Doubling Graduation Rates in a New State: Two-Year Findings from the ASAP Ohio Demonstration. Policy Brief
Sommo, Colleen; Cullinan, Dan; Manno, Michelle (2018). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED592008
-
examining1,501Students, gradePS
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) Intervention Report - Supporting Postsecondary Success
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2019
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
% Enrolled at any college |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
95.07 |
91.38 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Full time enrollment |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
83.86 |
65.93 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a certificate or associate degree |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
19.04 |
7.92 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned a certificate or associate degree |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
7.70 |
2.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a certificate or associate degree |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
1.60 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled, Semester 4 |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
60.16 |
50.53 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Full time enrollment status (third semester) |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
47.89 |
28.72 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Full time enrollment status (2nd semester) |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
65.23 |
46.89 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled (2nd semester) |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
79.91 |
68.34 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Full time enrollment status (fourth semester) |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
34.25 |
23.44 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled, Semester 3 |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
68.36 |
58.08 |
Yes |
|
||
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: 64%
Male: 36% -
- 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
Ohio
-
Race Black 35% Other or unknown 10% White 46% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10% Not Hispanic or Latino 90%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in three community colleges in Ohio.
Study sample
Among the 1,505 students in the study sample at baseline, 36 percent were male and 64 percent were female. At baseline, 46 percent of students were White, 35 percent were Black, 10 percent were Hispanic, and 10 percent fell into the “Other” category. Moreover, 60 percent of students were employed at baseline, 9 percent were married, 27 percent had children, 47 percent were nontraditional students, and 34 percent were the first person in their family to attend college.
Intervention Group
The ASAP intervention is a three-year multi-component program that provides wraparound supports to incoming community college students, including: tutoring; advising; career and employment services; blocked or linked courses; seminars; early enrollment; tuition waivers; and free use of textbooks. This intervention model in Ohio differs from the CUNY ASAP model primarily in two ways: (1) there is no requirement or encouragement of enrollment in a winter session as none of the participating Ohio community colleges offer a winter session, and (2) program oversight is decentralized in Ohio, with each campus overseeing the program (while CUNY ASAP is overseen centrally by the CUNY Office of Academic Affairs).
Comparison Group
Unlike ASAP, students in the comparison condition were not required to enroll full time and could not participate in ASAP programs. Students in the comparison group had access to the usual college services.
Support for implementation
ASAP in Ohio was funded through a consortium set up by MDRC. The primary funder was the Great Lakes Higher Education Guaranty Corporation with additional funding provided from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, Haile U.S. Bank Foundation, KnowledgeWorks, the Kresge Foundation, and the Lumina Foundation. Over time, the participating community colleges will take on an increasing share of the costs. CUNY and MDRC provided start-up technical assistance and the Ohio Department of Higher Education served as coordinator of the Ohio ASAP Network to facilitate communication and coordination across participating community colleges.
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).