|
Pay-As-You-Go
Youth Work
Evaluations
differ on the value of giving kids cash and other rewards
to participate in youth development programs.
By Martha Shirk
On
the last day of a month-long summer program in life skills,
14-year-old Shedrick Milton left the cozy office of the San
Francisco Independent Living Skills Program with a couple
of gift cards, some cookbooks and what amounts to money in
the bank.
Shedrick, who is in foster care, can take more skill-building
classes during his leisure hours throughout the school year,
earning more gift cards and credits toward a stipend that
could reach $2,500 by the time he graduates from the program
in four years.
He is among thousands of youth around the country who receive
financial or material rewards for taking part in youth development
activities. Agencies use such incentives to motivate youth
to avoid pregnancy, do their homework, stay in school, master
life skills, train for jobs, save money, and serve on boards
and advisory councils.
Until last year, a retired Nashville couple was paying $10
to every child who memorized the Ten Commandments. Twenty
thousand children claimed the reward before the money ran
out.
While the concept seems to be gaining popularity, only a handful
of incentive-using youth programs have been evaluated. And
because researchers have rarely separated the impact of the
incentives from other program components, both proponents
and opponents of the practice can cite findings to support
their views.
In a paper that was widely distributed last year, respected
researchers Robert J. Ivry and Fred Doolittle of MDRC, a nonprofit
social research organization, argued that three decades of
research prove that financial incentives solve the biggest
problem most youth programs face - "namely, maintaining
high levels of engagement, participation, and retention."
Ivry and Doolittle urged youth-serving agencies to make greater
use of "participation bargains" that reward at-risk
youth for acquiring specific competencies or achieving self-improvement
benchmarks, such as abstaining from alcohol or drugs, earning
academic credentials or completing training.
But some studies of specific programs suggest proceeding with
caution. A study of a Canadian job training program for school
dropouts found that incentives drew many youth who just wanted
the money. A study of a short-lived pregnancy prevention program
in Denver called Dollar-a-Day, based at a hospital, found
that incentives got girls to show up, but did not reduce repeat
pregnancies. And one evaluation of Quantum Opportunities Program
(QOP) for youth at risk of dropping out of school found that
incentives lost their effectiveness over the long term.
While cash incentives are commonplace at independent living
programs for foster youth, some program administrators think
the practice has gone too far and have switched to providing
goods, such as movie passes or household items.
Researchers at the Harvard Family Research Project recently
reviewed studies on incentives in youth programs and concluded
that they "deserve greater attention as a strategy for
improving youth's out-of-school-time program participation."
The researchers stopped short of endorsing incentives.
"It does appear that it may make a difference in getting
teens to participate in programs if you offer them incentives,
but there is no research evidence to support this - only common
sense," says Priscilla Little, the Harvard project's
associate director.
Before integrating incentives into their programs, youth-serving
agencies might want to consider the following questions:
Do incentives get youth to come? Arlene Hylton sees incentives
working every day in the independent living program she runs
for youth in San Francisco's foster care system. Incentives
attract youth who would otherwise be reluctant to spend their
leisure time in activities that adults think are good for
them. "And once we get them here, they're hooked,"
she says.
The research validates Hylton's observations. The most recent
evaluation of QOP - by Mathematica Policy Research - concluded
that the hourly stipends "induced newly enrolled youth
to attend program activities."
Incentives were also found to lure participants to Integrated
Training Centres for Youth, a Canadian job-training program,
as well as to the hospital-based pregnancy prevention program,
Dollar-a-Day.
Do incentives keep youth coming?
Whether youth keep coming for the incentives or because they've
gotten hooked is hard to determine.
For 10 years, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains has
been attracting girls to its pregnancy prevention program
in Denver with a $1-a-day payment for avoiding pregnancy.
(This is different from the Dollar-a-Day effort that was run
by a hospital.) After a dozen or so sessions, "The kids
seem to forget about the money," observes Krista Anderson,
the agency's vice president of education and training. "Sometimes
they even leave without asking for it. What becomes the primary
focus is really the knowledge and skills and the relationships
they're getting from the program."
Two studies of QOP sites provide somewhat contradictory answers
to the question of whether incentives keep youth coming. A
study of the QOP pilot project, by researchers at Brandeis
University, concluded that "financial incentives can
be effective in maintaining student interest in and attendance
at program events."
But a later study of the QOP demonstration project, by Mathematica,
concluded that the incentives became less of a lure over time.
