Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 119
6
Effectiveness of Labor Market
Preparation Programs
The YEDPA studies we reviewed represented three basic approaches to
labor market preparation for youths: (1) career exploration programs,
which usually provided information on occupational opportunities and
requirements, work habits and attitudes, and job search techniques and
sometimes included ability and interest testing; (2) basic educational
skills training, usually remedial, which often included General
Equivalency Diploma (GED) preparation; and (3) direct work experience,
usually combined with some orientation to the "world of work." Most
programs offered some combination of the first two approaches, and a
few were designed as systematic variations of work and classroom
instruction as tests of their relative effectiveness.
The implicit long-term goal of many of the programs, especially the
programs focused on out-of-school youths, was to increase the employment
opportunities and economic self-sufficiency of youths. It was assumed
that certain deficiencies--in work habits and attitudes, basic educa-
tional skills, and understanding of job interests and options--were
barriers for disadvantaged youths in achieving economic self-sufficiency
and that the correction of these deficiencies would solve the problem.
Correction or amelioration of these deficiencies, therefore, became the
interim objectives of the programs, as well as steps toward the
longer-term employment goal.
Labor market preparation programs under YEDPA were provided to both
in-school and out-of-school youths, but the majority served in-school
youths. Unfortunately, most of the studies on the in-school projects
did not meet the committee's criteria of scientific evidence and so are
not included in this review. For example, we were not able to evaluate
summer programs designed to maintain or improve educational skills of
youths over the school vacation or the many career exploration programs
offered as a supplement to regular school programs. In terms of
numbers of participants, the programs that met our criteria for
tIt is not entirely clear how some programs should be classified,
particularly those that provided several alternative treatments (such
as the AYES project). We decided to classify them here.
119
OCR for page 120
120
inclusion and are reviewed here largely involved out-of-school youths,
both dropouts and graduates.
Several of the reports reviewed by the committee indicated that the
programs being evaluated, while initially designed to provide
occupational skills training, were revised to offer more basic
educational and prevocational skills. These changes were necessary
because the youths enrolled lacked the skills required for more
specific vocational training.
PROGRAMS FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTHS
Programs serving out-of-school youths generally served both
dropouts and graduates, though the relative proportions varied
considerably across the programs. We reviewed four programs for
out-of-school youths that we found deserving of mention: Alternative
Youth Employment Strategies (AYES), Recruitment and Training Program
(RTP) Career Exploration Program, Project STEADY (Special Training and
Employment Assistance for Disadvantaged Youth), and the Job Corps
Educational Improvement Effort (EIE). Table 6.1 details the
characteristics of each of these programs; Table 6.2 details the
research design and results of the evaluations of the programs.
Alternative Youth Employment Strategies
The Alternative Youth Employment Strategies (AYES) project was
designed to test the efficacy of three alternative models for providing
youth employment programs to a particularly high-risk, hard-to-reach
group: unemployed, out-of-school (largely dropout) 16- to 21-year-olds,
many referred by the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The model
treatments were: (1) full-time work experience, with counseling and
placement services; (2) full-time classroom instruction in basic educa-
tional, vocational, or prevocational training, with counseling, ser-
vices; and (3) a mixed model of part-time work, part-time training,
counseling, and placement. AYES was implemented using random
assignment at sites in three cities (New York City, Miami, and
Albuquerque) and involved about 1,100 youths.
The Vera Institute study of AYES was of particularly high quality.
Although not free of problems, the research seemed to have been
conducted as carefully as conditions permitted, given some problems of
implementation. Its major finding was that a 26-week, full-time
program that concentrated its services on high-risk youths enhanced
their chances of securing full-time employment. Differences in employ-
ment rates of approximately 10 percentage points were found between
participants and a randomly selected control group approximately 8
months after program participation (see discussion of Career Explora-
tion Program below). Positive effects were found at all three sites:
the largest program effects were found in New York City and the
smallest effects in Albuquerque. At the same time, the demographic
