However, follow-up much longer than two years [currently available] is needed to fully assess the relative effectiveness of the two welfare-to-work program approaches: Theoretically, only the results in the later years of the follow-up period are expected to show the predicted payoff from the HCD approach, because by then HCD sample members will have had time to put their newly acquired education and training skills to work in the job market. Similarly, longer follow-up is needed to determine whether the LFA approach will enable individuals to acquire skills on the job and "work their way up" from entry-level positions. Nevertheless, the following two-year results were found when the experiences of the LFA and HCD sample members were compared with those of the individuals in the control group: Both the LFA and HCD programs increased individuals’ two-year cumulative employment and earnings.

The cumulative employment and earnings impacts over the two-year period were smaller for the HCD programs than for the LFA programs.

Both the LFA and HCD programs reduced welfare expenditures within the two-year follow-up period.

The magnitudes of the welfare impacts for the LFA and HCD programs at each site were either fairly similar throughout the follow-up period or, if not became similar by the end of the two-year follow-up period.

For those who entered the study without a high school diploma or GED certificate, both the LFA and HCD approaches achieved AFDC savings. While the LFA approach consistently produced earnings impacts across all sites for this subgroup, the HCD approach did not. As a result, individuals in this subgroup who were subject to the HCD approach experienced, on average, welfare reductions that were not offset by earnings gains" (ES-4 - ES-6). "Analyses conducted so far in the sites which implemented both LFA and HCD programs also shed light on issues of heightened importance under the recently enacted state block grants known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which replaced AFDC: Both the LFA and HCD programs decreased the proportion of individuals who remained continuously on the welfare rolls throughout the two-year follow-up period.

Sanction rates in the LFA and HCD programs were much higher than in previously studied programs, but the higher sanction rates were not associated with higher rates of eventually participating in program activities, compared with participation results for past programs.

Women with preschool-age children were able to participate in program activities; moreover, earnings and welfare impacts resulting from both the LFA and HCD programs, were found for this group as well as for women with older children.

Although the LFA and HCD programs were not operated under TANF rules or designed to meet TANF standards, it is likely that they would have failed to meet the ultimate participation rates specified in TANF, even though they achieved many TANF aims: They engaged large numbers of individuals in employment-related activities or imposed financial sanctions on them, generally increased the number of individuals who worked during the follow-up period, and decreased welfare use and expenditures" (ES-6).

“Mothers in the Descriptive sample varied substantially in terms of their apparent preparedness to pursue JOBS activities and employment. The majority of the mothers have had some previous experience in the labor force, although much of that experience was in low-paying, low-wage jobs. Two-thirds of the women are high school graduates or have a GED, suggesting that they are at a point where they could benefit from job training or further education, or could take an entry level job.”

“Despite the fact that most of the mothers in the Descriptive sample have a high school diploma or a GED, more than half of the mothers have low levels of basic reading and math literacy.”

“Although there were variations in ratings, most of the respondents expressed positive attitudes toward employment, negative attitudes toward welfare, and a sense that they could locate child care if they become employed.”

“Contact between the focal children and their biological fathers was limited. Only 16 percent of the mothers in the Descriptive sample had ever been married to the focal child's father. Further, only 2 percent of the children's biological fathers lived in the same household at the time of the Descriptive survey.”

“At this early point in the JOBS Evaluation, children in the Descriptive sample appear to be faring poorly on assessments of their receptive vocabulary and school readiness, but not their health or social maturity as reported by their mothers.”

“On average, mothers describe their children as showing fairly high levels of social maturity on the Personal Maturity Scale.”

“More than three out of four children were rated by their mothers as currently in excellent or very good health. Approximately half (49 percent) of the children were described by their mothers as in "excellent" health, and a further 29 percent were described as in "very good" health.”

“Close to the start of the JOBS Evaluation, those children in the Descriptive sample showing the least optimal development are those whose mothers have the least education, and the lowest reading and math literacy skills, whose mothers feel the least control over events in their lives, and whose mothers perceive the most barriers to employment. In addition, boys in the Descriptive sample show less optimal development than girls on all four measures.”

“Findings from the Descriptive sample are in accord with previous reports that children living in poverty receive less cognitive stimulation and emotional support in their home environments than non-poor children. At the same time there is evidence of variability in the home environments of the families in the sample.”

“Families in the Descriptive sample showed, on average, similar levels of emotional support and cognitive stimulation to AFDC families with three- to five-year-olds in a national sample. However, scores were lower in the Descriptive sample and the national sample of AFDC families than in non-poor families in the national sample, both in terms of cognitive stimulation and emotional support in the home.”