Responding to that finding, plus observations from staff and
participants, the Eisenhower Foundation last year increased
the incentives to $1.25 or $1.40 an hour (from $1) at the
six sites where it is replicating QOP. The foundation expects
the higher payment to make the program more attractive to
older youth, those whom the Mathematica researchers found
most likely to stop participating.
Incentives were found by researchers to be important to maintaining
participation in the Canadian job-training program, Integrated
Training Centres. At one site, 37 percent of participants
told evaluators they would have quit without the incentives.
Even with the incentives, however, the drop-out rate was high
- between 22 percent and 37 percent, depending on the site.
The evaluators attributed that primarily to an inadequate
screening program. They concluded that attracting youth who
are "there 'just for the money ...' is to some extent
unavoidable, but it further demonstrates the difficulty the
agencies face in having incentives work in the way they were
intended."
At the San Francisco Independent Living Skills Program, Hylton
changed her incentives several years ago, partly to keep youth
coming back. The program used to pay youth $50 quarterly to
attend life skills classes. Now, it combines immediate rewards,
such as gift cards to stores like Old Navy, Target and T.J.
Maxx, with the prospect of a longer-term payoff: the graduation
stipend, which rises with the amount of effort a youth puts
into preparing for independence from foster care.
"We keep telling them, 'the more you participate, the
bigger your check will be,'" Hylton says.
One of Hylton's students, Cassandra Mitchell, 18, admits that
it was the promise of a reward at the end that got her to
keep coming to financial literacy workshops last summer, even
though she didn't always find them interesting.
When she completed the six classes, she received a check for
$100, plus an Individual Development Account that will match
her savings for education or housing by a ratio of 3 to 1.
Mitchell promptly deposited $500 from her summer earnings.
When she saves $500 more, she'll be able to withdraw $3,000
to pay for her education or housing expenses at the University
of the Pacific, where she is a freshman.
Do they help change youth behavior?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Usually, it's hard to tell. The
key to behavior change seems to be the soundness of the program.
The Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program, operated
by the Children's Aid Society of New York, reports a host
of statistically significant positive outcomes among its participants,
including lower pregnancy and birth rates. The program includes
stipends for employment-preparation activities.
Dr. Michael A. Carrera, the program's director, believes that
it's the overall quality of the program that's important,
not the incentives. He prefers to think of the stipends as
compensation for "substantive participation," rather
than as incentives.
"The 'incentive' word is tied in my mind to someone saying,
'If you take the SAT tutoring, I'll buy you that pair of shoes
you want,' " he says. "What I want to tie it to
is something that is active and substantial and starts to
teach them the equation that we've all learned, which is that
when you get something done, you meet a deadline, you honor
your obligations, you get your compensation."
Planned Parenthood claims positive behavior results from its
Dollar-a-Day Program, which serves mostly Latina girls between
14 and 18. In each of the past 12 years, fewer than 10 percent
of participants have gotten pregnant, Anderson says. (In comparison,
the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that about 15 percent
of 15- to 19- year-old Hispanic girls in Colorado became pregnant
in 2000.)
Finally, both QOP evaluations demonstrated that participation
in the incentive-using program increased the likelihood of
graduating from high school and enrolling in post-secondary
school or training. Was it because of the incentives or the
programming? The evaluators concluded that incentives "do
not appear to operate effectively in the absence of a strong
program featuring much personal contact with staff."
For whom do incentives work best?
Ivry and Doolittle of the MRDC suggest that incentives may
be most effective with youth who do not care about conventional
rewards. "Young people who are outside the mainstream
may not be motivated solely by pragmatic goals like attaining
an education credential, learning new skills related to employment,
or even getting a job," their report notes.
Especially for older youth, they argue, offering financial
incentives for participation in self-betterment activities
is important because of competition from other pursuits. "Given
the economic realities faced by at-risk youth, it is difficult
for human capital development programs to compete with the
secondary labor market and the underground economy,"
they say.
Larkin Street Youth Services works with the youth Ivry and
Doolittle are talking about: homeless kids and runaways in
San Francisco. "These are the hardest-to-serve young
people, those who have been through multiple programs,"
says Sam Cobbs, director of program services. "They're
sleeping on the street and wondering where their next meal
is coming from."
Incentives are crucial for getting these youth "to do
what they need to to get off the street," Cobbs says.
