Study Details | Pathways to Work

24977.01-Paycheck Plus Demons

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: Paycheck Plus

Services provided:

Case management, Financial incentives, Work readiness activities

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

To be eligible for the study, participants had to (1) be unmarried, (2) have a valid Social Security number, (3) not plan to claim a dependent child on their taxes, (4) be between 21 and 64 years old, (5) have earned less than $30,000 in the prior year, and (6) not receive or be applying to receive Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance. Between September 2013 and February 2014, more than 6,000 eligible participants were recruited and randomly assigned to a group that received Paycheck Plus or to a comparison group that was not eligible for Paycheck Plus but was eligible to receive other existing tax credits. The study restricts its attention to the 5,968 individuals randomly assigned between September 27, 2013, and February 18, 2014. The study team attempted to survey about 80 percent of these individuals (selected by random sampling) 32 months after assignment. In addition, among individuals assigned to the intervention group who also earned less than $10,000 per year, half were randomly assigned to an employment referral group that received additional information about, and referrals to, local employment services. Another review examines the contrast between these two groups.

Time period of study:

2014 to 2016

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

Tax filing, Criminal justice, Poverty, Material hardship, Health, Child support, Family formation, Banking, Savings

Study funded by:

The demonstration was funded by the New York City Mayor's Office for Economic Opportunity (NYC Opportunity), the Robin Hood Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support and Enforcement, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

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	2014	High	10,186.00	10,219.00	33.00	2016 dollars	5,968
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	2016	High	14,569.00	14,777.00	208.00	2016 dollars	5,968
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	2014	High	78.80	79.70	0.90	percentage points	5,968
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	2016	High	73.60	75.70	2.10	percentage points	5,968

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 study participants were unmarried and had earned less than $30,000 in the year before study enrollment. On average, participants were about 37 years old at the time of random assignment, and all were ages 21 to 64. More than half of participants (59 percent) were male. The majority were Black (58 percent), 30 percent were Hispanic, and 12 percent were White. About one-quarter (22 percent) did not have a high school degree or a diploma. Nearly half of participants (45 percent) were employed at the time of random assignment, and about 18 percent had been formerly incarcerated.

Age

Mean age

37 years

Sex

Female	41%
Male	59%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	58%
Another race	12%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	30%

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	0%
Noncustodial parents	9%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	45%
Had low incomes	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	24%
Had a high school diploma or GED	78%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	22%

Specific employment barriers

Were formerly incarcerated

18%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

MDRC and the Food Bank for New York City.

Program history:

The Paycheck Plus program began with this evaluation.

Intervention services:

The individuals assigned to the intervention group were eligible to receive up to $2,000 in income-based tax credits (including the federal earned-income tax credit [EITC] and Paycheck Plus credit). Individuals earning less than $29,900 were eligible for at least some credit. The credit was paid based on earnings reported in 2014, 2015, and 2016, at tax time during the subsequent year (that is, in 2015, 2016, and 2017). In addition, a random subsample of individuals who had earned less than $10,000 in the year before random assignment were offered information about, and referrals to, employment services in their area.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

The comparison group was not offered Paycheck Plus but could continue to receive the EITC if eligible. As all individuals in the study were single adults at enrollment, the maximum federal EITC an individual could qualify for was $510, with individuals earning $15,010 or less receiving some EITC.

Service receipt duration:

Participants were eligible to receive Paycheck Plus bonuses for up to three years.

Intervention funding:

NYC Opportunity, the Robin Hood Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support and Enforcement, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

Study publications

Frequently asked questions about the interim findings from Paycheck Plus, (2017) New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/frequently-asked-questions-about-interim-findings-paycheck-plus.

Issue focus: Paycheck Plus: Making work pay for low-income single adults, (2014) New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/paycheck-plus-making-work-pay-low-income-single-adults.

Miller, Cynthia, Caroline Schultz, and Alexandra Bernardi (2015). Testing an expanded earned income tax credit for single adults: Year 1 of Paycheck Plus, MDRC Policy Brief, New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/testing-expanded-earned-income-tax-credit-single-adults.

Miller, Cynthia, Lawrence F. Katz, Gilda Azurdia, Adam Isen, and Caroline Schultz (2017). Expanding the earned income tax credit for workers without dependent children: Interim findings from the Paycheck Plus Demonstration in New York City, New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/expanding-earned-income-tax-credit-workers-without-dependent-children.

Miller, Cynthia, Lawrence F. Katz, Gilda Azurdia, Adam Isen, Caroline B. Schultz, and Kali Aloisi (2018). Boosting the earned income tax credit for singles: Final impact findings from the Paycheck Plus Demonstration in New York City, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/boosting-earned-income-tax-credit-singles.

Pardoe, Rachel, and Dan Bloom (2014). Paycheck Plus: A new antipoverty strategy for single adults, New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/paycheck-plus.

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 Paycheck Plus—New York City