Study Details | Pathways to Work

3022.02-SSP Plus versus SSP

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: Self-Sufficiency Project-Plus (SSP-Plus) (as compared with Self-Sufficiency Project)

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents (Single parents)

Services provided:

Case management, Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Single parents ages 19 or older who had received income assistance in the month of random assignment and in at least 11 of the 12 previous months were randomly selected by the evaluator to undergo an interview with a Statistics Canada representative. During the interview, the interviewee provided baseline demographic information and could consent to participate in the study. From November 1994 to March 1995, eligible New Brunswick income assistance recipients were randomly assigned to one of three groups with equal probability: the SSP Plus (N = 293), SSP (N = 296), or control groups (N=303). This review focuses on the SSP Plus and SSP groups.

Time period of study:

Randomization took place from November 1994 to March 1995. This study presents 18-month, 36-month, and 54-month follow-up data.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Decrease very long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Financial assets

Study funded by:

The study was funded by a contract with Human Resources Development Canada.

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
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly income assistance benefits, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	455.00	436.00	-19.00	1996 Canadian dollars	574
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received income assistance benefits, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	63.10	59.00	-4.10	percentage points	574
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of income assistance benefits, annual	Year 5	High	4,426.00	3,731.00	-695.00	1999 Canadian dollars	514
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly rate of receipt of income assistance benefits, annual	Year 5	High	51.70	42.90	-8.80	percentage points	514
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Amount of income assistance benefits, quarterly (annualized)	Quarter 22	High	3,969.00	3,492.00	-477.00	2000 Canadian dollars	514
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly rate of income assistance receipt, quarterly	Quarter 22	High	46.20	39.70	-6.60	percentage points	514

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

More than 95 percent of study sample members were female, most of whom had never been married (56 percent). More than half of sample members had not completed high school (52 percent). Although more than 90 percent had held a paying job at some point in the past, nearly half (44 percent) had received income assistance payments continuously over the past three years.

Sex

Female	96%
Male	4%

Family status

Married	2%
Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	23%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%
Were long-term cash assistance recipients	44%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	10%
Had a high school diploma or GED	48%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	52%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Province SSP centers

Program history:

The SSP Plus program was conceived as part of the broader SSP demonstration and implemented simultaneously.

Intervention services:

In addition to being eligible for the earnings supplement provided to the SSP comparison group, people in the SSP Plus group were eligible to receive several services to assist them with employment, including an employment plan, a resume service, job clubs, workshops, job coaching, and job leads. People assigned to this group could select among several services to meet their self-identified needs and could receive the services at any time in the year following random assignment. Participation in services was voluntary.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Eligible people in the comparison group (SSP) received financial incentives to work in the form of an earning supplement. To be eligible, single parents who had been on income assistance for at least one year had to leave income assistance for full-time work (of at least 30 hours per week) within one year of entering the SSP program. They could sign up to receive an earning supplement in the amount of half of the difference between their earnings from full-time work and a benchmark level, which was set separately for each province in each year. The supplement amount was not affected by unearned income such as child support, and it roughly doubled the earnings of many low-wage workers. The earning supplement was voluntary and lasted up to three years as long as participants continued to meet eligibility requirements.

Service receipt duration:

People in the SSP Plus group were eligible to receive additional services if they initiated participation in those services within a year of random assignment (duration of the services was not specified). They received an earnings supplement for up to three years.

Intervention funding:

Human Resources Development Canada

Study publications

Bowlus, Audra, Lance Lochner, Chris Robinson, and Yahong Zhong (2006). Human capital and search behaviour, Ottawa, Canada: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation. Available at http://www.srdc.org/media/8244/bowlus_et_al-2006.pdf.

Lei, Ying, and Charles Michalopoulos (2001). SSP Plus at 36 months: Effects of adding employment services to financial work incentives, Ottawa, Canada: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/SSP-Plus-36_Effects_of_adding_employment_2001.pdf.

Michalopoulos, Charles, Doug Tattrie, Cynthia Miller, Philip K. Robins, Pamela Morris, David Gyarmati, Cynthia Redcross, Kelly Foley, and Reuben Ford (2002). Making work pay: Final report on the Self-Sufficiency Project for long-term welfare recipients, Ottawa, Canada: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/final-report-self-sufficiency-project-long-term-welfare-recipients.

Quets, Gail, Philip K. Robins, Elsie C. Pan, Charles Michalopoulos, and David Card (1999). Does SSP Plus increase employment? The effect of adding services to the Self-Sufficiency Project’s financial incentives, Ottawa, Canada: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation.

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 Self-Sufficiency Project-Plus (SSP-Plus) (as compared with Self-Sufficiency Project)