Running Head: THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
The Influence of Parent College Assets on College-going Behavior
Bradley Hemenway1
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Champaign, IL 61820
hemenwa2@illinois.edu
1
I would like to thank Jennifer Delaney for her continuous feedback throughout this research. In addition, I’d like
to offer my gratitude to William Trent and Joe Robinson-Cimpian for their insight. Lastly, I’d like to extend my
appreciation to Tyler Kearney, Patricia Yu, Lauren Dodge, and Sarah Zehr for their feedback on earlier drafts of this
paper. All viewpoints and errors are strictly those of the author.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
Abstract
The current study seeks to identify an enrollment influence of parental savings behavior
through a quantitative, quasi-experimental design of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002
dataset. Incorporating observations on current and intended college savings, by a student’s 10th
grade year, Propensity Score Matching is used to estimate an influence on postsecondary
enrollment. Results demonstrate that a statistically significant influence exists among the three
savings conditions of actively accumulating assets, saving through use of a financial account,
and currently saving with intent of altering future behaviors. Utilizing various forms of asset
accumulation increases the likelihood of enrollment by 3.4%, post-matching. When including
only financial savings methods, the likelihood estimate does not drastically change, 3.3%.
Intentions for developing additional accumulation behaviors after 10th grade increase the
probability marginally, 0.5%, above the previous actions. Despite the significant findings in
these groupings, no individual method is significant in predicting an increase in enrollment.
Keywords: higher education, finance, parental savings, parent college assets
2
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
3
The Influence of Parent College Assets on College-Going Behavior
Financing postsecondary attendance differs from other significant life purchases.
Unpredictable, yearly changes to tuition and fees create vagueness in the overall expected future
liability. Dissimilar to purchasing an automobile, for example, in higher education the seller is
much more selective on who they permit to purchase their service. The uncertainty of admission
incentivizes students to consider attendance at multiple institutions potentially at different price
points. Simultaneously, the current financial aid structure is opaque on eligibility until directly
before enrollment. The financial aid policies that do exist are often misunderstood by the groups
most in need, and inconsistent in application. Collectively, this environment makes the role of
saving for postsecondary attendance more vital.
Researchers have devoted significant attention to student sensitivity of tuition rates
(Heller, 1997; Leslie & Brinkman, 1980), and both merit and need-based financial aid awards
(Avery & Hoxby, 2004; Dynarski, 2003; Dynarski, 2000)2. Despite the prominent amount of
overall research on these monetary considerations, there exists an under examined field; the
presence of parents preparing for costs through savings. That their role in financially preparing
for postsecondary enrollment has not received a more direct focus demonstrates a discontinuity
in policy and research. From the late 1980’s, increasing federal and state savings programs have
been created in an attempt to persuade both parents and students toward fiscal responsibility, in
addition to the vast number of private alternatives advertised (Doyle, McLendon & Hearn, 2010;
2
The majority of this research focuses only on four-year institutions, despite evidence that financially-constrained
community college students are less likely to apply for FAFSA and may be more sensitive to tuition rates (ACSFA,
2008; Kane, 1999; St. John & Tuttle, 2004; Stokes & Somers, 2009)
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
4
Olivas, 2003).3 The growth of these policies coincides with a federal funding movement away
from grant aid, in favor of individual student responsibilities and lending (cite).
Conceptually, the act of savings can be thought of as a function of information on higher
education expenses, family structure or composition, and accumulation of family assets and
resources. The direction of causation on these is not easily generalizable. The anticipation of
out of pocket expenses for enrollment may increase the desire to contribute to savings (Hossler
& Vesper, 1993). The presence of savings designated for educational use may create incentives
in favor, or opposition, to obtaining higher levels of education for a student.
Conversely, the anticipation of postsecondary expenses could construct the belief of
inaccessibility, or “cost discouragement” (Heller, 1996; Perna, 2006). Research also shows that
accumulation of assets or family resources may have counterproductive impacts on the Expected
Family Contribution (EFC) equation (Baum, 1999; Clancy, Orszag & Sherraden, 2004;
Coronado & McIntosh, 2000). Increases to the EFC calculation reduce eligibility for other forms
of financial aid, forming disincentive to save.
In absence of a more complete understanding, further policy creation may inadvertently
be hindering college-going behavior by re-directing assets in a manner that diminishes
probability of enrollment. The uncertainty in the role savings drives the research questions for
this study.
1.) How much does active parent college assets acquired by 10th grade increase the
probability of college enrollment?
2.) What differences exist on college enrollment between parents who intend to develop
additional savings strategies after 10th grade?
3.) What specific types of parent college assets create greater probability of enrollment
into a postsecondary institution?
This includes more recent legislative discussions such as the ASPIRE Act to create “KIDS accounts” for every
newborn U.S. citizen with an initial government contribution (Elliott & Beverly, 2011).
3
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
5
Literature Review
Parent Finance Information. Social and cultural composition of communities and schools
contribute to how parents acquire and perceive financial aid information (De La Rosa, 2006,
Hossler & Vesper, 1993; Olsen & Rosenfeld, 1984; Tierney & Venegas, 2009). In the presence
of uncertainty, parents rely heavily on students to obtain further information but are then less
confident in its accuracy. This is likely the result of students relying on under-equipped teachers
and coaches to obtain answers (De La Rosa, 2006; Perna, 2005). This inefficiency is
exacerbated in low SES school districts that also suffer from a lack of resources (De La Rosa,
2006). The cumulative result is a high margin of error when estimating the expenses needed for
higher education (Gordsky & Jones, 2004; McDonough & Calderone, 2006). While the degree
of error appears related to capital inequalities, all income classes tend to overestimate the
expense of higher education (Gordsky & Jones, 2004; Perna, 2005).
In absence of the ability to deciphering information on expense and financial aid, efforts
to create access policies and programs, in actuality create further barriers through non-uniformity
(Gordsky & Jones, 2004; Olsen & Rosenfeld, 1984; Perna, 2005; Perna, 2006; Perna & Steele,
2011). Differences in application process, timeframe, and circumstances of eligibility do not
allow for a singular, generic understanding of the financial aid process. As a result, information
acquisition and accuracy alone is not sufficient in preventing financial fears (Flint, 1993; Heller,
2006; McDonough & Calderone, 2006; Olsen & Rosenfeld, 1984; Perna, 2005; Perna, 2006;
Tierney & Venegas, 2009).
Parent Savings Influences. Existing literature outlines that family composition and resources are
relevant factors in promoting postsecondary access, as well as creating financial provisions.
Family structure, such as race and ethnicity, number of siblings, and parents’ education level, are
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
6
significant predictors of parent college assets (Elliott, 2011; Elliot & Beverly, 2010; Hossler &
Vesper, 1993; Stage & Hossler, 1989). Expectedly, the number of additional children in the
household has a negative influence on savings levels, due to limits in available resources (Stage
& Hossler, 1989). Differences in savings behavior by gender are mixed (Hossler & Vesper,
1993; Stage & Hossler, 1989).
Parents with higher levels of income are more likely to devote resources towards savings
(Manly & Wells, 2009; Stage & Hossler, 1989). The authors conclude that parents may not be
willing to reduce spending habits to increase savings contributes, instead relying on acquisition
of additional resources. Beyond just saving, Manly and Wells (2009) determine that income
level is a predictor of the number of savings devices used, but not savings amounts.
Parent involvement in secondary schooling is another predictor of the number of savings
devices used, signaling the importance of educational expectations (Manly & Wells, 2009).
Expectations are considered a more definitive and feasible belief of postsecondary enrollment,
opposed to aspirations that demonstrate desire or hope (Elliott, 2011). Elliott and Beverly (2011)
determine that expectations for educational attainment lead to greater savings amounts, by both
children and parents.
Parent Savings Incentives. Literature on college savings often cites tax policy as a strong
stimulus, either in favor or against. Dynarski (2004) shows that use of state 529 college savings
plans and Coverdell educational savings rise with income. Olivas (2003) attributes the growth of
state 529 savings plans to the tax benefits provided by the federal government, but explains that
these benefits are more complicated than believed and may actually hurt participants overall.
Large-scale use may even trigger cuts in need-based spending within states, causing these
programs to unintentionally increase levels of inequality (cite). Clancy, Orszag, and Sherraden
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
7
(2004) that tax benefits may not be fully realized, as tax incentive for state run programs are
inconsistent across states.
The calculation of financial aid may inadvertently be diminishing the incentive to save
(Baum, 1999; Clancy, Orszag & Sherraden, 2004; Dynarski, 2004; Olivas, 2003).4 Baum (1999)
states that tax policy should be a deterrent toward savings and use of assets for higher education
purposes. Ma (2004) corroborates by discussing that the families using state savings plans may
not fully represent new savers, but rather a different savings vehicle. That these programs are
still utilized may be evidence of low levels of financial literacy among participants, or an
absence of other higher-yielding investment alternatives.
Parent Savings Outcomes. Limited research exists on whether parent college assets influences
enrollment; what does exist has mixed results. Hossler and Vesper (1993) find that the time
period in which a parent starts savings is influential on enrollment probability, with the critical
point occurring prior to 9th grade. The current study builds from this research by isolating
savings type, but at a year later, 10th grade.
Elliott and Beverly (2010) find that neither parent savings, nor family wealth, are a
significant influence on reducing wilt, but savings done the student is. The same authors do
establish that savings leads to a slightly higher probability of graduation, or progressing toward
graduation (Elliott & Beverly, 2011). Wilt occurs when a student who expects to attend higher
education delays enrollment. Elliott, Song and Nam (2013) assess the influence of small value
savings accounts and determine that they successfully reduce wilt, likely for psychological
4
It should be noted that most research on tax incentives for college savings identifies that results are based on policy
at time of publication. This may also demonstrate the issue of unpredictability, as tax legislation is rarely written to
extend to the foreseeable future. In addition to continuous speculation on how it may be altered, this could also
create altered incentives to save.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
8
reasons. The process of maintaining and using a small funds account can signal to students that
college is affordable and financial management and aid application is manageable.
Elliott (2011), using the 2002 Education Longitudinal Study dataset, asks a similar
research question to the current study. Using Logistic regression, Elliott (2011) considers
whether 6 of the savings options identified in the survey reduce wilt for students in different SES
groupings. He concludes that mutual funds provide the greatest influence.5
Elliott’s research design has limitations that are accounted for in this project. Using a
subset of the savings options creates results with limited generalizability. In addition, Elliott
(2011) limits the sample to students who enroll in a four-year institution. By accounting for all
the savings options, in varying combinations and singularly, a larger degree of postsecondary
financing strategies is considered here. The significance of this is evident by the number of
households that incorporate a multitude of savings and asset accumulation options in their parent
college asset portfolio. Also of importance is the difference in response variables. Allowing for
a wider variation of institution types, results are generalizable to a larger social contingent. The
increasing trend of enrollment in two-year institutions and vocational schools is evidence that
postsecondary access has multiple paths (cite). Elliott’s work lends itself more to financing a
four-year degree in higher education and creating choice, as opposed to asking whether college
savings promotes transition and access to postsecondary education.
