Mayer, Alexander K.; Patel, Reshma; Gutierrez, Melvin (2016). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v9 n3 p283-306. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1106520
Reviewed: May 2022
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received a certificate or degree |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
34.60 |
32.90 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received a certificate or degree |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
20.50 |
17.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received a certificate or degree |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
28.30 |
24.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received a certificate or degree |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.50 |
8.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earnings from unemployment insurance-covered jobs |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
11710.00 |
11645.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total earnings from unemployment insurance-covered jobs, fiscal quarters 2-20 ($) |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
45474.00 |
45557.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earnings from unemployment insurance-covered jobs |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
7776.00 |
7751.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earnings from unemployment insurance-covered jobs |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
9851.00 |
9425.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earnings from unemployment insurance-covered jobs |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6073.00 |
6496.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of quarters employed |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
56.20 |
55.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employment |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
70.50 |
71.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Ever employed during fiscal quarters 2-20 (%) |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
87.00 |
88.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Employment |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
69.00 |
65.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employment |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
65.60 |
64.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employment |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
62.10 |
64.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of students earning 12 or more credits |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.80 |
18.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Registered for any course |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
68.80 |
66.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Percentage of students earning 12 or more credits |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
-1 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
33.20 |
26.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any course |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
34.70 |
33.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any course |
TANF Educational Awards Program (TEAP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
48.80 |
50.20 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 31% | |
| Other or unknown | 14% | |
| White | 55% |
| Hispanic | 9% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 91% |
This study was conducted at three community colleges in Ohio: Lorain County Community College, Owens Community College, and Sinclair Community College. These colleges cover three of Ohio’s four geographic corners.
The majority of the sample was female (86%), married (79%), a parent (100%), and lived in households receiving government benefits (69%). The average age was 30 years. Students reported their race/ethnicity as white (55%), black (31%), Asian or Pacific Islander (1%), and Hispanic (9%). Just under half (49%) were currently unemployed, and the average adjusted gross income was $10,317.
The Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) Educational Awards Program (TEAP) was developed for low-income students, using surplus funds from the TANF program. TEAP offers scholarships to low-income students that supplement any other aid they receive. Full-time students could receive up to $1800 during a 1-year period: $900 per semester at Lorain and Owens, and $600 per quarter at Sinclair, if they received a grade of "C" or better in 12 or more credits. Part-time students could receive $450 per semester or $300 per quarter for achieving a "C" or better in 6 to 11 credits. Participating students could earn any combination of part-time award, full-time award, or no award over the duration of the program. Students received regular email and postcard reminders about the scholarship throughout the semester or quarter, and were paid at the end of each semester or quarter.
Students in the comparison condition attended the same schools as those in the intervention condition, but received the colleges' regular services.
Research staff visited each of the colleges once in spring 2009 and noted that site staff were tracking students' performance and disbursing awards according to the program model.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube