Study Details | Pathways to Work

3170-Evaluation of the We

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: Welfare-to-Work Vouchers

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients

Services provided:

Sanctions, Supportive services

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Evaluators examined the Welfare-to-Work Voucher program at six sites, using a multisite experimental design to randomly assign eligible participants to either an intervention or comparison group at each site. A total of 8,732 families were randomly assigned from April 2000 through May 2001. The evaluators conducted a survey of some families in the study. Families were eligible for the survey if they enrolled in one of the five non-Los Angeles sites; completed a baseline survey; and had a dependent, minor child in their household at baseline. Of the 8,731 families that participated in the study, 7,258 met these eligibility criteria, and 5,000 were randomly selected to participate in the survey.

Time period of study:

2000–2006

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Housing, Child well-being

Study funded by:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded the study.

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	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Earnings over 6 months	months 13-18	High	-76.00	2001 dollars	8,664
Increase long-term earnings	Earnings over 6 months	months 31-36	High	72.00	2003 dollars	8,664
Increase short-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate	quarters 5-6	High	-0.01	percentage points	8,664
Increase short-term employment	Number of quarters employed	Quarter 5	High	-0.07	quarters	8,664
Increase long-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate	quarters 11-12	High	0.00	percentage points	8,664
Increase long-term employment	Number of quarters employed	3 years	High	-0.06	quarters	8,664
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly receipt of Food Stamps	1.5 years	High	0.03	percentage points	5,056
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly receipt of TANF benefits	1.5 years	High	0.02	percentage points	7,622
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Food Stamps benefits received over 6 months	months 13-18	High	46.00	2001 dollars	5,056
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	TANF benefits received over 6 months	months 13-18	High	29.00	2001 dollars	7,622
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly receipt of Food Stamps	3.5 years	High	0.02	percentage points	5,056
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly receipt of TANF benefits	3.5 years	High	0.01	percentage points	7,622
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Food Stamp benefits received over 6 months	months 31-36	High	34.00	2003 dollars	5,056
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	TANF benefits received over 6 months	months 31-36	High	43.00	2003 dollars	7,622

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

To be eligible to receive a Welfare-to-Work voucher, families had to be former or current Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients, or they needed to be eligible to receive TANF benefits. They also had to meet the standard Housing Choice Voucher eligibility requirements. Individual sites might have further specified the eligibility requirements. The individuals in the research sample were predominantly female, never married, and were between 19 and 44 years old. In addition, nearly half of the sample was Black and non-Hispanic, 21 percent was Hispanic, and 20 percent was White and non-Hispanic. Nearly 57 percent had a high school diploma or GED.

Age

Mean age

31 years

Sex

Female	92%
Male	8%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	50%
White, not Hispanic	20%
Another race	8%
Unknown or not reported	1%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	21%

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

17%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	45%
Were unemployed	54%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%
Had low incomes	100%

Participant education

Did not have a high school diploma or GED

35%

Specific employment barriers

Had limited work histories

19%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Local housing agencies, as selected by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), partnering with TANF agencies

Program history:

The Welfare-to-Work Voucher program was initiated in fiscal year 1999 and allowed 50,000 rental assistance vouchers to be awarded to eligible families by HUD. HUD renewed the vouchers annually until March 2004, when the vouchers were phased out and incorporated into the Housing Choice Voucher program.

Intervention services:

The Welfare-to-Work Voucher program aimed to provide low-income families with housing assistance to help them successfully transition from welfare to work. Participants randomly assigned to the intervention group received rental assistance vouchers that could be used to rent any unit in the private rental market, as long as it met HUD standards and was priced similarly to unassisted units in the same market. Housing agencies could terminate rental assistance if clients did not participate in required work or training activities. In general, any employment-related supports provided in conjunction with the voucher were similar to those available in the broader community.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Members of the comparison group did not receive housing assistance from the demonstration. However, some members of the comparison group applied for and obtained housing vouchers through the Housing Choice Voucher program, which provided similar assistance.

Service receipt duration:

The program randomly assigned clients to services from April 2000 to May 2001, and services continued until March 2004

Intervention funding:

Congressional appropriation.

Study publications

Mills, Gregory, Daniel Gubits, Larry L. Orr, David Long, Judith Feins, Bulbul Kaul, Michelle Wood, Amy Jones and Associates, Cloudburst Consulting, and QED Group (2006). Effects of housing vouchers on welfare families: Final report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/commdevl/hsgvouchers.html.

Patterson, Rhiannon, Michelle Wood, Ken Lam, Satyendra Patrabansh, Gregory Mills, Steven Sullivan, Hiwotte Amare, and Lily Zandniapour (2004). Evaluation of the Welfare to Work Voucher program: Report to Congress, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pubasst/welfrwrk.html.

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 Welfare-to-Work Vouchers