Conceptual Framework
The literature describes parents’ role as a collector and interpreter of information, in
addition to a foundation for financial support. They assist their student in comprehending the
5
What Elliott (2011) defines as mutual funds is classified as Investment in the current research.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
9
magnitude of expenses in relation to potential returns.6 A theoretical framework that fits the
multitude of interactions described is the conceptual model of Perna (2006). An adaption of this
model is demonstrated in Figure 1.
Within the framework, individuals are not bound to a particular point of reference. In not
requiring ordinal movement, the framework lends itself for use with cross-sectional data, such as
the 2002 Education Longitudinal Study. The conceptual model is conducive to the current study
by incorporating the economic and sociological factors present in the college choice process, and
the role of parents in that process. Variables identified in the literature review fall within the
inner two layers to generate a strong connection between the framework, dataset, and current
research questions.
Omission of the outer two layers does not hinder the use of this framework. Changes in
the macro-environment shape the amount of information and resources available to parents and
students, but are not maniputable by individuals. Families are reactive to these changes. With a
cross-sectional study, the outer most, macro- layers are identical for all
6
This role is a description of the United States. Cultural norms and financing mechanisms differ in other societies.
As a result, the current study is only generalizable domestically.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
10
Layer 4: Social, Economic and Policy Context
Layer 3: Higher Education Context
Layer 2: School and Community Context
Covariates: Secondary School Type,
Geographic Region and Location
Layer 1: Habitus
Covariates: Gender, Race/Ethnicity,
No. of Siblings, Father’s Education,
and Mother’s Education
Demand for Higher Ed.
Covariates: Household Income
Figure 1. Adaptation of Perna’s Conceptual Framework
Expected Benefits vs. Costs
Covariates: Educational
Expectations
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
11
observations. Information available from public policy and advertising does not provide any
unique contribution to a single observation, while information from postsecondary institutions do
not equate to comprehension.
Data Description
The present study utilizes the pre-existing 2002 Education Longitudinal Study (NCES,
2002) dataset, hereafter ELS 02. The primary focus of this research revolves around parent
responses to a series of questions referencing savings specifically designated for postsecondary
use. Identification of the survey questions, with definitions and number of observations, is found
in Table 1.
The wording of the survey questions allows grouping into different categories for
subsequent analysis. The groupings created for this research represent Active asset accumulation
methods of developing household resources or utilizing financial mechanisms, prior to the BY
survey. Active Accounts is a subset of this category, made up of current savings methods that
would likely require financial accounts to maintain, such as a bank account or a liquid form of
investment. Intended methods are identified asset accumulation methods that imply they will be
started at a non-specified time period in the future, after the BY survey. Preparation is an
inclusive category that combines both current and future behaviors, requiring the presence of an
Active method and Intended method. A fourth category is consequently created that consists of
parents who did not identify any of the 12 stated strategies, hereafter Non-Intent.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
12
Table 1.
Parent College Asset Methods, Definitions, and Number of Observations
Variable
Active Methods
savings *
insurance *
bonds *
othersavings *
investment *
stateprogram *
collegefund *
remortgage
reduceexpense
addjob
Intended Methods
plannedreduce
plannedremortgage
Survey Question
Observations
th
Savings efforts for 10 graders education after high school?
Started a savings account
Bought an insurance policy
Bought U.S. savings bonds
Established another form of savings
Made investment in stocks/real estate
Participated in state-sponsored college savings program
Set up a college investment fund
4,070
1,919
2,012
1,618
2,937
658
1,945
Remortgaged property/took out home-equity loan
Reduced other expenses in some way
Started working another job/more hours
514
2,324
1,224
Planned to reduce other expenses in some way
Planned to remortgage property/take out home-equity loan
2,971
791
Note. Asterisk denotes being included in the Active Accounts category also.
It is important here to specify terminology used throughout the paper. Parent college
assets represents the entire portfolio of postsecondary fiscal arrangements, both savings-based
and asset accumulations. Parent college asset is a generic description of the total accumulation
of assets that parents have amassed designated for postsecondary use, and are not contingent on
any of the groupings identified. Specific strategies for parent college assets are will be identified
individually: Active, Active Accounts, or Preparation.
The dependent variable distinguishes whether the objective of the savings was achieved,
enrollment into a postsecondary institution. Enrollment is collected from the F2 student survey.
The measure for enrollment is not restricted to only four-year institutions, as other studies have
done. Enrollment is a binary response variable that indicates any postsecondary enrollment.
Enrollment can occur into either a public or private college, 2 or 4-year institutions, or a forprofit entity.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
13
Data Limitations
Not all observations recorded are usable within the current study. A usable observation
necessitates that the student complete high school and have the opportunity to enroll in a
postsecondary institution during the measured timeframe. Those who dropped out of high school
prior to receiving a diploma or were required to repeat a year between 10th and 12th grade must
be omitted from this study. The same is true for observations with missing data on
postsecondary enrollment. These students may eventually experience an enrollment effect from
savings, but this would not be found in the ELS 02 dataset. This limitation has an unknown bias
on the results.
To proceed with the quasi-experimental design, full measures for identified covariates are
necessary. For this reason, observations with missing values have been dropped from the
dataset. This may make the research outcomes less generalizable, but is a needed component to
assure comparison to similar individuals. Without dropping these observations the propensity
score created may not be fully capture the likelihood of savings, and misalign students. In total,
358 observations were drop for this reason.7
A limitation also exists by only including traditionally aged students. This makes any
conclusions or assessments from this study not generalizable to non-traditionally aged students.
This does not bias the current study. Individuals within this category are not captured in the ELS
02 data.
Methodology
Most studies that analyze a causal relationship between parent savings levels and student
enrollment behavior either omit various forms of savings from the analysis, or lump all
7
Missing information on multiple covariates was common among the observations dropped, usually due an
incomplete surveys.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
14
mechanisms together to address the overall effect of savings. While this contributes to the
understanding and policy creation for student financing, it does not adequately address whether
different forms of asset accumulation have differential influences. The three primary research
questions of this study seek to create more depth in understanding how different categories of
savings influence the likelihood of postsecondary enrollment.
To achieve this, Propensity Score Matching is used, PSM hereafter. The propensity
score, pscore, for each individual is an estimation of the probability of receiving the treatment
condition (either Active, Active Account, or Preparation for savings) based on the specified list
of covariates identified from the Literature Review.8 The benefits of PSM is addressed by
Dehejia and Wahba (2002) who assert it can create comparable results to natural experimental
design. This occurs when only the observations involved in the matching process are used
toward the parameter estimates, as they are here.
Restrictions and tests have been implemented to maintain balance within the region of
common support, and assure adequate matches. A caliper is used that represents one-quarter the
standard deviation of pscore estimates.9 Any matches with a difference outside this range are
omitted from the study. Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) have addressed comparisons based on
pscores as approximately equal to comparing students individually within the full vector of
covariates. The balancing process for covariates verifies that, after applying weights, the
proportion of students representing each treatment condition is approximately equal. Austin
8
The full list of covariates and coding is available upon request, but is included here for reviewer aid: Table A1.
The caliper values for restricting a match were 0.055175 for Active, 0.05508 for Active Account, and 0.04836 for
Preparation.
9
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
15
(2011) argues that calculating a standardized difference at each covariate is one method to verify
this for binary variables, which are present here.10
The current research questions and data being utilized make PSM a strong choice for
assessment. The number of total observations available increases the likelihood that adequate
matches will be found to estimate the counterfactual. One assumption that must hold for validity
in PSM is no influential characteristics that predict savings are left unidentified in the model.
The large number of socioeconomic, academic and environmental variables from the dataset
allow for the greatest chance that all relevant indicators can been accounted for.
For an unbiased estimator, PSM also requires the assumption of conditional
independence. Here, conditional independence requires a student with savings not alter the
outcome of a student without savings. This assumption is largely untestable. The argument to
be made for the current study is the type and starting point of savings for one student is very
unlikely to transfer benefits or alter the ability of another student to save. Theoretically, this is
supported by the literature on financial aid information, stating wide gaps exist between groups
and a consistent channel of information is often unavailable or unused. From a more practical
standpoint, feasibility for saving is dependent on individual family characteristics making it
unlikely that the circumstances of one family could directly alter that of another.
As a nationally representative sampling of high school students, the dataset represents the
Population of Interest for which inferences are made. The Population of the Study is relegated to
the overall sample from the dataset that falls within the region of common support for each
study. From this, the Population of Causal Inference can be considered the students from ELS
02 survey with either current parent college asset accumulation, or planned methods. These
10
The results of the Balance testing and kernel density plots are available upon request. They have been included in
this submission for reviewer aid (Tables A2-A4, and Figures A1-A6).
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
16
students represent the demographic from which inferences can be made, and the starting point
from which a larger, more generalizable, analysis can be debated.
Important to note is that the amount of money saved for each student is not included in
this analysis. This omission deserves further explanation. By, intentionally, excluding this
characteristic the research looks to the psychological influence that parent college assets have on
promoting postsecondary enrollment. Heller (1996) has previously identified this notion as “cost
discouragement”, the belief that perceiving higher education as unaffordable alters student
incentives.11 The amount saved is a consequence of employing parent college asset strategies.
By consciously not including this measure the study is not ignoring its influence, but rather
identifying a trend prior to its accumulation.
Methodology Limitation
Some literature refers to the groupings used in PSM as Treatment and Control. To fully
associate this as a treatment study, the researcher must believe that all differences are accounted
for between groups, including those that are unobservable such as motivation. The use of quasiexperimental design lessens the issue of identifying unobservable factors, but does not fully
negate them. For that reason the current study will refer to the two groups as the savings group
and comparison group.
Another limitation exists in the flexibility of the comparison group. With each of the
matching processes performing matches from within the given sample, different matches may
occur over each research question. By not requiring a single matching pair across the study, the
proximity of matches is maximized. The trade-off from this is that models from different
questions are not directly comparable..
11
An intended extension of this paper is a Dose-Response Function analysis to determine if amount saved influences
postsecondary enrollment, along with how it may influence institution type. Dose-Response Function is comparable
to Propensity Score Matching, only it does not require a single treatment condition.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
17
Descriptive Statistics
A large number of parents in the current study, 7,498 of the 10,655, 70%, indicate that
they have no active asset accumulations or future plans for savings.12 This despite the fact that
93%, 9,909 families have expectations of their student attending some form of postsecondary
institution, 78% of which expect completion of a Bachelors degree or higher. Students have
similar expectations for themselves and their future educational endeavors, 77% (8,225), have
expectations of earning a minimum of a four-year degree. In total, 8,298 sampled students
enrolled into a postsecondary institution immediately following high school accounting for
approximately 78% of students in the usable sample.13
Generally, higher reported incomes and parent education coincided with higher
percentage of families participating in parent college assets. There is no evidence that savings
occurs at greater rates for either male or female students. Regarding household size,
development of parent college assets appears to peak with up to one other sibling in the home. A
notable exception is households with six or more students, who demonstrate a spike in
participation. Students who attend catholic schools, or other private schools are more likely to
have parents that save for postsecondary expenses.
