Study Details | Pathways to Work

3001.3343.01-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:

Single parents who applied for IA in British Columbia between February 1994 and February 1995 had the opportunity to participate in the study. After participants gave consent and completed a baseline survey, evaluators randomly assigned 3,316 people to either the intervention group or the comparison group, with a 50 percent chance of assignment to each condition. All study participants were eligible to participate in follow-up surveys conducted 12, 30, 48, and 72 months after random assignment.

Time period of study:

Random assignment for the applicant study occurred from February 1994 through March 1995. Individuals were followed for seven years.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Couple relationships, Housing, Financial assets, Parenting and co-parenting, Family formation, Child well-being

Study funded by:

The study was funded by a contract with 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 very long-term earnings	Total earnings, follow-up period	Months 1–71	High	7,859.00	1997 Canadian dollars	2,371
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, monthly	Month 14	High	12.60	percentage points	2,852
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, monthly	Month 45	High	3.90	percentage points	2,774
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly IA benefits, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	-38.00	1995 Canadian dollars	3,316
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly rate of IA benefit receipt, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	-3.60	percentage points	3,316
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly IA benefits, quarterly	Quarter 20	High	-34.00	1999 Canadian dollars	3,315
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly rate of IA benefit receipt, quarterly	Quarter 20	High	-3.10	percentage points	3,315
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly IA benefits, quarterly	Quarter 28	High	-8.00	2001 Canadian dollars	3,315
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly rate of IA benefit receipt, quarterly	Quarter 28	High	-0.60	percentage points	3,315

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

More than 90 percent of sample members were female. At the time the study began, more than 95 percent reported that they had held a paid position in the past, but fewer than one-quarter had worked in the month before random assignment. More than 35 percent had less than a high school education. At the start of the study, participants had, on average, between 1 and 2 children, and had received IA for about three months in the past two years. The authors noted that the IA system in British Columbia includes 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	92%
Male	8%

Family status

Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

23%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	22%
Had a high school diploma or GED	64%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	36%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Social Research and Demonstration Corporation

Program history:

Researchers designed the program for this demonstration study.

Intervention services:

The SSP offered financial incentives to work by providing an earnings supplement to eligible IA applicants in British Columbia. Single parents who started a new IA spell and who were randomly assigned to the intervention group were eligible to receive the SSP earnings supplements if they stayed on IA for a full year and then found full-time work and left IA. Upon leaving IA, individuals 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 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 $6,931 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $1,178 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $5,753 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

Ford, Reuben, David Gyarmati, Kelly Foley, Doug Tattrie, and Liza Jimenez (2003). Can work incentives pay for themselves? Final report on the Self-Sufficiency Project for welfare applicants, Ottawa, Canada: SDRC. Available at http://www.srdc.org/uploads/SSP72.pdf.

Michalopoulos, Charles, and Tracey Hoy (2001). When financial incentives pay for themselves: Interim findings from the Self-Sufficiency Project's applicant study, Ottawa: SRDC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/when_financial_incentives_pay_2001_0.pdf.

Michalopoulos, Charles, Philip K. Robins, and David Card (1999). When financial work incentives pay for themselves: Early findings from the Self-Sufficiency Project's applicant study, Ottawa: SRDC. Available at http://www.srdc.org/media/195769/when_finl_work_inc_pay_for.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) Applicants