nature of the samples varied considerably across the sites, making it
OCR for page 121
121
U)
·_'
U]
,1
~4
C:
S4
o
P~
·e
U]
S
o
o
o
U]
1
o
1
o
o
V]
o
o
·_'
a'
a
y
~:
o
Q
~g
~S
E~
U]
a,
._!
U)
o
o
~ . -
q~
o
.. -
s ~
. -
U]
.,,
Ul
o
a'
V
CD
E~
U]
~ a
._, ,~
~ o
cq P4
s
o
~4
o
k4
P~
a
.=
o ~
~ o
s
3
O
a)
~ ~5
,' ~
` O
. . . ~
~ tI5 ^ S
·` Q ~ ~ · O
>'~ I ~O Z
Z ~ 5 ' ~ ~ 3
C 4~ ~ ~ O ~
' ·O i, ~ ~ ~O
Y o Q 03 u] u] C~
~ · ~a4 ul ~ ~) a) u
° · · 0) ~ s ~4J Q
tO ~ ~ : ~'-
~ ~ O O U] ', ,
3 [4 Z ~ P4 ~;
O L
z m ~
U] .,, Ul U]
s UD s
4J
:' >' 3 ~
>, Q O O _I
:^ :~^
{,q
a) ~ 4J ~4~
' - Q, ~ 3 -1 C
~ Ll[,) ~ O S~
O ~.,' O O ~ ~' -
C ~ O ~' -
Y ·a Q, Q~ k4Y a~ ~u~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h
C - - ~1 ~C ~ ~ ' - ~ S ~
3 J~ Q := ~ ~ ~ JU Q 3 ~ O
U] C ~ Ul -1 ~
-~ dP dg , - y ~,- ~ oP dP dP Ql
O ~ ~ Ln ct O ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O a~ I_ I_ ~0 ns u) ~O ~ O ~ a~ rn ~ ~ tn
t) O o o ~S
U) Q5 ~ ~U] U] 3 Q5 ~ J~ Q~ O
1 ~ dP 1 dF d~ dP 1 ~:5 ~ ~ d~ ~ C~)
~1 ~S P~ P4 kD ~ ~ ~ ~ns ~ u~ Q, Q, ~ o 0
O S ~CS k0 0 CO _' ~O h S ~3 ~ ~ Q
1 ~1 1 ~ ~ ~ O
4') - · · · .L) · · · J~ - - Q · · · ·
3 3 3
O O O
1
y ~ ~, - O S ~5 ~' a'
~-~ {0 ~ ~t ~4 ~ ~ ~ Q S C I U]
O ~1 ~ ~ JU O tO JJ O J ~ C) L' aJ ~
3 0 '- O ,0 C) S q~l O ~ 1 ~U] 3 Q~ J~ tI5
C .- ~ 44 ~ U C U] JJ ~3
~ a) ~ 4~ u s 0 ' ~ Ll ' -
·. ~ ~ ~ ~ '- O C ~ ~ C Q ~ C C
U] '- ~ k4 0 U2 .~1 a) ~0 U2 a) 0 4U 0 ~c ~ c 0 ~ ~ ~
0 4~ JU J~ O ~ J~ ~ ~ "l c u? ~a~ ~ ~J~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 Q]
1 1 ~ Q ~ 3 C ~ ~ ~Y ~ ' C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ _1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ Q ~ ' C ~ ~C ~ 3 ~ ~ '
4J ~ ~ O ~ ~ 3 X ~ ~ ~ O ~ C ' - C ~O ~ U 3 ~ ' ~ C
RS 3 ~ O ~ C ~ ~ 4U ~ ~ O C ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ · 3 0
C ~ q~ L4 - ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O~ ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ' -
0w q~ '- ~ q~ JU ~ U] ra ~ ~S ~ ~ O · _~ U]
0) · · · ~ c Y c c 0 ttS ~l 0) ~ ~ c 3
= - ~ ~ ~ u, ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u >4~-
~0 ~ ~
o
q~
a) ~ ~
~- - ~ CD C
s~ ~ s C
0 a1 ~ ~ °
E~
3
U)
U]
1 ~
>1 ~ ~ C
O ~ ~C ~ O
:) ~ O · - 1 S ~ U] J~
C U]
O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0) J~ ~J~ ~J 0) 0 3
Ul 0} J ~0) ·' Q ~ JU ~ ~ ~
c a' ~-' ~ u' ~ ~ a, ~
Q
Q5k4 h aJ · - 0) ~1 ~ C O V
0 Q]a~ ~ ~ ~ · - 0 ~ s ~ ·-l ts~
U] O ~ ·- ~ ~ ~ O
C Q ~J~ ~ C) C (d
Q (24 ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ Q
O
E~
I L
C
a'
O
P4 ~q~ a
O ~E~C ~, ~C
~1 ~(0 ~0) 05 u] ~c H U]
a~ a~ ~- -- ~; ~c 0 J~ E ~C a) ~1 a
~ ~ ' - ~ ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C C ~O ~ -
·- ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ·-
· - ~ h h ~ . - . -
S ~ U] ._4 4U C ~ ~ O ~ 4~ ~ C O U] '= S ~ ~ O ~
c JU .
OCR for page 122
122
~:5
s
v
a
U]
a
~r;
o
8
s
~Q
1
o
1
o
U)
S~
o
P4
o
Q
~n
3
U]
a)
~;U]
C
o
~C)
_.
~q
a)
a'
a'
1 U]
O ~
~n
0 a
·e
U]
S
~5
UO
JJ
V
q~
O E
s~
c
O
U]
~ o
O
~ ~0
O s
c: ~ ~
O O Q]
~c O
P~ O
~-0
a)
Y N C
U) .
V
·,1
~ 4
U]
C~
m ~ 0~
O
E~
U] U]
V ~ U]
.,. O ~U~
V ~ ~U2 ~ ~ (,] ~ [,, ~ . - . - ~ O
v ~ O ~ 3 n c ° ' 3 ~
k.' a' i, a) V (0 V 0) ~D ~ v
~ ~ ~ ~ v 4 ~ =~ s
u ~4 ~ c a) v ~ ~ .- ~ .-
. - n ~ a' Lb O O `~' a
E ~ ~ so ~ ~ C o~
L) ~p, a'
4~ U2
Ll U] ~
15 - O h u]
1 ~Q ~a' ~ :5 ~u~
E dP d ~E °~ ~P ~ ~ ~v ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ v ~ U
I' I! o O I' I' 0 ° '' I' ~ ° 11 11 C 0 11 11 (L ~ 4~ ~ ~ O ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ·~ ~ ~ ~ · s ·-
H ~00 H `,~, ~c4
dP dP a,
Q~ ~ oo ~5 ~n
ON & 4~ 4 ~c ~ a) s ~
oP n E v 0 E E O °' ~ OE ~ E
. - + v ~ O ~ ~Q ~ ~dP O
I u~ ~ 4 ~0 ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:, ~ c q~ ~ ~ S s . - .c ~ ~ ~ c
u~ 0 0 1- ~ :~ E E 3 ~ Q o > U] V
1S ~ ~ C a) ~ U2 ~ co tJ) 10 .-
C ~ ~ · ~ ~ 3 ~
O I O ~q
4~ ~I I ~O
~ U O D v c i) O O a c a ~
· - ~, · - V a) ~ C ~ C ~ ~ V
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c PJ v Q' ~ ~ ~zo zc ~ ~ ~ v
~r
o l - o
V ~ ~aJ O ~V ~ V ~ V
4. ~ ~ u) ~ ~1 ~o u) Q ~H ~
OCR for page 123
123
virtually impossible to distinguish the independent effects of
ethnicity and site.
Differences in outcomes were not accompanied by any changes in the
measured attitudes and orientations reported on a series of tests
developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) that were adminis-
tered at the conclusion of the program. Nor did these differences in
measured attitudes affect the types of jobs that participants obtained.
Three interpretations are possible: (1) changes in reported orienta-
tions toward employment are weakly related to changes in job-related
behavior; (2) the tests were administered immediately after program
completion (when attrition rates were relatively lower for both the
experimental and control groups, 16 and 45 percent, respectively)
rather than at 8 months postprogram, when the job placement comparisons
were made (when attrition rates among the experimental and control
groups were 31 and 42 percent, respectively); and (3) the tests them-
selves may be of questionable validity in measuring the attitudes and
knowledge they purport to assess.
