NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report May 2002

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

Persistence and Attainment of

Beginning Students With Pell Grants

Christina Chang Wei

Laura Horn

MPR Associates, Inc.

C. Dennis Carroll

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2002–169
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Grover J. Whitehurst

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Deputy Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing,

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in

the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance

of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and

review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable,

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high

quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers,

practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating

information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or

report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

 1990 K Street, NW

 Washington, DC 20006

May 2002

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is: http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/index.asp

Suggested Citation

Wei, C.C., and Horn, L. (2002). Persistence and Attainment of Beginning Students With Pell Grants

(NCES 2002–169). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics.

For information on how to order this report, call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or go to the Internet:

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html (http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html)

Contact:

Aurora D’Amico

(202) 219–1365
iii

Executive Summary

The Pell Grant program is the largest federal

need-based grant program available to postsecondary education students. In 1998–99, the federal

government spent $7.2 billion on Pell Grants for

more than 3.8 million students (U.S. Department

of Education 1999). Students can use a Pell Grant

at almost all 2- and 4-year public and private notfor-profit institutions, as well as several thousand

private for-profit institutions. Pell Grant program

eligibility is based primarily on the student’s

and/or parents’ income for the previous year, with

awards made primarily to low-income students.

Among undergraduates who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96,

87 percent of Pell Grant recipients were either

dependent students whose parents’ incomes were

under $45,000 (59 percent) or independent students with incomes under $25,000 (28 percent).

Other factors are also taken into account in

awarding Pell Grants, such as student and parent

assets and other family members who are concurrently enrolled in college.

This report provides a description of Pell Grant

recipients who were first-time beginning postsecondary students in 1995–96. Using data from

the 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98),

the report examines the academic and enrollment

characteristics of beginning students who received

a Pell Grant and their rates of persistence 3 years

after first starting postsecondary education. These

students are compared with beginning students

who did not receive a Pell Grant. Because Pell

Grant recipients are predominantly low-income

students, high-income students were excluded

from the analysis when comparing students’ educational background and postsecondary outcomes.

For these analyses Pell Grant recipients were only

compared to low- and middle-income nonrecipients. However, all students were included when

analyzing the distribution of different types of financial aid and the types of institutions that students attended with respect to whether or not they

received a Pell Grant.

In 1995–96, 29 percent of all beginning students and 32 percent of full-time beginning students received a Pell Grant. Beginning postsecondary students receiving Pell Grants differed from

other first-time students in the types of institutions

attended and receipt of other types of financial

aid. When examining low- and middle-income

students only, Pell Grant recipients differed from

nonrecipients in their level of high school academic preparation and the number of factors that

put them at risk for not achieving their educational

objectives.

Institution Type, Pell Grant Award

Amounts, and Other Financial Aid

Taking into account all students who enrolled

in postsecondary education for the first time in

1995–96, Pell Grant recipients differed from nonrecipients in where they enrolled. In particular,

they were more likely than nonrecipients to attend

private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions,

which provide primarily short-term occupational

training. Pell Grant recipients were less likely than

nonrecipients to attend public 4-year, public 2-

year, and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions
Executive Summary

iv

Table A.—Percentage distribution of all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students according to first institution type, by receipt

Table A.—of Pell Grant and attendance status

Private 

Private for-profit 

Public not-for-profit Public less-thanReceipt of Pell Grant 4-year 4-year 2-year 4-year Other* 

 Total 25.9 14.7 45.7 10.6 3.1 

Pell recipient 23.5 12.7 38.8 20.6 4.4 

Nonrecipient 26.9 15.7 48.3 6.4 2.6 

 Total 32.3 19.1 32.6 12.6 3.4 

Pell recipient 26.1 14.8 32.5 22.1 4.6 

Nonrecipient 35.3 21.2 32.7 8.0 2.8 

*Other institutions include public less-than-2-year institutions, private not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions, and private for-profit 4-year

institutions.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal

Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Total

Full-time students

(table A). Differences in enrollment patterns were

also notable among full-time students, with 26

percent of Pell Grant recipients attending public 4-

year institutions and 22 percent attending private

for-profit less-than-4-year institutions. In contrast,

35 percent of full-time nonrecipients attended

public 4-year institutions and 8 percent attended

private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions.

Because Pell Grant recipients are primarily

low-income students, they were more likely than

nonrecipients to qualify for and receive additional

types of financial aid such as loans, work-study,

and other grant aid. Among Pell Grant recipients,

those enrolled at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions were more likely than those at other institutions to receive other financial aid.

Academic Background and

Enrollment Characteristics

Taking into account low- and middle-income

students only, Pell Grant recipients were less well

prepared academically than their counterparts who

did not receive a Pell Grant. Among students enrolled at 4-year institutions, Pell Grant recipients

were more likely than nonrecipients to have SAT I

(or equivalent ACT) scores that fell in the lowest

quartile and less likely to have completed a rigorous curriculum while in high school. Those attending less-than-4-year institutions were less

likely than nonrecipients to have received a high

school diploma (i.e., they did not graduate or they

finished high school with a GED or high school

completion certificate).
Executive Summary

v

Low- and middle-income Pell Grant recipients

attending less-than-4-year institutions differed in

some respects from nonrecipients in their educational objectives. Recipients at public 2-year institutions were more likely than nonrecipients to

be pursuing an associate’s degree and less likely

to be working toward a vocational certificate. Pell

Grant recipients enrolled at private for-profit lessthan-4-year institutions were more likely than nonrecipients to be pursuing no degree and less likely

to be pursuing a vocational certificate.

Pell Grant recipients enrolled at public 2-year

institutions also were more likely than nonrecipients to enroll full time and less likely to work

while enrolled. This may be due in part to the Pell

Grant program’s requirements. Both part-time attendance and income earned from employment can

decrease eligibility for a Pell Grant.

Persistence Risk Factors

Seven characteristics have been shown to be

associated with leaving postsecondary education

without a degree (Horn and Premo 1995): not

graduating from high school (or finishing with a

GED or high school completion certificate), delaying enrollment in postsecondary education,

being financially independent (i.e., for financial

aid purposes), having dependents other than one’s

spouse, being a single parent, attending part time,

and working full time while enrolled. Among lowand middle-income beginning students, Pell Grant

recipients were more likely than nonrecipients to

have each of these persistence risk factors except

for full-time employment and part-time enrollment

(figure A). Recipients also had a higher average

number of risk factors than did nonrecipients. Recipients’ likelihood of having such factors varied

Figure A.—Percentage of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students with persistence risk factors,

Figure A.—by receipt of Pell Grant

NOTE: Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose parents had an annual income in 1994 of less than $70,000 and

all independent students who, combined with their spouse’s earnings, had an annual income in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal

Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

15

46

38

27

21 19 17

7

33

20

9

6

33

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

No high school

diploma

Delayed

enrollment

Financially

independent

Have children Single parent Enrolled

part time

Worked 35

hours or more

per week

Percent

Pell Grant recipients

Nonrecipients
Executive Summary

vi

by institution type, with those at less-than-4-year

institutions more likely than those at 4-year institutions to be at risk. Within each institution type,

however, Pell Grant recipients were more likely

than nonrecipients to be independent, to have

children, and to be single parents.

Three-Year Rates of Persistence

Examination of 3-year rates of persistence included comparisons of students by institution type

and academic background, comparisons of Pell

Grant recipients by receipt of other financial aid or

parental support, and a multivariate analysis taking into account several variables associated with

persistence.

The 3-year persistence rates of Pell Grant recipients initially enrolled at 4-year institutions and

those enrolled at less-than-4-year institutions were

examined separately to account for differences in

the academic preparation and educational goals of

students at different types of institutions. Because

Pell Grant recipients were less well prepared academically and reported more persistence risk factors than nonrecipients, it might be expected that

Pell Grant recipients would have lower rates of

persistence and attainment than nonrecipients.

However, with a few exceptions this appeared in

large part not to be observed in this study.

Persistence at 4-Year Institutions

Considering all low- and middle-income beginning students who were enrolled at 4-year institutions in 1995–96, no differences in 3-year

persistence rates were detected between Pell Grant

recipients and nonrecipients. Furthermore, with

one exception, no differences were detected in

persistence between Pell recipients and nonrecipients when taking into account either SAT I/ACT

composite test scores (table B) or high school curriculum (table C). The exception was for those

who scored in the lowest SAT I/ACT quartile (table B): Pell grant recipients were less likely than

nonrecipients to leave postsecondary education

without a degree (16 versus 26 percent).

Private Not-For-Profit 4-Year Institutions

When examining low- and middle-income students in 4-year institutions separately within sector, some differences were observed among students enrolled at private not-for-profit institutions.

Specifically, among those who had completed a

mid-level high school academic curriculum, nonrecipients were more likely than Pell Grant recipients to remain enrolled at an institution of the

same level or higher (64 versus 80 percent).

Among those who had taken a rigorous high

school curriculum, however, no differences in persistence rates were detected between recipients

and nonrecipients (89 percent for both groups).

Public 4-Year Institutions

Among low- and middle-income beginning students enrolled at public 4-year institutions, differences were found among students scoring in the

lowest and middle quartiles on their entrance exams: Among those scoring in the lowest quartile,

Pell Grant recipients were less likely to leave

without a degree (15 versus 28 percent), while

among those scoring in the middle quartiles, Pell

Grant recipients were more likely to leave without

a degree (17 versus 12 percent). However, in neither of these test score groups (lowest or middle

quartiles) were differences detected in the likelihood of remaining enrolled at an institution of the

same level or higher.
Executive Summary

vii

Table B.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students enrolled at 4-year 

Table B.—institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of Pell Grant and SAT I/ACT composite score

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

at same or higher level transferred to education without

Receipt of Pell Grant institution in spring 19981 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total 65.0 20.2 14.8

Pell recipient 62.9 20.9 16.2

Nonrecipient 66.1 19.9 14.0

 Total 51.9 27.8 20.4

Pell recipient 53.7 30.8 15.5

Nonrecipient 49.9 24.5 25.6

 Total 64.0 22.4 13.6

Pell recipient 63.2 21.4 15.4

Nonrecipient 64.4 23.0 12.6

 Total 79.0 13.1 7.9

Pell recipient 81.2 10.5 8.3

Nonrecipient 78.3 13.9 7.8

1

Percentage who were continuously enrolled or made immediate lateral or upward transfers to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution) or left for more

than 4 months and then returned (i.e., stopped out).

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose parents had

annual incomes in 1994 of less than $70,000 and all independent students who, in combination with their spouse’s earnings, had annual

incomes in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal

Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

 Low quartile (400–700)

 Middle quartiles (710–1020)

 High quartile (1030–1600)

 Total in public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions

Persistence at Less-Than-4-Year

Institutions

Among low- and middle-income students enrolled at less-than-4-year institutions, Pell Grant

recipients averaged more persistence risk factors

than nonrecipients and were less likely than nonrecipients to have graduated from high school.

Despite such risk attributes, no differences in 3-

year persistence rates were detected between Pell

Grant recipients and nonrecipients attending either

public 2-year or private for-profit less-than-4-year

institutions.

Persistence of Pell Grant Recipients

Receiving Other Financial Aid or

Parental Support

The study also examined 3-year persistence

rates for full-time beginning students with a Pell

Grant in light of other types of financial assistance

received, in particular loan aid and assistance from

parents. Among full-time Pell Grant recipients

enrolled at private institutions (both not-for-profit

4-year and for-profit less-than-4-year institutions),

those who received loan aid during their first year

of enrollment were more likely than those who did
Executive Summary

viii

Table C.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students enrolled at 4-year 

Table C.—institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of Pell Grant and level of high school curriculum

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

at same or higher level transferred to education without

Receipt of Pell Grant institution in spring 19981 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total 65.0 20.2 14.8

Pell recipient 62.9 20.9 16.2

Nonrecipient 66.1 19.9 14.0

 Total 57.6 23.5 18.9

Pell recipient 57.6 24.6 17.8

Nonrecipient 57.6 22.9 19.5

 Total 70.0 20.8 9.2

Pell recipient 67.0 21.4 11.6

Nonrecipient 71.6 20.5 7.8

 Total 85.9 10.3 3.8

Pell recipient 87.0 7.9 5.2

Nonrecipient 85.5 11.2 3.4

1

Percentage who were continuously enrolled or made immediate lateral or upward transfers to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution) or left for more

than 4 months and then returned (i.e., stopped out).

3

Core curriculum includes 4 years of English, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of mathematics, and 3 years of science. 

4

Mid-level curriculum includes the Core curriculum requirements and also requires 1 year of a foreign language, geometry, and algebra 1, and 2

of the following classes: biology, chemistry, or physics. 

5

Rigorous curriculum includes 4 years of English, 4 years of mathematics (including precalculus or higher), 3 years of a foreign language, 3

years of social studies, 3 years of science (including biology, chemistry, and physics), and at least 1 Advanced Placement (AP) class or test

taken.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose parents had

annual incomes in 1994 of less than $70,000 and all independent students who, in combination with their spouse’s earnings, had annual

incomes in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal

Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

 Core curriculum or lower3

 Mid-level curriculum4

 Rigorous curriculum5

 Total in public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions

not receive any loans to remain enrolled at an institution of the same level or higher. No such differences in persistence were detected among Pell

Grant recipients enrolled at public 2-year or public

4-year institutions.

Finally, Pell Grant recipients were examined

with respect to the relationship between persistence and financial support from parents.1 Unlike

the results found for loan aid, no differences in

 

1Dependent students do not necessarily receive financial support from parents even though, for financial aid eligibility

determination, their parents’ income and assets are taken into

consideration.
Executive Summary

ix

persistence were observed between Pell Grant recipients who reported receiving financial support

from their parents and those who did not.

Relationship of Specific Variables to

Persistence

Finally, a multivariate analysis was conducted

analyzing the likelihood of remaining enrolled at

an institution of the same level or higher for 3

years. The analysis included all full-time low- and

middle-income beginning students enrolled at all

types of institutions. It took into account Pell

Grant receipt and several other variables associated with persistence, including type of institution

first attended, demographic characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, age, and parents’ education

level), income level (low versus middle), and persistence risk factors.2 Taken together, these variables accounted for 8.5 percent of the variance in

 

2Bivariate correlations showed that the effect sizes of the

independent variables on the likelihood of remaining enrolled

for 3 years were small, with correlations ranging from .012 to

.190. See appendix B for methodological details.

the likelihood of remaining enrolled for 3 years at

an institution at the same or higher level.

Before any of the background variables were

taken into consideration, among all full-time lowand middle-income beginning students enrolled at

all postsecondary institutions, Pell Grant recipients were less likely to remain enrolled than their

nonrecipient counterparts. However, the findings

from the multivariate analysis showed that no differences in persistence could be detected after

controlling for the covariation of related variables.

In other words, after taking into account such

variables as type of institution first attended, income, parents’ education, age, and persistence risk

factors, the analysis failed to find a difference in

persistence between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients.
x

Foreword

This report describes the population of students who received a Pell Grant and were enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96. The study examines the enrollment characteristics of these students as well as their level of academic preparation and rates of

persistence three years after enrolling in a postsecondary institution.

