Enhancing Student ServicesResults from the Opening Doors Demonstration in California and

Ohio

Strengthening Student Success Conference

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Sue ScrivenerMichael Weiss

MDRC

Ricardo Diaz Chaffey College

Presentation Outline

2

1) Results from Ohio’s enhanced student services program

2) Results from Chaffey’s program for students on probation

3) Discussion

4) Q&A

The Problem: Many Community College Students Do Not Persist

Nearly half of all students who begin at community college do not complete a degree or transfer within 6 years.

Major obstacles:Competing work and/or family obligationsNot academically preparedAffordability (both real and perceived)

3

The Opening Doors Demonstration

MDRC conducted several randomized experiments to test four programs designed to improve academic outcomes of community college students

Programs tested one or more of the following:1.Reforms in curriculum and instruction2.Enhanced student services3.Increased financial aid

4

Programs Evaluated Using a Random Assignment Design

5

Identify students in the target group

Invite to participate in study

Random assignment

Assigned to program

group

Assigned to control group

Informed consent signed

Baseline data collected

Enhanced Student Services and a Small Stipend:

OHIO

How Would Enhancing Student Services Help?

Students get more / better information

Increased interaction with college staff could lead students to feel more of a sense of belonging

Better informed, more integrated student will be more likely to persist

7

Study Sites

Two Colleges in Ohio:Lorain County Community College

Located in Elyria (midsized city, pop: 56,000)Serves 9,400 studentsMajority part time students, 2/3 women, 1/2 over 25,

predominantly non-Hispanic White

Owens Community CollegeLocated in Toledo, (Ohio’s 4th largest city, pop: 300,000)Serves 20,000 studentsMajority part time students, 1/2 women, 1/2 over 25,

predominantly non-Hispanic White 8

Study Participants (pooled)

Characteristic Full Sample

Female (%) 75.7

Average age (years) 24.3

Race (%)WhiteBlack, non-HispanicHispanic / LatinoOther

54.129.910.95.1

Married (%) 19.9

Has one child or more (%) 64.3

Employed at baseline (%) 55.9

1st in family to attend college (%) 35.9

Household receiving gov’t benefits (%) 48.3

Sample Size 2,139 9

Service Differential (as implemented)

Program GroupAcademic counselor with

smaller caseloads, ratio 160:1

Counseling was personalized, intensive, and comprehensive

Designated staff in financial aid office

Students eligible for $150 stipend in each of two program semesters

Control GroupAcademic counselor,

normal caseloads, ratio 1000:1

Short-term counseling, academic focus, as needed

Financial aid staff available

10

The StipendThe primary purpose of the stipend was to

provide an incentive for students to access the enhanced student services

Paid in two installments each semester, after scheduled counseling meetings

The vast majority (89%) of program group students received at least one payment

Nearly half (46%) of program group students received the full $300

Evidence of Receipt of Student Services

Program Control Difference StandardOutcome (%) Group Group (Impact) Error

Attended 3 or more times:

Academic advising 64.0 40.2 23.9 *** 2.3

Financial aid advising 49.2 40.4 8.8 *** 2.3

Tutoring on campus 34.4 28.8 5.6 ** 2.2

Career counseling 23.9 13.6 10.3 *** 1.8

Job placement assistance 14.3 9.0 5.3 *** 1.5

Advising about transferring credits 16.8 12.4 4.4 *** 1.7

12

Academic Impacts: Percent Registered, by Semester

13Program Semesters Postprogram Semesters

Academic Impacts: Cumulative Credits Earned, by Semester

Program Semesters Postprogram Semesters 14

Competing Interpretations of Findings

1. The program does not work Initially positive results disappeared and program

and control students were virtually indistinguishable by the 3rd postprogram semester

This program alone does not appear to have long term positive impacts

2. The program works The program was successful at boosting registration

during the time when services were provided The program is a first step towards longer term

academic success15

Possible improvements to the program

Same type of program, longer duration

More intensive student services that could focus more on other services (include tutoring, remedial assistance, time management study skills training, on-campus childcare, transportation assistance)

