
Study design
Design:
Study group formation:
Time period of study:
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 trainingOther outcome domains examined:
Housing, Child well-beingStudy funded by:
Results
Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns
Outcome domain | Measure | Timing | Study quality by finding | Comparison group mean | Intervention group mean | Impact | Units | Findings | Sample size |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Increase short-term earnings | Annual earnings | Year 1 |
High ![]() |
2,914.00 | 3,099.00 | 185.00 | 1993 dollars |
![]() |
4,729 |
Increase long-term earnings | Annual earnings | Year 5 |
High ![]() |
7,276.00 | 7,387.00 | 113.00 | 1997 dollars |
![]() |
4,729 |
Increase long-term earnings | Average weekly earnings | Year 2 |
High ![]() |
94.60 | 101.70 | 7.10 | 1995 dollars |
![]() |
723 |
Increase short-term employment | Ever employed, quarterly | Quarter 6 |
High ![]() |
44.30 | 45.70 | 1.40 | percentage points |
![]() |
4,729 |
Increase long-term employment | Current employment | 24 months |
High ![]() |
41.10 | 43.90 | 2.80 | percentage points |
![]() |
723 |
Increase long-term employment | Employed in all four quarters | Year 5 |
High ![]() |
39.40 | 40.40 | 1.00 | percentage points |
![]() |
4,729 |
Increase long-term employment | Ever employed, annual | Year 5 |
High ![]() |
68.80 | 69.30 | 0.50 | percentage points |
![]() |
4,729 |
Decrease short-term benefit receipt | Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual | Year 1 |
High ![]() |
3,199.00 | 2,950.00 | -249.00 | 1993 dollars |
![]() |
4,729 |
Decrease short-term benefit receipt | Received AFDC/TANF, annual | Year 1 |
High ![]() |
96.60 | 96.00 | -0.60 | percentage points |
![]() |
4,729 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period | Years 1–5 |
High ![]() |
9,005.00 | 7,899.00 | -1,106.00 | 1995 dollars |
![]() |
4,729 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period | Years 1–5 |
High ![]() |
8,185.00 | 7,537.00 | -648.00 | 1995 dollars |
![]() |
4,729 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Months of Food Stamps receipt, follow-up period | Years 1–5 |
High ![]() |
31.20 | 29.10 | -2.10 | months |
![]() |
4,729 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly | Quarter 20 |
High ![]() |
16.50 | 14.10 | -2.40 | percentage points |
![]() |
4,729 |
Increase education and training | Earned a license | Year 2 |
High ![]() |
7.30 | 6.80 | -0.50 | percentage points |
![]() |
723 |
Increase education and training | Received high school diploma or GED | Year 2 |
High ![]() |
2.90 | 6.20 | 3.30 | percentage points |
![]() |
723 |
High
Moderate
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.
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
Sample characteristics
The study only examined single parents. In the full sample, which includes those randomized to integrated case management, traditional case management, and the comparison, more than 90 percent of participants were female (94) with an average age of about 32 and an average of two children. In all, 52 percent of participants were Black, and 47 percent were White. When the study began, fewer than half of sample members, 43 percent, had ever worked full time for an employer for six months or more, and a comparable proportion (42 percent) had earned no educational credential at or above a high school diploma or GED level. Roughly 45 percent of sample members had received AFDC for five or more years.
Age
Mean age | 32 years |
Sex
Female | 94% |
Male | 7% |
Participant race and ethnicity
Black or African American | 52% |
White | 47% |
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
Parents | 100% |
Single parents | 100% |
Participant employment and public benefit status
Were employed | 4% |
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance | 100% |
Participant education
Had a high school diploma or GED | 57% |
Did not have a high school diploma or GED | 43% |
Intervention implementation
Implementing organization:
Program history:
Intervention services:
Mandatory services:
Comparison services:
Service receipt duration:
Intervention funding:
Cost information:
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
Freedman, Stephen (2000). The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs on employment stability and earnings growth, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_376.pdf.
Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Friedlander, Gayle Hamilton, JoAnn Rock, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman, Amanda Schweder, and Laura Storto (2000). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/national-evaluation-welfare-work-strategies-evaluating-alternative-welfare-work-approaches-two-year-impacts-eleven-programs-executive-summary.
Hamilton, Gayle, Stephen Freedman, Lisa Gennetian, Charles Michalopoulos, Johanna Walter, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, Anna Gassman-Pines, Sharon McGroder, Martha Zaslow, Jennifer Brooks, and Surjeet Ahluwalia (2001). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year adult and child impacts for eleven programs, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_391.pdf.
Scrivener, Susan, and Johanna Walter (2001). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and three-year impacts of the Columbus welfare-to-work program, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_95.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.
3128.07-National Evaluation