Success factors: How does messaging affect program usage and impact?

Research shows that when program-eligibility criteria are straightforward and minimal, more eligible people will participate. This makes intuitive sense: the fewer the requirements, the easier it is for individuals to determine whether they qualify.

Recent evidence suggests that eliminating students’ uncertainty about whether they qualify to participate in a Promise program is more effective than requiring them to submit proof of eligibility.² In a recent study, researchers mailed letters to two groups of prospective students offering tuition-free college, all of whom were eligible to attend the University of Michigan tuition free. The first group was told they automatically qualified, whereas the second group was told they would have to prove income eligibility. Students in the first group (with the guarantee) were more likely to apply to and enroll at the university than those in the second group.

Another recent study suggests that fewer eligibility criteria may lead to higher uptake of program benefits. Researchers examined 33 Promise programs at the community college level and found that programs without income criteria³ saw larger increases in community college enrollment than those with income criteria. In addition to adding a level of uncertainty, eligibility requirements, such as income criteria, usually impose compliance costs on students, requiring them to take an extra step (e.g., fill out paperwork) to demonstrate that they qualify.

While minimal eligibility requirements are desirable from a messaging standpoint, Promise program designers must determine eligibility criteria within the context of available resources. As a result, they may face a trade-off between the target level of benefits (e.g., funds flowing to students with the greatest need) and the complexity of eligibility criteria.

Research has shown that a universal message (e.g., “tuition-free college for all”) can go a long way in inducing prospective students to attend college. However, it is imperative that the message of “free college” not be misleading. New evidence on the Tennessee Promise illustrates that students’ expectations for what the program will provide are often unmet, and those expectations are shaped by the “free college” language used to promote the program.⁴

Promise program designers should consider two additional aspects related to messaging (beyond eligibility criteria). First, outreach is a critical complement to messaging.⁵ Research on other types of programs showed that outreach to those who are eligible is important for increasing program participation. Relatedly, tailoring outreach to eligible individuals can be especially effective.⁶ Second, the accessibility of the written language used in messaging (e.g., avoiding jargon) can positively affect rates of program participation.⁷