Heller, Sara; Pollack, Harold A.; Ander, Roseanna; Ludwig, Jens (2013). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577232
Reviewed: September 2017
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
4-year high school graduation rate (CACE) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.41 |
0.34 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
High school graduation rate (ever) (CACE) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
7 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.47 |
0.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
High school graduation rate (ever), transfers counted as graduates (CACE) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
7 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.62 |
0.58 |
Yes |
|
||
|
High school graduation rate (ever), transfers counted as graduates (ITT) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
7 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.62 |
0.58 |
Yes |
|
||
|
4-year high school graduation rate (ITT) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.37 |
0.34 |
No |
-- | ||
|
High school graduation rate (ever) (ITT) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
7 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.44 |
0.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrollment status (CACE) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.80 |
0.76 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrollment status (CACE) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.92 |
0.88 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment status (ITT) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.90 |
0.88 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment status (ITT) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.78 |
0.76 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The analytic sample was drawn from 18 Chicago Public Schools middle and high schools.
Study participants were all male. All students were Black or Hispanic and about one-fifth had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for a learning disability. All students in the sample were considered to be at risk of experiencing poor schooling outcomes and engaging in criminal behavior.
Students participated in one of three intervention groups of the Becoming a Man (BAM) intervention: an in-school intervention group, an after-school intervention group, or both an in-school and an after-school intervention group. Consistent with the study, this practice guide combines these three intervention groups. The in-school intervention consisted of 27 one-hour weekly sessions during the academic year. The sessions were offered in place of a traditional class during the school day. The instructors were college-educated and were not required to have specialized training. The curriculum components included elements of cognitive behavioral therapy. The after-school intervention consisted of 1- to 2-hour sessions during the academic year. Each session included student participation in non-traditional sports and reflection on their behavior. The after-school coaches were trained in the intervention.
Students received regular classroom instruction. The authors noted that there was a high level of crossover in which some of the comparison students received the intervention.
Although instructors were not required to have specialized training, Youth Guidance preferred instructors with training in psychology and social work. The World Sport Chicago coaches who implemented the after-school treatment condition received training in the BAM program.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube