## Part A **: Supporting Statement for**  **Paperw ork Reduction**  **Ac t Submission** 

**Ev aluation of the GE**  **AR UP College Sav**  **ings Ac**  **count Research Demonstration** 

Prepared for: Marsha Silverberg **U.S. Department of Education** 555 New Jersey Ave, NW

Room 502I Wa shington, DC 20208
- 5500

Submitted by: **Ab t A**  **ssociates Inc.** 55 W heeler Street Cambridge, MA 02138**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access Programs** 

**Abt Associates Inc. Table of Contents**  **▌ pg**  **. i**  

### Part A **: Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction A ct Submission**  **Table of Contents A.**  **Justification ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **............................. A**  **- 1**  Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. A

- 1 A.1 Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary

................................ .. A

- 4 A.2 Purposes and Use of the Information Collection

................................ ............................ A

- 5 A.2.1 Phase I Data

................................ ................................ ................................ .... A

- 6 A.2.2 Phase II Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ... A

- 8 A.3 Use of Information Technology and Burden Reduction

................................ ............... A

- 10 A.4 Efforts to Identify Duplication

................................ ................................ ...................... A

- 11 A.5 Efforts to Minimize Burden in Small Businesses

................................ ......................... A

- 11 A.6 Consequences of Not Collecting the Inf ormation

................................ ......................... A

- 11 A.7 Special Circumstances Justifying Inconsistencies with Guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6

.. A

- 11 A.8 Consultation Outside the Agency

................................ ................................ ................. A

- 11 A.8.1 Federal Registrar Announcement

................................ ................................ A

- 11 A.8.2 Consultations Outside the Agency

................................ ............................... A

- 12 A.8.3 Unresolved Issues

................................ ................................ ......................... A

- 12 A. 9 Payments or Gifts to Respondents

................................ ................................ ................ A

- 12 A.10 Assurance of Confidentiality

................................ ................................ ........................ A

- 12 A.11 Questions of a Sensitive Nature

................................ ................................ .................... A

- 13 A.12 Estimat e of Response Burden

................................ ................................ ....................... A

- 13 A.13 Estimate of Total Capital and Startup Costs/Operation and Maintenance Costs to Respondents or Record

- Keepers

................................ ................................ ................... A

- 14 A.14 Estimates of Costs to the Federal Government

................................ ............................. A

- 14 A.15 Changes in Burden

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ A

- 14 A.16 Plans for Analysis, Publication and Schedule

................................ ............................... A

- 14 A.16.1 Analysis Plans

................................ ................................ .............................. A

- 14 A.16.2 Timeline and Publication plans

................................ ................................ .... A

- 18 A.17 Approval to Not Display Expiration Date

................................ ................................ .... A

- 20 A.18 Exceptions to Item 19 of OMB Form 83

- 1

................................ ................................ ... A

- 20 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. A

- 21**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **1** 

## A. **Justification Introduction**  The U.S. Department of Education (ED) will conduct a demonstration to test the effectiveness of supporting college savings accounts in the federal college access program , Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR U P ). This first Information Collection Request (ICR) for the study presents an overview of its design , including the plan to randomly assign high schools in the demonstration project into treatment and control conditions , and seeks clearance to collect student rosters in these high schools

. A later ICR will request approval for the remaining data collection activities. The study is being sponsored by ED’s Institute of Education Sciences and impl emented by Abt Associates Inc. and its partners, the Center for Social Development, Survey Research Management, Professional and Scientific Associates, and Jay Pfeiffer (together, the “Abt study team”). **Overview of the GEAR UP Program and the College Savings Account Research**  **Dem onstration**  Section 404 H of the Higher Education Act of 1965, amended by the 2008 Higher Education Opportunities Act (HEOA) (20 USC 1070A

- 27 ) authorizes the GEAR UP program . The program p rovides over $300 million a year to state agencies and local partnerships to support disadvantaged students in obtaining a high school diploma and to prepare them for success in postsecondary education. Grantees are expected to provide a comprehensive set of intervention services such as financial assistance, academic support, counseling, mentoring, and outreach to disadvantaged middle and high school students as well as i nformation about college financial aid options and the benefits of postsecondary education to students and their families

. State GEAR UP grantees are required to, and local partnership c an, also provide scholarships to help participating students pay for college attendance. In 201 2, GEAR UP state grantees served 4 03,818 students at a per

- student cost of $ 347 and partnership grantees served 2 43 , 954 students at a per

- student cost of $649 (U .S. Department of Education, 2012). While GEAR UP is designed to provide comprehensive services to low

- income students , increasing concern about the cost of college prompted ED to experiment with other strategies to reduce barriers to postse condary educati on transitions. In 2012, ED announced its intention to use GEAR UP funds for a supplemental grant competition to establish and evaluate college savings accounts for students in GEAR UP high schools. 1 S tate s that received GEAR UP grants in FY2011 or FY2012 and that will have cohorts of 9 th graders in their participating high schools in either fall 2013 or fall 2014 are eligible for the College Savings Account Research Demonstration

. (Below, h igh schools with eligible students in fall 2013 will be referred to as cohort 1 schools and high schools with eligible students in fall 2014 are cohort 2 schools. ) As a condition of receiving the supplemental grant funds, both state and local officials mus t agree to participate in an evaluation of the project, including the random assignment of GEAR UP high schools and the data collection activities. In addition, states must set aside grant resources so that state and local coordinators involved in the demonstration can attend

1 See https://www.federalregister.gov/art icles/2012/06/01/2012

- 13232/proposed

- priorities

- gaining

- early

aw areness - and

- readiness

- for

- undergraduate

- programs - college

- savings**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **2** special professional development (PD) sessions, which will be held at the twice

- a - year meetings of the association for GEAR UP grantees (the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships, or NCCEP). Student participants in treatment schools will have a college savings account set up for them with an initial deposit (“seed”) of $200, and the possibility of matching contributions of up to $25 per month for up to four years. Students receiving the maximum match would finish hi gh school with $2,600

— the $200 Federal seed, $1,200 in personal contributions, and $1,200 in Federal matching funds. In addition, treatment students and their families will be provided with financial counseling designed to help them understand the benefits of saving for college, encourage them to save, increase their understanding of relevant financial concepts and prepare them to make financial decisions. The competition for the College Savings Account Research Demonstration grants will be underway in early 2013. The number of s tates selected to receive awards will depend on the number of schools and students served by each s tate GEAR UP program in the demonstration project. ED i ntends to select s tates, one after another, beginning with the highest

