Study Details | Pathways to Work

24963.01-Study of Good Transi

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 that findings can be attributed to the program.

Program: Good Transitions

Characteristics of study participants:

Adults (age 25+), At least a high school diploma or equivalent, Noncustodial parents, Parents

Services provided:

Case management, Child support assistance, Employer-focused retention strategies, Employment coaching, Financial education, Job development, Job readiness, Job search assistance, Occupational or sectoral training, Peer mentoring, Performance- or behavior-based financial incentives, Post-employment participant follow-up, Soft skills training, Subsidized employment/transitional jobs, Transportation assistance

Setting: Urban only

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for impact review: Version 2.0

Learn about our protocol

Cost: This study includes cost information reviewed by Pathways to Work (under the cost standards in Methods and Standards Protocol Version 2.0).

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Case managers in Georgia's Division of Child Support Services Fatherhood Program referred interested and eligible noncustodial parents to take part in a three- to four-day assessment for Good Transitions that took place every other week. Noncustodial parents were also recruited from community programs, mass mailings, ads, visits to barbershops, and the parole and probation agency; these individuals were sent to the Fatherhood Program for referral into the Good Transitions program. To be eligible, individuals had to be a low-income, noncustodial parent with child support orders; have passed a drug test; and be registered with Selective Service (unless they were female). During the assessment week, potential participants were administered drug tests and written assignments and were assessed on suitability for the program based on a range of areas; those not selected for the program were referred to other services. Participants identified as potentially suitable for the program then received more information about the program and, if they agreed to participate in the study, were randomly assigned to either the Good Transitions program or to a comparison group. A total of 996 people were randomly assigned, with 501 individuals assigend to the program group and 495 individuals assigned to the comparison group.

Time period of study:

The study ran from March 2012 to July 2022. Study enrollment ran from March 2012 to December 2013. Data collection occurred from March 2012 to July 2022, with outcomes measured using administrative data over an eight-year follow-up period and using survey data at 12-month and 30-month follow-ups.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase very long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Child support, family relationships, criminal justice, material hardship, physical health, economic well-being, personal well-being, social support

Study funded by:

This study was funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (Contract Number GS-10F-0245N) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (Contract Number HHSP233201000029YC).

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, NDNH data	Year 1	High	6,709.00	8,765.00	2,056.00	2013 dollars	996
Increase short-term earnings	Hourly wage more than $8/hour, survey data	Year 1	High	45.40	45.20	-0.20	percentage points	812
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings, NDNH data	Year 5	High	17,699.00	17,625.00	-74.00	2017 dollars	996
Increase very long-term earnings	Annual earnings, NDNH data	Year 8	High			-1,413.00	2022 dollars	996
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed, survey data	Year 1	High	65.10	72.70	7.60	percentage points	812
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	57.60	68.90	11.30	percentage points	996
Increase short-term employment	Number of quarters employed, annual, NDNH data	Year 1	High	1.90	3.40	1.50	quarters	996
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed, survey data	Month 30	High	71.80	76.00	4.20	percentage points	802
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual, NDNH data	Year 5	High	73.30	74.90	1.60	percentage points	996
Increase long-term employment	Number of quarters employed, annual, NDNH data	Year 5	High	2.50	2.50	0.00	quarters	996
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received food stamps/SNAP, monthly, survey data	Month 30	High	27.30	21.90	-5.40	percentage points	802
Increase education and training	Earned a license or certification	Year 1	High	8.60	20.20	11.60	percentage points	812
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED, survey data	Year 1	High	2.20	2.30	0.10	percentage points	812

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

The study examined noncustodial parents with low income. Most participants were male (94 percent), Black (91 percent), and had a high school diploma or GED (80 percent). About one-third of participants (34 percent) were formerly incarcerated.

Characteristics may sum to greater than 100 percent due to rounding.

Age

Mean age	40 years
Young adults (age 16-24)	3%
Adults (age 25+)	97%

Sex

Female	6%
Male	94%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	91%
White, not Hispanic	4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	3%
Unknown, not reported, or other	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	12%
Parents	100%
Noncustodial parents	100%

Employment and public benefit status

Public benefits recipients	55%
Underemployed	100%

Education

Had some postsecondary education	11%
Had a high school diploma or GED	80%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	20%
Postsecondary credential	11%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	6%
Had a substance abuse disorder	1%
Were involved with the justice system	66%
Were fomerly incarcerated	34%
Were experiencing homelessness	5%
Were military veterans	13%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Goodwill of North Georgia; Georgia Division of Child Support Services

Program history:

The program was developed for the demonstration.

Program services:

The Good Transitions program served noncustodial parents with low income. Participants entering the program first underwent two days of assessments, and then they were placed in a subsidized job at Goodwill for about one month. During this time, an on-site job coach provided feedback and support. After this initial experience with subsidized employment, participants were placed with a private employer in less supported subsidized employment for about three months. The program also provided case management; life-skills workshops; job development services; and short-term, occupation-specific training.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Comparison group members could participate in other programs or receive services from the Fatherhood Program that referred participants into the Good Transitions program.

Service receipt duration:

The program typically provided four months of subsidized employment.

Program funding:

This program was funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration through a grant for the Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration.

Study publications

Barden, Bret, Randall Juras, Cindy Redcross, Mary Farrell, and Dan Bloom (2018). New perspectives on creating jobs – Final impacts of the next generation of subsidized employment programs, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/the-enhanced-transitional-jobs-demo-new-perspectives-creating-jobs-final-impacts-next-generation-subsidized-employment-programs

Bloom, Dan (2015). Testing the next generation of subsidized employment programs: An introduction to the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration and the Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration, OPRE Report #2015-58, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/testing-next-gen-subsidized-employ-intro-enhanced-trans-jobs-demo

Cummings, Danielle (2023). Effects of the subsidized and transitional employment demonstration on earnings after eight years, OPRE Report 2023-204, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://acf.gov/opre/report/effects-subsidized-and-transitional-employment-demonstration-earnings-after-eight-years

Cummings, Danielle, and Dan Bloom (2020). Can subsidized employment programs help disadvantaged job seekers? A synthesis of findings from evaluations of 13 programs. OPRE Report 2020-23. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/sted_final_synthesis_report_feb_2020.pdf

Fink, Barbara (2018). Findings from in-depth interviews with participants in subsidized employment programs, OPRE Report #2018-120, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/sted_topics_qualitative_508.pdf

Redcross, Cindy, Bret Barden, and Dan Bloom (2016). The Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration: Implementation and early impacts of the next generation of subsidized employment programs, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/the-enhanced-transitional-jobs-demonstration-implementation-early-impacts-next-generation-subsidized-employment-programs

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 Good Transitions—Atlanta