International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

Can scholarships provide equitable access to high-quality university T

education? Evidence from the Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program
Clemencia Cosentinoa, , Jane Fortsonb, Sarah Liuzzia, Anthony Harrisc, Randall Blaird
⁎

a
Mathematica, 1100 1st Street, N.E., Washington, DC, USA
b
Mathematica, 2101 4th Avenue, Suite 1350, Seattle, WA, 98121, USA
c
Mathematica, 955 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 801, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
d
Mathematica, 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL, 60601, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper estimates the impact of a scholarship program—the Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program—on
Higher education access to university. Using propensity score matching, the analysis finds that the Program improves access to
Human capital high-quality university studies among vulnerable, disadvantaged youth, mostly from Africa—increasing timely
Access to education access to university, to higher levels of study, and to studies abroad. Half of scholarship recipients studying
Scholarships
abroad return to Africa and a third pursue graduate studies within 18 months of graduation. The Program’s
Leadership development
collaborative approach holds promise for scaling up this and similar efforts to increase university participation
among youth in African and other nations.

1. Introduction
Insufficient and inequitable access to high quality tertiary education
stands in the way of economic development and poverty eradication in
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Tertiary education fuels modern economies;
nations in SSA need a skilled workforce to meet employer needs and
help their economies grow and diversify. Tertiary education is also
associated with individual benefits in the form of higher earnings,
particularly among graduates in SSA (compared to other regions of the
world) and among women (compared to men) (Montenegro and
Patrinos, 2014; Darvas et al., 2017). This suggests a strong connection
between tertiary education and improved well-being. Yet, at present,
SSA has the lowest average tertiary gross enrollment ratio in the world
(9 percent in 2017, compared to 38 percent globally) and the fastest
pace of population growth (UIS, 2017; Canning, 2015; UN, n.d.). Ter-
tiary enrollment has been growing faster in SSA than in the rest of the
world, absorbed by tremendous expansion in public and private tertiary
institutions (UIS, 2017 and Darvas et al., 2017, though their estimates
differ). But this growth has been insufficient to match rising demand for
tertiary education, which is driven by factors such as rapid population
growth and improved participation in primary and secondary education
(UIS, 2010; Darvas et al., 2017).
In addition to shortfalls in the supply of tertiary education oppor-
tunities, access to those opportunities remains deeply inequitable. A
recent World Bank report shows that tertiary enrollment has grown
more for youth in households in the top 20 percent of the income dis-
tribution (for whom there has been a 7.9 percent increase between
1998 and 2012) than for those in the bottom 80 percent (increase of 3.1
percent over the same period) (Darvas et al., 2017). After conducting an
extensive empirical analysis of equity in tertiary enrollment in SSA
countries, the authors of this report reinforce what others had found in
the past, namely, that “access to tertiary education in [SSA] has unduly
benefited students drawn from the region’s wealthiest households, and
overall enrollment remains disproportionately male and metropolitan.
These factors stifle the catalytic potential of higher education….Instead,
patterns of access to tertiary education have generally reinforced and
reproduced social inequality” (Darvas et al., 2017).
The Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program was created in 2012
to help address insufficient and inequitable access to high quality ter-
tiary education. By design, the Scholars Program aims to serve youth
with demonstrated leadership potential who have traditionally been
overlooked by educational systems. These include girls and young
women, and economically disadvantaged, displaced, and rural youth.
The Program—which offers comprehensive scholarships to youth pri-
marily from Africa—seeks to identify and educate next-generation
leaders that come from these disadvantaged, underserved groups to
help drive a process of social and economic transformation in their
communities, countries, and, ultimately, the African continent.