- ranked proposal until there is a total across the selected s tates of about 100 high schools that have GEAR UP students enrolled in the 9th grade in either fall 2013 or fall 2104

. We expect there to be approximately 20,000 9 th grade students in these 100 GEAR Up high schools. **Overview of the Evaluation** The study will use a multi

- site cluster random assignment design to evaluate the effectiveness of the college savings and financial counseling intervention implemented as part of the demonstration. In spring 201 3 , after the demonstration grants are awarded, the study team will randomly assign one

- half of the participating GEAR UP high schools in each state to the treatment gro up and one

- half to the control group. 2 In all participating schools , students will continu e to receive services supported by GEAR UP (e.g. tutoring, counseling, and college scholarships ) . In schools assigned to the treatment group, their 9 th grade cohort also will receive the college savings accounts and financial counseling. S tudents in both groups will be tracked over time to collect administrative and survey data on key outcomes, including college savings, financial literacy, academic outcomes in high school, and educational attainment expectations. 3 The study will use the data to assess not only whether the intervention is effective, but how well it was implemented and whether its effectiveness depends on key components of the GEAR UP program or features of the college savings account intervention as it was designed and implemented. In parti cular, the evaluation is designed to answer four main research questions: 1) To what extent do the college s avings accounts and counseling

— above and beyond the servic es GEAR UP may already provide

—improve college savings and other student and family behaviors and attitudes associated with college going?

2 We plan to conduct blocked random assignment of schools, using state and one or more other blocking factors that are associat ed with the key student outcomes in this study. 3 The current 5

- year contract allow s only for tracking students into the 11 th grade. ED may execute an option to extend the contract to allow for collection and analysis of data on college enrollment and persistence.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **3** 2) What is the fidelity of implementation of the college savings account model in the participating GEAR UP state grantees? 3) What types of services

—i ncluding college savings, financial education, a nd financial literacy education

— are typically provided to GEAR UP high school participants? 4) Is there variation across states in the impact of the college savings account program, and to what extent is the variation associated with features or characteristics of the GEAR UP project or the college savings account program? To answer t

hese questions we will conduct both impact and descriptive analyses. The first report, which will address each research question after one year of demonstration implementation , will be published in 2016. The final report , after implementation over three years , will be available in 2018. Exhibit A

- 1 below presents the research questions along with the data sources for each question, the analytic approach and outcomes of interest

.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **4 Exhibit A**  **- 1** 
**. Evaluation Questions, Data Sources, A**  **naly tic A**  **pproach, and Outcomes of Interest**
**Research Question Data Sources**  **Anal yt**  **ic Approach Outcomes of**  **Interest** 1) To what extent do the college savings accounts and counseling

— above and beyond the services GEAR UP may already provide

— improve college savings and other student and family behaviors and attitudes associated with college going?  Educational administrative data
 Aggregate high school level data
 Savings account data
 Parent survey data
 Student survey data  Impact analysis
 Administrative data sample size: 20,000 students in 100 schools
 Survey sample: 8,000 students and 8,000 parents  College Savings
 Financial literacy
 Educational expectations
 Academic performance
 Course
- taking 2) Wh at is the fidelity of implementation of the college savings account model in the participating GEAR UP state grantees?  Project Director and Site Coordinator survey data
 Parent survey data
 Student survey data
 PD attendance sheets  Descriptive analysis
 Survey sample: 8,000 students, 8,000 parents, 110 project directors and site coordinators  Participation in PD trainings
 Description of GEAR UP program components provided and received 3) Wh at types of services

— including college savings, financial education, and financial literacy educ ation

— are typically provided to GEAR UP high school participants?  Project Director and Site Coordinator survey data
 Parent survey data
 Student survey data  Descriptive ana lysis
 Survey sample: 8,000 students, 8,000 parents, 110 project directors and site coordinators  Description of GEAR UP program components

4) Is there variation across states in the impact of the college savings account program, and to what extent is the variation associated with features or characteristics of the GEAR UP project or the college savings account program?  Educational administrativ e data
 Aggregate high school level data
 Savings account data
 Parent survey data
 Student survey data
 Project Director and Site Coordinator survey data  Impact analysis / moderator analysis
 Administrative data sample size: 20,000 students in 100 schools
 Survey sample: 8,000 students, 8,000 parents, 110 project directors and site coordinators  College Savings
 Financial literacy
 Educational expectations
 Academic performance
 Course
- taking



### A. **1 Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary**  The study’s data collection allows for the first rigorous assessment of the effects of subsidized college savings accounts and related financial counseling on low

- income high school students’ secondary and postsecondary education outcomes. Itis well known that a college education can be the key to future economic success for youth from disadvantaged families. Research has consistently found significant and positive returns to a bachelor’s degree on income (Aud et al

. , 2012; Carnevale, Rose & Cheah,**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **5** 2011) a s well as social and health

- based outcomes (Baum, Ma & Payea, 2010; Grossman, 2006 ; Meara, Richards & Cutler, 2008 ). Further, college education can serve as a key gateway to the middle class for disadvantaged students (e.g. Haskins, 2008). However, despite the benefits from college, children from disadvantaged families hold lower educational expectations (Goyette , 2008 ; Kao & Tienda, 1998) and are less likely to attend, persist, and complete college than their more economically advantaged peers (e.g. Haskin s, 2008; Bailey & Dynarski, 2011). Gaps in college enrollment have traditionally been attributed to a mix of inadequate financial resources, lack of information, and/or inadequate academic preparation in high school (Kane, 1999; U.S. Department of Educati on, 1997 ; Bozick & Deluca, 2010; Avery & Kane, 2004; Adelman, 2006 ). M any low

- income families do not understand that they may be eligible for financial aid and, therefore, do not apply for it ( e.g. Baum and Payea 2011). The extent to which families save fo r college also appears to vary by family income. A recent GAO study (2012) found that very few families ( three percent) saved in a 529 plan or Coverdell Education Savings Account (Coverdell) in 2010, and that those families that saved ten de d to have higher incomes and education than those that did not save . Families with college savings accounts had three times the median income and the percentage with college degrees was about twice as high as for families without these accounts (GAO, 2012)

