Study Details | Pathways to Work

3215-A Better Chance

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: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients

Services provided:

Education, Financial incentives, Sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work and work-based learning (Subsidized employment, Unpaid work experience, Work experience), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Beginning in October 1995, evaluators randomly assigned 3,959 Delaware welfare recipient cases and new applicant cases in five welfare offices to intervention and comparison conditions. (This study focuses on cases randomly assigned in the first year of the evaluation.) A total of 2,138 families were assigned to the ABC program, and 1,821 families were assigned to the comparison condition (Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] regulations). In some analyses, the authors use client-level data, resulting in a larger population of 4,190. The client-level population differs from the case-level population because two adults are sometimes associated with one case.

Time period of study:

The evaluation follows the program from the beginning of random assignment in October 1995 until early 1998.

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:

Knowledge of welfare reform provisions, Receipt of nongrovernmental assistance

Study funded by:

The Division of Social Services in Delaware's Department of Health and Social Services commissioned the evaluation.

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	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	2,340.00	2,668.00	328.00	1996 dollars	3,959
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 2	High	3,968.00	4,008.00	40.00	1997 dollars	3,959
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	43.50	48.90	5.40	percentage points	3,959
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 10	High	52.50	52.00	-0.50	percentage points	3,959
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	2,507.00	2,367.00	-140.00	1996 dollars	2,447
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, follow-up period	Quarters 1–4	High	59.10	60.90	1.80	percentage points	2,447
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 2	High	1,393.00	1,029.00	-364.00	1997 dollars	2,447
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF benefits, quarterly	Quarter 10	High	30.40	21.90	-8.50	percentage points	2,447

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

For cases assigned during the first year of ABC, about one-third had one child, about half had two or three children, and only 12 percent had four or more children. About two thirds of the cases had at least one child younger than 6. Fifty-three percent of ABC enrollees completed 12 years or more of education, compared with the 47 percent completing fewer than 12 years of education. Slightly more than 60 percent of cases were non-White, and 39 percent were White. During the first year of the program, 32 percent of clients were younger than 25 years old. Forty-five percent of clients were 25 to 34 years old, and 22 percent of clients were 35 and older.

Age

Young adults

33%

Participant race and ethnicity

White	39%
Unknown, not reported, or other	61%

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 eligible for or receiving cash assistance

100%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	53%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	47%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Division of Social Services in Delaware's Department of Health and Social Services

Program history:

This program began as a pilot in October 1995. In early 1997, Delaware implemented the program throughout the state.

Intervention services:

The ABC program required clients to comply with three provisions; failure to meet any of these could result in sanctions. First, clients had to sign a Contract of Mutual Responsibilities that committed them to attending employment, training, or education activities and to meeting certain parental behavior expectations, such as ensuring that children met school attendance requirements. To further encourage positive behaviors, there were no grant increases for children conceived while the parent was enrolled in ABC, and parents younger than 18 were required to live with an adult guardian. Second, clients (including those with young children) were subject to work provisions, including financial sanctions if they quit their job without good cause; increased incentives to work through retaining more of their cash grants; and expanded supportive services, including assistance with transportation, child care, and expanded health coverage. Third, clients were subject to full-family time limits that allowed them to search for a job and receive cash benefits for up to two years; after two years, clients had to accept a community service job to remain eligible for assistance. Participating in ABC program employment and training activities was required, except for parents who had children younger than 13 weeks old or who were medically unable to work. Employment and training activities could include postsecondary education, job search assistance, job development, and subsidized employment.

Mandatory services:

To receive payments and avoid sanctions, intervention group families were required to adhere to all ABC requirements, including following the terms outlined in the Contract of Mutual Responsibilities and participating in work activities.

Comparison services:

The comparison group followed the AFDC program policies.

Service receipt duration:

Participants could receive program benefits for two years but could be sanctioned for failure to fulfill program responsibilities, such as participating in parenting classes, education, training, or employment. After two years, and in order to continue receiving program benefits for two additional years, participants had to obtain a community service job in which their paid ABC benefits were proportional to hours worked. Four years after program enrollment, families were prohibited from receiving the program for the subsequent eight years.

Intervention funding:

Delaware state; federal AFDC funding.

Study publications

Fein, David J., and Wang Lee (1999). The ABC evaluation: Carrying and using the stick: Financial sanctions in Delaware's A Better Chance program, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Fein, David J., David A. Long, Joy M. Behrens, and Wang S. Lee (2001). The ABC evaluation: Turning the corner: Delaware’s A Better Chance welfare reform program at four years, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Available at https://www.abtassociates.com/sites/default/files/2019-04/ABC-Turning.pdf.

Fein, David, and Jennifer Karweit (1997). The ABC evaluation: The early economic impacts of Delaware's A Better Chance welfare reform program, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

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 Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program