The data used in this report are drawn from the 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/98) First Follow-up, a nationally representative sample of a cohort

of first-time beginners in 1995–96. Students in all types of postsecondary institutions were surveyed initially in 1995–96 as part of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey, with the

First Follow-up of beginning students conducted in spring 1998, 3 years after the students first

enrolled. The BPS Longitudinal Study includes information on academic preparation as well as

data on persistence, financial aid, and other issues related to postsecondary education.

The NCES Data Analysis System (DAS), a microcomputer application that allows users to

generate tables for the BPS Longitudinal Study as well as several other NCES surveys, was used

to produce the estimates presented in this report. To allow researchers to perform tests of statistical significance, the DAS produces design-adjusted standard errors necessary for this purpose.

Please consult appendix B for more information on the DAS.
xi

Acknowledgments

Many individuals made important contributions to this report. At MPR Associates, the report production team—Francesca Tussing, Andrea Livingston, and Barbara Kridl—formatted,

edited, proofed, and coordinated the production of the final report.

The report draft was reviewed by the following adjudication members at the U.S. Department of Education: David Bergeron (Office of the Undersecretary—OUS), Stephen Broughman

and Bernard Green (National Center for Education Statistics—NCES), and Daniel Goldenberg

(Office of Postsecondary Education—OPE). Karen O’Conor served as the adjudication chair and

NCES technical representative. Thanks to all these reviewers who made valuable contributions to

the final report.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
xiii

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................iii

Foreword........................................................................................................................................ x

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... xi

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xv

List of Figures...........................................................................................................................xviii

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

Persistence and Attainment of Pell Grant Recipients................................................................ 2

Organization of This Report...................................................................................................... 3

Data and Definitions of Variables................................................................................................ 5

Institution Type ......................................................................................................................... 5

Attendance Status...................................................................................................................... 5

Income in 1994.......................................................................................................................... 6

Academic Background .............................................................................................................. 7

Persistence Track....................................................................................................................... 8

Pell Grant Program Recipients by Institution Type .................................................................. 9

Pell Grant Award Amounts and Other Financial Aid Received ............................................. 12

Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients............................................................................... 17

Income in 1994........................................................................................................................ 17

Academic Preparation and Postsecondary Enrollment ........................................................... 19

Persistence Risk Factors.......................................................................................................... 25

Three-Year Persistence and Attainment................................................................................... 29

4-Year Institutions................................................................................................................... 29

Less-Than-4-Year Institutions................................................................................................. 36

Controlling for Loan Aid Among Pell Grant Recipients ........................................................ 36

Controlling for Parental Support Among Pell Grant Recipients............................................. 39

Analysis of Persistence Controlling for Background Variation ............................................. 41

Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 45
Table of Contents

xiv

Page

References.................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................... 49

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology .................................................................... 59
xv

List of Tables

Table Page

Executive Summary Tables

A Percentage distribution of all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students according to

first institution type, by receipt of Pell Grant and attendance status .................................. iv

B Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by

receipt of Pell Grant and SAT I/ACT composite score.....................................................vii

C Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by

receipt of Pell Grant and level of high school curriculum ...............................................viii

Text Tables

1a Percentage distribution of all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students according to

receipt of Pell Grant, by first institution type and attendance status ................................... 9

1b Percentage distribution of all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students enrolled in

4-year institutions according to receipt of Pell Grant, by selectivity of first institution

type and attendance status ................................................................................................. 11

2 Percentage distribution of all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students according to

first institution type, by receipt of Pell Grant and attendance status ................................. 12

3 Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who received Pell Grants, average

Pell Grant award received in 1995–96, average number of years received, and average

three-year cumulative amount, by first institution type..................................................... 13

4a Among all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students, percentage receiving major

types of financial aid, by receipt of Pell Grant and first institution type........................... 14

4b Among all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who received aid, average

amount received from major types of financial aid, by receipt of Pell Grant and first

institution type................................................................................................................... 16
List of Tables

xvi

Table Page

5 Percentage of all 1995–96 full-time beginning postsecondary students who applied for

financial aid, and among aid applicants the percent receiving a Pell Grant, by 1994

income quartile and dependency status ............................................................................. 17

6 Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning

postsecondary students according to academic preparation, by receipt of Pell Grant....... 20

7 Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning

postsecondary students according to degree objective, by receipt of Pell Grant and

first institution type ........................................................................................................... 22

8 Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning

postsecondary students according to attendance intensity, by receipt of Pell Grant and

first institution type ........................................................................................................... 23

9 Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning

postsecondary students according to employment status, by receipt of Pell Grant and

first institution type ........................................................................................................... 24

10 Among 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students, average

number of risk factors and percentage with each persistence risk factor, by receipt of

Pell Grant and first institution type ................................................................................... 25

11a Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by

receipt of Pell Grant and SAT I/ACT composite score..................................................... 30

11b Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by

receipt of Pell Grant and level of high school curriculum ................................................ 31

12a Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at public 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in

1998, by receipt of Pell Grant and SAT I/ACT composite score...................................... 32

12b Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at public 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in

1998, by receipt of Pell Grant and level of high school curriculum.................................. 33

13a Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions according to their

enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of Pell Grant and SAT I/ACT composite score ..... 34
List of Tables

xvii

Table Page

13b Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions according to their

enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of Pell Grant and level of high school

curriculum ......................................................................................................................... 35

14 Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at less-than-4-year institutions according to their enrollment status

in 1998, by receipt of Pell Grant and first institution type ................................................ 37

15 Among all 1995–96 full-time beginning postsecondary students who received a Pell

Grant, percentage distribution according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt

of loan aid in 1995–96 and first institution type ............................................................... 38

16 Among all 1995–96 dependent beginning postsecondary students who received a Pell

Grant, percentage distribution according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt

of financial support from parents in 1995–96 ................................................................... 39

17 Percentage of 1995–96 full-time, low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students who remained enrolled continuously at the same or a higher level institution

in 1998, and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the

variables in the table.......................................................................................................... 42

B1 Standard errors for table 1a: Percentage distribution of all 1995–96 beginning

postsecondary students according to receipt of Pell Grant, by first institution type and

attendance status................................................................................................................ 61
xviii

List of Figures

Figure Page

Executive Summary Figure

A Percentage of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students

with persistence risk factors, by receipt of Pell Grant......................................................... v

Text Figures

1 Among full-time beginning students who applied for financial aid, the percentage

who received a Pell Grant, by dependency status and income quartile: 1995–96............. 18

2 Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at 4-year institutions according to SAT I/ACT composite score

quartiles, by receipt of Pell Grant...................................................................................... 21

3 Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

students enrolled at 4-year institutions according to level of high school curriculum,

by receipt of Pell Grant ..................................................................................................... 21

4 Percentage of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students

with persistence risk factors, by receipt of Pell Grant....................................................... 26
1

Introduction

Since its inception more than 25 years ago, the Pell Grant program has provided financial

support to approximately 30 million students, many of whom could not otherwise have afforded

a postsecondary education. The goal of the program is equal educational opportunity by providing a “floor of portable financial aid, distributed entirely on the basis of need” (Turner 1998).

The Pell Grant program is the largest program of need-based grant aid available to postsecondary students. In 1998–99, the federal government spent $7.2 billion on Pell Grants for 3.8

million students (U.S. Department of Education 1999). Students can use the Pell Grant at a wide

range of postsecondary institutions, including almost all 2- and 4-year public and private not-forprofit institutions, as well as several thousand private for-profit institutions. Twenty-nine percent

of all students who began postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96 received a Pell

Grant.1 The Pell Grant is available for fees, tuition, and living expenses, and the average amount

awarded to students in 1998–99 was $1,876. The maximum award for that year, based on the annual federal appropriation for the program, was $3,000.2

Pell Grant recipients consist primarily of students from low-income families. The Department of Education determines who is eligible for federally funded financial support, including

Pell Grants, based on a formula called the “Expected Family Contribution” (EFC). This formula

takes into account several factors affecting a student’s ability to pay for a postsecondary education. The most important factors in the equation are the student’s income and assets (for independent students), or parents’ income and assets (for dependent students).3 Some students from

middle-income families may receive a Pell Grant due to other circumstances affecting their financial need, such as having siblings who are also enrolled in college.

Between 1976–77 and 1998–99, the number of Pell Grant recipients doubled, from 1.9

million to more than 3.8 million per year. Program expenditures increased by 75 percent in inflation-adjusted terms due to at least two factors: increases in higher education enrollments during

this period (including the number of low-income students) and an expansion of eligibility re-

 

1U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study

(BPS:96/98), Data Analysis System.

2The maximum award for 2000–2001 was $3,750 (U.S. Department of Education 1999).

3Students who are considered dependent for financial aid purposes, are those under the age of 24, unless they are married or have

children. For dependent students, parents’ income and assets are taken into account when determining their EFC.
Introduction

2

quirements. However, augmentations in program funding have not translated into more purchasing power for the individual student. The maximum Pell Grant now covers a smaller proportion

of the price of attending college than it did in the early years of the program, because Pell Grants

have not increased at the same rate as college prices (King 2000).

Persistence and Attainment of Pell Grant Recipients

While discussions about the Pell Grant program have centered on its goal of providing access to postsecondary education and its success in doing so, the public is also concerned about

student outcomes. Many want to know how well Pell Grant recipients fare in postsecondary education once they overcome the immediate financial obstacles to enrollment. Do they persist and

graduate at rates similar to nonrecipients?

The problem with answering this question is that a Pell Grant can only directly influence

one dimension of a student’s life—albeit an important one—once that student is enrolled in college. Due to their low-income status, Pell Grant recipients often come from disadvantaged environments and have poor academic preparation, affecting their ability to succeed in postsecondary

education regardless of whether any financial barriers have been removed. Various factors can

affect a student’s propensity toward completing or stopping their studies prematurely, many of

which are related to a student’s academic preparation and socioeconomic background as well as

any financial and practical concerns (Horn and Premo 1995).

However, much can be learned about the role of financial aid in helping students persist in

postsecondary education. Previous studies on financial aid and persistence have shown that there

appears to be a positive relationship between grants and persistence,4

 though few studies have

focused specifically on Pell Grants and their relationship to persistence. As with most types of

student financial aid, it is difficult to isolate the effects of Pell Grants from those of other financial support because aid recipients—especially need-based aid recipients—frequently receive

multiple types of support. A student’s financial aid package can consist of a mixture of grants,

loans, work-study, and other awards.

Lee found that Pell Grant recipients who began their postsecondary studies in 1989–90 had

a persistence rate that was 8 percentage points lower than that of nonrecipients.5

 When recipients’

rates of persistence were analyzed by income, Lee found that among the lowest income students,

recipients persisted at a higher rate than those who did not receive Pell Grants. These findings,

 

4See, for example, U.S. Government Accounting Office (1995). This report found that grant aid was positively associated with

persistence, particularly when it was received during the first year of enrollment.

5These findings were based on the 1990–94 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:90/94) (Lee 1998).
Introduction

3

however, did not control for institution type or academic preparation. This analysis discussed in

the current study examines Pell Grant recipients’ outcomes with respect to both institution type

and academic preparation.

Organization of This Report

After a discussion of the data and methods, this report is divided into four sections. The

first section provides an overview of all beginning Pell Grant recipients by institution type. The

remaining sections control for income (by analyzing only low- and middle-income students).

Section two provides a description of academic preparation, postsecondary attendance intensity

(full-time versus part-time), employment status, and an analysis of persistence risk factors. The

third section provides a description of 3-year persistence and attainment rates, within institution

types, and levels of academic preparation. Finally, a multivariate analysis was conducted to control for the relationships of various individual demographic and academic variables to 3-year persistence and attainment. The following questions are addressed in this study:

1) What types of postsecondary institutions do beginning Pell Grant recipients attend?

How much do students receive from the Pell Grant program according to the type of

institution they attend? What other types of financial aid do these students receive?

2) What are the academic background and postsecondary enrollment characteristics of

beginning students with Pell Grants? What types of persistence risk factors do beginning Pell Grant recipients tend to have? How do Pell Grant recipients differ, in terms

of these characteristics, compared with low- and middle-income students who do not

receive these grants? How do they differ by type of institution attended?

3) What are the persistence and attainment rates of beginning Pell Grant students three

years after starting postsecondary education by type of institution attended? How do

these rates compare with those of low- and middle-income students who do not receive

these grants?

Many comparisons between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients are reported in this

study. When differences are reported, they were statistically tested (using t-tests or ANOVA) at

the .05 alpha level.6 If the t-test or F test did not exceed the critical level, the report states that no

difference could be detected (see appendix B for details of statistical methods).

 

6 When several groups within a “family” was compared (such as levels of academic preparation), the significance level was adjusted to take into account all possible comparisons (see appendix B).
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5

Data and Definitions of Variables

This report uses data from the 1996–98 Beginning Postsecondary Students longitudinal

study (BPS:96/98). The survey includes the postsecondary education outcomes of students three

years after their initial enrollment in 1995–96. Students were first interviewed as part of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96) and then reinterviewed in spring 1998.

BPS:96/98 is a nationally representative sample of more than 10,000 first-time beginners, including more than 3,000 Pell Grant recipients (see Berkner, Horn, and Clune 2000; Kojaku and

Nuñez 1998).

Institution Type

Institution type is a key variable when analyzing persistence and attainment in postsecondary education for Pell Grant recipients. Because institutions have such varying rates of persistence, and Pell Grant recipients are more likely to attend certain types of institutions than others,

it was necessary in this study to control for institution type when analyzing persistence and completion rates. Institution type is based on the institution in which the student first enrolled in

1995–96 and includes the following categories:

• Public 4-year institutions

• Private not-for-profit 4-year institutions

• Public 2-year institutions

• Private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions

To provide as much information as possible, most tables include all beginning students in

the totals (or all low- and middle-income students where indicated), but due to small sample

sizes, students in public less-than-2-year institutions, private not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions, and private for-profit 4-year institutions are not shown as separate rows.

Attendance Status

While the Pell Grant program allows part-time students (including less-than-half-time students who are not eligible for federal student loan programs) to receive grants, many part-time
Data and Definitions of Variables

6

students do not receive Pell Grant awards for various reasons.7 Some part-time students work

while they are enrolled, thereby earning income that lowers their eligibility for a Pell Grant. In

addition, part-time students generally have lower expenses. In most cases, they are charged lower

tuition and fees than are full-time students. This may decrease the likelihood that such students

apply for financial aid. Among those who do apply, lower expenses reduce the amount of allowable costs covered by the program, affecting both eligibility and the amount of Pell Grant dollars

received. Moreover, federal financial need analysis for the Pell Grant program does not include

room and board in the student budget for less-than-half-time students, which further reduces their

eligible educational expenses. In addition to differences in Pell Grant eligibility, educational outcomes differ between full- and part-time students. Specifically, attending part time is negatively

associated with persistence and degree attainment (Berkner, Horn, and Clune 2000). Therefore,

in order to take into account differences in Pell Grant eligibility as well as outcomes, many of the

tables are presented in two parts, showing all beginning students followed by those who attended

exclusively full time. The multivariate analysis is based on full-time students only.

