Pima Community College Pathways to Healthcare Program: Implementation and Early Impact Report
Gardiner, K., Rolston, H., D., Fein, D. and S. Cho (2017). OPRE Report No. 2017-10, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
-
examining1,217Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Pathways to Healthcare)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total number of credits earned |
Pathways to Healthcare vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
1.50 |
1.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned credential |
Pathways to Healthcare vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
34.60 |
29.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned credential |
Pathways to Healthcare vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
37.30 |
17.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
postsecondary degree attainment |
Pathways to Healthcare vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
23.10 |
10.40 |
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: 83%
Male: 17% -
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
Arizona
-
Ethnicity Hispanic 56% Not Hispanic or Latino 44%
Study Details
Setting
The setting was a community college and local workforce agency in the U.S. southwest.
Study sample
The sample member characteristics were consistent with nontraditional students. Members were low-income (approximately half had annual household incomes of less than $15,000 and a mean household income of $17,000); approximately two-thirds received SNAP or WIC benefits). They were also older than traditional college students, and had low levels of education (8% had less than a high school degree, and 35% had a high school degree or equivalent). The majority of participants were female (83%), and more than half were Hispanic (56%). Approximately two-thirds (66%) were not currently working at the time of randomization, and 12% were working 35 hours or more per week.
Intervention Group
The intervention provided intensive and proactive staff guidance and advising to participants. It also provided scholarships for tuition, books, and program supplies. Participants could participate in a 10-week "College Readiness" bridge class if they were not academically ready to enroll in an occupational training program. Otherwise, participants were able to enroll in occupational programs. Treatment group participants were able to enter a Nursing Assistant program. The intervention also provided supports such as resume preparation, coaching for interviews, a networking group, and other job assistance to help program completers find and secure employment.
Comparison Group
Individuals in the comparison condition were not able to access any of the program specific supports, but could access other training programs and services at the community college. Control group students were able to receive financial aid based on eligibility and availability (Pell grants) and standard employment services from the community one-stop center.
Support for implementation
No information provided.
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).