Asian households, and families reporting Two or More race/ethnicities are proportionally
most likely to accumulate parent college assets. White and African-American families are
behind these two groups, but both represent larger numbers, overall. Willingness or seeking
additional work and reducing or planning to reduce household expenses is most identified among
families earning $50,000 or less.
12
The 10,655 observations represents the usable sample size for the current research. This accounts for dropped
observations who did not graduate high school on time (2,158), parents who skipped the college savings portion of
the BY survey (2,997), and random observations with categorical missing data (358).
13
Tables containing savings activity, broken down by covariate are available upon request. They have been
submitted here for reviewer aid (Tables A5-A13).
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
18
The configurations of parent college asset portfolios for parents who have begun
preparing for postsecondary education expenses demonstrate minor differences. Other than
remortgaging property, maintaining a state program account is the least employed option. This
finding seems surprising given the literature on policy development of savings plans outlined
previously, but gives credibility to the argument that complications and mixed tax incentives
may be discouraging use (Clancy, Orszag, & Sherraden, 2004; Dynarski, 2004, Ma, 2004;
Olivas, 2003). Opening a traditional savings account is the most popular method included in
parent college asset use. While savings accounts likely have the smallest return on investment,
they have the benefit of being relatively easy to create. Reducing household expenses, current
and future, along with investing in real estate and stocks, are the next most frequently used
alternatives. This is evidence of the varying strategies and sacrifices present in saving for
postsecondary education. The risk/reward potential of investment is used at a rate 4 times statesponsored college programs, 2,937 and 658, respectively. At the same time, the immediate and
extended sacrifices of household spending are prevalent among savers.
Results
Propensity Score Matching is used here to identify a potential influence of the Average
Treatment effect on the Treated (ATT). Specifically whether having a specified grouping of
parent college assets influences the likelihood to enroll in any type of postsecondary institution.
To arrive at these estimations, the process of establishing baseline results, matched pairings, and
post-matching estimates were used systematically.
Model 1 provides the unmatched OLS regression of the savings method on the dependent
variable, Enrollment, to verify evidence of an influential trend from the savings condition on
enrollment. The binary response variable makes it appropriate to also include a baseline Logistic
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
19
Regression, Model 2. Agresti (2007) notes that Logistic Regression is more precise when using
a binary response variable, but linear regression is useful for interpreting probabilities and is
sufficiently accurate. Logistic regression results are presented as odds ratios that a “success”
(enrollment) occurs over a “failure” (non-enrollment), and to establish a non-linear estimate on
how probability for enrollment is influenced.
Model 3 provides the matched results from matching. The final four models are postmatching estimations to identify any differences in the influential estimate. Model 4 and 5
regress the savings condition and pscore estimates on the dependent variable. Including the
pscore variable will further reduce variance that may result from non-perfect matches. The last
two models incorporate all the matched covariates into the regression. Any explanatory power
not represented with the savings condition and pscore variable, will be accounted for here.
Significance in the model for these variables is not important; their only role is to give further
credibility to the savings condition coefficient by eliminating variance.14
After applying weights, balance is statistically achieved on all covariates with a few
exceptions.15 In the noted exceptions, the unbalance skews the population proportion by less
than 5%. There are different ways to deal with unbalance, most notably to drop these
observations or leave the population unbalanced. The purpose of assessing balance is to assure
that after applying weights, no population has become distorted. Balance does not impact
coefficient results. The relatively small amount of unbalance within the covariates, and the
importance of each in predicting parental savings, led to the conclusion of leaving them intact.
14
The covariates reintroduced into the post-match models should be insignificant if their influence has been fully
accounted for in the pscore.
15
Within the Active savings condition, “West” is overrepresented by 4%. In the Active Accounts condition,
Father’s Education at community college (overrepresented by 3%) and graduate school (underrepresented by 3%)
are unbalanced. Under represented in the Preparation condition are Hispanics (3%), individuals of two or more
race/ethnicities (1%), households with one other sibling (3%), and the expectation of attending a community college
by parents and student (1%).
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
20
To determine whether current parent college assets increase the probability of
postsecondary enrollment, two different savings conditions are tested. Active savings accounts
for all savings methods and activities identified as current during the BY survey. Active
Accounts, a subset of the Active category, theoretically requiring a financial account to maintain.
In this respect, Active Accounts is the truest form of actual savings.
Table 2 presents the matched results for the Active treatment condition. Approximately
31% of families employed some form of Active savings. These students were matched against
5,170 students who were Non-Intent. The baseline OLS model demonstrates significance of in
promoting enrollment by 20% when an Active method is present.
Table 2.
Active Parent College Assets
Unmatched
Matched
Model
1
2
Active
(Std. Err.)
OLS
0.204 ***
(0.011)
Logistic
3.56 ***
(0.253)
Cond. on pscore
No
Cond. on X
n. Savings:
No
2,310
No
Post-Match
Regressions
3
4
0.034 ***
(0.012)
OLS
0.036 ***
(0.010)
No
Yes
No
No
n. Comparison: 5,170
5
Logistic
1.41 ***
(0.127)
Yes
Post-Match
Regressions w/
covariates
6
7
OLS
Logistic
0.039 *** 1.52 ***
(0.009)
(0.148)
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Region of Common Support: 0.026, 0.926
Note. Matching occurs on all covariates. Standard Errors are presented in parentheses.
*** p-value < 0.001
Post-matched results show Active parent college assets are significant in increasing the
likelihood of a student immediately enrolling in a postsecondary institution by 3.4%, overall.
This result appears consist across the specified models, with post-match variation ranging from
3.6% to 3.9%. All three estimates are significant at the 99% confidence level. The Logistic
regression results from models 5 and 7 signify that a student with an Active savings plan has
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
21
increased odds of enrolling by 1.41 and 1.52 times the odds of a similar student with no Active
plan, both significant at the 99% confidence interval.
The limited change in the post-match regression models is a strong indicator of good
matches, and support the notion that an influential effect is present. The difference in the
baseline and post-match estimates demonstrate that a large amount of the explanatory power for
enrollment, also predicts whether a parent will save. In absence of any correlation between
enrollment and savings conditions, pre- and post-match models would have similar magnitudes.
The methods identified as Active participation do not all qualify as savings. Some are
more closely aligned with increasing household revenue, and resource reallocation. To gain a
more precise assessment of savings, narrowing the methods considered to include those that are
presumably most closely associated with financial activity is necessary. A summary of the
results from matching Active Account holders against Non-Intent is provided in Table 3.
Approximately 30% of observations maintained an Active Account designated for postsecondary
use, and had no plans to incorporate additional methods. Pre-matching, this
Table 3.
Active Accounts Parent College Assets
Unmatched
1
Model
Active Accounts
(Std. Err.)
2
OLS
0.212 ***
(0.012)
Cond. on pscore
No
Cond. on X
n. Savings:
No
1,699
Logistic
3.84 ***
(0.319)
No
Matched
3
Post-Match
Regressions
4
5
0.033 **
(0.014)
OLS
0.036 ***
(0.011)
Logistic
1.42 ***
(0.152)
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
n. Comparison: 5,024
Post-Match
Regressions w/
covariates
6
7
OLS
Logistic
0.038 *** 1.55 ***
(0.010)
(0.181)
Yes
No
No
Yes
Region of Common Support:
Note. Matching occurs on all covariates. Standard Errors are presented in parentheses.
*** p-value < 0.001, ** p-value < 0.05,
Yes
Yes
0.017, 0.909
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
22
significantly predicts a 21% increase in likelihood of enrollment. Post-match results demonstrate
that maintaining an Active Account, increases the likelihood of postsecondary enrollment
between 3.3% and 3.8%, overall. The Logistic regression results illustrate an increase in
likelihood between 1.42 and 1.55.
Matched results signal a statistically significant influence on enrollment, but again, much
smaller than the baseline estimates. Comparable to the Active savings condition, post-matching
estimates account for a small amount of additional variance. For both savings conditions,
coefficients increased by one-half of a percent. This change is not significantly different from
the matched result, so is not cause for concern on matches.
The second research question addresses whether plans to include future savings
mechanisms, with current parent college assets, significantly increase the probability to enroll in
a postsecondary institution? A large percentage of families, 70%, fit within this strategy,
representing 3,157 families total. Baseline models demonstrate the potential presence of a
significant predictor.
Results from the matching process show that Preparation increase the likelihood of
enrollment by approximately 3.9% overall. These findings are significant at the 99% confidence
interval. Interpretation of this result differs from the previous savings groupings. The presence
of a future intent to adjust savings behavior relaxes the 10th grade timeframe. This addresses the
notion that savings developed after the 10th grade may still create an influential effect on
students, counter to what previous literature speculates. In comparison to the Active and Active
Account post-match results, if present, any additional influence created is likely very marginal.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
23
Table 4.
Parent College Asset Preparation
Unmatched
1
Model
2
Matched
3
4
0.039 ***
(0.010)
OLS
0.039 ***
(0.008)
Preparation
(Std. Err.)
OLS
0.191 ***
(0.010)
Logistic
3.15 ***
(0.191)
Cond. on pscore
No
No
Cond. on X
n. Savings:
No
No
No
n. Comparison: 5,102
3,157
Post-Match
Regressions
No
Yes
5
Logistic
1.42 ***
(0.107)
Yes
Post-Match
Regressions w/
covariates
6
7
OLS
Logistic
0.038 *** 1.42 ***
(0.008)
(0.112)
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Region of Common Support: 0.041, 0.890
Note. Matching occurs on all covariates. Standard Errors are presented in parentheses.
*** p-value < 0.0001
That Active, Active Accounts and Preparation demonstrate relatively similar results is
reason to consider the actual savings programs and types, individually. The minimal magnitude
from the matched results, compared to baseline estimates, could be the result of a disincentive
present within any of the methods distorting any influence in other groups. Conceptually,
disincentive could be thought of as the reciprocal of the psychological factors discussed in Elliott
(2011). A student may believe that the financial actions being used for college assets are placing
a burden on their family and as a result they opt to not attend higher education so those resources
can be redirected. Equally important is considering whether any specific form of savings is
elevating the likelihood. This could potentially guide future policy in promoting a much more
specific form of parent college assets. The wide variety of savings mechanisms currently used
by parents is evidence of uncertainty in their individual returns. Currently, very little research
exists to address this question.
The final set of models treats each of the individual savings options as a savings
condition within a family’s parent college asset portfolio. Matches are then created based on
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
24
individuals who incorporated the particular savings method into their parent college asset
portfolio, against other savers who did not utilize that vehicle. For this research question
Non-Intent has been omitted. This set of models seeks to identify any significant strategies,
whether positive or negative. Table 5 presents the results of the 12 individual matching results.
Results of the 12 individual mechanisms show that only three have significant baseline
results, purchasing U.S. savings bonds, investing in real estate or stocks, and creating an account
within a college fund. Each of the three demonstrate a positive magnitude, significant with
greater than 99% confidence. Despite evidence of an influence, matched and post-matching
estimates are insignificant for all three methods. Any trend present in the baseline models, were
also explainable by the covariates matched on, leaving no explanatory power left to solely
explain postsecondary enrollment.
