Study Details | Pathways to Work

6801-Study of Family Rewa

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: Family Rewards 2.0

Characteristics of study participants:

Parents, Public benefits recipients, Single parents

Services provided:

Case management, Performance- or behavior-based financial incentives, Transportation assistance, Work supports

Setting: Urban only

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Staff from two neighborhood organizations in the Bronx, NY, and two neighborhood organizations in Memphis, TN, enrolled individuals in the study in August 2011 through February 2012. Families were eligible to receive program services and participate in the study if they (1) contained at least one child entering the 9th or 10th grade by the start of the study, (2) received TANF or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (based on agency records in the Bronx and self-reports in Memphis), (3) lived anywhere in Memphis or in one of five focal districts in the Bronx, and (4) contained at least one adult age 18 or older that was a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. Families were randomly assigned in each city. The study enrolled 2,461 families, with 5 families later withdrawing from the study. Unemployment Insurance data were collected for all parents, and TANF and SNAP records were collected for all families that remained in the study. All randomly assigned families were eligible to complete a survey administered about 24 months after enrollment (which is assumed to have occurred at the same time as random assignment). Only one survey was administered for each family.

Time period of study:

Random assignment occurred from August 2011 to February 2012. Individuals were followed for three years.

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:

Financial well-being, Psychosocial well-being, Child educational performance and attainment, Parent-child interactions, Family health, Substance use, Job characteristics

Study funded by:

The study was funded by the Mayor's Office for Economic Opportunity, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Open Society Foundations, The Rockefeller Foundation, Benificus Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, The New York Community Trust, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and the Women’s Foundation of Greater Memphis.

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	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	9,054.00	8,404.00	-650.00	2012 dollars	2,565
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 3	High	10,619.00	10,156.00	-463.00	2014 dollars	2,565
Increase long-term earnings	Average total household income (including Family Rewards payments), monthly	Month 24	High	1,479.00	1,636.00	157.00	2013 dollars	1,911
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	61.10	58.60	-2.50	percentage points	2,565
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 3	High	62.70	58.50	-4.20	percentage points	2,565
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 2	High	67.40	66.40	-1.00	percentage points	2,012
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	414.00	449.00	35.00	2012 dollars	2,456
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	5,016.00	5,297.00	281.00	2012 dollars	2,456
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 1	High	17.60	18.10	0.50	percentage points	2,456
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 1	High	91.50	91.20	-0.30	percentage points	2,456
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 2	High	420.00	448.00	28.00	2013 dollars	2,456
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 2	High	4,573.00	4,700.00	127.00	2013 dollars	2,456
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 2	High	13.90	14.60	0.70	percentage points	2,456
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 2	High	89.10	90.10	1.00	percentage points	2,456
Increase education and training	Has a trade license or training certificate	Month 24	High	42.70	46.60	3.90	percentage points	2,016

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 families included at least one adult age 18 or older and at least one child in 9th or 10th grade. Demographics varied by program site. For the Bronx, 77 percent of families had only one parent, 99 percent received Food Stamps, and 5 percent received TANF or cash assistance. Eighty-eight percent of adult Family Rewards participants were female, 74 percent were Hispanic, 23 percent were African American, and 3 percent were of another racial or ethnic group. About half (48 percent) lacked a high school diploma or equivalent, and 57 percent were employed. The average age was between 42 and 43 years old. For Memphis, 91 percent of families had only one parent, 98 percent received Food Stamps, and 31 percent received TANF or cash assistance. Ninety-four percent of adult Family Rewards participants were female. One percent of participants were Hispanic, 98 percent were African American, and 1 percent were of another racial or ethnic group. About one-third (31 percent) lacked a high school diploma or equivalent, and 44 percent were employed. The average age was between 39 and 40 years old.

Age

Mean age

41 years

Sex

Female	91%
Male	9%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	60%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	38%
Unknown, not reported, or other	2%
Unknown or not reported	2%

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	14%
Parents	100%
Single parents	84%

Employment and public benefit status

Were employed	51%
Were unemployed	49%
Public benefits recipients	99%
Cash assistance recipients	18%

Education

Had some postsecondary education	12%
Had a high school diploma or GED	60%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	40%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	17%
Had a mental illness	7%
Were immigrants	30%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Four Neighborhood Partner Organizations (NPOs) led program implementation. They included the Children's Aid Society and Bronx-Works in the Bronx and Urban Strategies Memphis HOPE and Porter-Leath in Memphis. The Children's Aid Society managed operations and provided technical assistance to each of the four NPOs.

Program history:

Family Rewards 2.0 updates the Opportunity NYC–Family Rewards program evaluated in 2007. The updated program was launched in July 2011.

Program services:

The Family Rewards 2.0 Program was modeled on conditional cash transfer programs typically used in low- and middle-income countries. The first iteration of Family Rewards was launched in 2007 in New York City. Family Rewards 2.0, the focus of this study, was launched in July 2011 in the Bronx, NY, and Memphis, TN. Family Rewards 2.0 offered cash incentives to program participants for completing activities pertaining to children's education, family preventative health care, and parents' work and education. Participants also received case management (called family guidance) from staff members, including discussions of family finances and budgeting, and were eligible for supportive services to help them achieve the goals linked to cash transfers.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Individuals in the comparison condition did not receive any program services but could qualify for similar benefits if available in the community.

Service receipt duration:

Recruitment for participation in the Family Rewards 2.0 program began in August 2011 in the Bronx and in September 2011 in Memphis. Families included in the study began receiving cash incentives in September 2011 for a duration of three years.

Program funding:

Social Innovation Fund (SIF) grant to the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City; the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity. Matching support from Bloomberg Philanthropies, Open Society Foundations, The Rockefeller Foundation, Benificus Foundation, the City of Memphis, The Kresge Foundation, New York Community Trust, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and the Women’s Foundation of Greater Memphis.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $13,049 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $0 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $13,049 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 to Work converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2024 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Miller, Cynthia, Rhiannon Miller, Nandita Verma, Nandine Dechausay, Edith Yang, Timothy Rudd, Jonathan Rodriguez, and Sylvie Honig (2016). Effects of a modified conditional cash transfer program in two American cities: Findings from Family Rewards 2.0, New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/CEOSIF_Family_Rewards%20Report-Web-Final_FR.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 Family Rewards 2.0