SERVICES PROVIDED:

Definitions & Key

  1. Study
  2. Citation
  3. Evaluation
  4. Strength of evidence
  5. Outcome domain
  6. Long term
  7. Short term
  8. Favorable impact
  9. Unfavorable impact
  10. No effect
  11. Mixed effects

  • Study - A study examines the impact of a service, strategy, or program on a specific population after a specific period of time. For the purposes of this review, each comparison between the group that received the intervention (the treatment group) and the group that did not (the control group) is reported as a separate study. For example, if a research report compares multiple services, strategies, or programs, or looks separately at the impacts in multiple locations, then each set of findings is reported as a separate study.
    Top
  • Citation – A single research report, paper, or article. This single document may contain multiple “studies” as defined above. When this occurs, we differentiate the components of the publication in brackets after the citation.
    Top
  • Evaluation – A research project that may cover multiple locations, populations, or time periods; the evaluation results may be reported in several citations (publications), perhaps each with multiple embedded studies.
    Top
  • Strength of evidence – Three possible ratings—high, moderate, and low—describe how likely it is that the study’s estimated program impacts were caused by that program, not something else.

    • High (3 of 3) High (3 of 3) - Reserved for random assignment studies with low attrition of sample members and no reassignment of sample members after the original random assignment.
    • Moderate (2 of 3) Moderate (2 of 3) - Applies to random assignment studies that, due to flaws in the study design or analysis (for example, high sample attrition), do not meet the criteria for the high rating, but satisfy other design criteria. The moderate rating is also possible for matched comparison group designs that are well executed.
    • Low (1 of 3) Low (1 of 3) - Studies that do not meet the high or moderate ratings criteria are assigned the low rating.
    A study may analyze multiple outcomes; individual outcomes may rate lower than the study overall if those outcomes have high attrition or do not show that the groups being analyzed were equivalent before the study began. More information about study ratings is available in our methods documentation.
    Top
  • Outcome domain – A group of related outcomes that measure the same or similar constructs. The Employment Strategies Evidence Review includes seven outcome domains: short-term earnings, long-term earnings, short-term employment, long-term employment, short-term public benefit receipt (such as TANF, EITC, SNAP, etc.), long-term public benefit receipt, and education and training (which focuses on attainment of a degree or credential).
    Top
  • Long-term – For this review, greater than 18 months. (Study authors defined the starting point of the 18-month window.)
    Top
  • Short-term – For this review, 18 months or less. (Study authors defined the starting point of the 18-month window.)
    Top
  • Favorable impact – A statistically significant (p<.05) impact on an outcome in a direction that is beneficial for the target population. For example, a favorable impact could be an increase in annual earnings or consecutive months of employment, or a reduction in months of TANF eligibility. A green check mark symbol indicates a favorable impact, or a domain that had a favorable impact, for this review.
    Top
  • Unfavorable impact – A statistically significant (p<.05) impact on an outcome in a direction that is not beneficial for the target population. For example, an unfavorable impact could be a decrease in annual earnings or consecutive months of employment, or an increase in months of TANF eligibility. A red x symbol indicates an unfavorable impact, or a domain that had an unfavorable impact.
    Top
  • No effect – There was no statistically significant (p<.05) impact of the program on the outcome. Any difference that was observed between the program and comparison groups is very likely due to chance, and not to the program.
    Top
  • Mixed effects – An outcome domain that has both favorable and unfavorable effects is categorized as having mixed effects. For instance, in the educational attainment domain, a program may have favorable effects on GED attainment, but unfavorable effects on attainment of a high school diploma. A brown box symbol indicates a domain for which the same study reported both favorable and unfavorable impacts.
    Top

Results by Study

225 Studies Found.

Click on the desired brief citation below to view the complete study profile. Click on "Results by Outcome Domain" to view information about the high- or moderate- rated studies with findings in each outcome domain.


Anderson et al., 2009, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Los Angeles Reach [ RFS—Los Angeles] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Reach For Success (RFS)—Los Angeles

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Auspos et al., 2000, Final report on the implementation and impacts of the Minnesota Family Investment Program in Ramsey [ MFIP-R versus AFDC, single parents in the early cohort] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP-R versus AFDC, single parents in the early cohort

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Auspos et al., 2000, Final report on the implementation and impacts of the Minnesota Family Investment Program in Ramsey [ MFIP-R versus AFDC-UP, two-parent families in the early cohort] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP-R versus AFDC-UP, two-parent families in the early cohort

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Azurdia et al. 2008, The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Impacts for Portland's Career Builders Program ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Career Builders—Portland

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Long-term benefit receipt

Beecroft et al., 2003, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits [Early cohort] ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Program Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation—Early cohort

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Beecroft et al., 2003, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits [Later cohort] ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Program Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation—Later cohort

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Blomquist, 1995, The Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration: Report on program costs and benefits [ JOBS] ...

Evaluation: Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration

Program Studied: Job Opportunity and Basic Skills Training (JOBS)

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

Populations Targeted Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Blomquist, 1995, The Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration: Report on program costs and benefits [Work Choice] ...

Evaluation: Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration

Program Studied: Work Choice

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

Populations Targeted Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Bloom et al., 1997, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and early impacts of Florida's initial time-limited ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Program Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single parents, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single parents, WRP versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single parents, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Long-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Long-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 1998, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and interim impacts of Florida's initial time-limited ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Program Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundEducation and training, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 1999, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and three-year impacts of Florida's initial time-limited welfare program ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Program Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 2000, The Family Transition Program: Final report on Florida's initial time-limited welfare program ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Program Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 2000, Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project: Key findings from the [Single parents, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Bloom et al., 2000, Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project: Key findings from the [Single parents, WRP versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Bloom et al., 2000, Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project: Key findings from the [Single parents, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Bloom et al., 2005, Promoting work in public housing: The effectiveness of Jobs-Plus final report ...

Evaluation: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families

Program Studied: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings

Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Texas ERA—Houston

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [South Carolina] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Moving Up—South Carolina

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Rural only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Early results from four sites [Training Focused—Riverside, CA] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Training Focused—Riverside, California

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Work Plus— Riverside, CA] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Work Plus—Riverside, California

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Early results from four sites [Work Plus versus Training Focused—Riverside, CA] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Riverside, California—Work Plus versus Training Focused

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Bloom, 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [Two Parent with an incapacitated parent, WRP Incentives only versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term benefit receipt

Bos et al., 1999, New Hope for people with low incomes: Two-year results of a program ...

Evaluation: New Hope Project

Program Studied: New Hope Project

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

Populations Targeted Employed, General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Education and training, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Atlanta Urban League] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Program Studied: Atlanta Urban League (AUL)

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents, Women
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Center for Employment Training] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Program Studied: Center for Employment Training (CET)

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents, Women
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Opportunities Industrialization Center] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Program Studied: Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC)

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents, Women
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Wider Opportunities for Women] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Program Studied: Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW)

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents, Women
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Burt, 2007, Evaluation of LA's HOPE: Ending chronic homelessness through employment and housing—Final [Affiliated comparison] ...

