Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

  • 0.05,5.00

Summary

MOST provided case management and training to single parents receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to improve participants’ educational and vocational skills before applying for jobs. Due to state policy changes, MOST was replaced in 1994 by Work First, which emphasized job search and placement. The evaluation of the intervention included individuals who enrolled in MOST, but about one quarter were referred to Work First after the transition occurred, and therefore the intervention studied encompassed both sets of services.

MOST was Michigan's Jobs Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program for individuals receiving AFDC. Michigan changed MOST after receiving one of 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. Detroit's MOST program, with the changes made under the waiver, was included in a five-year national evaluation of workforce programs for individuals receiving AFDC which began in 1992.

MOST was a mandatory program that provided case management and focusing on improving participants’ educational and vocational skills before they applied for jobs. Participants who did not have a high school diploma or GED were usually assigned to basic education classes (such as GED courses), whereas participants with basic education credentials were assigned to vocational or postsecondary education. Participants could also be assigned to job search or, rarely, work experience. Case managers helped participants arrange supportive services such as child care and transportation during program participation.

Due to state policy changes, Michigan's Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program transitioned models in 1994. The new model, Work First, began to replace MOST in October 1994 and emphasized job search and placement. Participants receiving AFDC at that time were transitioned to Work First, and participants who later resumed receiving AFDC were assigned directly to Work First. About a quarter of intervention participants were referred to Work First within 2 years of their enrollment in the study. If participants could not secure a job in the first 30 days of Work First, Work First case managers assigned them to job search assistance or, more rarely, training and educational activities or community work experience. MOST case managers also continued to connect participants to supportive services.

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

Participants in MOST and Work First were individuals receiving AFDC, who were age 18 or older and were single parents whose youngest child was age 1 or older. The intervention was implemented in two offices of the Michigan Department of Social Services in Detroit and the Detroit office of the Michigan Works Agency.

3128.09-Detroit (Michigan Op
Populations and employment barriers: Cash assistance recipients, Parents, Single parents

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

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

View table help

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 0.018 4459
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $753 per year 0.036 4459
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 0% (in percentage points) 0.011 4459
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 2% (in percentage points) 0.053 4459
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-11 per year -0.004 4459
Long-term Supported favorable $-146 per year -0.053 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) 0.092 426
* 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

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1
Back to top

Implementation details

Dates covered by study

MOST launched statewide in Michigan in 1988; Work First gradually replaced MOST beginning in October 1994 and was still active when study findings were released. Enrollment in the study began in May 1992 and continued until June 1994. The study followed participants for five years. Study enrollment ended prior to the transition to Work First, but some participants were still receiving services at the time of transition and were referred to Work First.

Organizations implementing intervention

Two Detroit offices of the Michigan Family Independence Agency (FIA, known as the Michigan Department of Social Services until March 1996) implemented MOST. The Detroit office of the Michigan Works Agency implemented Work First.

Populations served

MOST followed by Work First served individuals receiving AFDC who were at least age 18 and were single parents whose youngest child was age 1 or older. All adults receiving AFDC not exempt from AFDC work requirements were required to participate in MOST if they were not otherwise satisfying the work requirements. However, because of staffing shortages, FIA staff were unable to enroll all eligible individuals receiving AFDC in MOST, so staff prioritized those who called the AFDC office and actively expressed interest. These volunteers made up about 15 percent of the study. The study authors assumed these sample members had already decided to enroll in education or training programs and wanted to access MOST’s supportive services; about two-thirds of these volunteers were already engaged in education or training at the time of random assignment.

The majority of participants were Black or African American (87 percent) and female (97 percent). On average, participants were 30 years old and had 2 children. Few (7 percent) were employed at the time of random assignment. More than half (57 percent) had a high school diploma or GED at the time of random assignment.

Participants were required to engage in intervention services. Although intervention staff communicated to participants that non-engagement could result in sanctions to AFDC receipt, intervention staff almost never sanctioned participants.

Description of services implemented

The MOST intervention was based on a skill-building philosophy. After participants attended an orientation, their designated MOST case manager assigned them to activities in the following categories:

  • Education. Case managers often referred those without a high school diploma or GED to take courses to earn a credential, English-as-a-second-language classes, or basic education classes from the Detroit Public Schools. Participants with a basic education credential could also take courses for credit toward a two- or four-year degree at local community colleges.
  • Occupational training. Participants had access to training options in various fields, including nursing, business and clerical occupations, computer programming, cosmetology, and child care. MOST also offered a 20-week basic skills and occupational training program for participants without a high school diploma or GED.
  • Individual job search. Case managers assigned some participants to search for a job on their own and log their weekly number of employer contacts. This assignment was usually used after participants had completed an education or training course.
  • Job search assistance. MOST referred some participants to external job search programs.
  • Work experience. Case managers assigned some participants to work experience, which could include unpaid work, on-the-job training, and paid work, which most frequently took the form of college work-study. Less than 2 percent of participants took part in this activity.