While younger youth respond well to incentives like blank
CDs, phone cards or clothing vouchers, older youth and young
adults prefer cash, Cobbs says. "Providing cash incentives
is our attempt to set up our own economic system in-house,
versus them going out on the streets and doing things to get
money some other way," Cobbs says. "They're willing
to sit in on a focus group or take a survey for $20 to put
in their pocket."
The Eisenhower Foundation also regards incentives as an important
part of the success of the QOP model, which targets highly
disadvantaged youth. "It would surprise you to see how
those kids treat those stipend checks," says Johnnie
Gage, the foundation's chief operating officer. "It's
huge to them. They know what they had to do to earn it, and
the check demonstrates to them the connection between effort
and reward. Most of the world is like that. And for the first
time, they get it."
Incentives have also been shown to be effective with another
historically hard-to-motivate group: the pregnant and parenting
welfare-dependent teenagers targeted by Ohio's Learning, Earning
and Parenting (LEAP) program. An evaluation found that participation
in LEAP increased school completion by almost 20 percent and
employment by 40 percent for teens who enrolled while still
in school. At the suggestion of the MDRC evaluators, the state
increased the incentives, adding a grade completion bonus
of $62 and a graduation bonus of $200.
Where's
the money?
Probably the greatest barrier to increasing the use of incentives
is finding the money. Except for independent living programs,
which are financed largely with highly flexible federal funds,
many youth-serving programs are hampered by restrictions on
spending.
"Some of our programs aren't in the position to give
out as much," Gage says of the Eisenhower Foundation's
QOP sites. "They've had to develop community resources
to be able to give out bonuses. "
Ivry and Doolittle of MRDC argue that the public is likely
to support incentives in youth programs as long as it believes
it's getting something in return. As the nation's experience
with welfare reform has shown, they argue, "The public
generally approves of helping low-income people who are working
hard to improve their lives. The public is therefore likely
to respond favorably to policies that help young people who
help themselves and who avoid risk-taking behaviors."
But the Harvard researchers caution that, given the cost,
"it may be worthwhile to evaluate this strategy as an
enhancement to an existing program prior to implementing it
on a larger scale."
In addition to finding more money, providing such incentives
also requires overcoming the skepticism of critics. "Incentives
are likely to be not just ineffective but positively counterproductive
in youth development programs, just as they've been shown
to be in schools, families and work places," says motivational
expert Alfie Kohn, author of
Punished by Rewards.
"The trouble is that there are actually two very different
forms of motivation: intrinsic, which means doing something
for its own sake, and extrinsic, which means doing something
to get a reward," Kohn argues. "As extrinsic motivation
goes up, intrinsic motivation - the kind we care about - tends
to go down. This is one of the most frequently replicated
findings in all of social psychology: The more you reward
people for doing something, the more they tend to lose interest
in whatever they had to do to get the reward."
Maybe so, maybe not. After all, many people are intrinsically
and extrinsically motivated at the same time.
Besides, some program directors say they use incentives not
just because they work, but because it's the right thing to
do. Hylton views incentives primarily as a way of "honoring
participation."
Cobbs, of Larkin Street, seconds that notion. "In our
everyday lives, we have incentives," he notes. "Why
shouldn't these young people, at least until they get to the
point where there are natural incentives?"
Anderson, of Planned Parenthood, says the real value of paying
girls a dollar a day not to get pregnant may be in its symbolism.
"A lot of these kids are not your star athletes or your
star students," she says. "They really don't get
a lot of positive rewards for positive behavior.
"The weekly stipend says to them, 'Here's $7 because
you're doing a really great job to improve yourself. Each
day you're working really hard to do the right things [you]
need to do to remain healthy.' "
Even if youth do participate in a program for extrinsic reasons,
as Kohn suggests happens with incentives, they do get exposed
to information that can aid their development.
Consider Cassandra Mitchell, the San Francisco girl who put
her summer earnings into an Individual development Account.
Mitchell says she probably would have saved her earnings even
without the 3-to-1 match that she got through the IDA. "Since
I grew up in a homeless family, it's important to me to have
money," she says. "I'm always saving for a rainy
day."
But to get the promised match, she had to sit through hours
of financial literacy training. Ultimately, that's likely
to help her manage her finances better.
Shedrick Milton is also both extrinsically and intrinsically
motivated. "The gifts are good," Shedrick says of
the rewards he got for taking life skills classes. "I'd
be lying if I didn't say so. But they're not why I come. I
come because I know I'm going to be on my own when I turn
18, and these are things I need to know.
|
The
Research Says. . .