The Vera Institute study of AYES compared the relative effectiveness
of the three treatment strategies at each site. No difference in the
effects of the alternative treatment strategies could be discerned. In
several other studies, similar null findings for alternative treatments
were also found. Indeed, this is the one finding that was fairly robust
throughout the studies of labor market preparation programs we reviewed.
The only exception was the Special Project for Indochinese Youth. It
appeared to show English-language training for Indochinese youths to be
more effective if based in the classroom instead of in a job context.
This null finding parallels a similar finding in educational
research that shows little difference in the employment effects of
vocational and general education. Three explanations are possible:
(1) the types of instruction have equal effects; (2) students select
the type of program best suited to their needs (a choice among the
three types of programs was generally left to the individual), and
effects appear equal because each type of instruction is provided to
that group of students for whom it is best suited; and (3) sample sizes
are too small to detect small differences in outcomes controlling for
site, treatment, and other variables.
RTP Career Exploration Program
The Recruitment Training Program (RTP) Career Exploration Program
provided summer instruction in career preparation to economically
disadvantaged, unemployed out-of-school youths, both dropouts and
graduates, in several cities. Services, including occupational
information, job search information, and basic skills instruction, were
provided to 16- to 21-year-olds during the summers of 1979 and 1980.
The study of RTP shows positive effects of the program. Partici-
pants showed larger gains on a variety of ETS-developed measures of job
satisfaction and vocational aspiration than a randomly selected control
group. In addition, participants were more likely to be employed full
time at program completion than control group members, 89 percent
OCR for page 124
124
compared with 53 percent. The favorable full-time employment experience
of participants persisted at the time of the 3- and 8-month follow-ups
and even increased slightly: a difference of 7.5 percentage points at
3 months and of 8.2 percentage points at 8 months.
The gains reported for this less intensive summer program were as
large as the gains reported for the full 6-month AYES program studied
by Vera. The findings could be attributed to the fact that the RTP
Career Exploration Program addressed a less disadvantaged population:
approximately 25 percent of treatment and control group members were
enrolled in college at the 3- and 8-month follow-ups. It is also
likely that the assignment of youths to participant and control groups
in the Career Exploration Program was not strictly random--sizable
differences in the two populations can be discerned on the basis of
preprogram characteristics within sites, such as high school graduation,
welfare recipiency, ethnicity, and age (20 to 30 percent of partici-
pants and controls were 20-21 years of age). These considerations,
combined with the fact that the analysis takes no explicit account of
the program year or site, suggests that the findings in this case are
not as reliable as those from the Vera study.
Project STEADY
Special Training and Employment Assistance for Disadvantaged Youth,
Project STEADY, operated during the summer of 1980. Its purpose was to
determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the employment service's
local office efforts to increase the employment and employability of
unemployed out-of-school (graduate and dropout) youths who had no
further educational plans and no immediate employment prospects.
Participants, whose ages ranged from 16 to 21 and who were otherwise
eligible for the Summer Youth Employment Program, were required to
participate 35 hours per week at the minimum wage {$3.10 per hour) for
up to 12 weeks. Program activities included aptitude and achievement
testing, counseling, labor market information, job search training, and
referral to and placement in unsubsidized jobs. Ten sites were selected
for the project. The nature of the treatment varied considerably
across the sites; site directors had complete discretion in selecting
those services, materials, and emphases they thought most appropriate.
The evaluation of Project STEADY is based on data for approximately
600 participants and 400 controls at 3 months postprogram. Data from a
longer term follow-up are not available. Personal characteristics of
both controls and participants varied a great deal among the sites,
although the initial assignments to control and participant groups
within a site were random: program applicants were initially tested
and then randomly assigned to participant and control groups. Attempts
were made to make up for participant attrition by accepting control
group individuals as participants. The author of the evaluation report
had no information as to how control group members were selected to be
participants. In addition, attrition in the 3-month follow-up period
was significantly higher among control group members (about one-third)
compared with participants (one-fifth).
OCR for page 125
125
Project STEADY employed two measures from the Standard Assessment
System (SAS) as appropriate to both the target population and the
program objectives: job-holding skills and job-seeking skills. Both a
pretest and a posttest consisting of the two SAS measures were adminis-
tered to the participants and controls. Performance outcome measures
were used in a program completion survey administered to participants
after 12 weeks of program participation and in a control group status
survey administered to controls at the same time. In addition,
performance outcome measures were used in follow-up surveys (3 months)
after termination of program participation for participants and at the
same time for controls. Information on individual characteristics of
participants and controls was taken from the individual participant
profile of SAS.
There were relatively small numbers of participants and controls at
any given site. Alternative statistical tests were used to gauge the
effectiveness of Project STEADY. Statistically significant gains for
participants relative to controls were found in both job-holding skills
and job-seeking skills when sites were pooled. However, on an
individual-site basis, only 2 of 10 sites revealed statistically
significant gains for participants relative to controls in job-holding
skills and job-seeking skills. At most of the remaining sites, the
gains of participants relative to controls were not statistically
significant.
The 3-month follow-up survey revealed that when all sites were
pooled, the percentage of participants who were employed full time
exceeded that of the controls by a large and statistically significant
amount: the adjusted probabilities of full-time employment are
estimated to be 29 and 17 percent for participants and controls,
respectively. On an individual-site basis, only the three sites with
large samples exhibited statistically significant full-time employment
differences, all in favor of participants. The percentage of par-
ticipants reporting being employed in jobs of higher status exceeded
that of the controls by a statistically significant amount when pooling
all sites. On an individual-site basis, however, there were no
statistically significant differences in job status. There were also
no significant differences in earnings or in job satisfaction between
participants and controls.
After adjusting for heterogeneity between the participant and
control groups at the 3-month survey, the evaluators found that of the
40 possible outcomes included, 10 yielded statistically significant
differences, all in favor of participants (relative job status was no
longer significantly different). These outcomes included full-time
employment, financial contribution to one's family, two measures of
future job quality, and getting along with one's family.
Very little information pertaining to race, sex, or age differences
in program gains is available from the evaluation of Project STEADY. A
multiple regression analysis was conducted in which posttest scores
were regressed on pretest scores and demographic characteristics. For
all sites taken together, females experienced statistically significant
smaller gains than males in both job-holding and job-seeking skills.
Practically, however, these meant small actual differences in scores.