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: ccosentino@mathematica-mpr.com (C. Cosentino), jfortson@mathematica-mpr.com (J. Fortson), sliuzzi@mathematica-mpr.com (S. Liuzzi),
aharris@mathematica-mpr.com (A. Harris), rblair@mathematica-mpr.com (R. Blair).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.102089
Received 3 March 2019; Received in revised form 7 June 2019; Accepted 21 July 2019
Available online 25 September 2019
0738-0593/ © 2019 Mastercard Foundation. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
C. Cosentino, et al.
Scholarship programs are a longstanding human capital develop-
ment strategy, particularly in developing countries. The latest United
Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals include, as a target for 2020,
to “substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available
to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small
island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher
education.” Governments, private philanthropies, and other organiza-
tions are undertaking efforts to achieve this goal. For example, the
Chinese government has been making progress towards this goal since
2006 by pledging scholarship support to African students wishing to
study in China, most recently promising to provide 30,000 scholarships
by 2018 (Breeze and Moore, 2017; Makundi et al., 2017).
The Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program stands out not only
for its programmatic approach—which offers participating students
(“Scholars”) a host of support services to complement the financial
support—but also by providing a unique opportunity to advance
knowledge that can catalyze broader changes. Most scholarship pro-
grams serve limited numbers of youth in any given year and rarely
devote substantial funding to research and evaluation activities. By
serving large numbers of youth and by supporting research and eva-
luation studies since the inception of the Program, the Scholars
Program can help fill critical knowledge gaps. Research and evaluation
activities supported by the Scholars Program not only improve the
Program, but they also inform public and private sector efforts to cat-
alyze positive change through tertiary education and leadership de-
velopment. This article shares some of the first findings from research
and evaluation activities sponsored by the Scholars Program.
Despite the longstanding and widespread use of scholarships in
public and philanthropic efforts to increase participation in tertiary
education and promote social mobility, there is very limited evidence
about their impact (Mawer, 2017; Martel, 2018). The Scholars Program
is anchored on a theory of change that aligns with policies used today
throughout the world to improve participation and equity in tertiary
education, but often without solid evidence of their effectiveness. These
include encouraging universities to seek out promising students that
would otherwise not be targeted by recruitment efforts, using socio-
economic characteristics of applicants for admissions decisions, and
enhancing financial aid offerings and wraparound support for eco-
nomically-disadvantaged students. These strategies constitute a proac-
tive, intentional effort to improve access by (1) encouraging revisions to
recruitment policies and practices used by institutions of higher edu-
cation and (2) addressing financial and information barriers faced by
underserved youth. Using rigorous methods to study the impact of the
Scholars Program on access to higher education, this study contributes
evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies to catalyze transfor-
mative social and economic change, evidence that has important im-
plications for institutions of higher education, public policy, and phi-
lanthropic/private sector efforts to leverage the demographic changes
sweeping the African continent.
Below, we review the existing literature to contextualize this study
and describe the approach developed by Mastercard Foundation to ef-
fect change (Section 2), describe our impact and descriptive analyses
(Section 3), present findings (Section 4), and discuss the implications of
those findings (Section 5).
2. Background
Scholarships for international students pursuing university studies
have been available for decades and are remarkably diverse.1 Estab-
lished in the early 1900s, the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship is likely
1
As we know them today, scholarships date back about a hundred years.
However, Perna and colleagues (2014) note that similar schemes date back to
the colonial period when nations offered study abroad programs to train the
administrative elites for their colonies.
2
International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089
the longest standing international scholarship program. More recent
programs include the Fulbright Scholarships established by the federal
government of the United States to promote international exchanges
and understanding (1946), the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fel-
lowship Plan through which member governments of the Common-
wealth offer scholarships and fellowships to citizens of other Com-
monwealth countries (1959), and the Ford Foundation International
Fellowship Program for emerging leaders in the developing world to
pursue graduate studies (2001).
As these examples suggest, scholarships vary along many dimen-
sions, such as the organization that creates them (government, private
philanthropy, or multi-lateral organization), the goals of the scholar-
ship (to foster cultural understanding, forge ties with other nations,
promote human capital development, and so on), the education level
(undergraduate, graduate, or post-graduate study) or experience sup-
ported (studies, research, or professional experience), the population
targeted (such as nationals of specific nations, vulnerable youth, or
students seeking careers in specific fields); the duration of the scho-
larship (one year, multiple years, and so on); whether they provide full
versus partial funding; whether they require beneficiaries to return
home; and other factors.
2.1. Literature review
Although a comprehensive study of existing international scholar-
ship programs has yet to be conducted, Perna and colleagues (2014)
completed a review of government-sponsored international scholar-
ships. They identified 183 international scholarship programs in 196
nations. Many others are sponsored by private philanthropies—such as
the Mastercard, Ford, and Bill & Melinda Gates foundations. What is
striking, given the large number of scholarship programs, is the dearth
of evidence regarding their effectiveness.
To identify current practices and assess the potential for more rig-
orous evaluation, the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the
UK commissioned a study of research methodologies used to evaluate
scholarship programs. Findings indicate that counterfactual designs are
rare and “almost all evaluations are ex-post,” retrospective efforts to
identify former recipients and survey them to learn about their ex-
periences and outcomes (Mawer, 2014). In fact, the author finds that
nearly all scholarship programs reviewed conducted this type of “tracer
study,” and that “Randomised Control Trials (RCTs), regression dis-
continuity design, and difference-in-differences designs, amongst other
possible [rigorous] approaches, have not been reported within the
sector.”
Our own review of the literature confirms this finding. There is a
large body of research showing that scholarship programs in developing
countries can improve access and attainment for economically dis-
advantaged groups, but these studies largely focus on secondary edu-
cation (Filmer and Schady, 2009; Angrist et al., 2006; Barrera-Osorio
et al., 2007; Behrman et al., 2005; Al-Samarri and Zaman, 2006;
Deininger, 2003; Meng and Ryan, 2010; Duflo et al., 2015; Attanasio
et al., 2010; and Gajigo, 2016). A handful of studies have collected
evidence of effectiveness among scholarship programs that are similar
to the Scholars Program in targeting disadvantaged and underserved
youth and offering wrap-around services in addition to financial sup-
port, but for students who are United States citizens or permanent re-
sidents.
For example, the evaluation of the Gates Millennium Scholars
(GMS) Program, which is a scholarship program aimed at low-income
minority students from the U.S., used propensity score matching to
create a comparable group of nonparticipants. Findings indicate that,
for some subgroups of students, the GMS Program improved (1) access
to highly selective institutions of higher education, (2) retention in and
completion of postsecondary degrees, and (3) enrollment in post-bac-
calaureate and graduate degree programs (Amos et al., 2009). How-
ever, these findings were not consistent across cohorts, gender, or racial
C. Cosentino, et al. International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089

groups and the estimated differences, when present, were small (3 to 4

percentage-point difference in retention or being “on track academi-
cally” between participants and nonparticipants, for example).
The evaluation of the National Science Foundation Louis Stokes
Alliances for Minority Participation program, which offers scholarships
and support services to students from underrepresented racial and
ethnic backgrounds in science, technology, engineering, and mathe-
matics (STEM), focused on access to graduate school, a key program
goal. Findings show that, on average, program participants were more
likely to pursue additional post-bachelor’s coursework, enroll in grad-
uate programs, and complete advanced degrees, particularly in STEM,
than did national comparison groups (Clewell et al., 2006). The dif-
ferences found were large; for example, the study found that 65 percent
of program participants went on to graduate school, compared to 45
percent in the comparison samples. Our study also used a quasi-ex-
perimental design to contribute to this literature by focusing on a si-
milar but international scholarship program—the Mastercard Founda-
tion Scholars Program—the largest privately-sponsored scholarship
program for Africans—to study its impact on access to university.

2.2. The Scholars Program

The Scholars Program is anchored on a belief in “the transformative

power of individuals as catalysts for broader change” (Burciul and Kerr,
2018). To enable individual agency, the Program aims to expand access
to high quality education for youth who exhibit academic promise,
economic disadvantage or vulnerability, leadership potential, and a
commitment to giving back to society.
The Program includes financial and non-financial supports to help
Scholars succeed in their studies and transition to opportunities after
graduation. These include academic and social supports (such as or-
ientation and tutoring); leadership, entrepreneurship, and community
service training activities; and access to networks, resources (such as
counseling), and opportunities for professional preparation (such as
internships, mainly in Africa to strengthen ties to the continent among
students studying abroad). This holistic approach is designed to prepare
and empower Scholars to become ethical leaders and promote positive
change in their communities.
To offer supports to Scholars, the Foundation formed a global
partnership with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and a lea-
dership academy in Africa, and some of the world’s leading universities
in Africa, Europe, Central and North America, and the Middle East. The
Scholars Program has operated at both the secondary and tertiary le-
vels, and has worked with different partners over time; our analysis
focuses on the tertiary level (Fig. 1 shows tertiary partners included in
this study).
Although the Foundation established broad qualifying criteria for
the Scholars Program, partners are responsible for recruiting and se-
lecting Scholars and supporting them throughout their studies. Most
partners rely on program advertisements (online and through media,
public events, and job fairs) to generate interest in the Program, though
a few partners target their recruitment efforts with secondary-level
Scholars Program partners or feeder schools. At the selection stage,
partners screen candidates’ application materials to assess their aca-
demic admissibility, economic need, and social vulnerability and then
make final selections after conducting interviews or home visits with
short-listed candidates. To participate in the Scholars Program, appli-
cants must meet university admissions requirements in addition to
those set by the Program. Those selected for the Program receive the
academic and social supports described above as well as a financial
package that varies by partner but generally includes tuition and fees;
books, a laptop, and other learning materials; accommodation; a living
stipend; health insurance and other wellbeing supports; and travel ex-
penses.
Since its inception in 2012, the Program has served nearly 5,100
undergraduate and nearly 1,000 graduate Scholars, with undergraduate
Fig. 1. Study Partner Institutions at Tertiary Level.
students comprising around 84 percent of tertiary Scholars. As of early
2019, the program has committed nearly $850 million to offer 9,000
university and 26,000 secondary education scholarships.
3. Data and methods
Using data on early cohorts of tertiary Scholars, we aim to (1) es-
timate the impacts of the Program on access to undergraduate educa-
tion and (2) describe the post-Program outcomes of early Scholars
Program alumni. The analysis is based on a survey of Scholars and
comparison applicants who had applied for the Scholars Program for
undergraduate studies (impact analysis) and a survey of undergraduate
and graduate Program alumni administered after graduation (de-
scriptive analysis). Our impact and descriptive approaches and data
sources are explained in greater detail in the sections that follow.
3.1. Impact analysis
3.1.1. Data
The impact analysis focuses on the tertiary program at the under-
graduate level. The data used in the analysis come from a survey of
applicants to undergraduate programs who were also considered for the
Scholars Program. These applicants sought admission to begin their
university studies between fall 2013 and spring 2015 and join the
Scholars Program’s 2014 or 2015 cohorts. (The universities partici-
pating in the Program are spread across continents and have start dates
throughout the year.) We obtained the data to identify and contact
applicants from 18 institutional Program partners, mostly universities
in North America and Africa. (The partners are listed in Fig. 1 above;
Appendix Table A1 shows the universities attended by Scholars.) We
collected information on applicants to ensure we surveyed both those
selected for the Scholars Program and those who were not selected
(comparison applicants or the comparison group).
Overall, 72 percent of the study population responded to the survey,
91 percent of Scholars and 56 percent of comparison applicants
(Appendix Table A2). The number of respondents in the comparison
group provided sufficient data to create a matched comparison group