. The pot ential benefits of increased college savings and related financial literacy has led to both experimentation and research over the last decade, but no conclusive evidence on effectiveness. Rigorous studies conducted by Destin and Oyserman (2009) demonstrate that when students are made aware of financial aid availability, they plan to study more and expect to get better grades. Recent work by Elliott, Destin, and Friedline (2011), suggests that when children hold college savings, their “college

- bound identiti es” are made salient, and are therefore more likely to motivate educational effort. A randomized control trial is underway in Oklahoma of child development accounts opened when students were either toddlers or in early elementary school but information on college planning or enrollment impacts is still years away as the accounts were first opened with children born in 2003 (Na et al , 2011 ; Zagler et al, 2010 )

. Another experimental study of 529 savings accounts and counseling is being implemented but its re sults are not expected for several years. Finally, this evaluation of the College Savings Account Research Demonstration in GEAR UP high schools will fill an important information gap about the GEAR UP program itself. To date, the only nat ional evaluation of GEAR UP focused on the services provided to middle school students and the information currently available from grantee performance reports is inadequate to answer a variety of implementation questions that policy makers have . Th e current study will pro vide policy

- relevant findings about strategies to improve college access for disadvantage d students and also about the nature and structure of the GEAR UP program at the high school level

. 

### A. **2 Purposes and Use of the Information Collection**  T here are two phases to the information collection for this study. This first ICR requests approval for Phase I

– Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters , which will be used to identify GEAR UP stu dent participants and to randomly assign GEAR UP high schools to treatment and control groups

. Specifically, the student rosters will define the evaluation sample for all analyses and serve as a sampling frame for the student and parent surveys. A later ICR will request clearance for Phase II

– Collection of Survey and A dministrative Data

.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **6** All i nformation will be collected by the Abt study team. A combination of administrative and survey data will be collected to examine the implementation and impacts of the college savings demonstration (see summary in Exhibit A

- 2 ). **Ex hibit**  **A -**  **2**
**. Data Collection Plan**  **Schedule Data Collection**  **Activity Respondent**  **Mode Phase I**  **– Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters**  Summer 2013 PD Attendance

Sheets Collect attendance sheets

from PD event None (administrative record) Hard Copy
Fall 2013 Student Rosters Request site coordinators submit 9 th grade student rosters that contain only directory information Site Coordinators Electronic

data or Paper
Wi nter 2013 Aggregate High

School Level Data Collect publicly available high

school level data to estimate baseline characteristics of treatment and control schools None (publicly downloadable) Electronic

data

**Phase II –**  **Collection of Survey**  **and Administrative Data** Wi nter 2014, Summer 2014, Wi nter 2015, Summer 2015, Wi nter 2016, Summer 2016, PD Attendance

Sheets Collect attendance sheets

from PD event None (administrative record) Paper

Spring 2014, Spring 2016 Project Director

Survey Administer survey Project Directors and Site Coordinators Paper
Spring 2014, Spring 2016 Parent Survey Administer survey Parents Telephone and We b Spring 2014, Spring 2016 Student Survey Administer survey Students Telephone and We b Fall/ Wi nter 2013, Fall/ Wi nter 2014, Fall/ Wi nter 2015, Fall/ Wi nter 2016 State and District

Adm inistrative Educational Records Collect student education records on course - taking, school attendance, and credits earned in grades 9
- 11 None (administrative record) Electronic

and Paper

Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Administrative

Savings Account Data Collect administrative data on

the college savings accounts None (administrative record) Electronic

data

**A. 2.1**  **Phase I Data** This ICR requests clearance for the collection , during Phase I

– Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters, of:

 **Student rosters**  that will define the evaluation sample for all analyses and serve as a sampling frame for the student and parent surveys. 4

4 Student and parent surveys will be administered to 40% of the full sample.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **7 Student Rosters**  T he Abt study team will collect rosters of 9 th graders in the fall of 2013 at the GEAR UP high schools partic ipating in the demonstration. These students will constitute the full study sample for th e evaluation, which we estimate will contain about 20,000 students. In the event that there are two cohorts of eligible schools, the student roster collection will occur in both fall 2013 and 2014; 9 th grade student rosters will be collected from cohort 1 schools in fall 2013 and rosters of 9 th graders in cohort 2 schools will be collected in the fall of 2014. To obtain student roster data during Phase I , the Abt st

udy team will rely on the GEAR UP site coordinators that grantees are required to be assign ed to each participating high school to assist with the implementation of the intervention and the evaluation. The Abt study team will gather contact information for site coordinators from state grantees. Prior to the start of the school year, the Abt team will send an introductory email to each site coordinator explaining the evaluation and the requests that will be made of site coordinators (see Appendix B). Next, the Abt study team will reach out to each site coordinator via a telephone call during the first 10 days of the 2013

- 2014 academic year to request student rosters of 9 th grade GEAR UP participants in both treatment and control schools. Site coordinators wil l be asked to submit student rosters through a password protected secure file transfer portal (SFTP). R osters must be collected in the beginning of the school year because the Federal Register notice indicate d that college savings accounts must be opened for treatment students in the first two weeks of the 2013

- 14 academic year. Rosters collected after this point may include students who transferred to participating schools too late to receive a college savings account. In requesting student rosters, the Abt study team will request only directory information as designated under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and its implementing regulations (20 U .S.C 1232g and 34 CFR Part 99) such as the student’s name, date of birth, zip code, p arent contact information, and district or school identification numbers. These data will help in locating students and parents for the study’s data collection efforts. The student rosters play three important roles in the study. First, they will include all s tudents who are part of the experimental study . At the student

- level, the treatment group consists of the 10,000 9 th grade GEAR UP participants in schools assigned to the intervention, and the control group consists of the 10,000 9 th grade GEAR UP participants in schools assigned to the control condition. Second, the full study sample obtained from student rosters will be used to identify the students for which administrative d ata will be collected. Third, the full sample serves as a sampling frame for selecting the survey sample. As indicated earlier in this document, the collection of administrative and survey data will be covered in the second ICR for this study. In addition, P

hase I

– Random Assignment and Collection of Student Ros ters will include the collection of extant data: **Professional development attendance**  **records** will be gathered from the trainings that ED holds for demonstration project directors and site coordinators to help assess fidelity of implementation (Question 2). **Aggregate high school level data** will be collected to create school