Evaluation: Los Angeles' Homeless Opportunity Providing Employment (HOPE)

Program Studied: Los Angeles' Homeless Opportunity Providing Employment (HOPE)

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

Populations Targeted Hard-to-employ, Homeless, Mentally ill
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Burt, 2007, Evaluation of LA's HOPE: Ending chronic homelessness through employment and housing—Final [Other comparison] ...

Evaluation: Los Angeles' Homeless Opportunity Providing Employment (HOPE)

Program Studied: Los Angeles' Homeless Opportunity Providing Employment (HOPE)

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

Populations Targeted Hard-to-employ, Homeless, Mentally ill
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Butler et al., 2012, What strategies work for the hard-to-employ? Final results of the hard-to-employ demonstration [ NYC PRIDE] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE)

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

Butler et al., 2012, What strategies work for the hard-to-employ? Final results of the hard-to-employ demonstration [ NYC SACM] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Substance Abuse Case Management (SACM) Program

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

Populations Targeted Hard-to-employ, Substance dependent, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Butler et al., 2012, What strategies work for the hard-to-employ? Final results of the hard-to-employ demonstration [Minnesota Tier 2] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Minnesota Tier 2

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

Populations Targeted Long-term welfare recipients, Parents, Single parents, Unemployed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings

Doolittle et al., 1998, Building opportunities, enforcing obligations: Implementation and interim impacts of Parents' Fair Share ...

Evaluation: Parents' Fair Share (PFS)

Program Studied: Parents’ Fair Share (PFS)

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

Populations Targeted Men, Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings

Duncan et al., 2008, New Hope's Eight-Year Impacts on Employment and Family Income ...

Evaluation: New Hope Project

Program Studied: New Hope Project

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Long-term benefit receipt

Farrell, 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and two-year impacts ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Education and training, Short-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Fein and Karweit, 1997, The ABC evaluation: The early economic impacts of Delaware's A Better Chance welfare reform program. ...

Evaluation: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program

Program Studied: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Fein and Lee, 1999, The ABC evaluation: Carrying and using the stick: Financial sanction's in Delaware's ...

Evaluation: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program

Program Studied: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Fein et al., 1994, The Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration: Final impacts for JOBS and Work Choice [ JOBS] ...

Evaluation: Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration

Program Studied: Job Opportunity and Basic Skills Training (JOBS)

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

Populations Targeted Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Fein et al., 1994, The Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration: Final impacts for JOBS and Work Choice [Work Choice] ...

Evaluation: Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration

Program Studied: Work Choice

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

Populations Targeted Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Fein et al., 1998, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Program implementation and economic impacts after two years ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Program Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Fein et al., 2001, The ABC evaluation: Turning the corner: Delaware's A Better Chance welfare reform program ...

Evaluation: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program

Program Studied: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Fein, 1994, The Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration— JOBS assignments in Ohio: Patterns and impacts ...

Evaluation: Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration

Program Studied: Job Opportunity and Basic Skills Training (JOBS)

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

Populations Targeted Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Fraker et al., 2002, The evaluation of welfare reform in Iowa: Final impact report [Applicant FIP] ...

Evaluation: Iowa Family Investment Program

Program Studied: Iowa Family Investment Program [Applicant FIP]

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

Populations Targeted Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundEducation and training, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Mixed Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Fraker et al., 2002, The evaluation of welfare reform in Iowa: Final impact report [Ongoing FIP] ...

Evaluation: Iowa Family Investment Program

Program Studied: Iowa Family Investment Program [Ongoing FIP]

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

Populations Targeted Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Education and training, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 1996, The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Program Studied: GAIN Single-parent households

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 1996, The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt [Two-parents households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Program Studied: GAIN Two-parent households

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000 National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies: Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts [Oklahoma City-ET&E] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Oklahoma City (Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) program)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Soft skills training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Long-term earnings, Education and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundEducation and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches [Grand Rapids— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Education and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundEducation and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundEducation and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Education and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year impacts [Columbus-Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Education and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year impacts [Columbus-Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundEducation and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year impacts [Detroit- MOST] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Education and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year impacts [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundEducation and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings

Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings

Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings

Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs [Grand Rapids— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings

Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs on [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings

Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of the programs on [Columbus—Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings

Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of the programs on [Columbus—Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Long-term earnings

Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of the programs on [Detroit— MOST] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings

Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of the programs on [Portland— JOBS] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Portland (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings

Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of the programs on [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Long-term earnings

Freedman, et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts of [Portland- JOBS] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Portland (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Friedlander et al. 1993. GAIN: Two-year impacts in six counties [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Program Studied: GAIN Two-parent households

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case Management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Friedlander et al., 1993, GAIN: Two-year impacts in six counties [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Program Studied: GAIN Single-parent households

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Gasper and Henderson, 2014, Sector-focused career centers evaluation: Effects on employment and earnings after one ...

Evaluation: Sector-Focused Career Centers Evaluation

Program Studied: Sector-Focused Career Centers

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Employment retention services, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Gennetian et al., 2005, Turning welfare into a work support: Six-year impacts on parents and children [Single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP [Single-parent families]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Gennetian et al., 2005, Turning welfare into a work support: Six-year impacts on parents and children [Two-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP [Two-parent families]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Long-term employment, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Gordon and Burghardt, 1990, The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts [Atlanta Urban League] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Program Studied: Atlanta Urban League (AUL)

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents, Women
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training

Gordon and Burghardt, 1990, The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts [Center for Employment Training] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Program Studied: Center for Employment Training (CET)

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents, Women
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Gordon and Burghardt, 1990, The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts [Opportunities Industrialization Center] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Program Studied: Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC)

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents, Women
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Gordon and Burghardt, 1990, The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts [Wider Opportunities for Women] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Program Studied: Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW)

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents, Women
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 1996, The New York State Child Assistance Program: Five-year impacts, costs, and benefits ...

Evaluation: New York Child Assistance Program (CAP)

Program Studied: New York Child Assistance Program (CAP)

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

Populations Targeted Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services

Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Education and training, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Atlanta— LFA versus HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment versus Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term earnings, Long-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Grand Rapids— LFA versus HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment versus Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Grand Rapids- LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Riverside— LFA versus HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment versus Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Long-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Atlanta— LFA versus HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment versus Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term earnings, Long-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Columbus—Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Columbus—Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Detroit— MOST] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Grand Rapids— LFA versus HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment versus Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Grand Rapids— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Oklahoma City—ET & E] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Oklahoma City (Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) program)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Soft skills training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Portland— JOBS] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Portland (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Riverside— LFA versus HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment versus Human Capital Development)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term earnings, Long-term benefit receipt

Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [ WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC - two-parent with an incapacitated parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [ WRP versus ANFC - two-parent with an incapacitated parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [ WRP versus WRP Incentives Only - two-parent with an incapacitated parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single-parent families— WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Long-term benefit receipt

Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single-parent families— WRP versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single-parent families— WRP versus WRP Incentives Only] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Two-parents families with an unemployed parent— WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Two-parents families with an unemployed parent— WRP versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Two-parents families with an unemployed parent— WRP versus WRP Incentives Only] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different [ VISION—Salem, OR] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: VISION (Valuing Individual Success and Increasing Opportunities Now)—Salem

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches [Texas ERA—Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ PASS–Riverside] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS)—Riverside, California

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ PROGRESS—Eugene] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: PROGRESS—Eugene

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ RFS—Los Angeles] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Reach For Success (RFS)—Los Angeles

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ TAAG—Medford] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Transition, Advancement, and Growth (TAAG)—Medford, Oregon

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Moving Up—South Carolina] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Moving Up—South Carolina

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents
Setting Rural only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Texas ERA—Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Texas ERA—Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Texas ERA—Houston

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Training Focused—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Training Focused—Riverside, California

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Hendra et al., 2010,The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Work Plus—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Work Plus—Riverside, California

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Huston et al., 2003, New Hope for families and children: Five-year results of a program to ...

