Introduction
Over the past several decades, evaluations have produced a great deal of research on interventions designed to improve the employment outcomes of people participating in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other public benefit programs and other people with low incomes. But the sheer volume of research combined with the diversity of the findings can make it challenging to identify those that are most reliable and relevant.
The Pathways to Work Evidence Clearinghouse is dedicated to gathering information from research and making research evidence more useful to decision makers. As part of these efforts, the Pathways Clearinghouse has undertaken a series of research syntheses to explore what we can learn by looking across all the data it has collected. This report, one in that series, uses meta-analysis—a rigorous, analytic approach that involves comparing and combining findings from multiple studies—to understand the interventions and types of services with the strongest evidence of improving employment, earnings, and related outcomes for people with low incomes.
Research Questions
- What interventions work to improve the employment and earnings of people with low incomes?
- Do the interventions work best for particular groups of people? If so, which groups?
- In what contexts do interventions appear to be most successful?
Purpose
Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers can use this report to understand the research findings on the effectiveness of interventions and services that can help people with low incomes succeed in the labor market. Through a comprehensive search strategy, the Pathways Clearinghouse team has examined over 8,000 research manuscripts and reviewed the research on 221 interventions. This report synthesizes information from these manuscripts and interventions.
Key Findings and Highlights
- On average, the interventions assessed by the Pathways Clearinghouse improved outcomes relative to the services offered to individuals in comparison groups that did not receive intervention services. This improvement in outcomes, on average, was equivalent to an increase in earnings of about $1,000 per year. Interventions had the biggest effects on short-term employment and education or training attainment.
- Twenty-nine of 144 individual interventions show evidence of improving average outcomes for intervention participants compared with comparison groups that did not receive intervention services. Most other interventions had a favorable effect on outcomes, but these effects were not statistically significant.
- The Pathways Clearinghouse classified interventions according to the primary, or main, service they offered. The largest effects were found among interventions focused on education and training, work or work-based learning, and employment services.
- The Pathways Clearinghouse also classified interventions based on all services offered, using a set of 26 common employment and training services. Several specific services were associated with larger intervention effects, especially transitional jobs, occupational or sectoral training, subsidized employment, education opportunities, soft-skills training, and work experience.
- Interventions had larger effects when participation in services was voluntary and when an intervention was implemented by a private provider (such as a nonprofit).
- Interventions tested in samples in which a greater share of participants identified as Black or Hispanic had smaller effects on employment.
Methods
The Pathways Clearinghouse team systematically identified, categorized, and assessed studies of interventions designed to improve the labor market outcomes of individuals with low incomes. The team recorded information about the study methods, the characteristics and impacts of the interventions they examined, and the populations served.
For this synthesis report, we used rigorous quantitative techniques known as meta-analysis and meta-regression to summarize the information collected by the Pathways Clearinghouse team. Meta-analysis and meta-regression involve analyzing the results of multiple prior analyses. They produce average estimates of impacts, with more weight given to more precise estimates.
We conducted meta-analysis in two stages to examine the characteristics of interventions, studies, and outcomes that were associated with larger or smaller effect sizes. These characteristics included the types of services an intervention provided, the intervention’s duration, the study population, the outcome domain measured (for example, earnings, employment, public benefit receipt, and education and training), and the period for which the outcome was measured. First, we examined each characteristic individually, comparing effects with and without that characteristic. For example, we compared effects for interventions delivered by public organizations to those delivered by private organizations to see if, on average, publicly and privately delivered interventions had different effects. Second, we estimated meta-regression models to examine effects for a characteristic while holding several other characteristics constant. For example, we compared effects of programs provided by public and private providers that provide similar services and serve similar populations. The findings from the two analyses were largely similar.
Citation
Streke, Andrei and Dana Rotz. (2022). Synthesis Report: What Works to Improve Employment and Earnings for People with Low Incomes? OPRE Report # 2022-51, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Glossary
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