Income in 1994

Beginning postsecondary students in 1995–96 were aggregated into quartiles based on 1994

annual income. In BPS:96/98, the primary source of data on income was the Free Application for

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) completed by students applying for federal financial aid for the

1995–96 academic year. Applicants were required to provide information on the FAFSA for income earned during 1994.8 Incomes for independent students include both students’ and spouses’

incomes, while incomes for dependent students are based on parents’ incomes. The income

quartiles for independent and dependent students are as follows:

Income quartiles Independent students Dependent students

Lowest quartile: Less than $6,000 Less than $25,000

Low middle quartile: $6,000–14,999 $25,000–44,999

High middle quartile: $15,000–24,999 $45,000–69,999

Highest quartile: $25,000 or more $70,000 or more

The cutoff point at which dependent students were considered “high income” ($70,000 or

more) is consistent with other NCES reports based on BPS:96/98 data. For example, one recent

 

7Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students, for example, about one-fifth of part-time students received a Pell Grant,

compared to about one-third of full-time students (BPS:96/98 Data Analysis System).

8For those without 1995–96 FAFSA information, 1994 income data were collected directly from students and parents via telephone interviews or were imputed.
Data and Definitions of Variables

7

study on college affordability defined middle-income students as the population of dependent

undergraduates with annual family incomes between $35,000 and $70,000 (Lee and Cleary

2001).

In this analysis, it was important to control for income when analyzing differences between

Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients. The Pell Grant program provides a basic level of financial support for needy students. At best, a Pell Grant award increases a low-income student’s

purchasing power to the level of a middle-income student’s. Neither the current method of administration nor the original goals of the program have the intention or the effect of creating circumstances for low-income recipients that would be comparable to those of high-income

students. High-income students may not be affected by financial barriers to attendance and completion to the same degree as low- and middle-income students. Previous studies have shown that

high-income students have higher rates of completion than students in lower income categories

(see, for example, Lee 1998). Therefore, when analyzing students’ academic backgrounds, persistence risk characteristics, and postsecondary outcomes, high-income students ($70,000 or

more for dependent students; $25,000 or more for independent students) were excluded from

comparisons between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients. Inclusion of high-income students

would increase the persistence and completion rates of nonrecipients in comparison with Pell

Grant recipients, most of whom come from low-income households. However, when analyzing

the distribution of other types of financial aid and the types of institutions students attend, Pell

Grant recipients are compared with all nonrecipients including high-income students.

Academic Background

In addition to demographic background information, the BPS:96/98 survey data have been

supplemented with academic background data from ETS and ACT, which include test scores and

self-reported courses taken for those who took the college entrance examinations. Among BPS

students, 43 percent of those entering 2-year institutions and 93 percent of those entering 4-year

institutions took one of the entrance exams (Horn and Kojaku 2001).9

SAT I/ACT composite scores were divided into three categories based on score quartiles,

with those in the two middle quartiles combined. Those in the lowest quartile scored between

400 and 700 points, those in the two middle quartiles scored between 710 and 1,020 points, and

those in the highest quartile had scores in the 1,030 to 1,600 range.

 

9Although self-reported high school grade-point average was also available for these students, this measure was not used because

previous research has shown that students tend to self-report grades that are higher than those on their transcripts. Students are,

however, more accurate when reporting the types of courses taken while in high school (Horn and Kojaku 2001).
Data and Definitions of Variables

8

High school curriculum was measured using the “New Basics” as the core curriculum standard, which was defined by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. The amount

and types of courses taken while in high school were divided into three major categories: core

curriculum or lower, mid-level, and rigorous.10 The core curriculum includes the following: four

years of English and three years each of social studies, mathematics, and science. The mid-level

curriculum includes not only the core curriculum requirements but also the following: one year of

foreign language; geometry; algebra 1; and any two of biology, chemistry, or physics among the

three science classes. A rigorous curriculum includes four years of English and mathematics (including precalculus or higher), three years of a foreign language, and social studies, science (including biology, chemistry, and physics), and at least one advanced placement (AP) class or test.

Persistence Track

Three-year rates of persistence and attainment were measured using the persistence track

variable.11 Students who remain on the persistence track are those who have attained a certificate

or degree, have been continuously enrolled at the same institution, or have made a lateral or upward transfer to another institution without an enrollment break of 4 or more months. Departures

from the persistence track include downward transfers (such as transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution) or leaving postsecondary education for more than 4 months

and then returning (i.e., stopping out). If a student stops out for more than 4 months and then returns to the original institution or even to a higher level institution, that action still constitutes a

departure from the persistence track because enrollment must be continuous if the student is to be

considered to have remained on the persistence track.

In this study, Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients were compared with regard to the

rates at which they 1) remained on the persistence track (i.e., attained a certificate/degree or remained enrolled continuously at an institution of the same or higher level); 2) left the persistence

track (i.e., stopped out or made an immediate downward transfer); or 3) left postsecondary education without a degree and without returning within the 3-year period.

 

10These categories were first used by Horn and Kojaku (2001) and are defined in detail in appendix A in the glossary under the

entry for “CTAKING.”

11The concept of the “persistence track” was first defined by C.D. Carroll (1989).
9

Pell Grant Program Recipients by Institution Type

Pell Grant recipients are defined in this study as those who received a Pell Grant during

their initial year of enrollment in postsecondary education. In this case, the first year of enrollment was 1995–96 for the cohort of students participating in BPS:96/98. This section of the report includes all beginning postsecondary students who enrolled in postsecondary education for

the first time in 1995–96. Taking into account all beginning students, 29 percent received a Pell

Grant (table 1a). About one-third (32 percent) did not receive a Pell Grant but received some

other type of financial support, and 39 percent did not receive any aid at all.

Table 1a.—Percentage distribution of all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students according to receipt of Pell 

Table 1a.—Grant, by first institution type and attendance status

No Pell Grant

Pell recipients 

Received Did not 

First institution type other aid1 receive aid Total 

 Total2 29.0 32.2 38.9 71.0 

Public 4-year 26.3 42.5 31.2 73.8 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 24.8 56.4 18.8 75.2 

Public 2-year 24.7 19.3 56.0 75.3 

Private for-profit less-than-4-year 56.7 27.5 15.8 43.3 

 Total2 32.3 37.7 30.0 67.7 

Public 4-year 26.1 44.7 29.3 73.9 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 24.9 57.7 17.4 75.1 

Public 2-year 32.2 22.8 45.1 67.9 

Private for-profit less-than-4-year 56.7 28.1 15.2 43.3 

1

Includes loans, work-study, and non-federal grants.

2

Includes institutions listed here as well as public less-than-2-year institutions; private not-for-profit less-than-4-year

institutions; and private for-profit 4-year institutions.

NOTE: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Total

Full-time students
Pell Grant Program Recipients by Institution Type

10

The proportion of students receiving Pell Grants varied by institution type. Private forprofit less-than-4-year institutions enrolled the highest percentage of beginning students with Pell

Grants in 1995–96, 57 percent, more than the percentages found at all the other institution types

included in this study (public 4-year institutions: 26 percent; private not-for-profit 4-year institutions: 25 percent; and public 2-year institutions: 25 percent). Private not-for-profit 4-year institutions enrolled the highest proportion of students who did not receive a Pell Grant but received

some other type of financial support (56 percent), and public 2-year institutions enrolled the

highest proportion of beginning students receiving no financial support (56 percent).

Similarly, when only full-time students were taken into account, private for-profit lessthan-4-year institutions enrolled the highest percentage of Pell Grant recipients (57 percent).

Also, private not-for-profit 4-year institutions had the largest proportion of nonrecipients who

received other aid (58 percent), and public 2-year institutions had the highest percentage of students who received no financial support (45 percent).

Table 1b displays the proportions of Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients within institution types by level of selectivity. (See appendix B for more detail on the selectivity classification

system.) Based on this system of categorization, selective 4-year colleges and universities were

less likely to enroll Pell Grant recipients than were less selective 4-year institutions. This was the

case among all beginning students as well as among beginning students who attended exclusively

full time.

Another way to compare these beginning students is to estimate how all Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients are distributed among the institution types (table 2). Among all beginning

students, Pell Grant recipients were more likely than nonrecipients to enroll in private for-profit

less-than-4-year institutions (21 percent versus 6 percent), and they were less likely to enroll in

private not-for-profit 4-year institutions (13 percent versus 16 percent), public 4-year institutions

(24 percent versus 27 percent), and public 2-year institutions (39 percent versus 48 percent).

Among all full-time beginning students, Pell Grant recipients also were more likely than

nonrecipients to enroll in private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions and were less likely to

enroll in public 4-year institutions and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions. However, with

respect to the public 2-year sector, no difference was found when comparing the proportions of

Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients who enrolled full-time (33 percent of both recipients and

nonrecipients).
Pell Grant Program Recipients by Institution Type

11

Table 1b.—Percentage distribution of all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students enrolled in 4-year institutions 

Table 1b.—according to receipt of Pell Grant, by selectivity of first institution type and attendance status

No Pell Grant

Pell recipients 

Received Did not 

Institution selectivity1 other aid2 receive aid Total 

 Total3 25.7 47.6 26.7 74.3 

 Public 4-year

 Selective4 19.0 49.1 31.9 81.0 

 Less selective 31.0 38.2 30.9 69.0 

 Private not-for-profit 4-year

 Selective5 14.4 58.2 27.4 85.5 

 Less selective 31.8 55.4 12.8 68.2 

 Total3 25.7 49.5 24.9 74.5 

 Public 4-year 

 Selective4 18.7 50.1 31.1 81.3 

 Less selective 31.4 40.6 27.9 68.6 

 Private not-for-profit 4-year

 Selective5 14.6 59.1 26.3 85.4 

 Less selective 32.4 56.7 10.9 67.6 

1

Selective institutions are identified within Carnegie classification and are those institutions in which students’ average SAT 

scores exceeded 1000 or Carnegie classifications in which a majority of students are enrolled in very selective institutions (i.e.

the 25th percentile of SAT scores is 1000 or higher identified in the common data set). Less selective are all others not

identified as selective.

2

Includes loans, work-study, and non-federal grants.

3

Excludes private for-profit 4-year institutions.

4

Research I or II, and Baccalaureate I.

5

Research I or II, Doctoral I or II, and Baccalaureate I.

NOTE: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Total

Full-time students
Pell Grant Program Recipients by Institution Type

12

Table 2.—Percentage distribution of all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students according to first institution 

Table 2.—type, by receipt of Pell Grant and attendance status

Private 

Private for-profit 

Public not-for-profit Public less-thanReceipt of Pell Grant 4-year 4-year 2-year 4-year Other* 

 Total 25.9 14.7 45.7 10.6 3.1 

Pell recipient 23.5 12.7 38.8 20.6 4.4 

Nonrecipient 26.9 15.7 48.3 6.4 2.6 

 Total 32.3 19.1 32.6 12.6 3.4 

Pell recipient 26.1 14.8 32.5 22.1 4.6 

Nonrecipient 35.3 21.2 32.7 8.0 2.8 

*Other institutions include public less-than-2-year institutions, private not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions, and private

for-profit 4-year institutions.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Total

Full-time students 

Pell Grant Award Amounts and Other Financial Aid Received

Student budgets vary by institution type because there are large differences in the prices

charged by institutions for tuition and instruction-related fees. In general, private not-for-profit 4-

year institutions have higher levels of tuition than public 4-year institutions. Public 2-year institutions usually are among the lowest price institutions. Since the Pell Grant is determined in part

by the total amount of eligible student expenses, differences in Pell Grant award amounts might

be expected among institution types. Table 3 shows that those enrolled at public 2-year institutions received a smaller Pell Grant, on average, than did those enrolled at public 4-year institutions. However, when only full-time students are compared, no differences in Pell Grant awards

were detected between public 2-year students and those enrolled in any other institutions. Likewise, for beginning students enrolled at 4-year public and private not-for-profit institutions and

private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions no differences were detected in the average amount

of Pell Grant dollars they received in 1995–96.
Pell Grant Program Recipients by Institution Type

13

Table 3.—Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who received Pell Grants, average Pell Grant award 

Table 3.—received in 1995–96, average number of years received, and average three-year cumulative amount, by 

Table 3.—first institution type

Average number 

Average Pell Grant of years Pell Grant Average 3-year 

First institution type received in 1995–96 was received cumulative Pell Grant 

Total

 Total* $1,559 1.8 $2,880 

Public 4-year 1,670 2.0 3,572 

Private not for profit 4-year 1,610 1.9 3,321 

Public 2-year 1,484 1.8 2,741 

Private for-profit less-than-4-year 1,550 1.4 2,048 

Full-time students

 Total* 1,607 1.8 2,954 

Public 4-year 1,691 2.0 3,605 

Private not for profit 4-year 1,627 2.0 3,333 

Public 2-year 1,589 1.7 2,815 

Private for-profit less-than-4-year 1,528 1.4 2,061 

*Includes institutions listed here as well as public less-than-2-year institutions; private not-for-profit less-than-4-year

institutions; and private for-profit 4-year institutions.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Table 3 also shows that Pell Grant recipients enrolled at private for-profit less-than-4-year

institutions received a grant for fewer years, on average, than those enrolled at other institutions.

In addition, the average cumulative Pell Grant amount was lowest among this group of students.

This is likely due to the shorter degree and certificate programs offered by these institutions, or a

tendency on the part of these students to seek other sources of financing in subsequent years.

Due in part to having lower incomes, beginning Pell Grant recipients were more likely than

beginning nonrecipients to qualify for and receive other types of financial support (table 4a).

Compared with nonrecipients, Pell Grant recipients were more likely to receive additional aid in

the form of loans (49 percent versus 23 percent), work-study (12 percent versus 5 percent), and

non-federal grants (47 percent versus 31 percent). As with all beginning Pell Grant recipients,

full-time Pell Grant recipients also were more likely than their nonrecipient counterparts to receive loans, work-study assistance, and nonfederal grant aid.
Pell Grant Program Recipients by Institution Type

14

Table 4a.—Among all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students, percentage receiving major types of financial 

Table 4a.—aid, by receipt of Pell Grant and first institution type

Pell grant status and Received Non-federal 

institution types any aid1g Loans Work-study grants 

 Total2 61.2 30.7 7.2 35.4 

Pell recipient 100.0 49.0 12.0 47.2 

 Public 4-year 100.0 63.3 16.5 65.2 

 Private not for profit 4-year 100.0 79.3 37.7 78.4 

 Public 2-year 100.0 21.9 8.1 41.5 

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 100.0 66.4 0.2 21.4 

Nonrecipient 45.3 23.2 5.2 30.5 

 Public 4-year 57.7 32.2 3.6 37.1 

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 75.0 49.8 24.6 65.4 

 Public 2-year 25.6 6.3 0.7 17.6 

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 63.4 50.1 0.4 12.8 

 Total 70.0 38.9 9.1 41.4 

Pell recipient 100.0 54.6 12.5 49.9 

 Public 4-year 100.0 64.6 15.6 67.4 

 Private not for profit 4-year 100.0 81.7 39.6 80.5 

 Public 2-year 100.0 26.4 6.9 44.4 

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 100.0 67.9 0.2 19.9 

Nonrecipient 55.7 31.4 7.5 37.4 

 Public 4-year 60.4 34.7 3.7 38.8 

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 76.8 52.1 26.6 68.4 

 Public 2-year 33.5 10.4 1.4 21.4 

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 64.9 51.0 0.4 13.6 

1

Includes other aid categories not displayed in this table, such as employer aid, military benefits, and private aid. 2

Includes institutions listed here as well as public less-than-2-year institutions, private not-for-profit less-than-4-year 

institutions, and private for-profit 4-year institutions.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Full-time students

Total

Pell Grant recipients enrolled at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions were more likely

than recipients enrolled at other institutions to receive other types of aid including loans and

work-study. In addition, private not-for-profit 4-year institutions will often award additional grant

aid to lower income students. Indeed, Pell Grant recipients enrolled at such institutions were

more likely than nonrecipients to receive other grant aid (among all beginning students: 78 percent versus 65 percent; among full-time students: 81 percent versus 68 percent).
Pell Grant Program Recipients by Institution Type

15

Average total aid received was estimated for beginning students receiving any type of financial aid, and average award amounts were estimated for those who received a loan, workstudy award, or other grant support (table 4b). Among those enrolled at public 4-year institutions,

private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, and public 2-year institutions, beginning Pell Grant recipients received, on average, more total aid dollars than did nonrecipients.

