Study Details | Pathways to Work

25448.02-Health Profession Op

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: Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) 1.0—Emergency Assistance

Services provided:

Supportive services

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The HPOG programs aimed to recruit individuals with low income to participate in the study. To be eligible for the study at all programs, individuals had to have low income, as indicated by receiving public benefits or having income below a threshold based on the federal poverty line. (The threshold varied by program.) Most programs also required individuals to have some minimal level of basic skills, and many conducted criminal background checks and evaluated applicants' interests and skills to determine eligibility. Eligible individuals were randomly assigned to intervention and comparison groups from March 2013 to November 2014. At 3 of 23 HPOG grantees (including 11 of 42 HPOG programs), individuals were randomly assigned to one of three study groups: a comparison group not eligible for HPOG services, a group eligible to receive standard HPOG services plus emergency assistance, and a group eligible to receive standard HPOG services only. This review examines the contrast of the group eligible to receive enhanced services (the intervention group) and the group eligible to receive standard HPOG services (the comparison group). Other reviews examine the effects of alternative service enhancements and the contrast of all individuals eligible to receive HPOG and all individuals assigned to comparison groups not eligible for the program across the 23 grantees.

Time period of study:

The study randomly assigned participants between March 2013 and November 2014 and collected data 15 months later.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Job quality

Study funded by:

ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

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	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 5	High	3,921.00	4,075.00	154.00	2015 dollars	1,406
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 5	High	72.00	72.80	0.80	percentage points	1,408
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, monthly	Month 15	High	11.10	9.80	-1.80	percentage points	1,236

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

HPOG programs aimed to serve individuals with low income. Across all 42 programs, 89 percent of study participants were female, 63 percent had one or more children, and 84 percent were not married. About one-quarter (24 percent) were Hispanic, and about one-third (34 percent) were Black and not Hispanic. The average age was 32. At baseline, 12 percent of participants lacked a high school diploma or equivalent certification, whereas 20 percent had a postsecondary degree or certificate; 43 percent were working; 26 percent were in school; 56 percent received the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; and 13 percent received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Sex

Female	89%
Male	11%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	34%
Unknown, not reported, or other	42%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	24%

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.

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	43%
Had low incomes	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	54%
Had a high school diploma or GED	88%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	12%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

There were three grantees that implemented HPOG with emergency assistance: Bergen Community Colleges (New Jersey), Full Employment Council (Missouri), and the NY Research Foundation of CUNY–Hostos Community College (New York).

Program history:

Programs received grants about 2.5 years before the study began. Many HPOG grantees had a long history of providing employment and training services.

Intervention services:

Individuals in the intervention group received services from three HPOG grantees as part of 1 of 11 HPOG programs. These services typically included a range of educational, training, and employment supports. The intervention group for this study was eligible to receive standard HPOG services and could also receive emergency assistance to cover unexpected expenses.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

The comparison group was given access to all HPOG services except emergency assistance.

Service receipt duration:

Across all 42 HPOG programs, trainings ranged greatly in length, from six weeks to four years. Most individuals enrolled in short-term programs (six to eight weeks), but the career pathways approach encouraged individuals to enroll in multiple programs over time.

Intervention funding:

ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Study publications

Peck, Laura R., Daniel Litwok, Douglas Walton, Eleanor Harvill, and Alan Werner. (2019). Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG 1.0) impact study: Three-year impacts report. OPRE Report 2019-114. 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/report/health-profession-opportunity-grants-hpog-10-impact-study-three-year-impacts-report

Harvill, Eleanor, Daniel Litwok, Shawn Moulton, Alyssa Rulf Fountain, and Laura R. Peck (2018). Technical supplement to the Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) impact study interim report: Report appendices, OPRE Report #2018-16b, 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/images/opre/hpog_interim_appendices_revised_nov_2019.pdf

Peck, Laura R., Alan Werner, Eleanor Harvill, Daniel Litwok, Shawn Moulton, Alyssa Rulf Fountain, and Gretchen Locke (2018). Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG 1.0) impact study interim report: Program implementation and short-term impacts, OPRE Report #2018-16a, 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/hpog_interim_report_final_5_11_18_b508.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 Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) 1.0—Emergency Assistance

25448.02-Health Profession Op

Study design

Design:

Study group formation:

Time period of study:

Primary outcome domains examined:

Other outcome domains examined:

Study funded by:

Results

Sample characteristics

Sex

Participant race and ethnicity

Participant employment and public benefit status

Participant education

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Program history:

Intervention services:

Mandatory services:

Comparison services:

Service receipt duration:

Intervention funding:

Study publications