Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

Summary

HPOG 1.0—Noncash Incentives provided the option to receive noncash incentives for achieving program milestones in addition to the standard HPOG services. It was an enhancement of HPOG 1.0, which provided education and training to people participating in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other people with low income for occupations in the health care field.

HPOG aimed to prepare participants for careers in health care occupations that paid well and were expected to experience labor shortages or increased demand. HPOG 1.0—Noncash Incentives grantees provided standard HPOG services and, to a subset of participants, the option to receive noncash incentives worth up to $1,000 per person. These participants were able to earn points for achieving program milestones, such as completing key courses or obtaining or retaining employment. They could then convert these points into tangible rewards, such as vouchers redeemable at the college bookstore, work-related equipment, or gift cards to support basic needs.

HPOG 1.0 refers to the first round of five-year HPOG grants that ACF awarded in 2010. HPOG 1.0 funded  grantees that were required to (1) help participants develop skills relevant to the health care industry; (2) support career pathways that allowed participants to build a career by advancing through successively higher levels of education and training and to exit into employment at multiple possible points; (3) provide training leading to credentials recognized by employers and the health care industry; (4) provide supportive services, such as financial counseling or job retention services, to help participants overcome barriers to training participation and employment; and (5) provide training at accessible times and locations. The most common occupational training programs were six-to-eight week courses to become a nursing aide, orderly, or attendant; some registered nursing programs could last up to four years.

All HPOG 1.0 programs served people participating in TANF and other people with low income, but programs set different financial, academic, and behavioral criteria to determine whether applicants were eligible. HPOG 1.0—Noncash Incentives was implemented in the following locations: Gateway Community and Technical College (Kentucky), Bergen Community College-Essex County College (New Jersey), Suffolk County Department of Labor (New York), Alamo Community College District and University Health System (Texas), and South Carolina Department of Social Services. The evaluation of HPOG 1.0—Noncash Incentives also examined the effectiveness of: HPOG 1.0—Facilitated Peer Support, HPOG 1.0—Emergency Assistance, and HPOG 1.0.

25448.03-Health Profession Op
Populations and employment barriers:

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below?
View the "Table help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

View table help

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $-648 per year -0.031 1255
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable -2% (in percentage points) -0.058 1255
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $63 per year 0.023 1009
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1
Back to top

Implementation details

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
34%
Unknown, not reported, or other
42%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
24%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

State(s) where implemented

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Canada

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Back to top