MORE GUIDANCE, BETTER RESULTS?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

guidance on the study. Thomas Brock led the evaluation of the Opening Doors programs andhelped set up the demonstration at Lorain. Two former MDRC employees played central rolesin the study in Ohio. Melissa Wavelet worked closely with the colleges’ administrators to designthe program and offered guidance to help them deliver services to students as intended.Janelle Stevens worked with Melissa and one of this report’s authors on all aspects of thedemonstration at the colleges. JoAnna Hunter worked with Battelle Memorial Institute toconduct the 12-month survey in Ohio. Colleen Sommo oversaw the collection of the quantitativedata used in this report, and former MDRC staff members Laura Llamado, Sarah Spell,Jenny Au, Michael Pih, and Asa Wilks programmed the data. The current MDRC staff mentioned,along with John Hutchins, Charles Michalopoulos, and Lashawn Richburg-Hayes,reviewed earlier drafts of this report and provided helpful comments. Erin Coghlan assisted inthe production of the report and conducted fact-checking. Joel Gordon, Galina Farberova, andShirley James and her staff developed and monitored the random assignment and baselinedata collection process. Alice Tufel edited the report, and Stephanie Cowell and David Sobelprepared it for publication.Finally, we would like to thank the hundreds of students who participated in the studyat Lorain and Owens, and, in particular, those who answered surveys or participated in interviews.All were low-income students striving to get an education, most while juggling workand family responsibilities. We hope that the findings from the study in Ohio and the othersites in Opening Doors will be used to improve college programs and services for them andothers in the future.The Authorsxii
Executive SummarySince the mid-1960s, access to higher education has expanded dramatically, and communitycolleges have played an increasingly important role. Today, community colleges —which are accessible and affordable, relative to four-year institutions — enroll more than one inevery three postsecondary education students. 1 Unfortunately, among students who enroll incommunity colleges with the intent to earn a credential or transfer to a four-year institution, only51 percent achieve their goal within six years. 2 Institutional barriers, including inadequatestudent services, can impede community college students’ academic progress. Student-tocounselorratios at community colleges are often more than 1,000 to 1, limiting the assistancethat students receive. 3This report presents results from a rigorous study of a program that provided enhancedstudent services and a modest stipend to low-income students at two community colleges inOhio. The program was run as part of MDRC’s multisite Opening Doors demonstration, whichtested different programs to help students succeed in community college. At Lorain CountyCommunity College and Owens Community College, students in the Opening Doors programwere assigned to one of a team of counselors, with whom they were expected to meet at leasttwo times per semester for two semesters to discuss academic progress and resolve any issuesthat might affect their schooling. Each counselor worked with far fewer students than theregular college counselors did, which allowed for more frequent, intensive contact. Participatingstudents were also eligible for a $150 stipend for two semesters, for a total of $300.To estimate the effects of the program, MDRC randomly assigned students either to aprogram group, whose members were eligible for the Opening Doors services and stipend, or toa control group, whose members received standard college services and no Opening Doorsstipend. Any subsequent substantial differences between the two groups in academic and otheroutcomes can be attributed to the program.In summary, the key findings from this report are:1 Stephen Provasnik and Michael Planty, Community Colleges: Special Supplement to the 2008 Conditionof Education (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2008).2 Gary Hoachlander, Anna Sikora, and Laura Horn, Community College Students: Goals, Academic Preparation,and Outcomes (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics, 2003).3 Norton W. Grubb, ‘Getting into the World’: Guidance and Counseling in Community Colleges (NewYork: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2001), 6.ES-1
Page 1: OPENING DOORSMORE GUIDANCE,BETTER R
Page 4 and 5: Funders of the Opening Doors Projec
Page 7 and 8: ContentsOverviewList of Tables, Fig
Page 9 and 10: List of Tables, Figures, and BoxesT
Page 11: PrefaceIf approved by Congress, the
Page 16 and 17: • The Ohio colleges successfully
Page 18 and 19: Program group members were assigned
Page 20 and 21: • For the most part, the program
Page 22 and 23: offered, but might also provide stu
Page 25 and 26: Chapter 1IntroductionOver the last
Page 27 and 28: The Opening Doors DemonstrationTabl
Page 29 and 30: sure that students complete the req
Page 31 and 32: While the mechanism through which s
Page 33 and 34: imately 1,700 to 1 in 2001. 22 Exac
Page 35: of literature exist on career couns
Page 38 and 39: The CollegeLorain County Community
Page 40 and 41: • Were beginning freshmen or cont
Page 42 and 43: The Opening Doors DemonstrationTabl
Page 44 and 45: Table 2.1 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 46 and 47: Lorain and Owens Financial Aid Data
Page 49 and 50: Chapter 3The Implementation of the
Page 51 and 52: Toward the end of each student’s
Page 53 and 54: meet with their counselor a minimum
Page 55: The Opening Doors DemonstrationTabl
Page 59 and 60: Appendix Table C.2 shows informatio
Page 61: Opening Doors counselors, and progr
Page 64 and 65:
Program Control Difference Standard
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 4The Effects of Enhanced St
Page 69 and 70:
Program SemestersTable 4.1 (page 47
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
The Opening Doors DemonstrationTabl
Page 77 and 78:
Transcript Outcomes by GenderAssess
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
correspond with the program’s imp
Page 85 and 86:
Chapter 5Summary and ConclusionsLor
Page 87 and 88:
The Opening Doors DemonstrationFigu
Page 89 and 90:
An alternative interpretation of th
Page 91:
Appendix ASupplementary Baseline In
Page 94 and 95:
Full Program ControlCharacteristic
Page 96 and 97:
Appendix Table A.1 (continued)Full
Page 98 and 99:
Full Program ControlCharacteristic
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 105:
Appendix BSurvey Response Analysis
Page 108 and 109:
Background Characteristics of Surve
Page 110 and 111:
Table B.1 (continued)Characteristic
Page 112 and 113:
The Opening Doors DemonstrationAppe
Page 114 and 115:
Table B.2 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 129 and 130:
Lorain OwensProgram ProgramOutcome
Page 131 and 132:
Lorain County Community CollegeOwen
Page 133:
Appendix DDescription of Scales Pre
Page 136 and 137:
4. I hardly ever expect things to g
Page 138 and 139:
Social Support and Civic Engagement
Page 140 and 141:
Psychological Distress (6-item summ
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Male SubgroupFemale SubgroupDiffere
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Appendix Table E.7 (continued)SOURC
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Appendix Table E.10 (continued)SOUR
Page 165 and 166:
ReferencesAdelman, Clifford. 2004.
Page 167 and 168:
EARLIER MDRC PUBLICATIONS ON OPENIN
Page 169:
About MDRCMDRC is a nonprofit, nonp
show all

MORE GUIDANCE, BETTER RESULTS?

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?