Study Details | Pathways to Work

3128.1-Oklahoma City's Educ

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: Oklahoma City’s Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) Program

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents (Single parents)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Sanctions, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (On-the-job training, Subsidized employment, Unpaid work experience, Work experience), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The study used a random assignment research design. When an individual applied for cash assistance at the welfare office, a case manager assessed the client’s eligibility for participation in the evaluation. Heads of single-parent households were included if they (1) had not received Aid to Families with Dependent Children in Oklahoma within the past 60 days, (2) had children older than age 1, and (3) were not members of the Sac and Fox Native American tribes. Applicants ages 16 to 19 were eligible if they did not have a high school diploma or GED, even if their youngest child was younger than 1. The random assignment process began in September 1991 and ended in May 1993. This study randomly assigned only welfare applicants (that is, persons in the process of applying for welfare), including those whose application for assistance was not yet approved. The two-year survey was administered to a random sample of individuals randomly assigned from June 1992 to May 1993.

Time period of study:

Individuals were randomly assigned between September 1991 and May 1993. The evaluation followed participants for five years.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Health care, Child care, Child well-being

Study funded by:

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ACF with support from 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	Quarters 2–5	High	1,387.00	1,401.00	14.00	1993 dollars	8,677
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	3,498.00	3,597.00	99.00	1996 dollars	8,677
Increase long-term earnings	Weekly earnings	Year 2	High	94.35	97.32	2.97	1994 dollars	511
Increase long-term employment	Current employment	24 months	High	45.50	47.60	2.10	percentage points	511
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 5	High	18.70	19.40	0.70	percentage points	8,677
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 5	High	54.20	53.20	-1.00	percentage points	8,677
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 7	High	31.10	29.80	-1.30	percentage points	8,677
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Quarters 2–5	High	2,125.00	1,990.00	-135.00	1993 dollars	8,677
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Quarters 2–5	High	79.30	76.00	-3.30	percentage points	8,677
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Year 1–3	High	4,822.00	4,532.00	-290.00	1994 dollars	6,896
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Year 1–3	High	4,988.00	4,887.00	-101.00	1994 dollars	6,896
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Months of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Year 1–3	High	15.60	14.70	-0.90	months	6,896
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Months of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Year 1–3	High	20.00	19.60	-0.40	months	6,896
Increase education and training	Received a trade license or certificate	Year 2	High	9.70	10.60	0.90	percentage points	511
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED	Year 2	High	4.30	7.80	3.50	percentage points	511

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. Almost all sample members were unmarried (96 percent) or female (93 percent), and almost 60 percent were White. About 10 percent were teen parents (younger than 19), about two-thirds had preschool-age children, and 41 percent had a child younger than 2. Sixty-nine percent had any earnings in the 12 months before the study began, and more than 55 percent had already attained a high school diploma or GED. The sample was relatively advantaged compared with other programs in the NEWWS evaluation because it included cash assistance applicants (some of whom might not have qualified for benefits).

Age

Mean age

28 years

Sex

Female	93%
Male	7%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	29%
White, not Hispanic	59%
American Indian or Alaska Native	6%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	4%

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	4%
Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	9%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	6%
Had a high school diploma or GED	55%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	45%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies in Oklahoma City

Program history:

The ET&E program does not appear to have been in operation before the study.

Intervention services:

The ET&E program focused on providing education and training to support future employment. Clients could choose their placements with approval from a case manager, and there was no limit on the duration of program services. However, case managers encouraged clients to augment their education. Clients could participate in a life skills workshop, search for jobs, or enroll in classes. The program referred clients to basic education (adult basic education, GED certificate courses, or English as a Second Language courses), vocational skills training, or college. Clients ready for employment worked with job developers to prepare for employment and to be matched to jobs. Clients could also be assigned to work experiences such as unpaid work, on-the-job training, or private-sector employment funded by clients’ cash assistance grants. Finally, the program offered clients reimbursement for child care expenses and transportation expenses. Case managers could sanction nonparticipating clients but did not monitor participation closely or necessarily request sanctions in all cases of nonparticipation.

Mandatory services:

The program was mandatory, and case managers could sanction nonparticipating clients; however, case managers did not monitor participation closely or necessarily request sanctions in all cases of nonparticipation.

Comparison services:

People in the comparison group could not receive any program services and were also 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.

Service receipt duration:

There was no limit on the time that clients could stay in an activity.

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 $4,863 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $3,304 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $1,559 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

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.

Storto, Laura, Gayle Hamilton, Christine Schwartz, and Susan Scrivener (2000). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Oklahoma City’s ET&E program: Two-year implementation, participation, cost, and impact findings, 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_464.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 Oklahoma City’s Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) Program