- Log in to post comments
Subgroups
Evaluators randomly assigned approved welfare recipients to the intervention or comparison groups at an orientation meeting. Specifically, individuals who called in to inquire about the MOST program, who were referred from income maintenance offices, or who missed their original orientation were instructed to attend a MOST orientation. As a result, the research sample consists of people who attended a MOST orientation, and the impacts thus represent the program effects after orientation. The random assignment process began in May 1992 and ended in June 1994. The sample for a client survey conducted two years after random assignment was randomly selected from individuals who were randomly assigned in January to December 1993.
Random assignment took place between May 1992 and June 1994. The evaluation followed participants for five years.
The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) evaluation was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation), and by the U.S. Department of Education.
The study only examined single parents. All sample members were single-parent heads of households and were at least 18 years old when they were randomly assigned. Most (97 percent) were female, more than 87 percent were Black, and the average number of children was two. About 21 percent had any earnings in the past 12 months, and fewer than 7 percent were currently employed. About 43 percent did not have a GED or higher at the time of random assignment.
Michigan Family Independence Agency
The program extended and codified existing welfare-to-work practices.
The MOST program operated in two Michigan Department of Social Services offices in Detroit. Program staff provided case management and encouraged clients to complete education and training before they applied for jobs. Clients who did not yet have a high school diploma or GED were assigned to a GED course, and other clients were assigned to vocational or postsecondary education. Staff did not follow client participation closely and rarely imposed financial sanctions (such as a reduction in cash assistance) on nonparticipating clients. Case managers also helped clients arrange for child care and transportation. People who were still receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) about two years after the study began (October 1994) were referred to Work First, which replaced MOST. Work First was phased in over about three years and emphasized job search and placement. People who did not get a job in the first 30 days of Work First could participate in training and education activities or community work experience. Work First also had stronger sanctions (faster benefit reductions and case closures for noncompliance) than MOST.
People in the comparison group could not receive any program services and were not subject to participation requirements (and therefore the risk of nonparticipation sanctions) for program services or employment. These clients could, however, participate in employment-related activities available in their communities. In 1994, when a different agency took charge of the demonstration, it was no longer feasible to deny comparison group members access to welfare-to-work services; however, comparison group members were still referred less often to services than intervention group members.
The program was mandatory, and case managers could sanction nonparticipating clients. Typically, MOST case managers did not monitor participation closely or necessarily request sanctions in all cases of nonparticipation. Work First had stronger sanctions (faster benefit reductions and case closures for noncompliance) than MOST.
Not specified, but services ended when clients left AFDC.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through the Family Support Act; state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds
The program took place in Detroit, MI.
Health, Child care, Child well-being