Submitted by user on
Study Name
Training Focused Program—Single Parents
Study Sharepoint ID
3.3094.03
Evaluation name
Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project
Characteristics
Percent female
92.30
Percent Male
7.70
Percent Any postsecondary education
6.60
Percent No high school diploma or GED
42.10
Percent With a high school diploma or GED
57.90
Percent Parents
100.00
Percent Single Parents
100.00
Percent Employed
100.00
Percent welfare population
100.00
Percent Asian
2.30
Percent Black or African American
20.40
Percent Hispanic or Latino of any race
45.40
Percent American Indian or Alaska Native
0.70
Percent White not Hispanic
31.30
Mean age
30.10
Group formation formatted

Clients who had participated in a Phase 1 (pre-employment) Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) program, who also had reported obtaining a job and met a series of eligibility requirements, were eligible for random assignment into Phase 2 (postemployment). These eligibility criteria included working 20 or more hours for at least one week over the past 30 days, earning an hourly wage greater than or equal to the state minimum ($6.75), and an expectation to work an average of 20 or more hours per week for at least 30 days. The evaluation excluded clients who (1) were already enrolled in Phase 2 at the time of random assignment, (2) were New Visions (another evaluation) sample members, and (3) were Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency members from random assignment. This review focuses on single-parent families, and another review discusses results for two-parent families. Among the people eligible for random assignment, 72 percent were placed in a non-research group, 7 percent were placed in each of the Training Focused and comparison (Work Focused) groups, and 14 percent were placed in the Work Plus group. Sample members were enrolled from January 2001 to October 2003. Participants were eligible for a 12-month survey if they were randomly assigned from October 2001 to December 2002, were 18 years or older at the time of random assignment, and spoke English or Spanish. The survey was administered to a random subset of 911 eligible sample members; 311 in the Work Plus group, 302 in the Training Focused group, and 298 in the Work Focused group. This review focuses on the contrast between Training Focused and Work Focused group members for single parent families. Other reviews on this site examine the contrast of Work Plus and Work Focused as well as of Work Plus and Training Focused and contrasts for two-parent families.

Study timing formatted

Random assignment began in January 2001 and concluded in October 2003. Outcome data were collected for four years after random assignment.

Study funding formatted

The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in ACF at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded the study, with support from the U.S. Department of Labor.

Sample Characteristics

Clients were single-parent recipients of TANF benefits who worked 20 or more hours a week but earned too little to leave public assistance. Across the Work Plus, Work Focused, and Training Focused groups, and among those randomly assigned from January 2001 to September 2003, clients were predominantly female (92 percent). The average age was 30 years, and 42 percent lacked a high school diploma or equivalent. Almost half (45 percent) were Hispanic, 21 percent were Black, and 31 percent were White.

Implementing organization formatted

The Training Focused condition was implemented by the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (workforce development agency) in California.

Program history

In 1998, DPSS created a postemployment program focused on encouraging clients to attend training or education courses outside of work. In subsequent years, DPSS staff worked with education and training providers to create variations of the this postemployment program (one of which is Training Focused). The Training Focused program started in September 2000.

Treatment condition formatted

Training Focused Program clients could receive intensive case management and enhanced support services, aimed at encouraging employment stability. To continue to receive benefits, participants were required to engage in employment-related activities for 32 hours per week. Program staff allowed Training Focused participants to decrease work hours per week to zero hours to pursue education and training activities, with the philosophy that eliminating the requirement to engage in work would allow participants to access the most useful education and training programs. Participation in education and training was voluntary, but if participants chose not to pursue education and training, they were required to participate in other permitted activities—including work—for at least 32 hours per week. The program also provided clients with support services (for example, child care, transportation, and ancillary payments to participate in program activities), social services (for example, mental health, domestic violence, and substance abuse), referrals to public assistance programs (for example, TANF, Food Stamps, and Medi-Cal), and job search services.

Comparison condition formatted

The comparison condition was known as Work Focused. Clients in this condition were eligible to receive TANF, Food Stamps, child care and transportation assistance (only if the client self-enrolled in an eligible program), and Medi-Cal. They also received limited and reactive case management.

Mandatory services formatted

Participants had to meet requirements for hours of work or other authorized activities per week; otherwise, they could be sanctioned.

Timing of study formatted

The authors did not explicitly state how long a typical participant received Training Focused services, but eligibility ended when a client left TANF (most did so within one year of random assignment). Long-term vocational training courses could last up to two years.

Program funding formatted

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of Labor.

Setting details formatted

The study took place in Riverside County, California.

Delivered by public or private entity?
Public
Secondary domains examined

None

Earliest publication year
2005
Most recent publication year
2010
Manuscripts
Check edits flag
No
Primary Service
Training
Enrollment Period
January 2001 to October 2003