As education researchers continue to investigate policies at scale and across diverse contexts, scholars must develop a better understanding of mechanisms shaping policy effects. In this study, we use the case of a federal initiative allowing high school students to use the Pell Grant for dual enrollment to investigate how institutions’ capacities shaped policy efficacy. We find that colleges’ capacities for policy implementation depended on their pre-existing resources (“foundational capacity”), the resources to execute the policy given policy-induced constraints (“execution capacity”), and the resources to provide the target population with access to the policy (“provision capacity”). We contend that institutions that may benefit the most from equitable policies also have the least capacity to implement them.
AllenD.DadgarM. (2012). Does dual enrollment increase students’ success in college? Evidence from a quasi-experimental analysis of dual enrollment in New York City. In KinzieJ. L.Wolf-WendelL. (Eds.), New directions for higher education (Vol. 158, pp. 11–19). Wiley.
2.
AnB. P. (2013). The influence of dual enrollment on academic performance and college readiness: Differences by socioeconomic status. Research in Higher Education, 54(4), 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9278-z
3.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs017
4.
BettingerE. P.LuA.MathenyK. T.KienzlG. S. (2022). Unmet need: Evaluating pell as a lever for equitable dual enrollment participation and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 44(4), 783–807. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737221091574
5.
BirdK. A.CastlemanB. L.DenningJ. T.GoodmanJ.LambertonC.RosingerK. O. (2019). Nudging at scale: Experimental evidence from FAFSA completion campaigns (No. 26158; NBER Working Paper Series). http://www.nber.org/papers/w26158
6.
BonillaS.DeeT. S. (2020). The effects of school reform under NCLB waivers: Evidence from focus schools in Kentucky. Education Finance and Policy, 15(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00275
7.
BorkoH.WolfS. A.SimoneG.UchiyamaK. P. (2003). Schools in transition: Reform efforts and school capacity in Washington state. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002171
8.
BrentonS.BaekkeskovE.HannahA. (2023). Policy capacity: Evolving theory and missing links. Policy Studies, 44(3), 297–315.
9.
BuckS. J. (2006). Understanding environmental administration and law (3rd ed.). Island Press.
10.
Carver-ThomasD.Darling-HammondL. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute.
11.
ChrispeelsJ. H. (1997). Educational policy implementation in a shifting political climate: The California experience. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 453–481. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034003453
12.
CoburnC. E. (2016). What’s policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency debate can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1086/685847
13.
CohenD. K.SpillaneJ. P.PeurachD. J. (2018). The dilemmas of educational reform. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17743488
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
18.
Darling-HammondL. (2001). Inequality in teaching and schooling: How opportunity is rationed to students of color in America. In EvansC. H.ColburnL.StithA. Y.SmedleyB. D. (Eds.), The right thing to do, the smart thing to do: Enhancing diversity in health professions (pp. 208–233). National Academies Press.
DaughertyL.GonzalezG. C. (2016). The impact of the New Haven Promise Program on college enrollment, choice, and persistence (No. 1147; RAND Working Paper Series). www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1147.html
21.
DeBrayE.McDermottK.FrankenbergE.BlankenshipA. E. (2015). Lessons from a federal grant for school diversity: Tracing a theory of change and implementation of local policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23, 83. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1999
22.
DeeT. S.Dizon-RossE. (2019). School performance, accountability, and waiver reforms: Evidence from Louisiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 316–349. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719849944
DiemS.YoungM. D.SampsonC. (2019). Where critical policy meets the politics of education: An introduction. Educational Policy, 33(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807317
25.
DouglassS.SampsonC. (2014). Promise neighborhoods: The promise and politics of community capacity building as urban school reform. Urban Education, 49(8), 955–991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914557645
26.
EdgertonA. K. (2020). Learning from standards deviations: Three dimensions for building education policies that last. American Educational Research Journal, 57(4), 1525–1566. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219876566
FelixE. R. (2021). Improving racial equity in community college: Developing a plan, implementing the vision. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(3), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373721996729
29.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaseK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute.
30.
FrankK. A.ZhaoY.BormanK. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700203
31.
GarnG. A. (1999). Solving the policy implementation problem: The case of Arizona charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(26), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v7n26.1999
32.
GarverR. (2022). For some and for all: Subgroup entitlement policies and daily opportunity provision in segregated schools. American Educational Research Journal, 59(3), 574–609. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221079302
33.
GianiM.AlexanderC.ReyesP. (2014). Exploring variation in the impact of dual-credit coursework on postsecondary outcomes: A quasi-experimental analysis of Texas students. The High School Journal, 97(4), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2014.0007
34.
