Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the Atlanta Human Capital Development (HCD) program. The authors investigated similar research questions for other sites, the profiles of which can be found here.
- The study was a randomized controlled trial at the Atlanta, Georgia 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.
- This study receives a high evidence rating. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Atlanta Human Capital Development (HCD) program, and not to other factors.
Intervention Examined
Atlanta Human Capital Development (HCD)
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 Atlanta Human Capital Development (HCD) program operated under the JOBS program. The Atlanta HCD program was an education-focused program model with a high level of participant enforcement. The HCD approach was an education/training first model in that education, training, and/or work experience preceded job search instruction and employment seeking. The program was designed to serve AFDC applicants who were determined to not meet any work exemption criteria.
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 HCD vs. no-treatment control analysis for the Atlanta site.
The study used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of Atlanta’s program on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. The study sought to enroll AFDC applicants who were determined to not meet any work exemption criteria. Applicants who enrolled in the study between January 1992 and January 1994 were randomized to one of two treatment groups (HCD or LFA) or a control group. The authors assigned 1,935 applicants to the treatment group that received the HCD intervention and 1,946 applicants to the no-treatment control group that did not receive program services but could independently pursue similar services in the community. Across the treatment and control groups at this site, participants were almost all (96%) female, with over half (54%) between the ages of 25 and 34, and the majority (95%) identifying as Black/African American, non-Hispanic. Over half had never been married (60%) and had received at least high school diploma or GED (61%). Close to half (43%) were parenting at least one child aged five or younger and 8% were already employed at the time of study enrollment. The data sources were two-year participant surveys 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 HCD program participants with those of the no-treatment control participants, examining multiple measures of earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt.
Findings
Earnings and wages
- The study found that treatment participants earned $496 more than control participants across the two study years and $388 more than control participants in year two. These differences were significant.
- The study also found that treatment participants earned $123 more than control participants in the last quarter of year two. This difference was also significant.
- The study did not find a significant difference between the groups in average weekly pay at the end of year two.
Education and skills gains
- The study found that more treatment participants than control participants obtained any education or training credential over the study period (13% vs. 6%), and obtained a trade license or certificate over the study period (11% vs. 5%). These differences were both significant.
- The study did not find a significant difference between the groups for obtaining a GED or high school diploma during the study period.
Employment
- The study found that more treatment participants than control participants were ever employed in year two (57% vs. 53%), and were employed in all four quarters of year two (26% vs. 23%). 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 (45% vs. 39%).
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 $288 less in AFDC benefits over the study period. These differences were significant.
- The study found that fewer treatment participants than control participants were receiving AFDC in the last quarter of year two (64% vs. 67%). This difference was significant.
- The study did not find any significant differences between the groups on receipt of food stamps in the last quarter of year two, or average dollar amount of food stamps received over the study period.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The study authors estimated multiple related impacts on outcomes related to earnings, employment, and public benefits receipt. 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.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Atlanta HCD, and not to other factors.