The same was not found for beginning students enrolled at private for-profit less-than-4-

year institutions. No difference was found between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients in the

total amount of aid received. However, Pell Grant recipients received, on average, less loan aid

($3,608 versus $4,192) and other grant aid ($1,661 versus $2,645) compared to nonrecipients. In

other words, Pell Grant recipients in private less-than-4-year institutions borrowed less than nonrecipients and also received lower amounts of non-federal grant aid, but no differences in the total amount of aid between Pell recipients and nonrecipients could be detected.
Pell Grant Program Recipients by Institution Type

16

Table 4b.—Among all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who received aid, average amount received 

Table 4b.—from major types of financial aid, by receipt of Pell Grant and first institution type

Pell grant status and Total aid Non-federal 

institution types received1g Loans Work-study grants 

 Total2 $4,924 $3,095 $1,230 $2,953 

Pell recipient 5,001 3,092 1,212 2,788 

 Public 4-year 5,861 2,754 1,296 2,745 

 Private not for profit 4-year 11,032 3,401 1,218 6,536 

 Public 2-year 2,658 2,352 1,119 873 

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 4,864 3,608 (#) 1,661 

Nonrecipient 4,855 3,098 1,246 3,057 

 Public 4-year 4,171 2,703 1,285 2,303 

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 9,490 3,387 1,266 5,839 

 Public 2-year 1,413 2,183 (#) 745 

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 5,162 4,192 (#) 2,645 

 Total 5,520 3,146 1,232 3,347 

Pell recipient 5,544 3,174 1,211 3,055 

 Public 4-year 5,977 2,767 1,173 2,733 

 Private not for profit 4-year 11,463 3,424 1,236 6,695 

 Public 2-year 2,959 2,390 (#) 952 

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 5,049 3,785 (#) 1,672 

Nonrecipient 5,499 3,123 1,249 3,533 

 Public 4-year 4,324 2,715 1,323 2,397 

 Private not for profit 4-year 9,851 3,403 1,261 6,007 

 Public 2-year 1,737 2,122 (#) 982 

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 5,362 4,258 (#) 2,688 

#Too small to report.

1

Includes other aid categories not displayed in this table, such as employer aid, military benefits, and private aid. 2

Includes institutions listed here as well as public less-than-2-year institutions, private not-for-profit less-than-4-year 

institutions, and private for-profit 4-year institutions.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Full-time students

Total
17

Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

Income in 1994

Pell Grant program eligibility is based primarily on the student’s and/or parents’ income for

the previous year and Pell Grants are awarded primarily to low-income students. For example,

among 1995–96 beginning students 87 percent of Pell Grants were awarded either to dependent

students whose parents’ incomes were under $45,000 (59 percent) or to independent students

with incomes under $25,000 (28 percent).12 Other factors are also taken into account, such as

student and parent assets and other family members who are concurrently enrolled in college.

Table 5 shows the percentage of all full-time, beginning students who applied for financial aid

Table 5.—Percentage of all 1995–96 full-time beginning postsecondary students who applied for financial aid, and

Table 5.—among aid applicants the percent receiving a Pell Grant, by 1994 income quartile and dependency status

Percent who applied Percent of aid applicants 

1994 income quartiles for financial aid who received a Pell Grant 

 Total 79.9 40.2 

Less than $25,000 89.9 76.5 

$25,000–44,999 84.3 38.8 

$45,000–69,999 79.0 2.1 

$70,000 or more 61.4 0.0 

Less than $6,000 94.6 81.4 

$6,000–14,999 83.2 63.3 

$15,000–24,999 93.3 70.2 

$25,000 or more 65.2 26.2 

NOTE: Annual income for dependent students is based on parental income. Annual income for independent students is based

on the income of the student and his or her spouse.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Dependent students

Independent students

 

12U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/98 Beginning Postsecondary Student Data

Analysis System.
Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

18

and the proportion of those students who received a Pell Grant. Forty percent of all full-time, beginning students who applied for aid received a Pell Grant.

Pell Grants were concentrated among the lowest income dependent students (figure 1).

With each successive income category, the less likely it was for a dependent, full-time beginning

student who applied for aid to receive a Pell Grant in 1995–96. Three-quarters (77 percent) of aid

Figure 1.—Among full-time beginning students who applied for financial aid, the percentage who received a Pell

Figure 1.—Grant, by dependency status and income quartile: 1995–96

NOTE: Annual income for dependent students is based on parental income. Annual income for independent students is based

on the income of the student and his or her spouse.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Dependents

77

39

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Less than $25,000 $25,000–44,999 $45,000–69,999 $70,000 or more

Percent

0

Independents

81

63

26

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

Less than $6,000 $6,000–14,999 $15,000–24,999 $25,000 or more

Percent
Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

19

applicants in the lowest income quartile (less than $25,000) received a Pell Grant, while less than

one-half (39 percent) of those in the next quartile ($25,000–$44,999) received one. Two percent

of dependent aid applicants in the third highest income quartile received a Pell Grant, and no applicants in the highest quartile received one. Dependent students in the highest income quartile

also were less likely than students in all of the other income categories to apply for financial aid

(table 5). Among independent aid applicants, on the other hand, a majority (63 to 81 percent) of

all but those in the highest income quartile (26 percent) received Pell Grants.

Academic Preparation and Postsecondary Enrollment

While Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients differ primarily in terms of their Pell Grant

eligibility status (i.e., income and attendance status), they also differ in other ways. Some of these

differences are related to factors that increase the risk of attrition from postsecondary education,

such as academic preparation, degree objectives, employment, and persistence risk characteristics. Taking into account only low- and middle-income beginning students, Pell Grant recipients

were not as well prepared academically as nonrecipients for postsecondary study. For example,

as shown in table 6, among low- and middle-income beginning students enrolled at less-than-4-

year institutions, Pell Grant recipients were less likely than nonrecipients to have received a high

school diploma (77 percent versus 90 percent) and more likely to have received a GED or high

school equivalency certificate (17 percent versus 7 percent). Among those enrolled at 4-year institutions, Pell Grant recipients were more likely to have SAT I (or equivalent ACT) scores that

were in the lowest quartile (25 percent versus 12 percent) and less likely to have scores in the

highest quartile (21 percent versus 34 percent; figure 2). Pell Grant recipients also were more

likely than nonrecipients to have completed no higher than a core curriculum in high school (38

percent versus 32 percent) and less likely to have completed a rigorous curriculum (12 percent

versus 17 percent; figure 3).

Low- and middle-income Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients were also compared in

terms of their degree objectives (table 7). Compared to nonrecipients, Pell Grant recipients at

public 2-year institutions were more likely to be pursuing an associate’s degree (60 percent versus 46 percent) and less likely to be working toward a vocational certificate (7 percent versus 15

percent). Pell Grant recipients in private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions were more likely

than nonrecipients to be seeking no degree or vocational certificate (19 versus 12 percent).

Pell Grant recipients were more likely than nonrecipients to be enrolled as full-time students (64 percent versus 49 percent; table 8). When attendance intensity was examined by institution type, differences between low- and middle-income Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients

were detected only among those enrolled in public 2-year institutions. Pell Grant recipients were
Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

20

Table 6.—Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary

Table 6 —students according to academic preparation, by receipt of Pell Grant

Student academic preparation characteristics Total Pell recipients Nonrecipients 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

High school graduation status1

 High school diploma 85.3 77.1 90.0 

 GED or certificate 10.5 16.6 7.0 

 Did not graduate from high school 4.2 6.3 3.0 

SAT I/ACT composite score2

 Low quartile (400–700) 16.4 24.7 12.0 

 Middle quartiles (710–1020) 54.3 54.3 54.3 

 High quartile (1030–1600) 29.3 21.0 33.7 

High school curriculum3

 Core curriculum or lower 33.9 37.9 31.7 

 Mid-level curriculum 51.2 50.5 51.7 

 Rigorous curriculum 14.9 11.6 16.7 

1

For those attending less-than-four-year institutions only. “GED” stands for General Equivalent Development. 2

For those attending 4-year institutions only. The SAT/ACT composite score variable is the sum of the verbal and mathematics

 scores on the SAT. If the ACT examination was taken, the ACT score was converted to an estimated SAT combined score.

3

For those attending 4-year institutions only. Core curriculum includes 4 years of English, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of

mathematics, and 3 years of science. Mid-level curriculum includes the Core curriculum requirements and also requires 1 year of

a foreign language, geometry, and algebra 1, and 2 of the following classes: biology, chemistry, or physics. Rigorous curriculum

includes 4 years of English, 4 years of mathematics (including precalculus or higher), 3 years of a foreign language, 3 years of

social studies, 3 years of science (including biology, chemistry, and physics), and at least 1 Advanced Placement (AP) class or

test taken. From L. Horn and L.K. Kojaku, High School Academic Curriculum and the Persistence Path Through College, U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Washington, DC: 2001).

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had an annual income of less than $70,000 in 1994 and all independent students who, in combination with their spouse’s

earnings, had an annual income in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).
Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

21

Figure 2.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students enrolled

Figure 2.—at 4-year institutions according to SAT I/ACT composite score quartiles, by receipt of Pell Grant

NOTE: Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose parents had an annual income in 1994 of 

less than $70,000 and all independent students who, combined with their spouse’s earnings, had an annual income in 1994 

of less than $25,000. The SAT I/ACT composite score variable is the sum of the verbal and mathematics scores on the SAT. 

If the ACT examination was taken, the ACT score was converted to an estimated SAT combined score.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

25

54

21 12

54

34

0

20

40

60

80

100

Low quartile (400–700) Middle quartiles (710–1020) High quartile (1030–1600)

Percent

Pell Grant recipients Nonrecipients

Figure 3.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students

Figure 3.—enrolled at 4-year institutions according to level of high school curriculum, by receipt of Pell Grant

NOTE: Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose parents had an annual income in 1994 of less

than $70,000 and all independent students who, combined with their spouse’s earnings, had an annual income in 1994 of less

than $25,000. Core curriculum includes 4 years of English, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of mathematics, and 3 years of

science. Mid-level curriculum includes the Core curriculum requirements and also requires 1 year of a foreign language,

geometry, and algebra 1, and 2 of the following classes: biology, chemistry, or physics. Rigorous curriculum includes 4 years of

English, 4 years of mathematics (including precalculus or higher), 3 years of a foreign language, 3 years of social studies, 3

years of science (including biology, chemistry, and physics), and at least 1 Advanced Placement (AP) class or test taken. From

L. Horn, and L.K. Kojaku, High School Academic Curriculum and the Persistence Path Through College, U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: 2001). Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

38

51

12

32

52

17

0

20

40

60

80

100

Core curriculum or lower Mid-level curriculum Rigorous

Percent

Pell Grant recipients Nonrecipients
Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

22

Table 7.—Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary 

Table 7.—students according to degree objective, by receipt of Pell Grant and first institution type

Degree objective Total Pell recipients Nonrecipients 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

None 11.4 11.4 11.4 

Certificate 15.4 17.1 14.4 

Associate’s degree 28.2 29.7 27.3 

Bachelor’s degree or transfer to 4-year 45.0 41.9 46.9 

None 5.3 3.6 6.3 

Certificate 1.1 1.2 1.1 

Associate’s degree 4.1 6.0 3.0 

Bachelor’s degree or transfer to 4-year 89.5 89.2 89.6 

None 6.4 7.8 5.7 

Certificate 1.4 1.0 1.6 

Associate’s degree 3.7 4.3 3.4 

Bachelor’s degree or transfer to 4-year 88.5 87.0 89.4 

None 14.4 12.9 15.1 

Certificate 12.4 7.3 14.5 

Associate’s degree 50.4 60.1 46.4 

Bachelor’s degree or transfer to 4-year 22.8 19.6 24.0 

None 16.4 18.9 12.1 

Certificate 63.9 61.4 68.2 

Associate’s degree 18.2 18.5 17.7 

Bachelor’s degree or transfer to 4-year 1.5 1.3 2.0 

*Includes institutions listed here as well as public less-than-2-year institutions; private not-for-profit less-than-4-year

institutions; and private for-profit 4-year institutions.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had an annual income of less than $70,000 in 1994 and all independent students who, in combination with their spouse’s

earnings, had an annual income in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Private for-profit less-than-4-year

Public 4-year

All institutions*

Private not-for-profit 4-year

Public 2-year
Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

23

Table 8.—Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary 

Table 8.—students according to attendance intensity, by receipt of Pell Grant and first institution type

Attendance intensity through spring 1998 Total Pell recipients Nonrecipients 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Always full time 54.5 63.7 49.2 

Always part time 14.0 7.5 17.7 

Mixed 31.5 28.8 33.1 

Always full time 74.5 77.4 72.9 

Always part time 2.9 1.9 3.4 

Mixed 22.6 20.7 23.8 

Always full time 79.4 78.8 79.7 

Always part time 2.8 2.3 3.1 

Mixed 17.9 18.9 17.3 

Always full time 31.7 41.7 27.5 

Always part time 23.7 11.4 28.9 

Mixed 44.6 46.8 43.6 

Always full time 76.8 77.8 74.9 

Always part time 9.6 9.4 10.0 

Mixed 13.5 12.7 15.2 

*Includes institutions listed here as well as public less-than-2-year institutions; private not-for-profit less-than-4-year

institutions; and private for-profit 4-year institutions.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had an annual income of less than $70,000 in 1994 and all independent students who, in combination with their spouse’s

earnings, had an annual income in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Private for-profit less-than-4-year

All institutions*

Public 4-year

Private not-for-profit 4-year

Public 2-year

more likely than nonrecipients to be enrolled full time (42 percent versus 28 percent) and less

likely to be enrolled part time (11 percent versus 29 percent).