Evaluation: New Hope Project

Program Studied: New Hope Project

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Jacobs, 2012, Returning to work after prison: Final results from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration ...

Evaluation: Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD)

Program Studied: Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD)

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

Populations Targeted Formerly incarcerated, Men, Unemployed
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Long-term earnings

Kemple and Haimson, 1994, Florida's Project Independence: Program implementation, participation patterns, and first-year impacts. ...

Evaluation: Project Independence

Program Studied: Project Independence

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Kemple et al., 1995, Florida's Project Independence: Benefits, costs, and two-year impacts of Florida's JOBS program ...

Evaluation: Project Independence

Program Studied: Project Independence

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Education and training, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Koon, 1993, The effectiveness of employment and training programs at reducing welfare dependency: The Missouri ...

Evaluation: Missouri's Job Opportunity and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) Program

Program Studied: Missouri's Job Opportunity and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) Program

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Soft skills training, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Kornfeld et al., 1999, Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER welfare reform demonstration—Impact study interim report [Navajo] ...

Evaluation: Arizona EMPOWER

Program Studied: Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and Encouraging Responsibility (EMPOWER) - Navajo

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

Populations Targeted Welfare population
Setting Rural only)
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Kornfeld et al., 1999, Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER welfare reform demonstration—Impact study interim report [Phoenix TMA] ...

Evaluation: Arizona EMPOWER

Program Studied: Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and Encouraging Responsibility (EMPOWER) - Phoenix Transitional Medical Assistance

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

Populations Targeted Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Kornfeld et al., 1999, Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER welfare reform demonstration—Impact study interim report [Phoenix Cash Assistance] ...

Evaluation: Arizona EMPOWER

Program Studied: Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and Encouraging Responsibility (EMPOWER) - Phoenix Cash Assistance

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

Populations Targeted Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

LeBlanc et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from Minnesota's tier 2 program ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Minnesota Tier 2

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

Populations Targeted Long-term welfare recipients, Parents, Single parents, Unemployed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Lippold and Sorensen., 2011, Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers: Final impact report for the pilot employment programs ...

Evaluation: Strengthening Families (The New York Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers Initiative)

Program Studied: Strengthening Families (The New York Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers Initiative)

Strength of Evidence: 2-Moderate Moderate (2 of 3)

Populations Targeted Men, Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Health services, Job development/job placement, Soft skills training, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings

Maguire et al., 2010, Tuning in to local labor markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment impact study [ JVS-Boston] ...

Evaluation: Sectoral Employment Impact Study

Program Studied: JVS-Boston

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Maguire et al., 2010, Tuning in to local labor markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment impact study [Per Scholas] ...

Evaluation: Sectoral Employment Impact Study

Program Studied: Per Scholas

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Employment retention services, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Maguire et al., 2010, Tuning in to local labor markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment impact study [Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership] ...

Evaluation: Sectoral Employment Impact Study

Program Studied: Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings

Martinez and Miller, 2000, Working and earning: The impact of Parents' Fair Share on low-income fathers' employment ...

Evaluation: Parents' Fair Share (PFS)

Program Studied: Parents’ Fair Share (PFS)

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

Populations Targeted Men, Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Education and training

Martinez et al., 2009, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Substance Abuse Case ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Substance Abuse Case Management (SACM) Program

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

Populations Targeted Hard-to-employ, Substance dependent, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Martinson and Friedlander, 1994, GAIN: Basic education in a welfare-to-work program [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Program Studied: GAIN Single-parent households

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Martinson and Friedlander, 1994, GAIN: Basic education in a welfare-to-work program [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Program Studied: GAIN Two-parent households

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Texas ERA—Houston

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Meckstroth et al., 2006, Paths to work in rural places: Key findings and lessons from the ...

Evaluation: Rural Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Strategies Demonstration Evaluation

Program Studied: Future Steps

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Rural only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Meckstroth et al., 2008, Testing case management in a rural context: An impact analysis of the ...

Evaluation: Rural Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Strategies Demonstration Evaluation

Program Studied: Future Steps

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Rural only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 1997, Making welfare work and work pay: Implementation and 18-month impacts of the Minnesota [ MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, short- and long-term recipient single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, short- and long-term recipient single-parent families

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Miller et al., 1997, Making welfare work and work pay: Implementation and 18-month impacts of the Minnesota [ MFIP versus AFDC, applicant single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, applicant single-parent families

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Miller et al., 1997, Making welfare work and work pay: Implementation and 18-month impacts of the Minnesota [ MFIP versus AFDC, short- and long-term recipient single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, short- and long-term recipient single-parent families

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Miller et al., 1997, Making welfare work and work pay: Implementation and 18-month impacts of the Minnesota [ MFIP versus AFDC, urban applicant two-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, urban applicant two-parent families

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Miller et al., 1997, Making welfare work and work pay: Implementation and 18-month impacts of the Minnesota [ MFIP versus AFDC, urban recipient two-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, urban recipient two-parent families

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Miller et al., 1997, Making welfare work and work pay: Implementation and 18-month impacts of the Minnesota [ MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, short- and long-term recipient single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, short- and long-term recipient single-parent families

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Miller et al., 1997, Making welfare work and work pay: Implementation and 18-month impacts of the Minnesota [ MFIP versus MFIP-incentives only, applicant single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus MFIP-incentives only, applicant single-parent families

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Miller et al., 1997, Making welfare work and work pay: Implementation and 18-month impacts of the Minnesota [ MFIP versus MFIP-incentives only, applicant single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus MFIP-incentives only, applicant single-parent families

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban applicants] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban applicants

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban long-term recipients] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban long-term recipients

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

Populations Targeted Long-term welfare recipients, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, single-parent long-term recipients] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, single-parent long-term recipients

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

Populations Targeted Long-term welfare recipients, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, single-parent recent applicants] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, single-parent recent applicants

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent applicant families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent applicant families

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent recipient families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent recipient families

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

Populations Targeted Long-term welfare recipients, Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Education and training, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban applicants] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban applicants

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban recipients] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Program Studied: MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban recipients

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

Populations Targeted Long-term welfare recipients, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2009, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and early impacts of [Move Up—Dayton] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Program Studied: Move Up/Career Advancement Unit—Dayton, OH

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

Populations Targeted Employed, General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, On-the-job training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundEducation and training, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2009, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and early impacts of [San Diego—EARN!] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Program Studied: Project EARN! (Earnings, Advancement, Retention Now!)—San Diego, CA

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

Populations Targeted Employed, General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, On-the-job training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Short-term earnings, Education and training, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2012, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of [Dayton—Move Up] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Program Studied: Move Up/Career Advancement Unit—Dayton, OH

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

Populations Targeted Employed, General low-income population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, On-the-job training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundEducation and training, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Miller et al., 2012, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of [San Diego—EARN!] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Program Studied: Project EARN! (Earnings, Advancement, Retention Now!)—San Diego, CA

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

Populations Targeted Employed, General low-income population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, On-the-job training, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Mills et al., 2006, Effects of housing vouchers on welfare families: Final report ...