“There was a substantial increase in the proportion of Descriptive sample children in child care in the two program groups very shortly after enrollment in the JOBS Evaluation. Two months prior to random assignment, 44 percent of the three- and four-year-olds in the human capital development group were participating regularly in some form of child care, but two months after random assignment the figure was 72 percent. In the labor force attachment group, 48 percent of three- and four-year-olds were participating in child care two months prior to random assignment, but 83 percent were receiving some regular child care two months after random assignment. Over the same time period, use of child care in the control group increased only from 43 to 49 percent (an increase that probably reflects increasing child age and transitions to employment among control group mothers.)”

“Analyses indicate a strong association between the accumulation of maternal and family risk factors and the well-being of children in the Descriptive sample. Overall, 29 percent of the Descriptive Study children scored at or above the median for a national sample of African American preschool-aged children on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised.(22) However, the proportion of children with scores above the median was Heavily concentrated among low-risk families, with 39 percent of children with zero to Three risks scoring above this cutoff, compared to 17 percent among children with six to ten risks.”

“Follow-up of more than two years is needed to fully assess the success of a welfare-to-work program, but at the two-year mark Portland’s program produced effects (impacts) on employment, earnings, and welfare receipt that were among the largest ever found for large-scale mandatory programs.”

“The Portland program substantially increased employment and produced unusually large increases in earnings. The program raised employment levels by 11 percentage points over two years (relative to the control group). More than one out of every four welfare recipients who normally would not have worked in an unsubsidized job during the two-year follow-up period did so as a result of the program. In addition, two-year earnings were increased by over $1,800 per sample member, a 35 percent increase over the control group’s earnings. These earnings gains are the largest found in the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies and approach the largest gains found for a large-scale mandatory program (those in the Riverside, California, GAIN program of the late 1980s).”

“Unlike many programs that produce immediate impacts on employment and earnings, the Portland program increased job quality. At the end of two years, the program increased the proportion of people working at full-time jobs by 13 percentage points and, among those employed (a nonexperimental comparison), increased average hourly pay by $0.86. It increased the proportion of people with employer-provided health benefits by 10 percentage points.”

“The program reduced welfare expenditures by 17 percent over the two-year follow-up period. Relative to the average total welfare payments that people in the control group received over the two years, the program reduced per person expenditures by almost $1,200. By the end of the follow-up period, only 41 percent of program group members were receiving welfare compared to 53 percent of control group members, a decrease of 12 percentage points.”

“Portland’s impacts were widespread: both recipients with relatively few barriers to employment and those typically considered very hard to place achieved employment and earnings gains and AFDC reductions. Few other programs have attained such consistent impacts. Employment, earnings, and AFDC impacts were produced for those who entered the program with a high school diploma or GED (high school equivalency certificate) and those who had neither credential, as well as for the "most disadvantaged" (sample members who entered without a high school diploma or GED, had not worked during the prior year, and had received AFDC for at least two years prior to program entry).”

“Over the two-year follow-up period, program group members’ average combined income from earnings, AFDC, and Food Stamps was not substantially higher than that of control group members. However, more positive results at the end of the follow-up period suggest that the program group may become financially better off in the future. Program group members’ two-year earnings gains were largely offset by losses in AFDC and Food Stamps. Quarterly impact trends suggest that income gains may emerge in the third year of follow-up.”

“Portland’s program was unusually successful in moving people into jobs, increasing their earnings, and moving them off welfare. This success occurred in a specific context: Portland’s caseload was predominantly white, minimizing the chances of racial discrimination in the labor market; a high percentage of the caseload entered the program with a high school diploma or GED certificate; and Portland’s economy was very strong during the study period, with low unemployment and substantial job growth.”

"Overall, the six JOBS programs examined had relatively few statistically significant impacts on children on average, that is, across all families assigned to a given program. Nevertheless, there were more impacts than one would expect due to chance. In addition, findings differed according to the aspect of the children's development examined, with impacts in the area of cognitive development favorable, in the area of health unfavorable, and in the area of behavior mixed (including both favorable and unfavorable impacts).

"Child impact findings at the aggregate level tended to differ according to site. Whereas impacts on child outcomes were relatively few, they tended to be favorable in Atlanta, unfavorable in Riverside, and mixed in Grand Rapids. Where impacts were found, they were generally small. Only a single impact was of sufficient magnitude to be called "policy relevant." Policy relevant findings in the present study are those that meet the criterion, set at the start of the study, of having an effect size of at least a third of a standard deviation. The strongest evidence on which to base conclusions about impacts on children is a consistent patterning of impact results, particularly when impacts meet or exceed the criterion for policy relevance.

