Helping Girls Get Back on Track

AN IMPLEMENTATION STUDY OF THE PACE CENTER FOR GIRLS

 Louisa Treskon

 Megan Millenky

 Lily Freedman

April 2017

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Helping Girls Get Back on Track

An Implementation Study of the PACE Center for Girls

Louisa Treskon

Megan Millenky

Lily Freedman 

 

April 2017
This project has been funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, the Healy Foundation, and the Jessie Ball duPont Fund. The 

contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations, nor does 

mention of trade names, commercial projects, or organizations imply endorsement of same by 

these organizations.

This material is based upon work supported by the Social Innovation Fund, a program of the 

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation’s Social Innovation Fund includes support from CNCS and 15 private co-investors: The Edna 

McConnell Clark Foundation, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Duke Endowment, The 

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The JPB Foundation, George Kaiser Family Foundation, 

The Kresge Foundation, Open Society Foundations, The Penzance Foundation, The Samberg 

Family Foundation, The Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, The Starr Foundation, 

Tipping Point Community, The Wallace Foundation, and the Weingart Foundation.

Dissemination of MDRC publications is supported by the following funders that help finance 

MDRC’s public policy outreach and expanding efforts to communicate the results and implications of our work to policymakers, practitioners, and others: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 

Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, Ford 

Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, Daniel and Corinne Goldman, The Harry and Jeanette 

Weinberg Foundation, Inc., The JPB Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, 

Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Sandler Foundation, and The Starr Foundation.

 

In addition, earnings from the MDRC Endowment help sustain our dissemination efforts. Contributors to the MDRC Endowment include Alcoa Foundation, The Ambrose Monell Foundation, 

Anheuser-Busch Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, The Grable Foundation, The Lizabeth and 

Frank Newman Charitable Foundation, The New York Times Company Foundation, Jan Nicholson, Paul H. O’Neill Charitable Foundation, John S. Reed, Sandler Foundation, and The Stupski 

Family Fund, as well as other individual contributors.

The findings and conclusions in this report do not necessarily represent the official positions or 

policies of the funders. 

For information about MDRC and copies of our publications, see our website: www.mdrc.org. 

Copyright © 2017 by MDRC®. All rights reserved.
iii

Overview 

PACE Center for Girls is a unique program that provides academic and social services to girls ages 

11 to 18. Girls eligible for PACE exhibit multiple health, safety, and delinquency risk factors, such 

as poor academic performance, exposure to abuse or violence, truancy, risky sexual behavior, and 

substance abuse. PACE seeks to help them onto a better path and reduce the likelihood of negative 

outcomes, such as involvement with the juvenile justice system. 

PACE operates 19 nonresidential, year-round program centers across the state of Florida. Girls 

attend PACE daily during normal school hours and receive academic and extensive social services 

in a gender-responsive environment — that is, one tailored to the needs of girls. Most girls plan to 

attend PACE for approximately one year; during this time, they receive academic instruction and 

advising, a life skills curriculum, assessment and care planning, individual and group counseling,

and service learning and work readiness opportunities. Parental engagement and transition and 

follow-up services are also key components of the PACE program. When girls leave PACE, they 

often return to other schools in their communities to complete their secondary education.

This report presents implementation research findings from MDRC’s ongoing evaluation of 14 

PACE centers. A final report presenting the impacts of the program is planned for release in 2018.

Key Findings

•

•

•

•

The PACE program model, defined through both general program principles and a detailed 

manual, was implemented consistently across multiple locations. Girls at PACE received most 

services at the intended levels. Services varied somewhat across locations because of differences 

in staff and local resources and in program areas where the model gave less specific guidance.

PACE incorporated gender-responsive programming into all services through a focus on safety 

and relationships, an emphasis on recognizing and building on girls’ individual strengths, and an 

awareness of the effects of trauma.

Girls who attend PACE tend to be low-income, and they often struggle with school and have a 

range of other health, safety, and delinquency risk factors.

