Connecting College Students to Alternative Sources of Support: The Single Stop Community College Initiative and Postsecondary Outcomes. Research Report. RR-1740-SSU
Daugherty, Lindsay; Johnston, William R.; Tsai, Tiffany (2016). RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570946
-
examining9,621Students, gradePS
Single Stop Intervention Report - Supporting Postsecondary Success
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2020
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Single Stop.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of attempted college credits that were completed |
Single Stop vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
First-time college students;
|
78.70 |
78.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
One-year persistence |
Single Stop vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
First-time college students;
|
54.90 |
51.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
College-level credits earned after 2 semesters |
Single Stop vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
First-time college students;
|
17.90 |
17.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
One-term persistence |
Single Stop vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
First-time college students;
|
91.90 |
88.80 |
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: 56%
Male: 44% -
- 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
Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York
-
Race Asian 6% Black 24% Other or unknown 66% White 5% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 64% Not Hispanic or Latino 36%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at eleven community college campuses: Bunker Hill Community College, six City University of New York (CUNY) campuses, Delgado Community College, and three Miami Dade College campuses.
Study sample
The average age of the students in the analytic sample was 20 years old, and 56 percent of the sample was female. Five percent of the analytic sample of students were White, 24 percent were Black, six percent were Asian, and 64 percent were Hispanic. Eighty-three percent of students in the analytic sample received financial aid, and their average household income was $27,865. Forty percent of students in the sample were the first in their families to attend college.
Intervention Group
Campuses that implemented Single Stop were expected to establish and run the intervention according to the program requirements set out in Single Stop’s site manual. Students who entered a Single Stop office met with a site coordinator who conducted a needs assessment and collected data to register the student in the program’s case management system. Site coordinators then connected students to services and benefits for which they were eligible. This included benefit screening and application support, tax preparation services, financial counseling, legal services, and referrals to wraparound services. Wraparound services might include immigration consultations; mental health counseling; resources for housing, food, taxes, child care, or textbooks; and financial and legal services. Single Stop services were also available to families of enrolled students. The percentage of students who opted to use Single Stop services ranged from 5.7 percent in Delgado Community College to 22.9 percent in Miami Dade College.
Comparison Group
Comparison students were eligible but did not receive Single Stop services. They were free to access other campus services and public benefits.
Support for implementation
Implementation was funded under a Social Innovation Fund grant provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service to New Profit, an organization that provides financial support to Single Stop USA. In summer 2014, the national Single Stop office provided additional training to institutions that participated in the study to ensure that benefits screening and referral data were being collected in a standard fashion.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Goldrick-Rab, S., Broton, K., and Frank, V.M. (2014). Single Stop USA’s Community College Initiative: Implementation Assessment. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Hope Lab.
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).