"In addition to examining impacts for the sample as a whole in each site, analyses also addressed the question of whether findings differed for children from families with different background characteristics. There was an initial concern that children in families at higher risk (in terms of such background characteristics as the mother's education, her work history, number and spacing of children, and maternal psychological well-being) might show a pattern of unfavorable program impacts. Mothers in higher-risk families might be less able to fulfill the requirement to participate in a welfare-to-work program, or might experience substantial stress in doing so. Children in higher-risk families might be more vulnerable to changes in family routines and their own care situations. Yet on the other hand, JOBS programs might provide exactly the kind of support the higher-risk families need in order make progress toward economic self-sufficiency. The combination of messages, enhanced case management, program requirements, and services might be particularly effective for such families. If this is indeed the case, then children in higher-risk families might be particularly likely to show favorable impacts of one or both JOBS program approaches.

"As for the findings for children across all families, statistically significant impacts for subgroups of families were relatively few, though exceeding what might have been expected on the basis of chance. Findings for children in higher-risk families, when they emerged, tended to be favorable, though small, when the mother had been assigned to a human capital development program or to Atlanta's labor force attachment program. By contrast, program impacts, some of which reached the criterion for policy relevance, tended to be unfavorable for children from higher-risk families in the other two labor force attachment programs.

"Contrary to the initial hypothesis, it was among lower-risk families that there were indications of some concentrations of unfavorable impacts for children, and these did not appear to vary by program approach. Rather, a pattern of unfavorable impacts occurred for children in three particular programs: Grand Rapids' labor force attachment program, and both of Riverside's programs. In addition, a number of the program impacts for children in lower-risk families met the criterion for policy relevance, and nearly all of these were unfavorable impacts. Further, many (one-third) of the unfavorable and policy relevant impacts found for children in lower-risk families substantially exceeded the threshold for policy relevance, in that effect sizes were .50 or larger (which is considered "moderate" to "large" in magnitude; Cohen, 1988).

"Further analyses were conducted to begin to explicate the processes underlying program impacts on children. While the analyses of program impacts on children summarized above are experimental in nature, the analyses used regarding the processes underlying program impacts on children, mediational analyses, are non-experimental. Whereas experimental analyses provide strong evidence regarding the existence of program impacts on children, they cannot address the question of how these impacts came about. Because mediational analyses are non-experimental, they do not allow firm causal inferences to be made regarding the pathways through which these impacts come about. Nevertheless, if one hopes to gain insight into the processes through which a given program had impacts, then non-experimental statistical analyses are necessary.

"These analyses suggest that the mechanisms through which children can be affected by a given welfare-to-work program include both outcomes that were directly targeted (e.g., employment), as well as outcomes not directly targeted by the programs (e.g., parenting, maternal psychological well-being). In particular, though, the findings highlight the role played by mechanisms more proximal to the child, especially maternal psychological well-being and parenting. As yet, the roles of child care, health insurance, and income in mediating the five child impacts selected for pathways analyses have not been identified, although it should not be concluded that these factors do not in general affect outcomes for children. Findings also indicate that welfare-to-work programs sometimes have effects on aspects of family life that are important to children that go in opposing directions (favorable and unfavorable). For example, Atlanta's labor force attachment program increased mothers' sense of time stress (which was associated with less favorable behavioral outcomes in children), but simultaneously led to improvements in parenting (which was associated with more favorable behavioral outcomes in children). Impacts on children reflect the net effect of such influences. Opposing influences of this kind on key aspects of family life may help explain the small number and size of significant impacts on child outcomes. Understanding the nature and direction of multiple influences on family life is central to strengthening pathways that yield favorable impacts on children and weakening the pathways that have detrimental implications for children.

"In sum, the results indicate that the welfare-to-work programs implemented as part of the JOBS Program did have significant impacts on children's developmental outcomes, but these impacts were not widespread and were generally small. When impacts did occur, they were favorable in the area of the children's cognitive development and academic achievement, unfavorable in the area of the children's health and safety, and mixed in the area of behavioral and emotional adjustment. Looking at subgroups of families, there was a pattern of favorable impacts for children from higher-risk families assigned to human capital development programs or to the Atlanta labor force attachment program. Yet, at the same time, there was a concentration of unfavorable, and policy relevant, impacts for children from lower-risk families in three of the programs studied."

