Part A: Supporting 

Statement for 

Paperwork Reduction 

Act Submission

Evaluation of the GEAR

UP College Savings 

Account Research 

Demonstration

Prepared for:

Marsha Silverberg

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Ave, NW

Room 502I

Washington, DC 20208-5500

Submitted by:

Abt Associates Inc.

55 Wheeler 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 Act 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 Information.........................................................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 Estimate 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 UP). 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 implemented 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 Demonstration

Section 404H 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 

provides 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 information 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 can, also provide scholarships to help participating students pay for college 

attendance. In 2012, GEAR UP state grantees served 403,818 students at a per-student cost of $347

and partnership grantees served 243,954 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 postsecondary education 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.1States that received GEAR UP grants in FY2011 or FY2012 and that will 

have cohorts of 9th graders in their participating high schools in either fall 2013 or fall 2014 are 

eligible for the College Savings Account Research Demonstration. (Below, high 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 must 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/articles/2012/06/01/2012-13232/proposed-priorities-gaining-earlyawareness-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 high 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 states selected to receive awards will depend on the number of schools and 

students served by each state GEAR UP program in the demonstration project. ED intends to select 

states, one after another, beginning with the highest-ranked proposal until there is a total across the 

selected states 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 9th 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 2013, 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 group and one-half to the 

control group.2In all participating schools, students will continue 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. 

Students 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 particular, the evaluation is designed to answer four main research questions: 

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? 

 

2 We plan to conduct blocked random assignment of schools, using state and one or more other blocking factors 

that are associated with the key student outcomes in this study. 

3 The current 5-year contract allows only for tracking students into the 11th 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—including college savings, financial education, and 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 these 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, Analytic Approach, and Outcomes of Interest

Research Question Data Sources Analytic 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) What 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) What types of services—

including college savings, 

financial education, and 

financial literacy education—

are typically provided to GEAR 

UP high school participants? 

 Project Director and 

Site Coordinator survey 

data

 Parent survey data

 Student survey data

 Descriptive 

analysis

 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 

administrative 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. It is 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) as 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. Haskins, 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 Education, 1997; Bozick & Deluca, 2010; Avery & Kane, 2004; Adelman, 2006).

Many 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 for 

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 tended 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 potential 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 identities” 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 results 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 

national 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. The current study will provide policy-relevant 

findings about strategies to improve college access for disadvantaged 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

There 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 student 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 Administrative Data.
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Promising Strategies in Federal College Access Programs

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-6

All information 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). 

Exhibit 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 9th grade student 

rosters that contain only 

directory information

Site 

Coordinators

Electronic 

data or Paper

Winter 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

Winter 2014, 

Summer 2014,

Winter 2015, 

Summer 2015,

Winter 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 Web

Spring 2014, 

Spring 2016

Student Survey Administer survey Students Telephone

and Web

Fall/Winter 2013,

Fall/Winter 2014, 

Fall/Winter 2015, 

Fall/Winter 2016

State and District 

Administrative 

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

The Abt study team will collect rosters of 9th graders in the fall of 2013 at the GEAR UP high schools 

participating in the demonstration. These students will constitute the full study sample for the 

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; 9th

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 study team will rely on the GEAR UP site 

coordinators that grantees are required to be assigned 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 9th grade GEAR UP participants in both treatment and control schools. Site 

coordinators will be asked to submit student rosters through a password protected secure file transfer 

portal (SFTP). 

Rosters must be collected in the beginning of the school year because the Federal Register notice

indicated 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, parent 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 students who are 

part of the experimental study. At the student-level, the treatment group consists of the 10,000 9th

grade GEAR UP participants in schools assigned to the intervention, and the control group consists of 

the 10,000 9th 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 data 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, Phase I – Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters 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) trainings for 

demonstration project directors and site coordinators. The trainings will be added sessions only for 

demonstration participants during the regular, semi-annual meetings (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.

Aggregate High School Level Data

Aggregate high school level data from the Common Core of Data (CCD) and the Federal Student Aid

(FSA) data 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 federal 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 records will be collected to obtain student-level data on student 

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

data on student outcomes in high school, including course-taking, school attendance, and credits 

earned in high school (Questions 1-4);

Administrative 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 missing 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

Administrative 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. 

