The (surprising) efficacy of academic and behavioral intervention with disadvantaged youth: Results from a randomized experiment in Chicago (Working Paper No. 19862)
Cook, P. J., Dodge, K. A., Farkas, G., Fryer, R. G., Jr., Guryan, J., Ludwig, J., Mayer, S. E., Pollack, H. A., & Steinberg, L. (2014). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w19862.
-
examining82Students, grades9-10
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Becoming a Man (BAM) and Match tutoring model - Cook et al. (2014))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of non-math courses failed |
Becoming a Man (BAM) and Match tutoring model - Cook et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.66 |
3.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
GPA in non-math courses |
Becoming a Man (BAM) and Match tutoring model - Cook et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.84 |
1.49 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GPA in math courses |
Becoming a Man (BAM) and Match tutoring model - Cook et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.75 |
1.29 |
No |
-- | |
|
Math subtest scores on the ACT EXPLORE and PLAN assessments |
Becoming a Man (BAM) and Match tutoring model - Cook et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
32.32 |
22.68 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of math courses failed |
Becoming a Man (BAM) and Match tutoring model - Cook et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.35 |
0.71 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Days absent |
Becoming a Man (BAM) and Match tutoring model - Cook et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.92 |
44.03 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Out-of-school suspension days |
Becoming a Man (BAM) and Match tutoring model - Cook et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.12 |
1.65 |
No |
-- | |
|
Discipline incidents |
Becoming a Man (BAM) and Match tutoring model - Cook et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.46 |
1.47 |
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.
-
Male: 100% -
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
Illinois
-
Race Black 96% Other or unknown 4% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 3% Other or unknown 97% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 99% No FRPL 1%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in one public high school located on the south-side of Chicago, Illinois.
Study sample
Male students in 9th and 10th grade who were enrolled in the participating high school and did not have excessive absenteeism the prior year (missed more than 60% of school days) and academic challenges (failed more than 75% of their classes) were eligible to participate in the study. Among the eligible students, the authors identified the 106 students most at risk of academic challenges based on their prior academic outcomes, including the number of prior-year course failures, unexcused absences, and age relative to grade level. Researchers then randomly assigned the 106 students to the comparison group, Becoming a Man (BAM) only group, or the BAM plus tutoring group. This review focuses on the BAM plus tutoring vs. comparison group contrast, which included 82 of the 106 students (48 students in the BAM plus tutoring group and 34 students in the comparison group). Almost all participants were Black (96%), few were Hispanic (3%) and nearly all were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (99%). In addition, 26% of participants had a learning disability.
Intervention Group
The intervention included an academic and a non-academic component. The non-academic component, called BAM, includes social-cognitive skills training based on cognitive behavioral therapy principals. Students could participate in up to 27 one-hour group sessions once per week during the school day. The intervention was delivered to small groups of no more than 15 students. Students attend BAM instead of attending an academic course. The academic component of the intervention is intensive, individualized two-on-one math tutoring provided for one hour every day, which was based on the model developed by Match Education.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received business-as-usual instruction and was eligible for all of the other academic supports that were available in the high school.
Support for implementation
The program is manualized and can be delivered by college-educated people without specialized training in psychology or social work.
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).