Increasing Community College Graduation Rates with a Proven Model: Three-Year Results from the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) Ohio Demonstration
Miller, Cynthia; Headlam, Camielle; Manno, Michelle; Cullinan, Dan (2020). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED603027
-
examining1,501Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP))
- Additional source not reviewed because it is not the primary source for the study (View primary source).
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for ASAP)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 6 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
34.80 |
19.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 3 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
-3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
7.70 |
2.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 4 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
-2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
19.00 |
7.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 5 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
-1 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
27.80 |
12.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Associate's degree |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.20 |
17.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 2 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
-4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
1.60 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Bachelor’s Degree |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.20 |
0.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 1 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
-5 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.30 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College Level Credits Earned: Cumulative (After 3 Years) |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
32.10 |
23.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College credits earned: Semester 3 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
-3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
6.50 |
4.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College credits earned: Semester 2 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
-4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
7.80 |
5.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College credits earned: Semester 1 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
-5 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
8.30 |
6.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College credits earned: Semester 4 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
-2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
5.10 |
3.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College credits earned: Semester 5 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
-1 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
2.90 |
2.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College credits earned: Semester 6 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.10 |
2.10 |
No |
-- | ||
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: 64%
Male: 36% -
Suburban, 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
Ohio
-
Race Black 35% Other or unknown 19% White 46% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10% Not Hispanic or Latino 90%
Study Details
Setting
The City University of New York (CUNY), with the support of the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity, started the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) to provide students with up to three years of financial and academic support, as well as other support services, to address barriers to college graduation. A central program goal is to help student graduate with an Associate’s Degree within three years. A previous evaluation CUNY ASAP found that the program led to a large and statistically significant increase in graduation rates, and the current evaluation investigates whether the program works well in another context: Ohio. To answer this question, a partnership of MDRC, CUNY, and the Ohio Department of Education was formed to evaluate the ASAP model at three community colleges in the state. The evaluation was conducted at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College (C-State) which serves approximately 8,000 students; Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C) which serves approximately 23,000 students, and Lorain County Community College (Lorain-CC) which serves about 11,000 students. Tri-C and C-State are located in Cleveland and Cincinnati, respectively, while Loraine-CC is in a smaller city, Elyria, located in an outlier county of the Cleveland metropolitan area. Although the colleges vary in size, they are typical of the characteristics of the students in most other community colleges in the state. For example, most students are age 25 or older, attend part-time, and approximately one-third of students across these schools receive Pell grants.
Study sample
Students in the sample had to be eligible for Pell Grants. The average age of study participants was 23.2 years. A majority had earned a high school diploma (87.2%), planned to enroll in college as full-time students (90.7%), had developmental education requirements entering the program (74.3%), and were women (64.0%). A majority of study participants were currently employed (59.9%) and living with parents (57.8%). Less than half were white (45.8%), over one-third were black (34.8%), and about one-third were the first person in their family to attend college (33.9%). Less than 10% of the students in the sample lived in a home where a language other than English was spoken regularly in the home (8.6%).
Intervention Group
The Ohio Programs model was designed to closely follow the CUNY ASAP to address multiple potential barriers to students completing community college within three years. The model consists of five components: (1) student support through advising, tutoring, and career services; (2) financial support through tuition waivers, monthly incentives, and textbook vouchers; (3) course enrollment support through blocked courses, and consolidated schedules, and a first-year seminar; (4) requirements and messages in students are required to be enrolled in college full-time, take developmental courses early, and graduate within three years, and (5) management and staffing in which program management and dedicated staff support student holistically throughout the three years.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received typical services offered at one of the three community colleges participating in the evaluation. The intensity and individualized attention of these services were less than that which the intervention group received.
