Study Details | Pathways to Work

24963.03-Study of Transitions

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: TransitionsSF

Population and employment barriers:

Age (Adults (age 25+)), Employment status (Unemployed), Parenting (Noncustodial parents, Parents)

Services provided:

Case management, Child support assistance, Job development, Job readiness, Job search assistance, Performance- or behavior-based financial incentives, Post-employment participant follow-up, Soft skills training, Subsidized employment/transitional jobs

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The Division of Child Support Services (DCSS) identified and invited a sample of eligible individuals from their database each month. Individuals were eligible if they were a noncustodial parent between the ages of 18 and 60; were living in San Francisco; were either unemployed or underemployed; and were behind in child support payments by 121 or more days, had made child support payments of less than $100 in the past 120 days, had zero or reserved orders because of low income, or were required to have child support orders established within 30 days. To reach their target recruitment number, DCSS staff reached out to custodial parents for help contacting noncustodial parents and also advertised the program in the community, including in halfway houses, jails, and community centers. Interested individuals attended an orientation at a public library and, if they agreed to participate, attended a random assignment appointment two days later where they were randomly assigned to either the TransitionsSF program or a comparison group. A total of 995 people were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (502) or the comparison group (493).

Time period of study:

Evaluators randomly assigned people into groups for the study between November 2011 and December 2013. The study reports impacts up to 30 months after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Decrease long-term benefit receipt

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	2,113.00	7,151.00	5,038.00	2013 dollars	994
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Quarters 7-10	High	8,551.00	10,211.00	1,660.00	2015 dollars	994
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	10.50	19.30	8.80	percentage points	994
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 5	High	39.90	45.90	6.00	percentage points	994
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Month 30	High	66.10	70.60	4.50	percentage points	655
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Quarters 7-10	High	25.10	32.60	7.50	percentage points	994
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Quarters 7-10	High	53.90	61.50	7.60	percentage points	994
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps, monthly	Month 30	High	43.00	38.00	-5.00	percentage points	655

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 unemployed or underemployed noncustodial parents. The majority of participants were male (88 percent). Sixty-seven percent were Black; the average age was 40 years. At the time the study began, 8 percent were married, 28 percent had formerly been incarcerated, 14 percent were homeless, and 29 percent did not have a high school diploma.

Age

Mean age	40 years
Young adults	5%
Adults (age 25+)	95%

Sex

Female	12%
Male	88%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	67%
White, not Hispanic	3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	19%
Asian	5%
Unknown, not reported, or other	5%

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	8%
Parents	100%
Noncustodial parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were unemployed	100%
Public benefits recipients	45%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	4%
Had a high school diploma or GED	72%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	29%
Postsecondary credential	4%

Specific employment barriers

Were involved with the justice system	79%
Were fomerly incarcerated	28%
Were experiencing homelessness	14%
Were military veterans	1%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Goodwill Industries and the San Francisco Department of Child Support Services

Program history:

The program is based on a subsidized employment program that the city's Human Services Agency funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Intervention services:

The TransitionsSF program served unemployed and underemployed noncustodial parents. The program included three phases. The first, which typically lasted three weeks, was a pre-transitional job period, during which participants took assessments to determine whether they needed substance abuse services, mental health services, or other services. If participants needed such services, case managers made appropriate referrals. During this time, participants also received job-readiness training to help them develop their soft skills. In the second phase, participants were placed in subsidized transitional jobs for five months. Participants were placed at a nonprofit (Goodwill), in the public sector, or in the private sector, depending on their readiness. Near the end of the transitional job, participants received job search assistance. In the third phase, staff assisted participants for one year with job searching if the participant had not found a job, or with retention and advancement if they had found a job. During each phase, participants received case management services. As an incentive to continue participation in the program, participants had suspended driver's licenses reinstated, and their child support payments were reduced while they continued participating in the program.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Comparison group members could participate in other programs, including DCSS's Custodial and Noncustodial Employment Training Program.

Service receipt duration:

The pre-transitional jobs period lasted three weeks; participants were then placed in transitional jobs for five months. Participants received support for one year after the transitional job ended. In total, participants received services for about a year and a half.

Intervention funding:

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

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $10,702 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $1,904 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $8,798 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 TransitionsSF