A Path from Access to Success: Interim Findings from the Detroit Promise Path Evaluation
Ratledge, Alyssa; O'Donoghue, Rebekah; Cullinan, Dan; Camo-Biogradlija, Jasmina (2019). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED594432
-
examining1,269Students, gradePS
Quick Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2019
- Quick Review (findings for Detroit Promise Path)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment |
Detroit Promise Path vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
66.00 |
61.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Persistence into second semester |
Detroit Promise Path vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
63.00 |
55.00 |
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: 59%
Male: 41% -
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
Michigan
-
Race Black 80% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12%
Study Details
Setting
Detroit’s Promise Path program serves students in Detroit, Michigan. Nearly half of residents under the age of 18 in Detroit, and over 70 percent of Detroit’s children, live in poverty (Federal Report). Fewer than 15 percent of city residents possess a bachelor’s degree or higher. Program participants were students at five Detroit-area community colleges: Henry Ford College, Macomb Community College, Oakland Community College, Schoolcraft College, and Wayne County Community College District. The rates of federal Pell Grant receipt for first-time, full-time students at these colleges range from 27 percent to 81 percent, with the highest percentages at the two colleges enrolling the greatest numbers of Detroit Promise recipients.
Study sample
Students that were eligible and enrolled in the study were 59% female, 41% male, 80% black, 12% Hispanic, and 8% other. On average study participants were 18 years old and 79% live with a parent with at least a Bachelor of Arts degree.
Intervention Group
Administered by the Detroit Regional Chamber, the "Detroit Promise" was launched in 2013 as the Detroit Scholarship Fund to help more of the city’s high school graduates enroll in college. A student can enroll in the scholarship within one year of finishing high school and is eligible for funds for up to three years. Students are directed to enroll in school full time, though this requirement is not enforced, meaning that students do not lose the scholarship if they drop below full-time status. The scholarship program covers any difference between a student’s financial aid and tuition for up to three years of attendance. To be eligible, the student must have graduated from a Detroit high school and be a resident of the city of Detroit. The "Detroit Promise Path" adds four components to the existing scholarship program: (1) it provides campus coaching and requires each student to meet with a coach starting in late summer before the first semester, twice per month during the school year, and is the core program component, (2) it provides a $50 gift card refillable each month for expenses not covered by financial aid, such as bus passes or books, as an incentive for students who meet with coach, (3) it engages students in the summer by encouraging enrollment or connecting them to local initiatives such as summer job programs, (4) it provides a management information system — Microsoft Dynamics 365 —that coaches use to track their email, text and phone outreach, student participation in coaching sessions, and financial incentives that come with participation in those activities. The program lasts all year, including summer semesters, when students are encouraged to enroll in summer classes (paid for by the scholarship) or engage in a local summer jobs program called "Grow Detroit’s Young Talent."
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison met the same eligibility criteria as those in the intervention condition and received the same scholarship as students in the Detroit Promise Path program. This scholarship has, since 2013, been made available to all Detroit residents who have a high school diploma. Students in the comparison condition did not receive any of the four other additional program components (i.e., coaching, stipend, summer opportunities, and management information system monitoring).
Support for implementation
During the first two-years of the program, MDRC partnered with Detroit Promise program staff to set up the program, monitor program implementation using the management information, and use cost-effective management techniques.
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).