3
C. Cosentino, et al. International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089

for analysis (described in Section 3.1.2). The final analysis is based on
1,147 completed surveys, 637 from Scholars and 510 from matched
comparison applicants.
The survey included questions about applicants’ family background,
experiences during secondary school, and enrollment in university,
among others. Administered in 2014–2015, the survey coincided with
the first year of expected university studies for the 2015 cohort and the
second year for the 2014 cohort. The timing of the survey enabled us to
capture actual enrollment in university, not just admission, for two
cohorts of applicants.
3.1.2. Propensity score matching approach
To assess the impact of the Scholars Program on access to higher
education, we used a quasi-experimental design with propensity score
matching methods to create a comparison group that was ob-
servationally similar to the Scholars group, and therefore indicative of
what would have happened to the Scholars if they had not participated
in the Program. The comparison group is composed of similar appli-
cants who were not selected for the Program. We matched Scholars to
comparison applicants through logistic regression models that account
for characteristics related to the likelihood of being selected into the
Program, including academic achievement, past participation in lea-
dership activities, and family socioeconomic characteristics.
The matching process was conducted separately within four groups:
respondents from the 2014 cohort across partners/institutions, re-
spondents from the 2015 cohort who applied to North American
partners, respondents from the 2015 cohort who applied to participate
in the Program through Camfed, and respondents from the 2015 cohort
who applied to partners outside of North America other than Camfed.
(Camfed is a Program partner that provides support to students who
enroll at universities throughout Ghana.) This approach accounts for
some of the differences in the application process across cohorts and
partners by only matching comparison applicants with Scholars in the
same application group. Camfed was the only partner with a large en-
ough applicant pool to serve as its own comparison group. To ensure
that Scholars and their matched comparisons were indeed similar along
key dimensions, we restricted the matching algorithm to generate
matches only if comparison applicants were sufficiently close to the
Scholars—defined as having a propensity score within a particular
bandwidth of the propensity score (in this case, 0.06). We found sui-
table matches for 89 percent of Scholars.
Table 1 displays the characteristics of Scholars and comparison
applicants in the full sample and in the matched sample used for ana-
lysis. It shows that matching yields two groups (Scholars and compar-
ison) that are observationally similar at baseline. In other words, the
analysis sample represents an improvement over using the full (un-
matched) sample. At baseline, there were significant average differ-
ences between the Scholars and comparison groups in most character-
istics—such as gender, academic achievement, and socioeconomic
characteristics—and nearly all of those differences disappear after
matching.

Table 1
Differences in characteristics of Scholars and comparison groups before and after propensity score matching.
Baseline characteristics Before matching After matching
(full sample) (matched sample)

Difference between Scholars and Average for Difference between Scholars and Average for
comparison applicants Scholars comparison applicants Scholars

Demographic characteristics
Male −8.8** 37.0% 2.2 37.4%
Age 0.4* 21.0 0.1 20.9

Leadership, volunteering and academic achievement

Participated in community activities in secondary 1.9 93.9% 1.3 93.5%
school
Participated in leadership activities in secondary 6.2** 69.1% 2.7 69.4%
school
Participated in service activities in secondary 1.1 94.8% 0.7 94.6%
school
Ranked among top 10 percent of students in year 7.5** 50.4% 1.1 51.5%
in secondary schoola
Does not know rank −9.0** 25.3% 0.9 24.6%
Took standardized test before applying 9.0** 31.6% 0.0 30.9%

Secondary school characteristics

Attended public secondary school 7.9** 71.6% 1.6 72.3%
Attended boarding school 10.4** 71.2% 2.1 70.0%

Socioeconomic status
Lived in rural area 1.7 29.2% 2.1 27.1%
Home had unfinished floor 7.8** 23.5% 3.0 21.8%
Home had no electricity 0.6 23.1% 4.2* 21.8%
Home had no flush toilet 8.4** 69.2% 0.4 67.6%
Home had no stove 11.8** 69.8% −0.1 68.7%

Family situation and parental education

Lived with guardians 2.9 18.9% 0.8 18.7%
Mother has at least some secondary educationa −9.0** 36.1% −0.6 37.2%
Does not know mother's education 0.2 13.4% 1.6 13.5%
Father has at least some secondary educationa −8.0** 43.8% −0.2 44.3%
Does not know father's education 1.8 22.0% 0.5 22.3%

Notes: Table shows differences in pre-university/baseline characteristics between Scholars and comparison applicants. Averages and differences in the “before
matching” column are calculated using data for 687 Scholars and 515 comparison applicants. Averages and differences in the “after matching” column are calculated
using 637 Scholars and 510 comparison applicants, in addition to applying the weights derived from the propensity score matching process. The number of Scholars
and comparison applicants decreases due to the exclusion of respondents that are outside of common support.
*Significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. **Significantly different from zero at the 0.01 level.
a
Reported percentage among all respondents, even if the respondent reports “don’t know”.

