Study Details | Pathways to Work

3153.01-Atlanta Urban League

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: Atlanta Urban League (AUL) Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Program

Population and employment barriers:

Parents (Single parents), Sex (Female)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

This study is a randomized controlled trial. The Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) evaluation took place in four community-based organizations across the United States. This review focuses on the program that was operated by the AUL in Atlanta, GA. Between November 1984 and December 1987, the study randomly assigned low-income, minority single mothers to the intervention group—in which study members were offered the opportunity to participate in the program—or to the comparison group—in which study members were ineligible to participate in the MFSP but could seek other training programs or support services. Participants did not need to be collecting welfare (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) payments in order to be eligible. The AUL randomized sample included 925 participants, the 12-month follow-up analysis sample included 797 participants, and the 30-month follow-up analysis sample included 672 participants. The timing of the surveys is with respect to sample members’ application to receive services. Information on the time between application and random assignment or service receipt is not available.

Time period of study:

Enrollment occurred between 1984 and 1987. Funding for the program was available through 1988.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

Mental health, Family formation, Job characteristics

Study funded by:

The Rockefeller Foundation supported 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	Findings	Sample size
Increase long-term earnings	Total earnings over follow-up period	Months 1-30	High	9,962.00	9,605.00	-357.00	1987 dollars		672
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Quarters 7–10	High	67.80	66.50	-1.30	percentage points		672

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

Participants enrolled in the study were single-parent, female minorities. On average, intervention-group respondents to the 30-month survey were between 28 and 29 years old at baseline; about 99 percent were African American, and about 2 percent were Hispanic. More than half of these participants had received a high school diploma (58 percent), and about 8 percent had a GED. About two-thirds of participants reported receiving public assistance in the year before the baseline survey.

Age

Mean age

29 years

Sex

Female

100%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	99%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	2%

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

Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance

69%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	65%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	35%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Atlanta Urban League

Program history:

The program was developed for this study. Before the study, the AUL had strong cooperative relationships with other training and service agencies and had been involved in a variety of employment and training efforts (such as a preparation course for civil service tests, an information and counseling center, and sponsorship of a Supported Work Demonstration site) but did not operate a comprehensive training program.

Intervention services:

The MFSP program implemented by the AUL was based on a service model that analyzed participants’ needs, connected participants with appropriate services already available in the community, and, when necessary, provided in-house training and services. The program at the AUL focused first on providing full-time adult basic education and GED instruction to women with poor reading, writing, or math skills, and then supported occupational skills training once participants overcame academic barriers. The AUL program included the following: (1) use of existing community-based training programs whenever feasible and implementation of new training courses only when existing courses were inadequate or unavailable, (2) a focus on preparing participants to qualify for skilled training programs in the community while incorporating established entrance requirements, (3) assessment by program professionals of participants’ academic and skill levels to help formulate realistic goals and make appropriate training plans, and (4) child care assistance.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Comparison group participants were able to obtain services available in the community but did not receive specific referrals or support from the AUL for 30 months.

Service receipt duration:

Service length varied depending on participant needs and the providers offering the services; skill-training courses varied in length from eight weeks to two years.

Intervention funding:

The Rockefeller Foundation; matching funds from other sources

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $7,492 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $0 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $7,492 per person. This represents how much more it cost to provide intervention services compared to comparison services.

These figures are based on cost information reported by study authors. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Burghardt, John, and Anne Gordon (1990). The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: More jobs and higher pay—how an integrated program compares with traditional programs, New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.

Burghardt, John, Anu Rangarajan, Anne Gordon, and Ellen Kisker (1992). Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Available at https://www.mathematica.org/our-publications-and-findings/publications/evaluation-of-the-minority-female-single-parent-demonstration-volume-i.

Gordon, Anne, and John Burghardt (1990). The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Kerrachsky, Stuart (1994). The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Making a difference—does an integrated program model promote more jobs and higher pay?, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

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 Atlanta Urban League (AUL) Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Program