Study Details | Pathways to Work

3131.02-Human Capital Develo

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: Atlanta Human Capital Development (HCD) Program

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents (Single parents)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Sanctions, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Evaluators randomly assigned a total of 4,433 single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients who were required to enroll in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program in Atlanta into the Labor Force Attachment (LFA) program, the Human Capital Development (HCD) program, or the comparison group. The random assignment occurred from January 1992 to June 1993 following a JOBS orientation. People often waited up to six months between an initial meeting with an income maintenance worker and being invited to a JOBS orientation. The study included two- and five-year follow-up surveys, which followed people who were randomly assigned into the LFA, HCD, or comparison conditions from March 1992 to June 1993. This review focuses on the HCD versus comparison group contrast for Atlanta. Other reviews contrast the LFA and comparison groups and the LFA and HCD groups.

Time period of study:

People were randomly assigned from January 1992 to June 1993. The study reports impacts five years after random assignment.

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:

Child well-being, Physical health, Household and personal circumstances, Fertility, Household composition, Housing, Domestic abuse, Child care

Study funded by:

The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation) and by the U.S. Department of Education.

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	1,647.00	1,846.00	199.00	1993 dollars	2,992
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	5,586.00	5,671.00	85.00	1997 dollars	2,992
Increase long-term earnings	Weekly earnings	Year 2	High	76.08	82.01	5.93	1994 dollars	2,199
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	44.40	45.50	1.10	percentage points	2,992
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Year 5	High	54.30	52.90	-1.40	percentage points	1,146
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 5	High	36.60	36.50	-0.10	percentage points	2,992
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 5	High	63.00	63.60	0.60	percentage points	2,992
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	82.70	80.80	-1.90	percentage points	2,992
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 2	High	2,887.00	2,760.00	-127.00	1994 dollars	1,953
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	9,946.00	9,236.00	-710.00	1995 dollars	2,992
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of food stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	11,089.00	10,930.00	-159.00	1995 dollars	2,992
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Months of food stamp receipt, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	43.40	42.20	-1.20	months	2,992
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly	Quarter 20	High	36.50	34.50	-2.00	percentage points	2,992
Increase education and training	Earned a license	Year 2	High	4.60	11.10	6.50	percentage points	2,199
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED	Year 2	High	1.20	2.20	1.00	percentage points	2,199

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

The evaluation targeted single-parent recipients of AFDC. Among the 4,433 study participants—1,441 in the LFA group, 1,495 in the HCD group, and 1,497 in the comparison group—nearly 97 percent were female at an average age of about 33 when the study began. More than 96 percent of people in the sample were Black, and more than half of the participants were never married. Families had 1 and 2 children, on average. About 24 percent of parents had some earnings in the past 12 months, but less than 7 percent were employed at random assignment. Nearly 60 percent of parents had a high school diploma or equivalent certificate, and about 13 percent were enrolled in education or training in the past 12 months.

Age

Mean age

33 years

Sex

Female	97%
Male	3%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	95%
White	4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	1%

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

Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	7%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	8%
Had a high school diploma or GED	60%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	40%

Specific employment barriers

Were experiencing homelessness

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Georgia Department of Human Services (state AFDC agency)

Program history:

NEWWS aimed to analyze the effectiveness of 11 mandatory welfare-to-work programs in 7 sites across the United States.

Intervention services:

The HCD program focused on providing education and training to support future employment. Staff stressed that clients should spend time receiving education or in training to prepare them for good jobs. In Atlanta, case managers began by assigning clients to adult basic education (usually) or to vocational training programs (less often). Clients typically stayed in their assigned activity for two years or more. Case managers emphasized customer service through counseling and assistance with child care and transportation. Case managers could sanction nonparticipating clients.

Mandatory services:

People could face financial sanctions if they did not comply with participation requirements.

Comparison services:

People in the comparison group could not receive any program services but were not subject to participation requirements (and therefore did not risk nonparticipation sanctions) for program services or employment. These clients could, however, participate in employment-related activities available in their communities.

Service receipt duration:

For the HCD group, the program expected that most clients would complete training or educational activities within two years, but a longer duration could be approved based on client needs. The study did not specify how long the program monitored clients to examine whether a sanction should be applied to their case.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Family Support Act

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $11,162 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $4,037 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $7,125 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

Freedman, Stephen (2000). The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs on employment stability and earnings growth, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and U.S. Department of Education. [Atlanta—Labor Force Attachment]. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_376.pdf.

Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Friedlander, Gayle Hamilton, JoAnn Rock, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman, Amanda Schweder, and Laura Storto (2000). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and U.S. Department of Education. [Atlanta—Labor Force Attachment]. Available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/national-evaluation-welfare-work-strategies-evaluating-alternative-welfare-work-approaches-two-year-impacts-eleven-programs-executive-summary.

Hamilton, Gayle, Stephen Freedman, Lisa Gennetian, Charles Michalopoulos, Johanna Walter, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, Anna Gassman-Pines, Sharon McGroder, Martha Zaslow, Jennifer Brooks, and Surjeet Ahluwalia (2001). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year adult and child impacts for eleven programs, Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and U.S. Department of Education. [Atlanta—Labor Force Attachment]. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_391.pdf.

Hamilton, Gayle, Thomas Brock, Mary Farrell, Daniel Friedlander, and Kristen Harknett (1997). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings on the labor force attachment and human capital development programs in three sites, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and U.S. Department of Education. [Atlanta—Labor Force Attachment]. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_96.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 Atlanta Human Capital Development (HCD) Program