Northeast Resiliency Consortium: Final evaluation report
Price, D., Childress, L., Sedlak, W., & Roach, R. (2017). Indianapolis, Indiana: DVP-PRAXIS LTD and Philadelphia, PA: Equal Measure.
-
examining3,987Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2020
- Practice Guide (findings for Northeast Resiliency Consortium (NRC) )
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed Program |
Northeast Resiliency Consortium (NRC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Comprehensive Support Services for Continuing Education Participants and Matched Comparison Group;
|
82.00 |
44.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Credits earned or banked |
Northeast Resiliency Consortium (NRC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Comprehensive Support Services for Continuing Education Participants and Matched Comparison Group;
|
41.00 |
24.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
received credential |
Northeast Resiliency Consortium (NRC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Comprehensive Support Services for Continuing Education Participants and Matched Comparison Group;
|
74.00 |
37.00 |
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: 52%
Male: 48% -
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
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York
-
Race Asian 10% Black 31% Other or unknown 21% White 29% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 27% Not Hispanic or Latino 55%
Study Details
Setting
The Northeast Resiliency Consortium (NRC) is composed of seven community colleges in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York: Atlantic Cape Community College (NJ), Passaic County Community College (NJ), Bunker Hill Community College (MA), Capital Community College (CT), Housatonic Community College (CT), Kingsborough Community College (NY), LaGuardia Community College (NY).
Study sample
"Across the consortium, participants are older students, with an average age of 30.67, and are racially and ethnically diverse: 31% are Black or African American, 29% are White, 10% are Asian, and 9% reported multiple races. In addition, more than one-fourth identified as Hispanic (any race). Slightly less than half of participants reported a high school diploma or less as their highest credential prior to enrolling in the NRC (40% of participants received a high school diploma and 6% received a GED), and these participants were younger, on average, than the overall participant group (average age=28.30). Participants were almost evenly split between men and women." (p. 17)
Intervention Group
The study assessed the impact of receiving comprehensive support services or enrolling in a continuing education to credit pathway on educational outcomes. Comprehensive support services focused on the career, personal, and academic issues.
Comparison Group
Business as usual. The comparison group for each contrast was formed using PSM on the pool of NRC participants who did not receive each intervention.
Support for implementation
The NRC colleges participated in the Achieving the Dream, which is a non-governmental reform movement designed to promote for student success. This movement entails providing colleges with technical assistance around building pathways to success and any needed institutional change.
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).