Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago. NBER Working Paper 21178
Heller, Sara B.; Shah, Anuj K.; Guryan, Jonathan; Ludwig, Jens; Mullainathan, Sendhil; Pollack, Harold A. (2015). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577230
-
examining2,064Students, grades9-10
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrollment status (CACE) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample (Study 2, End of Year 2);
|
56.03 |
51.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrollment status (CACE) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample (Study 2, End of Year 1);
|
65.72 |
63.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment status (ITT) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample (Study 2, End of Year 2);
|
53.78 |
51.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment status (ITT) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample (Study 2, End of Year 1);
|
64.52 |
63.30 |
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.
-
Male: 100% -
- 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
Illinois
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 9 Chicago Public Schools (CPS) high schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods on the south and west sides of Chicago.
Study sample
The study participants were all male. The average age of students in both intervention and comparison groups was 14 years old. 35 percent of students in both groups were old for their grade, and 23 percent of students in both groups had a previous arrest. In the intervention group, 70 percent of students were Black and 28 percent were Hispanic, while in the comparison group, 68 percent were Black and 30 percent were Hispanic. 17 percent of students in the intervention group and 16 percent in the comparison group had a learning disability.
Intervention Group
Students participated in the Becoming a Man (BAM) program, which consisted of weekly 1-hour group sessions for 2 years. The sessions were led by “counselors,” college-educated men hired and trained to deliver the established curriculum. The sessions used cognitive behavioral therapy and included reflection, role-playing, skill-building, and stories and discussion. Over the 2-year program, students voluntarily participated in up to 45 sessions. The sessions took place during the school day, and the students missed class to attend the program. In addition, after-school sports programming was offered in five of the nine schools during the first year only.
Comparison Group
Students participated in regular classes and school activities.
Support for implementation
Not reported.
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).