Study Details | Pathways to Work

24986-The TANF/SSI Disabil

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: Families Achieving Success Today (FAST)

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Specific employment barriers (Disability(ies))

Services provided:

Case management, Employment retention services, Health services (Physical health services, Substance use disorder treatment and mental health services), Sanctions, Work and work-based learning (Individual Placement and Support), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Study participants were recruited through Family Stabilization Services (FSS), a state-funded program. To qualify for FSS, an individual must meet one of the following criteria: (1) have a mental illness, developmental disability, or learning disability; (2) have an IQ below 80; (3) have an illness or injury expected to limit one's ability to work for more than 30 days; (4) live in a household with an adult that is ill or incapacitated or has a serious mental illness; or (5) live in a household with a child that is ill or incapacitated or has a serious emotional disturbance. To be eligible for the study, families must be headed by an English-speaking adult, ages 22 to 59, without a pending SSI application, who was not exempt from TANF work requirements because of having a child younger than 1, and who had at least 10 months of TANF eligibility remaining. The study randomly assigned 389 individuals to either the FAST group or a comparison group on a rolling basis from April 2011 through December 2011. Two hundred and forty-one cases were assigned to the FAST group, and 148 cases were assigned to the comparison group. About one-third (37 percent) of individuals were deemed ineligible for FAST after random assignment but were included in the intervention and comparison groups as assigned.

Time period of study:

The pilot project randomly assigned individuals to conditions from April 2011 through December 2011. Evaluators studied the FAST intervention over a period of 12 months.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

None

Study funded by:

This research was funded by ACF, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation and the Social Security Administration.

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	1,647.00	2,882.00	1,235.00	2011 dollars	389
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	23.50	30.00	6.50	percentage points	389
Increase short-term employment	Number of quarters employed, annual	Year 1	High	0.80	1.10	0.30	months	389
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	3,778.00	4,074.00	296.00	2011 dollars	379
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	65.00	61.90	-3.10	percentage points	379

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

To be eligible for the study, individuals had to have a disability or other incapacitation limiting their ability to work, or they had to be in a household with an individual who had such an illness, incapacitation, or emotional disturbance. A majority (83 percent) of participants were female. Forty-three percent of participants were Black, and 43 percent were White. The average age was 33 years old. Almost all sample members (97 percent) were parents, with 11 percent coming from two-parent families. All sample members were welfare recipients and, on average, individuals had received TANF for 26 months before the study. Eleven percent of sample members were employed at the time of random assignment.

Age

Mean age

33 years

Sex

Female	83%
Male	17%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	43%
White, not Hispanic	43%
Asian	6%
Another race	1%
Unknown or not reported	3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	3%

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

97%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	11%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability

100%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

The county TANF office oversaw implementation. Four private organizations provided services: (1) Goodwill/Easter Seals Minnesota provided individual placement and support (IPS) services, vocational rehabilitation, and mental health services; (2) HIRED (a nonprofit) provided case management and employment services; (3) Open Cities Health Center (a health clinic) provided physical health services; and (4) People Incorporated (a nonprofit) provided mental health services.

Program history:

FAST is a pilot that did not exist before the start of the study.

Intervention services:

The FAST initiative incorporated the IPS model and motivational interviewing. The IPS model stressed the integration and co-location of vocational and health services and provided participants with individualized job searches based on their preferences, a vocational assessment, job search assistance, and job development. Motivational interviewing aimed to ensure that participants were committed fully to the IPS process. FAST case managers also had reduced caseloads to provide FAST participants with more individualized attention and to meet with them in their communities. Case managers could sanction individuals if they refused to participate in FAST.

Mandatory services:

Case managers could sanction individuals if they refused to participate in FAST.

Comparison services:

Individuals in the comparison group received case management and other services as usual through the FSS program. Case managers had larger caseloads, and services were not integrated or co-located.

Service receipt duration:

The program duration is not specified, but individuals were required to be able to receive services for at least 10 months.

Intervention funding:

Minnesota TANF

Study publications

Farrell, Mary (2013). Connections between TANF and SSI: Lessons from the TANF/SSI Disability Transition Project, OPRE Report #2013-57, New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/tanf_ssi_project_summ_4_full_report.pdf.

Farrell, Mary, and Johanna Walter (2013). The intersection of welfare and disability: Early findings from the TANF/SSI Disability Transition Project, OPRE Report #2013-06, New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/documents/tanf_ssi_knowledge_development_report_2013.pdf.

Farrell, Mary, Peter Baird, Bret Barden, Mike Fishman, and Rachel Pardoe (2013). The TANF/SSI Disability Transition Project: Innovative strategies for serving TANF recipients with disabilities, OPRE Report #2013-51, New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/documents/tanf_ssi_final_report_fixed.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 Families Achieving Success Today (FAST)