Program Profile: Bottom Line

This is a college counseling program that promotes 4-year college enrollment and completion for low-income, first-generation students. The program is rated Promising. Participants in each of two cohorts had a statistically significant greater likelihood of enrolling in a 4-year college or any college, compared with the control group. In one cohort, participants were also enrolled in more total semesters and more likely to be continuously enrolled in college, compared with control students.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Population

The Bottom Line program seeks to promote 4-year college enrollment and completion for low-income, first-generation students. This college advising model pairs high school students with advisors who support them in pursuing a college degree from their senior year of high school for up to 6 years throughout college. To participate, students must have a GPA of at least 2.5, have a family income below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, and be the first in their family to go to college. Students are encouraged to attend a group of target colleges. These colleges are selected based on their popularity among Bottom Line graduates, their proximity to the Bottom Line offices and other target colleges, and the colleges’ need for college retention services.

Program Components

Bottom Line is promoted in local high schools and other community agencies. Students meet with college access advisors in their offices, beginning in the summer before senior year, for 1-hour meetings every 3–4 weeks. Meetings start with students sharing their experiences, background, and aspirations. Advisors then guide the students by providing mentorship and individualized services for getting into college. This support may include building a potential list of colleges to apply to, writing application essays, applying for financial aid, troubleshooting problems that arise, making fully informed decisions about affordability, and choosing a college to attend.

Students who attend certain target colleges designated by Bottom Line are invited to enroll in the Bottom Line Success Program and continue through college graduation. In this program, advisors help youth navigate the process of starting college (for example, attending orientation, setting up a tuition payment plan), continue to meet with first-year students four times per semester, and meet two times per semester with older students. During these meetings, advisors help students with course selection; social support for adjusting to the college environment; and advice on how to balance school, family, and other social commitments.

Key Personnel

Advisors are employed full time; have a bachelor’s degree, at a minimum; and serve caseloads of approximately 40 to 60 students each. They serve about 85 college students across two to three universities.

Study

Barr and Castleman (2017a) examined the effects of the Bottom Line program through a two-cohort randomized controlled trial in three cities: Boston, Mass. (treatment n = 510; control n = 118), New York, N.Y. (treatment n = 350; control n = 262), and Worcester, Mass. (treatment n = 135; control n = 54). In the first of the two cohorts (Cohort 1), eligibility criteria to participate included having a GPA of at least 2.5, having a family income below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, and being the first in their family to go to college. High school students (n = 1,429) who applied and met eligibility requirements were randomized through a lottery to receive either an offer to participate in Bottom Line services or no services. Students who were randomized into the treatment group met with college access advisors at Bottom Line’s local offices every 3–4 weeks throughout their senior year.

The study authors did not provide specific information on the Bottom Line treatment group’s baseline characteristics. Rather, they reported results from models in which they had regressed student-level baseline characteristics on the treatment indicator and site-by-cohort fixed effects, in addition to the means of the control group. In the Cohort 1 control group, 70.3 percent of youth were female, and 78.8 percent were U.S. citizens. In regard to race, 33.4 percent were Hispanic, 29.5 percent were Black, 25.1 percent were Asian, and 9.2 percent identified as other race. The students’ average GPA was 3.3. In terms of family background, parents had an adjusted gross income of $21,424; 64.0 percent had a mother who was employed, and 68.3 percent had a father who was employed. Eighty-two percent were first-generation students, and 18.9 percent reported participating in other college access programs. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups on baseline characteristics, except for the following: 1) treatment group youth were less likely to be U.S. citizens, and 2) treatment group youth were less likely to have fathers who were employed.

Enrollment data were collected through the National Student Clearinghouse each semester for 2 years (for a total of four semesters, or through students’ second year of college). Variables were created to indicate enrollment in a 4-year college, enrollment in a 2-year college, and enrollment in any college. Variables were also calculated to indicate whether the student was continuously enrolled (all four semesters) and the total number of semesters in which they were enrolled (ranging from 0 to 4). Findings were assessed using regression analyses that controlled for each of the reported demographic variables and site-by-cohort fixed effects, to account for the fact that the proportion of youth assigned to the treatment versus the control group varied by site and cohort.

Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine separate treatment effects for female, Black, and Hispanic youth; those who reported not participating in any other programs focused on college enrollment at study baseline; those with low GPAs; and those from low-income households.

Study

Barr and Castleman (2017b) used the same randomized control design to study the impact of the Bottom Line program on students in Cohort 2 (n = 993). In Cohort 2, participants were also from Boston (treatment n = 350; control n = 75), New York (treatment n = 232; control n = 188), and Worcester (treatment n = 110; control n = 38); however, data were collected only through students’ first year of college (for a total of two semesters). National Student Clearinghouse data were used to assess enrollment in a 4-year college, enrollment in a 2-year college, and enrollment in any college.

The study authors did not provide specific information on the Bottom Line treatment group’s baseline characteristics. Rather, they reported results from models in which they had regressed student-level baseline characteristics on the treatment indicator and site-by-cohort fixed effects, in addition to the means of the control group. In the Cohort 2 control group, 68.8 percent were female, and 78.5 percent were U.S. citizens. In terms of race, 31.2 percent were Black, 31.2 percent were Hispanic, 23.9 percent were Asian, and 9.6 percent reported other race. The students’ average GPA was 3.3. In terms of family background, parents had an adjusted gross income of $24,112; 64.2 percent had a mother who was employed, and 70.5 percent had a father who was employed. Almost 80.0 percent were first-generation college students, and 41.5 reported participating in other programs. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups on baseline characteristics,

Findings were assessed using regression analyses that controlled for each of the reported demographic variables, and site-by-cohort fixed effects, to account for the fact that the proportion of youth assigned to the treatment versus the control group varied by site and cohort. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Through students’ initial applications, Bottom Line collects data on their race, gender, whether they are the first in their family to go to college, whether they are working with any another college access organizations, their GPA and SAT/ACT scores, family income, and whether they have any siblings who have participated in Bottom Line. The program also collects counselor interaction data, which detail interactions between students and their advisors. These data include discussion topics, assistance provided to the students, and comments from the counselors about the interactions. A survey is administered in the spring of senior year to ask students where they applied to college and whether they have been accepted, whether and when they applied for financial aid, whether they had assistance reviewing their financial aid award letters, and a series of other questions on how they decided which college to attend. In the fall after high school, another survey is administered to ask students about their level of college enrollment and campus engagement, what courses they are taking, and whether they are employed.

Subgroup Analysis

For Cohort 1, regression analyses controlling for demographic variables and treatment by cohort effects were used to investigate subgroup program effects at the end of students’ second year of college. Barr and Castleman (2017a) found a statistically significant positive treatment effect for females across all enrollment outcomes: enrolled in a 4-year college, total enrolled semesters, enrolled in any college, enrolled in a 2-year college, and continuously enrolled.

With regard to race, Black students in the treatment group had a statistically significant greater likelihood of being enrolled in a 4-year college, enrolled in any college, and continuously enrolled in college, compared with Black students in the control group; however, there were no statistically significant treatment effects on 2-year college enrollment or total enrolled semesters. Hispanic students in the treatment group had a statistically significant greater likelihood of being enrolled in a 4-year college or a 2-year college, compared with Hispanic students in the control group; however, there were no statistically significant treatment effects on enrollment in any college, continuous enrollment, or total enrolled semesters.

In regard to the treatment group, both those who indicated at study baseline that they had not participated in any other college access programs and those with low GPAs had more favorable outcomes, compared with the control group, across all enrollment outcomes. These differences were statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences in 2-year college enrollment for these groups.

Finally, compared with the control group, treatment group students from households with low adjusted gross incomes experienced more statistically significant favorable outcomes across all enrollment outcomes except any college enrollment, for which there was no statistically significant effect.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Barr, Andrew, and Benjamin Castleman. 2016. Advising Students to and Through College: Experimental Evidence from the Bottom Line Advising Program. Boston, Mass.: Bottom Line.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Mentoring for Youth Development

This practice provides youth with a positive and consistent adult or older youth relationship to promote healthy youth development and social functioning and to reduce risk factors. The practice is rated Effective in reducing delinquency and improving educational outcomes; Promising in improving psychological outcomes and cognitive functioning; and Ineffective in reducing substance use.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Education - Multiple education outcomes
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Cognitive functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Social functioning
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?