PACE differed from the traditional school environment by offering smaller classes, access to 

frequent individual academic advising and counseling, life skills programming, and connections 

to other services in the community, such as transportation or health care.

v 

Preface

When young people drop out of school or become involved in the juvenile justice system, the 

consequences can extend far into adulthood. Thus, there is a compelling policy need to understand how to support young people who exhibit warning signs of academic failure and delinquent behavior. Such behavior is often a symptom of other challenges in the lives of girls and 

boys — and girls face their own distinct challenges. Girls in the juvenile justice system are more 

likely than boys to have experienced sexual abuse and maltreatment as children, and their 

responses to trauma differ from those of boys. Yet a juvenile justice system designed for boys is 

too often ill equipped to address those issues and may only worsen girls’ problems. Genderresponsive programs, such as the one described in this report, were developed in recognition of 

this need. 

MDRC’s evaluation of the PACE Center for Girls offers a valuable opportunity to understand how the gender-responsive approach translates into actual program operations. PACE 

takes a preventive approach, aiming to help troubled girls ages 11 to 18 stay in school and avoid 

involvement, or deeper involvement, with the juvenile justice system. At locations across the 

state of Florida, PACE provides academic and social services during regular school hours in a 

safe, supportive environment tailored to girls’ needs, with an emphasis on relationships, relevant 

life skills, and the cultivation of girls’ strengths. A low staff-to-participant ratio allows for 

individual attention and an awareness of each girl’s history of trauma. And, recognizing that the 

girls’ problems are often intertwined with family and peer relationships, either as cause or 

result, PACE staff members also strive to engage this larger community in the girls’ care. 

This report describes the implementation of PACE at the 14 centers that are participating in the evaluation. The research found that PACE successfully implemented its unique model 

as planned in multiple locations. Besides detailing the program’s dissemination of its genderresponsive culture and services, these findings provide useful information to social service 

providers who seek to replicate their own programs. In addition, the study has found that, after 

12 months, girls in PACE were more likely than girls in a control group to have received 

academic advising and mental health counseling and to have been enrolled in school. The final 

report, due in 2018, will provide experimental evidence of the impact of this gender-responsive 

program on girls’ well-being, along with a cost-effectiveness analysis. 

Gender-responsive programming has sparked federal interest and funding for research 

and development. This study will provide foundational knowledge about the effectiveness of 

this approach in helping girls stay in school and out of the court system. 

Gordon L. Berlin 

President, MDRC

vii

Acknowledgments

The PACE evaluation is made possible through the support of many individuals and organizations. It is funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation’s Social Innovation Fund, the 

Corporation for National and Community Service, the Jessie Ball duPont Fund, and the Healy 

Foundation. At the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, we are grateful to the leadership of 

Teresa Power and Gabriel Rhoads.

We are grateful to the staff members of the PACE centers that are participating in the 

evaluation. They work tirelessly to provide services to girls in their communities and played a 

critical role in helping to recruit and enroll participants into the evaluation. Staff members 

generously assisted with arranging implementation research visits and making time in their busy 

schedules to participate in interviews.

We also relied on the assistance of staff members at the PACE headquarters, who spoke 

with us about the history and structure of PACE and provided us with essential data about 

programs. In particular, we are grateful to Mary Marx, Shana Brodnax, Lymari Benitez, Thresa 

Giles, Yessica Cancel, Janie Smalley, James Kindelsperger, and Debbie Moroney. We also 

thank Vicki Burke, the founder of PACE, for meeting with us to share information about 

PACE’s early years. This report also benefited from the contributions of staff members at other 

organizations that either partnered with PACE centers or provided alternative services to young 

people in the communities where PACE operates. 

This research would not have been possible without the work of many individuals at 

MDRC. Rob Ivry, Dan Bloom, Carolyn Hill, Farhana Hossain, Jean Grossman, and Christopher

Boland provided valuable feedback on report drafts. Galina Farberova and her team managed 

the random assignment system. Hannah Wagner coordinated the production of the report. 

