1. Replicating Success: CUNY’s Accelerated Study In Associate Programs (ASAP) @aypf_tweets

2. Webinar Technical Support GoToWebinar Technical Assistance: 1-800-263-6317 To submit live questions, please use the “Questions” box on the control panel A recording of the webinar and other resources will be available at www.aypf.org

3. Presenters Susan Scrivener, Senior Associate, MDRC Brett Visger, Associate Vice Chancellor, Institutional Collaboration & Completion, Ohio Board of Regents Donna Linderman, University Dean for Student Success Initiatives, Office of Academic Affairs, City University of New York

4. Comprehensive Supports to Improve Graduation Rates: CUNY Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) Donna Linderman University Dean for Student Success Initiatives and ASAP Executive Director CUNY Office of Academic Affairs American Youth Policy Forum Webinar March 19, 2015

5. ASAP THEORY OF ACTION  Remove financial barriers to full-time study  Provide structured degree pathways and comprehensive, well-coordinated support services  Establish clear expectations for all students  Build community through early engagement and a cohort model More fully engaged students who graduate in a timely manner Goal: At least 50% of students earn an associate degree within three years

6. ASAP INCEPTION 2007:  CUNY funded by Mayor’s Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO) for three-year pilot  ASAP launched with 1,132 fully skills proficient students* across six CUNY community colleges in the fall * 28% of fall 2007 ASAP students had some developmental needs when recruited that were addressed over summer.

8. Source: CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, CUNY ASAP participating colleges, and National Student Clearinghouse.

9. ASAP SELECTION CRITERIA  Must be City resident and/or eligible for in-state tuition  Agree to study full-time in an ASAP- approved major  Most majors other than nursing and allied health are offered  Continuing/transfer students: less than 15 credits and in good academic standing  Be fully skills proficient or have no more than two developmental course needs at application  Receive some need-based financial aid (Pell and/or TAP)

10. Summary Profile of Combined ASAP and CUNY Community College Students Combined ASAP Students (Fall 2007-Fall 2014) CUNY Community Colleges (Fall 2013) Total EnrollmentN8,67097,751 Gender Female%58.156.9 Ethnicity American Indian/Native Alaskan%0.40.3 Asian/Pacific Islander%11.515.9 Black%32.028.1 Hispanic%42.639.0 White%13.616.6 Age mean21 23 Admission Type First-time Freshmen%66.671.5 Developmental Students % At Time of Application to ASAP/CUNY%80.181.1 GED Recipients %11.66.6 Pell Receipt %74.356.9 Source: CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA).

11. ASAP PROGRAM ORGANIZATION CUNY Academic Affairs Bronx ASAP BMCC ASAP CSI ASAP (F’ 15) Hostos ASAP Kingsborough ASAP NYCCT ASAP (F’15) LaGuardia ASAP Medgar Evers ASAP QCC Colleges:  Recruitment  Direct services to students  Local staffing Monitoring student progress/engagement  Program integration at college level CUNY OAA:  Overall program administration  Program-wide resource needs  Evaluation/data management  External partnerships  Citywide outreach

12. ASAP CORE ELEMENTS  Financial Resources  Tuition waivers (for financial aid eligible students)  Free use of textbooks  Monthly Metrocards  Structured Pathways  Consolidated full-time course schedules (ie: am, afternoon, evening, weekend)  Immediate/continuous developmental course taking  Winter and summer courses to build academic momentum

13. ASAP CORE ELEMENTS  Comprehensive and Coordinated Supports  High-touch advisement  Embedded career development services  Tutoring resources (mandated for some students)  Referrals to campus resources (Single Stop, counseling, etc.)  Early Engagement and Connected Community  Summer developmental course taking and advisor contact  ASAP Summer Institute  First-year blocked courses

14. ASAP EVALUATION INTERNAL EVALUATION  Ongoing quasi-experimental analysis (using official CUNY data)  Web-based data management system  Annual student surveys and focus groups  Data reviewed regularly to assess impact, measure movement towards goals, and improve program practice EXTERNAL EVALUATION  Cost-benefit study by the Center for Benefit Cost Studies in Education (CBCSE), Teachers College, Columbia University led Dr. Henry Levin  Five-year random assignment study by MDRC

15. ASAP GROWTH & REPLICATION  Expand to 13,000 students by 2017 supported by the Mayor’s Office ($35m):  Focus on serving more STEM majors  Addition of College of Staten Island and New York City College of Technology in fall 2015  ASAP pilot at John Jay College in fall 2015 (with support from Robin Hood Foundation)  Replication demonstration project in Ohio with MDRC, Ohio Board of Regents, Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation, and three colleges

16. Donna Linderman University Dean for Student Success Initiatives and ASAP Executive Director Donna.linderman@mail.cuny.edu www.cuny.edu/asap

