
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:
Health, Child care, 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 | 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 |
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. 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:
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
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.
3128.09-Detroit (Michigan Op