Danielle Craig assisted with fact-checking. Jennie Kaufman edited the report, and Carolyn 

Thomas and Ann Kottner prepared it for publication. We also thank the other staff members at 

MDRC not already mentioned who contributed greatly to the research effort, including Caroline 

Mage, Ada Tso, Emily Terwelp, Melanie Skemer, Sara Muller-Ravett, Julianna Alson, Hannah 

Siegelberg, Brit Henderson, Nicole Alexander, and Janae Bonsu.

We are also grateful to Charlotte Bright from the University of Maryland School of Social Work, who provided her expertise on gender-responsive services throughout the project.

Joan Flocks, Marina Prado-Steiman, and Emily Calvin from the University of Florida assisted 

with site visits. In addition, Jessica Walker-Beaumont worked closely with MDRC and PACE 

to provide technical assistance and strategic planning on recruitment and other program efforts.

Finally, we are deeply appreciative of the girls and their parents and guardians who 

agreed to participate in the research. Without them, this research would not have been possible.

The Authors

1 

Executive Summary

In Florida, girls who are falling behind in school or exhibiting troubling behavior have access to 

a unique program that offers them a chance to get back on track. PACE Center for Girls 

employs what is known as a gender-responsive approach to provide both academic and extensive social services, including classes with a low student-to-teacher ratio, regular counseling 

sessions, and a life skills curriculum designed for girls. PACE, which has centers in 19 counties 

across the state, began more than 30 years ago as a program to meet the needs of girls involved 

with the juvenile justice system. The program serves middle school and high school-age girls 

who have multiple risk factors.

These risk factors, which include individual, peer, family, school, and community characteristics, increase the likelihood that a girl will struggle in school and engage in delinquent 

behavior. Delinquency and involvement in the juvenile justice system, in turn, result in considerable personal and societal costs. Juvenile charges or detention may damage a young person’s 

relationships with friends and family, negatively affect mental health, and interrupt the academic progress and work experience that should accumulate during adolescence.1 And from a 

societal perspective, court and detainment costs are high. Therefore, effective prevention or 

early intervention programs that can help young people avoid involvement in the juvenile 

system and succeed in school offer a significant return on investment.2

 

Research has shown that adverse childhood experiences affect boys and girls differently. Girls have a greater incidence of depression than boys and respond differently to trauma; for 

example, girls are more likely to engage in self-medicating behaviors.

3 Their pathways into the 

justice system are also different. Girls are more often detained for nonserious offenses, such as 

truancy or violating probation, and more often enter the juvenile justice system with a history of 

physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, extreme family conflict, and neglect.

4 Gender-responsive 

 1

Anna Aizer and Joseph J. Doyle Jr., “Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital, and Future Crime: Evidence 

from Randomly-Assigned Judges,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 130, no. 2 (2015): 759-803. 2

Steve Aos, Roxanne Lieb, Jim Mayfield, Marna Miller, and Annie Pennucci, Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth (Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 

2004). 

3

Margaret A. Zahn, Robert Agnew, Diana Fishbein, Shari Miller, Donna-Marie Winn, Gayle Dakoff, 

Candace Kruttschnitt, Peggy Giordano, Denise C. Gottfredson, Allison A. Payne, Barry C. Feld, and Meda 

Chesney-Lind, Causes and Correlates of Girls’ Delinquency (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010); Emily J. Salisbury and Patricia Van Voorhis, 

“Gendered Pathways: A Quantitative Investigation of Women Probationers’ Paths to Incarceration,” Criminal 

Justice and Behavior 36, no. 6 (2009): 541-566. 4

Charlotte Lyn Bright and Melissa Jonson-Reid, “Young Adult Outcomes of Juvenile Court–Involved 

Girls,” Journal of Social Service Research 36, no. 2 (2010): 94-106; Charlotte Lyn Bright and Melissa Jonson-

(continued)
2 

approaches were developed as a response to the recognition that the current juvenile justice 

system is not well positioned to meet the particular needs of girls, as most services are based on 

the needs of boys.5 The term “gender-responsive” thus describes treatment approaches for 

serving women and girls. Principles of gender-responsive programs include an understanding of 

the effects of trauma, a focus on relationships, and life skills and health education that is tailored 

to the lives of girls and women. 