Evaluation: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program

Program Studied: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Molina et al., 2008, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Valuing Individual Success ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: VISION (Valuing Individual Success and Increasing Opportunities Now)—Salem

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Molina et al., 2009, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Findings for the Eugene and Medford [ PROGRESS—Eugene] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: PROGRESS—Eugene

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Molina, et al.,2009, The Employment and Retention Advancement project: Findings for the Eugene and Medford [ TAAG—Medford] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Transition, Advancement, and Growth (TAAG)—Medford, Oregon

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Navarro et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the post-assistance self-sufficiency (PASS) ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS)—Riverside, California

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Navarro et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from two education and training [Training Focused—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Training Focused—Riverside, California

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Navarro et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from two education and training [Work Plus—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Work Plus—Riverside, California

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Patterson, 2004, Evaluation of the Welfare to Work Voucher program: Report to Congress ...

Evaluation: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program

Program Studied: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services
Outcome Domains Examined Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Pearson et al., 2011, Parents to Work! ...

Evaluation: Parents to Work

Program Studied: Parents to Work

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

Populations Targeted Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [Chicago] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Program Studied: Chicago PESD program

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [Portland] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Program Studied: Portland PESD Program

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [Riverside] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Program Studied: Riverside PESD program

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [San Antonio] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Program Studied: San Antonio PESD program

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Rangarajan et al., 1998, The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration: Preliminary findings [Chicago] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Program Studied: Chicago PESD program

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Rangarajan et al., 1998, The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration: Preliminary findings [Portland] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Program Studied: Portland PESD Program

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Rangarajan et al., 1998, The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration: Preliminary findings [Riverside] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Program Studied: Riverside PESD program

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Rangarajan et al., 1998, The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration: Preliminary findings [San Antonio] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Program Studied: San Antonio PESD program

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

Populations Targeted Employed, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Job development/job placement, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Rashid, 2004, Evaluating a transitional living program for homeless, former foster care youth ...

Evaluation: Youth Transitional Living Program

Program Studied: Avenues to Independence + Hire Up

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

Populations Targeted Homeless, Young adults
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Redcross et al., 2010, Work after prison: One-year findings from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration ...

Evaluation: Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD)

Program Studied: Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD)

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

Populations Targeted Formerly incarcerated, Men, Unemployed
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Mixed Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Mixed Impacts FoundShort-term earnings

Riccio and Friedlander, 1992, GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Program Studied: GAIN Single-parent households

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Riccio and Friedlander, 1992, GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Program Studied: GAIN Two-parent households

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt

Riccio et al., 1994, GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Program Studied: GAIN Single-parent households

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Riccio et al., 1994, GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Program Studied: GAIN Two-parent households

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Riccio, 2010, Sustained earnings gains for residents in a public housing jobs program: Seven-year ...

Evaluation: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families

Program Studied: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term earnings

Schexnayder, 2003, Achieving Change for Texans evaluation: Final impact report [ RER] ...

Evaluation: Achieving Change for Texans

Program Studied: Achieving Change for Texans—Responsibilities, Employment, and Resources

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services

Schexnayder, 2003, Achieving Change for Texans evaluation: Final impact report [ RER—Clint only] ...

Evaluation: Achieving Change for Texans

Program Studied: Achieving Change for Texans—Responsibilities, Employment, and Resources

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services

Schexnayder, 2003, Achieving Change for Texans evaluation: Final impact report [Time Limits] ...

Evaluation: Achieving Change for Texans

Program Studied: Achieving Change for Texans—Time Limits

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Financial incentives or sanctions, Supportive services

Schochet et al., 2000, National Job Corps study: The short-term impacts of Job Corps on participants' ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Program Studied: Job Corps

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Young adults
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Health services, Occupational or sectoral training, Physical health services, Soft skills training, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Mixed Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Mixed Impacts FoundEducation and training, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Schochet et al., 2001, National Job Corps study: The impacts of Job Corps on participants' employment ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Program Studied: Job Corps

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Young adults
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Health services, Occupational or sectoral training, Physical health services, Soft skills training, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Mixed Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Mixed Impacts FoundEducation and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Schochet et al., 2003, National Job Corps study: Findings using administrative earnings records data ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Program Studied: Job Corps

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Young adults
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Health services, Occupational or sectoral training, Physical health services, Soft skills training, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Unfavorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Long-term earnings

Schochet et al., 2006, National Job Corps study and longer-term follow-up study: Impact and benefit-cost findings ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Program Studied: Job Corps

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Young adults
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Health services, Occupational or sectoral training, Physical health services, Soft skills training, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Long-term employment, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Schroeder and Khan, 2011, Non-custodial parent choices - PEER pilot: Impact report ...

Evaluation: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

Program Studied: Non-Custodial Parent Choices PEER curriculum enhancement pilot

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

Populations Targeted Men, Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Employment retention services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term benefit receipt

Schroeder et al., 2007, Texas Non-Custodial Parent Choices: Preliminary program impact analysis ...

Evaluation: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

Program Studied: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

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

Populations Targeted Men, Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Employment retention services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Schroeder et al., 2007, Texas Non-Custodial Parent Choices: Program impact analysis plan ...

Evaluation: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

Program Studied: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

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

Populations Targeted Men, Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Employment retention services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Schroeder et al., 2008, Texas Non-Custodial Parent Choices: Program impact analysis ...

Evaluation: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

Program Studied: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

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

Populations Targeted Men, Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Employment retention services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Schroeder et al., 2009, Texas Non-Custodial Parent Choices: Program impact analysis ...

Evaluation: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

Program Studied: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

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

Populations Targeted Men, Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Employment retention services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Schroeder et al., 2011, Non-Custodial Parent Choices - Establishment pilot: Impact report ...