OCR for page 126
126
On the other hand, there were no statistically significant differences
by race and age.
There were certain implementation problems associated with Project
STEADY as a demonstration project that need not occur under a permanent
program. Due to the brief start-up time, there was difficulty in
recruiting participants. Lack of time and resources caused difficulties
regarding planning, curriculum development, and the necessary outreach
to potential participants, as well as the creation of a true control
group (as discussed above).
Overall, the evidence indicates some positive effects of Project
STEADY on the short-term employment prospects of youths. While the
precision of the estimated gains is questionable because of data dif-
ficulties, the qualitative effects can probably be accepted. However,
statistical significance, where found, was typically the result of
pooling the data across sites, and therefore we have questions about
whether the evaluation of Project STEADY demonstrated that the program
could have a substantial positive impact on a significant number of
young people facing employment difficulties.
Job Corps Educational Improvement Effort
The purpose of the Educational Improvement Effort (EIE) was to
improve the educational offerings of Job Corps to provide corps members
with the best opportunities for learning at all levels. To meet these
objectives, new or revised curricula were developed for basic skills in
reading and mathematics and high school level skills in all areas.
Programs were tested in an experimental design to provide information
concerning their effects on educational progress and process (Argento
et al., 1982~. The Job Corps Educational Improvement Effort (EIE) is
noteworthy in its attempt to use random assignment of Job Corps par-
ticipants to treatment and control groups to test alternative teaching
techniques.
The programs evaluated included: (1) a reading curriculum that
used materials revised from earlier Job Corps reading programs; (2) a
calculator mathematics program that provided instruction and experience
in the use of hand-held calculators; (3) a reading program using "peer
aides" to help instructors in the reading program deal with the instruc-
tional needs of their students; (4) a program offering participants the
opportunity to obtain a regular high school diploma rather than a GED;
(5) a GED program that used televised instruction; (6) a computer-
assisted education program using the Comprehensive Computer Program to
help students with reading and mathematics; (7) the PLATO system of
computer-assisted instruction; (8) two curriculums to help students
with learning disabilities--one developed by the University of Florida
and the second by the University of Kentucky; and (9) two curriculums
designed to improve the "employability skills" of participants, the
Adkins Employability Skills Series Program and the American Preparatory
Institute Program.
OCR for page 127
127
Over 7,000 Job Corps members in 11 centers took part in one or more
of these programs. Because participants could enter or leave the
program at any time, attrition in posttest data was substantial for
many treatments and sites: for example, 74 percent among controls in
the mathematics component of the Comprehensive Computer Program model
(Argento et al., 1982:Table 1.4-1~.
The assignment of participants to treatment and control groups is
described as follows (Argento et al., 1982:1-5~:
Potential participants were randomly assigned to either the
experimental group or the control group, to the extent possible.
Unfortunately random selection was not always possible. In one
large Job Corps Center, for example, a decision was made to
place all students in the same vocational training area in the
same educational classes. Thus all students interested in
automobile mechanics were in one mathematics class, all those
interested in nursing in another, and so on. With this system,
it was impossible to maintain true randomization. . . .
While the report is forthright about such problems, it does not present
separate analyses for the "true" random assignments, and so it is not
possible to estimate the biases that might have been introduced by such
administrative decisions to abandon randomization at some sites.
The key analysis performed for each of the programs uses preprogram
to postprogram differences in Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) scores as
the dependent variable in an analysis of covariance in which
"treatment" is the independent factor and the covariates include sex,
age, race/ethnicity, highest grade completed in school, hometown size,
whether family receives welfare, and score on SAT pretest. The
reported analyses do not consistently include all variables, apparently
because a stepwise inclusion procedure was used.
Gains in test scores are measured in "grade equivalent" years in
order to gauge treatment effects on educational attainment. Thus,
postprogram minus preprogram scores are divided by the number of hours
in the program: a 100-hour program that raised performance by two
grades would show a gain of 2/100, or .02. Gain scores are then
adjusted for the covariates included in the analysis.
Few of the treatments produced significant results; for those that
do appear significant selectivity bias cannot be ruled out as an
important factor. Thus, we did not find the evidence on the differ-
ential effectiveness of the Job Corps EIE convincing.
PROGRAMS FOR IN-SCHOOL YOUTHS
This section discusses three programs that predominantly or
exclusively served in-school youths: the Career Exploration Program,
the School-to Work Transition program, and Project Redirection. Table
6.3 details program characteristics; Table 6.4 presents the research
design and results of the program evaluations.
OCR for page 128
~n
v
.-.
u)
c)
o
·e
u]
s
:'
o
o
o
s
u]
1
H
o
U]
o
Ll
o
._l
a
~:
o
Q
.
~;
E~
U)
4U
.,'
cn
)J
o ~
~ o
P4
4
o
.,'
s
. -
h
Ul
,'
Q. JU
:3 ~n
O ' -
C' ~
E~ So
U] ~
.,- ·-
Ll O
O )~
~q P4
~ SO
S~ O
~ Ll
O
P4
4~
C)
a)
·~_,
O
O
:D
~a
a'
O
.,' ~ ' ~
JJ ~ ~ . -
~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~
O ~ ~ ~ 3 G.
O ~ ~ U] O U)
Ll ~ ~q O ~1 ~
ul ~q 1 Q' ~ -
X O
O a) q~
128
O ~ ~ e
~ ~ 3 ~ ·=
Ul·' · C · - ~ ~ N _I
~. Z ~ ~ c: ~ a' · -
a'
~· ~ O S
S:: 2 X ~· IJ_I
· ~c a~ C ~ O · - ~
· ~ 0 ~ 0} 0 3 X <1)
S -I ~ ~J ~ O ~ S ·- ~r1 ~
v ~ a) m ~ c~ `:4 ~ ~ ~ `: ~
- - ~ U] ~ U] ~ Ul
0) 0 s ~ ' ' . - u] 0 h
' .Q ~ ~-~ C ) GS S
O O ~U' ~ (;s £
~ CJ, := O ~ 0 3 ·'
Ul O ~ ~ U] O q~ ~ ~ ~ ' ·' P:
O ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ C
S ~ ~ ~S ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~
-/ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · C
U) U] C) (.) tI5 t~1 :e U) ~ ~ ~ Z
C~
1 ~ V °
C 11
o
i.4
O
3 C
u' ~ a,, ~ ~
Y u, ~q ~ u' a'
h C'
