Study Details | Pathways to Work

24963.01-Study of Good Transi

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Good Transitions

Population and employment barriers:

Age (Adults (age 25+)), Educational attainment (At least a high school diploma or equivalent), Parenting (Noncustodial parents, Parents), Underemployed (employment status)

Services provided:

Case management, Child support assistance, Employer-focused retention strategies, Employment coaching, Financial education, Job development, Job readiness, Job search assistance, Occupational or sectoral training, Peer mentoring, Performance- or behavior-based financial incentives, Post-employment participant follow-up, Soft skills training, Subsidized employment/transitional jobs, Transportation assistance

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Case managers in the Division of Child Support Services Fatherhood Program referred interested and eligible noncustodial parents to take part in a three- to four-day assessment for Good Transitions that took place every other week. In order to reach their target recruitment number, noncustodial parents were also recruited from community programs, mass mailings, ads, visits to barbershops, and the parole and probation agency; these individuals were sent to the Fatherhood Program for referral into the Good Transitions program. Individuals were eligible if they were a low-income, noncustodial parent with child support orders; passed a drug test; and were registered with Selective Service (unless they were female). During the assessment week, potential participants were administered drug tests and written assignments and were assessed on suitability for the program based on a range of areas, including motivation, punctuality, criminal background, work history, and problem solving. Potential participants who were not selected for the program were referred to other services. Potential participants who were selected then received more information about the program and, if they agreed to participate, were randomly assigned to either the Good Transitions program or a comparison group. A total of 996 people were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (501) or the comparison group (495).

Time period of study:

Evaluators randomly assigned people into groups for the study between March 2012 and December 2013. The study reports impacts up to 30 months after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase earnings, Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase employment, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Decrease benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Child support and family relations, Material hardship, Criminal justice, Economic and personal well-being

Study funded by:

Employment and Training Administration in the U.S. Department of Labor and ACF

Results

View table help Need more context or definitions for the table below? View the table help to get insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

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	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	6,709.00	8,765.00	2,056.00	2013 dollars	996
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Quarters 7-10	High	13,168.00	14,098.00	930.00	2015 dollars	996
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Month 12	High	65.10	72.70	7.60	percentage points	812
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	20.30	67.60	47.30	percentage points	996
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 5	High	57.60	68.90	11.30	percentage points	996
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Month 30	High	71.80	76.00	4.20	percentage points	802
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Quarters 7-10	High	45.00	48.90	3.90	percentage points	996
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Quarters 7-10	High	74.10	79.10	5.00	percentage points	996
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Quarters 7-10	High	27.30	21.90	-5.40	percentage points	802
Increase education and training	Earned OSHA or forklift certification	12 months	High	5.90	26.50	20.60	percentage points	812
Increase education and training	Earned professional license or certification (not including OSHA or forklift)	12 months	High	8.60	20.20	11.60	percentage points	812
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED	12 months	High	2.20	2.30	0.10	percentage points	812

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

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.

Findings key:

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

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

The study examined noncustodial parents with low income. The majority were male (94 percent), were Black (91 percent), and had an average age of 40 years. At the time the study began, 12 percent were married, 34 percent had formerly been incarcerated, and 20 percent did not have a high school diploma.

Age

Mean age	40 years
Young adults	3%
Adults (age 25+)	97%

Sex

Female	6%
Male	94%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	91%
White, not Hispanic	4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	3%
Unknown, not reported, or other	2%

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

Married	12%
Parents	100%
Noncustodial parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Public benefits recipients	55%
Underemployed	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	11%
Had a high school diploma or GED	80%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	20%
Postsecondary credential	11%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	6%
Had a substance abuse disorder	1%
Were involved with the justice system	66%
Were fomerly incarcerated	34%
Were experiencing homelessness	5%
Were military veterans	13%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Goodwill of North Georgia and the Georgia Division of Child Support Services's Fatherhood Program

Program history:

The program was developed for the demonstration.

Intervention services:

The Good Transitions program served noncustodial parents with low income. Participants entering the program first underwent two days of assessments, and then they were placed in a subsidized job at Goodwill for about one month. During this time, an on-site job coach provided feedback and support. After this initial experience with subsidized employment, participants were placed with a private employer in less supported subsidized employment for about three months. The program also provided case management; life-skills workshops; job development services; and short-term, occupation-specific training.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Comparison group members could participate in other programs or receive services from the Fatherhood Program that referred participants into the Good Transitions program.

Service receipt duration:

Participants typically had four months of subsidized employment.

Intervention funding:

Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $8,335 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $2,018 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $6,317 per person. This represents how much more it cost to provide intervention services compared to comparison services.

These figures are based on cost information reported by study authors. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2024 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Barden, Bret, Randall Juras, Cindy Redcross, Mary Farrell, and Dan Bloom (2018). New perspectives on creating jobs – Final impacts of the next generation of subsidized employment programs, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/the-enhanced-transitional-jobs-demo-new-perspectives-creating-jobs-final-impacts-next-generation-subsidized-employment-programs.

Bloom, Dan (2015). Testing the next generation of subsidized employment programs: An introduction to the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration and the Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration, OPRE Report #2015-58, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/testing-next-gen-subsidized-employ-intro-enhanced-trans-jobs-demo.

Fink, Barbara (2018). Findings from in-depth interviews with participants in subsidized employment programs, OPRE Report #2018-120, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/sted_topics_qualitative_508.pdf.

Redcross, Cindy, Bret Barden, and Dan Bloom (2016). The Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration: Implementation and early impacts of the next generation of subsidized employment programs, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/the-enhanced-transitional-jobs-demonstration-implementation-early-impacts-next-generation-subsidized-employment-programs.

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.

Study of Good Transitions—Atlanta