Evaluation: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

Program Studied: Non-Custodial Parent Choices Establishment Pilot

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

Populations Targeted Men, Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Employment retention services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Scrivener and Walter, 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation [Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Scrivener and Walter, 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation [Integrated versus Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Columbus (Integrated versus Traditional Case Management)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Scrivener and Walter, 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation [Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP Incentives only versus ANFC - two-parent families with an incapacitated parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC–single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC–two-parent families with an unemployed parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Supportive services, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus ANFC - two parent families with an incapacitated parent, ] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus ANFC–single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus ANFC–two-parent families with an unemployed parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus ANFC]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Unfavorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus WRP Incentives Only - two-parent with an incapacitated parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an incapacitated parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus WRP Incentives Only–single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Short-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus WRP Incentives Only–two-parent families with an unemployed parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Program Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Welfare population
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Case management, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Job development/job placement, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Short-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt, Long-term benefit receipt

Scrivener et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the South Carolina ERA ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Program Studied: Moving Up—South Carolina

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Rural only)
Services Provided Case management, Employment retention services, Financial incentives or sanctions, Health services, Substance abuse and mental health services, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Short-term earnings, Short-term benefit receipt

Spaulding et al., 2009, Working dads: Final report on the Fathers at Work Initiative ...

Evaluation: Fathers at Work Initiative

Program Studied: Fathers at Work Initiative

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

Populations Targeted Non-custodial parents, Parents
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Employment retention services, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Work experience, Work readiness activities

Storto et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Oklahoma City's ET & E program: Two-year implementation, participation ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Oklahoma City (Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) program)

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

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only)
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Soft skills training, Subsidized employment or transitional jobs, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Short-term employment, Long-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term earnings, Long-term earnings, Favorable Impacts FoundShort-term benefit receipt, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Zambrowski and Gordon, 1993, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Fifth-year impacts at CET ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Program Studied: Center for Employment Training (CET)

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

Populations Targeted General low-income population, Parents, Single parents, Women
Setting Mixed (urban and rural))
Services Provided Education, Occupational or sectoral training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term employment, Long-term earnings, Education and training, Long-term benefit receipt

Results by Outcome

173 High or Moderate Quality Studies Found.

Click on an outcome domain to view a summary of findings in that domain for each high- and moderate-rated study that meets your search criteria. Click on the desired brief citation below to view the complete study profile. Click on “Results by Study” to view a list of all studies meeting your search criteria and additional information about those studies.

Toggle Short-term employmentShort-term employment
Study Findings Strength of Evidence
Beecroft et al., 2003, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits [Early cohort] ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Programs Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation—Early cohort
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1997, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and early impacts of Florida's initial time-limited ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1998, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and interim impacts of Florida's initial time-limited ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1999, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and three-year impacts of Florida's initial time-limited welfare program ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2000, The Family Transition Program: Final report on Florida's initial time-limited welfare program ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bos et al., 1999, New Hope for people with low incomes: Two-year results of a program ...

Evaluation: New Hope Project

Programs Studied: New Hope Project
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fein et al., 1998, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Program implementation and economic impacts after two years ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Programs Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fein et al., 2001, The ABC evaluation: Turning the corner: Delaware's A Better Chance welfare reform program ...

Evaluation: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program

Programs Studied: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fraker et al., 2002, The evaluation of welfare reform in Iowa: Final impact report [Applicant FIP] ...

Evaluation: Iowa Family Investment Program

Programs Studied: Iowa Family Investment Program [Applicant FIP]
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 1996, The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 1996, The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt [Two-parents households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gennetian et al., 2005, Turning welfare into a work support: Six-year impacts on parents and children [Single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP [Single-parent families]
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gordon and Burghardt, 1990, The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts [Center for Employment Training] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Center for Employment Training (CET)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Grand Rapids- LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Grand Rapids— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Portland— JOBS] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Portland (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Huston et al., 2003, New Hope for families and children: Five-year results of a program to ...

Evaluation: New Hope Project

Programs Studied: New Hope Project
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Kemple and Haimson, 1994, Florida's Project Independence: Program implementation, participation patterns, and first-year impacts. ...

Evaluation: Project Independence

Programs Studied: Project Independence
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Kemple et al., 1995, Florida's Project Independence: Benefits, costs, and two-year impacts of Florida's JOBS program ...

Evaluation: Project Independence

Programs Studied: Project Independence
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban long-term recipients] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban long-term recipients
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban applicants] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban applicants
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban recipients] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban recipients
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2009, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and early impacts of [Move Up—Dayton] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Move Up/Career Advancement Unit—Dayton, OH
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Navarro et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the post-assistance self-sufficiency (PASS) ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS)—Riverside, California
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Riccio and Friedlander, 1992, GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Riccio and Friedlander, 1992, GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Riccio et al., 1994, GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Riccio et al., 1994, GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Schochet et al., 2006, National Job Corps study and longer-term follow-up study: Impact and benefit-cost findings ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Programs Studied: Job Corps
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus ANFC–single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus ANFC]
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Redcross et al., 2010, Work after prison: One-year findings from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration ...

Evaluation: Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD)

Programs Studied: Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD)
Mixed 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gennetian et al., 2005, Turning welfare into a work support: Six-year impacts on parents and children [Two-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP [Two-parent families]
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2009, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and early impacts of [San Diego—EARN!] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Project EARN! (Earnings, Advancement, Retention Now!)—San Diego, CA
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Patterson, 2004, Evaluation of the Welfare to Work Voucher program: Report to Congress ...

Evaluation: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program

Programs Studied: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Schochet et al., 2000, National Job Corps study: The short-term impacts of Job Corps on participants' ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Programs Studied: Job Corps
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Anderson et al., 2009, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Los Angeles Reach [ RFS—Los Angeles] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Reach For Success (RFS)—Los Angeles
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Beecroft et al., 2003, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits [Later cohort] ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Programs Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation—Later cohort
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, Promoting work in public housing: The effectiveness of Jobs-Plus final report ...

Evaluation: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families

Programs Studied: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Houston
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [South Carolina] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Moving Up—South Carolina
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Early results from four sites [Training Focused—Riverside, CA] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Training Focused—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Work Plus— Riverside, CA] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Work Plus—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Early results from four sites [Work Plus versus Training Focused—Riverside, CA] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Riverside, California—Work Plus versus Training Focused
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Doolittle et al., 1998, Building opportunities, enforcing obligations: Implementation and interim impacts of Parents' Fair Share ...

Evaluation: Parents' Fair Share (PFS)

Programs Studied: Parents’ Fair Share (PFS)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Farrell, 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and two-year impacts ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fraker et al., 2002, The evaluation of welfare reform in Iowa: Final impact report [Ongoing FIP] ...

Evaluation: Iowa Family Investment Program

Programs Studied: Iowa Family Investment Program [Ongoing FIP]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gordon and Burghardt, 1990, The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts [Opportunities Industrialization Center] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gordon and Burghardt, 1990, The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts [Wider Opportunities for Women] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Columbus—Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Columbus—Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Detroit— MOST] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Oklahoma City—ET & E] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Oklahoma City (Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) program)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different [ VISION—Salem, OR] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: VISION (Valuing Individual Success and Increasing Opportunities Now)—Salem
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches [Texas ERA—Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ PASS–Riverside] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS)—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ PROGRESS—Eugene] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: PROGRESS—Eugene
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ RFS—Los Angeles] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Reach For Success (RFS)—Los Angeles
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ TAAG—Medford] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Transition, Advancement, and Growth (TAAG)—Medford, Oregon
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Moving Up—South Carolina] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Moving Up—South Carolina
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Texas ERA—Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Texas ERA—Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Houston
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Training Focused—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Training Focused—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010,The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Work Plus—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Work Plus—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
LeBlanc et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from Minnesota's tier 2 program ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Minnesota Tier 2
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinez and Miller, 2000, Working and earning: The impact of Parents' Fair Share on low-income fathers' employment ...

