In 2008, Lumina asked SPEC Associates (SPEC) to evaluate the foundation's grant making aimed at improving the productivity of higher education through statewide policy and program change. The initiative was initially known as Making Opportunity Affordable and later became known more broadly as Lumina's higher education productivity initiative. Eleven states received planning grants in 2008 and a year later seven of these states received multi-year grants to implement their productivity plans. In 2009, Lumina published Four Steps to Finishing First in Higher Education to frame the content of its productivity work. In 2010, the foundation, working with HCM Strategists, launched the Strategy Labs Network to deliver just-in-time technical assistance, engagement, informationsharing and convenings to states. Lumina engaged SPEC to evaluate these productivity investments in the seven states through exploring this over-arching question: What public will building, advocacy, public policy changes, and system or statewide practices are likely to impact higher education productivity for whom and in what circumstances, and which of these are likely to be sustainable, transferable, and/or scalable?

In 2008, the Fund for Women & Girls of Fairfield County's Community Foundation created the Family Economic Security Program (FESP). The goal of the program is to assist low- and moderate-income working students – particularly women who are single parents – in securing postsecondary educational degrees that can lead to careers offering family-sustaining wages and benefits.

This paper reviews the research that prompted the original design of FESP; examines the results of the initial pilot demonstration at one community college; and highlights current efforts to test an expanded, enhanced version of the FESP initiative at a second community college in Fairfield County. The paper also discusses the broader local and national context within which these efforts have been occurring.

Recent evidence has established that non-cognitive skills (e.g., persistence and selfcontrol) are valuable in the labor market and are malleable throughout adolescence. Some recent high school interventions have been developed to foster these skills, but there is little evidence on whether they are effective. Using administrative data, we apply two methods to evaluate an intervention called OneGoal, which attempts to help disadvantaged students attend and complete college in part by teaching non-cognitive skills. First, we compare the outcomes of participants and non-participants with similar pre-program cognitive and non-cognitive skills. In doing so, we develop and validate a measure of non-cognitive skill that is based on readily available data and rivals standard measures of cognitive skill in predicting educational attainment. Second, we use an instrumental variable difference-in-difference approach that exploits the fact that OneGoal was introduced into different schools at different times. We estimate that OneGoal improves academic indicators, increases college enrollment by 10–20 percentage points, and reduces arrest rates by 5 percentage points for males. We demonstrate that improvements in non-cognitive skill account for 15–30 percent of the treatment effects.

Recent evidence has established that non-cognitive skills (e.g., persistence and selfcontrol) are valuable in the labor market and are malleable throughout adolescence. Some recent high school interventions have been developed to foster these skills, but there is little evidence on whether they are effective. Using administrative data, we apply two methods to evaluate an intervention called OneGoal, which attempts to help disadvantaged students attend and complete college in part by teaching non-cognitive skills. First, we compare the outcomes of participants and non-participants with similar pre-program cognitive and non-cognitive skills. In doing so, we develop and validate a measure of non-cognitive skill that is based on readily available data and rivals standard measures of cognitive skill in predicting educational attainment. Second, we use an instrumental variable difference-in-difference approach that exploits the fact that OneGoal was introduced into different schools at different times. We estimate that OneGoal improves academic indicators, increases college enrollment by 10–20 percentage points, and reduces arrest rates by 5 percentage points for males. We demonstrate that improvements in non-cognitive skill account for 15–30 percent of the treatment effects.

The purpose of this report is to measure the successes of HER's Cohort One in achieving the program goals.

The first section, "At a Glance", presents a brief overview of the key findings from the three chapters, as well as best practices and lessons learned from the pilot program beneficial for future HER cohorts and other programs. It also details the participants' activities after program graduation. The concluding section summarizes the best practices and lessons learned and draws conclusions from Cohort One's program experience.

Three appendices offer technical and background information on the program. Appendix I analyzes key components of the HER program, with reflections on each component from the key stakeholders such as HER students, guardians, and mentors. Appendix II covers the education context in Ethiopia and the need for the HER program. It also presents key information about the two schools in the HER program: School A and School B. Finally, Appendix III describes the evaluation methodology and limitations.

The purpose of this report is to measure the successes of HER's Cohort One in achieving the program goals.

The first section, "At a Glance", presents a brief overview of the key findings from the three chapters, as well as best practices and lessons learned from the pilot program beneficial for future HER cohorts and other programs. It also details the participants' activities after program graduation. The concluding section summarizes the best practices and lessons learned and draws conclusions from Cohort One's program experience.

Three appendices offer technical and background information on the program. Appendix I analyzes key components of the HER program, with reflections on each component from the key stakeholders such as HER students, guardians, and mentors. Appendix II covers the education context in Ethiopia and the need for the HER program. It also presents key information about the two schools in the HER program: School A and School B. Finally, Appendix III describes the evaluation methodology and limitations.

Foundations for a Better Oregon and the Chalkboard Project launched TeachOregon in 2012 to provide the opportunity for university teacher preparation programs and their community college and school district partners to work together to cocreate and pilot innovative models for collaborative, needs driven teacher preparation. The evaluation for the 3 year project is assessing (1) program implementation through a process study and (2) short term program outcomes through an impact study. 

The first two years of the TeachOregon initiative have featured important shifts in practice and an ongoing focus on a road set of interventions. The highlights of the Year 2 process study, based primarily on project teams' focus group descriptions of Year 2 work, can be summarized as follows. 

1. TeachOregon grantees continue to be actively engaged and highly committed to implementing the road set of interventions introduced during Year 1.
2. TeachOregon grantees report positive changes are taking place in each of the blueprint areas.
3. Partners are planning for TeachOregon activities to continue beyond the grant.
4. TeachOregon provides a framework and resources for responding to externally driven changes (e.g., edTPA, program accreditation).
5. Partners are successfully navigating leadership changes and internal and external communication challenges.
6. Partners are working to overcome internal and institutional barriers to change.
7. Collecting and reporting data required for the impact evaluation presented significant challenges to the grantees. In some cases, partners had never reviewed and shared components of their data.

Foundations for a Better Oregon and the Chalkboard Project launched TeachOregon in 2012 to provide the opportunity for university teacher preparation programs and their community college and school district partners to work together to cocreate and pilot innovative models for collaborative, needs driven teacher preparation. The evaluation for the 3 year project is assessing (1) program implementation through a process study and (2) short term program outcomes through an impact study. 

The first two years of the TeachOregon initiative have featured important shifts in practice and an ongoing focus on a road set of interventions. The highlights of the Year 2 process study, based primarily on project teams' focus group descriptions of Year 2 work, can be summarized as follows. 

1. TeachOregon grantees continue to be actively engaged and highly committed to implementing the road set of interventions introduced during Year 1.
2. TeachOregon grantees report positive changes are taking place in each of the blueprint areas.
3. Partners are planning for TeachOregon activities to continue beyond the grant.
4. TeachOregon provides a framework and resources for responding to externally driven changes (e.g., edTPA, program accreditation).
5. Partners are successfully navigating leadership changes and internal and external communication challenges.
6. Partners are working to overcome internal and institutional barriers to change.
7. Collecting and reporting data required for the impact evaluation presented significant challenges to the grantees. In some cases, partners had never reviewed and shared components of their data.