Study Details | Pathways to Work

3153.02-Center for Employmen

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: Center for Employment Training’s (CET’s) 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: Tested in multiple settings

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 operated by the CET in San Jose, CA, and surrounding areas. 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 program 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 CET randomized sample included 962 participants—812 with 12-month follow-up outcome data, 769 with 30-month follow-up data, and 738 with 60-month follow-up data. 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 through 1988.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment, Increase education and training

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	Sample size
Increase long-term earnings	Average monthly earnings, annual	60 months	High	572.00	667.00	95.00	1990 dollars	738
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 5	High	63.90	63.50	-0.40	percentage points	738
Increase long-term employment	Months employed, annual	Year 5	High	5.90	6.30	0.40	months	738
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED	60 months	High	12.10	12.10	0.00	percentage points	738

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 in the 60-month follow-up sample were women who were, on average, 28 to 29 years old at baseline. Thirteen percent of intervention group members and 17 percent of comparison group members were African American; about 83 percent of intervention group members and 76 percent of comparison group members were Hispanic. On average, the highest grade completed by both groups was 10th grade. At baseline, 34 percent of intervention group members and 32 percent of comparison group members had earned a high school diploma, and 7 percent of intervention group members and 11 percent of comparison group members had obtained a GED. Sixty-seven percent of intervention group members and 71 percent of comparison group members reported ever having received public assistance at baseline.

Age

Mean age

29 years

Sex

Female

100%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	13%
Unknown, not reported, or other	5%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	83%

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

67%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	40%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	60%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Center for Employment Training

Program history:

The CET had been providing employment training services throughout California and other western U.S. states since 1968. The organization had always emphasized providing a supportive environment and providing employment skills training regardless of prior skill or academic levels. This program was largely similar to services previously offered by the organization.

Intervention services:

The MFSP program implemented by the CET provided occupational skills training that focused on the practical skills clients would need to meet the employment demands of the local labor market. In the CET’s integrated model, all participants received job skills training regardless of their prior level of education and had access to supplemental instruction that focused on basic educational skills. The CET provided a variety of different services to assist participants who were pursuing employment. At the San Jose location that served three-quarters of the participants, the CET established a Montessori child care center for participants in the training program.

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 CET for 30 months.

Service receipt duration:

Service length varied depending on participant needs, but training in most skills lasted for four to nine months.

Intervention funding:

The Rockefeller Foundation; matching funds from other sources including the Job Training Partnership Act, a CET contract to train farm workers, and Pell Grants.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $7,684 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $0 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $7,684 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.

Zambrowski, Amy, and Anne Gordon (1993). Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Fifth-year impacts at CET, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Available at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/publications/pdfs/family_support/mfsp_fifthyearimpacts.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 Center for Employment Training’s (CET’s) Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Program