1dOprzL

Recommendations

Info

$16,284 of additional investment in each ASAP program group student resultedin an estimated 83.9 percent increase in the likelihood of earning a degree.Even though ASAP spent more money overall, this estimated effect actuallylowered the cost per degree earned for ASAP students by 11.4 percentcompared with students who receive the usual college services.MethodologyThis chapter describes the cost of the ASAP program and estimates the cost-effectiveness oftwo cohorts of ASAP students at three CUNY colleges (Borough of Manhattan, Kingsborough,and LaGuardia Community Colleges) from spring 2010 through summer 2013. 2 All dollarvalues in this analysis have been adjusted to 2013 dollars using the Higher Education PriceIndex for public two-year colleges. Costs are associated with the steady state operation ofASAP. All costs reflect the costs and resources of operating ASAP for the two cohorts at thethree colleges in the study for the three-year evaluation period. All costs associated withMDRC’s evaluation of ASAP have been excluded. Costs are considered from the perspective ofthe college. College-level spending includes resources from a spectrum of stakeholders,including students, private donors/foundations, local taxpayers, and state and federal governments.These costs are estimated using college financial information. Since all funds (such astuition paid by students, subsidies from various governments, and private donations) arefunneled through the college, this approach provides a good estimate of the total investment thatwas made in these community college students. For presentation purposes, all costs have beenclassified as direct costs, base costs, or indirect costs. See Box 5.1 for definitions of terms usedin this chapter.Direct CostThe direct cost of the program accounts for the resources that are required to operate ASAPfor the 451 program group students during the period of program evaluation atthe three participating colleges. Table 5.1 illustrates the direct cost of ASAP, which wasan estimated $14,029 per program group member over the three-year period. These values arebased on CUNY’s expenditure data on ASAP and adjusted using the Higher Education Price2 At two of the schools, two cohorts were randomly assigned, one in spring 2010 and one in fall 2010; atthe third school, only one cohort was randomly assigned, in fall 2010.72
Box 5.1Key Cost TermsThe following terms are used in the cost analysis.Direct cost: The cost directly associated with providing ASAP, including components suchas administration and staffing, student services, course enrollment supports, and financialsupports.Base cost: The cost of the usual college services in the absence of the program. Base cost =cost per credit x number of credits attempted by the control group. The cost per credit is anestimate of the average amount of resources expended by the college to provide one creditof study; it is calculated by dividing the college’s annual operating budget by the number ofcredits attempted at the college during the year of interest.Indirect cost: The cost resulting from a behavioral change brought about by the program,such as additional credits attempted by program group members. This cost can extendbeyond the period of program operation. The cost per credit for indirect cost is based on thecollege’s annual operating budget excluding academic support and student services. Indirectcost of the program = cost per credit (excluding academic support and student services)x additional credits attempted by program group members.Program group cost: The total cost of educating program group members over three yearsof follow-up. Program group cost = direct cost + base cost + indirect cost. Program groupcost can be divided by the number of program group members to get the cost per programgroup member.Control group cost: The total cost of educating control group members over three years offollow-up. Control group cost = base cost. Control group cost can be divided by thenumber of control group members to get the cost per control group member.Net cost: The cost difference between program group members and control group members.Net cost = program group cost – control group cost.Cost-effectiveness analysis: An evaluation in which the net costs of alternative interventionsare expressed as the cost per unit of a desired outcome. In this analysis, costeffectivenessis presented for cost per degree earned and cost per total credit earned.Cost per degree earned: The amount invested in the research group of interest per degreeearned by that research group. For the program group, cost per degree earned = programgroup cost ÷ the percent of program group members who earned a degree.Cost per credit earned: The amount invested in the research group of interest per creditearned by that research group. For the program group, cost per credit earned = programgroup cost ÷ number of total credits earned by the program group members.73
Page 1:
DOUBLINGGRADUATIONRATESThree-Year E
Page 4 and 5:
The ASAP evaluation is supported by
Page 7 and 8:
ContentsOverviewList of ExhibitsPre
Page 9 and 10:
List of ExhibitsTableES.1 Key Diffe
Page 11:
PrefaceCommunity colleges provide r
Page 14 and 15:
ing students. Several ASAP staff wo
Page 16 and 17:
• Financial supports: Students re
Page 18 and 19:
Evaluation of Accelerated Study in
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
ed. ASAP provides enhanced student
Page 24 and 25:
public transportation. By the end o
Page 27 and 28:
Chapter 1IntroductionPostsecondary
Page 29 and 30:
lation and graduation rates of any
Page 31 and 32:
The same may be said about the ASAP
Page 33:
Finally, MDRC examined the costs of
Page 36 and 37:
Random Assignment Process and the S
Page 38 and 39:
CharacteristicEvaluation of Acceler
Page 40 and 41:
tal courses, the characteristics of
Page 42 and 43:
the program. Transcript data prior
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
included the ASAP Assistant Directo
Page 48 and 49: Advisers discussed both full-time e
Page 50 and 51: Evaluation of Accelerated Study in
Page 52 and 53: participating in the program: conta
Page 54 and 55: Table 3.3 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 56 and 57: survey respondents, 49 percent comp
Page 60 and 61: Other Student ServicesASAP offered
Page 62 and 63: equired to work with academic depar
Page 64 and 65: Service contrast: In general, non-A
Page 66 and 67: The average tuition waiver among pr
Page 68 and 69: Box 3.4Javier and the Value of the
Page 74 and 75: Looking to the Next ChapterOverall,
Page 78 and 79: 52Enrollment rate (%)10090807060504
Page 80 and 81: ASAP consistently increased student
Page 86 and 87: (See Table 4.3 for more details.) A
Page 90 and 91: cohort (spring or fall). 16 A forma
Page 96 and 97: ASAP has had a dramatic effect on t
Page 102 and 103: • Career and employment services
Page 104 and 105: college, which is not the case. 8 F
Page 106 and 107: cost is equal to the average cost p
Page 110 and 111: program group is $13,423 (11.4 perc
Page 112 and 113: credits than control group students
Page 114 and 115: Students in CUNY’s focus groups a
Page 116 and 117: tion’s Finish Faster initiative,
Page 118 and 119: least 6 percent were married. 11 AS
Page 120 and 121: college, the results will shed ligh
Page 125: Evaluation of Accelerated Study in
Page 129 and 130: This appendix addresses two aspects
Page 133 and 134: and among survey respondents would
Page 135 and 136: 2. Creation of Survey ScalesThis se
Page 137: A scale is created as the unweighte
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
ReferencesAdelman, Clifford. 2005.
Page 153 and 154:
Rutschow, Elizabeth Zachry, and Emi
Page 155:
About MDRCMDRC is a nonprofit, nonp
show all

1dOprzL

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

Delete template?

Save as template?