Administrative data on the college savings accounts offered to treatment students will allow the Abt 

study team to 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 three 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 meetings (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 estimates 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 

access 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 

2016 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 

schools, 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 

the 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.

The 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-preparatory 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; participation in GEAR UP and other college access programs; and their financial decisions, 

including saving for college. The parent survey will provide the only source of data available on a key 

outcome—amount of family contribution to savings for college—for 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 relevant 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 burden. 

The study will use a combination of mechanical and electronic 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 and 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.

Additionally, 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 savings 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 include 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, to 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 project 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 site 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 Consequences 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 the 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 Justifying 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 Agency

A.8.1 Federal Registrar Announcement

A 60-day notice to solicit public 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 Agency

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 Payments 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 Assurance 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 section 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, reporting, 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 

identifiable 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 individual. 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 individual-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 confidentiality 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 identifiers 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 

by 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 

respondent 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 9th grade cohort in each school will 

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 Handbook, 2012-13 Edition, 

accessed online at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-social-service/school-and-careercounselors.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

Informant/Data Collection Activity #

of Resp

ondents

#

of Resp

onses

H

ours/ Resp

onse

T

otal Burden H

ours/

resp

ondent

T

otal Burden

H

ours

C

ost per Resp

ondent

(hourly

wage)

T

otal C

osts per

Resp

ondent

T

otal C

osts

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 be carried out in the first five years

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 Analysis, Publication and Schedule

A.16.1 Analysis 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 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? 

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 9th 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 across all schools at a 

given time (e.g., at the end of 9th grade, end of 11th 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 earned 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 multilevel 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 estimate 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 ith student in the jth school 

(centered at the grand mean, h );  is a vector of k variables 

measuring the demographic characteristics of the i

th student in the jth 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 student-level residual for the i

th student in the jth

school (the assumed distribution of the residuals is normal, with mean 0 and variance 



.

The Level-2, or school-level, equation is:

(2)  =

 +  + h + ∑ (hh12_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 schools (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; his indicates whether schools implement the demonstration with 

students in 9th grade in 2013 or with students in 9th grade in 2014; hh12_13is 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 vector of k regression 

coefficients indicating the effect of each baseline school covariate on the covariate-adjusted mean 

value of the outcome 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 test 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 high 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 regression 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 regression 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 

control 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 

increases 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 control, 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 fidelity 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 variation 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 participants? 

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 school 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 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 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 program 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)  =  +  +∑ (hh12_13



 − hh12 )+

∑  

 + ∑ 



  ∗  +

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 schools (i.e., the treatment impact); STATE *Trtjis 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.

Using 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 varies 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 Timeline 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 Working 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-Winter 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-Winter 2014

Collection of PD Attendance Sheets February and July 2015

Study Year 4

Collection of Savings Account Data Fall 2015

Collection of State and District Administrative Educational 

Records

Fall-Winter 2015

Convene Technical Working Group November/December 2015

Collection of PD Attendance Sheets February and July 2016

Release 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-Winter 2016

Study Year 6

Release of College Savings Report #2 January 2018

Submission of Data File with Documentation Winter 2018

Note: In the event that there are two cohorts of eligible schools (one group from FY2011 GEAR UP 

state grantees and another from FY2012 GEAR UP state grantees), the collection of rosters, state and 

district administrative educational records, savings account data, 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 when the students are in 9

th grade while the first survey 

administration for cohort 2 schools will occur in spring 2015 to also capture these students in the 9th

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 questions after one year of implementation. The second 

report will be available in early 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 Approval to 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 describing 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 Center. 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 educational 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 Monica, 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. Princeton, NJ: Mathematics Policy Research.

Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2011). The college payoff: Education, occupations, 

lifetime earnings. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, Washington, 

DC. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from http://cew.georgetown.edu/collegepayoff/.

Destin, 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 research 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 December 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.gov/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, Common Core of Data 

(CCD). (2011) Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2010–11, Version 1a, 

Table 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Zager, 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.