Establishing an account in a college fund is the variable identified by Elliott (2011) as the
most influential in promoting enrollment into a 4-year institution. Elliott (2011) interprets this as
likely establishing a mutual fund. Here, initial significance is present in baseline models, but
loses explanatory power in the matching process however. The differences from Elliott’s (2011)
results may be due to the wider consideration of enrollment, or methodological influence.
Table 5.
Matched results for individual mechanisms of Parent College Assets
Unmatched
Models
1
OLS
2
Logistic
Matched
3
Post-Match
Regression
4
OLS
5
Logistic
Post-Match
Regression w/
covariates
6
7
OLS
Logistic
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
Savings
Insurance
Bonds
Investment
Collegefund
Othersavings
Stateprogram
Addjob
Reduceexpense
Remortgage
Plannedreduce
Plannedremortgage
-0.013
(0.015)
-0.008
(0.013)
0.049 ***
(0.013)
0.080 ***
(0.012)
0.072 ***
(0.013)
0.002
(0.013)
-0.013
(0.018)
-0.012
(0.013)
0.001
(0.013)
0.017
(0.018)
-0.015
(0.025)
0.015
(0.014)
0.890
(0.116)
0.925
(0.100)
1.57 ***
(0.183)
2.0 ***
(0.218)
2.04 ***
(0.268)
1.01
(0.114)
0.893
(0.139)
0.902
(0.103)
1.01
(0.111)
1.17
(0.189)
0.875
(0.204)
1.15
(0.145)
-0.021
(0.018)
0.004
(0.018)
0.017
(0.016)
0.007
(0.013)
-0.007
(0.013)
0.017
(0.018)
-0.036
(0.026)
-0.013
(0.018)
0.010
(0.019)
0.013
(0.025)
-0.056
(0.016)
-0.007
(0.019)
25
-0.008
(0.015)
0.005
(0.015)
0.008
(0.014)
0.007
(0.014)
-0.002
(0.014)
0.013
(0.015)
-0.006
(0.020)
-0.006
(0.019)
0.003
(0.015)
-0.005
(0.019)
-0.004
(0.025)
-0.009
(0.015)
0.93
(0.137)
1.044
(0.132)
1.09
(0.150)
1.07
(0.145)
0.984
(0.155)
1.12
(0.145)
0.950
(0.165)
0.950
(0.124)
1.03
(0.134)
0.952
(0.168)
0.957
(0.248)
0.919
(0.133)
-0.007
(0.014)
0.002
(0.013)
0.014
(0.012)
0.008
(0.013)
-0.001
(0.013)
0.007
(0.013)
-0.010
(0.018)
-0.006
(0.014)
0.003
(0.013)
-0.005
(0.016)
0.002
(0.011)
-0.008
(0.013)
0.924
(0.152)
1.03
(0.138)
1.23
(0.192)
1.08
(0.161)
1.05
(0.178)
1.04
(.154)
0.916
(.187)
0.893
(0.132)
1.04
(0.154)
0.900
(0.185)
0.894
(0.233)
0.974
(0.157)
Note. Results are of the matching process for the individual savings mechanism, they do not represent a single
regression model. Matching for all mechanisms occurs on all covariates. Standard Errors are presented in
parentheses.
*** p-value < 0.0001
Conclusion and Policy Implication
The stated intent of this research is to add clarity to the research field that surrounds
parent college assets. The findings here validate that savings and asset accumulation, regardless
of type or intent, likely increases the probability of a student enrolling into a postsecondary
institution by nearly than 4%. This coincides with previous works that maintain parent college
assets create a psychological factor on the accessibility of higher education. It also supports
other research that considers early high school a critical point for beginning the savings process
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
26
to influence the likelihood of postsecondary enrollment. There still exists a larger story in these
findings however.
Each of the three savings groupings contains a unique characteristic. The difference
between Active and Active Accounts is the presence of family revenue generating activities and
savings behavior, versus strictly financial savings. The difference between these with respect to
Preparation is the potential time period utilized. Individually they each coincide with Hossler
and Vesper’s (1993) study that some form of financial planning by early secondary schooling
promotes enrollment. A comparable magnitude for all 3 groupings could indicate that beyond
10th grade very little increase to the probability of enrollment is gained by implementing new
savings options.
An accurate, unbiased, assessment to the gains of student enrollment in the presence of
parental savings mechanisms holds great significance to potential policy implications. Most
external mechanisms associated with postsecondary funding are unavailable until the final stages
of enrollment, well after the decision to attend has been made. To this extent, savings is the only
method of fiscally responsible foresight available to potential consumers of higher education.
State policy programs, investment funds, and the like, are advertised as promoting financial
accessibility to higher education. This is particularly enticing during times of unpredictable
tuition growth and financial aid availability. To this point, Deming and Dynarski (2009) note
that spending on 529 plans and Coverdells are now nearing the level of federal investment on
Pell Grants. Despite their popularity, the results here do not unearth any individual significance
in promoting postsecondary enrollment. Instead, the findings support the idea that significance
is created from the process of savings, not specific strategies.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
27
The policy implications of these results should be read cautiously, however. The
insignificance in any individual savings mechanism strongly suggests that no silver bullet exists.
In the current political environment, emphasis on college expenses has moved away from the
public good notion of social financing, toward the private returns belief that requires individual
sacrifice. With the myriad of different programs and funding options obtaining and maintaining
accurate information is a near impossibility. It is little wonder information has become a cultural
social and cultural issue. With greater clarity on the merits of possessing some form of parent
college asset, ideally future policy will push for greater consumer accountability upfront.
Future Directions
The findings of this study may be diminished by the presence of student loans. If loans
are being used to replace, or even augment savings, the magnitude of creating an enrollment
influence will be minimized. This does not imply that future consequences are equal among the
two. Recent issues with student loan debt have illustrated that excessive debt, particularly when
unemployment issues are present, may be hindering individual standard of living and potential
economic growth (Burdman, 2005). A subsequent assessment of how parent college assets
promote, or deter, student loan use is warranted.
As demonstrated by parent expectations, accessing higher education is not the overall
academic objective. If cost is a substantial barrier to higher education choice, savings may play a
role in providing access to different institution types. The same justification may be present in
savings providing financial accessibility to enroll at institutions with greater selectivity. A
comparable study evaluating whether parents may have the ability to influence student college
choice in this regard could prove valuable in future policy direction.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
28
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
29
References
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2008). Apply to succeed: Ensuring
community college students benefit from need-based financial aid. Washington, DC:
Author.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2010). The rising price of inequality:
How inadequate grant aid limits college access and persistence. Washington, DC: Author.
Andrews, R., DesJardins, S., & Ranchhod, V. (2010). The effects of the Kalamazoo Promise on
college choice. Economics of Education Review, 29, pp. 722-737.
Austin, P. (2011). An introduction to Propensity Score methods for reducing the effects of
confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavior Research, 46(3), pp. 399424.
Avery, C. & Hoxby, C. (2004). Do and should financial aid packages affect students’ college
choice? In C. M. Hoxby (Ed.) College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go
and how to pay for it (pp. 239-302). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baum, S. (1999). Need analysis: How we decide who gets what. In J. King (Ed.) Financing a
college education: How it works, How its changing (pp. 48-63). Westport, CT: Oryx
Press
Bell, A., Rowan-Kenyon, H. & Perna, L. (2009). College knowledge of 9th and 11th grade
students: Variation by school and state context. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6),
pp. 663-685.
Braxton, J., Vesper, N. & Hossler, D. (1995). Expectations for college and student persistence.
Research in Higher Education, 36(5), pp. 595-611.
Burdman, P. (2005). The Student debt dilemma: Debt aversion as a barrier to college access.
Berkeley, CA: Project on Student Debt, The Institute for College Access and Success
Cabrera, A. & La Nasa, S. (2000). Understanding the college choice process. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 107, pp. 5-22.
Chapman, D. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education, pp.
490-505.
Clancy, M., Orszag, P., & Sherraden, M. (2004). College savings plans: A platform for inclusive
saving policy? St. Louis, MO: Washington University in St. Louis, Center for Social
Development.
Coronado, J. & McIntosh, S. (2000, January). Qualified tuition savings programs: The impact on
household saving. In Proceedings. Annual Conference on Taxation and Minutes of the
Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association (pp. 99-106). National Tax Association.
Dehejia, R. & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental
causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), pp. 151-161.
De La Rosa, M. (2006). Is opportunity knocking? Low-income students’ perceptions of college
and financial aid. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), pp.1670-1686.
DesJardins, S., Ahlburg, D. and McCall, B. (2006). An integrated model of application,
admissions, enrollment and financial aid. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), pp. 381-429.
Doyle, W., McLendon, M., and Hearn, J. (2009) The adoption of prepaid tuition and
savings plans in the American states: An event history analysis. Research in Higher
Education,
Dynarski, S. (2000). Hope for whom? Financial aid for the middle class and its impact on college
attendance. National Tax Journal, (53)3, pp. 629-661.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
30
Dynarski, S. (2003). Does aid matter? Measuring the effect of student aid on college attendance
and completion. American Economic Review, 93(1), pp. 279-288.
Dynarski, S. (2004). Who benefits from the education saving incentives? Income, educational
expectations, and the value of the 529 and Coverdell (No. w10470). National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Elliot, W. & Beverly, S. (2010). The role of savings and wealth in reducing “wilt” between
expectations and college attendance. (CSD Working Paper 10-04). St. Louis, MO:
Washington University of St. Louis, Center for Social Development.
Elliott, W. (2011). When effort and ability are not enough to reduce the college enrollment
gap, Does college savings help? (CSD Working Paper 11-31). St. Louis, MO:
Washington University in St. Louis, Center for Social Development.
Elliott, W. & Beverly, S. (2011). Staying the course: The effects of savings and assets on the
college progress of young adults. American Journal of Education, 117(3), pp. 343-374.
Elliot, W., Song, H. & Nam, I. (2013). Small-dollar accounts, children’s college outcomes, and
wilt. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, pp. 535-547.
Flint, T. (1993). Early awareness of college financial aid: Does it expand choice? The Review of
Higher Education, 16(3), pp. 309-327.
Grodsky, E. & Jones, M. (2004). Real and imagined barriers to college entry: Perceptions of
cost. American Education Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Grubb, N. & Lazerson, (2005). Vocationalism in higher education: The triumphs of
Journal of Higher Education, 76(1), 1-25.
Hamilton, L. (2013). More is more or more is less? Parental financial investments during college.
American Sociological Review, 78, pp. 70-95
Heller, D. (1997). Student price response in higher education: An update to Leslie and
Brinkman. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), pp. 624-659.
Heller, D. (2006). Early commitment of financial aid eligibility. American Behavior Scientist, 49
(12), pp. 1719-1739.
Hossler, D. & Gallagher, K. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and
the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62(3), pp. 207-221.
Hossler, D. & Stage, F. (1992). Family and high school experience influences on the
postsecondary educational plans of Ninth-grade students. American Educational
Research Journal, 29(2), pp. 425-451.
Hossler, D. & Vesper, N. (1993). An exploratory study of the factors associated with parental
saving for postsecondary education. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), pp. 140165.
Internal Revenue Service. (2013). American opportunity tax credit. Retrieved from
http://www.irs.gov/uac/American-Opportunity-Tax-Credit
Kane, T. (1999). The price of admission: Rethinking how Americans pay for college.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Kelderman, E. (2013, Jan. 10). Lumina foundation adopts new tactics to reach collegecompletion goal. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.chronicle.com
Leslie, L. L., & Brinkman, P. T. (1987). Student price response in higher education: The
student demand studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(2), 181-204.
Long, B. (2007). Financial aid and older workers: Supporting the nontraditional student. In
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
31
Strategies for Improving Economic Mobility of Workers Conference, Chicago, November
(pp. 15-16).
Ma, J. (2004). Education savings incentives and household saving. Evidence from the 2000
TIAA-CREF survey of participant finances. In C. Hoxby (ed.) College choices: The
economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 169-206). University of
Chicago Press.
Mangan, K. (2013, July 14). How Gates shapes state higher education policy. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com
Mangan, K. (2013, Nov. 20). Obama puts $100-million behind quest to improve tech training.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com
Manly, C. & Wells, R. (2009). Financial planning for college: What parents do to prepare. NERA
Conference Proceedings 2009.
Manski, C. & Wise, D. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
McDonough, P. & Calderone, S. (2006). The meaning of money: Perceptual differences between
college counselors and low-income families about college costs and financial aid.
American Behavior Scientist, 49(12), pp. 1703-1718.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The education longitudinal study of 2002. [Data
file and code book]. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/edat.
Olivas, M. (2003). “State college savings and prepaid tuition plans: A reappraisal and review”
Journal of law and education, 32, pp. 475-514.
Olson, L. & Rosenfeld, R. (1984). Parents and the process of gaining access to student financial
aid. The Journal of Higher Education, 55(4), pp. 450-480.
Paulsen, M. & St. John, E. (2002). Social class and college costs. The Journal of Higher
Education, 73(2), pp. 189-236.
Perna, L. & Steele, P. (2011). The role of context in understanding the contributions of financial
aid to college opportunity. Teachers College Record, 113(5), pp. 895-933.
Perna, L. (2005). A gap in the literature: The influence of the design, operations, and marketing
of student aid programs on college-going plans and behaviors. Journal of Student
Financial Aid, 35(1), pp. 7-15.
Perna, L. (2006). Understanding the relationship between information about college prices and
financial aid and students’ college-related behaviors. American Behavioral Scientist,
49(12), pp. 1620-1635.
Perna, L. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In J. C.
Smart (Ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, XXI, pp. 99-157.
Rosenbaum, P. & Rubin, D. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational
studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), pp. 41-55.
Rowan-Kenyon, H., Bell, A. & Perna, L. (2008). Contextual influences on parental involvement
in college going: Variations by social class. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), pp.
564 586.
Stage, F. & Hossler, D. (1989). Differences in family influence on college attendance plans for
male and female ninth graders. Research in Higher Education, 30(3), pp. 301-315.
St. John, E., Musoba, G., & Simmons, A. (2003). Keeping the promise: The impact of Indiana’s
Twenty-first Century Scholars program. The Review of Higher Education, 27(21), pp.
103-123.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
32
St. John, E., Paulsen, M. & Starkey, J. (1996). The nexus between college choice and
persistence. Research in Higher Education, 37(2), pp. 175-220.
St. John, E. & Tuttle, T. (2004). Financial aid and postsecondary opportunity for nontraditional
age, pre-college students: The roles of information and the education delivery systems.
Boston: The Education Resources Institute
Stokes, T. & Somers, P. (2009). Who enrolls in two-year colleges? A national study of price
response. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 39(1), pp. 4-118.
Tierney, W. & Venegas, K. (2009). Finding money on the table: Information, financial aid, and
access to college. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), pp. 363-388.
Winston, G. (1997). Why can’t a college be more like a firm? Change, 29(5), pp. 32-39.
Wood, P. (2012, Feb. 7). Obama’s Higher-Education agenda. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
Appendix
33
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
34
Table A1.
Variable Coding and Observation Numbers
Variable coding
Treatment:
savings
insurance
bonds
investment
collegefund
addjob
othersavings
reduceexpense
remortgage
stateprogram
plannedreduce
plannedremortgage
Dependent:
enrollment
Gender, Race, and Ethnicity:
male
female *
race_white *
race_black
race_hispanic
race_hispanic_no
race_asian
race_amind
race_two
No. of Siblings:
siblings_0 *
siblings_1
siblingsl_2
siblings_3
siblings_4
siblings_5
siblings_6
siblings_7plus
Secondary School Type:
public *
catholic
private
ELS 02 coding
N
BYP83A== 1
BYP83B== 1
BYP83C== 1
BYP83D== 1
BYP83E== 1
BYP83F== 1
BYP83G== 1
BYP83H== 1
BYP83J== 1
BYP83M== 1
BYP83I== 1
BYP83K== 1
4,070
1,919
2,012
2,937
1,945
1,224
1,618
2,324
514
685
791
791
F2EVRATT== 1
8,298
BYSEX== 1
BYSEX== 0
BYRACE== 7
BYRACE== 3
BYRACE== 5
BYRACE== 4
BYRACE== 2
BYRACE== 1
BYRACE== 6
5,104
5,551
6,516
1,228
793
694
846
81
497
BYSIBHOM== 0
BYSIBHOM== 1
BYSIBHOM== 2
BYSIBHOM== 3
BYSIBHOM== 4
BYSIBHOM== 5
BYSIBHOM== 6
BYSIBHOM== 7
2,100
4,205
2,757
1,000
356
122
51
64
BYSCTRL== 1
BYSCTRL== 2
BYSCTRL== 3
8,151
1,012
1,492
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
35
Table A1 cont.
Variable Coding and Observation Numbers
Variable coding
Household Income:
income_0k *
income_1k
income_5k
income_10k
income_15k
income_20k
income_25k
income_35k
income_50k
income_75k
income_100k
income_200k
income_200kplus
Educational Expectations:
No postsecondary expect. *
student_high_higher
student_comm
student_comm_higher
student_bach
student_bach_lower
student_bach_higher
student_gradschool
student_gradschool_lower
Geographic Region and Location
suburban *
urban
rural
northeast *
midwest
south
west
ELS 02 coding
N
BYINCOME== 1
BYINCOME== 2
BYINCOME== 3
BYINCOME== 4
BYINCOME== 5
BYINCOME== 6
BYINCOME== 7
BYINCOME== 8
BYINCOME== 9
BYINCOME== 10
BYINCOME== 11
BYINCOME== 12
BYINCOME== 13
42
94
169
212
409
475
602
1,190
1,927
2,265
1,519
1,319
432
BYSTEXP== 2 &
BYP81== 3-7
BYSTEXP== 3
&BYP81== 3
BYSTEXP== 3 &
BYP81== 4-7
BYSTEXP== 4,5
& BYP81== 4,5
BYSTEXP== 4,5
& BYP81== 3
BYSTEXP== 4,5
& BYP81== 6,7
BYSTEXP== 6,7
& BYP81== 6,7
BYSTESXP== 6,7
& BYP81== 3-5
BYURBAN== 2
BYURBAN== 1
BYURBAN== 3
BYREGION== 1
BYREGION== 2
BYREGION== 3
BYREGION== 4
364
239
211
2,476
666
989
0
2,108
5,184
3,433
2,038
1,897
2,772
3,927
2,059
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
36
Table A1 cont.
Variable Coding and Observation Numbers
Variable coding
Mother's Education Level
mother_hs *
mother_comm
mother_degree
mother_grad
Father's Education Level
father_hs *
father_comm
father_degree
father_grad
ELS 02 coding
N
BYMOTHED== 1,2
BYMOTHED== 3,4
BYMOTHED== 5,6
BYMOTHED== 7,8
2,687
2,541
3,271
1,058
BYFATHED== 1,2
BYFATHED== 3,4
BYFATHED== 5,6
BYFATHED== 7,8
2,826
1,934
3,022
1,682
Note. * denotes the reference category for the binary variables. These are not
included in the list of covariates matched on.
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
37
Table A2
Covariate Balancing for Active Savings Category
Unmatched
Covariate
male
race_black
race_hispanic
race_hispanic_norace
race_asian
race_amind
race_two
siblings_1
siblings_2
siblings_3
siblings_4
siblings_5
siblings_6
siblings_7plus
income_1k
income_5k
income_10k
income_15k
income_20k
income_25k
income_35k
income_50k
income_75k
income_100k
income_200k
income_200kplus
student_high_higher
student_comm
student_comm_higher
student_bach
student_bach_lower
student_bach_higher
student_grad_lower
Treatment
0.47815
0.12795
0.09390
0.08465
0.07067
0.00886
0.04626
0.36555
0.26614
0.10532
0.04272
0.01378
0.00669
0.00807
0.01417
0.02421
0.03327
0.05256
0.06398
0.08189
0.14685
0.21535
0.19902
0.09783
0.05374
0.01181
0.04350
0.02559
0.02283
0.22618
0.09055
0.08366
0.18209
Control
0.47706
0.07532
0.04372
0.03247
0.06883
0.00390
0.04329
0.43810
0.24459
0.07836
0.01948
0.00693
0.00390
0.00390
0.00390
0.00649
0.00823
0.01039
0.01602
0.02597
0.06667
0.12814
0.20996
0.18355
0.23074
0.10736
0.02251
0.01991
0.01861
0.26364
0.03377
0.09091
0.22121
Matched
Treatment
0.45443
0.08656
0.03454
0.03371
0.07366
0.00416
0.03329
0.45277
0.23596
0.07740
0.02206
0.00707
0.00499
0.00250
0.00541
0.00416
0.00999
0.00791
0.01165
0.02538
0.06991
0.14648
0.20391
0.17811
0.22930
0.10570
0.01914
0.01873
0.01332
0.28256
0.03704
0.08073
0.22222
Control
0.47706
0.07532
0.04372
0.03247
0.06883
0.00390
0.04329
0.43810
0.24459
0.07836
0.01948
0.00693
0.00390
0.00390
0.00390
0.00649
0.00823
0.01039
0.01602
0.02597
0.06667
0.12814
0.20996
0.18355
0.23074
0.10736
0.02251
0.01991
0.01861
0.26364
0.03377
0.09091
0.22121
Avg. Std.
Difference
in match
-0.04529
0.03579
-0.03432
0.00494
0.01890
0.00312
-0.04806
0.03017
-0.01970
-0.00322
0.01395
0.00138
0.01443
-0.01707
0.01455
-0.01726
0.01122
-0.01283
-0.02033
-0.00241
0.00999
0.04719
-0.01504
-0.01659
-0.00479
-0.00851
-0.01788
-0.00778
-0.03651
0.04448
0.01265
-0.03631
0.00256
p-value
0.120
0.158
0.104
0.812
0.520
0.886
0.073
0.311
0.488
0.903
0.536
0.951
0.572
0.394
0.446
0.271
0.525
0.370
0.199
0.898
0.659
0.068
0.609
0.628
0.907
0.854
0.418
0.767
0.146
0.145
0.544
0.212
0.934
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
38
Table A2 cont.