- level covariates for the analysis models (Questions 1

- 4);**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **8 Professional Development**  **Attendance Records**  During the first year of the study, ED will hold professional development (PD) traini ngs for demonstration project directors and site coordinators. The trainings will be add ed sessions only for demonstration participants during the regular, semi

- annual meetings (February and July) organized by NCCEP . The study will have access to the roste rs of participants at these trainings. These data will contribute to an assess ment of the fidelity of the intervention. **Aggregate High School Level Data** Aggregate high school level data from the Common Core of Data (CCD) and the Federal Student Aid (FSA) d ata center will be downloaded directly from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) website and the FSA data website, respectively. These data will be used for blocking in the random assignment. These data will also allow the Abt study team to construct baseline covariates to improve statistical power (e.g., Bloom, Richburg

- Hayes, and Black, 2007), reduce attrition bias (Puma, Olsen, Bell, and Price, 2009), and construct subgroup variables. From the CCD and the FSA data center , the Abt study team will obtain school

- level data on the number of high school seniors and the number of students who completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), and use these data to estimate the percentage of seniors in the school that applied for fede ral financial aid. In addition, the CCD data will allow for the construction of measures of school size, the percent of students eligible for free or reduced price lunches, and other school

- level measures. **A. 2.2**  **Phase II Data** Subsequent phases of the evaluation will involve additional data sources , and a later ICR will request approval for these data collection activities. Where possible, the study will rely on existing data sources, and surveys will be used to gather information where extant data sources are not available. Administrative data that will serve as a source of data include: **Student administrative educational r**  **ecords** will be collected to obtain student

- level data on student characteristics and achievement prior to 9 th grade; they will also be collected to obtain student

- level data on student outcomes in high school, including course

- taking, school attendance, an d credits earned in high school (Questions 1

- 4); **A dministrative data on college savings accounts**  will be used to assess fidelity of implementation (Question 2); **Professional development attendance**  **records** will continue to be collected at the trainings that ED holds for demonstration project directors and site coordinators to help assess fidelity of implementation (Question 2). **State and District Administrative Educational Records** To measure student outcomes in high school, the Abt study team will obtain state or district administrative records on course

- taking, school attendance, and credits earned in grades 9

- 11. The Abt study team will obtain these data from states , as required in the demonstration notice . Obtaining data from states will reduce the miss ing data rate due to student mobility

— since fewer students move out
- of

- state than move between schools within the state

— and will increase the efficiency of the data collection, since we anticipate the sample including approximately 5

- 8 states and more than 10 districts in which the 100 schools are situated.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **9 Adm**  **inistrative Savings Account Data** Abt will submit a request for administrative data on savings accounts to the state grantee coordinator who oversees the disbursement of federal funds as specified in the demonstration notice. A dministrative data on the college savings accounts offered to treatment students will allow the Abt study team t o assess the fidelity of the intervention’s implementation. These data will provide information on whether treatment students received college savings accounts as planned, the amount of federal matching funds contributed to these accounts, and whether family contributions were matched according to the state’s matching plan. **PD Attendance Sheets** During years two and thre e year of the study, ED will continue to hold professional development (PD) trainings for demonstration project directors and site coordinators. The trainings will be added sessions only for demonstration participants during the regular, semi

- annual meetin gs (February and July) organized by NCCEP. The study will have access to the rosters of participants at these trainings. These data will contribute to an assessment of the fidelity of the intervention. Data from these extant sources will be supplemented by data collected through surveys. Clearance for the following surveys will be requested in Phase II: **Project director surveys** will identify implementation features of the GEAR UP projects and college savings account intervention (Questions 2

- 3) and provide mediators for our estimate s of the relationship between impacts and program components (Question 4); **Student surveys** , administered to a subsample of students in treatment and control schools, will capture both participation in the intervention and other GEAR UP and college access program services (Questions 2 and 3) and key outcomes that cannot be obtained from administrative data (Questions 1 and 4); **Parent surveys**  will capture both participation in the intervention and other GEAR UP and college a ccess program services (Questions 2 and 3) and key outcomes that cannot be obtained from administrative data (Questions 1 and 4); **Project Director Survey** The Abt study team will administer a program survey in the spring of 2014 and again in the spring of 2 016 to the approximately 5

- 8 state

- level GEAR UP project directors and the approximately 100 site coordinators that grantees are required to identify to assist in implementing the demonstration. The Abt study team will administer a paper or on - line project director survey. In the event that there are two cohorts of eligible schools, site coordinators from cohort 2 schools will be surveyed in fall 2015 and again in fall 2017 to collect information during the first and third years of implementation in their s chools, corresponding to the implementation stages at survey collection for cohort 1 site coordinators. The Abt study team will use the project director survey (of GEAR UP Project Directors and site coordinators) to obtain data on the types and intensity of services regularly offered to GEAR UP participants in high schools and key features of the savings accounts and financial counseling given to treatment students and their parents. In addition, the survey will collect data on any college saving accounts or financial counseling offered to students in control schools to assess the degree of contamination in the control group.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **10 Student and Parent Surveys**  The Abt study team will field the student survey and parent survey in the spring of 2014 and again in th e spring of 2016 by telephone and web

- based surveys. Both surveys will rely heavily on the contact information that site coordinators included on student rosters. In the event that there are two cohorts of eligible schools, parents and students in cohort 2 schools will be surveyed in fall 2015 and again in fall 2017 to collect information during the first and third years of implementation in their schools, corresponding to the implementation stages at survey collection for cohort 1 parents and students. Th e student survey will cover students’ expectations about college enrollment and costs; knowledge about college savings and financial aid; financial literacy; participation in GEAR UP and other college access programs; and plans for enrollment in college

-pr eparatory courses . It will not include sensitive financial questions. The parent survey will cover parents’ expectations about their child’s college enrollment and costs; their knowledge about college savings and financial aid; their financial literacy; pa

rticipation in GEAR UP and other college access programs; and their financial decisions, including saving for college. The parent s urvey will provide the only source of data available on a key outcome

— amount of family contribution to savings for college

—fo r both the treatment and control groups, and therefore is critical to the study’s ability to estimate the impacts of the intervention. 5 In designing the surveys, the Abt study team will rely heavily on existing survey instruments that address topic areas r elevant to the key outcomes of the study. 

