Study Details | Pathways to Work

3131.03R-Study of Atlanta Hum

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition, suggesting the findings can be attributed to the program.

Program: Atlanta Human Capital Development [HCD] Program (as compared with Atlanta Labor Force Attachment [LFA] Program)

Characteristics of study participants:

Adults (age 25+), Cash assistance recipients, Parents, Public benefits recipients, Single parents, Unemployed

Services provided:

Basic skills/bridge programs, Case management, Job search assistance, On-the-job training, Paid work experience/internships, Transportation assistance, Unpaid work experience/internships

Setting: Urban only

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Evaluators randomly assigned a total of 4,433 single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients who were required to enroll in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program in Atlanta into the Labor Force Attachment (LFA) program, the Human Capital Development (HCD) program, or the comparison group. The random assignment occurred from January 1992 to June 1993 following a JOBS orientation. People often waited up to six months between an initial meeting with an income maintenance worker and being invited to a JOBS orientation. The study included two- and five-year follow-up surveys, which followed people who were randomly assigned into the LFA, HCD, or comparison conditions from March 1992 to June 1993. This review focuses on the HCD versus LFA contrast for Atlanta. Other reviews contrast the LFA and comparison groups and the HCD and comparison groups.

Time period of study:

People were randomly assigned from January 1992 to June 1993. The study reports impacts five years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase long-term earnings, Decrease long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Child well-being

Study funded by:

The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation) and by the U.S. Department of Education.

Results

View table definitions

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Program group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase long-term earnings	Total earnings over follow-up period	Years 1-5	High	19,838.00	19,397.00	-441.00	1995 dollars	2,936
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Years 1-5	High	9,064.00	9,236.00	172.00	1995 dollars	2,936
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Months of AFDC/TANF receipt, follow-up period	Years 1-5	High	34.40	35.30	0.90	months	2,936

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.

Means are not displayed when not reported or not aligned with the impact estimates. For example, if the impact estimate is regression-adjusted but only unadjusted means are reported in the study, the unadjusted means are not displayed as they are not aligned with the adjusted impact estimate.

Impact estimates are not shown when the estimate units cannot be converted to natural units.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the program. 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 program, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the program 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 evaluation targeted single-parent recipients of AFDC. Among the 4,433 study participants—1,441 in the LFA group, 1,495 in the HCD group, and 1,497 in the comparison group—nearly 97 percent were female at an average age of about 33 when the study began. More than 96 percent of people in the sample were Black, and more than half of the participants were never married. Families had 1 and 2 children, on average. About 24 percent of parents had some earnings in the past 12 months, but less than 7 percent were employed at random assignment. Nearly 60 percent of parents had a high school diploma or equivalent certificate, and about 13 percent were enrolled in education or training in the past 12 months.

Age

Mean age	33 years
Young adults (age 16-24)	10%
Adults (age 25+)	91%

Sex

Female	97%
Male	3%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	95%
White	4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	1%

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%

Employment and public benefit status

Were employed	7%
Were unemployed	93%
Public benefits recipients	100%
Cash assistance recipients	100%

Education

Had some postsecondary education	8%
Had a high school diploma or GED	60%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	40%
Postsecondary credential	8%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Georgia Department of Human Services (state AFDC agency)

Program history:

NEWWS aimed to analyze the effectiveness of 11 mandatory welfare-to-work programs in 7 sites across the United States.

Program services:

The HCD program focused on providing education and training to support future employment. Staff stressed that clients should spend time receiving education or in training to prepare them for good jobs. In Atlanta, case managers began by assigning clients to adult basic education (usually) or to vocational training programs (less often). Clients typically stayed in their assigned activity for two years or more. Case managers emphasized customer service through counseling and assistance with child care and transportation. Case managers could sanction nonparticipating clients.

Mandatory services:

People could face financial sanctions if they did not comply with participation requirements.

Comparison services:

The LFA program focused on rapid job placement. Staff encouraged clients to move quickly into work without being selective about which job to take. In Atlanta, LFA program staff first assigned clients to up to three weeks in a job club (within the JOBS office and led by staff from a community action agency), followed by one to two weeks of time spent applying to jobs. Clients had to make 6 in-person inquiries or send 15 inquiry letters per week. People who did not find a job during this period could go on to participate in more job searching, vocational training, basic education, or unpaid work experience. Case managers emphasized customer service through counseling and assistance with child care and transportation. Case managers could sanction nonparticipating clients.

Service receipt duration:

For the HCD group, the program expected that most clients would complete training or educational activities within two years, but a longer duration could be approved based on client needs. The study did not specify how long the program monitored clients to examine whether a sanction should be applied to their case.

Program funding:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Family Support Act

Study publications

Hamilton, Gayle, Stephen Freedman, Lisa Gennetian, Charles Michalopoulos, Johanna Walter, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, Anna Gassman-Pines, Sharon McGroder, Martha Zaslow, Jennifer Brooks, and Surjeet Ahluwalia (2001). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year adult and child impacts for eleven programs, Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and U.S. Department of Education. [Atlanta—Labor Force Attachment]. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_391.pdf.

Hamilton, Gayle, Thomas Brock, Mary Farrell, Daniel Friedlander, and Kristen Harknett (1997). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings on the labor force attachment and human capital development programs in three sites, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and U.S. Department of Education. [Atlanta—Labor Force Attachment]. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_96.pdf.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

Pathways to Work refers to programs by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some program names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Study of Atlanta Human Capital Development [HCD] Program (as compared with Atlanta Labor Force Attachment [LFA] Program)