4
C. Cosentino, et al. International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089

3.1.3. Analytic approach
After matching, we estimate the impact of the Program as the dif-
ference between the average outcomes of Scholars and the matched
comparison group. We use ordinary least squares regression models to
estimate the Program’s effect (this difference) on three binary out-
comes: enrolling in a university, enrolling in a bachelor’s degree pro-
gram (or equivalent), and enrolling in a university abroad. The basic
equation to estimate impacts takes the following form:
Yim = + Sim + Xim + im
where Yim is the outcome of applicant i in the matched sample m . Sim is
an indicator equal to 1 if applicant i became a Scholar and equal to zero
otherwise, Xim is a vector of controls for individual applicants’ baseline
characteristics, and im is a random error term. The coefficient signals
the Program impact. Comparison applicants who are more similar to
Scholars—and therefore have more similar propensity scores—are
given more weight in the estimation using kernel weights.
In Section 4 of this paper, we present regression-adjusted estimates
obtained through models that predict the three university enrollment
outcomes as a function of participation in the Scholars Program, con-
trolling for baseline characteristics used in the propensity score
matching models. Using baseline characteristics as control variables in
the models increases the precision with which we estimate effects and
helps adjust for any remaining differences between the Scholar and
comparison groups. We estimate impacts overall and by cohort because
comparison applicants in the 2014 cohort had more time to enroll in
university than those in the 2015 cohort, potentially influencing our
impact estimates. Furthermore, the composition of the study sample
differed across cohorts (as described below).
3.2. Descriptive analysis
The data used in the descriptive outcomes analysis come from a
2017 survey of Scholars Program alumni who graduated between June
2015 and July 2016. At the time of the survey, an average of 1.5 years
had elapsed since Scholars’ graduation, giving them time to pursue
further education or join the workforce. A total of 155 tertiary-level
Program alumni responded to the survey, or 69 percent of the 225
Scholars Program alumni served through 12 Program partners who
graduated from 18 colleges and universities in Africa, Central America,
North America, and the Middle East. Our analytic sample includes 124
alumni who completed all or most of the survey. (The partners are listed
in Fig. 1; Appendix Table A1 indicates the universities attended by
alumni.)
For the descriptive analysis of outcomes included here, we relied on
responses to questions about Scholars’ education and employment after
graduation, including whether they remain in (if studying at home) or
return to (if studying abroad) their home countries. We report de-
scriptive statistics of outcomes of interest, such as the share of alumni
entering the labor force and pursuing further education. All estimates
are weighted to adjust for non-response (as described in the Appendix).
4. Results
(1)
The Scholars Program targets high-achieving youth with demon-
strated leadership potential who come from disadvantaged, under-
served groups. The characteristics of the Scholars included in the ana-
lysis reflect these aims. Of Scholars included in the impact analysis,
three-quarters are female, about one-third are from rural areas, and the
majority have at least one parent with no more than primary education
(Table 1). Scholars performed well in secondary school; of those who
know their rank, two-thirds report that they were among the top 10
percent of students in their year in secondary school, and also report
high levels of community engagement, leadership, and service during
their secondary school studies (Table 1). In the sections that follow, we
discuss how the Scholars Program affects access to tertiary education
(Section 4.1) and describe the education and work experiences of
Scholars after graduation (Section 4.2)
4.1. Impact of the Scholars Program on access to university education
Results from the impact analysis show that the Mastercard
Foundation Scholars Program increases access to a university educa-
tion. The Program has a large and positive effect on all access-related
outcomes studied: enrollment in university, in a bachelor’s degree
program, and in a university abroad. Compared to applicants who were
not selected for the Scholars Program, Scholars are 30 percentage
points more likely to enroll in a university, 37 percentage points more
likely to enroll in a bachelor’s degree program, and 33 percentage
points more likely to enroll in a university outside their home country
(Table 2). This indicates that the Program succeeded in its goal of im-
proving access to high quality education for high-achieving students
who might have otherwise not pursued post-secondary education.
These overall impacts varied by cohort (Table 3). Scholars in the
2015 cohort were 33 percentage points more likely than comparison
applicants in that cohort to enroll in university—nearly all Scholars in
the 2015 cohort were enrolled, compared to two-thirds of comparison
applicants. In the 2014 cohort, the impact was much smaller (9 per-
centage points), in part because some Scholars in that cohort were no
longer enrolled, but largely because comparison applicants from the

Table 2
Impacts of the Scholars Program on university enrollment (regression estimates using matched sample).
Outcome Overall impact on enrollment Average enrollment for Scholars Scholars (N) Comparison (N)
(percentage points)

Currently enrolled in university 29.5** 98.4%a 634 508

Currently enrolled in Bachelor’s (or equivalent) program 37.4** 93.7%b 573 496
Currently enrolled in university outside home country 33.3** 44.1% 629 499

Notes: Impact estimates (shown in the first column) are calculated using a propensity score matching model that uses kernel-density matching methods. We estimate
robust standard errors; statistical significance (difference from zero) is denoted by: ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. Sample sizes vary due to missing data. The results
reported are from regressions that control for gender, age, indicators for whether mother or father attained secondary education, an indicator for living with parents,
attendance at public secondary school, attendance at boarding secondary school, participation in community, leadership, and service activities in secondary school,
ranking in the top ten percent of class, an indicator for taking a standardized test, rural/urban status, and housing characteristics. The regressions also control for the
broad groupings of Mastercard Foundation partners (such as by geography) that participated in the study and interactions between these groupings and the control
variables.
a
This estimate is not 100% because there are 10 Scholars who responded to the survey and indicated that they were no longer enrolled at the time of the survey.
This group likely reflects a small number of Scholars who have dropped out of their universities and a small number of Scholars who were enrolled but stated
otherwise (for instance, because they completed the survey during a school break).
b
Scholars who are enrolled in university—but not enrolled in Bachelor’s programs—are enrolled in technical and certificate programs, including in nursing,
midwifery, and education.