Rigorous research on gender-responsive programming is limited, however. There has 

been national interest in understanding gender-responsive programs in the context of improving

the juvenile system more broadly,

6 but the current literature is more robust in its description of 

concepts and principles than in its evaluation of program performance.7 Until recently, it was

largely unknown how gender-responsive services are implemented, how similar they are to one 

another, or how effective they are.

8 The evaluation of PACE Center for Girls — perhaps the 

largest and most well-established program of its kind — provides an opportunity to answer 

foundational questions about the implementation and effectiveness of a gender-responsive 

program. The research aims to help practitioners and policymakers better understand, and 

possibly replicate, services for at-risk girls. The evaluation is being conducted by MDRC and is 

funded mainly through the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation’s Social Innovation Fund (SIF), 

a program of the Corporation for National Community Service (CNCS), with additional funding 

provided by the Jessie Ball duPont Fund and the Healy Foundation.

About PACE Center for Girls

PACE Center for Girls currently operates 19 nonresidential, year-round program sites across the 

state of Florida. Girls eligible for PACE are between the ages of 11 and 17 and exhibit such risk 

 

Reid, “Onset of Juvenile Court Involvement: Exploring Gender-Specific Associations with Maltreatment and 

Poverty,” Children and Youth Services Review 30, no. 8 (2008): 914-927; Zahn et al., Causes and Correlates 

of Girls’ Delinquency. 5

Margaret A. Zahn, Stephanie R. Hawkins, Janet Chiancone, and Ariel Whitworth, The Girls Study Group 

— Charting the Way to Delinquency Prevention for Girls (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). 6

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 5633 § 242 (1992). 7

Dana Jones Hubbard and Betsy Matthews, “Reconciling the Differences Between the ‘GenderResponsive’ and ‘What Works’ Literatures to Improve Services for Girls,” Crime & Delinquency 54, no. 2 

(2008): 225-258. 8

Meda Chesney-Lind, Merry Morash, and Tia Stevens, “Girls’ Troubles, Girls’ Delinquency, and Gender 

Responsive Programming: A Review,” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 4, no. 1 (2008): 

162-189; Patricia K. Kerig and Sheryl R. Schindler, “Engendering the Evidence Base: A Critical Review of the 

Conceptual and Empirical Foundations of Gender-Responsive Interventions for Girls’ Delinquency,” Laws 2, 3 

(2013): 244-282.
3 

factors as exposure to abuse or violence, poor academic performance, truancy, risky sexual 

behavior, substance abuse, and other stressors that may contribute to trauma and negative 

outcomes. PACE aims to get them back on track by providing services in a gender-responsive 

environment that addresses these risk factors and develops their strengths.

Girls in this voluntary program, who live primarily at home, attend PACE daily during 

normal school hours and receive academic and extensive social services. These services include 

academic instruction and advising, a life skills curriculum, assessment and care planning, 

individual and group counseling, parental engagement, volunteer service and work readiness 

opportunities, and transition and follow-up services. Girls typically plan to attend PACE for 

approximately one year and often return to other schools in their communities to complete their 

education.9 A low staff-to-girl ratio allows for individual attention and opportunities to build 

relationships, contributing to the girls’ sense of safety and belonging while they are in attendance. PACE centers strive to create inclusive environments in which a variety of support 

services “wrap around” each girl, and they rely on a strengths-based approach — emphasizing a 

girl’s assets rather than deficits — and an understanding of trauma and its effects when dealing 

with girls’ risky or challenging behaviors.

The PACE Evaluation

In response to the growing need to better understand and evaluate the services available to girls

at risk of school failure, delinquency, substance abuse, or other poor physical and mental health 

outcomes, this study aims to provide evidence on the execution and effectiveness of the PACE 

program. The evaluation has three main components: an impact study, an implementation study, 

and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fourteen PACE centers participated in the evaluation during 

the two-year study enrollment period, from August 2013 through October 2015.

