Every year, the U.S. Department of Education selects hundreds of thousands of low-income students to provide additional documentation to corroborate their financial aid eligibility in a process known as verification. Although many are concerned about the potential deleterious effects of being selected, to date, studies are limited to descriptive analyses. To fill this gap in the literature, we use population-level, multicohort data to estimate the effects of financial aid verification on initial college enrollment for recent high school graduates in Tennessee. An entropy balance weighting approach indicates that students selected for verification are 3.8 percentage points (4.9%) less likely to enroll in college with underserved populations and late Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) filers most negatively affected.
AbadieA.DiamondA.HainmuellerJ. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program (NBER Working Paper No. 12831). National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
AltonjiJ. G.ElderT. E.TaberC. R. (2005). Selection on observed and unobserved variables: Assessing the effectiveness of Catholic schools. Journal of Political Economy, 113(1), 151–184.
BettingerE. P.LongB. T.OreopoulosP.SanbonmatsuL. (2012). The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: Results from the H&R Block FAFSA experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1205–1242.
7.
BruceD. J.CarruthersC. K. (2014). Jackpot? The impact of lotter scholarship on enrollment in Tennessee. Journal of Urban Economics, 81, 30–44.
8.
CabreraA. F.La NasaS. M. (2000). Overcoming the tasks on the path to college for America’s disadvantaged. New Directions for Institutional Research, 27(3), 31–43.
9.
CochraneD. F.LaManqueA.Szabo-KubitzL. (2010). After the FAFSA: How red tape can prevent eligible students from receiving financial aid. The Institute for College Access and Success. https://ticas.org/affordability-2/after-fafsa/
10.
DavidsonJ. C. (2015). Improving the financial aid process for community college students: A literature review of FAFSA simplification, information, and verification. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(5), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.820157
DynarskiS. M.HemeltS. W.HymanJ. M. (2015). The missing manual: Using National Student Clearinghouse data to track postsecondary outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 53S–79S. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715576078
14.
DynarskiS. M.Scott-ClaytonJ. E. (2006). The cost of complexity in federal student aid: Lessons from optimal tax theory and behavioral economics. National Tax Journal, 59(2), 319–356.
15.
DynarskiS. M.Scott-ClaytonJ. E. (2013). Financial aid policy: Lessons from research. The Future of Children, 23(1), 67–91.
16.
EvansB. J.NguyenT. D.TenerB. B.ThomasC. L. (2017). Federal Pell grant eligibility and receipt: Explaining nonreceipt and changes to EFC using national and institutional data. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 47(3), 45–69.
HainmuellerJ.XuY. (2013). Ebalance: A Stata package for entropy balancing. Journal of Statistical Software, 54(7), 1–18.
24.
HornL. J.ChenX.ChapmanC. (2003). Getting ready to pay for college: What students and their parents know about the cost of college tuition and what they are doing to find out (NCES-2003-30). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
MartorellP.FriedmannE. (2018, April). Money left on the table: An analysis of Pell grant receipt among financially-eligible community college students in California. Wheelhouse: The Center for Community College Leadership and Research, University of California, Davis School of Education.
28.
McKinneyL.NovakH. (2015). FAFSA filing among first-year college students: Who files on time, who doesn’t, and why does it matter?Research in Higher Education, 56, 1–28.
29.
McMahonW. W. (2009). Higher learning, greater good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
OreopoulosP.SalvanesK. G. (2011). Priceless: The nonpecuniary benefits of schooling. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), 159–184. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.1.159
34.
OsterE. (2017). Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 37(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2016.1227711
35.
PageL. C.CastlemanB. L.MeyerK. (2020). Customized nudging to improve FAFSA completion and income verification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719876916
PageL. C.Scott-ClaytonJ. (2016). Improving college access in the United States: Barriers and policy responses. Economics of Education Review, 51, 4–22.
38.
PallaisA. (2009). Taking a chance on college: Is the Tennessee Education Lottery Scholarship program a winner?Journal of Human Resources, 44, 199–222.
39.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.
40.
Scott-ClaytonJ. (2012). Information constraints and financial aid policy (NBER Working Paper No. 17811). National Bureau of Economic Research.
41.
SernaG. R. (2016). The federal role in financing 21st century higher education: Effectiveness, issues, and alternatives. University of Virginia Miller Center for Public Affairs.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
