LEAP: Three-Year Impacts of Ohio's Welfare Initiative To Improve School Attendance among Teenage Parents. Ohio's Learning, Earning, and Parenting Program.
Long, David; And Others (1996). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED396380
-
examining913Students, grades11-12
Financial Incentives for Teen Parents to Stay in School Intervention Report - Dropout Prevention
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2006
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Financial Incentives for Teen Parents to Stay in School.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed high school or GED |
Financial Incentives for Teen Parents to Stay in School vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Full sample;
|
34.00 |
31.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed 11th grade |
Financial Incentives for Teen Parents to Stay in School vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Full sample;
|
50.00 |
45.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dropped out |
Financial Incentives for Teen Parents to Stay in School vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Full sample;
|
48.40 |
53.50 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 99%
Male: 1% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Ohio
-
Race Black 67% Other or unknown 1% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 2% Not Hispanic or Latino 98%
Study Details
Setting
The survey was fielded to teens in seven counties in Ohio: Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus), Hamilton (Cincinnati), Lawrence, Lucas (Toledo), Muskingum, and Stark.
Study sample
Between 1989 and 1991 a total of 7,017 pregnant women and custodial parents under 20 years old who were receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and did not have a high school diploma or a GED were randomly assigned to the LEAP evaluation—80% to the intervention group and 20% to the control group. Due to changes in the program structure and implementation, 4,050 teens were excluded from the analysis. First, 1,442 older teens who experienced LEAP only during its start-up phase, when the program was undergoing problems operating under rules and procedures different from those that were eventually adopted, were excluded. Second, 2,608 teens who were randomly assigned during the first year of program operations were also excluded so that the analysis sample was limited to teens who were enrolled after the bonus and sanction process was functioning smoothly. The remaining 2,967 teens were chosen as the research sample because they were more representative of participants in an ongoing LEAP program. Because exclusions were based on age at random assignment or date of random assignment, treatment-control equivalence was not disrupted. A survey was fielded to 1,178 of the remaining teens (all control group members and a random sample of 25% of the intervention group members in seven counties) three years after random assignment. The analysis was conducted on the 913 respondents (446 intervention and 467 control) to this survey. More than 50% of the 913 teens in the three-year survey sample began LEAP when they were 17 or 18 years old, 33% entered the sample when they were 16 or younger, and 11% percent were 19. The average age was just over 17.5. Most participants entered LEAP with one child (71%) or were pregnant with their first child (21%), while few (8%) had two or more children. Just over half (58%) of the survey teens reported that they were enrolled in a junior high, high school, or GED program when they entered LEAP, while 42% were out of school. The average highest grade completed was 9.54. Nearly all teens in the survey sample are female (99%) and had never been married (94%) when they were randomly assigned. More than half (54%) headed their own welfare cases at the time of random assignment, with 40% on a parent’s AFDC case and 6% on another’s AFDC case. The sample was 67% African-American, 31% white, 2% Hispanic, and 1% other.
Intervention Group
The program had a three-tiered incentive structure: grant increases ($62 for proof of enrollment plus $62 for each month in which they met attendance requirements), grant reductions ($62 for each month they failed to attend an initial assessment interview, failed to verify enrollment in school, or exceeded the allowed number of excused absences), and unchanged grants (exceeded the allowed number of total absences but not the allowed number of unexcused absences). Teens’ enrollment and attendance were monitored by case managers, who also offered guidance and authorized assistance with child care and transportation for teens complying with the rules. The $200 bonus for school completion was not provided during the period of the study.
Comparison Group
Teens in the control group received normal cash benefits, with no bonuses paid or sanctions imposed for school enrollment and attendance.
Outcome descriptions
Outcomes in each of the domains are included in this study: the measure of staying in school is defined as ever or currently enrolled in high school or a GED program; the measure related to progressing in school is ever completing grade 11, because it is the latest measure of progress; and the completion indicator is a combined measure of ever graduated high school or received a GED. All measures are taken from the survey fielded three years after random assignment.
Support for implementation
Information on staff training was not available.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Bloom, D., Kopp, H., Long, D., & Polit, D. (1991). LEAP: Implementing a Welfare Initiative to Improve School Attendance among Teenage Parents. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
-
Bos, J. M., & Fellerath, V. (1997). LEAP: Final Report on Ohio's Welfare Initiative to Improve School Attendance among Teenage Parents. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).