Evaluation: Parents' Fair Share (PFS)

Programs Studied: Parents’ Fair Share (PFS)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Houston
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Meckstroth et al., 2006, Paths to work in rural places: Key findings and lessons from the ...

Evaluation: Rural Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Strategies Demonstration Evaluation

Programs Studied: Future Steps
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Meckstroth et al., 2008, Testing case management in a rural context: An impact analysis of the ...

Evaluation: Rural Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Strategies Demonstration Evaluation

Programs Studied: Future Steps
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban applicants] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban applicants
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent applicant families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent applicant families
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent recipient families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent recipient families
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2012, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of [Dayton—Move Up] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Move Up/Career Advancement Unit—Dayton, OH
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2012, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of [San Diego—EARN!] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Project EARN! (Earnings, Advancement, Retention Now!)—San Diego, CA
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Mills et al., 2006, Effects of housing vouchers on welfare families: Final report ...

Evaluation: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program

Programs Studied: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Molina et al., 2008, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Valuing Individual Success ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: VISION (Valuing Individual Success and Increasing Opportunities Now)—Salem
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Molina et al., 2009, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Findings for the Eugene and Medford [ PROGRESS—Eugene] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: PROGRESS—Eugene
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Molina, et al.,2009, The Employment and Retention Advancement project: Findings for the Eugene and Medford [ TAAG—Medford] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Transition, Advancement, and Growth (TAAG)—Medford, Oregon
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Navarro et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from two education and training [Training Focused—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Training Focused—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Navarro et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from two education and training [Work Plus—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Work Plus—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [Chicago] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: Chicago PESD program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [Portland] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: Portland PESD Program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [Riverside] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: Riverside PESD program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [San Antonio] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: San Antonio PESD program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan et al., 1998, The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration: Preliminary findings [Chicago] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: Chicago PESD program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan et al., 1998, The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration: Preliminary findings [Portland] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: Portland PESD Program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan et al., 1998, The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration: Preliminary findings [Riverside] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: Riverside PESD program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Schroeder and Khan, 2011, Non-custodial parent choices - PEER pilot: Impact report ...

Evaluation: Non-Custodial Parent Choices

Programs Studied: Non-Custodial Parent Choices PEER curriculum enhancement pilot
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener and Walter, 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation [Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener and Walter, 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation [Integrated versus Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Integrated versus Traditional Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener and Walter, 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation [Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC–single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC–two-parent families with an unemployed parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus ANFC–two-parent families with an unemployed parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus WRP Incentives Only–single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus WRP Incentives Only–two-parent families with an unemployed parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the South Carolina ERA ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Moving Up—South Carolina
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Storto et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Oklahoma City's ET & E program: Two-year implementation, participation ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Oklahoma City (Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) program)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Friedlander et al. 1993. GAIN: Two-year impacts in six counties [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Not Reported 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Friedlander et al., 1993, GAIN: Two-year impacts in six counties [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Not Reported 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Lippold and Sorensen., 2011, Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers: Final impact report for the pilot employment programs ...

Evaluation: Strengthening Families (The New York Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers Initiative)

Programs Studied: Strengthening Families (The New York Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers Initiative)
Favorable 2-Moderate
Moderate (2 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ PASS–Riverside] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS)—Riverside, California
No Effect 2-Moderate
Moderate (2 of 3)
Toggle Long-term employmentLong-term employment
Study Findings Strength of Evidence
Beecroft et al., 2003, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits [Early cohort] ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Programs Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation—Early cohort
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single parents, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1998, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and interim impacts of Florida's initial time-limited ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1999, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and three-year impacts of Florida's initial time-limited welfare program ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2000, The Family Transition Program: Final report on Florida's initial time-limited welfare program ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bos et al., 1999, New Hope for people with low incomes: Two-year results of a program ...

Evaluation: New Hope Project

Programs Studied: New Hope Project
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Center for Employment Training] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Center for Employment Training (CET)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Farrell, 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and two-year impacts ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fein et al., 1998, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Program implementation and economic impacts after two years ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Programs Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 1996, The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 1996, The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt [Two-parents households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches [Grand Rapids— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year impacts [Columbus-Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year impacts [Columbus-Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year impacts [Detroit- MOST] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year impacts [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs [Grand Rapids— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs on [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of the programs on [Columbus—Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of the programs on [Columbus—Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of the programs on [Portland— JOBS] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Portland (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of the programs on [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman, et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts of [Portland- JOBS] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Portland (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Friedlander et al. 1993. GAIN: Two-year impacts in six counties [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Friedlander et al., 1993, GAIN: Two-year impacts in six counties [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Grand Rapids- LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Portland— JOBS] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Portland (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single-parent families— WRP versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus ANFC]
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single-parent families— WRP versus WRP Incentives Only] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches [Texas ERA—Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ PASS–Riverside] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS)—Riverside, California
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Huston et al., 2003, New Hope for families and children: Five-year results of a program to ...

Evaluation: New Hope Project

Programs Studied: New Hope Project
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Jacobs, 2012, Returning to work after prison: Final results from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration ...

Evaluation: Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD)

Programs Studied: Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Meckstroth et al., 2008, Testing case management in a rural context: An impact analysis of the ...

Evaluation: Rural Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Strategies Demonstration Evaluation

Programs Studied: Future Steps
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban long-term recipients] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban long-term recipients
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, single-parent long-term recipients] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, single-parent long-term recipients
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, single-parent recent applicants] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, single-parent recent applicants
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban recipients] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban recipients
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Navarro et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the post-assistance self-sufficiency (PASS) ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS)—Riverside, California
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Riccio et al., 1994, GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Riccio et al., 1994, GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener and Walter, 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation [Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus ANFC–single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus ANFC]
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus WRP Incentives Only–single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Schochet et al., 2000, National Job Corps study: The short-term impacts of Job Corps on participants' ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Programs Studied: Job Corps
Mixed 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Schochet et al., 2001, National Job Corps study: The impacts of Job Corps on participants' employment ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Programs Studied: Job Corps
Mixed 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000 National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies: Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts [Oklahoma City-ET&E] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Oklahoma City (Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) program)
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ PROGRESS—Eugene] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: PROGRESS—Eugene
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Schochet et al., 2003, National Job Corps study: Findings using administrative earnings records data ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Programs Studied: Job Corps
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Anderson et al., 2009, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Los Angeles Reach [ RFS—Los Angeles] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Reach For Success (RFS)—Los Angeles
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Azurdia et al. 2008, The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Impacts for Portland's Career Builders Program ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Career Builders—Portland
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Beecroft et al., 2003, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits [Later cohort] ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Programs Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation—Later cohort
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single parents, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single parents, WRP versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1998, WRP: Implementation and early impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, Promoting work in public housing: The effectiveness of Jobs-Plus final report ...

