I’m excited to announce the launch of No-Spin Evidence Review - a new online publication of the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. We summarize recent program evaluations & explain what the evidence really shows. See example below & check out No-Spin at

7/ Here's our No-Spin report: Here's the published study:

6/ Comment. This is an important study - very few high-quality RCTs of tutoring have had long-term follow-up to see if effects endure or (as too often occurs in education) fade over time.

5/ Findings, continued. The study also found a statistically significant reduction in special education placements at the seven-year mark (9% treatment vs 15% control). The study found no statistically significant impact on student attendance as measured in years 4-7 after study.

4/ Findings. The study found a sustained impact on district test scores in reading in years 3-7 after study entry (effect size of approximately 0.15 each year, equating to 1/3 of a grade level in year 7). These effects were statistically significant in years 3-5 but not 6-7 — so.

3/ Study Design. The study randomly assigned 576 K-2 students to Future Forward (treatment) or usual school services (control). 95% of the students were low-income and 92% were Black or Hispanic. Based on careful review, this was a high-quality RCT (e.g., baseline balance, valid.

2/ Program. Future Forward provides 30 min of one-on-one tutoring three times a week for up to 2y, starting in K-2, by trained paraprofessionals or volunteers. The program also engages families, through home visits and other activities, to support child reading outside of school.

See our No-Spin report on long-term RCT results for Future Forward – providing up to 2y of literacy tutoring & parent engagement to K-2 students. In brief: RCT finds highly promising, but not definitive, evidence of sustained gains in reading (~1/3 of a grade level) over 7y.🧵

RT @ALeighMP: What can a German bakery teach us about better government? Hint: it’s not strudel. My op-ed on the power of randomised trials….

RT @JohnArnoldFndtn: A study on a UBI pilot in Oakland shows how research can be presented to reflect the authors’ biases rather than provi….

11/ Disclosure: Arnold Ventures, which funds No-Spin Evidence Review, funded this RCT. Here's our No-Spin report: Here's the posted study:

10/ Third, the finding that wasn’t at risk of attrition or social desirability bias – lower arrest rate in the treatment vs. control group based on administrative records – wasn’t statistically significant, and is therefore suggestive but not reliable.

9/ Second, the three youth and/or parent-reported findings are potentially vulnerable to “social-desirability bias” – i.e., the treatment group’s reporting overly positive outcomes out of gratitude to the mentor or program.

8/ . that differed between the treatment and control groups (25% treatment vs. 16% control for delinquency, and 30% treatment vs. 21% control for substance use). This creates risk of bias under established standards (WWC) by partly undoing the initial randomization.

7/ We believe these findings are highly promising but not definitive for 3 reasons. First, the three findings that are based on youth and/or parent reports – property-related and violence-related delinquent behavior, and substance use – suffered from sample loss (“attrition”). .

6/ The study found sizable impacts on its four preregistered primary outcomes – all related to delinquency and substance use – at follow-up four years after study entry. The impacts are shown in the following table (adapted from Table 4 of the study report):

5/ Based on careful review, this was a high-quality RCT in many respects (e.g., baseline balance in both the original sample and four-year follow-up sample, preregistered outcomes, valid analyses). Study limitations are noted below.

4/ The youths’ average age was 12, 69% were Black or Hispanic, 63% were male, and their families’ average income was about $30,000 per year. 68% of treatment group youths were matched with a mentor over the four years after study entry, and the average match lasted 22.5 months.

3/ The study randomly assigned 1,358 low-income youths at 17 BBBS agencies nationwide to (i) a treatment group, which BBBS sought to match with a mentor; or (ii) a control group that was eligible for the program after the four-year study period.

2/ BBBS is the largest US mentoring organization. Its Community-Based Mentoring program matches at-risk youth with adult volunteer mentors from the surrounding community. Mentors & youth get together regularly for at least 1y to engage in activities of their own choosing.

See our No-Spin report on a national RCT of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) Community-Based Mentoring for at-risk youth. In brief: Study finds highly promising, but not definitive, evidence of sizable reductions (20-40%) in delinquency & substance use at the 4-year follow-up.🧵