Study Details | Pathways to Work

3103-New Hope

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: New Hope

Services provided:

Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives, Health services (Substance use disorder treatment and mental health services), Supportive services, Work and work-based learning (Individual Placement and Support, Subsidized employment, Work experience), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Potential participants were recruited for an orientation session, during which they learned about the New Hope Project and the random assignment study. From August 1994 to December 1995, after completing a questionnaire on their background characteristics, 1,362 New Hope applicants were randomly assigned to New Hope (678) or a comparison group (679), with 5 participants dropped from the study because of missing background data. All randomly assigned individuals were eligible to participate in the two-year follow-up survey.

Time period of study:

Participants enrolled in the project from August 1994 to December 1995. They received services for three years. The study reports outcomes two years after 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:

Health, housing, financial assets, parenting and co-parenting, child well-being, child educational achievement

Study funded by:

The study was funded by the Ford Foundation, the Ambrose Monell Foundation, the Alcoa Foundation, and the James Irvine Foundation.

Results

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

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	583.00	1996 dollars	1,353
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 8	High	288.00	2005 dollars	1,357
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	7.80	Percentage points	1,353
Increase short-term employment	Number of quarters employed, annual	Year 1	High	0.40	Percentage points	1,353
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 2	High	5.50	Percentage points	1,353
Increase long-term employment	Percentage of quarters employed, annual	Year 8	High	2.10	Percentage points	1,357
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	-32.00	1996 dollars	1,353
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	-31.00	1996 dollars	1,353
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 8	High	3.00	2005 dollars	1,357
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 8	High	-14.00	2005 dollars	1,357
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 8	High	0.40	Percentage points	1,357
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, monthly	Month 24	High	-3.60	Percentage points	1,080
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, monthly	Month 24	High	-5.00	Percentage points	1,080
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 8	High	-2.00	Percentage points	1,357
Increase education and training	Earned a training certificate or license	Month 24	High	-1.90	Percentage points	1,080
Increase education and training	Earned an educational credential	Month 24	High	-1.50	Percentage points	1,080

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.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. 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 intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention 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

Participants eligible for New Hope lived in one of the neighborhoods served [Editor: Please note that I rephrased this from "targeted neighborhoods"], had earnings less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level, were age 18 or older, and were willing and able to work full time. The eligibility criteria did not include employment status, family composition, or welfare status. The study sample was 71 percent female, and 60 percent had never married. The sample was 51 percent African American and 26 percent Hispanic. The average age was 31 years. Fifty-seven percent held a high school diploma or GED, and 71 percent had children in the household at the start of the study. Among the participants, 38 percent were employed at the time of random assignment, with an average $5,581 in total earnings in the previous year.

Sex

Female	72%
Male	28%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	51%
White	13%
Asian	6%
American Indian or Alaska Native	3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	27%

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.

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

38%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED

57%

Specific employment barriers

Were involved with the justice system

24%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

New Hope Inc.

Program history:

New Hope Inc. was created by a committee of service staff and community members from Milwaukee, WI, in 1988. The New Hope Project began in 1994 as a demonstration project.

Intervention services:

Participants who worked at least 30 hours per week received monthly earnings supplements that were intended to bring total income to the poverty threshold. Earnings supplements intended to incentivize increased work hours and wages. On average, participants received $911 in earnings supplements over the two-year follow-up period. Eighty-one percent of participants received at least one supplemental payment. Participants also received low-cost health insurance (58 percent) if their employer did not provide it. In addition, parents with children younger than 13 received child care subsidies. Participants who were unable to find full-time employment were placed in full- or part-time subsidized community service jobs with local nonprofit organizations, with a requirement for consistent attendance and job performance. Each community service job lasted up to 6 months, and participants could hold community service jobs for up to 12 months. Participants also met one-on-one or in small groups with project representatives, who encouraged participants to maximize benefit receipt and provided job coaching and counseling.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Participants not assigned to the New Hope Project received a list of other community resources to help them secure employment or other social services.

Service receipt duration:

Participants were eligible to receive services for three years. Participants had received two years of services at the time of the study.

Intervention funding:

The program was funded by donations from foundations, state and federal agencies, and individuals, including the Helen Bader Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Mott Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $30,078 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $17,685 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $12,393 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 Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Bos, Johannes M., Aletha C. Huston, Robert C. Granger, Greg J. Duncan, Thomas W. Brock, and Vonnie C. McLoyd (1999). New Hope for people with low incomes: Two-year results of a program to reduce poverty and reform welfare, New York: MDRC. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433455.pdf.

Duncan, Greg J., Heather D. Hill, and Aleksy Tetenov (2007). The persistence of New Hope's labor market impacts: How long? How real?, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Unpublished.

Duncan, Greg, Cynthia Miller, Amy Classens, Mimi Engel, Heather Hill, and Constance Lindsay (2008). New Hope's eight-year impacts on employment and family income, New York: MDRC. Unpublished. Available https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433455.pdf.

Huston, Aletha C., Cynthia Miller, Lashawn Richburg-Hayes, Greg J. Duncan, Carolyn A. Eldred, Thomas S. Weisner, Edward Lowe, Vonnie C. McLoyd, Danielle A. Crosby, Marika N. Ripke, and Cindy Redcross (2003). New Hope for families and children: Five-year results of a program to reduce poverty and reform welfare, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_457.pdf.

Miller, Cynthia, Aletha C. Huston, Greg J. Duncan, Vonnie C. McLoyd, and Thomas S. Weisner (2008). New Hope for the working poor: Effects after eight years for families and children, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_458.pdf.

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

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.

Study of New Hope