Study Details | Pathways to Work

1032-Opportunity NYC - Fa

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: Family Rewards

Population and employment barriers:

Employment status and income level (Very low income), Parents

Services provided:

Financial incentives

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

A total of 4,750 eligible families were randomly assigned from July 2007 through January 2008, with equal probabilities, to the Family Rewards program or to a comparison group that was not offered the incentives. Eligibility requirements included: living in selected community districts, income at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level, and at least one child in the fourth, seventh, or ninth grade. All participants had to be legal residents of the United States. Of the 4,093 families randomly assigned by the end of October 2007, 3,750 were randomly selected to participate in the 18- and 42-month surveys. Randomization was blocked evenly by the grade of the target child (a third of the sample came from families with a fourth grade child, a third from families with a seventh grade child, and a third from families with a ninth grade child). A "core" set of survey modules was administered to the families selected for the survey and 3,082 families completed this survey. A randomly chosen subset of the survey sample (2,502) was also administered a "noncore" set of survey modules.

Time period of study:

Random assignment occurred from July 2007 through January 2008 and participants were followed for 42 months.

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, Nutrition, Substance use, Financial assets, Savings behavior, Parenting and co-parenting, Couple relationships, Family formation, Child health and well-being, Child time use, Child academic performance

Study funded by:

The Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City funded the study, under the direction of the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity.

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	Year 1	High	12,345.00	12,114.00	-231.00	2008 dollars	4,994
Increase short-term earnings	Average household income in prior month including Family Rewards payments	Month 18	High	1,573.00	1,940.00	367.00	2008 dollars	2,060
Increase short-term earnings	Average total household income in prior month excluding Family Rewards payments	Month 18	High	1,573.00	1,658.00	85.00	2008 dollars	2,060
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 3	High	12,529.00	12,414.00	-115.00	2009 dollars	4,993
Increase long-term earnings	Average household income in prior month including Family Rewards payments	Month 42	High	1,620.00	1,973.00	353.00	2010 dollars	1,982
Increase long-term earnings	Average monthly Family Rewards payment, annual	Year 3	High	0.00	276.00	276.00	2009 dollars	1,982
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Month 18	High	54.30	59.90	5.60	percentage points	3,082
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	41.80	40.80	-1.00	percentage points	4,994
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	58.50	56.20	-2.30	percentage points	4,994
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 3	High	53.30	52.50	-0.80	percentage points	4,993
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of food stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Quarters 2-5	High	2,430.00	2,417.00	-13.00	2008 dollars	4,966
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of TANF/Safety Net Assistance (SNA) received, annual	Quarters 2-5	High	2,036.00	2,170.00	134.00	2008 dollars	4,966
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Ever received TANF/Safety Net Assistance (SNA), annual	Quarters 2-5	High	36.60	35.90	-0.70	percentage points	4,966
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received food stamps/SNAP, annual	Quarters 2-5	High	65.80	65.50	-0.30	percentage points	4,966
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received food stamps/SNAP, monthly	Month 18	High	62.30	62.40	0.10	percentage points	2,060
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received SSI or disability, monthly	Month 18	High	29.10	27.50	-1.60	percentage points	2,060
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received TANF/AFDC, monthly	Month 18	High	14.60	13.10	-1.50	percentage points	2,060
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received UI, monthly	Month 18	High	6.60	6.80	0.20	percentage points	2,060
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received WIC, monthly	Month 18	High	14.20	14.40	0.20	percentage points	2,060
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of food stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 3	High	3,541.00	3,517.00	-24.00	2009 dollars	4,749
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of TANF/Safety Net Assistance (SNA), annual	Year 3	High	1,907.00	1,916.00	9.00	2009 dollars	4,749
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Ever received TANF/Safety Net Assistance (SNA), annual	Year 3	High	30.90	32.10	1.20	percentage points	4,749
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received food stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 3	High	70.30	69.30	-1.00	percentage points	4,749
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received food stamps/SNAP, monthly	Month 42	High	70.70	69.60	-1.10	percentage points	1,982
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received SSI or disability, monthly	Month 42	High	32.40	28.50	-3.90	percentage points	1,982
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received TANF/AFDC, monthly	Month 42	High	16.10	14.50	-1.60	percentage points	1,982
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received UI, monthly	Month 42	High	8.90	9.80	0.90	percentage points	1,982
Increase education and training	Has any trade license or training certification	18 months	High	51.20	54.20	3.00	percentage points	3,082
Increase education and training	Highest degree or diploma (Associate's degree)	18 months	High	7.70	10.20	2.50	percentage points	3,082
Increase education and training	Highest degree or diploma (Bachelor's degree or higher)	18 months	High	8.30	8.40	0.10	percentage points	3,082
Increase education and training	Highest degree or diploma (GED certificate)	18 months	High	19.50	17.50	-2.00	percentage points	3,082
Increase education and training	Highest degree or diploma (high school diploma)	18 months	High	29.20	28.10	-1.10	percentage points	3,082

