1 / 10

“Children at Risk” Program and Academic Performance

“Children at Risk” Program and Academic Performance. Jennifer Lachman jl1290b@american.edu American University School of International Service. Research Question. Did the “Children at Risk” program successfully improve participants’ academic achievement?. Background Info.

oma
Download Presentation

“Children at Risk” Program and Academic Performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Children at Risk” Program and Academic Performance Jennifer Lachman jl1290b@american.edu American University School of International Service

  2. Research Question Did the “Children at Risk” program successfully improve participants’ academic achievement?

  3. Background Info • Children at Risk (CAR) launched in 1992 • Objectives: Improve academic advancement, prevent drug use, and enhance the security of at-risk adolescents. • Activities: Variety of services including case management, mentoring, out-of-school activities, and educational assistance. • Target population: Middle school students in neighborhoods of severe poverty, high crime, and social distress.

  4. Design #1: Longitudinal Quasi-experimental P1 X P2 X P3 P4 C1 C2 C3 C4 Project participants Comparison group baseline midterm end of project evaluation post project evaluation

  5. Data • Source: The Urban Institute • Data set: Pre-, post-, and ex-post survey and school/police record data for treatment and control samples • Dependent variable: GPA in yr 3 of program (Interval-ratio), Promotion in yr 3 of program (ordinal) • Primary independent variables : Project participation (nominal/dummy), positive attitude toward self (ordinal/dummy), gender (nominal/dummy), absentee rate in yr 3 of program (I-R), GPA pre-program (I-R)

  6. Descriptive Statistics

  7. Analysis 1: T-Test Null = No sig. difference between treatment and control groups T statistic (obtained) = .598 Sig. (obtained) = .598 T statistic (critical) = 1.96 Sig. (critical) = .05 Fail to reject the null No significant difference

  8. Analysis 2: Regression Analysis Adjusted R2 = .369

  9. Analysis 3 – Cross Tabs Chi square Gamma Value = .001 Value = .003 Asymp. Sig. = .98 Approx. Sig. = .98 Fail to reject the null No significant difference

  10. Conclusion • “Children at Risk” did not succeed in improving participants’ academic achievement • Findings suggest that CAR program was a failure • Program design should be revisited and altered to improve effectiveness

More Related