Study Details | Pathways to Work

0713-Study of Enhanced Ea

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition, suggesting the findings can be attributed to the program.

Program: Enhanced Early Head Start

Characteristics of study participants:

Parents

Services provided:

Childcare and/or early education, Employment coaching, Financial education

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The study was a randomized controlled trial. To be eligible for the program, families had to have a family income at or below the federal poverty threshold, have a child under 3 years old or be expecting a child, and live in one of the areas served by the program. The program gave priority to pregnant women, to families with infants or toddlers, and to families with certain needs (such as barriers to employment). Evaluators randomly assigned 610 eligible families (that consented to participate in the program by completing a baseline data form) to the program or comparison conditions on a rolling basis, with equal probabilities. All participants who were able to complete a survey in English were eligible to participate in the 18-month survey that was the focus of the 18-month report.

Time period of study:

Random assignment into the program occurred between July 2004 and December 2006. This study examines data for up to 42 months following random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Mental health, Parenting and co-parenting, Child well-being, Child care

Study funded by:

The study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Labor.

Results

View table definitions

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Program group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	7,951.00	8,197.00	246.00	2005 dollars	597
Increase short-term earnings	Current hourly wage	Month 18	High	5.99	5.41	-0.58	2007 dollars	491
Increase short-term earnings	Total earnings over follow-up period	Quarters 1-6	High	21,540.00	22,207.00	667.00	2006 dollars	597
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 3	High	8,815.00	9,819.00	1,004.00	2007 dollars	597
Increase long-term earnings	Weekly earnings	42 months	High	230.00	214.00	-16.00	2009 dollars	478
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed (fathers)	Month 18	High	41.00	41.70	0.70	percentage points	491
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed (mothers)	Month 18	High	64.40	63.40	-1.00	percentage points	491
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	79.20	81.90	2.70	percentage points	597
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	76.90	74.20	-2.70	percentage points	597
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed (mothers)	42 months	High	62.00	58.00	-4.00	percentage points	478
Increase long-term employment	Employed for eight consecutive quarters	Year 3	High	45.60	49.20	3.60	percentage points	597
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 3	High	73.40	78.00	4.60	percentage points	597
Increase long-term employment	Longest job spell since random assignment	42 months	High	23.60	21.10	-2.50	months	478
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Percentage of household income from cash assistance at time of survey	18 months	High	18.40	17.50	-0.90	percentage points	491
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Percentage of household income from Food Stamps at time of survey	18 months	High	51.10	56.50	5.40	percentage points	491
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Percentage of household income from Supplemental Security Income or disability income at time of survey	18 months	High	18.80	15.80	-3.00	percentage points	491
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received cash assistance in month before 42-month survey	42 months	High	11.40	11.20	-0.20	percentage points	478
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps in the month before the 42-month survey	42 months	High	53.70	57.60	3.90	percentage points	478
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED	18 months	High	7.40	6.40	-1.00	percentage points	491

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Means are not displayed when not reported or not aligned with the impact estimates. For example, if the impact estimate is regression-adjusted but only unadjusted means are reported in the study, the unadjusted means are not displayed as they are not aligned with the adjusted impact estimate.

Impact estimates are not shown when the estimate units cannot be converted to natural units.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the program. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the program, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the program produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

Most primary parents in the families enrolled in the study were female (90 percent), were White (86 percent), and held a GED or high school diploma (67 percent). On average, the primary parent was 26 years old and had never been married (54 percent).

Age

Mean age

26 years

Sex

Female	90%
Male	10%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	8%
White	86%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	5%
Unknown, not reported, or other	6%

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.

Family status

Married	29%
Parents	100%

Employment and public benefit status

Cash assistance recipients

29%

Education

Had some postsecondary education	8%
Had a high school diploma or GED	75%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	25%
Postsecondary credential	8%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

A community-based agency that served 12 rural counties in southeastern Kansas administered the program in Kansas. A multiservice agency that served three suburban counties and one rural county administered the program in Missouri.

Program history:

EHS predated the evaluation, but the programmatic enhancements for the evaluation were introduced starting in 2004.

Program services:

Enhanced EHS consisted of the intensive early childhood development services and family supports typical of the EHS program, plus program enhancement designed to address parents’ employment and self-sufficiency needs. The enhancements included training with on-site self-sufficiency specialists who worked directly with families on achieving self-sufficiency goals, parent training in employment and self-sufficiency issues, establishing partnerships with local agencies that provided employment and training services, and training EHS staff so they could help parents attain employment and self-sufficiency goals. EHS also offered health and mental health services to families.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Families could receive other services in the community but were not eligible to receive Enhanced EHS services.

Service receipt duration:

EHS serves families with children under age 3; presumably, a family could receive services until then. Program group members participated in Enhanced EHS for an average of nine months.

Program funding:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $21,049 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $12,253 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $8,796 per person. This represents how much more it cost to provide intervention services compared to comparison services.

These figures are based on cost information reported by study authors. The Pathways to Work converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2024 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Hsueh, JoAnn, and Mary E. Farrell (2012). Enhanced Early Head Start with employment services: 42-month impacts from the Kansas and Missouri sites of the Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Research Project, OPRE Report #2012-05, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/enhanced-early-head-start-with-employment-services-42-month-impacts-from.

Hsueh, JoAnn, Erin Jacobs, and Mary Farrell (2011). A two-generational child-focused program enhanced with employment services: Eighteen-month impacts from the Kansas and Missouri sites of the enhanced services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation project, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/a-two-generational-child-focused-program-enhanced-with-employment.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

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

Study of Enhanced Early Head Start