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 Oklahoma City 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 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 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 less likely to receive public benefits compared to control group participants. However, control participants were significantly more likely to be employed.
- The study receives a high evidence rating. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Oklahoma City JOBS program, and not to other factors.
Intervention Examined
Oklahoma City’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 Oklahoma City 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 Oklahoma City site targeted AFDC applicants and teen parents between 16-19 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 Oklahoma City site.
The study used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of Oklahoma City’s program on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. Applicants who enrolled in the study between September 1991 and May 1993 were randomized to the treatment group or the control group. The 4,409 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 4,368 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 Oklahoma City sample was primarily female (93%), 25-34 years of age (43%), white (59%), separated marital status (36%), had at least one child (51%), had earnings in the past 12 months (69%), and had at least a high school diploma or GED (55%). 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 did not find significant differences in earnings outcomes between the treatment and control groups.
Education and skills gains
- The study did not find significant difference in education outcomes between the treatment and control groups.
Employment
- The study found that significantly fewer treatment participants than control participants were employed in all four quarters of year two (10.8% vs. 12.3%).
- The study did not find a significant difference between the groups on any employment in year two or employment in the last quarter 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 $233 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 (38% vs. 41%).
- 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 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 trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Oklahoma City JOBS, and not to other factors.