GilliamW. S.RippleC. H.ZiglerE. F.LeiterV. (2000). Evaluating child and family demonstration initiatives: Lessons from the comprehensive child development program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)00041-1
35.
GlaserB. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
36.
GurantzO. (2020). What does free community college buy? Early impacts from the Oregon Promise. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(1), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22157
37.
Guzman-AlvarezA.PageL. C. (2021). Disproportionate burden: Estimating the cost of FAFSA verification for public colleges and universities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(3), 545–551. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211001420
38.
HamptonK. N.RobertsonC. T.FernandezL.ShinI.BauerJ. M. (2021). How variation in internet access, digital skills, and media use are related to rural student outcomes: GPA, SAT, and educational aspirations. Telematics and Informatics, 63, 101666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101666
39.
HarrisM. S. (2007). From policy design to campus: Implementation of a tuition decentralization policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(16). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v15n16.2007
40.
HopkinsM. (2016). Beliefs in context: Understanding language policy implementation at a systems level. Educational Policy, 30(4), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814550073
41.
Jurado de los SantosP.Moreno-GuerreroA.-J.Marín-MarínJ.-A.Soler CostaR. (2020). The term equity in education: A literature review with scientific mapping in Web of Science. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103526
42.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
43.
LaneJ.-E. (2013). The principal-agent approach to politics: Policy implementation and public policy-making. Open Journal of Political Science, 3(2), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2013.32012
44.
LeeJ. C.DellM.González CanchéM. S.MondayA.KlafehnA. (2021). The hidden costs of corroboration: Estimating the effects of financial aid verification on college enrollment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(2), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373721989304
45.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
46.
LoveB. L. (2023). Punished for dreaming: How school reform harms back children and how we heal. Macmillan.
47.
MaderM.MaderC.ZimmermannF. M.Görsdorf-LechevinE.DiethartM. (2013). Monitoring networking between higher education institutions and regional actors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 49, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.046
48.
MarshJ. A.Bush-MecenasS.StrunkK. O.LincoveJ. A.HuguetA. (2017). Evaluating teachers in the Big Easy: How organizational context shapes policy responses in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 539–570. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717698221
MathenyK. T. (2023). A seat at the table: Lessons from Tennessee’s rapid achievement and equity gains. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 31(43), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7481
51.
MatlandR. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037242
52.
McDermottK. A. (2007). “Expanding the moral community” or “blaming the victim”? The politics of state education accountability policy. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 77–111. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831206299010
53.
McDonnellL. M.ElmoreR. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737009002133
54.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737009002171
55.
MillsA. J.DureposG.WiebeE. (2010). Instrumental case study. In MillsA. J.DureposG.WiebeE. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research, Vol. 1 (pp. 474–475). SAGE Publications, Inc.
56.
OakesJ.WelnerK.YonezawaS.AllenR. L. (2005). Norms and policies of equity-minded change: Researching the “zone of mediation.” In FullanM. (Ed.), Fundamental change: International handbook of educational change (pp. 282–305). Springer.
57.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. In KellyM. J. (Ed.), Qualitative Research Practice (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
58.
PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation (3rd ed.). University of California Press.
59.
RiveraL. E.KotokS.AshbyN. (2019). Access to dual enrollment in the United States: Implications for equity and stratification. Texas Education Review, 7(2), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.26153/tsw/2282
SiroisC. (2023). Contested by the state: Institutional offloading in the case of crossover youth. American Sociological Review, 88(2), 350–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224231160297
62.
SmallM. L. (2009). “How many cases do I need?”: On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586
SpillaneJ. P.ThompsonC. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737019002185
66.
StakeR. E. (1994). Case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 236–247). SAGE Publications, Inc.
67.
StephanJ. L.RosenbaumJ. E. (2013). Can high schools reduce college enrollment gaps with a new counseling model?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712462624
68.
StudleyJ. S. (2015). Notice inviting postsecondary educational institutions to participate in experiments under the Experimental Sites Initiative. Federal Register, 80(212), 67734–67737.
69.
SunM.KennedyA. I.LoebS. (2021). The longitudinal effects of school improvement grants. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(4), 647–667. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211012440
70.
VergariS. (2015). Educational policy, mechanisms for the development of. In SmelserN. J.BaltesP. B. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 266–271). Elsevier Ltd.
71.
WalkerE. M. (2004). The impact of state policies and actions on local implementation efforts: A study of whole school reform in New Jersey. Educational Policy, 18(2), 338–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803262146
72.
WertsA. B.BrewerC. A. (2015). Reframing the study of policy implementation: Lived experience as politics. Educational Policy, 29(1), 206–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814559247
73.
WuX.RameshM.HowlettM. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and society, 34(3–4), 165–171.
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.
