Evaluation of Accelerate, Complete, Engage (ACE) at CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice: Final Report.
Scuello, M., & Strumbos, D. (2024). Metis Associates and CUNY.
-
examining570Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Accelerate, Complete, Engage (ACE))
- 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 bachelor's degree |
Accelerate, Complete, Engage (ACE) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
68.80 |
57.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned bachelor's degree |
Accelerate, Complete, Engage (ACE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
58.80 |
46.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative postsecondary GPA of 2.0 or higher |
Accelerate, Complete, Engage (ACE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.00 |
87.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Credits earned |
Accelerate, Complete, Engage (ACE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.14 |
85.35 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
On-track to bachelor's degree in five years |
Accelerate, Complete, Engage (ACE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
70.00 |
56.20 |
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: 70%
Male: 30% -
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
New York
-
Race Black 10% Other or unknown 76% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 48% Other or unknown 52% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, a four-year college in the City University of New York (CUNY) system in New York City.
Study sample
Students in the study were incoming freshmen at John Jay College who agreed to attempt 15 credits each semester, scored proficient or higher in basic English and math skills, and met other requirements for CUNY enrollment and participation in the study. Researchers randomly assigned 285 students each to the intervention and comparison groups. Students were 18 years old on average; about half (50%) were first-generation college students. The majority (76%) lived with a parent and expected to continue doing so during college. About 21% were born outside the United States, and 69% reported that their parents were born in another country.
Intervention Group
Accelerate, Complete, Engage (ACE), based on Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP), is a student support model with the goal of increasing student completion of bachelor's degrees. Students begin engaging with ACE prior to the beginning of their freshman year and end their engagement upon graduation from college. Program components include (1) early engagement and community building to build students' sense of belonging, such as an ACE program orientation, annual welcome-back events, and online community chats with students and staff; (2) a requirement for students to earn 30 credits each year; (3) career development support, including a required career workshop each semester, monthly meetings with program advisors, and access to career development specialists, seminars, testing and assessment in career interests, and mock interviews; (4) academic advising, including an assigned ACE advisor and required monthly seminars and one-on-one advisor meetings; (5) academic support, including tutoring sessions and workshops; and (6) financial supports to help remove financial-related barriers to completing one's degree, including tuition and fee coverage based on need, funds for textbooks and course materials, and a MetroCard for New York City public transportation. Program supports were provided for a total of four years.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition were not offered participation in the ACE program during their enrollment at John Jay College. However, they had access to the same resources as all John Jay College students, including the Academic Advisement Center, the on-campus career services office, and on-campus resource and learning centers. They also had the opportunity to participate in college-wide new student orientation and welcome events prior to their first semester, as well as access to the same student groups, clubs, and other programs to which all John Jay students had access.
Support for implementation
The study authors do not describe specific supports for implementation of the ACE program provided by CUNY.
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.
-
Zhu, J., Scuello, M., Strumbos, D. (2023). Evaluation of Accelerate, Complete, Engage at CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice Year 4 Interim Study Report. Retrieved from https://www1.cuny.edu/sites/asap/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/CUNY-ACE-Study-Four-Year-Graduation-Results-Full-Report-April-2023.pdf.
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).