Study Details | Pathways to Work

1029-Jobs First, Connecti

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: Connecticut's Jobs First Program

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients

Services provided:

Education, Financial incentives, Sanctions, Soft skills training, Training, Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Connecticut welfare applicants and recipients were randomly assigned to the Jobs First condition or the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) condition between January 1996 and February 1997. The overall evaluation had a full sample of 4,803 individuals. This review includes impact estimates from three different samples: the full sample of 4,803 individuals; an 18-month survey sample of 471 individuals in the Jobs First group and 493 in the AFDC group, which was selected from those randomly assigned between September 1996 and January 1997; and a 3-year survey sample that included all single parents from the study who had a child between the ages of 2 and 9 and who were randomly assigned between April 1996 and February 1997, plus a random subset of all other sample members (1,524 in the Jobs First group and 1,493 in the AFDC group).

Time period of study:

The study period was 1996 through 2001. Evaluators conducted random assignment between January 1996 and February 1997 and then followed sample members for four years.

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, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Financial assets, Child well-being, Mortality

Study funded by:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Ford Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation funded 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	3,832.00	4,027.00	195.00	1997 dollars	4,803
Increase short-term earnings	Total monthly income in month before 18-month survey	18 months	High	818.00	993.00	175.00	1998 dollars	772
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	6,215.00	6,668.00	453.00	2000 dollars	4,803
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	57.70	66.70	9.00	percentage points	4,803
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Month 36	High	54.50	62.50	8.00	percentage points	2,424
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Month 48	High	53.10	60.70	7.60	percentage points	4,773
Increase long-term employment	Employed all 12 quarters	Year 3	High	16.90	20.10	3.20	percentage points	4,803
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	3,922.00	4,674.00	752.00	1997 dollars	4,803
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	1,832.00	2,041.00	209.00	1997 dollars	4,803
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 1	High	73.90	81.10	7.20	percentage points	4,803
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 1	High	77.80	80.70	2.90	percentage points	4,803
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Annual AFDC/ TFA payments, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	2,707.00	2,766.00	59.00	2001 dollars	4,803
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Annual Food Stamps payment, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	1,455.00	1,533.00	78.00	2002 dollars	4,803
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Quarterly AFDC/ TFA receipt, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	50.70	48.90	-1.80	2002 dollars	2,424
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Quarterly Food Stamps receipt, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	59.80	59.70	-0.10	2001 dollars	2,424
Increase education and training	Has a GED	18 months	High	7.90	9.90	2.00	percentage points	772
Increase education and training	Has a high school degree	18 months	High	58.90	60.30	1.40	percentage points	772
Increase education and training	Has a trade license/certificate	18 months	High	28.10	31.80	3.70	percentage points	772
Increase education and training	Has an associate's degree	18 months	High	5.80	7.20	1.40	percentage points	772
Increase education and training	Has bachelor's or graduate degree	18 months	High	3.90	3.00	-0.90	percentage points	772
Increase education and training	Has some college	18 months	High	9.00	9.10	0.10	percentage points	772

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

All study participants were applicants or recipients of cash assistance . On average, participants were about 31 years old at the time of random assignment. More than 60 percent of the people in the sample were Black and not Hispanic or Hispanic, and about 15 percent of people in the sample were married. At the time of random assignment, about 90 percent of study participants had at least one child, and about two-thirds had a GED or high school diploma.

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	39%
White, not Hispanic	38%
Another race	1%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	22%

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	15%
Parents	90%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

23%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	7%
Had a high school diploma or GED	66%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	34%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Connecticut Department of Human Services

Program history:

Between 1993 and 1996, more than 40 states were granted waivers of federal AFDC rules. On January 1, 1996, Connecticut initiated a Jobs First program that imposed a 21-month limit on family welfare grants.

Intervention services:

Jobs First was a statewide welfare reform initiative that encouraged individuals to be active and responsible in seeking, obtaining, and retaining employment. It had three main features. First, Jobs First participants could receive a cumulative total of 21 months of cash assistance. Second, in order to encourage and reward work, Connecticut disregarded participants' earned income below the poverty level when calculating cash grants and Food Stamps benefits. Finally, Jobs First participants had to begin looking for a job on their own or through Job Search Skills Training courses, which taught job-search and job-maintenance skills. If participants still could not find a job, Jobs First provided additional education and training services. People who did not meet the participation requirements were subject to sanctions.

Mandatory services:

Participation in employment-related requirements was mandatory, or sanctions would follow.

Comparison services:

Participants randomly assigned into the comparison (AFDC) group were subject to the prior welfare rules that had no time limit on cash assistance receipt.

Service receipt duration:

Twenty-one months, with the possibility of a six-month extension.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $10,453 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $7,525 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $2,928 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

Bloom, Dan, Laura Melton, Charles Michalopoulos, Susan Scrivener, and Johanna Walter (2000). Jobs First: Implementation and early impacts of Connecticut's welfare reform initiative, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/implementation-and-early-impacts-jobs-first-connecticuts-welfare-reform-initiative.

Bloom, Dan, Susan Scrivener, Charles Michalopoulos, Pamela Morris, Richard Hendra, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, and Johanna Walter (2002). Jobs First: Final report on Connecticut's welfare reform initiative, 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/opre/resource/jobs-first-final-report-on-connecticuts-welfare-reform-initiative.

Hendra, Richard, Charles Michalopoulos, and Dan Bloom (2001). Three-year impacts of Connecticut's Jobs First welfare reform initiative, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_586.pdf.

Wilde, Elizabeth T., Zohn Rosen, Kenneth Couch, and Peter A. Muennig (2014). Impact of welfare reform on mortality: An evaluation of the Connecticut Jobs First program, A randomized controlled trial, American Journal of Public Health 104(3): 534-538. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3953799/.

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 Connecticut's Jobs First Program