Fostering Opportunities: Results of a randomized controlled trial. (Report No. 18-105D)
Clemens, E.V., & Belcher, C (2024). Denver, CO: Colorado Evaluation and Action Lab at the University of Denver. https://coloradolab.org/resources/fostering-opportunities-results-of-a-randomized-controlled-trial/.
-
examining116Students, grades6-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Fostering Opportunities)
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Course pass rate |
Fostering Opportunities vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
78.83 |
67.83 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Course pass rate |
Fostering Opportunities vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample;
|
77.36 |
73.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Fostering Opportunities vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
84.41 |
75.41 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Attendance rate |
Fostering Opportunities vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample;
|
85.79 |
78.79 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Percent of students suspended at least once |
Fostering Opportunities vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Percent of students suspended at least once |
Fostering Opportunities vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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: 48%
Male: 52% -
- 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
Colorado
-
Race Other or unknown 56% White 44% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in Jefferson County, Colorado, in middle and high schools serving students in grades 6–12. Students had to be enrolled in Jefferson County (Jeffco) Public Schools when they entered the study, although the program could continue to support some students through school changes within Jeffco and into nearby districts; the report did not state how many schools were represented.
Study sample
Students were included if they were in in grades 6–12, enrolled in Jeffco Public Schools, and in foster care when they entered the study. The study included 230 students, with 148 assigned to be offered Fostering Opportunities and 82 assigned to the comparison group; most were in the custody of Jefferson County Human Services and some were referred by nearby county agencies if they attended Jeffco schools. The average age at enrollment was 13 years old.
Intervention Group
Fostering Opportunities is a school engagement and support program for middle and high school students who had experienced foster care. Its purpose is to help students stay connected to school and work toward a high school credential; in this study, specialists employed by the school district checked in with students weekly, shared information about school progress with caregivers and child welfare caseworkers, consulted with teachers about trauma-informed supports, and followed students through planned and unplanned school changes. The intensity of services varied based on student need. The program continued to support students when they transferred schools or districts.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received the usual services provided by the school district and the child welfare agency that coordinated foster care. The report did not describe those usual services in detail.
Support for implementation
The intervention was implemented through collaboration between the school district and the county human services agency. The report described several supports for implementation, including (1) a program manual developed by the Colorado Evaluation and Action Lab, Jeffco Public Schools, and the county human services agency; (2) quarterly monitoring of implementation benchmarks during the first two years; and (3) annual fidelity reviews. The study did not provide details about training or coaching for specialists.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).