As shown in table 9, low- and middle-income Pell Grant recipients enrolled at public 2-year

institutions also were less likely than nonrecipients to work full time (24 percent versus 37 percent) and more likely not to be employed (32 percent versus 15 percent). These differences may

be due in part to the benefits of the Pell Grant itself. The Pell Grant may reduce students’ finan-
Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

24

Table 9.—Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary 

Table 9.—students according to employment status, by receipt of Pell Grant and first institution type

Employment status in 1995–96 Total Pell recipients Nonrecipients 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Did not work 28.4 36.1 23.9 

Worked part time 48.7 46.5 49.9 

Worked full time 23.0 17.4 26.2 

Did not work 36.2 38.0 35.1 

Worked part time 53.2 52.5 53.6 

Worked full time 10.6 9.6 11.2 

Did not work 28.4 27.0 29.1 

Worked part time 61.4 63.5 60.3 

Worked full time 10.2 9.6 10.5 

Did not work 19.9 32.0 15.2 

Worked part time 46.9 44.2 48.0 

Worked full time 33.2 23.8 36.9 

Did not work 43.9 46.8 38.7 

Worked part time 34.4 33.5 36.0 

Worked full time 21.8 19.8 25.3 

*Includes institutions listed here as well as public less-than-2-year institutions; private not-for-profit less-than-4-year

institutions; and private for-profit 4-year institutions.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had an annual income of less than $70,000 in 1994 and all independent students who, in combination with their spouse’s

earnings, had an annual income in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Private for-profit less-than-4-year

All institutions*

Public 4-year

Private not-for-profit 4-year

Public 2-year

cial need which in turn, may enable them to work less and attend classes full time. At the same

time, income earned from full-time employment can decrease eligibility for a Pell Grant as can

part-time attendance, which reduces one’s allowable expenses. Thus, it is probable that Pell

Grant recipients are less likely to be enrolled part time and less likely to work full time due to the

Pell Grant program’s eligibility requirements.
Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

25

Persistence Risk Factors

Horn and Premo (1995) identified seven characteristics that are associated with leaving

postsecondary education without a degree. These include not having received a high school diploma (i.e., did not graduate from high school or finished with a GED or equivalency certificate),

delaying enrollment in postsecondary education, being financially independent, having dependents other than one’s spouse, being a single parent, attending part time, and working full time

while enrolled.

Table 10.—Among 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students, average number of risk 

Table 10.—factors and percentage with each persistence risk factor, by receipt of Pell Grant and first institution type

Receipt of Average No high Worked more 

Pell Grant number of school Delayed Financially Have Single Enrolled than 35 hours 

risk factors diploma enrollment independent children parent part time per week 

 Total 1.5 10.2 37.9 26.4 15.7 11.1 28.0 23.0 

Pell recipients 1.7 15.4 46.4 37.7 27.0 20.5 19.1 17.4 

Nonrecipients 1.3 7.2 33.0 19.7 9.0 5.6 33.2 26.2 

 Total 0.5 2.2 21.0 7.4 3.5 2.5 10.2 10.6 

Pell recipients 0.6 2.5 23.7 11.4 7.1 5.4 10.0 9.6 

Nonrecipients 0.5 2.1 19.4 5.2 1.4 0.8 10.3 11.2 

 Total 0.5 3.1 19.0 9.3 3.5 2.3 7.2 10.2 

Pell recipients 0.5 5.9 20.5 12.7 5.9 4.3 6.9 9.6 

Nonrecipients 0.4 1.4 18.2 7.3 2.2 1.2 7.3 10.5 

 Total 1.9 11.8 43.7 31.2 18.6 12.5 46.0 33.2 

Pell recipients 2.2 17.9 56.9 46.5 34.3 25.8 32.2 23.8 

Nonrecipients 1.8 9.2 38.2 24.7 12.0 6.9 51.8 36.9 

 Total 2.5 27.3 66.8 60.1 40.4 31.7 14.8 21.8 

Pell recipients 2.7 32.5 68.5 64.7 48.6 37.6 13.3 19.8 

Nonrecipients 2.1 17.1 63.8 50.9 24.2 19.9 17.8 25.3 

*Includes institutions listed here as well as public less-than-2-year institutions; private not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions; and

private for-profit 4-year institutions.

NOTE: Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose parents had an annual income in 1994 of less than 

$70,000 and all independent students who, combined with their spouse’s earnings, had an annual income in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Total*

Private for-profit-less-than-4-year

Private not-for-profit 4-year

Public 4-year

Public 2-year
Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

26

Among all beginning low- and middle-income students, Pell Grant recipients had more persistence risk factors than nonrecipients (table 10). Pell Grant recipients averaged a total of 1.7

risk factors, compared with an average of 1.3 for students without Pell Grants. The average number and types of persistence risk characteristics among recipients varied by institution type. Recipients who were enrolled at less-than-4-year institutions had a higher average number of

persistence risk factors than did those enrolled at 4-year institutions.

Pell Grant recipients were more likely than nonrecipients to have all of the persistence risk

characteristics, except part-time enrollment and full-time employment (figure 4). When compared with nonrecipients, they were more likely not to have received a high school diploma (15

percent versus 7 percent), to have delayed their enrollment in postsecondary education (46 percent versus 33 percent), to be financially independent (38 percent versus 20 percent), to have

children (27 percent versus 9 percent), and to be single parents (21 percent versus 6 percent).

They were less likely, however, to enroll part time (19 percent versus 33 percent) or to work

more than 35 hours per week (17 percent versus 26 percent).

When examining risk within each institution type, with the exception of those enrolled in

private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, Pell Grant recipients averaged more risk factors than

Figure 4.—Percentage of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students with persistence

Figure 4.—risk factors, by receipt of Pell Grant

NOTE: Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose parents had an annual income in 1994 of less

than $70,000 and all independent students who, combined with their spouse’s earnings, had an annual income in 1994 of less

than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

15

46

38

27

21 19 17

7

33

20

9

6

33

26

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

No high school

diploma

Delayed

enrollment

Financially

independent

Have children Single parent Enrolled

part time

Worked 35

hours or more

per week

Percent

Pell Grant recipients

Nonrecipients
Profile of Beginning Pell Grant Recipients

27

nonrecipients (table 10). In all institution types Pell Grant recipients were more likely to be independent, to have children, and to be single parents. With the exception of those enrolled in public

4-year institutions, Pell Grant recipients also were less likely to have earned a high school diploma. Differences in attendance intensity, employment status, and delayed enrollment appeared

between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients enrolled at public 2-year institutions: Pell Grant

recipients were less likely than nonrecipients to enroll part time (32 percent versus 52 percent)

and to work full time (24 percent versus 37 percent). They were also more likely than nonrecipients to have delayed their enrollment (57 percent versus 38 percent).
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
29

Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

As previously discussed, compared to nonrecipients, Pell Grant recipients were less well

prepared academically for postsecondary study. They were more likely to have SAT I/ACT

scores in the lowest quartile and were less likely to have taken a rigorous curriculum while in

high school. Pell Grant recipients also were more likely than nonrecipients to have several persistence risk factors. Given these relative disadvantages, it might be expected that Pell Grant recipients would not persist as well as nonrecipients. Examining persistence rates within institution

types, the analysis detected some differences between recipients and nonrecipients among those

enrolled in private not-for-profit 4-year institutions who had not completed rigorous high school

academic curricula. However, the analysis detected few differences between recipients and nonrecipients in other institution types. The details of these findings are discussed below.

4-Year Institutions

As shown in table 11a, when three-year persistence rates were examined among low- and

middle-income beginning students enrolled at public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions

combined, the analysis failed to find a difference between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients

in their likelihood of remaining enrolled at an institution of the same or higher level, stopping out

or making a downward transfer, or leaving postsecondary education without a degree. One difference was detected when taking SAT I/ACT composite score levels into account, however: Pell

Grant recipients who scored in the lowest test quartile were less likely than nonrecipients with

comparable test scores to leave postsecondary education (16 percent versus 26 percent). When

persistence rates were analyzed by level of high school curriculum completed among those in 4-

year institutions, no differences in persistence were observed between Pell Grant recipients and

nonrecipients (table 11b). Persistence rates were then analyzed further by sector, looking at public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions separately.

Public 4-Year Institutions

As was found for those enrolled in all 4-year institutions, at public 4-year institutions no

overall differences between low- and middle-income Pell recipients and nonrecipients were detected in their rates of persistence (table 12a). However, Pell Grant recipients in the lowest SAT

I/ACT composite score quartile were less likely than nonrecipients to leave without a degree (15
Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

30

Table 11a.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students 

Table 13a.—enrolled at 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of Pell Grant

Table 13a.—and SAT I/ACT composite score

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

at an institution of the transferred to education without

Receipt of Pell Grant same or higher level1 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total 65.0 20.2 14.8

Pell recipient 62.9 20.9 16.2

Nonrecipient 66.1 19.9 14.0

 Total 51.9 27.8 20.4

Pell recipient 53.7 30.8 15.5

Nonrecipient 49.9 24.5 25.6

 Total 64.0 22.4 13.6

Pell recipient 63.2 21.4 15.4

Nonrecipient 64.4 23.0 12.6

 Total 79.0 13.1 7.9

Pell recipient 81.2 10.5 8.3

Nonrecipient 78.3 13.9 7.8

1

Percentage of students who were continuously enrolled at the same institution or made immediate lateral or upward transfers 

to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution)

or left for more than 4 months and then returned (i.e., stopped out).

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $70,000 and all independent students who, in combination with their spouse’s 

earnings, had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Low quartile (400–700)

Middle quartiles (710–1020)

High quartile (1030–1600)

Total in public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions
Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

31

Table 11b.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students 

Table 13b.—enrolled at 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of Pell Grant

Table 13b.—and level of high school curriculum

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

at an institution of the transferred to education without

Receipt of Pell Grant same or higher level1 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total 65.0 20.2 14.8

Pell recipient 62.9 20.9 16.2

Nonrecipient 66.1 19.9 14.0

 Total 57.6 23.5 18.9

Pell recipient 57.6 24.6 17.8

Nonrecipient 57.6 22.9 19.5

 Total 70.0 20.8 9.2

Pell recipient 67.0 21.4 11.6

Nonrecipient 71.6 20.5 7.8

 Total 85.9 10.3 3.8

Pell recipient 87.0 7.9 5.2

Nonrecipient 85.5 11.2 3.4

1

Percentage of students who were continuously enrolled at the same institution or made immediate lateral or upward transfers 

to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution)

or left for more than 4 months and then returned (i.e., stopped out).

3

Core curriculum includes 4 years of English, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of mathematics, and 3 years of science. 

4

Mid-level curriculum includes the Core curriculum requirements and also requires 1 year of a foreign language, geometry, and

algebra 1, and 2 of the following classes: biology, chemistry, or physics. 

5

Rigorous curriculum includes 4 years of English, 4 years of mathematics (including precalculus or higher), 3 years of a foreign

language, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of science (including biology, chemistry, and physics), and at least 1 Advanced

Placement (AP) class or test taken.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $70,000 and all independent students who, in combination with their spouse’s 

earnings, had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Core curriculum or lower3

Mid-level curriculum4

Rigorous curriculum5

Total in public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions
Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

32

percent versus 28 percent); while those scoring in the middle quartiles were more likely to do so

(17 percent versus 12 percent). No differences, on the other hand, between recipients and nonrecipients in either of these test score groups (lowest or middle quartiles) were detected in the likelihood of remaining enrolled at an institution at the same or higher level. The analysis also

detected no differences between recipients and nonrecipients for any of the persistence measures

when taking into account high school academic curricula (table 12b).

Table 12a.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students 

Table 14a.—enrolled at public 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of 

Table 14a.—Pell Grant and SAT I/ACT composite score

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

at an institution of the transferred to education without

Receipt of Pell Grant same or higher level1 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total 63.1 22.0 14.8

Pell recipient 63.6 21.1 15.3

Nonrecipient 62.9 22.6 14.6

 Total 51.3 27.6 21.1

Pell recipient 55.5 29.3 15.3

Nonrecipient 46.6 25.8 27.6

 Total 63.0 23.3 13.7

Pell recipient 63.0 19.9 17.2

Nonrecipient 63.0 25.1 12.0

 Total 75.0 15.0 10.0

Pell recipient 81.8 10.8 7.4

Nonrecipient 72.8 16.4 10.8

1

Percentage of students who were continuously enrolled at the same institution or made immediate lateral or upward transfers 

to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution)

or left for more than 4 months and then returned (i.e., stopped out).

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $70,000 and all independent students who, combined with their spouse’s 

earnings, had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Low quartile (400–700)

Middle quartiles (710–1020)

High quartile (1030–1600)

Total in public 4-year institutions
Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

33

Table 12b.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students 

Table 14b.—enrolled at public 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of

Table 14b.—Pell Grant and level of high school curriculum

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

at an institution of the transferred to education without

Receipt of Pell Grant same or higher level1 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total 63.1 22.0 14.8

Pell recipient 63.6 21.1 15.3

Nonrecipient 62.9 22.6 14.6

 Total 57.5 24.1 18.5

Pell recipient 60.0 22.0 18.0

Nonrecipient 55.7 25.5 18.8

 Total 68.0 22.7 9.3

Pell recipient 68.7 20.0 11.3

Nonrecipient 67.6 24.2 8.2

 Total 83.5 11.8 4.7

Pell recipient 85.1 9.2 5.7

Nonrecipient 83.0 12.7 4.4

1

Percentage of students who were continuously enrolled at the same institution or made immediate lateral or upward transfers 

to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution)

or left for more than 4 months and then returned (i.e., stopped out).

3

Core curriculum includes 4 years of English, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of mathematics, and 3 years of science. 

4

Mid-level curriculum includes the Core curriculum requirements and also requires 1 year of a foreign language, geometry, and

algebra 1, and 2 of the following classes: biology, chemistry, or physics. 

5

Rigorous curriculum includes 4 years of English, 4 years of mathematics (including precalculus or higher), 3 years of a foreign

language, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of science (including biology, chemistry, and physics), and at least 1 Advanced

Placement (AP) class or test taken.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $70,000 and all independent students who, combined with their spouse’s

earnings, had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Core curriculum or lower3

Total in public 4-year institutions

Mid-level curriculum4

Rigorous curriculum5
Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

34

Private Not-For-Profit 4-Year Institutions

As shown in table 13a, low- and middle-income beginning Pell Grant recipients enrolled at

private not-for-profit 4-year institutions were less likely than nonrecipients to remain enrolled at

an institution of the same or higher level (62 percent versus 72 percent). However, after taking

SAT I/ACT composite scores into consideration, no differences between Pell Grant recipients

and nonrecipients could be detected for any of the three separate outcomes of enrollment: remaining enrolled, stopping out or transferring to a lower level institution, or leaving postsecondTable 13a.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students 

Table 15a.—enrolled at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998,

Table 15a.—by receipt of Pell Grant and SAT I/ACT composite score

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

at an institution of the transferred to education without

Receipt of Pell Grant same or higher level1 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total 68.3 17.0 14.7

Pell recipient 61.6 20.5 17.9

Nonrecipient 72.1 15.0 12.9

 Total 53.3 28.2 18.5

Pell recipient 49.1 34.7 16.2

Nonrecipient 57.6 21.5 20.9

 Total 66.2 20.5 13.3

Pell recipient 63.6 24.4 12.0

Nonrecipient 67.6 18.3 14.1

 Total 84.4 10.4 5.2

Pell recipient 80.3 10.0 9.7

Nonrecipient 85.7 10.6 3.8 1

Percentage of students who were continuously enrolled at the same institution or made immediate lateral or upward transfers 

to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution)

or left for more than 4 months and then returned (i.e., stopped out).

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $70,000 and all independent students who, combined with their spouse’s

earnings, had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Total in private not-for-profit 4-year institutions

Low quartile (400–700)

Middle quartiles (710–1020)

High quartile (1030–1600)
Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

35

ary education without a degree. While it appears as though Pell Grant recipients who scored in

the lowest test quartile were less likely to remain enrolled than their nonrecipient counterparts

(49 percent versus 58 percent), there was not enough statistical evidence to draw this conclusion.