The impact evaluation employs a random assignment design. With this design, girls 

who were deemed eligible for PACE enrolled in the study and were assigned at random either 

to a program group, whose members are offered PACE services, or to a control group, whose 

members are referred to other services in the community. Between August 2013 and October 

2015, 1,134 girls were enrolled in the study (679 in the program group and 455 in the control 

group). The results of the impact study, which will be published in a future report, will provide 

information on the degree to which PACE prevented negative outcomes and created positive 

opportunities for girls.

 9

In some cases, girls seek options other than returning to the public school they attended previously or 

another school in the district; for example, earning a high school equivalency diploma and gaining employment. In rare cases, PACE centers provide a high school diploma through the local school district.
4 

This report focuses on how PACE implements its gender-responsive services at each of 

the centers in the study. As noted above, few gender-responsive programs have been evaluated, 

and information on how this type of program actually operates is limited. This research also will 

inform policymakers and practitioners interested in understanding how the PACE program 

model is replicated across locations.

The implementation study focused on answering three main questions:

•

•

•

How is PACE implemented at each center? This included a close examination of how gender-responsive programming is provided.

Whom does PACE serve? This involved understanding how girls were selected to participate in the program and how girls in the study compared with 

the general population of girls in Florida.

How does PACE differ from other services available in the community for 

at-risk girls? 

The research team reviewed the intended implementation of services according to the 

PACE program model and compared these with the actual implementation of services. Additional analysis examined whether implementation of the model or services varied across centers. 

These analyses draw from a rich set of qualitative and quantitative data. Quantitative data 

presented in this report include the baseline characteristics of the research sample, program 

participation data, a survey of PACE staff members, a validated classroom observation scoring 

system, and a follow-up survey to the study sample of girls (both the program and control 

groups) 12 months after study enrollment.10 Qualitative data include staff interviews, observations of program activities, in-person individual interviews and focus groups with current PACE 

participants, and follow-up phone interviews with program group participants.

Key Findings

This section summarizes findings from the implementation study. The full report provides 

additional findings, including details on how services were delivered, for each component of 

PACE’s service model.

• The PACE program model was implemented consistently across multiple locations. Some variation in services across locations occurred be-

 10Fielding of this survey was ongoing at the time the current report was written. Therefore, the survey responses presented here are from girls enrolled in the study between August 2013 and March 2015, about twothirds of the full study sample.
5 

cause of differences in staffing and access to resources and in program 

areas where the model provides less guidance.

PACE takes a hybrid approach to defining its model. In addition to a written set of values and guiding principles that describe how staff members should approach their work, PACE 

provides detailed guidance on program activities in a lengthy manual. PACE headquarters 

supports implementation through staff training, data systems, and a quality assurance process. 

The central office plays a key role, monitoring fidelity and providing guidance or support as 

needed. The research team found that individual PACE centers were implementing the model as 

intended. Staff members described in interviews how PACE’s values and guiding principles 

provided the foundation for how they did their work, and both management and direct service 

staff members reported using the manual regularly to guide program implementation. Data from 

PACE’s management information system show that girls at PACE are receiving most services 

at the prescribed frequency and intensity. 

Activities that were not specified in the manual had more variation in implementation. 

In these areas — for example, the approach counselors should use with girls — variation 

seemed to be driven largely by the experience and approach of individual staff members. 

Availability of resources was another factor. Though every center receives a basic level of 

funding through PACE’s contracts with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and local 

school districts,

11 each center drew on community resources to support or augment core services. Centers with more resources were able to offer additional services, such as health care 

and therapy on site. Centers with fewer resources had fewer staff members to dedicate to certain 

activities (for example, transition services, volunteer services, and work readiness).

• PACE incorporated gender-responsive programming into all services 

through a distinct program culture and through specific program components such as assessments, life skills classes, and parental engagement.

PACE’s model incorporates many of the key tenets of gender-responsive programming 

that are cited by practitioners and researchers in the field. The implementation research found 

that PACE infused gender-responsive programming into many aspects of service delivery 

through a distinct program culture, focusing on safety and relationships, an understanding of 

trauma, and an emphasis on building girls’ individual strengths. Key aspects of genderresponsive programming were also incorporated into assessments, life skills, and parental 

engagement. Table ES.1 provides an overview of common elements of gender-responsive 

programs and how they are put in practice at PACE.

