Case Management for Students at Risk of Dropping Out: Implementation and Interim Impact Findings from the Communities in Schools Evaluation
Corrin, William; Parise, Leigh M.; Cerna, Oscar; Haider, Zeest; Somers, Marie-Andrée (2015). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558497
-
examining2,048Students, grades6-12
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2017
- Practice Guide (findings for Dropout Prevention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Did not fail any core courses (%) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
67.74 |
69.76 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place in 28 middle and high Communities in Schools. These schools are located in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. All schools receive Title I funding. Communities in Schools is comprehensive service model that works with low-income students at risk of failing or dropping out in the nation's poorest performing schools. The intervention model includes Level 1 services and Level 2 case management services that are provided to all students and a subset of students, respectively.
Study sample
The analytic sample for the Level 2 case management intervention condition was 61% Hispanic, 35% black non-Hispanic, 2% white, 1% Asian, 1% other, 44% male, and 54% free and reduced price lunch eligible. Twelve percent spoke English as a second language, 3% qualified for a gifted program, 9% were chronically absent, and 26% failed at least one core course. The average attendance rate was 96% and the average core course marks were 80%. The analytic sample for the non-case management control condition was 60% Hispanic, 34% black non-Hispanic, 3% white, 2% Asian, 1% other, 46% male, and 51% free and reduced price lunch eligible. Eleven percent spoke English as a second language, 4% qualified for a gifted program, 9% were chronically absent, and 26% failed at least one core course. The average attendance rate was 96% and the average core course marks were 80%. The authors reported that with the exception of the percent of FRPL-eligible students, none of the differences between the groups were statistically significant using OLS and controlling for random assignment blocks.
Intervention Group
Communities in Schools works with low-income students at risk of failing or dropping out in the nation's poorest performing schools. Students in study schools who display risk factors such as poor academic performance, high absentee rate, or behavioral problems are randomly assigned to the Level 2 case-managed services intervention condition are provided services by school site coordinators. The site coordinator may be assisted by other intervention staff, school staff, volunteers or other paid outside providers such as AmeriCorps volunteers and interns. Site coordinator caseloads vary by affiliate based on other available staff, with 44, 66, 77, 92, and 130 students per caseload on average in the 5 affiliates. Fourteen of 28 schools had 1 site coordinator, 13 had 2 site coordinators, and 1 had 3 site coordinators. Services begin as early as 6th grade and occur throughout the year. Yearly student assessments determine the duration and intensity of services. Site coordinators/staff provide individualized support to address student needs through assessments, goals, and plans. Student services fall under eight categories: academic, behavioral, attendance, social/life skills, basic needs/resources, college/career preparation, enrichment/motivation, and family-related. Among these services, site coordinators emphasize and monitor attendance, academic progress, and general mental and emotional health. These results are measured during the first year of implementation, and are considered interim results by the authors. Students were enrolled in case management on average for 30 weeks, which is about 3/4 of the 2012-2013 school year. 89 percent of students in the intervention group report having at least 1 direct service contract during the school year. On average students received 19.4 service contacts for an average of 16.2 service hours during the year. Case management services include academic, behavior, attendance, social/life skills, and other services. Academic, Behavior, and Social/life skills were the most common types of services received.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group have access to whatever student supports are available other than Communities in Schools Level 2 case management, and receive services described as "business as usual." The study reported that a wide variety of many services are available in study schools and described the school characteristics in detail as a part of the implementation study on a larger group of schools.
Support for implementation
Each school has one or more Communities in Schools site coordinators who are responsible for all on-site operations. Many had or were pursuing advance degrees in social work or counselors. A host of support staff were also present at study schools including guidance counselors, social workers, and other support staff such as behavior specialists, college advisers, and parent advocates. It is hard to distinguish support for Communities in Schools generally from support for the case management piece. In addition, local affiliates build community partnerships and provide funding support to the program. Site coordinator staff training and other supports were not described.
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).