Impact of California's Cal-Learn Demonstration Project: Final Report.
Mauldon, J., Malvin, J., Stiles, J., Nicosia, N., & Seto, E. (2000). Berkeley, CA: University of California, UC DATA.
-
examining906Students, grade12
Financial Incentives for Teen Parents to Stay in School Intervention Report - Dropout Prevention
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2006
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with 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 |
18 and older at survey;
|
29.10 |
24.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
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 |
18 and older at survey;
|
44.70 |
52.30 |
Yes |
|
|
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: 100% -
- 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
California
-
Race Black 27% Other or unknown 5% White 21% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 47% Not Hispanic or Latino 53%
Study Details
Setting
The program was administered by welfare offices in four counties in California: Alameda, Los Angeles, San Bernadino, and San Joaquin.
Study sample
Between 1994 and 1997 custodial parents and pregnant teens under age 19 on welfare who did not have a high school diploma or GED were randomly assigned using the last two digits of their Social Security number to one of four groups: full Cal-Learn (including case management and financial incentives), case management only, financial incentives only, and no treatment. This WWC report focuses on the financial incentives and no treatment conditions. The evaluation samples were selected from the lists of all teens in each research county who appeared to be Cal-Learn eligible based on electronic and paper records, which indicated that they were pregnant or custodial teen parents on welfare. After males and those registered in error were removed, the sample was 4,859, and 2,682 of those teens responded to the Wave I survey. Interviews for the Wave I survey were conducted between April 1996 and April 1999, with an average of 13 months between program entry and interview. Additional exclusions were made for teens who lost custody of their children, moved to a nonresearch county or out of state, left AFDC, or did not participate for at least six months. After the additional exclusions, the survey evaluation sample consisted of 2,156 respondents, including 554 in the financial incentives group and 549 in the no treatment group. The Wave II survey was administered for the 2,156 Wave I respondents who were not excluded from the sample, with 1,562 respondents. This data were collected 26 months after program entry, on average, and outcomes from the Wave I survey were used for teens who did not respond to the Wave II survey. Since the study does not present overall findings for the entire sample, this review presents the findings for teens age 18 and older at the most recent survey, which comprises nearly 83% of study teens. For 65% of the teens in the survey sample, Cal-Learn began when they were 17 or 18 years old, while the remaining 35% entered the sample when they were 16 or younger. The average age was 17.2. Most participants (72%) entered Cal-Learn with only one child, while 24% had no children and 4% entered with two or more children. Of teens age 18 or older at their latest interview, 67% reported that they were enrolled in school when they entered Cal-Learn, compared with 33% who were not. All teens in the analysis sample are female. The sample was 47% Hispanic, 27% African-American, 21% white, and 5% other.
Intervention Group
The program featured two key elements: financial bonuses and penalties for either making progress in school or failing to make progress and intensive, individualized case management to help each client move toward high school graduation or GED receipt. Cal-Learn clients who graduated with a high school diploma or earned a GED received a $500 reward through a personal check. Prior to graduation, good progress was rewarded with a $100 bonus check applied to the family welfare grant of a Cal-Learn teen when she received a report card indicating satisfactory progress (at least a C average). But if the Cal-Learn teen did not turn in a report card or had a report card showing inadequate progress (a D– or F average), the family welfare check was reduced by a total of $100 (two $50 deductions over two consecutive months). Teens who earned an average grade between C and D were rated as making adequate progress and received neither a bonus nor a sanction. Up to four report cards a year were assessed to determine if bonuses or sanctions were warranted. In addition, all participants who were attending school were entitled to receive subsidies for support services—child care, transportation, and other school-related expenses. Generally, bonuses were issued within a month, while sanctions took two months.
Comparison Group
Control group students were neither directed toward case management nor eligible to receive bonuses or sanctions. All teens in the evaluation were offered support services, including reimbursement for child care, transportation to school, and school-related expenses.
Outcome descriptions
The study included a measure of staying in school (dropped out) and a measure of completing school (received high school diploma or GED). Dropping out and high school diploma receipt were taken from survey responses, while GED receipt came from administrative records.
Support for implementation
Information on staff training was not available.
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).