 11PACE, Seek Excellence: 2014 Annual Report (Jacksonville, FL: PACE Center for Girls, 2014).
6 

Table ES.1

Gender-Responsive Programming Principles and 

PACE Program Components

Category

Principle of 

Gender-Responsive 

Programming PACE Program Component

Program 

environment

Safety PACE provides secure facilities, behavior management, and a 

program culture that is intended to be safe from bullying and 

trauma triggers.

Focus on high-quality 

relationships

Staff members focus on building positive and supportive 

relationships with the girls. Care is informed by the other key 

relationships in a girl’s life, including family relationships. 

Strengths-based 

approach

Staff members are trained to recognize a girl’s assets and orient 

care toward building strengths rather than focusing on deficits. 

Trauma-informed 

approach

Staff members are trained to recognize the symptoms of trauma 

and to understand how trauma can affect a girl’s behavior. Staff 

members use knowledge of a girl’s trauma history to inform care. 

Assessment Holistic approach to 

treatment

PACE implements a comprehensive assessment process to 

understand a girl’s risk factors and protective factors across five 

domains: family, school, behavior, victimization, and health. 

Life skills Education about 

women’s health

The Spirited Girls! life skills curriculum educates girls about 

healthy relationships and general and reproductive health. Staff 

members work with girls to address specific women’s health 

needs.

Educational and 

vocational opportunities

Academic services provide girls with an opportunity to catch up to 

grade level by providing individual support in small classes. 

Career exploration is provided in Spirited Girls! classes or through 

separate career classes. Staff members provide individual support 

on career planning. 

Connections to the 

community

Volunteer service provides girls with the opportunity to connect 

with the community in a positive way.

Parental 

engagement

Emphasis on family Staff members engage a girl’s family in her care through regular 

updates on her progress and by seeking to address needs within 

the family when possible. Staff members use an awareness of 

each girl’s family dynamics to inform her care.

SOURCES: Developed from Patricia K. Kerig and Sheryl R. Schindler, “Engendering the Evidence Base: A 

Critical Review of the Conceptual and Empirical Foundations of Gender-Responsive Interventions for Girls’ 

Delinquency,” Laws 2, 3 (2013): 244-282; and interviews with PACE staff members. 
7 

• PACE serves girls who tend to be low-income, to be struggling with 

school, and to have other risk factors, such as prior abuse or involvement with the juvenile justice system.

PACE implements a thorough assessment and screening process to assess whether a 

girl meets eligibility requirements, to understand her history and risk factors, and to determine 

whether she would be a “good fit” for the program. PACE serves girls who are struggling 

academically and who exhibit a range of health, safety, and delinquency risk factors. As shown 

in Table ES.2, at the time of study enrollment, about half the study sample had been held back 

at least once, and a large portion had low school attendance. Many girls had experienced abuse 

or neglect or reported having thoughts about harming or killing themselves. A significant 

portion of the sample were sexually active. Nearly 30 percent of participants had been previously arrested, and a majority of the sample had a family member with a criminal history. Participants also came predominantly from low-income families and often from single-parent households.

• PACE differed from what girls experienced in other school settings in 

several distinct areas. Girls assigned to the program group and invited 

to attend PACE were more likely than girls in the control group to have 

been enrolled in school and to have received academic advising, counseling, and other services in the 12-month period since study enrollment.

In a review of other programs available in the communities served by PACE, none offered a similar combination of academic and social services in a gender-responsive setting. 

Some programs offered both academic and social services but without the gender-responsive 

approach. PACE’s academic services differed from those offered at public schools, which many 

control group members attended, in terms of class size and access to regular academic advising. 

Classes were capped at 14 students, and the low student-teacher ratio allowed teachers to 

provide girls with more individual support. PACE also provided more academic advising than 

was typically provided by public schools. In the 12 months since random assignment, as shown 

in Table ES.3, girls in the program group were more likely to have been enrolled in school and 

to have received academic advising than girls in the control group. On the quality of classroom 

instruction, as measured by one common assessment tool, PACE scored similarly to public 

schools.

