Study Details | Pathways to Work

2944-New York City Employ

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: Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE)

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents (Single parents), Specific employment barriers (Chronic illness)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Sanctions, Training, Work and work-based learning (Unpaid work experience, Work experience), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Safety Net recipients deemed "employable with limitations" by the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) attended an intake meeting with Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) staff. If the recipient was eligible for PRIDE, he or she was then randomly assigned to either PRIDE or to services as usual. Random assignment occurred from December 2001 to December 2002 (stopping in June 2002 for Safety Net recipients without children). The probability of assignment to the intervention group was 66 percent from December 2001 to August 2002 and 50 percent thereafter. (The authors adjusted accordingly in their analysis of data for the first two years post-random assignment. This adjustment could not be confirmed for longer-term outcomes.) A total of 3,188 people were randomly assigned to condition (2,648 single parents and 540 Safety Net recipients without children). This review focuses on results for single parents. Of the 2,648 single parents who participated in the evaluation, the researchers identified 1,704 single parents who were randomly assigned from July to December 2002, were age 18 or older, and were able to speak English or Spanish. From this sample, 1,043 single parents were randomly selected to participate in the survey.

Time period of study:

Random assignment occurred from December 2001 to December 2002. People were followed for four years following random assignment, although only one- and two-year outcomes were rated high in this review.

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Health, Housing, Financial assets, Parenting and co-parenting, Family formation, Child well-being

Study funded by:

The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in ACF at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded the study with support from the U.S. Department of Labor.

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	1,167.00	1,330.00	163.00	2002 dollars	2,648
Increase short-term earnings	Weekly earnings	Year 1	High	55.00	73.00	18.00	2003 dollars	759
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 2	High	1,815.00	2,206.00	391.00	2003 dollars	2,648
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Month 12	High	12.90	15.60	2.70	percentage points	759
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	4.70	5.50	0.80	percentage points	2,648
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	18.70	23.00	4.30	percentage points	2,648
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 2	High	7.90	9.80	1.90	percentage points	2,648
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 9	High	16.10	19.60	3.50	percentage points	2,648
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of cash assistance received, annual	Year 1	High	6,100.00	5,806.00	-294.00	2002 dollars	2,648
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of food stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	3,334.00	3,301.00	-33.00	2002 dollars	2,648
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received cash assistance, annual	Year 1	High	99.30	99.30	0.00	percentage points	2,648
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received food stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 1	High	98.80	99.00	0.20	percentage points	2,648
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of cash assistance received, annual	Year 2	High	5,450.00	4,925.00	-525.00	2003 dollars	2,648
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of food stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 2	High	3,052.00	2,956.00	-96.00	2003 dollars	2,648
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received cash assistance, annual	Year 2	High	90.70	88.00	-2.70	percentage points	2,648
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received food stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 2	High	94.30	93.50	-0.80	percentage points	2,648

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

Sample members were TANF or Safety Net benefit recipients who were not eligible to receive disability-related benefits but who had physical or mental health problems that limited their ability to work. The sample consisted of single parents who were, on average, 39 years old. In all, 50 percent of the people in the sample were Hispanic, 37 percent were Black, and 11 percent were White. On average, participants had two children. Only 21 percent worked in an unemployment insurance-covered job in the year before random assignment.

Age

Mean age

39 years

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	37%
White, not Hispanic	11%
Another race	3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	50%

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 eligible for or receiving cash assistance

100%

Specific employment barriers

Had a chronic illness	100%
Were experiencing homelessness	17%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

The New York City HRA coordinated with four nonprofit organizations to deliver services: the Federation Employment and Guidance Service, National Center for Disability Services, Goodwill Industries, and Brooklyn Bureau of Community Service. An HRA contractor conducted medical evaluations. Additional agencies helped to manage the program, including the New York State Departments of Education and Labor.

Program history:

The PRIDE program began as a pilot in 1998 and was implemented citywide in 1999.

Intervention services:

The PRIDE program served TANF or Safety Net benefit recipients with physical or mental health problems that limited their ability to work. PRIDE consisted of two subprograms: work-based education and vocational rehabilitation. Recipients in both subprograms were required to participate in work placements designed to accommodate their health conditions. Clients who did not participate could face a reduction in their TANF benefits or have their case closed. Those in the work-based education arm also had to attend a highly structured program that incorporated both unpaid work experience and educational activities. All PRIDE participants received job search and placement assistance as well as employment retention services.

Mandatory services:

People were required to participate in work-related activities and could have their welfare benefits reduced or closed if they did not.

Comparison services:

Eligible recipients not assigned to PRIDE received benefits as usual and were not required to have work experience placements. They were informed about employment services but did not have direct access to job search and retention services.

Service receipt duration:

Clients participated in one or two months of unpaid work and then received job search assistance (duration not specified). Work experience and educational activities typically lasted 6 months but could be extended to 12. Once employed, clients received post-employment services for 6 months.

Intervention funding:

New York Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Safety Net funds (including from ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).

Study publications

Bloom, Dan, Cynthia Miller, and Gilda Azurdia (2007). The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) program in New York City, 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/era_pride.pdf.

Butler, David, Julianna Alson, Dan Bloom, Victoria Deitch, Aaron Hill, JoAnn Hsueh, Erin Jacobs, Sue Kim, Reanin McRoberts, and Cindy Redcross (2012). What strategies work for the hard-to-employ? Final results of the hard-to-employ demonstration and evaluation project and selected sites from the Employment Retention and Advancement project, OPRE Report 2012-08, 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/strategies_work.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 Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE)—Single Parents