Study Details | Pathways to Work

24961-Back to Work (B2W) v

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: Back to Work (B2W) [as compared with Independent Job Search (IJS)]

Services provided:

Case management, Soft skills training, Training, Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

America Works and Goodwill staff in Brooklyn, NY, and Queens, NY, randomly assigned 2,699 job-ready cash assistance applicants or recipients to the B2W program or the IJS program from October 2015 to October 2016. Randomization occurred from the pool of applicants who had applied for cash assistance at a Family Assistance (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) center, had attended two B2W orientations sessions and had been screened for job readiness . Job readiness included (1) having at least an associate's degree, (2) being currently employed or employed in the last three months, and (3) expressing a readiness to seek and start a job. People then provided consent to participate in the study and were randomly assigned to a group with a 1:1 ratio. For random assignment, evaluators used New York City's management information system operated by the Human Resources Administration (HRA). A total of 1,345 people were assigned to the B2W program group, and 1,354 people were assigned to the IJS program group.

Time period of study:

The Job Search Assistance (JSA) Strategies Evaluation studied impacts of B2W and IJS from October 2015 to October 2016.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Receipt of services, use of job search tools, factors that affect decisions to apply for a job, job characteristics, job search skills, motivation, and barriers to work

Study funded by:

The JSA Strategies Evaluation was funded by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The contract number is HHSP23320095624WC / HHSP23337017T.

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	Total earnings during follow-up period	Quarters 1–2	High	5,249.00	5,633.00	384.00	2016 dollars	2,686
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	68.20	66.50	-1.70	Percentage points	2,686
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, quarterly	Quarter 2	High	343.00	314.00	-29.00	2016 dollars	2,684
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, quarterly	Quarter 2	High	547.00	506.00	-41.00	2016 dollars	2,684
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly	Quarter 2	High	44.10	37.10	-7.00	Percentage points	2,684
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, quarterly	Quarter 2	High	75.30	72.90	-2.40	Percentage points	2,684

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

About half of the sample (57 percent) was female. Three-quarters of participants were Black (74 percent), and about 15 percent were Hispanic or Latino of any race (15 percent). The average age of the sample was 35, and about half of participants (53 percent) had a high school diploma or equivalent or less.

Age

Mean age

35 years

Sex

Female	57%
Male	43%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	74%
White, not Hispanic	7%
Another race	4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	15%

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	11%
Parents	54%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	10%
Had low incomes	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	47%
Had a high school diploma or GED	80%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	20%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

New York City Department of Social Services and HRA, through America Works and Goodwill Industries as vendors.

Program history:

Vendors for New York City's Department of Social Services have operated the B2W program since 2013. The HRA started IJS as a pilot program in certain B2W vendor offices in summer 2015.

Intervention services:

B2W provided job search assistance to job-ready cash assistance applicants, requiring participants to engage in 35 hours of job search assistance activities per week on site at B2W sites. During their first meeting, B2W participants worked with a case manager to make an employment plan. Services were provided in groups and one-on-one and included attending job search classes, meeting with job developers and case managers, looking for jobs online in the office, attending job interviews, and improving soft skills. Participants also had access to supportive services, including transportation assistance and work clothing. Participants were required to go to the program office daily until they were approved for cash assistance. After finding employment, participants were offered monthly contact with office staff for six months to discuss solutions to job-related challenges. The goal of B2W was to improve participants' job search skills and help them find and obtain a job.

Mandatory services:

Cash assistance applicants who did not participate in their assigned program activities (either B2W or IJS) were denied cash assistance.

Comparison services:

Job-ready cash assistance applicants assigned to the IJS program were required to search for employment independently for 35 hours per week and meet with program office staff once per week for six weeks. During their first meeting, IJS participants worked with a case manager to make an employment plan. IJS participants could engage in B2W group classes, job development, and other on-site job search assistance activities, but these were not required. Participants also had access to supportive services, including transportation assistance and work clothing. After finding employment, participants were offered monthly contact with office staff for six months. The goal of IJS was to limit the burden on participants of having to attend daily sessions at the program office while still helping them obtain employment.

Service receipt duration:

Study participants engaged in program activities during their cash assistance application period and before approval, which typically lasted four to six weeks. After a participant was approved for cash assistance, they continued in the B2W program for two more weeks or the IJS program for six more weeks. Job search assistance was limited to 12 weeks.

Intervention funding:

The JSA Strategies Evaluation was funded by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Study publications

Martinson, Karin, Eleanor Harvill, Daniel Litwok, Deena Schwartz, Siobhan Mills De La Rosa, Correne Saunders and Stephen Bell (2019). Implementation and Relative Impacts of Two Job Search Assistance Programs in New York City, OPRE Report #2019-46, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/jsa_nyc_report_final_to_acf_3_5_19_508.pdf

Martinson, Karin, Eleanor Harvill, and Deena Schwartz (2020). The effectiveness of different approaches for moving cash assistance recipients to work: Findings from the Job Search Assistance Strategies Evaluation, OPRE Report #2020-113, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/jsa_cross_site_paper_sep_2020.pdf.

Martinson, Karin, Eleanor Harvill, Daniel Litwok, Deena Schwartz, Siobhan Mills De La Rosa, Correne Saunders, and Stephen Bell (2019). Implementation and relative impacts of two job search assistance programs in New York City: Report appendices, OPRE Report #2019-46, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/images/opre/jsa_nyc_appendix_final_to_acf_3_5_19_508.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 Back to Work (B2W) versus Independent Job Search (IJS)