Curtis, A., & Bandy, T. (2015). Washington, DC: The Eisenhower Foundation. Additional discussion can be found at: http://www.childtrends.org/.
Reviewed: September 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Accepted into college |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.49 |
0.26 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Accepted into college |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Black;
|
0.25 |
0.05 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Accepted into college |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Female;
|
0.51 |
0.20 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Accepted into college |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
0.62 |
0.36 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Accepted into college |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Male;
|
0.47 |
0.26 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High school graduation |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.76 |
0.38 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
High school graduation |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Black;
|
0.77 |
0.19 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
High school graduation |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Female;
|
0.78 |
0.36 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
High school graduation |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Male;
|
0.78 |
0.37 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
High school graduation |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
0.76 |
0.47 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Final high school GPA |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
2.33 |
1.76 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Final high school GPA |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Black;
|
2.40 |
1.50 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Final high school GPA |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
2.50 |
1.90 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Final high school GPA |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Female;
|
2.26 |
1.82 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Final high school GPA |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Male;
|
2.24 |
1.80 |
Yes |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 39% | |
| Other or unknown | 23% |
| Hispanic | 38% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 62% |
The study took place in Albuquerque, NM; Baltimore MD; Boston, MA; Milwaukee, WI; and New Bedford, MA. These locations were selected as they had high rates of school dropouts, youth unemployment, poverty, crime, violence, and gang involvement. There were a total of five public high schools from which students were selected in these locations.
The intervention sample was comprised of students with a mean age of 15.9 years, 53.3% female, 47.3% male, 37.7% African American, 41.7% Latino, and 20.5% other. Most students in the group received free or reduced priced lunch (78.3%) and 30.4% had parents who did not complete high school. The comparison sample was comprised of students with a mean age of 16.1 years, 46.7% female, 52.7% male, 39.6% African American, 34.2% Latino, and 26.2% other. Most students in the group received free or reduced priced lunch (85.8%) and 32.3% had parents who did not complete high school.
The Quantum Opportunities Program was designed as an multifaceted intervention program for high risk youth. The program operates in inner city neighborhoods and provides various solutions for many different problems experienced by youth at risk. Tutoring is provided to help students academically and mentoring is offered to provide deep mentor-mentee relationships. Life skills training is also offered through mentoring relationships which seek to discourage youth from engaging in risky behaviors. The program also offers youth leadership skill building and encourages participants to attend postsecondary education and become community role models. Participants are also provided a modest stipend of $1.25 per hour as an incentive for participation.
Comparison group students continued with a 'business as usual' in their high school program. These students did not participate in the Quantum Opportunities Program.
The program was operated by indigenous, inner city nonprofit organizations located in each neighborhood. The organizations collaborated with the high schools and worked with the youth after school and during the summer. The program was funded by the Eisenhower Foundation through awards from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the United States Department of Justice. The Eisenhower Foundation also provided administrative management, created and oversaw contracts and cooperative agreements, and provide training and technical support to the programs.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube