Longer-term impacts of mentoring, educational services, and learning incentives: Evidence from a randomized trial in the United States.
Rodríguez-Planas, N. (2012). American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(4), 121–139.
-
examining1,008Students, grades9-12
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Ever enrolled in postsecondary education |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Full sample;
|
63.20 |
55.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever in college |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Full sample;
|
42.00 |
37.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Bachelor's degree attainment |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Full sample;
|
3.10 |
2.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Obtained a bachelor's or associate's degree |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Full sample;
|
6.80 |
7.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned a GED |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
6.70 |
7.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Completed 2 years of college or training |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Full sample;
|
37.10 |
30.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of semesters in college |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
1.62 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Obtained high school diploma |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
48.80 |
43.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Has a job |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Full sample;
|
71.40 |
70.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average hours worked per week |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
27.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average hourly wage |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
9.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total earnings in the past 12 months |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
13427.00 |
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: 54% -
- 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
District of Columbia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington
-
Race Black 68% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 25%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at 11 high schools across 7 sites in the U.S. The seven sites are: Cleveland, OH; Washington, D.C.; Fort Worth, TX; Houston, TX; Memphis, TN; Philadelphia, PA; and Yakima, WA.
Study sample
The randomized sample was evenly split between females and males, and most students were 14 years old at the start of the study. Approximately 25 percent of the study participants were Hispanic and approximately 68 percent Black. Demographic characteristics of the analytic samples were not available.
Intervention Group
The Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP) provided a range of supports for high school students with the goal of improving social, academic, and employment outcomes. Program activities included anger management and family planning discussions, academic tutoring and planning, community service, and pre-employment training. Training occurred after school and during the weekends. The program aimed to provide 750 hours of activities per year for five years. (Students who graduated high school in four years received mentoring and assistance with college enrollment during the fifth year of the study.) Students were also offered financial incentives to actively participate in the program. Specifically, for each hour spent involved a program activity students received $1.25, and students who obtained either a high school diploma or a GED and who also enrolled in college received an amount that matched what they had earned throughout the program (which was typically more than $1,000).
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group did not participate in QOP. Some of the comparison group students attended the same schools as QOP participants, though the researchers did not find evidence of spillover effects from QOP participants to the comparison group members.
Support for implementation
Case managers with experience in social services were hired to work with the QOP youth. The case managers aimed to develop close, personal relationships with the student participants regardless of whether or not the students were actively engaged in the program, and despite any negative behaviors they might display. Each case manager had a caseload of 15 - 25 youth. QOP cost approximately $25,000 per student participant.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Maxfield, M., Schirm, A., & Rodriguez-Planas, N. (2003). The Quantum Opportunity Program demonstration: Implementation and short-term impacts. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. https://mathematica.org/-/media/publications/pdfs/quanshort.pdf.
-
Torgesen, Joseph; Myers, David; Schirm, Allen; Stuart, Elizabeth; Vartivarian, Sonya; Mansfield, Wendy; Stancavage, Fran; Durno, Donna; Javorsky, Rosanne; Haan, Cinthia. (2006). National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report. Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap: First Year Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers. NCEE 2006-4002. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
-
Schirm, A., & Rodriguez-Planas, N. (2004). The Quantum Opportunity Program demonstration: Initial post-intervention impacts. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. https://mathematica.org/-/media/publications/pdfs/qoppostintervention.pdf.
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).