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.