Print

MOST provided case management and training to single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients to improve participants’ educational and vocational skills before applying for jobs. MOST was followed by Work First, which emphasized job search and placement.

Skip to:  Effectiveness Ratings   |  Studies of this Intervention

MOST provided case management and training to single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients to improve participants’ educational and vocational skills before applying for jobs. MOST was followed by Work First, which emphasized job search and placement.

MOST followed by Work First was one of the demonstration projects made possible by Section 1115 waivers to the rules in effect at the time for the AFDC program. These Section 1115 waivers allowed states to test new approaches to advance the objectives of the AFDC program.

The MOST program was a mandatory program that provided case management, focusing on improving participants’ educational and vocational skills before they applied for jobs. Participants that did not have a high school diploma or general education diploma (GED) were assigned to basic education classes (like GED courses), whereas participants with basic education credentials were assigned to vocational or postsecondary education. Case managers helped participants arrange for supportive services like child care and transportation during program participation.

Work First began to replace MOST in 1994 and emphasized job search and placement. Participants who did not find permanent employment through MOST were transitioned to Work First, whereas new AFDC recipients were assigned directly to Work First. If participants could not secure a job in the first 30 days of Work First, they were provided with training and educational activities or community work experience.

Compared with the MOST program, staff at the Work First program monitored program participation more closely and imposed financial sanctions on participants—such as benefit reduction and case closure—for noncompliance. Services ended when clients left AFDC for employment.

Participants in MOST and Work First were single-parent AFDC recipients, 18 years old and older. The intervention was implemented in two offices in the Michigan Department of Social Services in Detroit.

Year evaluation began: 1992
Implementing organization(s): Michigan Family Independence Agency
Populations and employment barriers: Parents, Single parents, Cash assistance recipients
Intervention services: Case management, Education, Sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Job search assistance
Setting(s): Urban only

Effectiveness Rating and Effect By Outcome Domain

Back to top
View Table Help Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below? View the "Table Help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $377 per year 0.02 4459
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $753 per year 0.04 4459
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 0% (in percentage points) 0.01 4459
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 2% (in percentage points) 0.05 4459
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-11 per year 0.00 4459
Long-term Supported favorable $-146 per year -0.05 4459
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Little evidence to assess support favorable 5% (in percentage points) 0.09 426
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this Intervention

Back to top
Study Quality Rating Study Counts per Rating
High High 1