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

Most families in the sample (80 percent) were headed by single parents, with an average of 1 to 2 children per household. Less than a third (30 percent) were living in public housing, and 59 percent were receiving Food Stamps. Ninety-four percent were female parents. The average age was 40 years old. Most (83 percent) were U.S. citizens, 47 percent were Hispanic/Latino, 51 were percent not Hispanic and Black, and 53 percent were currently working.

Age

Mean age

40 years

Sex

Female	94%
Male	6%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	51%
White, not Hispanic	1%
Another race	1%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	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

Married	19%
Parents	100%
Noncustodial parents	0%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	53%
Were classified by authors as having very low incomes	100%
Had low incomes	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	18%
Had a high school diploma or GED	50%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	50%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Seedco, a private national economic and workforce development agency, acted as an intermediary between Opportunity-NYC Family Rewards, which funded the conditional cash transfer program, and six community-based organizations that facilitated the program in each of the target neighborhoods. The six neighborhood partner organizations were: Urban Health Plan (UHP) and BronxWorks in the Bronx; Brownsville Multi-Service Center (BMC) (part of the Brownsville Commuity Development Corporation) and Groundwork, Inc. (GW) in Brooklyn; and Catholic Charities (CC) Community Services, Joseph P. Kennedy Center and Union Settlement Association (US) in Manhattan.

Program history:

Opportunity NYC/Family Rewards was created at the same time as the study was undertaken.

Intervention services:

Family Rewards is a conditional cash transfer program that ties cash rewards to pre-specified activities and outcomes in children’s education, families’ preventive health care, and parents’ employment. Cash assistance is offered to reduce immediate hardship as well as to build human capital to support reducing poverty over the long-term. Participants could receive cash incentives if they met education-focused conditions such as school attendance, achievement levels on standardized tests, and engagement with student's education; health-focused conditions such as maintaining health insurance coverage for parents and their children; and workforce-focused conditions aimed at parents, such as maintaining full-time work and participating in approved education and job-training activities. Family Rewards operates as an "incentives-only" program, providing no case management or other services outside of cash rewards.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

The comparison group was not eligible to receive cash incentives.

Service receipt duration:

Clients received services for 36 months.

Intervention funding:

Private foundations including the Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Starr Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the Robin Hood Foundation, the Tiger Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, American International Group, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the New York Community Trust.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $12,709 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $0 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $12,709 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

Aber, J. Lawrence, Pamela Morris, Sharon Wolf, and Juliette Berg. (2016). The impact of a holistic conditional cash transfer program in New York City on parental financial investment, student time use, and educational processes and outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(3), 334-363. doi:10.1080/19345747.2015.1107925. Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19345747.2015.1107925.

Courtin, Emilie, Peter Muennig, Nandita Verma, James A. Riccio, Mylene Lagarde, Paolo Vineis, Ichiro Kawachi, and Mauricio Avendano (2018). Conditional cash transfers and health of low-income families in the US: Evaluating the family rewards experiment. Health Affairs, 37(3), 438-446. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1271. Available at https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1271?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed.

Miller, Cynthia, James Riccio, Nandita Verma, Stephen Nuñez, Nadine Dechausay, Edith Yang. (2015). Testing a conditional cash transfer program in the U.S.: The effects of the family rewards program in new york city. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 4(1), 1-29. Available at https://izajolp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40173-015-0037-6.

Morris, Pamela A., J. Lawrence Aber, Sharon Wolf, and Juliette Berg (2017). Impacts of family rewards on adolescents' mental health and problem behavior: Understanding the full range of effects of a conditional cash transfer program. Prevention Science, 18(3), 326-336. doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0748-6

Riccio, James, Nadine Dechausay, Cynthia Miller, Stephen Nunez, Nandita Verma, and Edith Yang (2013). Conditional cash transfers in New York city: The continuing story of the Opportunity NYC—family rewards demonstration, New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Conditional_Cash_Transfers_FR_0.pdf.

Riccio, James, Nadine Dechausay, David Greenberg, Cynthia Miller, Zawadi Rucks, and Nandita Verma (2010). Toward reduced poverty across generations: Early findings from New York City’s conditional cash transfer program, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_588.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 Family Rewards