Evaluation: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families

Programs Studied: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Atlanta Urban League] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Atlanta Urban League (AUL)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Opportunities Industrialization Center] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Wider Opportunities for Women] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Butler et al., 2012, What strategies work for the hard-to-employ? Final results of the hard-to-employ demonstration [Minnesota Tier 2] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Minnesota Tier 2
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Duncan et al., 2008, New Hope's Eight-Year Impacts on Employment and Family Income ...

Evaluation: New Hope Project

Programs Studied: New Hope Project
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fein et al., 2001, The ABC evaluation: Turning the corner: Delaware's A Better Chance welfare reform program ...

Evaluation: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program

Programs Studied: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fraker et al., 2002, The evaluation of welfare reform in Iowa: Final impact report [Applicant FIP] ...

Evaluation: Iowa Family Investment Program

Programs Studied: Iowa Family Investment Program [Applicant FIP]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fraker et al., 2002, The evaluation of welfare reform in Iowa: Final impact report [Ongoing FIP] ...

Evaluation: Iowa Family Investment Program

Programs Studied: Iowa Family Investment Program [Ongoing FIP]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 2000, The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of the programs on [Detroit— MOST] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gennetian et al., 2005, Turning welfare into a work support: Six-year impacts on parents and children [Single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP [Single-parent families]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gennetian et al., 2005, Turning welfare into a work support: Six-year impacts on parents and children [Two-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP [Two-parent families]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Columbus—Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Columbus—Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Detroit— MOST] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Grand Rapids— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Oklahoma City—ET & E] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Oklahoma City (Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) program)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Single-parent families— WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Two-parents families with an unemployed parent— WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Two-parents families with an unemployed parent— WRP versus ANFC] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra and Michalopoulos, 1999, Forty-two-month impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project [Two-parents families with an unemployed parent— WRP versus WRP Incentives Only] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different [ VISION—Salem, OR] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: VISION (Valuing Individual Success and Increasing Opportunities Now)—Salem
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ RFS—Los Angeles] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Reach For Success (RFS)—Los Angeles
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ TAAG—Medford] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Transition, Advancement, and Growth (TAAG)—Medford, Oregon
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Moving Up—South Carolina] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Moving Up—South Carolina
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Texas ERA—Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Texas ERA—Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Houston
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Training Focused—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Training Focused—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010,The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Work Plus—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Work Plus—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Kemple et al., 1995, Florida's Project Independence: Benefits, costs, and two-year impacts of Florida's JOBS program ...

Evaluation: Project Independence

Programs Studied: Project Independence
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Maguire et al., 2010, Tuning in to local labor markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment impact study [Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership] ...

Evaluation: Sectoral Employment Impact Study

Programs Studied: Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinez and Miller, 2000, Working and earning: The impact of Parents' Fair Share on low-income fathers' employment ...

Evaluation: Parents' Fair Share (PFS)

Programs Studied: Parents’ Fair Share (PFS)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Houston
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban applicants] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban applicants
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent applicant families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent applicant families
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent recipient families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent recipient families
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban applicants] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban applicants
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2012, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of [Dayton—Move Up] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Move Up/Career Advancement Unit—Dayton, OH
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2012, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of [San Diego—EARN!] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Project EARN! (Earnings, Advancement, Retention Now!)—San Diego, CA
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Mills et al., 2006, Effects of housing vouchers on welfare families: Final report ...

Evaluation: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program

Programs Studied: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Navarro et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from two education and training [Training Focused—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Training Focused—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Navarro et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from two education and training [Work Plus—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Work Plus—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [Chicago] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: Chicago PESD program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [Portland] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: Portland PESD Program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [Riverside] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: Riverside PESD program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Rangarajan and Novak, 1999, The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration [San Antonio] ...

Evaluation: Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD)

Programs Studied: San Antonio PESD program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Schochet et al., 2006, National Job Corps study and longer-term follow-up study: Impact and benefit-cost findings ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Programs Studied: Job Corps
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener and Walter, 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation [Integrated versus Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Integrated versus Traditional Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener and Walter, 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation [Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC–single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Single-parent families, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC–two-parent families with an unemployed parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP Incentives Only versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus ANFC–two-parent families with an unemployed parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus ANFC]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Scrivener et al., 2002, WRP: Final report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. [ WRP versus WRP Incentives Only–two-parent families with an unemployed parent] ...

Evaluation: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP)

Programs Studied: Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) [Two-parent families with an unemployed parent, WRP versus WRP Incentives Only]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Storto et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Oklahoma City's ET & E program: Two-year implementation, participation ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Oklahoma City (Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) program)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Zambrowski and Gordon, 1993, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Fifth-year impacts at CET ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Center for Employment Training (CET)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Toggle Short-term earningsShort-term earnings
Study Findings Strength of Evidence
Beecroft et al., 2003, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits [Early cohort] ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Programs Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation—Early cohort
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1997, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and early impacts of Florida's initial time-limited ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bos et al., 1999, New Hope for people with low incomes: Two-year results of a program ...

Evaluation: New Hope Project

Programs Studied: New Hope Project
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Center for Employment Training] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Center for Employment Training (CET)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fein et al., 1998, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Program implementation and economic impacts after two years ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Programs Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fraker et al., 2002, The evaluation of welfare reform in Iowa: Final impact report [Applicant FIP] ...

Evaluation: Iowa Family Investment Program

Programs Studied: Iowa Family Investment Program [Applicant FIP]
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 1996, The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Freedman et al., 1996, The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt [Two-parents households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Friedlander et al. 1993. GAIN: Two-year impacts in six counties [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Friedlander et al., 1993, GAIN: Two-year impacts in six counties [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Grand Rapids- LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Atlanta— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Grand Rapids— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Riverside— LFA] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Labor Force Attachment)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches [Texas ERA—Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ PASS–Riverside] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS)—Riverside, California
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ TAAG—Medford] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Transition, Advancement, and Growth (TAAG)—Medford, Oregon
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Huston et al., 2003, New Hope for families and children: Five-year results of a program to ...

Evaluation: New Hope Project

Programs Studied: New Hope Project
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Kemple and Haimson, 1994, Florida's Project Independence: Program implementation, participation patterns, and first-year impacts. ...

Evaluation: Project Independence

Programs Studied: Project Independence
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Kemple et al., 1995, Florida's Project Independence: Benefits, costs, and two-year impacts of Florida's JOBS program ...

Evaluation: Project Independence

Programs Studied: Project Independence
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinez and Miller, 2000, Working and earning: The impact of Parents' Fair Share on low-income fathers' employment ...

