There is no conflict of interest.
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the impact of career lattice sign-up emails on education and employment outcomes. This profile focuses on experiment 2, the comparison between the automatic scholarship enrollment email group and the control group. The authors investigated similar research questions for other contrasts, the profiles can be found here:
- Experiment 1: Professional Development Incentives for Oregon’s Early Childhood Education Workforce: A Randomized Study (REL 2021–111) (Pierson et al., 2021) | CLEAR
- Experiment 3: Professional Development Incentives for Oregon’s Early Childhood Education Workforce: A Randomized Study (REL 2021–111) (Pierson et al., 2021) | CLEAR
- The study was a randomized controlled trial that assigned early childhood education (ECE) workforce members to the treatment or control group. Using administrative data and statistical models, the authors compared the outcomes of the treatment and control group members.
- The study found no significant differences in career lattice movement, college credit hours earned, or workplace retention between the treatment and control groups.
- This study receives a high evidence rating. This means we are confident that any estimated effects would be attributable to the automatic scholarship enrollment emails, and not to other factors. However, the study did not find statistically significant effects.
Features of the Intervention
The career lattice in Oregon is a career pathway system designed to help early childhood education (ECE) workers set their educational goals and find paths to higher education and training. In 2018, the Oregon Center for Career Development in Childhood Care and Education (OCCD) aimed to motivate ECE workers to progress through the career lattice, increasing their education attainment and professional development. OCCD sent emails to ECE workers informing them that they were automatically enrolled in a scholarship program. This program allows them to get reimbursed for tuition at a community college. The eligible recipients were ECE workers at licensed facilities, registered in the Oregon Registry Online, and at steps 7 to 8 of the career lattice as of July 2018. With this automatic enrollment, ECE workers could receive reimbursement for up to six community college credits each term. They did not have to fill out an application or get prior approval to use the scholarship funds; they only needed to send their course registration to OCCD. OCCD sent reminder emails every three months from August 2018 to July 2019 about the scholarship program. These emails included details on college registration dates and support from OCCD to help recipients choose their courses.
Features of the Study
This study was part of an experiment testing the effects of financial incentives. This profile focuses on the comparison between the automatic scholarship enrollment email group and the control group.
The study was a randomized controlled trial involving members of Oregon’s early childhood education (ECE) workforce. The 244 eligible ECE workforce members were randomized to one of two treatment groups (scholarship or monetary incentive) or a control group. The authors assigned 81 members to the scholarship treatment group, 81 members to the monetary incentive treatment group, and 82 members to the control group. The scholarship treatment group received emails from OCCD notifying them of automatic enrollment in the community college scholarship program, eliminating the need to apply. The control group did not receive these emails but could apply for the scholarship program via the OCCD website.
The treatment group consisted mostly of women (98.8%), with an average age of 40.7 years. The racial and ethnic composition included 64.1% White, 29.5% Latinx, and 6.4% non-Latinx people of color. Almost half of participants (45%) had some college or other professional certificate and 37.5% had an associate’s degree or higher. In terms of job roles, 16.2% were aides or assistant teachers, while 44.6% held positions as teachers or lead teachers. The average tenure in this group was 10.5 years. In the control group, 96.1% of participants were women, with an average age of 43.8 years. The racial composition included 68% White, 24% Latinx, and 8% non-Latinx people of color. Almost half of participants (48%) had some college or other professional certificate and 36% had an associate’s degree or higher. Job roles included 23.3% as aides or assistant teachers and 34.3% as teachers or lead teachers. The average tenure in this group was 12.2 years.
The primary data source was the Oregon Registry Online, which provided administrative data on the ECE workforce. The study used OCCD administrative data from September 2018 to December 2019. This data included details about participants' demographics, work experience, workplaces, license status, credits earned, career lattice step, incentives received, and scholarship usage. The authors used statistical models to compare differences in outcomes between the treatment and control group members.
Findings
Education and skills gain
- The study found no significant differences between the treatment and control groups in career lattice movement or college credit hours earned.
Employment
- The study found no significant differences between the groups in workplace retention.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The study reports a less stringent statistical significance level, considering p-values of less than 0.10 to be significant, though it is standard practice to consider statistical significance if the p-value is less than 0.05. Only results that demonstrate a p-value of less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this profile. Also, the study's follow-up period was shortened to one year from the planned 16 months because of a state policy change. This shorter duration might not have been enough to evaluate the effects of the automatic scholarship enrollment on the outcomes.
Causal Evidence Rating
Additional Sources
Topic Area
Research Guidelines
Review Protocol: Living Systematic Annual Search and Review Protocol
Review Guidelines: Causal Evidence Guidelines