3 O C GS O L.
S . - -S 0)
o
U)
C~
o
U]
S
C
o
C~
C
a
S
~q
' C ~4~
~ U] ~U) ~ ~C
C q~ ~- ~J ~ O
~=- - ~ C
U] V ~ ~ Y ~ ~ U]
S ~ ~q O ~ U] ~ s~
4~ u, ~ ~4 0 u' a, ~ tO ~tq
~ ~O s a) ~ ~ ~ ~. -
O ~O ·- V V
~5 [Q ~ ~ · -
C U] V ~ U] ~ O ~ ~O ~V
(1) 4 ~· - 4~ S 0) u ~S O ·- t: _I ~ ~·~
O q~ :D C ~ ~ ~ C C ~O ~C
O ~:5 :5 P4 ~·- O o' S O C
C S O Q~ V ~ aJ ~5 0 0 S V O `) S (d td V Q' V
GS v 1 0 lIJ U] ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ V V S ~ ~ ·-
~n X ~ ~ · - ~ ~ ~ s 0 cn u' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I o~ m ~ ~ - a' v ~ ~ ~ ~c Qm 0
0 ~ 0 ~ u, ~ ~ ~s ~ ~n c
O O ~ dP oP dp dP op O ~ 3 3 ~ Q~ tD C tO dP oP O
S 1 ~ a~ a~ ~ C~ ~ S n5 s ~J 0 0 u~ :~ ·- ~ a~ a~ ~ V
V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tn V ~ cr ~ ~ ~ ~ O s
U] ~U] · - ~1 a) ~ 1
1 0 · ~ ~ - ~ ~1 · S ·~1 · - ~ ~ C ~ ·
C C S O
H ~U] 2
U)
1 ~1
q~ 1 _I C
a) · - 0
a
Ul ~ Ul J~
C ~ ~ ~
·~1 U] C O
ul a
U]
p4 C ~ X
0 a
S ~ ~
U] ~ ~ ~
Y 3 ~ O
~ ~ a) r,
Q
;~
a'
nj
U ~
V O
l5 ~
4
~ O
a~ ~
~ X
U]
~n
1 a
~ C ~ V
a' ~ c
S C
C
>. a
O U]
ns Q _I
C ~ ~V
O
.,1 ~ a., 4
~ £ ~v ~
v ~ C a'
~4
C
o
v ~
.,, ~ O
q~ · -
O U]
C ~1
O U) ~ O
C ~ O
S
x a) v
C
14 ~ · -
~ ~ O
U eq ~ ~ O
~ ~ ~ ~ 3
ut
a
V
C · -
· - C Ul
U] ·~4
C ~ ~
a) a) ,-
s u) o
a) c Q
k4 ~ Q
Q, O
~ V
o
~I cr;
0) 0 ~1 V H
~ 0 ~a' ~:
C C ~q ~ ~ O ~ ·~ ~
Ll O ~ ~ ~ S C E~ :^ ·-~ '
au ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v 0 ~ ~ o ~ c'
a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 u ~ ~ :3 a) a~ ~
:^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u' ~£
O ~ U] O V ~ C ~ O Ul
U] ~C ~ ~ 3 C t7) ~ ~ ~V C
~: Q, O ~4 ~O V P~ ~ O l- U~ ~o O
X Ll O ~ O ~ ~ Z O ~ ~ ~ E~ ~=- -
a. tk~ t-~ P, 4-~ ~ -4-~ E~ P., ~ ~ u ~O
H ~Ll
0 2 P4
V
·~'
O ~ O
~1 C
O
C U] ~ V V
C 1 a, c
C ~ · -
C 4~ 0 C V
m- -
C ~ q~
C ~ ~ q~
. - U2 ~ ~
~ns c ~q
Q, c ~ 0 1
a) ~ u' q~
~ ·~ v
0 ~ c a,
q" Q,-,1 Q, u]
OCR for page 129
129
U]
-
s
C)
S~
a)
~n
a)
o
o
s
U)
1
y
1o
.j4~
[QE
C~
~a
._.
U]~
a3 C
O o
~,
U]
O
·e
~a
3
U]
r'
q~
E
0
o
~O ~
~ O
O/IS O
P4~ ~o
O
OO
·,'
4~ :,
0= 0
C,
~O
P~O
C)
4~
N `:
,~ ~
U] 04
.,~
a' 0
~ _'
OE v
E
·54
0m
~O
E ~
- 1,
~ '
,]
C C:
Q.
X
u 0 a)
q~ ~ ~a
Ll
n5 ,
4~ ~
C: ~q
c
~ ~ O
.,.
~ 3 ~
.,. ~ c:
~ ~ O
m
-~1
U]
dF dP
U] ~ o
s ~ a
C
8
CO
11 11
. ~ C)
t]
O
4
(IJ )-
.'
c: u~ J~ a
:' ~
~C
a' ~ ~ 0
~ U] . -
JJ 4
a
o
0 c a) ~a
0 a' q~
s ~ q~
O ~ a
]
~ -
~ c
m
o . -
o
a'
L4
Q.
s
4~ c
3
P4
3
U'
U) ~ 54
~ O
C~ ~
C ~ C U
a' c
O U'
~ ~ c~
4
q~
O ~ C
u
o
C)
d~ dP
u~ 0 a,
s U~
4J
C 11 11
o
~ ~ C~
CD
U) C
C~ O
._, ~
1 U] ~ · - Qi
y · - U1 L4 [0
C~
~ a~ c
Q
1 V Ql ~
C m- - ~ C
·_~ i ~ C~
~ · - · -
JJ S ~ 4
C Co ~ C ~
a) ~ ~ 0
CL ~ Co
~ c a' c
q~ ~ ~ ~ · -
1~ 0 0
.,. ~, ~, ·-
~5 ~ ~i ~ Q
U)
4~
U]
Y
. -
u' n
a) ~ ~
· - C C
C~ ~ 0
4~
U)
C~ ~ ~
co ~ 3
_
c
H
U]
S
4~
C
o
£
O ~
.,'
C~
C
O
.,. ~ O
JJ
C
aJ ~JJ
c a) 0 a,
a' dP dP ~ ~C
N CD ~
~ tD . - h U] ~1
_ ~q~ C~
0 11 11 . - ~ ~
O C C ~ O
S ~ Co m. - U)
C ~.-
U] U)
4
o
C
O
1 u'
1
.~4 0
U] ~C
a) ~
O
Ll U)
O ~ ~
O ~ O
CO ~)
O
O
U~
C
Ll O
JJ
L' ns
~, L. ~
C ) O Ll
~ ~ O
~ X Ll
C)
O
U)
O U: .