Table 13b.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students 

Table 15b.—enrolled at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998,

Table 15b.—by receipt of Pell Grant and level of high school curriculum

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

at an institution of the transferred to education without

Receipt of Pell Grant same or higher level1 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total 68.3 17.0 14.7

Pell recipient 61.6 20.5 17.9

Nonrecipient 72.1 15.0 12.9

 Total 58.0 22.3 19.7

Pell recipient 51.2 31.5 17.3

Nonrecipient 61.2 17.8 20.9

 Total 74.0 17.1 9.0

Pell recipient 63.7 24.1 12.2

Nonrecipient 79.6 13.3 7.2

 Total 89.2 8.2 2.6

Pell recipient 89.4 6.1 4.5

Nonrecipient 89.1 9.1 1.9 1

Percentage of students who were continuously enrolled at the same institution or made immediate lateral or upward transfers 

to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution)

or left for more than 4 months and then returned (i.e., stopped out).

3

Core curriculum includes 4 years of English, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of mathematics, and 3 years of science. 

4

Mid-level curriculum includes the Core curriculum requirements and also requires 1 year of a foreign language, geometry, and

algebra 1, and 2 of the following classes: biology, chemistry, or physics. 

5

Rigorous curriculum includes 4 years of English, 4 years of mathematics (including precalculus or higher), 3 years of a foreign

language, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of science (including biology, chemistry, and physics), and at least 1 Advanced

Placement (AP) class or test taken.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $70,000 and all independent students who, combined with their spouse’s

earnings, had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Core curriculum or lower3

Mid-level curriculum4

Rigorous curriculum5

Total in private not-for-profit 4-year institutions
Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

36

When persistence rates were analyzed by level of high school curriculum (table 13b), Pell

Grant recipients who had taken a mid-level curriculum were less likely than their nonrecipientcounterparts to remain enrolled at an institution of the same or higher level (64 percent versus 80

percent). The same appears to be the case for those who completed no higher than core curricula

(51 percent versus 61 percent), but there was not enough statistical evidence to draw this conclusion. However, among those who completed a rigorous curriculum, no differences in persistence

rates were detected between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients (89 percent of both groups

remained enrolled at the same or similar level institution).

Less-Than-4-Year Institutions

Despite having more persistence risk characteristics, in particular being less likely to have

graduated from high school, among those enrolled at less-than-4-year institutions, no differences

were detected between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients in their likelihood of persisting

among beginning, low- and middle-income students (table 14). Although it appears as if recipients enrolled at private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions persisted at a lower rate than nonrecipients (53 percent versus 62 percent), there was not enough statistical evidence to show this

result.13

Controlling for Loan Aid Among Pell Grant Recipients

As was shown in table 4a, about one-half of Pell Grant recipients received students loans.

Loan aid appeared to be a factor in persistence among Pell Grant recipients enrolled at private,

not-for-profit and for-profit institutions where students experience greater financial need. Among

full-time beginning students enrolled at private institutions (not-for-profit 4-year and for-profit

less-than-4-year institutions), Pell Grant recipients who received student loans during their first

year were more likely than recipients who did not receive loans to remain enrolled at an institution of the same or higher level (table 15). Furthermore, among those enrolled at private forprofit less-than-4-year institutions, Pell Grant recipients who borrowed were less likely than recipients who did not borrow to leave without a degree (30 percent versus 45 percent). However,

at the public institutions (2-year and 4-year public institutions), no differences were detected

between full-time recipients who received loan aid and those who did not.14

 

13The lack of statistical evidence showing a difference in persistence rates between Pell Grant recipients and non-recipients enrolled at private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions may be due to the small sample sizes of these two groups.

14While it appears as though borrowers in public 2-year institutions were less likely than nonborrowers to leave postsecondary

education (28 versus 38 percent) and more likely to stop out or transfer down (35 versus 23 percent), there was not enough statistical evidence to draw this conclusion.
Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

37

Table 14.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students 

Table 16.—enrolled at less-than-4-year institutions according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of 

Table 16.—Pell Grant and first institution type

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

Receipt of at an institution of the transferred to education without

Pell Grant same or higher level1 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total3 44.9 19.4 35.7

Pell recipient 45.8 18.5 35.8

Nonrecipient 44.5 19.9 35.6

 Total 42.4 21.1 36.6

Pell recipient 42.0 20.9 37.1

Nonrecipient 42.5 21.2 36.3

 Total 56.2 12.1 31.8

Pell recipient 53.0 13.8 33.2

Nonrecipient 62.4 8.6 29.0

1

Percentage of students who were continuously enrolled at the same institution or made immediate lateral or upward transfers 

to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution)

or left for more than 4 months and then returned (i.e., stopped out).

3

Includes public 2-year and private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions. Due to small sample size, does not include public 

less-than-2-year institutions or private not-for profit less-than-4-year institutions.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding. Low- and middle-income students include all dependent students whose

parents had an annual income of less than $70,000 in 1994 and all independent students who, in combination with their spouse’s

earnings, had an annual income in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Total

Public 2-year

Private for-profit less-than-4-year 
Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

38

Table 15.—Among all 1995–96 full-time beginning postsecondary students who received a Pell Grant, percentage 

Table 17.—distribution according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of loan aid in 1995–96 and

Table 17.—first institution type

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

Receipt of loan aid at an institution of the transferred to education without

in 1995–96 same or higher level1 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total 51.4 20.9 27.7

 Did not receive loan aid 45.3 21.2 33.5

 Received loan aid 56.5 20.7 22.8

 Total 62.8 20.7 16.5

Did not receive loan aid 67.4 19.1 13.5

Received loan aid 60.2 21.6 18.2

 Total 61.6 20.8 17.6

Did not receive loan aid 49.8 28.5 21.7

Received loan aid 64.4 19.0 16.6

 Total 38.0 26.5 35.5

Did not receive loan aid 38.5 23.2 38.3

Received loan aid 36.7 35.4 27.9

 Total 51.3 14.1 34.6

Did not receive loan aid 39.4 15.5 45.1

Received loan aid 57.0 13.4 29.6

1

Percentage of students who were continuously enrolled at the same institution or made immediate lateral or upward transfers 

to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution)

or stopped out for more than 4 months.

3

Includes institutions listed here as well as public less-than-2-year institutions; private not-for-profit less-than-4-year 

institutions; and private for-profit 4-year institutions.

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions

All institutions3

Public 4-year institutions

Private not-for-profit 4-year institutions

Public 2-year institutions
Three-Year Persistence and Attainment

39

Controlling for Parental Support Among Pell Grant Recipients

It is possible that financial support from families may also play a role in postsecondary persistence and attainment, such that students who do not receive any financial support from their

parents might have more difficulty remaining in school. Among all dependent beginning Pell

Grant recipients, no differences in persistence were observed between those who reported that

they did not receive any financial support from their parents and those who indicated they did

(table 16).15

 

15 Dependent students do not necessarily receive financial support from parents even though, for financial aid eligibility determination, their parents’ income and assets are taken into consideration.

Table 16.—Among all 1995–96 dependent beginning postsecondary students who received a Pell Grant, percentage 

Table 18.—distribution according to their enrollment status in 1998, by receipt of financial support from parents

Table 18.—in 1995–96

Remained enrolled Stopped out or Left postsecondary

Receipt of financial support at an institution of the transferred to education without

from parents in 1995–96 same or higher level1 lower level institution2 a degree by spring 1998

 Total 58.0 19.9 22.2

Parents did not provide 

 financial support 56.4 16.9 26.7

Parents provided

 financial support 60.3 18.5 21.3

1

Percentage of students who were continuously enrolled at the same institution or made immediate lateral or upward transfers 

to other institutions. 

2

Percentage who made downward transfers (for example, transferring from a 4-year institution to a less-than-4-year institution)

or left for more than 4 months and then returned (i.e., stopped out).

NOTE: Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41

Analysis of Persistence Controlling for Background Variation

Thus far, the analysis has focused on the academic and enrollment characteristics of Pell

Grant recipients who began their postsecondary education in 1995–96, and whether their rates of

persistence after three years differed from those of other students using simple crosstabular

analyses. However, many of the characteristics analyzed, such as income level and the types of

institutions attended, are interrelated. A multivariate analysis was conducted to determine the

commonality of relationships among these variables with the rates of persistence among beginning students. See appendix B for a detailed description of the method used.

The multivariate analysis was limited to full-time, low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students. It analyzed how likely these students were to remain enrolled continuously at

an institution of the same or higher level while controlling for the covariation of the following

variables: receipt of Pell Grant, gender, race/ethnicity, age, income level (low versus middle),

parents’ highest level of education, institution type first attended, high school completion, delayed enrollment, employment status, dependency status, number of dependents other than

spouse, and single parent status.16

The results of the multiple regression analysis are shown in table 17. The first column includes the unadjusted percentages, which are the percentages of full-time, low- and middleincome beginning students who remained enrolled at the same or higher level institution before

adjusting for the covariation of all the other independent variables in the model.17 The column

with the adjusted percentages includes the expected value for each subgroup after adjusting for

covariance among the other variables. Comparisons are made between the subgroup and the reference group (in italics), and all significant differences are designated with an asterisk. The independent variables accounted for 8.5 percent of the variance of remaining enrolled for three years.

The unadjusted percentages showed that among all full-time low- and middle-income students, Pell Grant recipients were less likely to remain enrolled continuously at the same or a

higher level institution than nonrecipients (53 percent versus 61 percent). This difference was

found in part because Pell Grant recipients are more likely than nonrecipients to be enrolled in

 

16Measures of academic preparation could not be included because they were available only for those enrolled in 4-year institutions.

17Bivariate correlations showed that the effect sizes of the independent variables on the likelihood of remaining enrolled for

three years were small, with correlations ranging from .012 to .190. See appendix B for details.
Analysis of Persistence Controlling for Background Variation

42

Table 17.—Percentage of 1995–96 full-time, low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students who

Table 19.—remained enrolled continuously at the same or a higher level institution in 1998, and the adjusted

Table 19.—percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables in the table

Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard

Student characteristics percentage1 percentage2 coefficient3error4

 Total 57.6 57.6 69.9 2.4 

Receipt of Pell Grant in 1995-96

 Did not receive Pell Grant 60.9 58.5 † † 

 Received Pell Grant 53.0* 56.4 -2.1 1.9 

Institution type

 Public 4-year 65.5 61.3 † † 

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 71.5* 66.2* 4.9 2.2 

 Public 2-year 45.5* 48.1* -13.2 1.9 

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 55.4* 64.5 3.2 2.8 

Gender

 Female 59.7 59.2* 3.6 1.6 

 Male 55.0 55.6 † † 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 58.6 57.4 † † 

 Black, non-Hispanic 47.5* 52.4* -4.9 2.3 

 Hispanic 59.0 60.5 3.1 2.2 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 70.2 68.3* 11.0 3.7 

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 48.6 56.3 -1.1 9.3 

Age in 1995–96

 18 years or younger 63.7 58.9 † † 

 19 51.3 55.1 -3.8 2.7 

 20–23 38.8* 49.2* -9.7 4.2 

 24–29 53.5 66.5 7.6 5.5 

 30 or older 42.6* 57.8 -1.2 5.5 

Income in 1994

 Low quartile 52.5* 54.8* -4.5 1.8 

 Middle quartiles 60.6 59.3 † † 

Parent’s highest education

 High school or less 54.6 56.6 -2.9 2.0 

 Some postsecondary education 53.8 54.7* -4.8 2.3 

 Bachelor’s degree or equivalent 61.0 59.4 † † 

 Advanced degree 73.9* 65.2* 5.7 2.9 

High school completion

 Received high school diploma 59.3 58.5 † † 

 Did not receive high school diploma5 39.2* 47.3* -11.2 3.1 

See footnotes at end of table.
Analysis of Persistence Controlling for Background Variation

43

Table 17.—Percentage of 1995–96 full-time, low- and middle-income beginning postsecondary students who

Table 19.—remained enrolled continuously at the same or a higher level institution in 1998, and the adjusted

Table 19.—percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables in the table—Continued

Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard

Student characteristics percentage1 percentage2 coefficient3error4

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay 63.1 59.7 † † 

 Delayed 45.1* 52.4* -7.3 3.2 

Employment status

 Did not work 61.2 59.1 † † 

 Worked part-time 62.6 59.0 -0.1 1.7 

 Worked full-time 45.0* 49.1* -10.0 2.5 

Dependency status

 Dependent 60.9 58.4 † † 

 Independent 44.5* 54.4 -4.0 3.7 

Have dependents other than spouse

 No dependents 59.7 58.2 † † 

 One or more dependents 43.3* 53.6 -4.6 5.5 

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 59.0 57.2 † † 

 Single parent 44.6* 62.2 5.0 5.3 

*p < .05.

†Not applicable for the reference group.

1

The estimates are from the BPS:96/98 Data Analysis System.

2

The percentages are adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table (see appendix B). R2=0.085. 3

Least squares coefficient, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

4

Standard error of least squares coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B). 5

Includes General Education Development (GED) and high school equivalency exams.

NOTE: The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared. Low- and middle-income students include

all dependent students whose parents had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $70,000 and all independent students who, in

combination with their spouse’s earnings, had annual incomes in 1994 of less than $25,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

 less-than-4-year institutions and less likely to be enrolled in 4-year institutions (see table 2). Students in less-than-4-year institutions are less likely to persist than their counterparts in 4-year institutions (Berkner, Horn, and Clune 2000). However, after adjusting for the covariation among

the independent variables in the regression model including institution type, the analysis detected

no differences between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients in their rates of remaining enrolled.
Analysis of Persistence Controlling for Background Variation

44

Other variables also were associated with persistence prior to the multivariate analysis but

were not associated after controlling for covariation of the variables in the table. These include

being age 30 or older versus age 18 or younger, enrollment in private for-profit, less-than-4-year

institutions versus public 4-year institutions, financial independence versus dependence, having

dependents other than one’s spouse versus no dependents, and being a single parent versus not

being a single parent.

The multiple regression analysis revealed that some variables continued to be associated

with lower persistence rates relative to the comparison group, both before and after controlling

for background variation. These include being Black, non-Hispanic versus White, non-Hispanic;

being 20–23 years old versus 18 or younger; having an income in the lowest quartile versus the

middle quartiles; attending a public 2-year institution versus a public 4-year institution; not receiving a high school diploma versus having received one; delaying enrollment versus enrolling

immediately after high school; and working full-time versus not working. All of these factors

continued to be related to persistence after controlling for covariance of the other variables in the

table.

Two factors that were associated with higher persistence rates relative to the comparison

group before controlling for background variation remained so even afterwards. These include

having a parent or parents with an advanced degree versus a bachelor’s degree and attending a

private not-for-profit 4-year institution versus a public 4-year college or university.

A few factors that were not originally associated with persistence were later found to be

related after adjusting for the covariation of the independent variables in the model. For example,

no difference was detected between unadjusted percentages for men and women. However, after

controlling for background variation, females were more likely than males to remain enrolled at

an institution at the same or higher level. Also, Asian and Pacific Islanders were found to have

higher rates of persistence than that of Whites after controlling for related variables but not before. Although it appeared as if there was a difference between the unadjusted percentages, there

was not enough statistical evidence to conclude that Asian/Pacific Islanders persisted at a higher

rate than White, non-Hispanics before controlling for other variables (70 percent versus 59 percent). Finally, with respect to parents’ highest level of education, no difference was detected in

the unadjusted persistence rates between those with a parent who had achieved some postsecondary education and those who had a parent with a bachelor’s degree (54 percent versus 61 percent). However, after controlling for the covariation of related variables, students who had a

parent with a bachelor’s degree persisted at a higher rate than those whose parents had completed

only some postsecondary education.
45

Conclusions

This report described the postsecondary experiences of first-time postsecondary students

who received Pell Grants and also addressed how beginning Pell Grant recipients differed from

other beginning students in terms of academic and enrollment characteristics and three-year rates

of persistence and attainment. First and foremost, because Pell Grant recipients qualify for needbased financial aid, they have demonstrated that they are financially needy. Financial need in itself places students at a disadvantage when compared with middle- and high-income students—

especially high-income students who are more likely to succeed in postsecondary education. Income, therefore, was controlled to some extent in this study by excluding high-income students

when analyzing differences between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients with respect to their

academic preparation and postsecondary outcomes. Even so, low- and middle-income Pell Grant

recipients were more disadvantaged than their nonrecipient counterparts in other ways related to

persistence: they were more likely to have children, to be single parents, to be financially independent, not to have received a high school diploma, and to have delayed their postsecondary enrollment. Pell Grant recipients also were less likely to have SAT I/ACT composite scores that

were in the highest quartile or to have taken a rigorous course curriculum while in high school.

Although Pell Grant recipients who began their postsecondary studies in 1995–96 were at a

comparative disadvantage in many ways and were less prepared academically than other beginning students, few differences in their rates of persistence were detected when compared to the

persistence of nonrecipients. While some differences in the likelihood of remaining enrolled at

the same or higher level institution were found between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients

attending private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, no such differences were found among those

enrolled at public 4-year institutions, public 2-year institutions, or private for-profit, less-than-4-

year institutions.

Finally, it appears that Pell Grant recipients have a more difficult time remaining enrolled

at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions and private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions if

they do not also receive some loan assistance. Among beginning Pell Grant recipients enrolled at

private institutions, those who did not also take on a student loan persisted at lower rates than

those who did.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
47

References

Berkner, L., Horn, L., and Clune, M. (2000). Descriptive Summary of 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Three Years Later (NCES 2000–154). U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Carroll, C.D. (1989). College Persistence and Degree Attainment for 1980 High School Graduates: Hazards for Transfers, Stopouts, and Part-Timers (NCES 89–302). U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Horn, L. (1996). Nontraditional Undergraduates, Trends in Enrollment From 1986 to 1992 and

Persistence and Attainment Among 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students (NCES 97–

578). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Horn, L., and Kojaku, L.K. (2001). High School Academic Curriculum and the Persistence Path

Through College (NCES 2001–163). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Horn, L.J., and Premo, M.D. (1995). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education

Institutions: 1992–93, With an Essay on Undergraduates at Risk (NCES 96–237). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

King, J.E. (2000). 2000 Status Report on the Pell Grant Program. Washington, DC: American

Council on Education.

Kojaku, L.K., and Nuñez, A.-M. (1998). Descriptive Summary of 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students, With Profiles of Students Entering 2- and 4-Year Institutions (NCES 1999–

030). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Lee, J.B. (1998). The Impact of Pell Grants on Student Persistence in College. In L.E. Gladieux,

et al. (Ed.), Memory, Reason, Imagination: A Quarter Century of Pell Grants (pp. 66–79).

New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
References

48

Lee, J.B., and Cleary, S. (2001). Middle-Income Students 1995–96: Who They Are and How They

Pay for Their Education (NCES 2001–155). U.S. Department of Education, National Center

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Turner, S.E. (1998). The Vision and Reality of Pell Grants. In L.E. Gladieux, et al. (Ed.), Memory, Reason, Imagination: A Quarter Century of Pell Grants (pp. 49–65). New York: College

Entrance Examination Board.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (1999). Title IV/Federal Pell

Grant Program 1998–99 End of Year Report. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Government Accounting Office. (1995). Restructuring Student Aid Could Reduce LowIncome Student Dropout Rate (HEHS-95-48). Washington, DC: Author.
49

Appendix A—Glossary

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The variables were taken directly from the 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/98) First Follow-up Data Analysis System (DAS), an

NCES software application that generates tables from the BPS:96/98 data. A description of the DAS software can be

found in appendix B.

In the index below, the variables are organized by general topic and, within topic, listed in the order in which they

appear in the report. The glossary is in alphabetical order by variable label (displayed in capital letters to the right of

the name).

GLOSSARY INDEX

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Age during first month enrolled.................. SBAGFM

Race/ethnicity .......................................... SBRACECI

Gender ....................................................SBGENDER

Marital status and children when

first enrolled ....................................... SBMRCHY1

Dependency status when began at

first institution ...................................... SBDEP1Y1

Parent’s highest level of education ............. PBEDHI3

Number of risk factors ............................. SBRSK1Y1

Number of children when first

enrolled...................................................SBDPNY1

Single parent 1995–96 ..............................SBSINGY1

Family income and dependency

1994 (quartiles) ...................................... INCOME3

FINANCIAL AID

Package with Pell grants 1995–96 ...........PELLPACK

Pell grant total 1995–96............................. PLAMT96

Pell grants number of years through

1998........................................................PLNUM98

Pell cumulative amount through

1998........................................................ PLCUM98

Total aid 1995–96.........................................TOTAID

Total loan (except PLUS) 1995–96 ..........TOTLOAN

Total nonfederal grants 1995–96 ............TNFEDGRT

Total work-study 1995–96........................TOTWKST

Parents provided loan or

contribution 1995–96 ..........................PSANYHY1

Applied for financial aid 1995–96 ..........AHAPLYY1

ACADEMIC AND PERSISTENCE CHARACTERISTICS

Type of first institution ................................ITNPSAS

Attendance intensity first term

enrolled 1995..........................................ATTEND2

Dependent family income in 1994 .............SFINDP94

Income of independent student 1994 ..........SFININ94

High school diploma or equivalency

status.................................................... HSDIPLOM

Derived SAT combined score................. TESATDER

Overall rigor of high school

curriculum .............................................CTAKING

Degree goal at first institution....................DGEXPY1

Attendance intensity through 1998 ........... ENIPTTB1

Worked while enrolled 1995–96.............. J1HOURY1

Delayed postsecondary enrollment ........... ENDELAY

Attendance status when began at

first institution .......................................... ENINFM

First persistence track exit type

through 1998 ........................................ PRFLTYB1
Appendix A—Glossary

50

Applied for financial aid 1995–96 AHAPLYY1

Student response to the question “Did you apply for financial aid for [ACADEMIC YEAR]?”

No

Yes

Attendance intensity first term enrolled 1995 ATTEND2

Indicates the student’s attendance status during the fall or during the first month enrolled after October. Excludes

students enrolled during summer 1995. This analysis looks at students who attended full time.

Overall rigor of high school curriculum CTAKING

Overall rigor of student’s high school curriculum. For this analysis, the responses were aggregated into the following

categories:

Core curriculum or lower Core curriculum includes 4 years of English, 3 years of social

studies, 3 years of mathematics, and 3 years of science.

Mid-level Mid-level curriculum includes the Core curriculum requirements and also requires 1 year of a foreign language, geometry, and algebra 1, and 2 of the following classes: biology,

chemistry, or physics.

Rigorous Rigorous curriculum includes 4 years of English, 4 years of

mathematics (including precalculus or higher), 3 years of a

foreign language, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of science

(including biology, chemistry, and physics), and at least 1 Advanced Placement (AP) class or test taken.

Degree goal at first institution DGEXPY1

Highest degree expected at the first institution attended in 1995–96. Responses for any degree of BA/BS or higher,

plus those planning to transfer to a 4-year institution were coded as bachelor’s/transfer. Those planning no degree at

that institution or planning to transfer from one less-than-4-year institution to another were also coded as having no

degree expectation. Responses of higher degrees than were offered at the institution were assumed to be planning to

transfer.

None

Certificate

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree or transfer to 4-year

Delayed postsecondary enrollment ENDELAY

Indicates whether respondents delayed enrollment in postsecondary education, as determined by receipt of high

school diploma before 1995 or reaching age 20 before December 31, 1995. This analysis looks at respondents who

delayed enrollment.
Appendix A—Glossary

51

Attendance status when began at first institution ENINFM

Indicates the intensity of first month enrolled 1995–98. Based primarily on institutional records. This analysis looks

at respondents who were enrolled part time as a risk factor.

Attendance intensity through 1998 ENIPTTB1

Pattern of enrollment intensity during months enrolled at all institutions through June 1998. Attendance pattern refers

to the student’s full-time, part-time, or mixed attendance while enrolled.

Always full-time Students were enrolled full time for all months enrolled

through 1998.

Always part-time Students were enrolled exclusively part time during enrolled

months.

Mixed Students were enrolled both full time and part time or had

some other pattern of enrollment during enrolled months.

High school diploma or equivalency status HSDIPLOM

Indicates type of high school degree reported by the sample institution or, if not available, by the student. If studentreported information was used, it was collected from the CATI and in response to the question “Did you receive a

high school diploma, pass a General Educational Development (GED) test, or receive a high school completion certificate?”

Students who attended foreign high schools were coded as receiving a high school completion certificate.

High school diploma

GED or high school equivalent

Did not graduate from high school

Type of initial institution ITCARCT3

Identifies the first institution attended by respondent, by selectivity within control and 1994 Carnegie classification.

The Carnegie classification system includes all colleges and universities in the United States that are degree granting

and accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. In this study, selective institutions were

identified as Carnegie classifications in which the average SAT scores of beginning students exceeded 1000 or in

which a majority of students were enrolled in very selective institutions (institutions in which 75 percent of students

scored 1000 or higher on the SAT exam as identified in the Common Data Set18). The classifications differ for public and private not-for-profit institutions (see table below for details).

 

18The Common Data Set is an institutional data collection sponsored by a collaboration of The College Board, Peterson’s, U.S.

News & World Report, and Wintergreen/Orchard House. Fall 1997 rather than fall 1996 data were used because more institutions

participated and provided more complete responses in the latter year. Although there is a 2-year interval between the college

entry of BPS:96/98 freshmen and fall 1997 institutional data, any change in an institution’s admission test score distribution

would have been unlikely to have affected its selectivity classification for this study.
Appendix A—Glossary

52

Public selective Research University I and II, and Baccalaureate I

Public less-selective All other public 4-year institutions

Private not-for-profit selective Research University I and II, Doctoral University I and II, and

Baccalaureate I

Private not-for-profit less-selective All other private not-for-profit 4-year institutions

Carnegie Classifications meeting selective criteria* (in bold)

 Derived SAT Derived SAT

combined score for Percent of students combined score for Percent of students

full-time 4-year in very selective full-time 4-year in very selective

students institutions students institutions

 Total 937 23.6 986 33.1

Carnegie classification

 Research I and II 1,025 49.3 Research I and II 1,154 92.1 

 Doctoral I 935 13.5 Doctoral I 1,022 59.7 

 Doctoral II 871 13.3 Doctoral II 1,042 65.1 

 Comprehensive 854 1.7 Comprehensive 930 18.1 

 Baccalaureate I 995 100.0 Baccalaureate I 1,094 47.3 

 Baccalaureate II 834 0.0 Baccalaureate II 848 0.0 

 All others 803 0.0 All others 873 0.0 

*Average SAT score of beginning students was over 1000 or a majority of students were enrolled in very selective institutions (25th

percentile of SAT score 1000 or higher).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, First Follow-up (BPS:96/98).

Public institutions Private not-for-profit institutions

Family income and dependency 1994 (quartiles) INCOME3

Total income in 1994 by dependency. Categories approximately represent income quartiles for dependents and independents. For dependent students, total income is the income of the parents.

Dependent: Less than $25,000

Dependent: $25,000–44,999

Dependent: $45,000–69,999

Dependent: $70,000 or more

Independent: Less than $6,000

Independent: $6,000–14,999

Independent: $15,000–24,999

Independent: $25,000 or more
Appendix A—Glossary

53

Type of first institution ITNPSAS

Level and control of the first institution attended.

Public 4-year

Private not-for-profit 4-year

Public 2-year

For-profit less-than-4-year

Worked while enrolled 1995–96 J1HOURY1

Indicates the average hours the student worked per week while enrolled during 1995–96, based on the student’s report of average hours worked per week while enrolled during 1995–96. Full-time work is defined as working 35 or

more hours per week.

Did not work

Worked part time

Worked full time

Parent’s highest level of education PBEDHI3

Aggregated educational level of parent with greater educational attainment, as reported by the parent respondent or

the student, if no parent CATI was obtained. Reflects editing of father’s or mother’s education based on father’s or

mother’s occupation, where occupational and educational levels were discrepant.

High school diploma or less

Some postsecondary education

Bachelor’s degree

Advanced degree

Package with Pell grants 1995–96 PELLPACK

Indicates the types of packages with Pell Grants received during 1995–96. For this analysis, the responses were aggregated into the following categories:

Pell Grant recipient

Nonrecipient who received other aid

Nonrecipient who did not receive aid

Pell grant total 1995–96 PLAMT96

Total federal Pell grant amount received at all institutions attended in 1995–96. This analysis looks at the average

amount received.

Pell cumulative amount through 1998 PLCUM98

Sum of federal Pell grant amounts received in 1995–96, 1996–97, and 1997–98. This analysis looks at the average of

the sums.
Appendix A—Glossary

54

Pell grants number of years through 1998 PLNUM98

Number of academic years the student received Pell grants from 1995–96 through 1997–98. This analysis looks at

the average number of years.

First persistence track exit type through 1998 PRFLTYB1

Identifies the type of first departure from the persistence track through June 1998. For this analysis, the responses

were aggregated into the following categories:

Remained enrolled at same or higher level institution

Stopped out or transferred to lower level institution

Left postsecondary education without a degree

Parents provided loan or contribution 1995–96 PSANYHY1

Parents did not provide financial support

Parents provided financial support

Age during first month enrolled SBAGFM

Respondent’s age, calculated from date of birth and first month enrolled, on the first day of the first month enrolled

in postsecondary education.

18 years or younger

19 years

20–23 years

24–29 years

30 years or older

Dependency status when began at first institution SBDEP1Y1

Student dependency status in 1995–96. Students were considered independent if

1. Student was 24 years old or older as of 12/31/1995;

2. Student was a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces;

3. Student was married;

4. Student was an orphan or ward of the court;

5. Student had legal dependents other than spouse; or

6. Student could document self-sufficiency or lack of parental support.

Dependent

Independent

Number of children when first enrolled SBDPNY1

Number of dependent children of respondent in 1995. This analysis looks at respondents who had children.
Appendix A—Glossary

55

Gender SBGENDER

Student gender based on student- or institution-reported gender.

Male

Female

Marital status and children when first enrolled SBMRCHY1

Marital status, dependency, and whether respondent had dependent children in 1995.

Single, no children (dependent)

Single, no children (independent)

Single with children

Married Includes students who were married with no children and married with children.

Race/ethnicity SBRACECI

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original people of

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of Hispanic origin).

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa, not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of

race.

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East,

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or Pacific Islands.

