Study Details | Pathways to Work

25028.28028.02-Teenage Parent Demon

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: Teenage Parent Demonstration

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Sanctions, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

In the fall of 1987 through early 1990, in Camden and Newark, NJ, and Chicago, IL, teenage first-time parents who were receiving AFDC for the first time (in Chicago, also including those in their third trimester of pregnancy), were required to attend a mandatory intake session. Teen parents that attended the session were then randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the comparison group with equal probability. In total, 2,647 individuals were assigned to the intervention group and 2,650 individuals were assigned to the comparison group. The study authors evaluated program impacts using two- and six-year follow-up surveys and administrative data. Some individuals from the Chicago site were not targeted for the six-year survey due to its size relative to the NJ sites (the authors did not specify how these individuals were selected). The Pathways Clearinghouse has focused its review on three subsamples of individuals based on age at random assignment: those age 17, age 18, and age 19 or older. This review examines the sample of parents who were age 18 at random assignment. Other reviews examine the two additional subsamples of parents.

Time period of study:

Random assignment began in fall 1987 and continued through early 1990. Participants were contacted for surveys approximately two and six years after intake and administrative records were used to follow participants for six years.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Decrease long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Poverty; child well-being; family structure; contraceptive use; substance use; justice involvement; child health

Study funded by:

The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded this study.

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
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit	Years 1-5	High	227.00	218.00	-9.00	1990 dollars	1,561
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly Food Stamp/SNAP benefit	Years 1-5	High	142.00	141.00	-1.00	1990 dollars	1,561
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Percentage of time received AFDC/TANF	Years 1-5	High	69.10	68.10	-1.00	percentage points	1,561
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Percentage of time received Food Stamps/SNAP	Years 1-5	High	67.00	66.50	-0.50	percentage points	1,561

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

The sample included first-time parents who were age 18 and receiving AFDC for the first time. Across all age groups included in the study (because the study did not report sample characteristics separately by age group), 17 percent of study participants were Hispanic; 76 percent were Black, non-Hispanic; and 8 percent were white, non-Hispanic. At intake, 33 percent of participants had completed high school or obtained a GED certificate, 44 percent were attending school, and 52 percent had ever had a job. On average, participants lived in a household with 4 to 5 people, 48 percent lived with a parent, and 4 percent had ever been married. The average age of a participant's youngest child was 10 months.

Age

Mean age

18 years

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	76%
White, not Hispanic	8%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	17%

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%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance

100%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	33%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	67%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

The Camden County Board of Social Services (AFDC agency) implemented the program in Camden, NJ. New Jersey's Division of Economic Assistance's Bureau of Employment Programs (AFDC agency) implemented the program in Newark, NJ. The Illinois Department of Public Aid (AFDC agency) implemented the program in Chicago, IL.

Program history:

The program did not exist before the evaluation.

Intervention services:

The Teenage Parent Demonstration provided intensive case management services; assistance with child care, transportation, and training and education expenses; education services; work-readiness activities; and workshops. Case managers assessed participants' needs and developed individualized self-sufficiency plans for them to access education, training, and employment services. Workshops focused on developing personal and parenting skills and preparation for education, training, and work. The number of workshops varied across sites: the Camden site required participation in five workshops over five weeks with 78 hours of content, the Newark site required participation in four workshops over up to three months with 97 hours of content, and the Chicago site required participation in six workshops over three days with 9 hours of content. In Camden and Newark, participants could also receive job development services; in Chicago, intervention group members could participate in job-readiness training, a job club, and job search assistance. Participants in the intervention group were required to participate education, training, and/or employment activities for 30 hours per week. Many of these opportunities were available within the participants' communities (placement assistance was provided) but in some cases, GED or basic education courses were offered through the program.

Mandatory services:

All services were mandatory for individuals in the intervention group to receive AFDC, and participants' cash assistance was reduced by the amount allocated to support the needs of the parent if the parent did not comply.

Comparison services:

Individuals in the comparison group were not required to engage in education, training, or employment-related activities to receive AFDC, but could pursue them on their own. The comparison group did not have access to the programs specifically offered through the Teenage Parent Demonstration.

Service receipt duration:

Services were available to participants while they received AFDC, in fall 1987 through early 1991.

Intervention funding:

The program was funded by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $4,176 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $0 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $4,176 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

Hershey, Alan M., and Marsha Silverberg (1993). Costs of Mandatory Education and Training Programs for Teenage Parents on Welfare: Lessons from the Teenage Parent Demonstration. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/costs-mandatory-education-training-programs-teenage-parents-welfare-lessons-teenage-parent.

Hershey, Alan. (1991). Case management for teenage parents: Lessons from the Teenage Parent Demonstration. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/case-management-teenage-parents-lessons-teenage-parent-demonstration-0.

Kisker, Ellen Eliason, Anu Rangarajan, and Kimberly Boller (1998). Moving into adulthood: Were the impacts of mandatory programs for welfare-dependent teenage parents sustained after the programs ended? Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Available at https://www.mathematica.org/our-publications-and-findings/publications/moving-into-adulthood-were-the-impacts-of-mandatory-programs-for-welfare-dependent-teenage-parents-sustained-after-the-programs-ended

Maynard, Rebecca, Walter Nicholson, and Anu Rangarajan (1993). Breaking the cycle of poverty: The effectiveness of mandatory services for welfare-dependent teenage parents. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Available at https://www.mathematica.org/our-publications-and-findings/publications/breaking-the-cycle-of-poverty-the-effectiveness-of-mandatory-services-for-welfaredependent-teenage-parents

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 Teenage Parent Demonstration—Parents age 18