Ll _' C
U] ~4 JU O O
O C: O · -
V O Q~ J~
C U] V ~
U] L.
~ - ~- - ~
a) 4~ c u~ Q,
q~ U' fO ~ O
~ · -
· - L. U]
4~ C O
C ~
V ~ U]
C ~ ~c ~
~ L. ·-I ~ O
V ~ V c · -
·-~ S . - l 0 L.
~1 V JU ~ ~
·,1 L. I Q.
C C
~' -
.,4
cn
L' L.
a
q~
·a c ~
U] ~ ~ ~ U]
S ~ 0m S
C O C
0 i4 11 11 0
C
aJ ~ C~
~r
C
C)
U]
C
U] ~ U]
S~ ~ -
~ · - O
O Co O
~1 · - S
V
Ll U]
C ~
0 ~ a'
tn c
· - O
L' C U]
C
O - -
o
r~
U]
4~
~i
C C c: C
O O O O
.,'
4~ ~ a
V C V
a' ~ a) a'
q~ JJ ~ JJ q~ ~
~I C ~l a) ~1 ~q
a) ~ ~ ~ a'
a) ~ ~ ~ a' ~C
O ~ O
. - ~ ' - O ' -
~ Ql ~ S J~ -4
.,1 ~ ~ C~ . -
U] ~ ~ ~ U)
0 a' 0
P4 Z P'
o
U ~O U~
O (D O
o
4
1
:o ~
L. O
O O ~
124 S L
V C
)
P4
z
C ~>1
0 ~
.,' ~:'
~ 4 ~
·-t U] U]
U]
c a ~0
L. a, ~
_ E~ ~
u~
V
C
C
a'
h
C}
a
U]
U' a'
S Ll
C~
c a.'
s0
N
q~
o
U]
C
~O
O C ,
h ·-l J~
n5
C V
C ~ O
O
·' o, O
~ ~ 3
O ~
~s
c ~, C ~
Ll O O Q,
oC V
z
o
~1
4~ V
v a,
3, L'
r~ .,~
O ~
L. ~
PM ~;
J J~\
C
a
U~
o
~ 11
C
C
a' ~
~ C
O ~h
L. O ~[ ~O
C ~4
a) ~ c
O ~ ~
a) ~ -l ~ Q~ ~n
O
O ~ ~4~ V ~
S'- CD V C X O
V ~ 4J
U] ~ ~ C V
c a) ~ ~ u' Q
s :'
V C ~ ~ ~ U]
u' u, ~ ~ 0 C c
q~ ~ ~ 0 ~s
a' ~ u~ ~ u' p,
~ ~ s C 4~ ~ U]
C~ Co ~ ~ V ~ C~
c c c ~ ~ 0 ~ a
u' ~ ~ c
c
. . . ~ ~ · ~ U]
~4
OCR for page 130
130
OIC/A Career Exploration Program
The Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc.
(OIC/A) operated the Career Exploration Program in seven sites during
1980. The design of the OIC/A program was similar in many respects to
that of programs offered by RTP and other community-based organizations;
it involved a 10-week summer program providing classroom instruction
for 2 hours per day and career exposure site experience (work experi-
ence) for 4 hours per day. A follow-up component extended for 8 months
after the summer program and included review classes, counseling,
referral services, and a newsletter designed to reinforce skills
learned in the program.
The OIC/A program served a predominantly minority clientele (78
percent black, 13 percent Hispanic) of 16- to 21-year-olds; nearly half
of the participants were female (48 percent). Because an express aim
of the program was to serve high-risk youths, about 24 percent of the
participants were ax-offenders and 19 percent were dropouts; 75 percent
of the participants were high school students, 4 percent were graduates,
and 1 percent had received GED degrees. No data were provided on
cross-site differences in participant characteristics.
While participant and control group members were similar in terms
of age and economic status, they differed significantly in other
preprogram characteristics. Participants were more likely to be female
(48 percent of participants compared with 37 percent of controls);
attending high school {75 percent compared with 68 percent), and black
or Hispanic (90 percent compared with 84 percent). By design, controls
were more likely to be youth offenders than were participants, though
the actual proportions differed from the planned 50 percent and 33
percent: 49 percent of controls were offenders while only 24 percent
of participants were.
The differences between the two groups suggest that random assign-
ment was not strictly followed, at least at some of the sites, and the
evaluation report itself suggests as much. While overall attrition at
8 months was reasonable for studies of this kind (23 percent for par-
ticipants and 20 percent for controls), differential attrition among
black participants eliminated the significant difference in racial
composition that had existed earlier between the experimental and
control groups.
The evaluation results indicate that the participants' school
attendance improved and their criminal recidivism was reduced at 3 and
8 months postprogram compared with a randomly assigned control group.
The analysis by the Center for Studies in Social Policy of the data for
nearly 1,500 participants and 800 controls at 8 months postprogram
indicates that continued school attendance was significantly higher for
participants than controls: 73 percent compared with 62 percent.
Given the initial differences between the two groups on school and
offender status, however, and the fact that being in school at program
entry was found to be positively associated with being in school at the
follow-up, it may not be surprising that participants compare favorably
with controls on this measure. Because it is not clear that random
assignment was effectively carried out and the results are confounded
OCR for page 131
131
with preprogram characteristics, it may be erroneous to treat
postprogram differences as program outcomes.
National Puerto Rican Forum
The National Puerto Rican Forum's (NPRF) School-to-Work Transition
program was designed to serve approximately 150 (largely) Puerto Rican
in-school youths in each of various sites to "enable the participants
to better understand and identify their strengths and weaknesses,
facilitate the transition from school to work, and enhance their
ability to select a career" {Murphy and Appel, 1981:13~. Services were
intended to include workshops in self-awareness, preemployment skills,
and job exploration for 5 hours per week during the school year.
