

In general, there is little research about how promise programs impact student retention in-state after graduation and other community outcomes. The announcement of the Kalamazoo Promise Program was associated with reduced movement out of Kalamazoo Public Schools, which maintains talent in the school district and supports the retention of a skilled potential workforce in the region.10 However, in a recent study of three citywide college promise programs in Wisconsin, Connecticut and New York, the effects of promise programs on in- and out-of-region mobility varied significantly.11 Higher income families were most likely to move into a promise- targeted region, likely due to the costs associated with moving. In addition to the economic and community effects, recent evidence also suggests that promise programs can influence institutional spending by directing some funding away from instruction and academic support to institutional grant funding.12

Missouri’s A+ Scholarship: Missouri’s A+ Program is designed to improve high school quality and increase community college enrollment in the state. A+ Schools receive additional state funding for meeting specific graduation and career development standards (RSMo. 160.545); A+ scholarship recipients receive state funding to attend public community college or vocational/technical school.

In a review of Missouri’s A+ Program between 2008-13, the Missouri Department of Higher Education reported that, compared to students who did not receive the A+ scholarship, A+ students attending two-year institutions were more likely to graduate within three years and transfer to a four-year institution.13 Additional research supports that the students from A+ Schools have increased college enrollment and completion at two-year institutions, but also an almost 4% decrease in four-year college-going rates.14 The enrollment effects of the Missouri A+ Program suggest that it most impacts students who would not have gone to college and those who would have chosen other postsecondary institutions (e.g., four-year institutions, out-of-state schools).14,15 Because most research depends on aggregated school data, additional research is needed to understand the student-level impacts of the A+ program and how it varies based on race, gender and income.

Recently, demographics for A+ Award recipients were obtained via a legislative request to the Missouri Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development. The median family income for A+ award recipients in 2019-20 was $91,550. A majority of A+ scholarship awards (91%) are awarded to White students. Relative to their share of Missouri’s overall population (12%), Black/African American students receive disproportionately fewer A+ awards (3%).16

References

  1. Perna, L.W., & Leigh, E.W. Database of college promise programs. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy. Retrieved from http://ahead-penn.org/creating-knowledge/college-promise.
  2. Kelchen, R. (2017). A Review of College Promise Programs: Evidence from the Midwest. Midwestern Higher Education Compact. Retrieved from https://www.mhec.org/sites/default/files/resources/mhec_affordability_series2_20170724.pdf
  3. Perna, L. W., Wright-Kim, J., & Leigh, E. W. (2020). Is a college promise program an effective use of resources? Understanding the implications of program design and resource investments for equity and efficiency. AERA Open, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2332858420967633.
  4. Perna, L. W., Wright-Kim, J., & Leigh, E. W. (2021). Will College Promise Programs Improve or Reduce Equity? Understanding the Contextual Conditions That Influence Program Implementation. education policy analysis archives, 29(26). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1288345.
  5. Callahan, M.K., Meehan, K., & Hagood, S. (2020). Designing equitable promise programs: Research-based considerations for state policymakers. Research for Action. Retrieved from https://www.researchforaction.org/publications/designing- equitable-promise-programs-research-based-considerations-for-state-policymakers/.
  6. Millett, C. M., Saunders, S. R., & Fishtein, D. (2018). Examining how college promise programs promote student academic and financial readiness. ETS Research Report Series, 2018(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12229.
  7. Meehan, K., Hagood, S., Callahan, K., & Kent, D. (2019). The Case of Tennessee Promise: A Uniquely Comprehensive Promise Program. Research for Action. Retrieved from https://www.researchforaction.org/publications/the-case-of-tennessee- promise-a-uniquely-comprehensive-promise-program/.
  8. Bartik, T., Hershbein, B., & Lachowska, M. (2016). The Merits of Universal Scholarships: Benefit-Cost Evidence from the Kalamazoo Promise. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7(3), 400-433. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2016.22.
  9. Bartik, T.J., Hershbein, B. & Lachowska, M. (2017). The Effects of the Kalamazoo Promise Scholarship on College Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion. Upjohn Institute Working Paper 15-229. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. https://doi.org/10.17848/wp15-229.
  10. Miller-Adams, M. & Smith, E. (2018). Promise Scholarship Programs and Local Prosperity. Policy Paper No. 2018-019. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. https://doi.org/10.17848/pol2018-019.
  11. Leigh, E. W., & Canché, M. S. G. (2021). The College Promise in Communities: Do Place-based Scholarships Affect Residential Mobility Patterns?. Research in Higher Education, 62(3), 259-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-020-09597-6
  12. Odle, T. K., & Monday, A. B. (2021). Spending More or Spending Less? Institutional Expenditures and Staffing in the Free- College Era. AERA Open, 7, 23328584211034491. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F23328584211034491
  13. Kintzel, J. (2015). Effectiveness and Outcomes of Missouri’s A+ Scholarship, 2008-2013. Missouri Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development. Retrieved from https://dhewd.mo.gov/data/documents/A+%20Study_2015_rev.pdf
  14. Muñoz, J., Harrington, J. R., Curs, B. R., & Ehlert, M. (2016). Democratization and Diversion: The Effect of Missouri's A+ Schools Program on Postsecondary Enrollment. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(6), 801-830. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.11780888
  15. Lee, M., Mueser, P., & Podgursky, M. (2004). An Evaluation of Missouri's A+ Schools Program. Working papers (MU Department of Economics);WP 04-11. Retrieved from https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/2652
  16. Missouri Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development, Legislative Request- Financial Aid Demographics. Details from the request are publicly available here and here.
Most Policy Initiative logo
Contact
238 E High St., 3rd Floor
Jefferson City, MO 65101
314-827-4549
info@mostpolicyinitiative.org
Newsletter
Newsletter
© 2024 MOST Policy Initiative | Website design and development by Pixel Jam Digital
Privacy Policy
chevron-down linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram