Widening Participation: Are we backing the right strategies?
Dr Patricia Vermillion Peirce, Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success
Big changes are coming for equity in higher education, and with them, tough choices
Recent developments in Australian higher education (HE) signal significant changes ahead for equity funding. In December 2024, the Australian Government announced major structural reforms that will shape the future of the tertiary education system following the recommendations made by the Australian Universities Accord. Among these reforms is the introduction of a demand-driven, needs-based funding (NBF) model, set to commence from January 1, 2026. This funding model will be supported by a reformed HE Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP), which will fund outreach and aspiration-building initiatives among disadvantaged students.
University-led widening participation (WP) initiatives will continue to be supported through this reformed program. While HEPPP will operate under the current guidelines throughout 2025, the government has signalled that further changes will follow.
In this evolving policy context, HE institutions continue to deliver WP activities, such as those described in The Critical Interventions Framework Part 3 (c.f. Section 3). These activities, often aimed at different cohorts, broadly seek to engage, support, and encourage individuals from underrepresented backgrounds to see a clear, achievable path into tertiary education, thereby promoting more equitable access to post-secondary education. At the same time, the HE sector must navigate reforms and resource constraints, making it more important than ever to understand what works. Evidence on the impact of WP activities is essential for decision-makers and delivery teams seeking to invest in the most effective approaches.
What is the impact of widening participation activities?
WP activities seeking to achieve equitable outcomes are common in the Australian HE sector, yet there remains limited evidence on the size of their impact on university enrolment in Australia. Understanding the effect size helps determine how much of a difference an initiative makes for its priority groups, and whether that difference can be attributed to the initiative itself.
Below is a summary of international quantitative impact evaluations, each reporting effect sizes for different WP activities on HE enrolments. While drawn from overseas contexts, this evidence offers insight into what similar activities may achieve in Australia. These effect sizes are also useful benchmarks to guide sample size planning and, as such, provide a useful starting point for Australian institutions wishing to contribute much-needed local evidence by designing and undertaking their own impact evaluations.
1. Light-touch encouragements
We expect that students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, may need encouragement and assistance to complete university applications, as the process can be intimidating and present many barriers. However, encouragement and timely reminders show very limited effects, with an estimated effect size ranging from 0 to 1 percentage point increase in tertiary enrolments. For example, in the United States (USA) context:
Hyman (2020) found encouraging students to look for college application information online had no effect on enrolment.
Avery et al. (2020) reported that texting students, to encourage them to seek support from their college counsellor, did not result in increased enrolments.
Bird et al. (2021) found that nudge campaigns, text messages, and information to encourage students to apply for financial aid and university, did not result in increased enrolments.
Castleman and Page (2015) examined summer (pre-university) text-message nudges to students to complete university and financial aid applications, and found only modest improvement in enrolments (1.9 percentage points), falling short of more personalised, hands-on support (2.3 percentage points), which were designed to meet students at a specific point in their decision-making process before university starts.
2. Light-touch information provision
We expect that some students may not engage with university-related information, as it may seem irrelevant, inaccessible or misaligned with their lived experience. While information can improve understanding, the impact of light-touch information on enrolment is typically small, unless other systemic barriers are already low (e.g., in countries with no or low tuition fees). For example:
In the USA, Bettinger et al. (2012) found that providing information about students’ financial aid eligibility, and a list of tuition fees at four local universities with no help provided to complete the financial aid forms, did not increase university enrolment.
Also, in the USA, Cunha et al (2018) found information provided by student peers to current high school students on college choice, the application process, financial aid and standardised testing, had little effect on enrolments in first year, and an approximately 3 percentage point increase in second year.
· In Germany, Peter, Spiess and Zambre (2018) demonstrated a 20-minute, in-class presentation and short video offered to high school students about HE benefits and funding options boosted enrolment by 10 percentage points, especially among students from non-university backgrounds.
3. Personalised support to navigate complex systems
Successfully enrolling in HE requires students to make numerous complex decisions – choosing institutions and courses, completing applications and securing scholarships or bursaries. The evidence shows that personalised, hands-on support programs that cater to relevant barriers result in 2 to 14 percentage point increases in enrolment. For example, mainly in the USA context:
Bettinger et al. (2012) found helping families complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) increased university enrolment by 8 percentage points.
Oreopoulous and Ford (2019) demonstrated that three-hour-long workshops, guiding final year secondary students through the university and financial aid application process, increased enrolments by 14 percentage points, with the greatest impact for students who were not taking any university-track courses in their last year of secondary school.
Barr and Castleman (2018) showed that offering tailored university lists, financial aid guidance and application coaching led to a 10-percentage point increase in four-year college enrolments.
Bos et al. (2012) found that individual advising regarding tertiary institutions, pathways and careers increased four-year college enrolment by 3.5 percentage points.
Bettinger and Evans (2019) found that information on college enrolment coupled with advice and assistance on financial and academic barriers increased enrolment by approximately 2 percentage points.
Carrell and Sacerdote (2017) reported a 6 percentage point increase in enrolment from weekly peer mentoring sessions focused on application completion, compared to more passive interventions like email nudges.
Phillips and Reber (2022) found virtual advising boosted college applications among disorganised or procrastinating students but had limited effect on actual enrolment, highlighting the need for more comprehensive support provided across the pre-access to access pathway.
What does this mean for Australia’s widening participation activities?
While these international studies provide valuable insight into what may be achieved by WP activities, they do not directly reflect the local context and our Australian students’ barriers to HE access and enrolment. Local evidence is essential; as one recent randomised trial in Australia showed, some students responded to early support, while for others who had already disengaged, the same support had little effect. To ensure efforts are appropriately targeted and effective, we must understand what works for our diverse students, within our Australian HE system. As equity gaps persist, it’s more important than ever to invest in understanding the impact of Australian WP activities to help ensure our reforms deliver meaningful, measurable change for those who need it most.
The effect sizes presented above offer a critical starting point for institutions planning impact evaluations, helping to inform the design of appropriately powered studies – with sufficient numbers of people – that can generate robust evidence of impact.
If you would information about impact evaluations using randomised or quasi-experimental approaches, or if you would like to consider undertaking an impact evaluation of your equity initiative, contact the Trials and Evaluation team at Australian Centre for Student Equity and Successatacses@curtin.edu.au.
Dr Patricia Vermillion Peirce, Trials Lead, Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success