### A. **3 Use of Information Technology**  **and Burden Reduction** The data collection plan reflects sensitivity to issues of efficiency, accuracy, and respondent bu rden. The study will use a combination of mechanical and electr onic technology to collect data. For each data collection task, the study team has selected the form of technology that enables the collection of valid and reliable information in an efficient way while minimizing respondent burden. During Phase I

– Random Assignment an d Collection of Student Rosters , the Abt study team will collect student rosters from site coordinators. To minimize burden, the evaluator’s electronic mail address and toll

- free telephone number will be included on the request for student rosters for site coordinators who have questions and site coordinators will be provided with an SFTP link to upload rosters with minimal effort and time . Taken together, these procedures are all designed to minimize the burden on respondents. Addition ally, attendance at PD trainings will be recorded in Phase I

– Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters

. Records of attendance will impose no burden on participants because attendance will be recorded as part of the regular registration process at the start of the training.

5 While the administrative data on s avings accounts should provide a more reliable measure of college savings for the treatment group, and thus contribute to the fidelity analysis, it will not cover other ways that families in both groups may save for college. Importantly, it will not includ e any data on the control group. Therefore, the Abt study team will rely on survey data on college savings to estimate the effects of the intervention on college savings.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **11** Further, the Abt study team will rely on existing, publicly available electronic data to describe school characteristics in order to assess balance between the treatment and control schools after random assignment. The use of such data will impose no burden on schools. 

### A. **4 Efforts to Identify Duplication**  To date, there has been no rigorous study of supporting college savings for students starting in high school or of a project that combines college savings accounts and financial counseling in a more comprehensive college preparation program

. Surveys of GEAR UP coordinators, students, and parents have not been conducted in many years. Our survey instruments will be designed to reflect the efforts of a consortium of state GEAR UP grantees to develop common program service definitions. In addition, t o the extent possible, the study team will use existing data for the study rather than duplicate data collection efforts. The study team will utilize all publically available data on high school characteristics and about GEAR UP programming . The information collected in the student rosters, at the PD trainings, and in the student, parent, and p roj ect director surveys is not available elsewhere. 

### A. **5 Efforts to Minimize Burden in Small**  **Businesses** No small businesses will be involved as respondents. The primary small entities for this study are GEAR UP high schools. During Phase I , the study team will minimize burden by training data collection staff to make their contacts with GEAR UP si te coordinators as straightforward and concise as possible. To minimize duplication of effort, the Abt study team will request student rosters at the time when site coordinators in treatment schools will need lists of eligible students for the purposes of establishing savings accounts

. Further, the study team will administer the student surveys, minimizing the burden placed on site coordinators

. All notification mailings, conversations, and presentations are designed to be clear, brief, and informative

. 

### A. **6 Co**  **nsequences of Not Collecting the Information** The consequences of not collecting specific data in Phase I

– Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters are described below: Without collecting the student rosters , the study team could not identify th e survey sample or define treatment and control groups , rendering it impossible to conduct the study. Without recording attendance at PD trainings , the study team could not fully describe the fidelity of implementation of the intervention. 

### A. **7 Special**  **Circumstances Justify ing Inconsistencies with Guidelines in 5**  **CFR 1320.6** There are no special circumstances concerning the collection of information in this study. 

### A. **8 Consultation Outside the A**  **gency A.**  **8.1 Federal Registrar**  **An nouncement**  A 60

- d ay n otice to solicit pu blic comments was published in the Federal Registrar on DATE

. XXX comments were received.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **12 A.**  **8.2 Consultations Outside the A**  **gency** Over the course of the study, the Abt team will assemble a Technical Working Group (in consultation with ED) composed of consultants with various types of expertise in the areas relevant to this study

. The Technical Working Group will convene in the winter of 2013 to discuss the study design, instrumentation, and data collection plans. **A. 8.3**  **Unresolved Issues** There are no unresolved issues

. 

### A. **9 Pay**  **ments or Gifts to Respondents** During Phase I

–

Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters , there will be no payments or gifts to respondents. The responsibilities of the site coordinators are specified in the demonstration notice and required as a condition of receiving a grant. 

### A. **10 As**  **surance of Confidentiality** The study team will conduct all activities in accordance with all relevant regulations and requirements. These include the Education Sciences Institute Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183, that requires “[all] collection, maintenance, use, and wide dissemination of data by the Institute ... to conform with the requirements of secti on 552 of Title 5, United States Code, the confidentiality standards of subsections (c) of this section, and sections 444 and 445 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232 g, 1232h).” These citations refer to the Privacy Act, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment. In addition, all data collected for the study shall remain confidential in accordance with Section 552a of Title 5, United States Code, the confidentiality standards subsection (c) and sections 444 and 445 of the General Educations Provision Act. Subsection (c) of Section 183, referenced above, requires the director of IES to “develop and enforce standards designed to protect the confidentiality of persons in the collection, reportin g, and publication of data.” The study will also adhere to requirements of subsection (d) of Section 183 prohibiting disclosure of individually identifiable information as well as making the publishing or inappropriate communication of individually identif iable information by employees or staff a felony. In addition, the following verbatim language will appear on all letters, fact sheets, and other study materials: Per the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183, responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific program, district or indivi dual. Any willful disclosure of such information for nonstatistical purposes, except as required by law, is a class E felony. Data will be presented in aggregate statistical form only. All study staff involved in collecting, reviewing, or analyzing individ ual

- level data will be knowledgeable about data security procedures and will sign nondisclosure agreements. Respondents will be assured that all information identifying them or their school will be kept private to the extent allowed by law. The confidentia lity procedures**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **13** adopted for this study during all rounds of data collection, data processing, and analysis consist of the following: All paper files will be converted to an electronic format and the paper files will be shredded immediately after they have been converted

. Electronic data files with sensitive data will be removed from computers and working servers in a manner that ensures that the information cannot be recovered

. At end of contract with the ED, the Abt study team will destroy all student id entifiers but will retain de

- identified student data. All electronic copies of de

- identified student data will be destroyed within three years of the final contract payment from ED, unless otherwise directed by ED at the request of the Abt study team or b y ED’s request

. 