5
C. Cosentino, et al.
Table 3
Impacts of the Scholars Program on university enrollment, by cohort (regression estimates using matched sample).
Outcome and sample Overall impact on enrollment (percentage points)
Currently enrolled in university
2014 cohort 9.4*
2015 cohort 32.9**
2014 and 2015 cohorts 29.5**
Currently enrolled in Bachelor’s or equivalent
2014 cohort 12.1*
2015 cohort 43.4*
2014 and 2015 cohorts 37.4**
Currently enrolled in university outside home country
2014 cohort 54.6**
2015 cohort 27.6**
2014 and 2015 cohorts 33.3**
Notes: See notes in Table 2.
2014 cohort were more likely to be enrolled (85 percent) relative to
comparison applicants from the 2015 cohort.2
There are several possible explanations for the differences between
cohorts. First, impacts on university enrollment might be smaller for the
2014 cohort because unsuccessful applicants from the 2014 cohort had
time to reapply and gain admission to university and obtain funding,
whereas applicants from the 2015 cohort had not yet had as much time
to do so. Consistent with this hypothesis, many of the comparison ap-
plicants in the 2014 cohort started university a year later than Scholars
in the same cohort.
Second, impacts might be larger for the 2015 cohort because partner
institutions might have improved their recruitment practices, allowing
them to better identify youth who would not attend university without
the Scholars Program. Through interviews with Program partners in
2014 and 2016, we learned that partners initially struggled to recruit
candidates that met Program qualifications (for instance, because they
lacked the student pipelines or the experience recruiting these candi-
dates, or because qualifying students had difficulty navigating or
paying for the application process). Over time, however, partners
strengthened their recruitment practices (for example, by building
partnerships with local organizations and collaborating with secondary-
level Program partners in Africa) to enhance their ability to attract
applicants that met Program admissions criteria and help youth better
understand the application process. To the extent that such strategies
started bearing fruit from one year to the next, this might help (par-
tially) explain the larger observed impacts in the 2015 cohort.
Lastly, the difference in impacts between cohorts could reflect the
composition of the study sample, which changed between 2014 and
2015 when new institutions joined the Program (and study) and an
existing partner joined the study. The 2014 cohort has sizeable samples
from partners outside of Africa, including EARTH University (Costa
Rica), the African Leadership Academy (whose students largely attend
universities abroad), and Michigan State University (USA). Several
partner institutions in Africa joined the study in the 2015 cohort
(KNUST, Makerere University, and the University of Cape Town, and
Ghanaian universities attended by Scholars supported by Camfed).
Partners vary in their admissions criteria and the characteristics of their
applicants, on average. Compositional differences could explain some
of the differences across cohorts.
Program impacts also vary by the partner’s region (Table 4). The
Program has a larger impact on access to university for applicants to
North American partners (Canada and the United States) than partners
in other regions of the world, namely, Africa, Central America, and the
Middle East. Scholars who applied to North American partners are 42
2
The comparison applicant enrollment rates presented here (85 percent for
the 2014 cohort and 67 percent for the 2015 cohort) reflect the enrollment rate
among comparison applicants in the analysis sample after weighting.
6
International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089
Average enrollment for Scholars Scholars (N) Comparison (N)
94.3% 140 130
99.5% 494 378
98.4% 634 508
92.9% 127 123
93.9% 446 373
93.7% 573 496
66.4% 140 129
37.8% 489 370
44.1% 629 499
percentage points more likely than the comparison group to be en-
rolled. While still large and positive, this impact is smaller (25 per-
centage points) among applicants to non-North American partners. This
likely signals the difficulties that the target population—high achieving
youth from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds—faces in ac-
cessing university studies abroad. It also aligns with the earlier finding
that the Program has a large and positive impact on enrollment in a
university abroad.
To better understand the findings by region and cohort, we ex-
amined the institutions attended by comparison applicants. Many re-
spondents who applied to non-North American partners but did not
receive scholarships are enrolled at a university or college, usually in
their home country. In the case of Ashesi University, KNUST, and
Makerere University, many comparison applicants not selected for the
Scholars Program nevertheless enroll at the institution to which they
applied (Ashesi, KNUST, or Makerere), but not through the Scholars
Program. In contrast, comparison applicants who applied to North
American partner institutions are either not enrolled at the time of the
survey, enrolled at another North American university, or enrolled
elsewhere. This difference across applicants to North American and
non-North American partners is consistent with the hypothesis that
some unsuccessful applicants to North American universities are
choosing to wait a year to try and secure funding to attend university
abroad.
4.2. Post-graduation outcomes of the Scholars Program
The findings in the prior section demonstrate that the Scholars
Program has large and positive impacts on access to higher education. It
will take several years to assess whether the Program also has an impact
on other outcomes, such as further education. To get a preview of such
outcomes, we surveyed earlier cohorts of Program alumni in 2017, or
about 1.5 years (on average) after graduating. The analysis sample in-
cludes 54 Scholars who had completed undergraduate degrees and 70
Scholars who had completed graduate degrees through the Scholars
Program.
These Scholars were excluded from the impact analysis, as they had
either entered the program as part of the 2013 Program cohort or in
graduate level programs of study, which were not included in the im-
pact study. Surveying them enabled us to learn about several of the
critical expected outcomes given the Program’s theory of change—in-
cluding whether Scholars returned to, or stayed on, the African con-
tinent after graduating, pursued higher level graduate studies (master’s
and doctoral degrees), or entered the labor force (through the formal
sector or entrepreneurship). These findings apply to the particular co-
hort included in the study; we might expect outcomes to be different for
later cohorts as the composition of the partnership has changed and the
Program—as implemented by different partners—also evolved.
C. Cosentino, et al.
Table 4
Impacts of the Scholars Program on university enrollment, by partner’s geographic region (regression estimates using matched sample).
Outcome and sample Overall impact on enrollment (percentage points)
Currently enrolled in university
Applicants to North American partners 41.7**
Applicants to Non-North American partners 25.2**
All applicants 29.5**
Currently enrolled in Bachelor’s or equivalent program
Applicants to North American partners 43.0**
Applicants to Non-North American partners 35.5**
All applicants 37.4**
Notes: See notes in Table 2. Applicants to the African Leadership Academy—which places students in both North American and non-North American universities—are
included with North American partners.
Nevertheless, these findings are indicative of whether the Program is on
track to achieve its goals.
Although tertiary alumni come from more than a dozen countries,
over half of alumni come from just four countries (Ghana, Kenya,
Lebanon, and Uganda).3 Two-thirds of alumni studied in their home
country. Nearly all of the African Scholars who studied in Africa re-
mained on the continent, and about two thirds of those alumni re-
mained in or returned to their home countries (Table 5).
Among African alumni who studied abroad, about half returned to
the African continent, with most returning to their home country.
Among those who studied abroad and had not returned to Africa at the
time of the survey (that is, within about 1.5 years of graduation), less
than 20 percent indicated that they intend to return home in the near
future.
Most Scholars who had graduated by 2017 (56%) had earned
graduate degrees, primarily in mathematics, statistics and science
fields. Others earned undergraduate degrees in a wide range of fields,
particularly life and physical sciences, as well as engineering.4 At the
time of the survey, the majority of alumni were working (about 60%) or
pursuing further studies (over 30%) (Table 6).
Private businesses (34%) and schools or universities (25%) provided
most jobs to these graduates, followed by the non-profit (16%) and
public or governmental (12%) sectors. A small share of alumni became
entrepreneurs (less than 10%). Those pursuing further education pri-
marily enrolled in master’s or honors degrees (73%), mostly in
mathematics, statistics, agriculture, or health. Scholars’ career trajec-
tories differ, however, by type of degree and individual characteristics
(Table 6). In this cohort, undergraduate alumni are more likely than
graduate alumni to be working—instead of pursuing further stu-
dies—about 1.5 years after graduation. Interestingly, both graduate and
undergraduate alumni who are not studying reported financial con-
straints as a reason—although undergraduate alumni were more likely
to express a desire to join the workforce as the reason they are not
currently studying.
If they do continue their studies, undergraduate alumni over-
whelmingly enroll in honors and master’s programs. In contrast, alumni
who earned graduate degrees are more likely to continue studying,
enroll in PhD programs, and rely on scholarships as their primary
source of income. Compared to undergraduate alumni, graduate alumni
who pursue employment are more likely to report working at a uni-
versity (as teaching or research assistants at North American uni-
versities, or as lecturers or teaching assistants at African ones) and to
have plans to continue their studies in the near future. More than half of
the 57% of graduate alumni who are working reported that they ap-
plied to a university program in the 6 months prior to being surveyed,
3
Alumni from Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda have participated in the Program
through multiple partner institutions, including universities at home and
abroad. Alumni from Lebanon exclusively participated through the American
University of Beirut.
4
A very small share (3%) earned diplomas, primarily in teaching and nursing.
7
International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089
Average enrollment for Scholars Scholars (N) Comparison (N)
98.8% 180 94
98.2% 454 414
98.4% 634 508
97.6% 168 93
92.1% 405 403
93.7% 573 496
with most being accepted. In contrast, of the 70% of undergraduate
alumni currently working, around three-quarters report having salaried
positions in full-time employment and less than one-third reported
applying to a university program in the past 6 months.
An important goal of the Scholars Program is to develop transfor-
mative leadership—among individuals (by supporting the education of
underserved and vulnerable groups) and institutions of higher educa-
tion (topic not covered in this paper). Our findings suggest that women
are more likely than men to join the labor force and less likely than men
to enroll in further graduate-level university studies (Table 6). We ob-
serve a similar pattern for youth who grew up without either parent:
they are more likely to be employed and less likely to pursue further
graduate studies (estimates not shown). Family and financial respon-
sibilities may partially explain these findings.
5. Discussion
The findings from this study provide solid evidence that a long-
standing practice—offering scholarships—is an effective way to im-
prove access to university studies among vulnerable, disadvantaged,
and underserved youth that constitute the large majority of Mastercard
Foundation Scholars. In particular, the findings suggest that scholar-
ships increase timely access to higher education, to higher levels of
study (such as bachelor’s degree programs instead of certificate pro-
grams), and to studies abroad. We find that the impact on enrollment in
university is smaller for the earlier cohort (2014) in our study, which
could indicate that the enrollment gap could narrow over time. We also
find larger impacts on applicants to North American universities
(compared to applicants to universities elsewhere), which could in-
dicate that unsuccessful applicants to these institutions defer college-
going for some time. Future follow-up with these (and other) cohorts
would allow us to estimate the persistence of the estimated impacts, in
addition to capturing a broad range of relevant outcomes, such as
graduation, transition to future education and the workforce, and lea-
dership and give-back.
All nations—not just those in SSA—may find this evidence useful as
they consider ways to improve the life chances of those groups that are
not well represented among postsecondary graduates, and therefore
miss the opportunity to accrue the private and public benefits asso-
ciated with higher levels of education (Montenegro and Patrinos, 2014;
Darvas et al., 2017). These findings also support the Sustainable De-
velopment Goal (SDG) target 4.B of increasing the availability of
scholarships to citizens of developing nations, and in particular, African
countries, to increase enrollment in higher education (UN, 2018).
We did not conduct cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses as
neither were program goals. In its tested form, the Scholars Program is
unlikely to be scalable or widely replicated given the generosity of the
financial and support package—students receive funding for all of their
expenses as well as support services. It is also unlikely, however, that
this level of support would be needed to attain positive impacts on
access. This paper showed that the rigorous literature on scholarship
C. Cosentino, et al. International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089

