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, employment, education, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the Detroit JOBS 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 Detroit, Michigan 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 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 Detroit JOBS program, and not to other factors.
Intervention Examined
Detroit’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 Detroit site used an education focused approach to encourage long term education and training activities. Case mangers assisted clients to increase their skills to enter the job market. The Detroit site targeted AFDC applicants and teen parents between 18-19 years old, with their youngest child at least one-year-old.
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 Detroit site.
The study used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of Detroit’s program on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. Applicants who enrolled in the study between May 1992 and June 1994 were randomized to the treatment group or the control group. The 2,226 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 2,233 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 Detroit sample was primarily female (98%), 25-34 years of age (43%), black (87%), never married (68%), had at least one child (44%), and had at least a high school diploma or GED (57%). 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 $311 more than control participants in year two. This difference was significant.
- The study did not find any other significant differences in earnings outcomes between the groups.
Education and skills gains
- The study did not find a significant difference in education outcomes between the treatment and control groups.
Employment
- The study found that more treatment participants than control participants were employed in the last quarter of year two (39% vs. 36%), and were employed in all four quarters of year two (17% vs. 15%). These differences were significant.
- The study did not find a significant difference between the groups on any employment in 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 that fewer treatment participants than control participants were receiving AFDC in the last quarter of year two (70% vs. 74%). These differences were significant.
- The study also found that the treatment participants were less likely than the control participants to receive food stamps in the last quarter of year two (78% vs. 82%), a statistically significant finding.
- The study did not find any significant differences between the groups on the average dollar amount of AFDC or food stamps received over the study period.
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 Detroit JOBS, and not to other factors.