Only
a handful of incentive-using youth programs have been
evaluated. Here are summaries of the main studies:
Children's Aid Society Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy
Prevention Program: For a random assignment research
study published in 2001, Philiber Research Associates
followed 300 teens from the program, plus another 300
in a control group. It found a host of statistically
significant positive outcomes among Carrera participants,
including lower pregnancy and birth rates.
The Carrera program is a seven-pronged youth development
approach to pregnancy prevention that has been replicated
at more than 20 sites around the country. Younger teens
receive $3 per hour and older teens get the minimum
wage for participating in employment, career awareness
and savings activities. Participants receive other services
- including educational assessments, tutoring, homework
help, PSAT and SAT preparation, assistance with college
applications, sex and family life education, and instruction
in arts and athletics - for which no stipends are paid.
The researchers attributed the program's success to
its comprehensive nature, rather than a single component.
A summary of the research is available at www.childrensaidsociety.org/press/releasearchive/article/33431.
Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP): Brandeis University
researchers conducted a random assignment study of 200
youth in four cities where the Ford Foundation funded
a pilot program from 1996 to 2000. QOP provided case
management, mentoring, supplemental after-school education,
developmental activities, community service, supportive
services and financial incentives over four years to
youth at risk of dropping out of school. Participants
received an hourly stipend for program activities, plus
a $100 bonus after 100 hours and an end-of-program bonus
that matched their earnings from the incentives.
The study found that participation in QOP had positive
effects on school completion, college enrollment and
pregnancy prevention. But the researchers concluded
that financial incentives "were not the decisive
factor in QOP participation."
"When they are part of a comprehensive, well-developed
program, financial incentives can be effective in maintaining
student interest in and attendance at program events,"
the researchers concluded. "However, they do not
appear to operate effectively in the absence of a strong
program featuring much personal contact with staff."
A second study of QOP, led by Mathematica Policy Research,
looked at a demonstration project involving 550 youth
in seven cities from 1995 through 2001, and an equal
number assigned to a statistically equivalent control
group.
Researchers found that participation in QOP increased
the likelihood of completing high school and enrolling
in post-secondary education or training, but had no
effect on academic performance or risky behaviors. They
concluded that the hourly stipends "induced newly
enrolled youth to attend program activities," but
lost their effectiveness over time.
The research is available at www.aypf.org/RAA/12quant.pdf
and at
www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/quanimp.pdf.
Learning, Earning and Parenting Program (LEAP): This
is a statewide program in Ohio that combines financial
incentives and penalties with case management and support
services to induce pregnant and parenting teens on welfare
to remain in school. A teen receives a welfare bonus
of $62 for school enrollment and $62 a month for regular
school attendance. A teen who fails to attend school
loses $62 from her monthly grant.
A random assignment study by MDRC, published in 1997,
found that LEAP significantly increased school enrollment
and attendance for both in-school teens and dropouts,
and improved school progress (completion of 9th, 10th
and 11th grades), though not graduation rates.
report on the research is available at www.mdrc.org/publications/149/execsum.html.
Integrated
Training Centres for Youth: This was a pilot project
operated in Canada in the mid-1990s by Human Resources
Development Canada, which provided financial incentives
to encourage 16- to 20-year-old school dropouts to attend
job training programs. Each participant received a daily
"training allowance" of $5 to $33 (Canadian),
or a maximum of $4,500 over eight months. A 1997 evaluation
by the Alberta Management Group concluded that most
clients gained useful work experience, occupational
skills, and job-finding and life skills, but that the
program was not as successful in imparting academic
skills and a career plan. The financial incentives were
considered to be "instrumental in attracting many
clients to the training," though the researchers
reported that "some youth attended 'just for the
money' and were never strongly committed to employment."
The research is available at www.11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/pls/edd/ITCY.shtml.
Dollar-a-Day Program: This program, run out of a hospital
in Denver for two years in the early 1990s, sought to
determine whether paying new teen mothers $1 a day kept
them from getting pregnant again.
In a randomized control trial, researchers at the University
of Colorado Health Sciences Center divided 286 teen
mothers into four intervention groups: those who received
only a monetary incentive; those who participated only
in a peer-support group; those who both received the
monetary incentive and participated in a peer-support
group; and a control group.
The study found that monetary incentives increased peer-support
group participation, but did not reduce repeat pregnancies.
Twenty-nine months after entering the program, 39 percent
of the participants had become pregnant again, regardless
of which group they were in.