Social services at PACE also distinguished it from the traditional school environment. 

Responses from the follow-up survey indicate that girls in the program group received more 

social service support than girls in the control group during the 12 months following study 

enrollment. For example, girls in the program group were 19 percentage points more likely than 
8 

(continued)

Table ES.2

Selected Characteristics of Sample Members at Baseline

Full

Characteristic (%) Sample

Demographic

Age

11-12 8.5

13-14 32.5

15-16 49.5

17 or older 9.5

Race/ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic 45.1

Hispanica 16.0

White, non-Hispanic 38.1

Other 0.8

People participant lives with 

Two parents 34.8

Single parent 51.8

Relative 10.6

b Other 2.8

c Family income

$28,050 or lower 41.2

$28,051-$44,900 35.5

Above $44,900 23.3

Academic

School level at time of referral to PACE

d 6th grade 8.8

7th-8th grade 37.2

9th-10th grade 45.3

11th-12th grade 8.7

Recently expelled or suspendede 39.6

Has more than 15 absences in past 3 months 41.7

Held back at least once 51.8

Has a learning disability 29.6
9 

Table ES.2 (continued)

Full

Characteristic (%) Sample

Delinquency

Ever arrestedf 27.7

Ever been on probation 12.6

g Has family member with criminal history 64.1

Health and safety

Ever sexually active 44.1

Abused/neglectedh 38.1

Ever had thoughts about harming/killing herself 39.3

Sample size 1,134

SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on data from the PACE management 

information system.

NOTES: Certain characteristics listed here were captured in two different ways 

during the random assignment period, as noted below. a

Sample members are coded as Hispanic if they answered "yes" to Hispanic 

ethnicity. 

b"Other" includes nonrelative or foster care. cThe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's guidelines were 

used in the data collection process to determine which income range the 

participant's family fell into. Since these figures could vary by county and 

household size, the ranges presented here correspond to statewide income limits 

for low income and very low income for a four-person household in Florida in 

fiscal year 2014.

dThis category includes sample members who were in fifth grade at the time of 

referral. e

For approximately half of the sample, this was defined as being currently 

expelled or suspended. For the other half of the sample, this referred to one or 

more expulsions or suspensions in the most recent school term. 

f

In the juvenile justice system, people are not technically "arrested"; the 

terminology used is either "incurred a charge" or "referred." gFor approximately half of the sample, this measure referred to a criminal 

record (including imprisonment, probation, parole, and house arrest) for a parent, 

guardian, or sibling of the sample member. For the other half of the sample, 

"family" included other members of the household as well. 

hFor approximately half of the sample, this measure referred only to 

documented instances of abuse or neglect. For the other half of the sample, the 

measure also included suspected incidents of abuse. 
10

Table ES.3

Impacts on Service Receipt

Outcome (%)

Program

Group

Control

Group

Difference

(Impact) P-Value

Academic Service Receipt

Ever enrolled in a school or educational program 99.1 92.9 6.2 *** 0.000

Received academic advising 81.1 67.6 13.5 *** 0.000

Frequency of academic advising sessions

More than once per month 38.0 33.8 4.2 0.293

Once per month 19.6 11.5 8.2 *** 0.009

1-3 times per year 23.4 22.4 1.0 0.770

Never 19.0 32.4 -13.4 *** 0.000

Social Service Receipt

Received help finding services in the community 38.5 23.3 15.2 *** 0.000

Received mental health counseling or therapy 64.2 45.5 18.7 *** 0.000

Frequency of counseling or therapy sessions

Once per week or more 39.3 23.9 15.4 *** 0.000

1-3 times per month 19.9 13.4 6.5 ** 0.043

Less than once per month 4.6 8.0 -3.5 * 0.081

Never 36.2 54.6 -18.5 *** 0.000

Received help related to sexuality, sex, 

or sexual and reproductive health 72.0 57.8 14.3 *** 0.000

Received help related to social and emotional skills 80.3 63.0 17.3 *** 0.000

Sample size (total = 668) 407 261

SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on girls' responses to the PACE evaluation 12-month follow-up 

survey.

