Single Stop final impact and implementation report.
Zhu, J., Harnett, S., & Scuello, M. (2018). New York: Metis Associates. Retrieved from https://www.metisassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Metis_09-18_Single_Stop_Final_Impact_and_Implementation_Report.pdf.
-
examining610Students, 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative GPA |
Single Stop vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
First-time college students;
|
2.59 |
2.41 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Percentage of attempted college credits that were completed |
Single Stop vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
First-time college students;
|
52.80 |
46.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Cumulative GPA |
Single Stop vs. Business as usual |
7 Semesters |
First-time college students;
|
2.57 |
2.41 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Percentage of attempted college credits that were completed |
Single Stop vs. Business as usual |
7 Semesters |
First-time college students;
|
53.50 |
47.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Three-year persistence |
Single Stop vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
First-time college students;
|
25.40 |
15.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Persistence through year 4 |
Single Stop vs. Business as usual |
7 Semesters |
First-time college students;
|
13.50 |
8.30 |
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: 46%
Male: 54% -
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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 72% Other or unknown 29% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 8% Not Hispanic or Latino 92%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in the Community College of Philadelphia (CCP), a community college that serves over 28,000 students.
Study sample
The sample included about 72 percent Black students and eight percent Hispanic students. About 39 percent were full time, while the remaining were part-time students. About 36 percent of students were the first in their families to attend college, and about 70 percent of students received student loans. The average student age at baseline was 26 years old and 46 percent were female.
Intervention Group
Single Stop provided students with five major services, including benefits screening and application assistance, tax preparation services, financial counseling (launched May 2014), legal assistance (launched June 2014), and immigration consultations (launched fall 2014). All intervention students received at least one of these five services during the study period. Students who received benefits screening met with Single Stop staff to determine what government benefits they were eligible for and received help applying for those benefits. These benefits included health insurance, food stamps, cash assistance, unemployment, child care, WIC, and Social Security funds, among other supports.
Comparison Group
All students at CCP were eligible to receive Single Stop services. Comparison students did not receive Single Stop services during the study period, but 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 GreenLight Fund, an organization that provides financial support to Single Stop USA. Single Stop had support from CCP administrators, which allowed it to be integrated into the college community.
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).