Study Details | Pathways to Work

3131.06R-Study of Grand Rapid

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

Characteristics of study participants:

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 4,554 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 Grand Rapids into the Labor Force Attachment (LFA) program, the HCD program, or the comparison group. The random assignment occurred between September 1991 and January 1994 and followed a JOBS orientation (which not all JOBS-mandatory individuals attended, although they faced sanctions for failing to appear). AFDC recipients were exempt if they had children younger than 1, had 3 or more children younger than 10, were employed 30 hours or more per week, were medically unable to work, were in the last trimester of pregnancy, resided in a mental institution at all during the previous 5 years, had been enrolled in a rehabilitation center, or were taking medication for a mental illness. Voluntary JOBS participants were not randomly assigned and were excluded from the analysis. The study included two- and five-year follow-up surveys of randomly selected individuals who were randomly assigned between March 1992 and January 1994. This review focuses HCD versus LFA . Other reviews examine LFA versus the comparison condition and HCD versus the comparison condition.

Time period of study:

Individuals were randomly assigned between September 1991 and January 1994. 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:

None

Study funded by:

This study is part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS). The NEWWS evaluation 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	22,323.00	21,616.00	-707.00	1995 dollars	3,099
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits over follow-up period	Years 1-5	High	10,414.00	11,199.00	785.00	1995 dollars	3,099
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Months of AFDC/TANF receipt over follow-up period	Years 1-5	High	26.90	28.20	1.30	months	3,099

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

Among the 4,554 study participants (1,557 in the LFA program; 1,542 in the HCD program; and 1,455 in the comparison group), nearly 96 percent were female. The average age of study participants at the outset of the study was 28 years old. More than half of the participants were White, and almost 40 percent were Black. Nearly 58 percent were never married. Families had between 1 and 2 children, on average. Almost half (46 percent) of parents had some earnings in the past 12 months, and about 11 percent were employed at random assignment. Nearly 60 percent of parents had received a high school diploma or GED, and about 39 percent of parents were enrolled in education or training in the past 12 months. More than 99 percent received some AFDC benefits at the time of random assignment.

Age

Mean age	28 years
Young adults (age 16-24)	37%
Adults (age 25+)	63%

Sex

Female	96%
Male	4%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	39%
White, not Hispanic	50%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	8%
American Indian or Alaska Native	2%
Unknown, not reported, or other	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	11%
Were unemployed	89%
Public benefits recipients	100%
Cash assistance recipients	100%

Education

Had some postsecondary education	5%
Had a high school diploma or GED	59%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	41%
Postsecondary credential	5%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

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. Staff stressed that clients should spend time receiving education or training to prepare them for good jobs. The program began with a 15-hour, weeklong formal assessment component, during which public school staff assessed participants’ achievement, aptitude, and career interests. Participants then usually completed either high school completion programs (distinct from GED classes) or vocational training. If participants did not have a high school diploma or GED, the program provided basic education classes in the public school system to help participants make progress toward their goals (such as increasing their literacy level or obtaining a GED certificate). Case managers focused primarily on monitoring and enforcing participation and could impose financial sanctions for nonparticipation. Child care and transportation assistance were available.

Mandatory services:

AFDC could be decreased if clients did not comply with program requirements.

Comparison services:

The Grand Rapids LFA program encouraged clients to move quickly into work without being selective about which job to take. Participants spent two weeks in a job club operated by public school staff, then began applying to jobs for up to three weeks. Participants who did not find a job during this period participated in unpaid work experiences, more job searching, vocational training, or basic education. Participants who completed job club but remained unemployed could receive multiple rounds of short-term education or vocational training for periods of nine months. As with the HCD program, case managers focused primarily on monitoring and enforcing participation and could impose financial sanctions for nonparticipation. Child care and transportation assistance were available.

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:

NEWWS programs were funded by the 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: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. 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 and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. 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 Grand Rapids Human Capital Development [HCD] Program (as compared with Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment [LFA] Program)