Study Details for:
Butler, David, Julianna Alson, Dan Bloom, Victoria Deitch, Aaron Hill, JoAnn Hsueh, Erin Jacobs, Sue Kim, Reanin McRoberts, and Cindy Redcross (2012). What strategies work for the hard-to-employ? Final results of the hard-to-employ demonstration and evaluation project and selected sites from The Employment Retention and Advancement project, OPRE Report 2012-08, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [ NYC PRIDE]
Additional Citations: Bloom, Dan, Cynthia Miller, and Gilda Azurdia (2007). The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) program in New York City, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Study URL: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/strategies_work.pdf (Link not working?)

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE)
See Study Characteristics tab below for more information about this program.

Strength of Evidence: 3-Low Low (1 of 3)

Populations Targeted Chronically ill, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only
Services Provided Education, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Findings

This study had a low evidence rating and the review has little confidence that its reported effects can be attributed to the approach it tested, so findings from this study are not listed.

Study Characteristics

Group Formation Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Safety Net benefit recipients were randomly assigned either to PRIDE or to services as usual. The assignment mechanism was a "lottery-like process" that met the standard for randomization based on the more detailed information available in the interim report (Bloom 2007). However, the probability of assignment to treatment changed from 66 to 50 percent in August 2002 and remained at 50 percent through the end of randomization in December 2002.
Strength of Evidence Description Low; the study experienced a shift in the probability of assignment to the treatment condition over time, and we were unable to verify with the authors whether their analysis accounted for the shift. Therefore, the review treated the design as a quasi-experimental matched comparison group design, with baseline equivalence required on several characteristics. The study did not assess and therefore cannot demonstrate equivalence on participant sex.