Actual contact hours averaged fewer than 30 in each site.
In the initial year of the program, 1979, services were provided to
high school seniors attending two schools in each of three sites,
Chicago, Jersey City/Hoboken, and New York (South Bronx). In the
following year, apparently due to a concern that many needy Puerto
Rican youths leave school before senior year, the program shifted its
focus to serving high school freshmen, lost one of the Jersey City
schools, and added four high schools, two in Hartford and two in San
Juan.
Because of the program's focus on high school seniors, it may be
appropriate to view the 1979 program as similar to job placement
efforts (such as Jobs for Delaware Graduates or Project BEST, discussed
in Chapter 9~. As such, the nature of the comparison group and the
relative experiences of the two groups become important. While
initially based on an experimental design, random assignment was
abandoned due to insufficient sample sizes, and all youths expressing
an interest in the program were allowed to participate. Comparison
group members were high school seniors from the same schools as
participants. No information is available on the procedures used to
select comparison group members, who differed considerably from
participants: comparison group members included fewer Hispanics and
more blacks, had higher family economic status, and had less prior
employment.
Attrition among both participant and comparison group members at
the 8-month follow-up (50 and 62 percent, respectively) was par-
ticularly high for participants who were Hispanic and from low economic
status households, while attrition among comparisons was highest for
black males. Due to the attrition pattern, the initial differences in
characteristics between the two groups largely disappeared. Moreover,
the resulting sample sizes, 102 participants and 130 comparisons, were
inadequate for reliable quantitative analysis. Therefore, no valid
inferences can be drawn about the effectiveness of the 1979 NPRF
program.
The program that operated during the 1980-1981 academic year served
high school freshmen for an average of 33 contact hours during the
school year (Trismen, 1982~. About 83 percent of participants were
Hispanic, 57 percent were female, and 85 percent were from families
OCR for page 132
132
with incomes no higher than 70 percent of the lower living standard of
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While no information is provided on
how comparison group members were chosen, the demographic character-
istics of the comparison group very closely matched those of partici-
pants. Participants and comparisons in the second year program were,
of course, younger than those who participated the previous year; they
were also of lower economic status, had less prior employment experi-
ence, and scored lower on pretests on a variety of cognitive measures.
At program exit, participants exhibited significantly larger gains
than did comparisons on each of the seven items in the SAS test
battery. 2 This is in contrast to a finding of no significant
differences in gains for participant and comparison group members
during the previous year's program.
Postprogram results are available only at 3 months after program
completion for 61 percent of participants (260) and 65 percent of
comparison group members (302~. Statistically significant findings
that favored the participant group related to the degree of job
knowledge, the proportion working full time or part time (40 percent
and 29 percent), and the extent to which family members felt good about
the program (or "how you've been doing n for controls). As seems
appropriate for a program serving in-school youths, the employment
outcome largely reflects part-time employment.
At the time of the 3-month follow-up in early fall of 1981, about
86 percent of the respondents were in school. While participants were
significantly less likely to be in school at the follow-up than
comparison group members, other things equal, the actual difference was
small: 85 percent compared with 87 percent. Overall, participants in
the 1980-1981 program performed significantly better immediately
postprogram than nonparticipants on a variety of cognitive measures.
Three months postprogram, participants were somewhat more likely than
comparisons to be employed full time (2 percent compared with 1
percent) and much more likely to be employed either part time or full
time (40 percent compared with 29 percent), but they were also somewhat
less likely than comparison group members to be enrolled in school.
Thus whether the program intended to or not, it did not increase school
retention. Although\the evaluation of the 1980-1981 NPRF program
provided promising results, it provided insufficient information on how
the comparison group was formed. Therefore, we cannot be confident
about the results for either year of the NPRF program's operation.
2 Gains were measured in terms of percentages of standard deviations,
and the magnitudes averaged 34-65 percent across all sites (Murphy and
Appel, 19811. Gains of 10 percent or more were considered to have
practical significance.
OCR for page 133
133
Project Redirection
Project Redirection was designed to provide pregnant and parenting
women aged 17 and younger who had not yet graduated from high school
with educational, health, family planning, and employment-related
services for up to 18 months. Its goal was long-term personal and
economic self-sufficiency. It operated in four sites--Boston, New York
(Harlem), Phoenix, and Riverside (California)--from mid-1980 to 1983.
About 48 percent of participants were black, 38 percent were Hispanic,
and 13 percent non-Hispanic whites. The average age of participants
was 16, 56 percent were pregnant (not yet parents), and 52 percent were
in school at the time of the baseline interview.
Project Redirection was noteworthy for its development of a
comprehensive program of counseling and supportive services for young
women from low-income backgrounds who were pregnant or mothers. While
the program seemed innovative and promising, the evaluation findings
are unclear. The interim report on program effectiveness considered
about 180 participants and 200 comparisons at only 12 months after
enrollment in the program, when most young women were still partici-
pating or had only recently left the program. The findings indicated
that participants were less likely to have a repeat pregnancy (17
percent compared with 22 percent) and more likely to be enrolled in
school or have completed school or a GED program (66 and 50 percent,
respectively).
However, a later report at 24 months after enrollment in the
program showed Project Redirection youths on the whole fared no
differently than comparison group youths on a variety of outcomes.
There were no significant differences in the number of repeat
pregnancies, in school enrollment or completion, or in employment.
While the evaluation design of Project Redirection was superior to
that of other programs for pregnant and parenting youths, several
shortcomings limit our confidence in the findings. The comparison
group approach used matched sites in the same regions, but several
significant differences between comparison and participant group
members at baseline suggest that the two groups were not comparable.
For example, controls were more likely to be attending school (70
percent compared with 52 percent), had had more pregnancies, and had
previously enrolled in a teen parent program (44 percent compared with
23 percent). Attempts to adjust for selectivity bias produced no
difference in the results.
In addition, the comparison group members received many of the same
services provided to participants in Project Redirection. Thus, rather
than being a test of the effect of providing services, per se, the
demonstration is more appropriately seen as the test of the relative
effect of the Project Redirection service provision strategy compared
with others. The possibility therefore exists that the results
understate the true program effects.