This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine

Islands, Samoa, India, and Vietnam.

American Indian/Alaska Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North

America and who maintains cultural identification through

tribal affiliation or community recognition.

Other A person not in one of the above categories.

Number of risk factors SBRSK1Y1

Represents an index of risk from 0–7 related to seven characteristics known to adversely affect persistence and attainment. Characteristics include delayed enrollment, no high school diploma (including GED recipients), part-time

enrollment, financial independence, having dependents other than spouse, single parent status, and working full time

while enrolled (35 hours or more). This analysis looks at the average number of risk factors.
Appendix A—Glossary

56

Single parent 1995–96 SBSINGY1

Indicates whether student had dependents and was not married during 1995–96. This analysis looks at respondents

who were single parents.

Dependent family income in 1994 SFINDP94

Total income of parents of dependent student during the 1994 calendar year. Categories represent family income

quartiles of beginning dependent students.

Less than $25,000

$25,000–44,999

$45,000–69,999

$70,000 or greater

Income of independent student 1994 SFININ94

Total income for independent students (and spouse) during 1994 calendar. Categories represent beginning independent student income quartiles.

Less than $6,000

$6,000–14,999

$15,000–24,999

$25,000 or greater

Derived SAT combined score TESATDER

Student’s Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT I Reasoning Test) combined score, which is either the sum of SAT verbal and mathematics scores or the ACT Assessment (American College Testing program) composite score converted

to an estimated SAT combined score using a concordance table.19 Constructed from agency-reported, institutionreported, or student-reported SAT or ACT scores in the following order of precedence (with corresponding percentages of beginning postsecondary students):

1. Agency-reported (ETS) SAT verbal and math scores (30%);

2. Agency-reported (ACT) ACT composite scores (22%);

3. Institution-reported (CADE) SAT verbal and math scores (2%);

4. Institution-reported (CADE) ACT composite scores (1%);

5. Student-reported (CATI) SAT verbal and math scores (1%);

6. Student-reported (CATI) ACT composite scores (1%).

All SAT scores are provided in original (not recentered) scale. Applies to cases having any reported ACT composite

score or SAT verbal and mathematics scores (56 percent of all beginning postsecondary students and 95 percent of

those beginning at 4-year institutions). For this analysis, the scores were aggregated according to the lowest, two

middle, and highest quartiles in the BPS sample.

Lowest quartile (400–700)

Middle quartiles (710–1020)

High quartile (1030–1600)

 

19G. Marco, A. Abdel-Fattah, and B. Barton. Methods Used to Establish Score Comparability on the Enhanced ACT Assessment

and the SAT (College Board Report 92–3) (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1992).
Appendix A—Glossary

57

Total nonfederal grants 1995–96 TNFEDGRT

Indicates the total amount of nonfederal grants received during 1995–96. This analysis looks at the percentage of

respondents who received nonfederal grants.

Total aid 1995–96 TOTAID

Indicates the total amount of financial aid received by a student in 1995–96. Includes grants, loans, or work-study, as

well as loans under the PLUS program. This analysis looks at the percentage of respondents who received any aid.

Total loan (except PLUS) 1995–96 TOTLOAN

Indicates the total amount of loan aid received by a student in 1995–96. This includes all loans through federal, state,

or institutional programs except PLUS loans (which are made to parents). Loans are a type of student financial aid

that advances funds and that are evidenced by a promissory note requiring the recipient to repay the specified

amounts under prescribed conditions. This analysis looks at the percentage of respondents who received loans.

Total work-study 1995–96 TOTWKST

Indicates the total amount of all work-study awards received during 1995–96. This analysis looks at the percentage

of respondents who received work-study awards.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
59

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/98)

The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) includes students who

participated in the 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96) and were

enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96. The National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS) is a comprehensive nationwide study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for postsecondary education.20 It also describes demographic and

other characteristics of students enrolled. The study is based on a nationally representative sample of all students in postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate, and

first-professional students. For NPSAS:96, information was obtained from more than 830 postsecondary institutions on approximately 44,500 undergraduate, 8,700 graduate, and 2,500 firstprofessional students. They represented about 16.7 million undergraduates, 2.4 million graduate

students, and 300,000 first-professional students who were enrolled at some time between July 1,

1995 and June 30, 1996.

The BPS sample consists of approximately 12,000 students identified in NPSAS:96 as beginning postsecondary education for the first time. Unlike other NCES longitudinal surveys (such

as High School and Beyond), which are based on age-specific cohorts, the BPS sample is more

likely to include “nontraditional” postsecondary students, such as those who have delayed their

education due to financial need or family responsibilities. The First Follow-up of the BPS cohort

(BPS:96/98) was conducted in the spring and summer of 1998, approximately three years after

these students first enrolled. Approximately 10,300 of the students who first began in 1995–96

were located and interviewed in the First Follow-up. The weighted effective response rate in the

1998 follow-up of NPSAS:96 for BPS-eligible respondents was 85.9 percent. The overall

weighted response rate (including those who were nonrespondents in NPSAS:96) for the

BPS:96/98 First Follow-up was 79.8 percent.21

 

20For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

Methodology Report for the 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NCES 98–073) (Washington, DC: 1997). Additional information is also available at the NPSAS Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/npsas.

21For more information on the BPS:96/98 survey, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study First Follow-up 1996–98, Methodology Report (NCES 2000–157)

(Washington, DC: 2000).
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

60

The BPS:96/98 Data Analysis System (DAS) includes sample weights for cross-sectional

analysis of the students in 1995–96 (B98IAWT) and longitudinal analysis of the sample through

1998 (B98AWT). All of the tables and estimates in this report used the longitudinal analysis

weight.

Accuracy of Estimates

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because

observations are made only on samples of students, not entire populations. Nonsampling errors

occur not only in sample surveys but also in censuses of entire populations. Nonsampling errors

can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete information about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous definitions; differences in

interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, sampling, and imputing missing

data.

Data Analysis System

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the BPS:96/98 Data Analysis

Systems (DAS). The DAS software allows users to specify and generate tables from the

BPS:96/98 data. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented in this

report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard errors22 and

weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B1 contains estimated standard

errors for the estimates provided in table 12 and was generated by the DAS. If the number of

valid cases is too small to produce a reliable estimate, the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate.

 

22The BPS:96/98 samples are not simple random samples, and therefore simple random sample techniques for estimating sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and calculates

standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor series

method.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

61

Table B1.—Standard errors for table 1a: Percentage distribution of all 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students

Table B1.—according to receipt of Pell Grant, by first institution type and attendance status

Nonrecipients

Pell recipients 

Received Did not 

First institution type other aid receive aid Total 

 Total* 0.94 0.89 1.10 0.94 

Public 4-year 1.01 1.19 1.17 1.01 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 1.37 1.53 1.37 1.37 

Public 2-year 1.79 1.58 2.06 1.79 

Private for-profit less-than-4-year 2.64 2.13 2.24 2.64 

 Total* 1.03 1.00 1.03 1.03 

Public 4-year 1.06 1.28 1.21 1.06 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 1.44 1.59 1.38 1.44 

Public 2-year 2.61 2.31 2.64 2.61 

Private for-profit less-than-4-year 2.86 2.39 2.49 2.86 

*Includes institutions listed here as well as public less-than-2-year institutions; private not-for-profit less-than-4-year

institutions; and private for-profit 4-year institutions.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up” (BPS:96/98).

Total

Full-time students

In addition to tables, the DAS can also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to

be used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the

design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally

compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors

must be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the BPS:96/98 sample design.

The DAS can be accessed electronically at http://nces.ed.gov/DAS. For more information

about the BPS:96/98 Data Analysis System, contact:

Aurora D’Amico

National Center for Education Statistics

1990 K Street, NW

Room 8115

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 502-7334

Internet address: Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

62

Statistical Procedures

Differences Between Means

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,23 or significance

level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with published tables of

significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing.

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the following formula:

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− = (1)

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula:

t =

1 2

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se 2(r)se se

E E

+ −

− (2)

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.24 This formula is used when comparing two

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used:

t =

E E

se se p se

sub tot

sub tot sub

−

+ − 22 2 2 

(3)

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.25 The estimates, standard

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS.

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the

 

23A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present.

24U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993.

25Ibid.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

63

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages

but also to the number of students in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a small

difference compared across a large number of students would produce a large t statistic.

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison occurs when making

multiple comparisons among categories of an independent variable. For example, when making

paired comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these

comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more

than one difference between groups of related characteristics or “families” are tested for statistical significance, one must apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of those

comparisons taken together.

Comparisons were made in this report only when p< .05/k for a particular pairwise comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that the

individual comparison would have p< .05 and that for k comparisons within a family of possible

comparisons, the significance level for all the comparisons will sum to p< .05.26 For example,

when comparing the percentages of males and females who enrolled in postsecondary education,

only one comparison is possible (males versus females). In this family, k=1, and the comparison

can be evaluated without adjusting the significance level. When students are divided into five

racial/ethnic groups and all possible comparisons are made, then k=10 and the significance level

of each test must be p< .05/10, or p< .005. The formula for calculating family size (k) is as follows:

k j j = ( −1)

2 (4)

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race/ethnicity,

there are five racial/ethnic groups (American Indian/Alaska Native; Asian/Pacific Islander;

Black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; and White, non-Hispanic), so substituting 5 for j in equation 4,

10

2

5(5 1) = − k =

 

26The standard that p≤ .05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the comparisons should sum to p≤ .05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p≤ .05/k for a particular family size and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical Association

56 (1961): 52–64.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

64

Bivariate Correlations

For the bivariate correlations reported in the report, the strength of the relationships between pairs of variables was provided using a scale of magnitudes. Following Cohen (1988),27

reported magnitudes adopted the notion of a scale of small, moderate, and large sized relationships, qualitative terms that allow interpretation of the strength of a relationship through the concept of effect size. Cohen suggested that for a scale of the proportion of variance accounted for

(the square of the correlation coefficient, r2

), one might use a value of 0.01 to signify a small effect size, 0.09 for moderate, and 0.25 for large. Some latitude is appropriate in determining the

scale of effect sizes within the context of the analysis. The magnitudes reported in this report

were based on a scale in which the effect is small if r2

 is less than 0.05, moderate if r2 is at least

0.05 but less than 0.25, and large if r2

 is 0.25 or greater.

Adjustment of Means to Control for Covariation

Many of the independent variables included in the analyses in this report are related, and to

some extent the pattern of differences found in the descriptive analyses reflect this covariation.

For example, when examining the percentages of those who were still enrolled or who had completed a degree at their initial institution 3 years after beginning postsecondary education, it is

possible that some of the observed relationship with high school academic curriculum is due to

differences in other factors related to academic preparation, such as college admission test scores,

type of institution attended, and so on. However, if nested tables were used to isolate the influence of these other factors, cell sizes would become too small to identify the significant differences in patterns. When the sample size becomes too small to support controls for another level

of variation, one must use other methods to take such variation into account. The method used in

this report estimates adjusted means with regression models, an approach sometimes referred to

as communality analysis.

To obtain estimates that were adjusted for the covariation among the entire set of independent variables identified as significant in the descriptive analyses, a multiple linear regression28

was used to regress the dependent variable on the full set of independent variables. Each independent variable is divided into several discrete categories. To find an estimated mean value on

the dependent variable for each category of an independent variable, while adjusting for its covariation with other independent variables in the equation, substitute the following in the equa-

 

27Cohen, Jacob. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

28For more information about weighted least squares regression, see Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Applied Regression: An Introduction, Vol. 22 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980); William D. Berry and Stanley Feldman, Multiple Regression in

Practice, Vol. 50 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1987).
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

65

tion: (1) a one in the category’s term in the equation, (2) zeroes for the other categories of this

variable, and (3) the mean proportions for all other independent variables. This procedure holds

the impact of all remaining independent variables constant, and differences between adjusted

means of categories of an independent variable represent hypothetical groups that are balanced or

proportionately equal on all other characteristics included in the model as independent variables.

For example, consider a hypothetical case in which two variables, age and gender, are used

to describe an outcome, Y (such as the percentage of students who left their initial institution).

The variables age and gender are recoded into a dummy variable representing age, A, and a

dummy variable representing gender, G:

Age A

 24 years or older 1

 Less than 24 years old 0

and

Gender G

 Female 1

 Male 0

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output from the

DAS:

ˆ Y = a + b1A+ b2G (5)

To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluated at the mean of all other variables, one substitutes the appropriate values for that subgroup’s dummy variables (1 or 0) and the

mean for the dummy variable(s) representing all other subgroups. For example, suppose Y represents leaving the initial institution and is being described by age (A) and gender (G), coded as

shown above. The unadjusted mean values of these two variables are as follows:

Variable Mean

A 0.355

G 0.521

Next, suppose the regression equation results are as follows:

ˆ Y = 0.15 + 0.17A + 0.01G (6)
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

66

To estimate the adjusted value for older students, one substitutes the appropriate parameter

estimates and variable values into equation 6.

Variable Parameter Value

a 0.15 —

A 0.17 1.000

G 0.01 0.521

This results in the following equation:

ˆ Y = 0.15 +(0.17)(1) + (0.01)(0.521) = 0.325

In this case, the adjusted mean for older students is 0.325 and represents the expected outcome for older students who resemble the average student across the other variables (in this example, gender). In other words, the adjusted percentage who left the initial institution after

controlling for age and gender, is 32.5 percent (0.325 x 100 for conversion to a percentage).

It is relatively straightforward to produce a multivariate model using the DAS since one of

the DAS output options is a correlation matrix, computed using pairwise missing values. In regression analysis, there are several common approaches to the problem of missing data. The two

simplest are pairwise deletion of missing data and listwise deletion of missing data. In pairwise

deletion, each correlation is calculated using all of the cases for the two relevant variables. For

example, suppose you have a regression analysis that uses variables X1, X2, and X3. The regression is based on the correlation matrix between X1, X2, and X3. In pairwise deletion, the correlation between X1 and X2 is based on the nonmissing cases for X1 and X2. Cases missing on

either X1 or X2 would be excluded from the calculation of the correlation. In listwise deletion,

the correlation between X1 and X2 would be based on the nonmissing values for X1, X2, and

X3. That is, all of the cases with missing data on any of the three variables would be excluded

from the analysis.29

The correlation matrix can be used by most statistical software packages as the input data

for least squares regression. That is the approach used for this report, with an additional adjustment to incorporate the complex sample design into the statistical significance tests of the parameter estimates (described below). For tabular presentation, parameter estimates and standard

 

29Although the DAS simplifies the process of making regression models, it also limits the range of models. Analysts who wish to

estimate probit/logit models (which are the most appropriate for models with categorical dependent variables) can apply for a

restricted data license from NCES. See John H. Aldrich and Forrest D. Nelson, “Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models,”

Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences, Vol. 45 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984).
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

67

errors were multiplied by 100 to match the scale used for reporting unadjusted and adjusted percentages.

Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when computing standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used for the NPSAS

survey, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors is to multiply

each standard error by the design effect associated with the dependent variable (DEFT),30 where

the DEFT is the ratio of the true standard error to the standard error computed under the assumption of simple random sampling. It is calculated by the DAS and produced with the correlation

matrix.

 

30The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C.J. Skinner, D. Holt, and T.M.F. Smith, eds., Analysis of Complex Surveys (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).