PASS service providers contacted former TANF participants and provided customized post-employment services and supportive services payments based on clients’ needs to help participants keep their jobs and obtain better jobs. PASS service providers included staff at three community-based organizations (CBOs), a community college, and a Department of Public Social Services office. PASS services included case management, counseling and mentoring, reemployment activities (such as assistance with job search and resume preparation), workshops on credit and money management, referrals to training and education opportunities, and referrals to social services programs. The program also included payments for supportive services such as child care, transportation, books, tools, and uniforms. PASS provided services for up to 12 months. To be eligible for PASS, former TANF participants had to be employed and ineligible for TANF in the current month but eligible in the previous month. PASS was implemented in Riverside, CA.
- 0.10,1.00
- 0.09,4.00
- 0.12,1.00
- 0.06,4.00
Summary
The PASS program provided post-employment services and payment for supportive services to improve employment retention and career advancement among employed individuals who were recently Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) participants.
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.
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 | 
|
$2,029 per year
|
0.097 | 2770 |
| Long-term |
|
$1,799 per year
|
0.086 | 3225 | |
| Very long-term |  |
||||
| Increase employment | Short-term | 
|
5% (in percentage points)
|
0.122 | 2770 |
| Long-term |
|
2% (in percentage points)
|
0.039 | 3225 | |
| Very long-term | |
||||
| Decrease benefit receipt | Short-term |
|
$-50 per year
|
-0.018 | 2770 |
| Long-term |
|
$-72 per year
|
-0.026 | 2770 | |
| Very long-term | |
||||
| Increase education and training | All measurement periods | |
Effectiveness rating key:
-
Well-supported
-
Supported
-
Not supported
-
Mixed support
-
Insufficient evidence
-
No evidence
Studies of this intervention
| Study quality rating | Study counts per rating |
|---|---|
 High
|
2 |
Implementation details
Dates covered by study
PASS randomly assigned participants from July 2002 to June 2003. The findings cover a two-year period following each participant’s date of random assignment.
Organizations implementing intervention
The program was administered by the Riverside County DPSS. It contracted with four service providers and one local DPSS office to implement the PASS program.
Populations served
Individuals were eligible for random assignment to the study if they were (1) ineligible for cash aid for the current month and had been eligible the prior month and (2) were determined as being employed. Nearly 90 percent of PASS participants were employed and had earnings at random assignment. Among these employed individuals, about two-thirds were working full time (32 hours or more per week), and about one-half were earning $7 to $10 per hour. Most participants (90 percent) were female, and almost half were Hispanic. At their time of random assignment, more than half of participants had never been married. Participants in Riverside had an average of two children in their households at random assignment, and more than half had at least one child age 5 or younger.
Description of services implemented
PASS included the following services:
- Case management involved assessing client needs and referring clients to appropriate program services, such as counseling and mentoring with a concentration on education and career development.
- Job preparation and placement services focused on reemployment activities, such as supervised job search, resume preparation assistance, and provision of job leads.
- Life skills workshops taught participants topics such as credit repair and money management. Only one service provider, the Volunteer Center, used life skills workshops to a significant degree.
- Supportive services included payments for child care, transportation, books, tools, and uniforms. In addition, participants could receive referrals to other social service programs for domestic violence, substance use, and mental health interventions.
Among the PASS participants, case management and counseling were the most common services used (32 percent of participants), followed by job search activities (15 percent) and referrals to and support for education and training programs (8 percent).
Service intensity
Participants in both the PASS group and the comparison group were eligible to receive services for up to 12 months after being randomly assigned. On average, PASS participants spent about four months receiving PASS services.
Comparison conditions
Individuals who were assigned to the comparison group had to contact caseworkers themselves to receive case management services, reemployment and supportive services, and life skills workshops. Eight percent of the comparison group received post-employment services. In addition, comparison group members were not eligible for the enhanced outreach and recruitment services offered by the PASS service providers.
Partnerships
DPSS selected five service providers (three CBOs, one community college, and one DPSS office) to deliver program services in their communities:
- The Center for Employment Training (CET) served Indio, Coachella, and Temecula.
- The Volunteer Center served Corona, Norco, and Lake Elsinore.
- Valley Restart served Hemet, San Jacinto, and Perris.
- Riverside Community College served Riverside and Moreno Valley.
- DPSS Rancho Mirage served Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage.
Staffing
Administrators at DPSS decided to contract out the operation of PASS because DPSS staff had little experience in contacting, recruiting, and serving individuals who left the TANF program. DPSS administrators believed that local CBOs would know their neighborhoods and their resources better than DPSS staff. A DPSS staff person from the Community and Government Relations Unit provided overall management of the PASS program.
- CET’s job developers worked with employers in their communities to identify jobs that offered opportunities for training and advancement for entry-level workers.
- The Volunteer Center assigned two case managers and a recruitment specialist to the Volunteer Center, a career counselor to the Career Institute, and a case manager to the Hope Through Housing Foundation.
- Valley Restart assigned two case managers to contact and engage prospective PASS clients.
- Riverside Community College designated one vocational counselor, one case manager, one recruitment specialist, and a part-time clerk to work with PASS participants.
- DPSS Rancho Mirage designated one Phase 1 Employment Services Counselor to recruit and work with PASS participants.
Fidelity measures
DPSS expected PASS service providers to attempt to contact all referred customers; serve all clients who requested specific PASS services; and track service activities in a program tracking system. DPSS offered feedback and technical assistance to providers that did not meet these standards.
Funding source
DPSS allocated California TANF funds for PASS program operations to each of the four contracted service providers, and it directly paid for the DPSS Rancho Mirage program. Each provider received an initial amount of $100,000, with a lifetime cap of $250,000. As a provider paid for program services, staff salaries, computers, and so forth, DPSS replenished the pool, up to the $250,000 limit.
ACF, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, conceived of and funded the study. The U.S. Department of Labor offered supplemental support.
Cost information
The average cost per participant was $4,372 in 2018 dollars.
This figure is based on cost information reported by authors of the study or studies the Pathways Clearinghouse reviewed for this intervention. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. Where there are multiple studies of an intervention rated high or moderate quality, the Pathways Clearinghouse computed the average of costs reported across those studies.
Cost information is not directly comparable across interventions due to differences in the categories of costs reported and the amount of time interventions lasted. Cost information is not an official price tag or guarantee.
State(s) where implemented
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.