In order to enlarge the participant sample by nearly one-half (from
180 to 350 participants), a second sample was formed with treatment
group members who participated in the program between March 1981 and
January 1982, about a year after the original sample members were given
baseline interviews. They were added to the analysis along with
OCR for page 134
134
TABLE 6.5 Selected Project Redirection Outcome Differences
Outcome
First
Sample
Second
Sample
Percentage with pregnancy
subsequent to baseline
at 12-month interview
at 24-month interview
Percentage with live birth
subsequent to baseline
at 24-month interview
Percentage ever enrolled
in school between baseline
and 24-month interview
Percentage employed at
24-month interview
-
_ 9*
7
9
+11*
- 8
+ 2
- 2
+25*
NOTE: Adjusted participant group mean minus comparison group mean.
*Statistically significant at the .05 level or below in a
two-tailed test.
SOURCE: Polit et al. (1985~.
additional comparison group members. The numbers of additional sample
members were not uniform across the sites. Various techniques were
used to overcome the lack of comparable baseline data for members of
the second sample, including the use of retrospective data and
estimation.
The data for the two samples are pooled in most of the analyses
even though the treatment period covered different time periods (and
therefore possibly somewhat different program offerings) and members of
the second sample participated for a significantly shorter period of
time, 9.9 compared with 12.9 months. The pooling of the two samples
may account, in part, for the apparent decline in program effects
between the 12-month and 24-month results. The interim report results
rely exclusively on data from the initial sample while the 24-month
results include data from the second sample, which account for a
significant share (40 percent) of the total. When results at 24 months
are reported separately for the two samples, participant outcomes for
the first sample are generally more favorable with respect to the
comparison group than those of the second sample: for example, outcomes
are better in terms of the number of repeat pregnancies, the number of
live births, whether the participant is employed, and a variety of
other measures (see Table 6.5~.
OCR for page 135
135
Although the overall attrition rate of 14 percent for the first
sample was relatively low for a study covering 2 years, there was
significantly more attrition among participants (21 percent) than among
comparison group members (7 percent). Attrition rates for members of
the second sample are more problematic: only 55 percent of those who
participated were given the 24-month interview. Attempts to adjust for
attrition bias using the Heckman (1979) procedure produced no changes
in estimated program effects, although this was as likely due to the
difficulty of modeling attrition as to any other explanation. 3
Finally, due to the nature of the sample design, site effects are
confounded with race/ethnicity effects. The Harlem site was largely
black (92 percent), Boston was predominantly Puerto Rican (96 percent),
and Phoenix and Riverside were the only sites with white non-Hispanic
participants (9 and 40 percent, respectively) and with significant
numbers of Mexican-American participants (42 and 24 percent,
respectively).
Because of the many methodological difficulties inherent in the
evaluation, we do not believe that reliable conclusions about the
effectiveness of Project Redirection can be drawn.
CONCLUSION
Programs offering labor market preparation were the largest single
category of programs we reviewed. Although 15 reports met the com-
mittee's standards of evidence for determining program effectiveness,
many suffered from serious methodological deficiencies that led to
questions about their results.
The results of several studies (mostly of programs for out-of-
school youths) were of sufficient reliability to be examined for their
implications for youth policy: the Alternative Youth Employment
Strategies (AYES) project, some career exploration programs (those
operated by OIC/A and RTP, in particular), and Project STEADY.
Overall, the results of these studies suggest that most labor
market preparation programs for out-of-school youths have at best only
marginal effects on employment, and there is some hint that the effects
may decay fairly rapidly (3 to 8 months) after participants leave the
program. A comparison of the 26-week program with programs of 10 to 12
weeks suggests that the same marginal gains in employment can be
3 As a practical matter, it is when the use of these techniques
produces change in the estimated results that the presence of selection
bias is indicated. When selection bias adjustment techniques produce
no change in the estimates, it can either be due to the absence of
selection bias or the inability to properly identify the factors that
differentiate participants from nonparticipants. Thus, when the
application of these techniques produces no change in the estimated
effects, it implies nothing about the presence or absence of selection
bias.
OCR for page 136
136
achieved as well by a shorter program, although differences in target
group characteristics and treatments suggest caution in generalizing
this particular finding. The effects of the programs on job attitude
and orientation, if reliably measured, are also marginal. The lack of
a relationship between these measures and employment gains raises
interesting issues about the goals of these programs (many of which
were supposed to have focused on changing youths' attitudes and
motivations) about attitude measurement, and about the relation of job
attitudes to employment.
The results of these studies raise many other interesting questions
that, unfortunately, we cannot answer because of deficiencies in the
research. Programs were operated in many sites, with variations in
program approach and target group characteristics, but when the data
were analyzed and the results presented, those differences were not
examined, often because of insufficient sample sizes. Across and
within sites, different groups of participants received similar
services, perhaps with varying effects, but again most evaluations did
not include separate analyses: for instance, for in-school compared
with out-of-school youths; for dropouts compared with high school
graduates; for males compared with females; or by race and ethnic
subgroups. When a program has an effective outcome, we know little
about why it works or for whom. Similarly, when there is no effect or
no difference in effect, as in the AYES project, we cannot identify the
reasons for the particular finding. Yet such information would help
identify possible effective approaches to youth employment problems.
Many of the labor market preparation studies produced by the YEDPA
knowledge development effort are not discussed in this report because
we found their methodological deficiencies too serious to allow reliable
interpretations of their results. The most common shortcomings in
these evaluations were the inadequacy of the control or comparison
groups and sample attrition. In most cases, the "control" group was
sufficiently different from the participant group in important char-
acteristics that there was reason to suspect differences in unmeasured
characteristics as well, which makes the attribution of changes in
outcomes as due to the program questionable. In many other cases,
although a requirement for random selection was stated as a planned
feature of the research design, the randomization of participants and
controls was abandoned. In still other cases, the comparison group
consisted of participants in another program, resulting in probable
underestimates of program effects relative to those based on a truly
untreated control group. Appropriate techniques for following up
program participants and comparison group members were rarely used.
Not only was attrition in the 3- to 8-month period following program
completion often in excess of one-third, but differential patterns of
attrition raised serious questions about the validity of purported
results.
-
-
. . . · · .
Representative terms from entire chapter:
project steady