Covariate Balancing for Active Savings Category
Unmatched
Covariate
urban
rural
catholic
private
midwest
south
west
mother_comm
mother_degree
mother_grad
father_comm
father_degree
father_grad
Treatment
0.30787
0.21339
0.09803
0.06732
0.25512
0.36280
0.19724
0.24547
0.23484
0.05079
0.19094
0.22165
0.09055
Control
0.33377
0.17100
0.18052
0.15152
0.27619
0.36797
0.19134
0.21948
0.39351
0.16450
0.14978
0.35887
0.25411
Matched
Treatment
0.34082
0.16313
0.18685
0.15314
0.26592
0.34623
0.23512
0.21556
0.38036
0.15314
0.15439
0.35331
0.23928
Control
0.33377
0.17100
0.18052
0.15152
0.27619
0.36797
0.19134
0.21948
0.39351
0.16450
0.14978
0.35887
0.25411
Avg. Std.
Difference
in match
0.01518
-0.01968
0.01935
0.00563
-0.02337
-0.04515
0.11040
-0.00921
-0.02954
-0.04118
0.01205
-0.01275
-0.04356
p-value
0.609
0.469
0.575
0.877
0.428
0.120
0.000
0.745
0.354
0.286
0.660
0.690
0.238
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
Figure A1. Pre-Match Kernel Density Distribution of Active and Non-Intent
Figure A2. Post-Match Kernel Density Distribution of Active and Non-Intent
39
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
40
Table A3
Covariate Balancing for Active Accounts Savings Category
Unmatched
Covariate
male
race_black
race_hispanic
race_hispanic_norace
race_asian
race_amind
race_two
siblings_1
siblings_2
siblings_3
siblings_4
siblings_5
siblings_6
siblings_7plus
income_1k
income_5k
income_10k
income_15k
income_20k
income_25k
income_35k
income_50k
income_75k
income_100k
income_200k
income_200kplus
student_high_higher
student_comm
student_comm_higher
student_bach
student_bach_lower
student_bach_higher
student_grad_lower
Treatment
0.47890
0.12500
0.09395
0.08300
0.07126
0.00876
0.04678
0.36783
0.26732
0.10350
0.04021
0.01354
0.00677
0.00776
0.01433
0.02329
0.03284
0.05036
0.05932
0.08240
0.14809
0.21775
0.20123
0.09893
0.05434
0.01194
0.04399
0.02588
0.02309
0.22711
0.08877
0.08439
0.18412
Control
0.49088
0.06769
0.04709
0.03178
0.06710
0.00412
0.04179
0.44791
0.24897
0.06828
0.01471
0.00589
0.00353
0.00294
0.00353
0.00530
0.00765
0.00883
0.01118
0.02531
0.06298
0.12478
0.19894
0.18423
0.23896
0.12596
0.02354
0.02119
0.01766
0.26192
0.03178
0.09300
0.23190
Matched
Treatment
0.46905
0.07155
0.04373
0.02385
0.06417
0.00341
0.04827
0.47871
0.23339
0.07212
0.01817
0.00568
0.00284
0.00227
0.00284
0.00398
0.00625
0.00738
0.01363
0.02555
0.06985
0.13629
0.18512
0.18796
0.22885
0.12947
0.02385
0.01988
0.01193
0.27428
0.02783
0.08688
0.22147
Control
0.49088
0.06769
0.04709
0.03178
0.06710
0.00412
0.04179
0.44791
0.24897
0.06828
0.01471
0.00589
0.00353
0.00294
0.00353
0.00530
0.00765
0.00883
0.01118
0.02531
0.06298
0.12478
0.19894
0.18423
0.23896
0.12596
0.02354
0.02119
0.01766
0.26192
0.03178
0.09300
0.23190
Avg. Std.
Difference
in match
-0.04368
0.01236
-0.01228
-0.03120
-0.01147
-0.00822
0.03108
0.06335
-0.03540
0.01315
0.01917
-0.00194
-0.00900
-0.00833
-0.00647
-0.00976
-0.00877
-0.00742
0.01159
0.00098
0.02078
0.02923
-0.03450
0.01155
-0.03483
0.01836
0.00159
-0.00847
-0.03933
0.02912
-0.01515
-0.02174
-0.02631
p-value
0.199
0.656
0.635
0.156
0.728
0.732
0.359
0.069
0.284
0.659
0.425
0.936
0.718
0.698
0.718
0.567
0.619
0.635
0.516
0.964
0.418
0.316
0.302
0.778
0.482
0.757
0.953
0.785
0.162
0.412
0.494
0.530
0.464
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
41
Table A3 cont.
Covariate Balancing for Active Accounts Savings Category
Unmatched
Covariate
urban
rural
catholic
private
midwest
south
west
mother_comm
mother_degree
mother_grad
father_comm
father_degree
father_grad
Treatment
0.30772
0.21318
0.09893
0.06768
0.25617
0.36326
0.19686
0.24721
0.23706
0.05135
0.19148
0.22373
0.09136
Control
0.32666
0.16657
0.17599
0.16068
0.26604
0.38081
0.19129
0.21836
0.39906
0.16716
0.14303
0.36610
0.25898
Matched
Treatment
0.33333
0.15105
0.17433
0.16014
0.26689
0.37308
0.18512
0.20670
0.38501
0.18171
0.17320
0.37308
0.22430
Control
0.32666
0.16657
0.17599
0.16068
0.26604
0.38081
0.19129
0.21836
0.39906
0.16716
0.14303
0.36610
0.25898
Avg. Std.
Difference
in match
0.01439
-0.03874
-0.00514
-0.00192
0.00195
-0.01603
-0.01555
-0.02732
-0.03175
0.05440
0.07877
0.01609
-0.10427
p-value
0.677
0.212
0.898
0.965
0.955
0.639
0.643
0.402
0.398
0.260
0.015
0.671
0.017
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
Figure A3. Pre-Match Kernel Density Distribution of Active Accounts and Non-Intent
Figure A4. Post-Match Kernel Density Distribution of Active Accounts and Non-Intent
42
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
43
Table A4
Covariate Balancing for Preparation Savings Category
Unmatched
Covariate
male
race_black
race_hispanic
race_hispanic_norace
race_asian
race_amind
race_two
siblings_1
siblings_2
siblings_3
siblings_4
siblings_5
siblings_6
siblings_7plus
income_1k
income_5k
income_10k
income_15k
income_20k
income_25k
income_35k
income_50k
income_75k
income_100k
income_200k
income_200kplus
student_high_higher
student_comm
student_comm_higher
student_bach
student_bach_lower
student_bach_higher
student_grad_lower
Table A4 cont.
Treatment
0.47785
0.12819
0.09604
0.08859
0.07036
0.00960
0.04626
0.36358
0.26637
0.10780
0.04371
0.01509
0.00647
0.00764
0.01372
0.02470
0.02587
0.05998
0.06664
0.08232
0.14700
0.21403
0.19796
0.09741
0.05351
0.01176
0.04430
0.02548
0.02274
0.22521
0.09212
0.08271
0.18111
Control
0.48274
0.12163
0.05923
0.04815
0.10231
0.00729
0.04973
0.41780
0.25879
0.08141
0.02344
0.00792
0.00253
0.00412
0.00380
0.00855
0.00570
0.02281
0.02851
0.03611
0.08933
0.16883
0.24295
0.18910
0.16250
0.03928
0.02724
0.01996
0.01615
0.22616
0.03263
0.11118
0.21128
Matched
Treatment
0.49694
0.12883
0.04774
0.04070
0.10679
0.00887
0.03703
0.44553
0.25490
0.08078
0.02203
0.01255
0.00306
0.00367
0.00459
0.01010
0.00612
0.02081
0.02509
0.03611
0.09241
0.17564
0.22950
0.20808
0.14994
0.03917
0.03029
0.02876
0.01714
0.21450
0.03672
0.10955
0.21787
Control
0.48274
0.12163
0.05923
0.04815
0.10231
0.00729
0.04973
0.41780
0.25879
0.08141
0.02344
0.00792
0.00253
0.00412
0.00380
0.00855
0.00570
0.02281
0.02851
0.03611
0.08933
0.16883
0.24295
0.18910
0.16250
0.03928
0.02724
0.01996
0.01615
0.22616
0.03263
0.11118
0.21128
Avg. Std.
Difference
in match
0.02843
0.02169
-0.04200
-0.02869
0.01630
0.01709
-0.05967
0.05709
-0.00884
-0.00210
-0.00757
0.04191
0.00748
-0.00564
0.00797
0.01148
0.00314
-0.00960
-0.01543
-0.00001
0.00937
0.01716
-0.03278
0.05646
-0.04350
-0.00075
0.01602
0.05831
0.00697
-0.02789
0.01621
-0.00562
0.01673
p-value
0.255
0.384
0.040
0.147
0.558
0.478
0.012
0.025
0.721
0.927
0.705
0.066
0.690
0.774
0.625
0.520
0.827
0.583
0.396
1.000
0.667
0.470
0.204
0.057
0.166
0.982
0.465
0.022
0.759
0.260
0.370
0.835
0.520
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
44
Covariate Balancing for Preparation Savings Category
Unmatched
Covariate
urban
rural
catholic
private
midwest
south
west
mother_comm
mother_degree
mother_grad
father_comm
father_degree
father_grad
Treatment
0.30851
0.21188
0.09761
0.06684
0.25343
0.36260
0.19835
0.24363
0.23324
0.05057
0.19110
0.22070
0.08977
Control
0.33513
0.17137
0.18150
0.09978
0.26101
0.37694
0.18625
0.24707
0.36902
0.13272
0.19195
0.33671
0.19987
Matched
Treatment
0.31916
0.18513
0.17625
0.10649
0.25337
0.37821
0.18543
0.23990
0.36903
0.12118
0.19523
0.32497
0.20226
Control
0.33513
0.17137
0.18150
0.09978
0.26101
0.37694
0.18625
0.24707
0.36902
0.13272
0.19195
0.33671
0.19987
Avg. Std.
Difference
in match
-0.03429
0.03468
-0.01573
0.02485
-0.01750
0.00264
-0.00207
-0.01667
0.00003
-0.04254
0.00832
-0.02682
0.00716
p-value
0.173
0.150
0.583
0.377
0.484
0.916
0.933
0.503
0.999
0.165
0.740
0.317
0.811
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
Figure A5. Pre-Match Kernel Density Distribution of Preparation and Non-Intent
Figure A6. Post-Match Kernel Density Distribution of Preparation and Non-Intent
45
Running Head: THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
plannedremort.
plannedreduce
reduceexpense
370
168
102
118
75
159
27
74
146
270
339
58
18.7
0.390
8.5
0.279
5.2
0.221
6.0
0.237
3.8
0.192
8.1
0.273
1.4
0.116
3.8
0.190
7.4
0.262
13.7
0.344
17.1
0.377
3.0
0.169
n.