Table 5
Current country or continent of residence, African Scholars Program alumni (descriptive statistics).
Graduated from a university located in Africa Graduated from a university not located in Africa

Overall
Remained in or returned to Africa 96% 54%
Remained in or returned to home African country 68% 42%
Sample size (N) 68 36

Notes: Results are weighted to adjust for survey non-response. Sample includes Scholars Program alumni who graduated from undergraduate or graduate programs
between June 2015 and July 2016. Universities located in Africa include the African Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Ashesi University, Cape Coast Nursing and
Midwifery Training College, Korle Bu Nursing Training College, Tamale Nursing and Midwifery Training College, and University of Pretoria. Universities located
outside Africa include Arizona State University, Duke University, EARTH University, Michigan State University, Quest University, Savannah College of Art and
Design, St. Olaf College, Trinity College, University of British Columbia, University of California Berkeley, and Westminster College. American University of Beirut
students were excluded from these calculations, as they were not from Africa.

Table 6
Post-Program education and employment outcomes, Scholars Program alumni (descriptive statistics).
Approximately 1.5 years after graduation All Alumni Undergradu- Graduate Female Male
ate Alumni Alumni Alumni Alumni

Enrolled in university 33% 25% 34% 23% 42%

If enrolled:
Enrolled in an honors or master’s degree program 73% 89% 57% 90% 53%
Enrolled in a Ph.D. program 27% 11% 43% 10% 47%
Relying on scholarship support as primary source of funding for graduate studies 57% 50% 66% 68% 53%

Working 61% 70% 57% 73% 53%

If working:
Entrepreneur 7% 4% 9% 5% 10%
Employed by private business 34% 36% 32% 32% 33%
Employed by school or university 25% 20% 30% 23% 32%
Employed by non-profit 16% 20% 13% 18% 16%
Employed in public/government sector 12% 13% 12% 14% 4%
Employed elsewhere 6% 7% 4% 8% 5%

Sample size (N) 124 54 70 75 49

Notes: Results are weighted to adjust for survey non-response. Sample includes Scholars Program alumni who graduated from undergraduate or graduate programs
between June 2015 and July 2016; outcomes are observed approximately 1.5 years after graduation. “Working” includes only alumni who are exclusively working;
alumni who are both enrolled and working are categorized as “enrolled in university.”.

