HighStudy design
Design:
Study group formation:
Time period of study:
Primary outcome domains examined:
Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employmentOther outcome domains examined:
Relationship skills, relationship attitudes, intimate partner violence, relationship experiences, better off financially now, and economic hardship.Study funded by:
Results
Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns
| Outcome domain | Measure | Timing | Study quality by finding | Comparison group mean | Intervention group mean | Impact | Units | Findings | Sample size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Increase short-term earnings | Monthly earnings across one year | 1 to 4 quarters |
High
|
676.00 | 676.00 | 2019 Dollars |
|
724 | |
| Increase long-term earnings | Monthly earnings across two years | 1 to 8 quarters |
High
|
799.00 | 803.00 | 3.00 | 2020 Dollars |
|
724 |
| Increase short-term employment | Currently employed | One-year followup |
High
|
76.00 | 76.00 | percentage points |
|
641 | |
| Increase short-term employment | Currently employed | One-year follow-up survey |
High
|
76.00 | 76.00 | percentage points |
|
641 | |
| Increase short-term employment | Ever employed, annual | 1 to 4 quarters |
High
|
92.00 | 89.00 | -3.00 | percentage points |
|
724 |
| Increase short-term employment | Number of quarters employed since random assignment |
High
|
2.96 | 2.87 | -0.09 | Count |
|
724 |
High
Moderate
The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance
Sample characteristics
The study targeted young adults seeking employment services. The majority of study participants were female (63 percent) and most (93 percent) were Black, non-Hispanic. Some 81 percent had at least a high school diploma, and 80 percent were actively looking for work. Two-thirds relied on public assistance (60 percent), and 49 percent had at least one child.
Age
| Mean age | 24 years |
Sex
| Female | 63% |
| Male | 37% |
Participant race and ethnicity
| Black or African American |
93%
|
| Another race |
7%
|
The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.
Family status
| Parents | 49% |
Participant employment and public benefit status
| Were employed | 57% |
| Were unemployed | 43% |
| Public benefits recipients | 60% |
Participant education
| Had a high school diploma or GED | 81% |
| Did not have a high school diploma or GED | 19% |
Specific employment barriers
| Were involved with the justice system | 17% |
Intervention implementation
Implementing organization:
Program history:
Intervention services:
Mandatory services:
Comparison services:
Service receipt duration:
Intervention funding:
Study publications
Goesling, Brian, and Robert G. Wood (2023). Integrating healthy marriage and relationship education with economic stability services: Findings from two programs. OPRE Report No. 2023-12. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Goesling, Brian, Max Gross, and Julieta Lugo-Gil (2022). Integrating Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education into an Employment Training Program: The Impacts of Career STREAMS. OPRE Report No. 2022-162, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Gross, Max, Brian Goesling, and Julieta Lugo-Gil (2023). Integrating healthy marriage and relationship education into an employment program. Family Relations, 72(4), 1405-1421. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12866
View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.
The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.
101004-Study of Career STRE