The effect of mentoring on school attendance and academic outcomes: A randomized evaluation of the Check & Connect program (Working Paper WP-16-18)
Guryan, J., Christenson, S., Claessens, A., Engel, M., Lai, I., Ludwig, J., ... Turner, M. C. (2017). Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.
-
examining6,960Students, grades1-7
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2018
- IES Performance Measure (findings for IES Funded Studies (NCER))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
% of Membership Days Present Year 2 |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Cohort 2; Grade: 1, 2, 3, 4;
|
N/A |
94.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
% of Membership Days Present Year 2 |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Cohort 2; Grade: 5, 6, 7;
|
N/A |
90.80 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
% of Membership Days Present Year 1 |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Cohort 2; Grade: 1, 2, 3, 4;
|
N/A |
93.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
% of Membership Days Present Year 1 |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Cohort 2; Grade: 5, 6, 7;
|
N/A |
92.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days Absent Year 2 |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Cohort 2; Grade: 1, 2, 3, 4;
|
N/A |
10.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days Absent Year 2 |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Cohort 2; Grade: 5, 6, 7;
|
N/A |
15.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days Absent Year 1 |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Cohort 2; Grade: 1, 2, 3, 4;
|
N/A |
10.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days Absent Year 1 |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Cohort 2; Grade: 5, 6, 7;
|
N/A |
13.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days Present Year 2 |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Cohort 2; Grade: 5, 6, 7;
|
N/A |
160.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days Present Year 1 |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Cohort 2; Grade: 1, 2, 3, 4;
|
N/A |
163.70 |
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.
-
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
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
Illinois
Study Details
Setting
The study examines the effectiveness of Check & Connect (C&C) on students in grades 1–7. The study is conducted in 23 Chicago Public Schools.
Study sample
The Cohort 1 randomized sample was made up of 53% male students. The intervention group included 59% African-American students, 38% Hispanic students, 18% of students old for grade, and 11% of students were identified as having a learning disability. The comparison group composition included 57% African-American students, 40% Hispanic students, 15% of students old for grade, 10% of students were identified as having a learning disability. The Cohort 2 randomized sample was made up of 53% male students. The intervention group included 46% African-American students, 49% Hispanic students, 12% of students old for grade, and 5% of students were identified as having a learning disability. The comparison group included 47% African-American students, 47% Hispanic students, 10% of students were old for grade level, and 6% of students were identified as having a learning disability.
Intervention Group
C&C is a structured mentoring program that targets youth who are disengaging from school or at risk of dropping out of school (such students were identified based on attendance rates). Students in the intervention condition were offered the chance to participate in the C&C program in which a trained mentor provided support for student attendance and engagement over a 2 year period. The C&C mentors stayed with their assigned students for the full 2 years (unless they left or a student moved away). Mentors monitored student attendance and academic achievement, provided individualized timely interventions when needed to improve attendance and achievement outcomes, and engaged with parents. The Cohort I intervention took place during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years. The Cohort II intervention took place during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years. The C&C program costs were approximately $1,700 per student per year.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction.
Support for implementation
The C&C program was implemented by the SGA Youth and Family Services social service agency (SGA). SGA hired and trained the mentors to work in the Chicago Public Schools. Research consultants from the University of Minnesota conducted bi-annual trainings with the C&C mentors including training on C&C program fidelity. SGA had a project manager who supervised the mentors and provided support, feedback, and weekly meetings. CPS also had a project manager which oversaw the SGA project manager and provided data collection support.
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).