### A. **11 Questions of a Sensitive Nature**  There are no questions of a sensitive nature included in the information requested as part of Phase I

– Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters

. 

### A. **12 Estimate of Response Burden**  The total respondent burden for the data collection effort covered by this clearance request is 200 hours , for a total estimated cost to respondents of $5, 134.00

. Exhibit A

- 3 presents time estimates of respon dent burden for the data collection activities requested for approval in this submission. The burden estimates are based on the following assumptions: One site coordinator is expected at each of the anticipated 100 high schools. It is assumed that collecting and submitting the GEAR UP student rosters for the 9 th grade cohor t in each school wil l take approximately two hours. The total cost to site coordinators to collect student rosters is $5,134.00, based on an hourly wage of $25.67 in 2010

- 11 for School and Career Counselors. 6

6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbo ok, 201 2

- 1 3 Edition, accessed online at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/community

- and

- social

- service/school

- and

- career counselors.htm ( October 12, 2012 ).**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **14 Exhibit A**  **- 3** 
**. Estimate of Respondent Burden** 

**Inf ormant/Data Collection Activit**  **y #** **o f** **R e** **s p** **o n** **d e** **n t** **s #** **o f** **R e** **s p** **o n** **s e** **s H** **o u** **r s** **/ R** **e s** **p o** **n s** **e T** **o t** **a l** **B u** **r d** **e n** **H o** **u r** **s /** **r e** **s p** **o n** **d e** **n t** **T o** **t a** **l B** **u r** **d e** **n H** **o u** **r s** **C o** **s t** **p e** **r R** **e s** **p o** **n d** **e n** **t (** **h o** **u r** **l y** **w a** **g e** **) T** **o t** **a l** **C o** **s t** **s p** **e r** **R e** **s p** **o n** **d e** **n t** **T o** **t a** **l C** **o s** **t s** 

**Site Coordinators** Collect and Submit Student Rosters 100 1 2.0 2.0 200 $25.67 $51.34 $5,134.00


### A. **13 Estimate of Total Capital and Startup Costs/Operation and Maintenance**  **Costs to Respondents or Record -**  **Keepers** There are no annualized capital/startup or ongoing operation and maintenance costs involved in random assignment or the collection of student rosters

. 

### A. **14 Estimates of Costs to the Federal Government**  The estimated cost to the federal government of the data collection activities for the study as described above is $3,064,407

. The data collection activities will b e carried out in the first five y ear s of the study ( Fall 2013 to Fall 2017 ). Thus, the average annual cost to the federal government is $ 612,881

. 

### A. **15 Changes in Burden**  This is a request for a new collection of information

. 

### A. **16 Plans for A**  **naly sis,**  **Publication and Schedule**  **A. 16.1**  **An aly**  **sis Plans** Impact and descriptive analyses will be conducted to answer the study research questions , as described here

. Part B of this Supporting Statement provides additional detail on these analyses. **1. To w**  **hat extent do the co llege sa** **vings accounts and counseling**

**— above and beyond the**  **services GEAR UP may already provide**

**— improve college savings and other student and**  **family behaviors and attitudes associated with college going?** To examine overall program impacts, the Abt study team will use multilevel modeling to account for the nested structure of the data. The Abt study team will estimate a two

- level model, with students (level

- 1) nested within schools (level

- 2). At the student level, the Abt study team will control for student achievement prior to 9 th grade and student demographic characteristics, including race/ethnicity, eligibility for free or reduced

-price lunch, English language learner status, special education status. At the school level, the Abt study team will control for baseline differences between states, by including a set of state indicator variables, and for baseline school characteristics, including the percentage of seniors applying for federal financial aid, average school achievement, and**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **15** percentage of students eligible for free or reduced

-price lunch. Reflecting the randomization of schools, the Abt study team will include a treatment indicator at the school level to provide an estimate of the average impact of the college savings demonstration on students ac ross all schools at a given time (e.g., at the end of 9 th grade, end of 11 th grade, or after the expected date of high school graduation). The Abt study team will conduct a test of the null hypothesis of no treatment impact for each outcome variable. The Abt study team will interpret a positive and statistically significant impact at the 5

- percent level (using a two

- tailed test) as compelling scientific evidence that the intervention improves the targeted outcome (e.g., college savings, number of credits e arned in college preparatory courses; financial literacy, completion of specific courses by a specified grade level). For continuous outcome variables (e.g., number of credits, amount contributed to savings account), the Abt study team will estimate multil evel linear models; for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., course completion, contributed to college savings account), the Abt study team will estimate multilevel logistic regression models. If the Abt study team examines impacts on ordinal outcomes (e.g., plans to attend 4

- year college, plans to attend 2

- year college, no plans to attend college), the Abt study team will estimate multilevel ordered logistic regression models. **Hierarchical Linear Model** The following hierarchical linear model will be used to estimat e program impacts on continuous outcome variables. The Level

- 1 equation (student level or family level, depending on the outcome) is: (1) = + h

− h + ∑ (

− ) + Where is the value of the outcome (e.g., amount contributed to savings account) for the i th student in the j th school; h is a measure of achievement for i th student in the j th school (centered at the grand mean, h ); is a vector of k variables measuring the demographic characteristics of the i th student in the j th school (each centered at the grand mean, ); is the covariate

- adjusted mean value of the outcome for students in school j ; through are regression coefficients indicating the effects of each student

- level covariate on the outcome variable ; and is the stu dent

- level residual for the i th student in the j th school (the assumed distribution of the residuals is normal, with mean 0 and variance

. The Level

- 2, or school

- level, equation is: (2) = + + h + ∑ ( h h 12

_ 13

− h h 12

_ 13 ) + Where is the covariate

- adjusted mean value of the outcome measure across control schools; is the mean difference in the covariate

- adjusted outcome between treatment and control sc hools (i.e., the treatment impact); is the treatment status dummy variable with a value of 1 for a GEAR UP school assigned to the treatment condition and a value of 0 for a GEAR UP school assigned to the GEAR UP control condition; h is indicates whether schools implement the demonstration with students in 9 th grade in 2013 or with students in 9 th grade in 2014 ; h h 12