programs is still in its infancy. Testing the impacts of scholarships of-
fering different levels of support will be an important contribution of
future studies. What we can say, however, is that the impacts reported
here likely reflect the Program’s intentional focus on finding those
youth that are so disadvantaged or inadequately prepared to find their
way to university that, in the absence of the Scholars Program, would
not have attended university. Two questions that naturally follow this
conclusion are (1) how exactly did the Scholars Program achieve this?
and (2) is the Program’s approach scalable?
The Scholars Program was built as a partnership that itself fostered
new collaborations. The Foundation developed a vision and sought out
organizations—universities and NGOs—that would help it execute that
vision. These organizations needed to provide high-quality education,
directly by enrolling and supporting applicants (in the case of university
partners) or indirectly by helping applicants enroll in universities and
providing other supports throughout their studies (in the case of NGO
partners). These partners also needed to be willing to expand their re-
cruitment efforts to seek out students that many of them would not
normally recruit and to expand their linkages with organizations to
facilitate mentorship, leadership training, service learning, and pro-
fessional development opportunities, including internships. To do so,
partner universities and NGOs forged new, or strengthened existing, ties
with local organizations—NGOs, schools, universities, employers, and
community-based organizations. As the Program evolved, these part-
nerships flourished to enhance the educational opportunities available
to students and extend the reach of available funding.
The experience of the Scholars Program suggests that this ap-
proach—building partnerships—holds promise for scaling up the use of
scholarships, as promoted through the SDGs. To succeed in this effort,
partnerships may need to consider (1) leveraging actors across sectors
to implement scholarship programs successfully, (2) developing local
solutions (programs tailored to the local and, in particular, policy
context), and (3) monitoring outcomes through meaningful measures.
Below, we consider the experience of the Scholars Program to share
some thoughts on each of these points.
Although not presented here, qualitative research conducted as part
of this study underscored the importance of collaborating with local
actors to recruit the target applicants and correctly interpret the in-
formation provided in their applications. This is particularly important
if targeting severely marginalized groups, such as displaced youth; for
example, one Program partner developed relationships with individuals
in refugee camps to identify and assess the special circumstances of
potential applicants. Partners may also need to broker agreements to
share costs—as already done by at least one NGO partner with several
universities. Such agreements should consider the danger of new
funding replacing existing funding, as occurred when colleges and

8
C. Cosentino, et al. International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089

universities supplanted existing institutional grants with the GMS
scholarship (Amos et al., 2009). Last, partnering with employers to
offer mentoring, shadowing, and internship opportunities can enhance
the educational experience and potentially increase the likelihood of
employment upon graduation (the Program pilot-tested such colla-
borations and, based on early successful experiences, is currently ex-
panding them).
Partnerships may also help foster the development of appropriately
tailored, local solutions to address barriers to access to higher educa-
tion. An assessment of local needs, patterns of inequities, and existing
policies affecting access can help identify the potential role of scho-
larships in a comprehensive strategy to increase equitable participation
in higher education. In particular, understanding other financing op-
tions available to students in the public and private sectors, and po-
tentially coordinating with governments and with donors providing
scholarships, will help identify overlaps (which signal inefficiencies or
may be needed, given demand), flag gaps in available opportunities,
and prevent unintended consequences. For instance, there is anecdotal
evidence that Ugandan students participating in the Scholars Program
at the secondary level (not discussed in this paper) seek to do well
enough in the Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education examination
to qualify for the Scholars Program, but not so well that they may earn a
less advantageous government bursary given to the top students in the
country. Such strategic planning on the part of youth may be difficult to
prevent, but could translate into government funding going unused.
Designing local solutions—that is, scholarship programming in a col-
laborative and contextualized way—may help prevent such in-
efficiencies by identifying areas/conditions where the public or the
private sector is better suited to provide support.
Efforts will also need to integrate robust learning and measurement
approaches to monitor progress and improve programs/interventions
over time. This means going beyond basic measures of outputs (such as
number of students enrolled or graduated) and efficiency (such as time
to degree) to measure success in education (for example, graduation
rates disaggregated by student characteristics such as gender), the labor
market (through employment rates, for example) and society (through
leadership and different forms of civic engagement). Measurement ef-
forts may help uncover problems, such as greater university attrition
among students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and weaknesses in
existing university supports that may help explain those problems, such
as inadequate or insufficient tutoring or mentoring. Given its scope and
commitment to learning activities, the Scholars Program can model
such robust measurement efforts and continue advancing knowledge,
particularly about effective policies and factors associated with suc-
cessful outcomes.
Funding
This work was supported by Mastercard Foundation, Toronto,
Canada.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their sincere appreciation to the many Scholars
who completed surveys, to the Program partners (colleges and uni-
versities around the world) who participated in interviews and pro-
vided data for analyses, to the staff at Mastercard Foundation who
provided insightful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper, to our data
collection partners (Consumer Insights Consult, Research World
International, and Diane Preciado), and to Mathematica staff who
provided technical assistance, including Ken Fortson, Nick Ingwersen,
Jeremy Brecher-Haimson, Seth Morgan, Caroline Lauver, Adele
Rizzuto, and Mary Grider. For more information on the Mastercard
Foundation Scholars Program visit: www.mastercardfdn.org/scholars.

Appendix

Institutions included in the study. Table A1 shows the universities in which Scholars enrolled, by whether they are included in the impact and/
or descriptive analysis.
Impact analysis response rates. Table A2 shows the number of Scholars and comparison applicants surveyed and the response rates, overall and
by cohort, for the impact analysis sample. Response rates were higher for applicants in the 2015 cohort, likely due to the shorter time elapsed
between applying to the Scholars Program and receiving the invitation to participate in the survey. Respondents who were excluded from the
analysis were missing values for at least half of the 18 measures that were important predictors of selection for the Scholars Program.
Descriptive analysis response rates. Table A3 shows the number of Scholars Program alumni surveyed and the response rates, overall and by
cohort, for the outcome analysis sample. Response rates were higher for graduate alumni than undergraduate alumni. We excluded from the analysis
respondents who did not complete the first six of the survey’s nine modules. These first six modules covered education, employment, income, living
situation, and reflections on Scholars Program supports.5
Sample exclusions for methodological reasons. Fig. A1 shows the estimated propensity scores for Scholars and comparison applicants. The
green bars show Scholars excluded from the analysis for having a very high probability of selection; these Scholars are not matched to any com-
parison applicants.
Non-response weights. For the descriptive analysis of outcomes data for Program alumni, we constructed non-response weights to account for
observable differences between respondents and non-respondents. Our non-response analysis took into account gender, partner, birth year, gra-
duation year, and type of degree program (undergraduate/diploma or graduate). Using a logit model, we estimated the probability of responding to
the survey – taking into account these characteristics – and then calculated the non-response weight as the inverse of the predicted response
probability using the logit parameter estimates. This approach gives more weight to respondents who have characteristics similar to non-re-
spondents. When estimating means, we calculated the weighted mean applying these non-response weights. In practice, respondents and non-
respondents looked quite similar along these dimensions, so the weighted estimates (which are reported) are similar to the unweighted estimates.

5
The final three modules covered leadership, additional demographics, and contact information.

9
C. Cosentino, et al. International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089

Table A1
Scholars’ universities, analytic samples.

