1. FY 2015 SSS Using Evidence to Support Proposed Strategies and Activities Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) and 2(b)  Addressing priority(ies) in the application: procedures and definitions of terms  Addressing priority(ies) in project implementation: effective strategies in practice  Questions and Answers 1

2. Competitive Preference Priority 1(b) Strategies to Develop Non-Cognitive Factors Supported by Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness  May score (up to) 2 points {correction to be issued}  Can only earn points if applicant addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1(a) 2

3. Competitive Preference Priority 2(b) Individual Counseling Activities Supported by Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness  May score 2 points  Can only earn points if applicant addresses Competitive Preference Priority 2(a) 3

4. FY 2015 SSS Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b) (cont.)  Purpose of evidence priorities: To maximize likelihood of success of strategies/activities implemented under 1(a) and 1(b), ensuring that they draw on what works 4

5. FY 2015 SSS Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b) (cont.)  To address either/both priorities: –Provide citation, link, and relevant findings from one study for each priority on Abstract and Program Profile Sheet –Study must be related to the respective priority 5

6. FY 2015 SSS Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b) (cont.)  What we mean by “a study”: –A journal article or report, not a book, literature review, summary, or PP presentation –Must have enough technical detail that it can be reviewed to determine if it meets the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards –Can already have been reviewed by the WWC (see Appendix) 6

7. FY 2015 SSS Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b)  How a study demonstrates Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness: –Meets WWC standards with or without reservations and has: Statistically significant, favorable impact; No overriding, statistically significant unfavorable impacts; –Includes a sample that overlaps with students proposed to receive strategies under 1(a) or 1(b) 7

8. FY 2015 SSS Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b) 8  Types of studies that can meet Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness : 1.Randomized controlled trial that meets WWC standards without reservations or with reservations (lottery/random chance determines who participates in special services)

9. FY 2015 SSS Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b) 9 2. Matched quasi-experimental study that meets WWC standards with reservations (includes a comparison group of students who do not participate in special services but are otherwise very similar to the group who does participate)

10. FY 2015 SSS Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b) 10 About the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC):  Reviews quality and summarizes existing research  WWC standards address: –Quality of the design: does the study design allow us to draw causal conclusions (X had an impact on Y)? –Strength of data: does the study focus on relevant outcomes and measure them appropriately? –Adequacy of statistical procedures: are data analyzed properly?

11. FY 2015 SSS Competitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b) 11 More information on how to meet WWC standards: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19

12. Evidence-Supported Strategies that Address CPP 1(b) and 2(b): Study Author Descriptions  Greg Walton (Develop Non-Cognitive Factors)  Nicole Stephens (Develop Non-Cognitive Factors)  Racher Baker (Individual Coaching) 12