Study Details | Pathways to Work

3001.3001.01-Self-Sufficiency Pro

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: The Self-Sufficiency Project (SSP)

Population and employment barriers:

Parents (Single parents)

Services provided:

Financial incentives

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Researchers randomly selected about 6,000 single parents, ages 19 and older, from a list of people who had received IA in the current month and 11 of the prior 12 months in British Columbia and New Brunswick. Those who consented to participate in the study were randomly assigned to intervention (SSP) and comparison groups between November 1992 and October 1994 with equal probability. From November 1994 to March 1995, the same process was used to randomly assign individuals in British Columbia, but those in New Brunswick were randomly assigned to three groups with equal probability. (The additional study group is examined in other study reviews). All study participants were eligible to participate in follow-up surveys conducted 18, 36, and 54 months after random assignment.

Time period of study:

Random assignment occurred from November 1992 through March 1995. Sample members were followed for five years after their random assignment date.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Mental health, Financial assets, Couple relationships, Family formation, Child well-being, Housing

Study funded by:

Human Resources Development Canada

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	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Average monthly earnings, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	111.00	1995 Canadian dollars	4,961
Increase long-term earnings	Average monthly earnings, quarterly	Quarter 11	High	64.00	1995 Canadian dollars	4,961
Increase short-term employment	Average monthly employment rate, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	10.00	percentage points	4,961
Increase long-term employment	Average monthly employment rate, quarterly	Quarter 11	High	5.70	percentage points	4,961
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, monthly	Month 52	High	0.30	percentage points	4,852
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly IA benefits, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	-115.00	1995 Canadian dollars	4,961
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly rate of IA benefit receipt, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	-14.30	percentage points	4,961
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly IA benefits, quarterly	Quarter 12	High	-66.00	1995 Canadian dollars	4,961
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly rate of IA benefit receipt, quarterly	Quarter 12	High	-8.40	percentage points	4,961

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

Among the sample responding to the 54-month follow-up survey, more than 40 percent had received IA each month in the three years before the study began, and a third had received IA in 24 to 35 of the previous 36 months. Almost all sample members (95 percent) had worked for pay at some point in the past. At the time of random assignment, 6 percent were employed full time, 13 percent were employed part time, 22 percent were not employed but looking for work, and 58 percent were neither employed nor looking for work. Nearly all sample members (96 percent) were female. All were single parents, and one-fifth of sample members were between the ages of 19 and 24. Slightly more than half (54 percent) had less than a high school education. More than one-quarter reported a physical or emotional problem that limited their activities. The authors noted that the IA systems in the two provinces in the study include people with disabilities who were not able to work. In the United States, similar recipients would be Supplemental Security Income clients, and not Temporary Assistance for Needy Families clients.

Sex

Female	96%
Male	4%

Family status

Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	20%
Were unemployed	22%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	11%
Had a high school diploma or GED	46%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	54%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Social Research and Demonstration Corporation

Program history:

SSP was a demonstration project created at the time of the evaluation.

Intervention services:

The SSP offered financial incentives to work by providing an earnings supplement to eligible, former welfare recipients in two Canadian provinces. To be eligible, single parents who had been on IA for at least one year had to leave IA for full-time work (of at least 30 hours per week) within one year of entering the SSP program. They could sign up to receive an earnings supplement in the amount of half of the difference between their earnings from full-time work and a benchmark level, which was set separately for each province in each year. The supplement amount was not affected by unearned income, such as child support, and it roughly doubled the earnings of many low-wage workers. The earnings supplement was voluntary and lasted up to three years as long as participants continued to meet eligibility requirements.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

People in the comparison group were IA clients who were not eligible to receive any SSP earnings supplements.

Service receipt duration:

Individuals could receive SSP payments for up to three years.

Intervention funding:

Human Resources Development Canada

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $7,975 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $671 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $7,304 per person. This represents how much more it cost to provide intervention services compared to comparison services.

These figures are based on cost information reported by study authors. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Card, David, and Philip K. Robins (1996). Do financial incentives encourage welfare recipients to work? Initial 18-month findings from the Self-Sufficiency Project, Ottawa: SRDC. Available at http://www.srdc.org/media/8697/do_fin_inc_encourage.pdf.

Lin, Winston, Philip K. Robins, David Card, Kristen Harknett, and Susanna Lui-Gurr (1998). When financial incentives encourage work: Complete 18 month findings from the Self-Sufficiency Project, Ottawa: SRDC. Available at http://www.srdc.org/media/195766/when_fin_inc_encourage_work.pdf.

Michalopoulos, Charles, David Card, Lisa A. Gennetian, Kristen Harknett, and Philip K. Robins (2000). The Self-Sufficiency Project at 36 months: Effects of a financial work incentive on employment and income, Ottawa: SRDC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/self-sufficiency-project-36-months-effects-financial-work-incentive-employment-and.

Michalopoulos, Charles, Doug Tattrie, Cynthia Miller, Philip K. Robins, Pamela Morris, David Gyarmati, Cynthia Redcross, Kelly Foley, and Reuben Ford (2002). Making work pay: Final report on the Self-Sufficiency Project for long-term welfare recipients, Ottawa, Ontario: SDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_435.pdf.

Mijanovich, Tod and David Long (1995). Creating an alternative to welfare: First-year findings on the implementation, welfare impacts, and costs of the Self-Sufficiency Project, Ottawa: SRDC. Available at http://www.srdc.org/media/195709/creating_alternative.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 The Self-Sufficiency Project (SSP)—Income Assistance (IA) Recipients

3001.3001.01-Self-Sufficiency Pro

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

Family status

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:

Cost information:

Study publications