(continued on next page)

10
C. Cosentino, et al. International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089

Table A1 (continued)

Table A2
Impact analysis sample.
2014 Cohort 2015 Cohort All Total

Scholars Comparison Scholars Comparison Scholars Comparison

Applicants contacted for the survey 217 372 587 610 804 982 1786
Applicants responding to the survey 187 146 547 405 734 551 1285
Response rate 86% 39% 93% 66% 91% 56% 72%
Respondents remaining after excluding those with missing data 176 135 542 382 718 517 1235
Respondents included in matched sample 142 131 495 379 637 510 1147

Notes: Applicants included in the matched sample are those with propensity scores inside the common support (excluded respondents are flagged in green in Fig. A1;
these are Scholars with a probability of selection close to 1).

Table A3
Descriptive analysis sample.
Undergraduate Alumni Graduate Alumni All Tertiary Alumni

Applicants contacted for the survey 127 98 225

Applicants responding to the survey 75 80 155
Response rate 59% 82% 69%
Respondents remaining after excluding those with missing data 54 70 124

11
C. Cosentino, et al.
Fig. A1. Propensity scores, treated (Scholars) and untreated (comparison applicants) cases.
References
Al-Samarri, Samer, Zaman, Hassan, 2006. Abolishing school fees in Malawi: the impact on
education access and equity. Educ. Econ. 15 (3), 359–375.
Amos, Lauren Banks, Windham, Amy M., Brodziak de los Reyes, Iliana, Jones, Wehmah,
Baran, Virgina, 2009. Delivering on the Promise: An Impact Evaluation of the Gates
Millennium Scholars Program. Final Report. American Institutes of Research.,
Washington, DC.
Angrist, Joshua, Bettinger, Eric, Kremer, Michael, 2006. Long-term educational con-
sequences of secondary school vouchers: evidence from administrative records in
Colombia. Am. Econ. Rev. 96.3, 847–862.
Attanasio, Orazio, Fitzsimons, Emla, Gomez, Ana, Gutiérrez, Martha Isabel, Meghir,
Costas, Mesnard, Alice, 2010. Children’s schooling and work in the presence of a
conditional cash transfer program in Rural Colombia. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 58
(January 2), 181–210.
Barrera-Osorio, Felipe, Linden, Leigh L., Urquiola, Miguel, 2007. The Effects of User Fee
Reductions on Enrollment: Evidence From a Quasi-experiment. Manuscript.
Department of Economics. The University of Texas at Austin.
Behrman, Jere, Parker, Susan, Todd, Petra, 2005. Long-term impacts of the oportunidades
conditional cash transfer program on rural youth in Mexico. Gottingen, Germany:
Ibero-Am. Inst. Econ. Res.
Burciul, Barry, Kerr, Kim, 2018. Case study: education in support of social transforma-
tion—the Mastercard Foundation scholars program. In: Joan, R., Dassin, Robin
R.Marsh, Mawer, Matt (Eds.), International Scholarships in Higher Education.
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 329–343.
Breeze, Victoria, Moore, Nathan, 2017. China Has Overtaken the US and UK As the Top
Destination for Anglophone African Students. The Conversation.
Canning, David, Raja, Sangeeta, Yazbeck, Abdo S., 2015. Africa’s Demographic Transition:
Dividend or Disaster? Overview Booklet. Africa Development Forum Series. World
Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0489-2. License:
Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO.
Clewell, Beatriz Chu, de Cohen, Clemencia Cosentino, Tsui, Lisa, Deterding, Nicole, 2006.
Revitalizing the Nation’s Talent Pool in STEM—Science, Technology, Engineering,
12
International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089
and Mathematics. The Urban Institute and The National Science Foundation,
Washington, DC.
Darvas, Peter, Gao, Shang, Shen, Yijun, Bawany, Bilal, 2017. Sharing Higher Education’s
Promise Beyond the Few in Sub-saharan Africa. Directions in Development.
Washington, DC: World Bank Grouphttps://doi.org/10.1596/978-14648-1050-3.
License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO.
Deininger, Klaus, 2003. “Does cost of schooling affect enrollment by the poor? Universal
primary education in Uganda. Econ. Educ. Rev. 22, 291–305.
Duflo, Esther, Dupas, Pascaline, Kremer, Michael, 2015. Education, HIV, and early fer-
tility: experimental evidence from Kenya. Am. Econ. Rev. 105 (9), 2757–2797.
Filmer, Deon, Schady, Norbert, 2009. School Enrollment, Selection and Test Scores.”
Impact Evaluation Series No. 34. Washington. DC: The World Bank Development
Research Group – Human Development and Public Services Team July.
Gajigo, Ousman, 2016. Closing the education gender gap: estimating the impact of girls’
scholarship program in the Gambia. Educ. Econ. 24.2, 167–188.
Makundi, Hezron, Huyse, Huib, Develtere, Patrick, Mongula, Benedict, Rutashobya,
Lettice, 2017. Training abroad and technological capacity building: analyzing the
role of Chinese training and scholarship programmes for Tanzanians. Int. J. Educ.
Dev. 57, 11–20.
Martel, Mirka., 2018. Tracing the spark that lights a flame: a review of methodologies to
measure the outcomes of International scholarship programs. In: Joan, R., Dassin,
Robin R.Marsh, Mawer, Matt (Eds.), International Scholarships in Higher Education.
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 281–304.
Mawer, Matt., 2014. A Study of Research Methodology Used in Evaluations of
International Scholarship Schemes for Higher Education. Commonwealth Scholarship
Commission in the UK., London.
Mawer, Matt., 2017. Approaches to analyzing the outcomes of international scholarship
programs for higher education. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 21 (3), 230–245.
Meng, Xin, Ryan, Jim, 2010. Does a food for education program affect school outcomes?
The Bangladesh case. J. Popul. Econ. 23 (March 2), 415–447.
Montenegro, Claudio E., Patrinos, Harry Anthony, 2014. Comparable Estimates of
Returns to Schooling Around the World. Policy Research Working Paper 7020.
Education Global Practice Group. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Perna, Laura W., Orosz, Kata, Gopaul, Bryan, Jumakulov, Zakir, Ashirbekov, Adil,
C. Cosentino, et al.
Kishkentayeva, Marina, 2014. Promoting human capital development: a typology of
international scholarship programs in higher education. Educ. Res. 43 (2), 63–73.
United Nations. “Population.” n.d. Available at http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-
depth/population/. Accessed November 18, 2018.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics
(UIS), 2010. Trends in Tertiary Education: Sub-Saharan Africa. UIS Fact Sheet
No.10. .
13
International Journal of Educational Development 71 (2019) 102089
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics
(UIS). “2017 estimates.” UIS.Stat database, n.d. Available at http://data.uis.unesco.
org. Accessed November 18, 2018.
United Nations, 2018. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018. United Nations,
Division for Sustainable Development Goals, New York. https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg4.