Submitted by user on
Study Name
Asset-Building Services—Postsecondary Education Services
Study Sharepoint ID
26913.02
Evaluation name
Evaluation of asset building services
Intervention (standard name)
Asset Building Services—Post-Secondary Education Services
Strength of Evidence Tag
Low
Reason for the Rating

This study received a low study quality rating because it is a quasi-experimental design that does not adjust estimated impacts for potentially important differences between the intervention and comparison groups.

This study received a low study quality rating because it is a quasi-experimental design that does not adjust estimated impacts for potentially important differences between the intervention and comparison groups.

Design
Quasi-experimental design
Services
Education
Populations targeted
Young adults (aged 16-24)
Settings in which the intervention was studied
Tested in multiple settings
Count age
0
Count Young Adults
0
Count Hard-to-employ
0
Count Disability
0
Count chronically ill
0
Count mentally ill
0
Count substance dependent
0
Count formerly incarcerated
0
Count Justice involved
0
Count limited work history
0
Count homeless
0
Count immigrants
0
Count refugees
0
Count veterans
0
Count female
0
Count Male
0
Count Any postsecondary education
0
Count With a high school diploma or GED
0
Count No high school diploma or GED
0
Count Married
0
Count Parents
0
Count Single Parents
0
Count Non-Custodial Parents
0
Count Employed
0
Count Self employed
0
Count Unemployed
0
Count Disconnected/discouraged workers
0
Count general low-income population
0
Count Very low income (as classified by the authors)
0
Count welfare population
0
Count long-term welfare recipients
0
Count Asian
0
Count Black or African American
0
Count Hispanic or Latino of any race
0
Count American Indian or Alaska Native
0
Count Pacific islander
0
Count White
0
Count More than one race
0
Count Unknown race
0
Count another race
0
Percent Young Adults
100.00
Percent homeless
29.00
Percent female
50.30
Percent Male
49.70
Percent Any postsecondary education
14.60
Percent Asian
1.10
Percent Black or African American
31.70
Percent Hispanic or Latino of any race
18.20
Percent American Indian or Alaska Native
2.30
Percent Pacific islander
0.20
Percent White
52.80
Percent More than one race
5.40
Percent Unknown or not reported
6.50
Group formation formatted

This study used a quasi-experimental design and propensity score matching to construct a comparison group. The study author used data on all youth in foster care who turned 17 in 2011 and received any services under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP). Intervention group members were youth in foster care who received postsecondary education services under CFCIP. Youth who received other CFCIP services but did not receive postsecondary education services were eligible to be selected for the comparison group. Using a set of observed covariates including sex, age, race and ethnicity, state, highest education level, foster care status, and receipt of other CFCIP services, the propensity score matching method predicted the probability of receiving postsecondary education services. The evaluator constructed the comparison group by selecting people who did not receive budgeting or financial education services yet had similar probabilities as those in the intervention group of receiving those services.

Study timing formatted

People in the sample could receive services at any point between March 2011 and September 2015.

Implementing organization formatted

State and local foster care agencies

Treatment condition formatted

Intervention group members were youth in foster care who turned 17 in 2011 and received postsecondary education services under the CFCIP. Postsecondary education services included college or vocational training, counseling, tutoring, and college entrance exam preparation. Service provision and implementation varied across states, but typically services were provided directly by caseworkers or through referrals to partner agencies or nonprofits.

Comparison condition formatted

Participants in the comparison condition were youth in foster care who turned 17 in 2011 and received any services through the CFCIP other than postsecondary education. These alternative services could fall into any of 13 service categories, including career services, employment services, financial education, and housing education.

Mandatory services formatted

None

Setting details formatted

People received services through the CFCIP throughout the United States.

Delivered by public or private entity?
Public
Secondary domains examined

Housing; financial aid

Earliest publication year
2020
Most recent publication year
2020
Manuscripts
26913
SRG File Path
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A//mathematica.share…
Check edits flag
No
Primary Service
Education