Case managers also provided supportive services, including child care payments, referrals to child care providers, and transportation assistance. They monitored participants’ engagement and decided whether to sanction those who failed to comply with participation requirements, though case managers rarely imposed sanctions.

Beginning in October 1994, MOST case managers sent intervention participants to Work First if they were currently receiving AFDC and not engaging in training or education. This included about one-quarter of the evaluation’s sample. The FIA continued to manage benefits administration and sanctions, as well as the intervention’s supportive services, but MOST case managers were no longer involved in activity assignment. In contrast to MOST, Work First was based on the premise that individuals receiving benefits best learn work-related skills and habits in the workplace and emphasized fast placement into jobs. Work First required newly referred participants to engage in a job search independently for 30 days before Work First case managers conducted an intake to Work First, which included testing and assessment. If the participant had not yet obtained employment, the case manager assigned them to a contracted service provider for job search assistance or, more rarely, training or educational activities or community work experience.

During the first year of Work First, the case managers were Detroit Michigan Works Agency employees, but in following years, this role was also contracted out to the organizations providing services to intervention participants. These organizations had flexibility in how to structure their services, though they generally included classroom instruction and independent job search. In 1997, Work First began to encourage clients working at least 20 hours a week to attend an education or training program in addition to their job.

Challenges. MOST was not fully staffed during the study. Authorizing payments for supportive services consumed much of case managers’ time, leaving them unable to devote much time to assessing or otherwise learning about clients. Consequently, MOST case managers did not focus on monitoring participation rates or enforcing sanctions for nonparticipation. In addition, service providers sent participant attendance data to case managers irregularly, limiting case managers’ ability to address attendance issues in a timely manner.

Service intensity

Participants were required to engage in services while receiving AFDC, but only 33 to 47 percent of intervention participants engaged with MOST or Work First at any point during the 2 years following their enrollment. (The study used two different methods to estimate participation and presented an upper- and lower-bound estimate.) The majority of those who engaged with services within that period did so solely via MOST; though 23 percent of all participants were referred to Work First during the two years following their enrollment, only 6 percent of all participants actually took part in Work First during that period. During the 2-year period following enrollment in the study, participants took part in an activity or worked for 7.5 months on average. For participants who took part in an activity for at least 1 month, the average total length of participation was 7.9 months.

Work First monitored participants’ attendance and referred about 30 percent of participants to the sanctions process for falling below 75 percent attendance; however, MOST case managers, who were still in charge of the sanctions process, rarely imposed sanctions.

Comparison conditions

Individuals receiving AFDC in the comparison group were not subject to participation requirements and could not receive any intervention services apart from the supportive services, though they could still participate in education and employment-related activities available in their communities. However, FIA referred about 24 percent of the comparison group to Work First, which might have reflected staff confusion over when to make referrals.

Partnerships

A variety of community service providers delivered education and training services—and, during Work First, case management—to intervention participants.

Staffing

Staff included:

  • MOST case managers assigned participants to services, administered supportive services, and monitored participants’ attendance to decide whether to enforce sanctions. After Work First began in October 1994, MOST case managers also referred participants to Work First and determined when to impose sanctions. All case managers held associate’s or bachelor’s degrees.
  • Income maintenance workers determined eligibility for AFDC and other benefits, determined if clients were required to participate in MOST followed by Work First, and when applicable, imposed sanctions. Most income maintenance workers had not attended college.
  • Staff at community organizations delivered education and occupational training until Work First began.
  • Work First case managers conducted an initial intake, testing, and assessment for Work First; assigned participants to services; and monitored participants’ attendance. Originally, case managers were employees of the Detroit Michigan Works Agency; after the first year of Work First, they were contractors at outside agencies.
  • Staff at service providers contracted by the Michigan Works Agency delivered job search assistance after Work First began.

Fidelity measures

The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the intervention model.

Funding source

MOST and Work First were part of Michigan’s Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program, which was funded through federal and state funds. After the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program replaced AFDC in 1996, Work First became part of Michigan’s TANF program. Other government entities, including the Detroit Public Schools, and private sources funded the service providers to which MOST assigned participants. Work First only used its contracted service providers.

Cost information

The average cost per participant was $7,788 in 2018 dollars.

This figure is based on cost information reported by authors of the study or studies the Pathways Clearinghouse reviewed for this intervention. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. Where there are multiple studies of an intervention rated high or moderate quality, the Pathways Clearinghouse computed the average of costs reported across those studies.

Cost information is not directly comparable across interventions due to differences in the categories of costs reported and the amount of time interventions lasted. Cost information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

The information contained here reflects how the intervention was implemented at the time of the evaluation.

Local context

MOST followed by Work First was implemented in Detroit, MI. Wayne County, in which Detroit is located, had relatively high unemployment early during the study period. In 1992, the county unemployment rate was 10.5 percent, though by 1996, it had fallen to 5.5 percent.

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
87%
White
11%
Unknown, not reported, or other
1%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
1%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

State(s) where implemented

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Canada

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Back to top