Evaluation: Parents' Fair Share (PFS)

Programs Studied: Parents’ Fair Share (PFS)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Friedlander, 1994, GAIN: Basic education in a welfare-to-work program [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban recipients] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban recipients
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Molina, et al.,2009, The Employment and Retention Advancement project: Findings for the Eugene and Medford [ TAAG—Medford] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Transition, Advancement, and Growth (TAAG)—Medford, Oregon
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Navarro et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the post-assistance self-sufficiency (PASS) ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS)—Riverside, California
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Riccio and Friedlander, 1992, GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Riccio and Friedlander, 1992, GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Riccio et al., 1994, GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program [Single-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Single-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Riccio et al., 1994, GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Storto et al., 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Oklahoma City's ET & E program: Two-year implementation, participation ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Oklahoma City (Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) program)
Favorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Redcross et al., 2010, Work after prison: One-year findings from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration ...

Evaluation: Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD)

Programs Studied: Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD)
Mixed 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gennetian et al., 2005, Turning welfare into a work support: Six-year impacts on parents and children [Two-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP [Two-parent families]
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gordon and Burghardt, 1990, The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts [Wider Opportunities for Women] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW)
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent recipient families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent recipient families
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Patterson, 2004, Evaluation of the Welfare to Work Voucher program: Report to Congress ...

Evaluation: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program

Programs Studied: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Schochet et al., 2000, National Job Corps study: The short-term impacts of Job Corps on participants' ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Programs Studied: Job Corps
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Schochet et al., 2006, National Job Corps study and longer-term follow-up study: Impact and benefit-cost findings ...

Evaluation: National Job Corps Study

Programs Studied: Job Corps
Unfavorable 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Anderson et al., 2009, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Los Angeles Reach [ RFS—Los Angeles] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Reach For Success (RFS)—Los Angeles
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Beecroft et al., 2003, The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits [Later cohort] ...

Evaluation: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation

Programs Studied: Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation—Later cohort
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1998, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and interim impacts of Florida's initial time-limited ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 1999, The Family Transition Program: Implementation and three-year impacts of Florida's initial time-limited welfare program ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2000, The Family Transition Program: Final report on Florida's initial time-limited welfare program ...

Evaluation: Family Transition Program (FTP)

Programs Studied: Family Transition Program (FTP)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, Promoting work in public housing: The effectiveness of Jobs-Plus final report ...

Evaluation: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families

Programs Studied: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Houston
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [South Carolina] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Moving Up—South Carolina
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Early results from four sites [Training Focused—Riverside, CA] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Training Focused—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Work Plus— Riverside, CA] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Work Plus—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Bloom et al., 2005, The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Early results from four sites [Work Plus versus Training Focused—Riverside, CA] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Riverside, California—Work Plus versus Training Focused
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Atlanta Urban League] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Atlanta Urban League (AUL)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Opportunities Industrialization Center] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Burghardt et al., 1992, Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Volume I—Summary report [Wider Opportunities for Women] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Doolittle et al., 1998, Building opportunities, enforcing obligations: Implementation and interim impacts of Parents' Fair Share ...

Evaluation: Parents' Fair Share (PFS)

Programs Studied: Parents’ Fair Share (PFS)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Farrell, 2000, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and two-year impacts ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fein et al., 2001, The ABC evaluation: Turning the corner: Delaware's A Better Chance welfare reform program ...

Evaluation: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program

Programs Studied: Delaware's A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Fraker et al., 2002, The evaluation of welfare reform in Iowa: Final impact report [Ongoing FIP] ...

Evaluation: Iowa Family Investment Program

Programs Studied: Iowa Family Investment Program [Ongoing FIP]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gennetian et al., 2005, Turning welfare into a work support: Six-year impacts on parents and children [Single-parent families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP [Single-parent families]
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gordon and Burghardt, 1990, The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts [Center for Employment Training] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Center for Employment Training (CET)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Gordon and Burghardt, 1990, The Minority Female Single Parent demonstration: Report on short-term economic impacts [Opportunities Industrialization Center] ...

Evaluation: Minority Female Single Parent (MFSP) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 1997, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Atlanta— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Atlanta (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Columbus—Integrated Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Columbus—Traditional Case Management] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Columbus (Traditional Case Management)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Detroit— MOST] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Detroit (Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST) and Work First)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Grand Rapids— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Grand Rapids (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Oklahoma City—ET & E] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Oklahoma City (Education, Training, and Employment (ET&E) program)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Portland— JOBS] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Portland (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hamilton et al., 2001, National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year [Riverside— HCD] ...

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Programs Studied: Riverside (Human Capital Development)
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different [ VISION—Salem, OR] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: VISION (Valuing Individual Success and Increasing Opportunities Now)—Salem
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ PROGRESS—Eugene] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: PROGRESS—Eugene
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [ RFS—Los Angeles] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Reach For Success (RFS)—Los Angeles
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Moving Up—South Carolina] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Moving Up—South Carolina
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Texas ERA—Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Texas ERA—Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Houston
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Training Focused—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Training Focused—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Hendra et al., 2010,The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming [Work Plus—Riverside, California] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Work Plus—Riverside, California
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
LeBlanc et al., 2007, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from Minnesota's tier 2 program ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Minnesota Tier 2
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Friedlander, 1994, GAIN: Basic education in a welfare-to-work program [Two-parent households] ...

Evaluation: California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Programs Studied: GAIN Two-parent households
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Corpus Christi] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Corpus Christi
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Fort Worth] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Fort Worth
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Martinson and Hendra, 2006, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Houston] ...

Evaluation: Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Project

Programs Studied: Texas ERA—Houston
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Meckstroth et al., 2006, Paths to work in rural places: Key findings and lessons from the ...

Evaluation: Rural Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Strategies Demonstration Evaluation

Programs Studied: Future Steps
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Meckstroth et al., 2008, Testing case management in a rural context: An impact analysis of the ...

Evaluation: Rural Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Strategies Demonstration Evaluation

Programs Studied: Future Steps
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban applicants] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban applicants
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban long-term recipients] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP incentives only versus AFDC, single-parent urban long-term recipients
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent applicant families] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus AFDC, two-parent applicant families
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2000, Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program [ MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban applicants] ...

Evaluation: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Programs Studied: MFIP versus MFIP incentives only, single-parent urban applicants
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2009, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and early impacts of [Move Up—Dayton] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Move Up/Career Advancement Unit—Dayton, OH
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2009, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and early impacts of [San Diego—EARN!] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Project EARN! (Earnings, Advancement, Retention Now!)—San Diego, CA
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2012, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of [Dayton—Move Up] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Move Up/Career Advancement Unit—Dayton, OH
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Miller et al., 2012, Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of [San Diego—EARN!] ...

Evaluation: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Programs Studied: Project EARN! (Earnings, Advancement, Retention Now!)—San Diego, CA
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Mills et al., 2006, Effects of housing vouchers on welfare families: Final report ...

Evaluation: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program

Programs Studied: Welfare to Work Voucher (WtWV) Program
No Effect 1-High
High (3 of 3)
Molina et al., 2008, The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Valuing Individual Success ...