Study Details | Pathways to Work

3051.02-Per Scholas Sectoral

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Per Scholas Sectoral Employment Program

Population and employment barriers:

Educational attainment (High school diploma or GED)

Services provided:

Case management, Employment retention services, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (Unpaid work experience, Work experience), Work readiness activities (Employment coaching, Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The evaluation team asked staff at each of three sector-focused employment training sites to recruit 450 potential trainees for the evaluation (analyses of the programs at each site were reviewed as separate studies by the Pathways Clearinghouse). At the Per Scholas site, staff recruited 459 eligible participants, of which 443 provided consent and completed a baseline study survey. The study team randomly assigned 442 of these 443 potential trainees (the remaining individual was dropped from the study). People assigned to the intervention group could participate in the Per Scholas sector-focused employment program and those assigned to the comparison group could not. Approximately two years later, 345 people (78 percent) across both conditions completed a follow-up survey. Study participants were required to hold a high school diploma or equivalent certificate and demonstrate math and English skills at or above the tenth grade level. This study is separate from the study of Per Scholas Sectoral Employment Program—WorkAdvance Model, which began in 2011 and is also included in the Pathways Clearinghouse.

Time period of study:

The evaluation began in 2003 and participants were followed for approximately two years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

None

Study funded by:

The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation funded the evaluation.

Results

View table help Need more context or definitions for the table below? View the table help to get insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Months 13-24	High	14,680.00	19,343.00	4,663.00	2005 dollars	337
Increase long-term employment	Employed at any time in follow-up period	Months 1-24	High	77.00	83.00	5.00	percentage points	337
Increase long-term employment	Total months employed	Months 1-24	High	12.50	14.10	1.60	months	337

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

Within the sample of follow-up survey respondents, about three-quarters of participants (76 percent) were male, 50 percent were African American, 41 percent were Latino/a, 3 percent were White, and 6 percent were of another racial/ethnic background. About one-quarter (25 percent) of participants were ages 18 to 24 and 11 percent were 25 or 26. The average age was between 32 and 33. Seventeen percent of participants reported being married. Participants faced a range of employment barriers, with 17 percent having ever been convicted of a crime, 13 percent having ever been incarcerated, and 6 percent having experienced homelessness in the past year.

Age

Mean age	33 years
Young adults	25%

Sex

Female	24%
Male	76%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	50%
White, not Hispanic	3%
Another race	6%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	41%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

Family status

Married

17%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

26%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	28%
Had a high school diploma or GED	100%

Specific employment barriers

Were involved with the justice system	17%
Were formerly incarcerated	13%
Were experiencing homelessness	6%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Per Scholas

Program history:

Per Scholas was founded in 1995 and began its computer technician training program in 1998.

Intervention services:

Per Scholas participants entered a 15-week, 500-hour-long computer technician training program. Training consisted of instruction and practice related to assembly, configuration, installation, upgrade, and repair of personal computers, printers, and copiers. Participants also took part in internships and were offered life skills and employability training. Services also included case management, mentoring, job placement, post-employment services, and assistance with work attire.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Participants in the comparison condition had no access to Per Scholas training.

Service receipt duration:

The training program lasted 15 weeks and included 500 hours of training.

Intervention funding:

Per Scholas is funded by foundations and private companies.

Study publications

Maguire, Sheila, Joshua Freely, Carol Clymer, Maureen Conway, and Deena Schwartz (2010). Tuning in to local labor markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. [Per Scholas]. Available at https://ppv.issuelab.org/resources/5101/5101.pdf

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Study of Per Scholas Sectoral Employment Program