935
476
401
486
304
369
109
146
343
614
781
178
%
30.5
15.6
13.1
15.9
10.0
12.1
3.6
4.8
11.3
20.1
25.5
5.9
s.d.
0.460
0.363
0.338
0.366
0.300
0.327
0.186
0.213
0.316
0.401
0.436
0.235
n.
927
417
510
645
392
371
141
146
295
574
715
205
%
s.d.
41.8
0.493
19.0
0.393
23.1
0.422
29.3
0.455
17.8
0.383
17.0
0.376
6.4
0.245
6.6
0.249
13.4
0.341
26.1
0.439
32.5
0.468
9.4
0.292
addjob
investment
stateprogram
bonds
Reported Income
between $50,001
and $75,000
remortgage
insurance
Reported Income
between $25,001
and $50,000
othersavings
savings
n.
%
s.d.
Category
Reported Income
between $0 and
$25,000
collegefund
Table A5.
Parent College Assets Participation by Income Level
Reported Income
between $75,001
and $100,000
n.
777
391
459
638
412
280
104
105
209
412
550
163
%
s.d.
52.0
0.500
26.6
0.442
31.1
0.463
43.1
0.496
27.8
0.448
19.1
0.393
7.1
0.256
7.1
0.258
14.2
0.349
27.8
0.448
37.2
0.484
11.2
0.316
Reported Income
between $100,001
and greater
n.
1,061
467
540
1,050
762
439
133
187
231
454
586
187
%
s.d.
62.3
0.485
4070
27.6
0.447
1919
32.0
0.467
2012
61.9
0.486
2937
44.4
0.497
1945
26.0
0.439
1618
7.9
0.269
514
11.1
0.314
658
13.7
0.343
1224
260.8
0.443
2324
340.8
0.476
2957
11.1
0.314
783
N
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
47
savings
insurance
bonds
investment
collegefund
othersavings
remortgage
stateprogram
addjob
reduceexpense
plannedreduce
Plannedremort.
Table A6
Parent College Asset Participation by Race and Ethnicity
n.
2,664
1,198
1,475
2,129
1,414
1,016
324
394
751
1,393
1,795
478
%
s.d.
41.7
0.493
18.9
0.392
23.2
0.422
33.5
0.472
22.2
0.416
16.1
0.368
5.1
0.220
6.2
0.241
11.9
0.323
21.9
0.414
28.3
0.450
7.6
0.265
n.
457
272
181
223
154
174
42
84
142
308
379
84
%
37.7
22.6
16.5
18.5
12.9
14.6
3.5
7.0
11.8
25.5
31.3
7.0
s.d.
0.485
0.419
0.358
0.389
0.335
0.353
0.184
0.255
0.322
0.436
0.464
0.256
Category
White
African-American
Hispanic
Hispanic, No Race
Asian
American Indian
Two or More Identified
N
n.
213
93
67
138
77
97
29
31
61
124
175
54
%
s.d.
27.2
0.445
11.9
0.324
8.6
0.281
17.7
0.382
9.9
0.299
12.5
0.330
3.7
0.189
4.0
0.195
7.8
0.269
15.9
0.366
22.3
0.416
6.9
0.254
n.
159
79
49
87
45
90
28
29
67
115
141
43
%
s.d.
23.2
0.422
11.6
0.320
7.2
0.258
12.8
0.334
6.6
0.249
13.2
0.339
4.1
0.199
4.3
0.203
9.9
0.299
16.9
0.375
20.7
0.405
6.4
0.244
n.
368
169
130
228
164
169
69
75
136
266
312
87
%
s.d.
n.
%
s.d.
44.4
0.497
26
32.1
0.470
20.6
0.405
14
17.7
0.384
15.9
0.366
10
12.7
0.335
27.8
0.448
10
12.5
0.333
19.9
0.399
4
5.0
0.219
20.8
0.406
13
16.3
0.371
8.5
0.279
2
2.5
0.158
9.2
0.289
4
5.0
0.219
16.6
0.373
8
10.1
0.304
32.4
0.468
16
20.3
0.404
38.1
0.486
22
27.2
0.448
10.7
0.310
4
5.0
0.219
n.
%
s.d.
183
37.4
0.484
4070
94
19.5
0.397
1919
100
20.7
0.405
2012
122
25.2
0.435
2937
87
17.9
0.384
1945
59
12.3
0.329
1618
20
4.2
0.200
514
41
8.5
0.279
658
59
12.2
0.328
1224
102
21.2
0.409
2324
147
30.4
0.460
2957
41
8.6
0.280
783
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
48
savings
insurance
bonds
investment
collegefund
othersavings
remortgage
stateprogram
addjob
reduceexpense
plannedreduce
plannedremort
Table A7.
Parent College Asset Participation by Number of Siblings within the Home
n.
850
400
388
590
382
332
103
117
224
483
618
141
No Siblings
%
s.d.
n.
41.2
0.492
1,736
19.5
0.396
820
18.9
0.392
891
28.8
0.453
1,303
18.6
0.389
875
16.3
0.370
699
5.1
0.219
205
5.7
0.232
274
11.0
0.312
503
23.6
0.425
906
30.2
0.459
1,223
7.0
0.255
350
One Sibling
%
s.d.
n.
42.1
0.494
1,016
20.1
0.401
478
21.8
0.412
538
31.9
0.466
737
21.4
0.410
504
17.2
0.377
374
5.0
0.218
136
6.7
0.250
171
12.3
0.329
314
22.1
0.415
613
29.9
0.458
769
8.6
0.280
205
Two Siblings
%
s.d.
n.
37.5
0.484
333
17.8
0.382
144
20.0
0.400
140
27.4
0.446
222
18.7
0.390
131
14.0
0.347
140
5.1
0.220
47
6.4
0.244
62
11.7
0.321
121
22.8
0.419
210
28.5
0.452
244
7.7
0.266
68
Three Siblings
%
s.d.
n.
33.8
0.473
79
14.8
0.355
42
14.3
0.350
37
22.5
0.418
48
13.3
0.340
29
14.3
0.351
42
4.8
0.214
11
6.4
0.244
19
12.4
0.329
38
21.4
0.410
65
24.9
0.433
72
7.0
0.255
18
Four Siblings
%
s.d.
n.
%
s.d.
n.
%
s.d.
n.
%
s.d.
22.6
0.419
31
25.6
0.438
13
26.5
0.446
12
18.8
0.393
4070
12.1
0.326
18
14.8
0.356
8
16.7
0.377
9
14.1
0.350
1919
10.6
0.309
9
7.4
0.263
3
6.0
0.240
6
9.4
0.294
2012
13.8
0.345
22
18.2
0.387
9
18.0
0.388
6
9.4
0.294
2937
8.3
0.277
14
11.6
0.321
4
8.0
0.274
6
9.4
0.294
1945
12.1
0.326
12
10.0
0.300
6
11.8
0.325
13
20.3
0.406
1618
3.2
0.175
5
4.1
0.200
2
4.0
0.198
5
7.8
0.270
514
5.4
0.227
10
8.3
0.276
0
0
0
50
7.8
0.270
658
10.8
0.311
10
8.3
0.276
6
12.0
0.328
8
12.5
0.333
1224
18.6
0.389
24
19.7
0.399
9
18.4
0.391
14
21.9
0.417
2324
20.5
0.404
24
19.7
0.399
8
16.3
0.373
13
20.3
0.406
2957
5.2
0.221
5
4.1
0.200
1
2.0
0.143
3
4.8
0.215
783
Category
Five Siblings
Six Siblings
Seven or More
Siblings
N
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
49
Student has H.S.
expectations, but
Parents have higher
Students and Parents
both have 2-yr
degree expectations
Student has 2-yr
degree expectations,
but Parent has higher
Student and Parent
have 4-yr degree
expectations
Student has 4-yr
degree expectations,
but parent has lower
Student has 4-yr
degree expectations,
but Parent has higher
Student and Parent
have graduate degree
expectations
Student has graduate
degree expectations,
but Parent has lower
N
plannedremort
plannedreduce
reduceexpense
addjob
stateprogram
remortgage
othersavings
collegefund
investment
bonds
Category
insurance
savings
Table A8.
Parent College Asset Participation by Education Expectations
n.
101
49
43
50
25
42
14
18
24
59
83
17
%
s.d.
27.9
0.449
13.6
0.343
12.0
0.325
13.9
0.346
6.9
0.255
11.7
0.322
3.9
0.193
5.0
0.218
6.7
0.250
16.4
0.371
22.9
0.421
4.7
0.212
n.
78
40
46
48
23
29
13
5
20
44
56
13
%
s.d.
n.
32.9
0.471
70
17.2
0.378
31
19.5
0.397
27
20.3
0.403
41
9.9
0.299
26
12.4
0.330
31
5.5
0.229
8
2.1
0.145
12
8.6
0.281
17
18.7
0.391
43
23.9
0.428
47
5.6
0.230
11
%
s.d.
n.
34.0
0.475
976
15.1
0.359
445
13.0
0.338
493
20.0
0.401
712
12.7
0.334
454
15.3
0.361
364
3.9
0.195
121
5.9
0.236
157
8.3
0.276
275
21.2
0.410
537
23.2
0.423
669
5.5
0.227
183
%
s.d.
n.
40.1
0.490
136
18.4
0.388
64
20.4
0.403
59
29.5
0.456
77
18.8
0.391
38
15.1
0.358
52
5.0
0.218
16
6.5
0.246
14
11.4
0.318
42
22.2
0.416
71
27.7
0.447
98
7.6
0.265
23
%
s.d.
n.
%
s.d.
n.
%
s.d.
n.
%
s.d.
20.5
0.404
427
44.1
0.497
0
0
0
844
40.9
0.492
4070
9.8
0.297
211
22.1
0.415
0
0
0
386
18.9
0.392
1919
9.0
0.287
201
20.9
0.407
0
0
0
444
21.7
0.412
2012
11.7
0.322
297
30.9
0.462
0
0
0
634
31.0
0.462
2937
5.8
0.234
209
21.8
0.413
0
0
0
415
20.2
0.402
1945
8.0
0.271
196
20.4
0.403
0
0
0
303
14.9
0.356
1618
2.5
0.155
60
6.3
0.243
0
0
0
100
4.9
0.216
514
2.1
0.145
79
8.2
0.275
0
0
0
144
7.1
0.256
658
6.4
0.245
147
15.3
0.360
0
0
0
243
11.9
0.324
1224
10.9
0.311
275
28.6
0.452
0
0
0
462
22.6
0.418
2324
14.9
0.357
333
34.6
0.476
0
0
0
625
30.5
0.461
2957
3.5
0.185
87
9.2
0.289
0
0
0
168
8.3
0.276
783
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
50
stateprogram
addjob
plannedreduce
plannedremort
93
125
246
473
596
149
3.5
0.185
4.8
0.213
9.4
0.291
17.9
0.384
22.6
0.418
5.7
0.232
n.
