Study Details | Pathways to Work

3094.3096.03-South Carolina Emplo

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: Moving Up—South Carolina

Population and employment barriers:

Parents

Services provided:

Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives, Health services (Substance use disorder treatment and mental health services), Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Rural only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Evaluators randomly assigned clients to the intervention group or to the comparison group. To be eligible for the study, individuals had to have left Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) from October 1997 to December 2000 and not returned. Each month from September 2001 through January 2003, evaluators placed 100 randomly selected individuals into each of the intervention and comparison groups through a lottery-like process. The evaluators assigned a total of 3,035 individuals. This study includes 259 research sample members who were in two-parent families (another study examines effects for single-parent families). Only one member of each family is included in the sample. If both parents were eligible for the program, program staff selected one to participate in the study before random assignment, but both could be eligible to receive services.

Time period of study:

Random assignment took place in September 2001 through January 2003. Evaluators followed up with participants for four years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

None

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	Findings	Sample size
Increase long-term earnings	Average annual earnings, follow-up period	Years 1–4	High	5,883.00	6,070.00	187.00	2004 dollars		259
Increase long-term employment	Employed at any time in follow-up period	Years 1–4	High	73.30	71.80	-1.50	percentage points		259

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

All participants were in two-parent families. Across all members of two-parent families enrolled in the Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) program, half were White and non-Hispanic, 32 percent were Hispanic, and 12 percent were Black and non-Hispanic. On average, participants were 31 years old. More than half (62 percent) had at least a high school diploma or equivalent certification, and more than half (59 percent) were employed during the quarter when they enrolled in ERA. In the year before enrolling in ERA, most participants (76 percent) received the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and slightly less than half (42 percent) received TANF.

Age

Mean age

31 years

Sex

Female	54%
Male	46%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	12%
White, not Hispanic	50%
Another race	5%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	32%

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%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

59%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED

62%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

South Carolina Department of Social Services (state TANF agency)

Program history:

The intervention was piloted with about 250 participants from June through August 2001 and fully launched in September 2001, when the evaluation began.

Intervention services:

The Moving Up program provided participants with individualized case management services and pre- or post-employment services, depending on the employment status of program participants. Program activities included counseling on career goals and job readiness, job search assistance, short-term education or training, child care and transportation assistance, mental health services, and other support services. Moving Up was optional; therefore, to promote engagement, it offered modest incentives, including cash rewards or gift certificates for reaching specific benchmarks (such as finding a job, holding a job, getting a promotion, completing education and training activities, and so forth).

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

People assigned to the comparison group could participate in other programs that were normally available and offered in the community.

Service receipt duration:

The random assignment took place from September 2001 through January 2003. Program services were provided from September 2001 through April 2005.

Intervention funding:

South Carolina Department of Social Services (TANF agency)

Study publications

Williams, Sonya, and Stephen Freedman (2010). The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Background characteristics and patterns of employment, earnings, and public assistance receipt of adults in two-parent families, 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.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_23.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 Moving Up—South Carolina—Two-parent families