NOTES: The sample size reported here is based on responses to the follow-up survey among girls 

randomly assigned between August 2013 and March 2015. Due to missing values, the number of girls 

included varies by outcome.

Results in this table are regression-adjusted, controlling for pre-random assignment characteristics. 

Statistical significance levels are indicated as follows: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.
11

girls in the control group to have received mental health counseling or therapy. They were also 

more likely to have received help connecting to other services in the community, such as 

transportation or housing, than the control group. And PACE offers more life skills programming focused on the needs and perspectives of girls than is typically available in public schools. 

For example, program group girls were more likely to report that they had received help related 

to sex and reproductive health than the control group (72 percent compared with 58 percent).

PACE also offers follow-up services to girls after they leave the program, though the intensity 

of services offered varied among the centers.

Summary

For girls at risk of an array of negative outcomes, this report highlights the ways that PACE is 

different from the other options available to girls in the communities where PACE operates. 

Few programs offer the same combination of services. The impact on reported service receipt 

bears this out. 

PACE is also an example of a program that provides similar services and a consistent 

culture in multiple locations in diverse communities. PACE’s approach — specifying its model 

through both principles and a manual, supporting staff members through training, and using 

data to monitor implementation and fidelity — offers lessons for the field more broadly. 

Variation tended to occur in areas where the program model was not specified — for example, 

the approaches counselors took with girls. Finding the balance between specification and 

flexibility is an ongoing tension in the replication of human service programs.

The implementation study of PACE also offers an opportunity to understand how a 

gender-responsive program actually operates, an area where current research is lacking. The 

report describes how PACE creates a gender-responsive culture as a framework for providing 

its services. The culture serves as the foundation for its gender-responsive programming and is 

infused into all aspects of program delivery. Building from this culture, PACE offers a combination of services that is hypothesized to meet the specific needs of at-risk girls.

This implementation report is one in a series of publications from the PACE evaluation 

that will add to the evidence base regarding gender-responsive programming and its effectiveness. In early 2016, a research brief provided an introduction to the study. Another brief, 

released as a companion to the current report, delves further into the history and literature 

around gender-responsive programming, using PACE implementation as a case study. And in 

2018, a final report will present the results of the impact study and a cost-effectiveness analysis, 

which will evaluate the costs of PACE in the context of its outcomes for girls.
About MDRC

MDRC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan social and education policy research organization dedicated 

to learning what works to improve the well-being of low-income people. Through its research 

and the active communication of its findings, MDRC seeks to enhance the effectiveness of social and education policies and programs.

Founded in 1974 and located in New York City and Oakland, California, MDRC is best known 

for mounting rigorous, large-scale, real-world tests of new and existing policies and programs. 

Its projects are a mix of demonstrations (field tests of promising new program approaches) and 

evaluations of ongoing government and community initiatives. MDRC’s staff bring an unusual 

combination of research and organizational experience to their work, providing expertise on the 

latest in qualitative and quantitative methods and on program design, development, implementation, and management. MDRC seeks to learn not just whether a program is effective but also 

how and why the program’s effects occur. In addition, it tries to place each project’s findings in 

the broader context of related research — in order to build knowledge about what works across 

the social and education policy fields. MDRC’s findings, lessons, and best practices are proactively shared with a broad audience in the policy and practitioner community as well as with the 

general public and the media.

Over the years, MDRC has brought its unique approach to an ever-growing range of policy areas and target populations. Once known primarily for evaluations of state welfare-to-work programs, today MDRC is also studying public school reforms, employment programs for exoffenders and people with disabilities, and programs to help low-income students succeed in 

college. MDRC’s projects are organized into five areas:

•

•

•

•

•

Promoting Family Well-Being and Children’s Development

Improving Public Education

Raising Academic Achievement and Persistence in College

Supporting Low-Wage Workers and Communities

Overcoming Barriers to Employment

Working in almost every state, all of the nation’s largest cities, and Canada and the United 

Kingdom, MDRC conducts its projects in partnership with national, state, and local governments, public school systems, community organizations, and numerous private philanthropies.