_ 13 is a vector of k variables measuring the characteristics of the j th school in school year 2012

- 2013, prior to random**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **16** assignment (each centered at the grand mean, h h 12

_ 13 ); is a v ector of k regression coefficients indicating the effect of each baseline school covariate on the covariate

- adjusted mean value of the o utcome measure; and is the error term for the j th school (the distribution is assumed to be normal with mean 0 and variance ). The parameter indicates the impact of the demonstration on the outcome, . A t

- test will be conducted to tes t the null hypothesis of no treatment impact using a .05 level criterion to reject the null hypothesis. A positive and statistically significant estimate of will indicate that there is compelling scientific evidence (at the 5 percent level) that the demonstration improves the targeted outcome. The parameter indicates the magnitude of the impact

-- such that the college savings demonstration in GEAR UP hi gh schools is estimated to have, on average, a point effect on the specified outcome. A standardized effect size will be calculated by dividing the estimated impact ( ) by the standard deviation of the outcome variable, , in the control group ( ). The standardized effect size is . The control group standard deviation will be used, as recommended by Burghardt, Deke, Kisker, Puma, and Schochet (2009), rather than the pooled standard deviation, because the intervention might affect the standard deviation in the treatment group. **Multilevel Logistic Regression** For dichotomous outcomes, a logistic regression equation will replace the level

- 1 linear equation specified for continuous outcomes as follows: For a multilevel logistic regres sion model with a dichotomous outcome, the level

- 1 equation is: (3) 

## [ = 1 ] = ( ∑ ) Where is the covariate

- adjusted log

- odds of the outcome occurring (e.g., course completion; plans to attend college) versus not occurring (e.g., course not completed; does not plan to attend college) for students in school j ; and through are regres sion coefficients indicating the log

- odds of each student

- level covariate on the outcome occurring. The level

- 2, or school

- level, equation remains the same as equation (2); however, is log

- odds of the outcome occurring in the control group (e.g., course completion by control students; plans to attend college by control students), rather than the mean value of the outcome in the control group, and is the log

- odds ratio quantifying the treatment impact (i.e., difference between treatment and contro l schools in the log

- odds of the outcome occurring versus not occurring). Impacts estimated as log

- odds ratios are measured in standardized effect size units To convert estimates produced by logistic regression to an impact measured in percentage point inc reases in probability of the binary outcome, we calculate the individual level probability of the outcome given treatment implied by individual and school level covariates and model estimates, we repeat this calculation if the individual were assigned to c ontrol, and find the mean difference between these two probabilities.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **17 2.**  **What is the fidelity of implementation of the college savings account model in the participating GEAR UP state grantees?**  Descriptive analyses will be used to provide information on the f idelity of implementation. To describe fidelity of implementation, the Abt study team will define what constitutes “implementation as intended” and construct a measure of the extent to which sites implement program components with fidelity (e.g., establish college savings accounts, provide seed funds, provide matching funds, attend financial counseling professional development, provide financial counseling for parents, provide financial counseling for students). The Abt study team will report descriptive data on the percentage of sites that implement each key program component with fidelity, providing information about which program components are widely implemented and which are implemented less consistently. Information on the overall level of and variatio n in implementation fidelity will provide important contextual information for interpreting impact findings. **3. What types of services** 

**— including college savings, financial education, and financial literacy**  **education**

**— are typically provided to GEAR UP participa**  **nts?** Descriptive analyses will be used to provide information on the types of services typically provided to GEAR UP participants. The Abt study team will describe the types and intensity of services regularly offered to GEAR UP participants at the high s chool level as reported on the project directory survey and on the parent and student surveys. The Abt study team will describe the services that constitute the counterfactual condition in order to understand the extent to which treatment services are distinct from the usual services available to GEAR UP participants, illuminating the treatment

- control contrast. These results will provide another important source of contextual information for interpreting impact findings. **4. Is there variation across states i**  **n the impact of the college savings account program, and to what extent is the variation associated with features or characteristics of the GEAR UP**  **project or the college savings account program?** To examine variation in program impacts, the Abt study team will use a two

- level model, controlling for baseline covariates, as described above. The Abt study team will include interaction terms in the school level model (i.e., equation 2 above), allowing the treatment impact to vary by state or by treatment progr am characteristics, such as type of savings bank or mode of counseling services offered. For example, to test for state variations in the program impact, the Abt study team will include a set of interactions between the treatment indicator and each of the state indicators in Equation 2, as follows: (4) = + + ∑ ( h h 12

_ 13

− h h 12 ) +

∑ + ∑ ∗ + where is the covariate

- adjusted mean value of the outcome measure (or log

- odds of the outcome occurring) among control schools in the reference category state ; STATE is a vector of s - 1 state indictor variables

—one for all but one of the s states in the sample; is the difference between STATE s and the reference

- category state in the covariate

- adjusted mean value (or log

- odds) of the outcome among control schools; is the mean difference in the covariate

- adjusted outcome between treatment and control sc hools (i.e., the treatment impact); STATE * Trt j is a vector of state by**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **18** treatment condition interaction terms

— one for each s - 1 state indicator variable; and is the difference in the treatment impact between STATE s and the reference

- category state. U sing a .05 level criterion, the Abt study team will conduct a joint test of the null hypothesis that the s parameters for all of the interaction terms are zero, i.e., that there is no statistically significant difference in the program impact for any given state. The null hypothesis is expressed as follows:

