Goldrick-Rab, S., Clark, K., Baker-Smith, C., & Witherspoon, C. (2021). The Hope Center. https://hope4college.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ARC_ImpactPaper.pdf.
Reviewed: November 2021
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduation from 2-year college |
Targeted emails to refer students to support services vs. Business as usual |
14 Months |
Full sample;
|
29.00 |
28.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Graduation from 2-year college |
Targeted emails to refer students to support services vs. Business as usual |
2 Months |
Full sample;
|
19.00 |
18.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Transfer to four-year college |
Targeted emails to refer students to support services vs. Business as usual |
2 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.00 |
2.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Transfer to four-year college |
Targeted emails to refer students to support services vs. Business as usual |
14 Months |
Full sample;
|
8.00 |
7.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College retention rate |
Targeted emails to refer students to support services vs. Business as usual |
2 Months |
Full sample;
|
88.00 |
88.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College retention rate |
Targeted emails to refer students to support services vs. Business as usual |
14 Months |
Full sample;
|
63.00 |
65.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed developmental education |
Targeted emails to refer students to support services vs. Business as usual |
2 Months |
Students enrolled in developmental education courses;
|
71.00 |
59.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Passed developmental education |
Targeted emails to refer students to support services vs. Business as usual |
14 Months |
Students enrolled in developmental education;
|
73.00 |
60.00 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 18% | |
| Other or unknown | 42% | |
| White | 40% |
| Hispanic | 42% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 58% |
The study was conducted at Amarillo College, a 2-year, Latinx-serving community college located in Texas that offers associate degree and certificate programs. Amarillo is a city of fewer than 200,000 residents, representing almost half of the population of the Texas Panhandle.
The majority of the students in the study were female (72%). Of the total sample, 42% were Hispanic, 40% were White, and 18% were Black. Approximately 86% of the sample were in the bottom quintile of the family income distribution.
The Advocacy and Resource Center (ARC) at Amarillo College is a social services case management program that includes access to emergency aid, public benefits programs, transportation, childcare assistance, coaching, career guidance, textbook lending, counseling, a food pantry, and clothing closet. Students randomly assigned to the intervention group were sent targeted personalized email messages by ARC staff to provide information and encourage them to visit the ARC for basic needs supports. The emails were sent out once per month from September through March during one academic year. The emails (1) were personalized, addressed to a student’s first name; (2) included content tied to particular academic junctures (e.g., welcoming students to campus, mentioning holidays or events); (3) described supports available to all students; (4) emphasized that many supports exist; and (5) were offered in addition to, not instead of, many other supportive messages across the institution.
Students in the comparison condition had the same access to the ARC as the intervention students. However, comparison group students did not receive email nudges.
No support for implementation was described.
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