950
459
523
629
394
365
128
150
294
554
728
198
Associates Degree
%
38.0
18.6
21.2
25.4
15.9
14.8
5.2
6.1
11.9
22.4
29.3
8.0
s.d.
0.485
0.389
0.408
0.436
0.366
0.355
0.222
0.239
0.324
0.417
0.455
0.272
n.
1,540
705
799
1,221
842
614
182
239
451
849
1,097
286
Bachelor’s Degree
%
s.d.
48.3
0.500
22.3
0.416
25.2
0.434
38.5
0.487
26.4
0.441
19.5
0.396
5.8
0.233
7.5
0.264
14.2
0.349
26.7
0.443
34.6
0.476
9.1
0.287
n.
608
279
334
549
411
232
85
106
160
313
390
115
Graduate Degree
%
s.d.
58.5
0.493
4070
27.2
0.4445
1919
32.6
0.169
2012
53.3
0.499
2937
39.9
0.490
1945
22.8
0.420
1618
8.3
0.276
514
10.3
0.304
658
15.6
0.363
1224
30.5
0.461
2324
38.1
0.486
2957
11.4
0.318
783
N
remortgage
311
11.9
0.323
othersavings
263
10.0
0.300
collegefund
473
17.9
0.383
investment
322
12.2
0.327
bonds
380
14.4
0.351
insurance
784
29.6
0.456
savings
n.
%
s.d.
Category
Up to a High School
Diploma
reduceexpense
Table A9.
Parent College Asset Participation by Mother’s Education Level
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
51
stateprogram
addjob
plannedreduce
plannedremort
259
329
98
102
255
489
619
160
9.4
0.500
11.9
0.435
3.7
0.360
3.7
0.188
9.2
0.289
17.7
0.381
22.3
0.416
5.8
0.233
n.
711
340
369
477
286
288
91
115
239
421
577
154
Associates Degree
%
37.4
18.1
19.5
25.2
15.1
15.3
4.8
6.1
12.7
22.3
30.4
8.2
s.d.
0.484
0.384
0.396
0.378
0.208
0.483
0.388
0.239
0.333
0.416
0.460
0.275
n.
1,411
667
742
1,109
746
541
176
233
414
788
992
280
Bachelor’s Degree
Graduate Degree
N
remortgage
collegefund
481
17.3
0.248
othersavings
investment
411
14.8
0.355
bonds
421
15.2
0.359
insurance
829
29.7
0.457
savings
n.
%
s.d.
Category
Up to a High School
Diploma
reduceexpense
Table A10.
Parent College Asset Participation by Father’s Education Level
%
47.7
22.8
25.2
37.8
25.3
18.5
6.0
7.9
14.1
26.7
33.8
9.6
s.d.
0.500
0.419
0.434
0.434
0.291
0.272
0.420
0.270
0.348
0.443
0.473
0.295
n.
905
388
436
793
601
366
122
165
248
475
592
153
%
s.d.
55.3
0.497
4070
24.0
0.427
1919
27.1
0.445
2012
49.0
0.485
2937
36.9
0.359
1945
22.8
0.324
1618
7.6
0.150
514
10.2
0.303
658
15.3
0.360
1224
29.3
0.455
2324
36.6
0.482
2957
9.5
0.294
783
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
52
savings
insurance
bonds
investment
collegefund
othersavings
remortgage
stateprogram
addjob
reduceexpense
plannedreduce
plannedremort
Table A11.
Parent College Asset Participation by Geographic Location
n.
1,352
672
607
991
701
542
180
246
423
814
993
267
%
s.d.
40.2
0.490
20.2
0.401
18.2
0.386
29.7
0.457
20.9
0.407
16.3
0.370
5.4
0.226
7.4
0.261
12.7
0.333
24.4
0.429
29.8
0.457
8.1
0.272
n.
2,020
914
1,041
1,471
973
814
246
322
589
1,128
1,463
406
%
39.7
18.1
20.6
29.1
19.2
16.2
4.9
6.4
11.2
22.3
28.9
8.1
s.d.
0.489
0.385
0.404
0.454
0.394
0.368
0.215
0.244
0.321
0.416
0.453
0.272
Category
Urban location
Suburban location
Rural location
Midwest
South
West
Northeast
N
n.
698
333
364
475
271
262
88
90
212
382
515
118
%
s.d.
34.7
0.476
16.7
0.373
18.2
0.386
23.8
0.426
13.6
0.343
13.2
0.338
4.4
0.206
4.5
0.208
10.6
0.308
19.1
0.393
25.8
0.437
5.9
0.236
n.
1,075
536
587
835
550
405
147
167
355
615
778
200
%
s.d.
39.3
0.488
19.8
0.399
21.6
0.412
30.7
0.461
20.2
0.402
15.0
0.357
5.4
0.227
6.2
0.240
13.1
0.338
22.6
0.418
28.7
0.452
7.4
0.262
n.
1,512
760
689
1,079
676
620
168
294
401
869
1,126
276
%
s.d.
n.
%
s.d.
39.3
0.488
783
38.8
0.487
19.9
0.399
333
16.6
0.372
18.0
0.384
316
15.8
0.364
28.2
0.450
534
26.5
0.442
17.7
0.381
352
17.5
0.380
16.3
0.369
304
15.2
0.359
4.4
0.205
97
4.9
0.215
7.7
0.266
100
5.0
0.218
10.5
0.306
217
10.9
0.311
22.7
0.419
448
22.3
0.416
29.4
0.455
549
27.4
0.446
7.3
0.260
159
8.0
0.271
n.
%
s.d.
700
37.6
0.484
4070
290
15.8
0.364
1919
420
22.7
0.419
2012
489
26.5
0.442
2937
367
19.8
0.399
1945
289
15.7
0.364
1618
102
5.6
0.229
514
97
5.3
0.224
658
251
13.6
0.342
1224
392
21.2
0.409
2324
518
28.1
0.449
2957
156
8.5
0.279
783
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
53
bonds
investment
collegefund
othersavings
remortgage
stateprogram
addjob
reduceexpense
1,963
906
998
1,432
950
798
244
321
587
1,100
1,435
361
Male
%
s.d.
39.2
0.488
18.3
0.387
20.1
0.401
28.8
0.453
19.1
0.393
16.1
0.368
4.9
0.216
6.5
0.246
11.8
0.323
22.1
0.415
28.8
0.453
7.3
0.260
n.
2,107
1,013
1,014
1,505
995
820
270
337
637
1,224
1,536
430
Female
%
38.6
18.7
18.7
27.7
18.3
15.2
5.0
6.2
11.8
22.6
28.3
8.0
s.d.
0.487
0.390
0.390
0.448
0.387
0.359
0.218
0.242
0.322
0.418
0.451
0.271
Public School
District
Catholic Schooling
Private, NonCatholic Schooling
N
plannedremort
insurance
n.
Category
plannedreduce
savings
Table A12.
Parent College Asset Participation by Gender and Secondary School Type
n.
2,865
1,396
1,398
1,884
1,197
1,137
359
477
871
1,656
2,153
543
%
s.d.
35.7
0.479
17.5
0.380
17.5
0.380
23.6
0.425
15.0
0.357
14.3
0.351
4.5
0.208
6.0
0.237
10.9
0.312
20.8
0.406
27.0
0.444
6.9
0.252
n.
729
325
413
603
444
282
105
122
223
434
526
164
%
s.d.
50.0
0.500
22.6
0.418
28.6
0.452
42.0
0.494
30.7
0.461
19.6
0.397
7.3
0.260
8.4
0.278
15.5
0.362
29.9
0.458
36.4
0.481
11.4
0.318
n.
476
198
201
450
304
199
50
59
130
234
292
84
%
s.d.
48.3
0.550
4070
20.3
0.402
1919
20.6
0.405
2012
45.6
0.498
2937
30.7
0.462
1945
20.5
0.404
1618
5.1
0.221
514
6.1
0.238
658
13.3
0.340
1224
24.0
0.427
2324
29.9
0.458
2957
8.7
0.282
783
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENT COLLEGE ASSETS
54
othersavings
stateprogram
addjob
reduceexpense
plannedreduce
0.381
0.143
0.048
0.286
0.143
0.000
0.333
0.238
0.429
0.146
0.012
$1,001 and $5,000
0.738
0.439
0.119
0.143
0.167
0.341
0.071
0.190
0.143
0.500
0.170
0.039
remortgage
collegefund
0.810
investment
bonds
Less than $1,000
Income Levels
savings
insurance
Plannedremort.
Table A13.
Parent College Asset utilization by Active participants
$5,001 and $10,000
0.833
0.457
0.194
0.139
0.273
0.438
0.000
0.206
0.294
0.417
0.120
0.013
$10,001 and $15,000
0.656
0.304
0.211
0.256
0.111
0.409
0.045
0.126
0.326
0.611
0.185
0.024
$15,001 and $20,000
0.748
0.298
0.167
0.223
0.109
0.358
0.051
0.157
0.382
0.648
0.207
0.033
$20,001 and $25,000
0.762
0.358
0.261
0.329
0.170
0.281
0.080
0.128
0.278
0.497
0.204
0.040
$25,001 and $35,000
0.768
0.405
0.300
0.318
0.251
0.340
0.107
0.124
0.304
0.524
0.264
0.063
$35,001 and $50,000
0.762
0.388
0.349
0.448
0.255
0.294
0.082
0.119
0.276
0.500
0.310
0.069
$50,001 and $75,000
0.766
0.353
0.427
0.542
0.331
0.316
0.119
0.123
0.249
0.482
0.403
0.116
$75,001 and $100,000
0.781
0.402
0.470
0.650
0.419
0.290
0.107
0.108
0.214
0.420
0.504
0.151
$100,001 and $200,000
0.772
0.345
0.415
0.739
0.523
0.315
0.110
0.148
0.191
0.363
0.603
0.189
Greater than $200,000
0.780
0.341
0.350
0.856
0.629
0.348
0.065
0.111
0.111
0.252
0.614
0.220
White
0.761
0.348
0.426
0.615
0.407
0.297
0.094
0.114
0.218
0.402
0.375
0.100
African-American
0.834
0.506
0.337
0.414
0.289
0.328
0.078
0.155
0.263
0.568
0.359
0.081
Hispanic
0.761
0.337
0.244
0.498
0.282
0.353
0.105
0.111
0.222
0.448
0.256
0.079
Hispanic, No Race
0.723
0.366
0.225
0.405
0.211
0.419
0.130
0.138
0.316
0.540
0.233
0.070
Asian
0.788
0.369
0.286
0.498
0.354
0.373
0.152
0.165
0.298
0.577
0.455
0.130
American Ind.
0.813
0.467
0.333
0.323
0.129
0.419
0.067
0.129
0.267
0.533
0.306
0.056
Two or more
0.732
0.390
0.410
0.500
0.355
0.246
0.083
0.169
0.243
0.423
658
1224
2324
0.370
2957
0.103
783
Race and Ethnicity
N
4070
1919
2012
2937
1945
1618
514
Note. Separations in Income Levels signify how overall participation was reported in Table 2.