
Study design
Design:
Study group formation:
Time period of study:
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 receiptOther outcome domains examined:
NoneStudy funded by:
Results
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 short-term earnings | Total earnings over follow-up period | Quarters 1–6 |
High ![]() |
12,471.00 | 12,800.00 | 329.00 | 2003 dollars |
![]() |
1,137 |
Increase short-term earnings | Weekly earnings | 12 months |
High ![]() |
209.00 | 194.00 | -15.00 | 2003 dollars |
![]() |
440 |
Increase long-term earnings | Annual earnings | Year 3 |
High ![]() |
8,543.00 | 7,689.00 | -854.00 | 2005 dollars |
![]() |
1,137 |
Increase short-term employment | Currently employed | Month 12 |
High ![]() |
68.80 | 65.30 | -3.50 | percentage points |
![]() |
440 |
Increase short-term employment | Employed for four consecutive quarters | Quarters 1–6 |
High ![]() |
53.90 | 56.10 | 2.20 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,137 |
Increase short-term employment | Ever employed, quarterly | Quarter 6 |
High ![]() |
61.90 | 63.50 | 1.60 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,137 |
Increase long-term employment | Employed for four consecutive quarters | Year 3 |
High ![]() |
42.60 | 35.90 | -6.70 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,137 |
Increase long-term employment | Ever employed, annual | Year 3 |
High ![]() |
72.10 | 65.10 | -7.00 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,137 |
Decrease short-term benefit receipt | Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period | Quarters 1–6 |
High ![]() |
1,292.00 | 1,068.00 | -224.00 | 2003 dollars |
![]() |
1,137 |
Decrease short-term benefit receipt | Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period | Quarters 1–6 |
High ![]() |
3,603.00 | 3,591.00 | -12.00 | 2003 dollars |
![]() |
1,137 |
Decrease short-term benefit receipt | Received AFDC/TANF, follow-up period | Quarters 1–6 |
High ![]() |
41.90 | 38.70 | -3.20 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,137 |
Decrease short-term benefit receipt | Received Food Stamps/SNAP, follow-up period | Quarters 1–6 |
High ![]() |
96.50 | 95.80 | -0.70 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,137 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual | Years 1–3 |
High ![]() |
2,252.00 | 2,253.00 | 1.00 | 2004 dollars |
![]() |
1,137 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Average annual AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period | Years 1–3 |
High ![]() |
674.00 | 657.00 | -17.00 | 2004 dollars |
![]() |
1,137 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Received AFDC/TANF, annual | Year 3 |
High ![]() |
19.10 | 19.90 | 0.80 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,137 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual | Year 3 |
High ![]() |
74.10 | 74.50 | 0.40 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,137 |
High
Moderate
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.
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
Sample characteristics
All individuals in the sample were employed single parents. At baseline, sample members were mostly White (85 percent) and female (92 percent), with an average age of 30. About 80 percent had at least a high school diploma or equivalent certification. Slightly more than half (57 percent) were recipients of cash assistance at baseline, and about one-third (33 percent) were cash assistance applicants.
Age
Mean age | 30 years |
Sex
Female | 92% |
Male | 8% |
Participant race and ethnicity
Black or African American | 3% |
White, not Hispanic | 85% |
Asian | 1% |
Another race | 1% |
American Indian or Alaska Native | 2% |
More than one race | 2% |
Hispanic or Latino of any race | 6% |
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% |
Single parents | 100% |
Participant employment and public benefit status
Were employed | 100% |
Participant education
Had some postsecondary education | 14% |
Had a high school diploma or GED | 80% |
Did not have a high school diploma or GED | 20% |
Intervention implementation
Implementing organization:
Program history:
Intervention services:
Mandatory services:
Comparison services:
Service receipt duration:
Intervention funding:
Study publications
Hendra, Richard, Keri-Nicole Dillman, Gayle Hamilton, Erika Lundquist, Karin Martinson, Melissa Wavelet, Aaron Hill, and Sonya Williams (2010). The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/the-employment-retention-and-advancement-project-how-effective-are.
Molina, Frieda, Mark van Dok, Richard Hendra, Gayle Hamilton, and Wan-Lae Cheng (2009). The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Findings for the Eugene and Medford, Oregon, models: Implementation and early impacts for two programs that sought to encourage advancement among low-income workers, 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/era_eug_medi.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.
3137.01-Eugene, OR, Employme