The evaluation of Education Maintenance Allowance Pilots: three years' evidence: a quantitative evaluation

This is the third report of the longitudinal quantitative evaluation of Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) pilots and the first since the government announced that EMA is to be rolled out nationally from 2004. The evaluation was commissioned in 1999, by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) from a consortium of research organisations, led by the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) and including the National Centre for Social Research, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling (NICEC). The statistical evaluation design is a longitudinal cohort study involving large random sample surveys of young people (and their parents) in 10 EMA pilot areas and eleven control areas. Two cohorts of young people were selected from Child Benefit records. The first cohort of young people left compulsory schooling in the summer of 1999 and they, and their parents, were interviewed between October 1999 and April 2000 (Year 12 interview). A second interview was carried out with these young people between October 2000 and April 2001 (Year 13 interview). The second cohort left compulsory education the following summer of 2000 and young people, and their parents, were first interviewed between October 2000 and April 2001. The report uses both propensity score matching (PSM) and descriptive techniques, each of which brings their own particular strengths to the analysis

Education maintenance allowance: the first year: a quantitative evaluation.

One of the main aims of the Government's Connexions Strategy is to provide financial support for young people who might otherwise be unable to remain in fulltime education post-16; that is, after the end of compulsory schooling. EMA is a means-tested allowance available to 16 to 19 year olds. It aims to encourage participation, retention and achievement among young people, particularly those from low-income families. This evaluation focuses on the four models of EMA that were introduced into the original 15 pilot LEAs in September 1999. The pilots have subsequently been extended to a further 41 LEA areas. As well as evaluating the impact of EMA on participation, retention and achievement, the evaluation must also make recommendations on the level at which EMA should be set; the effectiveness of bonuses for retention and achievement; and to whom EMA should be paid (parent or young person). The evaluation will also address a range of subsidiary issues relating to the effect of EMA on young people's lives. The evaluation has four main elements, which combine both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This report focuses on the impact of EMA on those most directly affected, young people and their parents. It describes quantitative findings from the first wave of interviews with the first cohort of young people potentially eligible for EMA; those who completed compulsory education in summer 1999.

The evaluation of Education Maintenance Allowance Pilots: three years' evidence: a quantitative evaluation.

This is the third report of the longitudinal quantitative evaluation of Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) pilots and the first since the government announced that EMA is to be rolled out nationally from 2004. The evaluation was commissioned in 1999, by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) from a consortium of research organisations, led by the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) and including the National Centre for Social Research, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling (NICEC). The statistical evaluation design is a longitudinal cohort study involving large random sample surveys of young people (and their parents) in 10 EMA pilot areas and eleven control areas. Two cohorts of young people were selected from Child Benefit records. The first cohort of young people left compulsory schooling in the summer of 1999 and they, and their parents, were interviewed between October 1999 and April 2000 (Year 12 interview). A second interview was carried out with these young people between October 2000 and April 2001 (Year 13 interview). The second cohort left compulsory education the following summer of 2000 and young people, and their parents, were first interviewed between October 2000 and April 2001. The report uses both propensity score matching (PSM) and descriptive techniques, each of which brings their own particular strengths to the analysis.