17. Audience Q&A To submit questions, please use the “Questions” box on the control panel

18. Evaluation of CUNY ASAP Sue Scrivener, Senior Associate AYPF Webinar March 19, 2015

19. Why Look at ASAP?  CUNY’s ASAP is comprehensive and long-lasting Brings together many promising reforms Provides services for three years  One of the most ambitious efforts in the country to boost graduation rates for community college students

20. The Evaluation  MDRC studied the implementation and cost of ASAP, and its impacts on students’ academic outcomes over three years  Study took place at three of CUNY’s community colleges: Borough of Manhattan, Kingsborough, and LaGuardia

21. Random Assignment Research Design Target Targeted students invited to participate in study Consent & Data Participants give consent Baseline data collected Random Assignment Program group – Students can enroll in ASAP Control group – Students can receive standard college services

22. Evaluation Target Group  Family income at or below 200% of federal poverty level or Pell-eligible  Needed one or two developmental courses  ASAP also serves college-ready students but they were not included in the MDRC study  Incoming freshman or continuing student with 12 or fewer credits and 2.0+ GPA  Willing to attend school full time

23. Characteristics of Students at Start of the Evaluation  900 students randomly assigned in 2010  62% women  Average age 21.5  Racially diverse  6% married, 15% had a child  31% employed

24. ASAP Provided Much More Intensive Student Supports Program group students Control group students 386 92 247 Advisor Career services Average reported meetings in first year with: Tutoring

25. ASAP Affected Course Enrollment  Most program group students took an ASAP seminar for three semesters – a course with exclusively ASAP students that covered topics such as goal-setting, study skills, and academic planning  Most program group students took at least one additional course with a concentration of ASAP students

26. ASAP’s Financial Benefits Were Well Implemented  Most students received monthly MetroCards, and text books  ASAP provided a tuition waiver to students who needed it  3 – 11 percent of program group, depending on semester

27. ASAP Increased Enrollment  In most semesters, a higher proportion of program group members than control group members enrolled in college  Increases were particularly large during winter and summer “intersessions”

28. ASAP Increased Credit Accumulation  ASAP consistently increased the number of credits students earned  By the end of three years, program group students earned an average of about 9 credits more than control group students

29. ASAP Almost Doubled Graduation Rates  40.1 percent of program group earned a degree after three years, compared with 21.8 percent of control group  Biggest increase in graduation – by far – MDRC has found  Program group also more likely to be enrolled in four- year school at end of study

30. ASAP Cost-Effective at Three-Year Point  Cost per graduate was lower in ASAP, despite the substantial investment required for the program, because ASAP led so many more students to graduate than usual college services

31. What Have We Learned?  Comprehensive, long-term program can substantially boost students’ success  Pairing a full-time requirement with a wide array of supports was central to improving and accelerating students’ progress

32. What Have We Learned?  Monitoring students’ program participation and providing a meaningful benefit to those who participate can substantially increase engagement  Developmental education students’ outcomes can be markedly improved without changing what happens in the classroom

33. Key Remaining Research Questions  What are CUNY ASAP’s longer-term effects on graduation?  MDRC hopes to raise money to continue tracking study students  Can other colleges operate ASAP-like programs and achieve substantial effects for students?  MDRC and CUNY working with Ohio Board of Regents to replicate ASAP at three colleges  MDRC exploring other options to replicate or adapt ASAP

34. For Additional Information See www.mdrc.org for reports from the ASAP evaluationwww.mdrc.org Questions? Email sue.scrivener@mdrc.org. sue.scrivener@mdrc.org

35. Audience Q&A To submit questions, please use the “Questions” box on the control panel

36. Replication Efforts in Ohio Brett Visger Associate Vice Chancellor, Institutional Collaboration & Completion Ohio Board of Regents

37. What is Ohio’s Interest in ASAP? Outcomes-based funding Completion agenda Assist institutions Inform policy context Collaborate on research

38. Participating Ohio Colleges Cincinnati State & Technical College –C-State Accelerate Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C) –D3 (Degree in 3) Lorain County Community College –SAIL (Students Accelerating in Learning)

39. Opportunities in Ohio Maintain fidelity to ASAP model within Ohio context. Identify possible policy levers and/or barriers. –OCOG eligibility example What does scale look like?

40. Audience Q&A To submit questions, please use the “Questions” box on the control panel

41. Questions for Today’s Presenters Susan Scrivener, Senior Associate, MDRC Brett Visger, Associate Vice Chancellor, Institutional Collaboration & Completion, Ohio Board of Regents Donna Linderman, University Dean for Student Success Initiatives, Office of Academic Affairs, City University of New York

42.  Please fill out the survey upon exiting the webinar. Your feedback is important to us!  To learn more and access copies of the slides and event recording, please visit www.aypf.org Thank You