Peck, Laura R.; Litwok, Daniel; Walton, Douglas; Harvill, Eleanor; Werner, Alan (2019). Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED615554
Reviewed: November 2021
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 degree |
Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
23.00 |
23.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Average quarterly earnings |
Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
5039.00 |
4997.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employment in either 12th or 13th quarter |
Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
82.00 |
81.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received a trade license/training certificate |
Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
21.70 |
14.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Completed diploma or certificate for regular college classes |
Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
17.70 |
11.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Holds a vocational, technical, or professional certificate or license |
Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
58.10 |
45.40 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 34% | |
| Other or unknown | 30% | |
| White | 36% |
| Hispanic | 24% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 76% |
The study was implemented at 42 Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) programs operated by 23 HPOG grantees located in 19 states. Grantees included workforce development agencies, postsecondary educational institutions, and nonprofit agencies.
The HPOG programs recruited Temporary Assistance for Need Families (TANF) recipients and other individuals with lower income. Approximately 56% were receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/SNAP for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and 12% were receiving TANF. At baseline, the average age was 32 years old. The majority (89%) of study participants were female and 63% indicated that they had dependent children at home. Demographically, 34% of the study sample were Black/African American, non-Hispanic; 36% were White/Caucasian, non-Hispanic; 7% identified as Other, non-Hispanic. About a quarter (24%) of the study sample were Hispanic/Latino and 26% were currently enrolled in school. Overall, 12% had educational attainment less than 12th grade, 34% had a high school diploma or GED, another 34% had some postsecondary experience, and 19% had a college degree.
HPOG programs offered career pathways programs that targeted skills and competencies in demand by the local healthcare industry. The career pathways programs resulted in employer- or industry-recognized, portable education credentials such as certificates, degrees, professional certifications, and licenses. In addition to providing training course offerings for various healthcare occupations, as part of the intervention, HPOG programs also provided participants financial assistance and support services, including tutoring, assistance with childcare and transportation costs, and employment assistance. Students in the intervention condition were exposed to various educational and occupational supports and training specific to the healthcare field. Local implementation varied across sites.
Individuals in the comparison group were not able to access the HPOG program supports. The comparison group received business-as-usual supports and services from workforce development agencies, postsecondary educational institutions, and nonprofit agencies in their local communities.
No additional information provided.
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