Combine student services with other programs to address more student needs

16

Enhanced Student Services CHAFFEY

18

Chaffey College Facts

Rancho Cucamonga, California

Enrollment fall 2008 20,102

Hispanic Serving Institution

Founded in 1883

Chaffey Student Body Demographics

Bridging the Gap Between Student Services and Instruction

Silos and kingdoms

Restructuring of Basic Skills 2000

Major initiatives following collaborative developmental process

1) 2004 MDRC research grant (Hewlett and Irvine foundations) supported development of Opening Doors

2) 2007 Hewlett Foundation grant supported development of Smart Start and Early Alert

19

Bridging the Gap Between Student Services and Instruction

Utilized grant resources to plan collaborativelyEstablished Core Planning Committee from both

Student Services and InstructionHired professional to guide strategic planning processRetreats, off-campus meetings, and regular on-campus

meetingsReviewed literature and analyzed student dataBrainstormed solutionsDeveloped modelsEstablished program structure and hired coordinator

and staffPiloted the programs

20

Percent of Students Experiencing Academic Probation

Fall TermsAcademic Probation

Spring Terms

Academic Probation

# N % # N %

2003/FA 3,264 17,750 18.4 2004/SP 3,525 17,968 19.6

2004/FA 3,253 18,379 17.7 2005/SP 3,289 17,469 18.8

2005/FA 3,164 17,708 17.9 2006/SP 3,239 17,480 18.5

2006/FA 3,147 18,381 17.1 2007/SP 3,386 17,690 19.1

Total 12,828 72,218 17.8 Total 13,439 70,607 19.0

21

22

Original Opening Doors Program

Operated Fall 2005

College Success/Guidance course (lecture and seminar) taught by counselor, 3 units/credits

Program group students could volunteer to take course

As part of course, students expected to complete 9 directed learning activities in Success Centers

Success Center assignments to build basic skills (based on assessment tests)

Course instructor supposed to counsel students inside and outside class

22

23

Enhanced Opening Doors Program

Operated Fall 2006 and Spring 2007

Same first-semester model as original program

Program group students told they were required to take course

Expected only five visits to the Success Centers

Success Center assignments integrated with course content

Added a second-semester College Success course

23

College Success/Guidance Course

Accepting personal responsibility

Mastering time management

Discovering their self motivation

Employing interdependence

Learning about college resources and services

Effective study skills

Gaining self awareness and developing emotional intelligence

Career and major exploration24

25

Participating Students at Chaffey

Target groupOn academic or progress probation: attempted 12 or

more credits and had GPA below 2.0 (C) or had not completed half or more of credits

Earned fewer than 35 credits toward a credential

Key characteristics60 percent women53 percent Hispanic/LatinoAverage age 21, most between 18-20Almost all unmarried and not parents

25

26

Key Impact Findings for Enhanced Opening Doors

Impact findings based on two semesters of transcript and probation data for each sample member

Approximately three-fourths of program group took College Success course

Program improved student outcomesIncreased average credits earnedIncreased average cumulative GPAMoved some students off probation

26

27

Cumulative Average Number of Credits Earned, Enhanced Opening Doors

27

***

28

Percentage with Cumulative GPA 2.0 or Higher, Enhanced Opening Doors

28

***

29

Percentage Ever in Good Academic Standing, Enhanced Opening Doors

29

***

30

Some Implications

Targeting services to probationary students can be worthwhile, but the design and implementation matter

Greater success of Enhanced Opening Doors may be driven by higher participation rate, message of requirement

Other program implementation factors may have mattered as well

For Discussion

Think about student services at your own college. How might requirements and/or incentives be used to improve the effectiveness of one or more of the services/programs?

How might the target population or service/program influence your options?

What concerns might you or others have about requirements or incentives?

31

32

Contact Information

Michael Weiss, Research Associate, michael.weiss@mdrc.org

Sue Scrivener, Senior Research Associate, sue.scrivener@mdrc.org

Ricardo Diaz, Opening Doors to Excellence Coordinator, ricardo.diaz@chaffey.edu

See www.mdrc.org to download MDRC’s publications

32