: ∗ = ∗ = ⋯ = ∗ = 0 The Abt study team will interpret a statistically significant difference as evidence that the program impact v aries by state (or by features of the treatment program). If the Abt study team finds a statistically significant difference in program impacts, the Abt study team will then test whether the program impact within each state or subgroup is statistically significant. Standardized effect sizes will be calculated as described above. **A. 16.2**  **Time l**  **ine and Publication plans**  **Timeline** The study is expected to be conducted across six years . Exhibit A.4 (below) displays the full study timeline. The random assignment will take place in the spring of 2013 , collection of PD attendance sheets will occur in summer 2013, and the collection of student rosters for cohort 1 will occur in the fall of 2013. All additional data collection efforts, which are outside of the purview of this ICR package will take place no earlier than the winter of 2014.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **19 Exhibit A**  **- 4**  **Study Timeline**  **Activity Date**  **Study Year 1** Design Surveys December 2012
- March 2013 Convene Technical W orking Group February 2013 Random Assignment of Schools Spring 2013 Collection of PD Attendance Sheets July 2013 Collection of Student Rosters Fall 2013 **Study Year 2** Collection of State and District Administrative Educational Records Fall
-Wi nter 2013 Collection of PD Attendance Sheets February and July 2014 Administration of Surveys Spring
- Summer 2014 **Study Year 3** Collection of Savings Account Data Fall 2014 Collection of State and District Administrative Educational Records Fall
-Wi nter 2014 Collection of PD Attendance Sheets February and July 2015 **Study Year 4** Col lection of Savings Account Data Fall 2015 Collection of State and District Administrative Educational Records Fall
-Wi nter 2015 Convene Technical W orking Group November/December 2015 Collection of PD Attendance Sheets February and July 2016 Relea se of College Savings Report #1 (Early Impacts) January 2016 Administration of Surveys Spring 2016 **Study Year 5** Collection of Savings Account Data Fall 2016 Collection of State and District Administrative Educational Records Fall
-Wi nter 2016 **Study Year 6** Release of College Savings Report #2 January 20 18 Submission of Data File with Documentation Wi nter 2018 Note: In the event that there are two cohorts of eligible schools (one group from FY2011 GEAR UP state grantees and another from FY201 2 GEAR UP state grantees) , the collection of rosters, state and district administrative educational r ecords, s avings a ccount d ata, and the administration of surveys for the second cohort will be staggered by one year . For example the first survey administration for cohort 1 schools will occur in spring 2014 w hen the students are in 9 th grade w hile the first survey administration for cohort 2 schools will occur in spring 2015 to also capture these students in the 9 th grade.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **20 Publication plans**  The evaluation plans call for two reports. The first, published in early 2016, will be based on data collected in 2014 and address the research question s after one year of implementation

. The second report will be available in earl y 2018 and be based on three years of implementation. In the event that there are two cohorts of eligible schools, the two reports will be released up to one year later than is currently expected, in order to include data from cohort 2 schools. 

### A. **17 Ap**  **proval t o Not Display**  **Expiration Date** No exemption is requested. The data collection instruments will display the expiration date. 

### A. **18 Exceptions to Item 19 of OMB Form 83**  **- 1**  The submission descri bing data collection requires no exemptions to the Certificate for Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.9).**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **21** 

### References Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012

- 045). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. Avery, C. and Kane, T. J. (2004). Student perceptions of college opportunities: The Boston COACH program. In C. M. Hoxby (Ed.). College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go and how to pay for it. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved August 29, 2011 from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10104. Bailey, M. J., & Dynarski, S. M. (2011). Inequality in postsecondary education. In G. J. Duncan and R. J. Murnane (Eds.). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of disadvantaged children. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Trends in Higher Education Series. New York, NY: College Board Advocacy & Policy Center. Retrieved June 28, 2012 from http://trends.collegeboard.org/

. Baum & Payea. (2011). Trends in Student Aid. Trends in Higher Education Series. New York, NY: College Board Advocacy & Policy Cent er. Available http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/2011_Student_Aid_11b

- 3630_Final_Web.pdf Bloom, H.S., Richburg

- Hayes, L. & Black, R. R. (2007) Using covariates to improve precision for studies that randomize schools to evaluate educationa l interventions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 29(1): 30

- 59. Bozick, R. & Deluca, S. (2010). Not Making the Transition to College: School, work and opportunities in the lives of contemporary American youth (RAND Working Paper WR

- 760). Santa M onica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR760.html

. Burghardt, J., Deke, J., Kisker, E., Puma, M., & Schochet, P. (2009). Regional educational laboratory rigorous applied research studies: Frequently asked analysis questions. Institute of Education U.S. Department of Education. Pr inceton, NJ: Mathematics Policy Research. Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2011). The college p ayoff: Education, occupations, lifetime earnings. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, Washington, DC. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from http://cew.georgetown.edu/collegepayoff/

. D estin, M. & Oyserman, D. (2009). From assets to school outcomes: How finances shape children’s perceived possibilities and intentions. Psychological Science, 20 , 414

- 418. Elliott, W., Destin, M., & Friedline, T. (2011). Taking stock of ten years of researc h on the relationship between assets and children’s educational outcomes: Implications for theory, policy, and intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 33 (11), 2312

- 2328.**Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access**  **Programs**

**Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification**  **▌ pg.**  **A -**  **22** Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99.3. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2012).Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate: High education, a small percentage of families save in 529 Plans. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Retrieved Decem ber 13, 2012 from http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650759.pdf

. Goyette, K. A. (2008). College for some to college for all: Social background, occupational expectations, and educational expectations over time. Social Science Research , 37(2), 461

- 484. Grossman, M. (2006). Education and nonmarket outcomes. In E. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: North

- Holland. Haskins, R. (2008). Education and economic mobility. In J. B. Isaacs, I. V. Sawhill, and R. Haskins (Eds.). Getting ahead or losing ground: Economic mobility in America. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2008/02/economic

- mobility

- sawhill. Kane, T. J. (1999). The price of admission: Rethinking how Americans pay for college . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1998). Educational aspirations of minority youth. American Journal of Education, 106(3), 349

- 384. Meara, E. R., Richards, S. O., & Cutler, D. M. (2008). The gap gets bigger: Changes in mortality and life expectancy, by education, 1981

- 2000. Health Affairs, 27(2), 350

- 360. Puma, M., S. Bell, R. Olsen, & C. Price (2009). Missing Data Issues in Randomized Control Trials: What to Do When Data Are Missing . Special Methodological Report prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, Washington, D.C. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20090049/ index.asp U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) Funding Status. Retrieved on January 8, 2013 from: http://www2.ed.go v/programs/gearup/funding.html U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics. (1997). Access to postsecondary education for the 1992 high school graduates [NCES 98

- 105]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, C ommon Core of Data (CCD). (2011 ) Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2010

– 11, Version 1a, Table 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Za ger, R., Kim, Y., Nam, Y., Clancy, M., & Sherraden, M. (2010). The SEED for Oklahoma Kids Experiment: Initial account opening and savings (CSD Research Brief 10

- 41). St. Louis, MO: Washington University, Center for Social Development.