Skip to main content
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs (Freedman et al. 2000)

Review Guidelines

Causal Evidence Guidelines

Absence of conflict of interest.

Citation

Freedman, S., Friedlander, D., Hamilton, G., Rock, J., Mitchell, M., Nudelman, J., Schweder, A., & Storto, L. (2000). Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs. 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. [Portland]

Highlights

  • The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) on earnings, employment, education, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the Portland program. The authors investigated similar research questions for another contrasts and sites, the profiles of which can be found here.  

  • The study was a randomized controlled trial at the Portland, Oregon site. Using two-year participant surveys and administrative data, the authors conducted statistical tests to compare the outcomes of the treatment and control group members.  

  • The study found that treatment group participants were significantly more likely to obtain education or training credentials, be employed, have higher earnings, and were less likely to receive public benefits compared to control group participants. 

  • The study receives a high evidence rating. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Portland JOBS program, and not to other factors. 

Intervention Examined

Portland’s Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS)

Features of the Intervention

The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program was created by the Family Support Act of 1988, which required people who receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to either seek and accept employment or engage in activities such as training, education, or unpaid work through the welfare department. The Portland site used an employment focused approach to provide job assistance and encourage individuals to find paid jobs that were above minimum wage and offered a long lasting and stable career. The Portland site employed full time job developers to place individuals into unsubsidized jobs. The program targeted AFDC applicants and recipients with their youngest child being at least one-year-old. Individuals who were deemed not employable were not admitted into the program.  

Features of the Study

The study was part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies that examined the effectiveness of 11 mandatory welfare-to-work programs in seven sites across the United States. This profile focuses on the Portland site.  

The study used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of Portland’s program on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. Applicants who enrolled in the study between February 1993 and December 1994 were randomized to the treatment group or the control group. The 3,529 participants that were randomly assigned to the treatment group had access to employment and training services. The treatment group was required to participate in program activities or risk a reduction in monthly AFDC dollars. The 2,018 participants that were randomly assigned to the control group did not have access to program services but could independently pursue similar services in the community. The Portland site sample was primarily female (93 percent), 25-34 years of age (52 percent), white (70 percent), never married (48 percent), had at least one child (40 percent), had at least a high school diploma or GED (66 percent), received AFDC benefits for 2-5 years (33 percent), and currently unemployed (91 percent). The data sources were a two-year participant survey and three types of administrative data: state unemployment insurance data, AFDC data, and food stamp data. Using statistical tests, the authors compared the outcomes of the treatment participants with those of the control participants, examining multiple measures of earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt. 

Findings

Earnings and wages 

  • The study found that treatment participants earned $1842 more than control participants across the two study years and $1192 more than control participants in year two. These differences were significant.  

  • The study also found that treatment participants earned $310 more than control participants in the last quarter of year two. This difference was also significant.  

  • The study found that treatment participants earned $46 more than control participants in average weekly pay at the end of year two, which was a significant difference. 

Education and skills gains 

  • The study found that more treatment participants than control group participants obtained any education or training credential over the study period (18 percent vs. 10 percent). This difference was significant. 

  • The study also found significant differences looking at high school credential and trade license/certificate receipt separately. Compared with control participants, more treatment participants obtained a high school credential (6 percent vs. 2 percent), and a trade license or certificate (12 percent vs. 6 percent) over the study period. 

Employment 

  • The study found that more treatment participants than control participants were ever employed in year two (62 percent vs. 49 percent), and were employed in all four quarters of year two (29 percent vs. 21 percent). These differences were significant. 

  • The study also found that significantly more treatment participants than control participants were employed in the last quarter of year two (46 percent vs. 35 percent).  

Public benefits receipt 

  • The study found that treatment participants received AFDC for fewer months over the study period than control participants, and that treatment participants received $1196 less in AFDC benefits over the study period. These differences were significant. 

  • The study also found that significantly fewer treatment participants than control participants were receiving AFDC in the last quarter of year two (41 percent vs. 53 percent). 

  • The study found that control participants received $405 more than treatment participants in food stamps over the study period. This difference was statistically significant. The study also found that the control participants were more likely than the treatment participants to receive food stamps in the last quarter of year two (63 percent vs. 59 percent), a statistically significant finding. 

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The study authors estimated multiple related impacts on outcomes related to earnings and wages, employment, and public benefits. Performing multiple statistical tests on related outcomes makes it more likely that some impacts will be found statistically significant purely by chance and not because they reflect program effectiveness. The authors did not perform statistical adjustments to account for the multiple tests, so the number of statistically significant findings in these domains is likely to be overstated. Also, the study reports a less stringent statistical significance level, considering p-values of less than 0.10 to be significant, though it is standard practice to consider statistical significance if the p-value is less than 0.05. Only results that demonstrate a p-value of less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this profile.  

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well implemented randomized controlled trail. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Portland JOBS, and not to other factors.  

Reviewed by CLEAR

June 2022

Topic Area