MORE GUIDANCE, BETTER RESULTS?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Opening Doors DemonstrationAppendix Table E.11Health OutcomesLorain County Community College and Owens Community College ReportProgram Control Difference Standard EffectOutcome Group Group (Impact) Error SizePerceived stress a 2.20 2.17 0.02 0.04 0.03K6 score for psychological distress b 5.51 5.28 0.23 0.20 0.05Indicator of high psychologicaldistress (%) c 6.7 7.1 -0.4 1.2 -0.01Health status fair or poor (%) 17.5 15.1 2.3 1.7 0.06Body mass index d (BMI) 27.70 27.37 0.32 0.33 0.05Overweight or obese e (BMI ≥ 25) (%) 57.6 57.4 0.2 2.4 0.00Current smoker (%) 36.0 38.9 -2.9 2.3 -0.06Sample size (total = 1,813) 910 903SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the Opening Doors 12-Month Survey.NOTES: Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in sums and differences.A two-tailed t-test was applied to differences between research groups. Statistical significance levels areindicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.Estimates are adjusted by cohort and college.a4-item scale about feelings of social stress; response categories range from 1 = “none of the time” to 5 =“all of the time.” Items are averaged.b6-item scale about nonspecific psychological distress; response categories range from 0 = “none of thetime” to 4 = “all of the time.” Items are summed.cIndicator if the K6 Screening Scale measure of psychological distress (see note b) exceeds 12.dBMI = weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared.eStandard weight-status categories associated with BMI ranges for adults: underweight < 18.5; normalweight = 18.5 to 24.9; overweight = 25.0 to 29.9; and obese = 30 or greater.140
ReferencesAdelman, Clifford. 2004. Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories in PostsecondaryEducation, 1972-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of EducationSciences.Austrian, Ziona. 2006. Manufacturing Brief: Trends in Manufacturing Industries in NortheastOhio. Cleveland: The Center for Economic Development, Maxine Goodman Levin Collegeof Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University.Web site: http://urban.csuohio.edu/economicdevelopment/reports/mb_oct06.pdfBrock, Thomas, and Allen LeBlanc. 2005. Promoting Student Success in Community College andBeyond. New York: MDRC.Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designsfor Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Choy, Susan. 2002. Nontraditional Undergraduates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics.Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). 2008. High Expectations and HighSupport. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Community College LeadershipProgram.Cuseo, Joe. 2003. Academic Advisement and Student Retention: Empirical Connections andSystemic Interventions. Brevard, NC: Policy Center on the First Year of College.Duke, Amy-Ellen, and Julie Strawn. 2008. Overcoming Obstacles, Optimizing Opportunities: StatePolicies to Increase Postsecondary Attainment for Low-Skilled Adults. Boston: Jobs for the Future.Gardenhire-Crooks, Alissa, Herbert Collado, and Barbara Ray. 2006. A Whole ’Nother World:Students Navigating Community College. New York: MDRC.Grubb, W. Norton. 2001. ‘Getting into the World’: Guidance and Counseling in CommunityColleges. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.Hoachlander, Gary, Anna Sikora, and Laura Horn. 2003. Community College Students: Goals,Academic Preparation, and Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics.Horn, Laura, Rachel Berger, and C. Dennis Carroll. 2005. College Persistence on the Rise? Changesin 5-Year Degree Completion and Postsecondary Persistence Rates Between 1994 and 2000.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Mathur, Anita, with Judy Reichle, Julie Strawn, and Chuck Wisely. 2004. From Jobs to Careers:How California Community Colleges Pay Off for Welfare Participants. Washington, DC, andSacramento, CA: Center for Law and Social Policy and California Community Colleges Chancellor’sOffice.141
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 14 and 15:
guidance on the study. Thomas Brock
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:
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:
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:
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: Table B.3 (continued)Characteristic
Page 118 and 119: The Opening Doors DemonstrationAppe
Page 122 and 123: Table B.5 (continued)Characteristic
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 149 and 150: Male SubgroupFemale SubgroupDiffere
Page 157 and 158: Appendix Table E.7 (continued)SOURC
Page 163: Appendix Table E.10 (continued)SOUR
Page 167 and 168: EARLIER MDRC PUBLICATIONS ON OPENIN
Page 169: About MDRCMDRC is a nonprofit, nonp
show all

MORE GUIDANCE, BETTER RESULTS?

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?