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. [Riverside HCD vs. Control]

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 evaluation of the Riverside Human Capital Development (HCD) program. The authors investigated similar research questions for other contrasts and sites, the profiles of which can be found here.
  • The study was a randomized controlled trial at the Riverside, California 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 a training credentials, be employed, 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 Riverside Human Capital Development (HCD) program, and not to other factors.

Intervention Examined

Riverside 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 Riverside Human Capital Development (HCD) program operated under the JOBS program. The Riverside 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 Riverside site.

The study used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of Riverside’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 June 1991 and June 1993 were randomized to one of two treatment groups (HCD or LFA) or a control group. The authors assigned 1,596 applicants to the treatment group that received the HCD intervention and 1,539 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 (89%) female, with half (50%) between the ages of 25 and 34, and almost half (49%) identifying as white, non-Hispanic. About one third (33%) had never been married and over half (56%) had received at least a high school diploma or GED. Over half (56%) were parenting at least one child aged five or younger and 11% 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 did not find significant differences in earnings outcomes between the treatment and control groups.

Education and skills gains

  • The study found that more treatment participants than control participants obtained any education or training credential over the study period (14% vs. 9%), and obtained a GED or high school diploma over the study period (11% vs. 2%). These differences were both significant.
  • The study did not find a significant difference between the groups for obtaining a trade license or certificate during the study period.

Employment

  • The study found that significantly more treatment participants than control participants were ever employed in year two (38% vs. 32%).
  • The study did not find a significant difference between the groups for employment in the last quarter of year two or employment in all four quarters of year two.

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 $1049 less in AFDC benefits over the study period. These differences were significant.
  • The study found that significantly fewer treatment participants than control participants were receiving AFDC in the last quarter of year two (56% vs. 60%).
  • The study found that control participants received $286 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 (58% vs. 52%), a statistically significant finding.

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. 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 trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Riverside HCD, and not to other factors.

Reviewed by CLEAR

June 2022

Topic Area