The program was different in content and goal from the
program of the same name operated by Planned Parenthood
of the Rocky Mountains, which uses financial incentives
and claims success in preventing first pregnancies.
A summary of the research is available at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/277/12/977.
Improving the Economic and Life Outcomes of At-Risk
Youth: This MDRC paper that urges youth-serving agencies
to make greater use of "participation bargains"
that reward at-risk youths for acquiring specific competencies
or for achieving self-improvement benchmarks. The report
is available at www.mdrc.org/publications/361/concept.html.
Martha
Shirk
|
|
Cash
or Alarm Clocks?
Nowhere
is the use of incentives more entrenched than in programs
that serve older youth in foster care. But some program
administrators think paying cash is the wrong thing
to do, and have switched to using goods or some form
of purchasing credits.
"I've been in the IL [independent living] field
for 15 years, and incentives have always been part of
it," says Chris Steele, who until August was independent
living program manager for the California Community
College Foundation.
"Youth this age think they know everything, and
they don't do anything they don't want to do. We use
incentives to capture their attention and get them there.
Usually, once they come, they're sold on the class,"
Steele says.
Robin Nixon, director of the National Foster Care Coalition,
believes that providing incentives in IL programs is
rooted in a desire to "give kids a protected opportunity
to learn to manage money themselves."
"Many kids in foster care don't have the opportunity
to go out and get a job," she notes. "Paying
them to attend an IL class is a way of putting money
in their pockets, but tying it to an activity, so they
feel as though they're earning it. And hopefully the
messages they're getting in the class sink in."
Whether they do or not is an open question. The U.S.
General Accounting Office reported in 1999 that nearly
half the states provided financial incentives to youth
to participate in life skills training, but that little
was known about what strategies improved a youth's likelihood
for success.
People in the field say financial and material incentives
have become even more widely used since the enactment
in 1999 of the Foster Care Independence Act, which provides
states with flexible funds to prepare youth in foster
care for independence.
Money vs. Movie Passes
In California, home to almost one-quarter of all the
foster children in the United States, each county designs
its own IL program.
When Judy Osterhage took over the independent living
program in Santa Barbara County seven years ago, she
says, "They were giving the kids money for just
about everything. If they filled out paperwork for school,
they got money. If they memorized their Social Security
number, they got money. There was a list of probably
20 things that they got cash rewards for."
"To me that was ridiculous. These were things that
you were supposed to do as part of growing up."
Now the agency uses its $6,000 for incentives each year
to give youths items such as gift cards, phone cards,
movie passes or gift certificates to fast food outlets,
Osterhage says.
During an annual program called Job City USA, the rewards
are tied to the mastery of particular skills. "When
they learn how to iron a shirt, they get an iron,"
she said. "When they finish sewing on a button,
they get a sewing kit. And when they master how to set
an alarm clock, I give them one. We do this at the end
of the year, as they're about to leave care, so they
have all types of things to start a household with."
Kathy Lovelace, who runs the independent living program
for Butte County, also disapproves of cash incentives.
"I was a foster parent myself for 23 years, back
when the county was giving them money, and it always
disturbed me, because it just disappeared," she
says. With an annual budget of $20,000 for incentives,
she has devised a system that rewards youth with credits
that they can use to purchase material goods.
"My kids can earn up to $15 a week for participating
in a two-hour IL class, if they meet the expectations
of the class, including behavior," she says. "They
have to deposit their 'paycheck' in their account and
keep track of how much they're saving, just like they
would with real money."
Youth can use the credits to buy sheets, blankets, towels
or toasters from the agency's "store."
"I was told the kids wouldn't like it, but I find
that they do," Lovelace says. "I've had kids
over the years end up with full households of belongings."
Martha
Shirk
|
|
Resources
|
|
Krista
Anderson
Vice president of education and training
Planned Parenthood of the
Rocky Mountains
Denver, Colo.
(303) 321-7526,
www.pprm.org
Dr. Michael A. Carrera, Director
Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention
Program
New York, N.Y.
(212) 949-4800,
www.stopteenpregnancy.com
|
Sam
Cobbs,
Director of program services
Larkin Street Youth Services
San Francisco, Calif.
(415) 673-0911,
www.larkinstreetyouth.org
Arlene Hylton, Program coordinator
San Francisco Independent
Living Skills Program
San Francisco, Calif.
(415) 934-4200
MDRC
New York, N.Y.
(212) 532-3200,
www.mdrc.org
|
|