Study Details | Pathways to Work

3128.09-Detroit (Michigan Op

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: Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) followed by Work First

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents (Single parents)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Sanctions, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (On-the-job training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience), Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Evaluators randomly assigned approved welfare recipients to the intervention or comparison groups at an orientation meeting. Specifically, individuals who called in to inquire about the MOST program, who were referred from income maintenance offices, or who missed their original orientation were instructed to attend a MOST orientation. As a result, the research sample consists of people who attended a MOST orientation, and the impacts thus represent the program effects after orientation. The random assignment process began in May 1992 and ended in June 1994. The sample for a client survey conducted two years after random assignment was randomly selected from individuals who were randomly assigned in January to December 1993.

Time period of study:

Random assignment took place between May 1992 and June 1994. The evaluation followed participants for five years.

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, Child care, Child well-being

Study funded by:

The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) evaluation was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation), and by the U.S. Department of Education.

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	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Q2 to Q5	High	1,341.00	1,398.00	57.00	1993 dollars	4,459
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	6,823.00	7,081.00	258.00	1997 dollars	4,459
Increase long-term earnings	Weekly earnings	Year 2	High	79.65	86.24	6.59	1995 dollars	426
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	29.80	30.80	1.00	percentage points	4,459
Increase short-term employment	Number of quarters employed, annual	Q2 to Q5	High	0.90	0.90	0.00	quarters	4,459
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	24 months	High	54.00	61.60	7.60	percentage points	426
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 5	High	37.10	37.40	0.30	percentage points	4,459
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 5	High	68.80	68.80	0.00	percentage points	4,459
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Q2 to Q5	High	4,690.00	4,672.00	-18.00	1993 dollars	4,459
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Q2 to Q5	High	2,522.00	2,501.00	-21.00	1993 dollars	4,459
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Q2 to Q5	High	97.40	97.50	0.10	percentage points	4,459
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Q2 to Q5	High	97.90	98.00	0.10	percentage points	4,459
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	16,247.00	15,636.00	-611.00	1995 dollars	4,459
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	9,519.00	9,186.00	-333.00	1995 dollars	4,459
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Months of Food Stamp receipt, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	40.30	38.80	-1.50	months	4,459
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC, quarterly	Quarter 20	High	35.20	35.00	-0.20	percentage points	4,459
Increase education and training	Earned a license	Two years after random assignment	High	9.20	12.50	3.30	percentage points	426
Increase education and training	Received any degree	Two years after random assignment	High	14.00	18.00	4.00	percentage points	426
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED	Two years after random assignment	High	5.60	7.10	1.50	percentage points	426

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

The study only examined single parents. All sample members were single-parent heads of households and were at least 18 years old when they were randomly assigned. Most (97 percent) were female, more than 87 percent were Black, and the average number of children was two. About 21 percent had any earnings in the past 12 months, and fewer than 7 percent were currently employed. About 43 percent did not have a GED or higher at the time of random assignment.

Age

Mean age

30 years

Sex

Female	97%
Male	3%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	87%
White	11%
Unknown, not reported, or other	1%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	1%

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	7%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	9%
Had a high school diploma or GED	57%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	43%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Michigan Family Independence Agency

Program history:

The program extended and codified existing welfare-to-work practices.

Intervention services:

The MOST program operated in two Michigan Department of Social Services offices in Detroit. Program staff provided case management and encouraged clients to complete education and training before they applied for jobs. Clients who did not yet have a high school diploma or GED were assigned to a GED course, and other clients were assigned to vocational or postsecondary education. Staff did not follow client participation closely and rarely imposed financial sanctions (such as a reduction in cash assistance) on nonparticipating clients. Case managers also helped clients arrange for child care and transportation. People who were still receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) about two years after the study began (October 1994) were referred to Work First, which replaced MOST. Work First was phased in over about three years and emphasized job search and placement. People who did not get a job in the first 30 days of Work First could participate in training and education activities or community work experience. Work First also had stronger sanctions (faster benefit reductions and case closures for noncompliance) than MOST.

Mandatory services:

The program was mandatory, and case managers could sanction nonparticipating clients. Typically, MOST case managers did not monitor participation closely or necessarily request sanctions in all cases of nonparticipation. Work First had stronger sanctions (faster benefit reductions and case closures for noncompliance) than MOST.

Comparison services:

People in the comparison group could not receive any program services and were not subject to participation requirements (and therefore the risk of nonparticipation sanctions) for program services or employment. These clients could, however, participate in employment-related activities available in their communities. In 1994, when a different agency took charge of the demonstration, it was no longer feasible to deny comparison group members access to welfare-to-work services; however, comparison group members were still referred less often to services than intervention group members.

Service receipt duration:

Not specified, but services ended when clients left AFDC.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through the Family Support Act; state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $7,788 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $5,119 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $2,669 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

Farrell, Mary (2000). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and two-year impacts of the Detroit welfare-to-work program, Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_399.pdf.

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: Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 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: Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 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: Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_391.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 Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) followed By Work First—Detroit