Study Details | Pathways to Work

3.3096.06-Riverside, Californi

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: Training Focused Program

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Employment status and income level (Employed), Parents

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Health services (Substance use disorder treatment and mental health services), Supportive services, Training

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Clients who had participated in a Phase 1 (pre-employment) Riverside County California Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) program, who also had reported obtaining a job and met a series of eligibility requirements, were eligible for random assignment into Phase 2 (post-employment). These eligibility criteria included the following: working 20 or more hours for at least one week in the past 30 days, earning an hourly wage greater than or equal to the state minimum ($6.75), and expecting to work an average of 20 or more hours per week for at least 30 days. The evaluation excluded clients who, at the time of random assignment, (1) were already enrolled in Phase 2, (2) were New Visions (another evaluation) sample members, or (3) were Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency members. Among the people eligible for random assignment, 72 percent were placed in a non-research group; 7 percent were placed in each of the Training Focused and comparison (Work Focused) groups; and 14 percent were placed in the Work Plus group. Sample members were enrolled from January 2001 to October 2003. This review focuses on the contrast between Training Focused and Work Focused group members in two-parent families. Only one parent in each two-parent family is included in the sample, though both could have received program services. Other reviews on this site examine other contrasts for two-parent families and all examined contrasts for single-parent families.

Time period of study:

Random assignment began in January 2001 and concluded in October 2003. Outcome data were collected 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	10,189.00	9,182.00	-1,007.00	2004 dollars		255
Increase long-term employment	Employed at any time in follow-up period	Years 1–4	High	92.40	92.00	-0.40	percentage points		255

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

Clients were recipients of TANF benefits who worked 20 or more hours a week but earned too little to leave public assistance. All clients were members of two-parent families. Across study groups and ERA sites including two-parent families, the sample included 1,283 men and 1,536 women. The average age was 31 years, and 38 percent lacked a high school diploma or equivalent. About half (50 percent) were White, 12 percent were Black, and 32 percent were Hispanic.

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	100%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	62%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	38%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

The Training Focused condition was implemented by the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (workforce development agency) in California.

Program history:

In 1998, DPSS created a post-employment program, which focused on encouraging clients to attend training or education courses outside of work. In subsequent years, DPSS staff worked with education and training providers to create variations of this post-employment program (one of which is Training Focused). The Training Focused program started in September 2000.

Intervention services:

Training Focused Program clients could receive intensive case management and enhanced support services, aimed at encouraging employment stability. To continue to receive benefits, participants were required to engage in employment-related activities for 32 hours per week. Program staff allowed Training Focused participants to decrease work hours per week to zero hours to pursue education and training activities, with the philosophy that eliminating the requirement to engage in work would allow participants to access the most useful education and training programs. Participation in education and training was voluntary, but if participants chose not to pursue education and training, they were required to participate in other permitted activities—including work—for at least 32 hours per week. The program also provided clients with support services (for example, child care, transportation, and ancillary payments to participate in program activities), social services (for example, mental health, domestic violence, and substance abuse), referrals to public assistance programs (for example, TANF, Food Stamps, and Medi-Cal), and job search services.

Mandatory services:

Participants had to meet requirements for hours of work or other authorized activities per week; otherwise, they could be sanctioned.

Comparison services:

The comparison condition was known as Work Focused. Clients in this condition were eligible to receive TANF, Food Stamps, child care and transportation assistance (only if the client self-enrolled in an eligible program), and Medi-Cal. They also received limited and reactive case management.

Service receipt duration:

The authors did not explicitly state how long a typical participant received Training Focused services, but eligibility ended when a client left TANF (most did so within one year of random assignment). Long-term vocational training courses could last up to two years.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of Labor.

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/publication/background-characteristics-and-patterns-employment-earnings-and-public-assistance.

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 Training Focused Program—Two-parent families