Study Details | Pathways to Work

10.25030.10-Virginia Independenc

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: Virginia Independence Program (VIP)

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients

Services provided:

Financial incentives, Sanctions

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

At five sites, including three cities and two counties in Virginia, all individuals with an active AFDC case in July 1995 were assigned to the intervention or comparison groups. In addition, individuals who applied for AFDC benefits between July 1995 and September 1996 were randomly assigned to intervention or comparison groups as they were approved for AFDC or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits. Random assignment continued until August 1997, but individuals assigned after September 1996 were not included in the study sample. Assignment was based on a digit of an individual's AFDC case number, which was determined to be as good as random. Eligibility reforms were implemented in July 1995. This study review examines the impacts of VIP for AFDC applicants in the Portsmouth site. Other reviews examine impacts for AFDC recipients and impacts at the other four sites.

Time period of study:

Individuals were randomly assigned from July 1995 to September 1996. Results are available for the full sample of study participants for four quarters after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

The study also examines impacts on total income, which is the sum of earnings and benefits received.

Study funded by:

ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Virginia Department of Social Services

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	2,252.00	2,544.00	292.00	1996 dollars	542
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	39.10	38.40	-0.70	percentage points	542
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	1,945.00	1,935.00	-10.00	1996 dollars	542
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of child care subsidy received, quarterly	Quarter 4	High			-38.60	1996 dollars	542
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of food stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	2,089.10	2,316.40	227.30	1996 dollars	542
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 1	High	93.10	92.50	-0.60	percentage points	542
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received child care subsidy, quarterly	Quarter 4	High			-3.70	percentage points	542
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received food stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 1	High	88.20	87.00	-1.20	percentage points	542

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

The sample included approved AFDC applicants, who began receiving AFDC benefits between July 1995 and September 1996. Individuals were, on average, 28 years of age, and almost all (97 percent) were female. Most sample members were African American (83 percent), and less than 1 percent were Hispanic; the remainder identified as either White or of another racial or ethnic background. About half of the sample (54 percent) had a high school diploma or equivalent certification, including 7 percent who also had at least some college education. The average AFDC case included 2.4 individuals. Forty-one percent of the sample was part of an AFDC case in which at least one individual had worked in the two quarters before random assignment.

Age

Mean age

28 years

Sex

Female	97%
Male	3%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American

83%

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

Married

22%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance

100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	7%
Had a high school diploma or GED	54%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	46%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Virginia state AFDC/TANF

Program history:

The program did not exist before the study started. Portsmouth, the site in this study, was one of five experimental sites in Virginia that tested the new eligibility requirements.

Intervention services:

Individuals in the intervention group were subject to VIP eligibility requirements. VIP eligibility reforms for AFDC/TANF recipients were designed to encourage responsible parenting and economic self-sufficiency. The eligibility reforms for individuals with children included one-time payments to families with a temporary loss of income if they agreed to forgo AFDC/TANF receipt for 160 days; limits to benefits for children born more than 10 months after a family began to receive AFDC/TANF benefits; an allowance for the accumulation of savings of up to $5,000 to support education, entrepreneurship, or the purchase of a home; the use of one-parent eligibility criteria in determining benefits for two-parent families; and requirements for paternity establishment cooperation, child school attendance and immunization, and housing for minor parents. VIP eligibility reforms were implemented in July 1995.

Mandatory services:

As part of VIP, individuals in the intervention group were sanctioned monthly, per child, if they did not provide proof of immunization (a sanction of $50 for the first child and $25 for each additional child) or if their school-aged child did not attend school (full sanction of the child's portion of the benefit). A mother's portion of the family's public assistance benefit was also fully sanctioned if she did not establish paternity within six months. Finally, minor parents were required to live with a parent or other adult to be eligible for AFDC/TANF.

Comparison services:

Individuals in the comparison condition were eligible for public assistance and business-as-usual services under Virginia's AFDC program. From October 1997 to March 1998, comparison group members were transitioned to VIP eligibility reform policies.

Service receipt duration:

Random assignment occurred from July 1995 to September 1996. Individuals in the intervention group were subject to VIP eligibility reform policies starting in July 1995. From October 1997 to March 1998, comparison group members were transitioned to VIP eligibility reform policies. Therefore, the intervention and comparison groups received different services for between 12 and 33 months.

Intervention funding:

AFDC/TANF

Study publications

Pavetti, LaDonna, Nancy Wemmerus, and Amy Johnson (1999). Implementation of Welfare Reform in Virginia: A Work in Progress. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. Available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.598.7694&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Gordon, Anne, and Roberto Agodini (1999). Early impacts of the Virginia Independence Program, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Gordon, Anne, and Susanne James-Burdumy (2002). Impacts of the Virginia Initiative for Employment Not Welfare, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Available at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/publications/PDFs/imvasumm.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 Virginia Independence Program (VIP)—Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) applicants in Portsmouth