Support for implementation
C-State, Tri-C, and Lorain-CC received support from CUNY and MDRC in an effort to adopt and develop their programs. CUNY led a workshop for participating colleges to help them develop their action plans for implementation during the planning phase. In addition, CUNY provided ongoing technical assistance throughout the implementation phase. MDRC provided operational support during the pilot phase of the program and developed a management system to collect and manage participant data.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2020
- Single Study Review (findings for ASAP)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Certificate: Highest Degree Earned |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
1.40 |
1.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 6 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
34.80 |
19.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 3 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
7.70 |
2.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 4 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
19.00 |
7.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 5 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
5 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
27.80 |
12.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Associate's degree |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
33.20 |
17.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 2 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
1.60 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Bachelor’s Degree |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.20 |
0.20 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Earned a degree from any college: Semester 1 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
0.30 |
0.00 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College Level Credits Earned: Cumulative (After 3 Years) |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
32.10 |
23.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College credits earned: Semester 3 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
6.50 |
4.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College credits earned: Semester 2 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
7.80 |
5.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College credits earned: Semester 1 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
8.30 |
6.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College credits earned: Semester 4 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
5.10 |
3.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College credits earned: Semester 5 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
5 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
2.90 |
2.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College credits earned: Semester 6 |
ASAP vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
2.10 |
2.10 |
-- |
-- | ||
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.
-
9% English language learners -
Female: 64%
Male: 36% -
Suburban, 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
Ohio
-
Race Black 35% Other or unknown 10% White 46% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10%
Study Details
Setting
The City University of New York (CUNY), with the support of the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity, started the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) to provide students with up to three years of financial and academic support, as well as other support services, to address barriers to college graduation. A central ASAP goal is to help student graduate with an Associate’s Degree within three years. A previous evaluation of CUNY ASAP found that the program led to a large and statistically significant increase in graduation rates. The current evaluation investigates whether the program works well in another context: Ohio. To answer this question, a partnership of MDRC, CUNY, and the Ohio Department of Education was formed to evaluate the ASAP model at three community colleges in the state. The evaluation was conducted at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College (C-State) which serves approximately 8,000 students; Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C) which serves approximately 23,000 students, and Lorain County Community College (Lorain-CC) which serves about 11,000 students. Tri-C and C-State are located in Cleveland and Cincinnati, respectively, while Loraine-CC is in a smaller city, Elyria, located in an outlier county of the Cleveland metropolitan area. Although the colleges vary in size, they are typical of the characteristics of the students in most other community colleges in the state. For example, most students are age 25 or older, attend part-time, and approximately one-third of students across these schools receive Pell grants.
Study sample
Students in the sample had to be eligible for Pell Grants. The average age of study participants was 23.2 years. A majority had earned a high school diploma (87.2 percent), planned to enroll in college as full-time students (90.7 percent), had developmental education requirements entering the program (74.3 percent), and were women (64.0 percent). A majority of study participants were currently employed (59.9 percent) and living with parents (57.8 percent). Less than half were white (45.8 percent), over one-third were black (34.8 percent), and about one-third were the first person in their family to attend college (33.9 percent). Less than 10 percent of the students in the sample lived in a home where a language other than English was spoken regularly in the home (8.6 percent).
Intervention Group
The Ohio ASAP model was designed to closely follow the CUNY ASAP, and therefore address multiple barriers to students completing community college within three years. The model consists of five components: (1) student support through advising, tutoring, and career services; (2) financial support through tuition waivers, monthly incentives, and textbook vouchers; (3) course enrollment support through blocked courses, and consolidated schedules, and a first-year seminar; (4) requirements for students to be enrolled in college full-time, take developmental courses early, and graduate within three years, and (5) management and staffing in which program management and dedicated staff support student holistically throughout the three years.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received typical services offered at one of the three community colleges participating in the evaluation. The intensity and individualized attention of these services were less than that which the intervention group received.
Support for implementation
C-State, Tri-C, and Lorain-CC received support from CUNY and MDRC in an effort to adopt and develop their programs. CUNY led a workshop for participating colleges to help them develop their action plans for implementation during the planning phase. In addition, CUNY provided ongoing technical assistance throughout the implementation phase. MDRC provided operational support during the pilot phase of the program and developed a management system to collect and manage participant data.
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).