Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

  • 0.03,2.50

Summary

Future Steps provided employment-focused case management to people who received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and other individuals with low incomes to help them move rapidly into full-time employment.

Future Steps implemented an employment-focused case management model. Working with a career specialist, participants completed a career and skills assessment and then began an individualized job search. Services included informal counseling and referrals to specialized job training and other services such as child care and mental health services.

Participants could receive payments of up to $500 to defray costs associated with program participation (such as transportation or child care). Future Steps staff had the flexibility to approve a wide variety of uses for these funds. TANF recipients could receive up to an additional $1,200 in payments, but these funds were subject to additional restrictions.

Participants received Future Steps services until they found work, and could receive follow-up services for up to three months after they gained employment. Career specialists contacted participants at least every two weeks, for up to three months after participants gained employment. Participants could return to Future Steps if they lost their job.

Future Steps served mandatory participants - TANF and SNAP recipients with work requirements - as well as voluntary participants from low-income households (including people who received TANF or SNAP but did not have work requirements) who could commit to working at least 30 hours a week. Future Steps was implemented in five rural counties in southern Illinois.

915-Future Steps: Study
Populations and employment barriers:

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 $146 per year 0.007 630
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $1,339 per year 0.064 630
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable -1% (in percentage points) -0.014 630
Long-term Supported favorable 2% (in percentage points) 0.038 630
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $110 per year 0.040 630
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-22 per year -0.008 630
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support
* 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

Future Steps began in July 2001 and ended in September 2003. The evaluators enrolled participants from July 2001 to December 2002. The evaluation measured outcomes up to 18 months after the end of the enrollment period for the study (June 2003).

Organizations implementing intervention

The job placement center at Shawnee Community College (SCC) in Ullin, IL, implemented Future Steps, under a contract with the Illinois Department of Human Services. SCC was chosen to implement this intervention because of its job development infrastructure and resources as well as its reputation as an excellent local educational institution.

Populations served

The authors estimated that about 65 to 75 percent of Future Steps participants were TANF or SNAP recipients who were required to participate in the intervention to receive benefits; the other 25 to 35 percent of participants were voluntary participants with income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. All participants had to be able to work at least 30 hours a week. The voluntary participants consisted of people who received TANF or SNAP benefits but did not have work requirements, and people who were referred to Future Steps by community organizations or their caseworker from other Illinois Department of Human Services programs. The total sample of participants was 50 percent Black or African American, not Hispanic; 46 percent White, not Hispanic; and 3 percent Hispanic or Latino of any race. The majority (77 percent) were female, and 73 percent of participants had a high school diploma or GED.

Description of services implemented

Career specialists assessed participants’ skills and interests using standardized career assessment tools and checklists focused on employment history, job skills, and potential barriers to employment. Career specialists met with participants and provided a range of services, including the following:

  • Case management. Career specialists provided informal one-on-one mentoring and counseling to participants, as needed. They worked with participants on transportation, family relationships, housing, child care, and workplace etiquette. Career specialists referred clients to local service providers for training, counseling, child care, and other services.

  • Job search assistance. Career specialists worked with participants to identify tasks that would help lead them to employment (such as submitting a resume to a specific employer), created an activity sheet tracking these tasks, and checked on participants’ progress. Participants were expected to complete five tasks each week.

  • Job development. Career specialists compiled local job listings from newspapers, cultivated relationships with local businesses to find employment leads, advocated for participants to prospective employers, and sometimes provided transportation to job interviews.

  • Supportive services payments. Future Steps provided participants with payments of up to $500 for non-TANF clients and $1,700 for TANF clients (with occasional exceptions) that could be used to cover employment and personal expenses, such as commuting costs, training, child care, clothing, rent, and utility bills. Career specialists had to approve purchases TANF recipients made with the additional $1,200.

  • Post-employment support. Career specialists contacted participants at least every two weeks for up to three months after they secured employment. During these meetings, career specialists checked on how participants were adjusting and helped them resolve any issues at work. Career specialists also made on-site visits to employers within 30 days of participants securing employment. Participants could use Future Steps services if they lost their job. Career specialists provided limited career advancement assistance in certain cases.

There were several differences between Future Steps’ implementation and the original vision for the intervention. Notably, a plan to provide participants with job-readiness and vocational training in collaboration with local employers failed to materialize because the program director, who was in charge of developing this component, worked part time and left the job placement center halfway through the intervention’s service period. The weak economic conditions in southern Illinois at the time and difficulty partnering with the local workforce investment agency to recruit employers also contributed to the failure to implement this component. In addition, about one-fifth of participants received fewer services than planned because of significant staff turnover in the second year of operation, which led to a disruption in service delivery. Finally, Future Steps spent only about half as much as was originally budgeted for the supportive services payments, with relatively smaller payments to participants that did not obtain employment compared to participants that obtained employment.

Service intensity

Future Steps participants received services for an average of 16 months, meeting about every 1 to 2 weeks, had an average of 25 total contacts with their career specialist. Total staff time per participant averaged 11 hours, including in-person and telephone meetings as well as time working on behalf of the participant. One-fifth of the participants received very few services (fewer than five contacts, fewer than three hours of contact time, and/or less than $100 in supportive services payments). Future Steps distributed only half of the budgeted amount of supportive services payments. The authors cited high turnover among program staff in the second year of the intervention as a cause of the inconsistency in service intensity.

Comparison conditions

Participants were randomly assigned to either Future Steps or a comparison group. Individuals in the comparison group could not enroll in Future Steps but could access any other available services in the community.

Partnerships

The main partner for Future Steps was the Illinois Department of Human Services, which referred clients to Future Steps, housed career specialists in their county buildings, and funded the intervention.

Staffing

Future Steps was overseen by the director of the SCC job placement center and a part-time program coordinator who served as a central contact for the career specialists. One career specialist was placed in the Illinois Department of Human Services building in each of the five counties in the service area and oversaw a caseload of about 15 to 35 clients. All career specialists, except the one based in Alexander County (which had a larger caseload), worked part time. Career specialists were trained in one daylong session on policies and procedures, followed by on-site supervision by the program coordinator in their first two weeks on the job. Occasionally, career specialists received coaching on placing participants in jobs, accessing community resources, and advocating for participants with prospective employers. SCC staff were chosen because they had strong local knowledge and familiarity with and ties to the five counties in the service area.

Fidelity measures

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

Funding source

Future Steps was funded by a one-time contract with the Illinois Department of Human Services.

Cost information

The average cost per participant was $3,883 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

Future Steps was implemented in five rural counties in southern Illinois: Union, Alexander, Johnson, Pulaski, and Massac. All counties had limited public transportation, high levels of poverty, and a sparse number of well-paying entry-level jobs. The authors of the evaluation noted that the tight-knit social networks in rural areas carry the risk that a poor reputation or lack of social connections can make it more difficult to obtain employment.

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
50%
White, not Hispanic
46%
Another race
1%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
3%

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