Study Details | Pathways to Work

1081.1081.08-Study of Welfare Res

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition, suggesting the findings can be attributed to the program.

Program: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Characteristics of study participants:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents, Public benefits recipients

Services provided:

Case management, Childcare and/or early education, Earned income disregards, Job search assistance, Physical health services, Subsidized employment/transitional jobs

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Between July 1994 and December 1996, evaluators randomly assigned applicants for welfare cash assistance in Vermont to one of three groups: the WRP group (60 percent), the WRP Incentives Only group (20 percent), and the Aid to Needy Families with Children (ANFC) group (20 percent). Those already receiving welfare payments during that period were also eligible for the program and were randomly assigned into one of the three conditions at their semiannual eligibility review. Nearly all households applying for or already receiving cash assistance were eligible for random assignment; after 30 months, staff determined that some clients were exempt from the WRP work requirement. This review only considers the comparison of the WRP group to the ANFC group for two-parent households with an incapacitated parent. Other reviews on this site examine the WRP Incentives Only group (compared to the WRP or the ANFC group) or examine the experiences of other types of households.

Time period of study:

Applicants were randomly assigned between July 1994 and December 1996 and were followed for six years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Decrease long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

None

Study funded by:

The state of Vermont, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Ford Foundation funded the evaluation of the program.

Results

View table definitions

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Program group mean	Impact	Units	Findings	Sample size
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Quarters 1-7	High	3,418.00	3,218.00	-200.00	1996 dollars		463
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, follow-up period	Quarters 1-7	High	94.60	95.10	0.50	percentage points		463

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.

Means are not displayed when not reported or not aligned with the impact estimates. For example, if the impact estimate is regression-adjusted but only unadjusted means are reported in the study, the unadjusted means are not displayed as they are not aligned with the adjusted impact estimate.

Impact estimates are not shown when the estimate units cannot be converted to natural units.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the program. 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 program, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the program 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

All participants were in two-parent families in which one parent was incapacitated. For the six research districts, 87 percent of the overall sample was married and living with his or her spouse. Sixty-three percent of the overall sample had no earnings for the able-bodied parent from the 12 months before random assignment. Thirty percent of the overall sample had a child younger than 3.

Family status

Married	91%
Parents	100%

Employment and public benefit status

Public benefits recipients	100%
Cash assistance recipients	100%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Vermont state ANFC (state Aid to Families with Dependent Children agency)

Program history:

The program began under a waiver from federal welfare laws before passage of the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The Vermont state legislature approved the program in January 1994, and the program and the study began in July 1994.

Program services:

The WRP required that the able-bodied parent from a two-parent family with one disabled parent work in a wage-paying job after the family had received cash assistance for 30 cumulative months. (Parents of children younger than age 13 were required to work only half time.) Before reaching the 30-month time limit, parents prepared for and attempted to obtain unsubsidized employment. Five months before reaching the time limit, parents who were not already participating in Reach Up (Vermont's voluntary welfare-to-work program) were assigned to a case manager. The case manager assessed their work readiness, prepared an employment plan, and encouraged them to enroll in education or training. Parents who remained unemployed 2 months before the 30-month time limit were required to participate in job search activities that included job search classes (one or two per week) and meetings with a case manager. If, after those 2 months, parents did not secure a job, they were placed in subsidized, minimum-wage Community Service Employment, but could engage in education or training activities at any time by enrolling in the full Reach Up program. The program also included incentives to encourage and reward work, such as offering up to three years of Medicaid coverage and transitional child care assistance for parents who transitioned from welfare to work, and enhancing the amount of earnings disregarded when determining the welfare benefit level. The state also waived some nonfinancial eligibility requirements for welfare for two-parent families. If a parent did not adhere to the work requirement, the state used the parent’s cash assistance grant to pay the household’s bills and required the parent to attend three meetings a month at the welfare office. Parents had to meet these new requirements for the state to restore their cash assistance.

Mandatory services:

Participants were mandated to complete a work requirement. If they failed to comply, the state of Vermont would take control of their cash assistance, and participants would be required to attend three meetings per month. Participants would lose their benefits if they failed to attend the meetings.

Comparison services:

The comparison group, referred to as the ANFC group, could receive cash assistance and did not face a work requirement or financial incentives to work.

Service receipt duration:

There was no limit on participants' receipt of cash assistance. Those in the WRP group were required to have the able-bodied parent working after receiving cash assistance for 30 months. Those who did not meet the work requirement could still receive cash assistance, but the state took control of the grant to pay participants' bills.

Program funding:

Vermont Department of Social Welfare (later called the Department of Prevention, Assistance, Transition, and Health Access)

Study publications

Bloom, Dan, Charles Michalopoulos, Johanna Walter, and Patricia Auspos (1998). WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Hendra, Richard, and Charles Michalopoulos (1999). Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Scrivener, Susan, Richard Hendra, Cindy Redcross, Dan Bloom, Charles Michalopoulos, and Johanna Walter (2002). WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project, Waterbury, VT: Vermont Department of Prevention, Assistance, Transition, and Health Access. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/vt_report.pdf.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

Pathways to Work refers to programs by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some program names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Study of Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)—Two-Parent Households with an Incapacitated Parent