While the Detroit MOST program communicated to enrollees the importance of participating in MOST and the penalties for not doing so, it did not strongly enforce the mandate to participate.

Control group members’ levels of participation in employment and training activities were high for a NEWWS program. Relative to the control group’s participation, the Detroit program produced only a small increase in the use of employment-related activities.

During the first two years of the follow-up period, the Detroit program only modestly increased employment and earnings and reduced AFDC receipt; impacts grew larger in the third year. .

The impact of the MOST program alone is reflected in the experiences of sample members enrolled in the program early on. The Hamtramck office generated increases in employment and earnings for an early cohort who did not receive Work First services within the first two years, while the Fullerton-Jeffries office did not.

The effects of the Work First program are reflected in the impacts of a later cohort who received fewer months of MOST services and were more likely to be referred to and have participated in Work First. Impacts for the later Fullerton-Jeffries cohort emerged in the second year of follow-up, which suggests that the Work First program was having a positive effect on Fullerton-Jeffries program group members’ employment and welfare outcomes.

The impacts by office and random assignment cohort suggest that both MOST and Work First programs can produce positive results. However, the implementation practices of each office likely influenced the results.

Detroit’s two-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC for the full sample are smaller than impacts in the other programs in the NEWWS Evaluation.

Because large impacts are emerging in the third year, two years is not enough time in which to fully assess the effectiveness of the Detroit program relative to the other programs.

Interim Implementation Findings:

The Detroit MOST program emphasized building clients’ human capital through education and training rather than moving clients into the labor market quickly.

The income maintenance (IM) staff knew little about the MOST program and had little discussion with clients regarding their participation in MOST.

Assessment was not a strong component of the MOST program.

The Detroit MOST program communicated to enrollees the importance of participating in MOST and the penalties for not doing so. However, the MOST program was considerably less mandatory than other programs in the NEWWS Evaluation.

The Work First program introduced a new system for delivering services that relied on contractual arrangements with private and public organizations to provide case management and service responsibilities.

Work First emphasized immediate employment rather than participation in longer-term education and training activities.

Almost half of all program group members were referred to Work First within three years after enrolling in MOST.

Contrary to the research design, some control group members were referred to the Work First program.

Interim Participation Findings:

Control group members’ levels of participation in employment and training activities were high for a NEWWS program.

The Detroit program modestly increased the use of vocational training and job search among program group members.

The Hamtramck district office increased the number of individuals who obtained a vocational training certificate.

Interim Cost-Benefit Findings:

The two-year cost of the MOST and Work First programs was estimated to be $2,955, most of which was spent on MOST services, making the Detroit program a relatively low-cost education-focused program.

ET & E only slightly increased participation among welfare applicants in education and training activities above what they would have accessed on their own within a two-year period.

Disregarding the costs that the government would have incurred without ET & E, just $951 was spent on each program group member, the lowest found for a NEWWS program. ET & E produced no impacts on employment or earnings within two years.

ET & E did generate moderate AFDC savings.

Across all sites, a large majority of control group members worked for pay during the follow-up, but only about 20 to 40 percent experienced stable employment or increased their earnings over time.
Over four years, all four employment-focused programs and four of six education-focused programs increased total earnings above control group levels. Portland achieved the largest gain, $4,025, or about $1,000 per year, an unusually large increase. The other programs led to middle-level increases that averaged about $300 to $500 per year.
Most programs achieved these earnings gains by helping sample members find work who would otherwise have remained jobless or by helping people start working sooner than they would have on their own. In general, programs had only small effects on measures of stable employment and earnings growth.
Portland’s more flexible employment-focused approach and its emphasis on finding good jobs led to the largest gains in stable employment and earnings growth among the 10 programs.
Grand Rapids and Riverside LFA, more strongly work-oriented than Portland, met their primary goal of helping a large number of welfare recipients find work quickly. These programs produced only small gains in stable employment and earnings growth, however, because many program group members had trouble maintaining employment. Atlanta LFA was less successful at moving people into jobs quickly, but increased employment stability and earnings growth by as much as Grand Rapids and Riverside LFA. In Atlanta as in Portland, program group members who found employment were more likely to sustain their employment compared to their counterparts in the control group.
Despite their emphasis on skill-building as a means to finding better jobs, education-focused programs led to only small increases in stable employment and had almost no effect on earnings growth. Three programs (Atlanta HCD, Columbus Integrated, and Detroit) had results similar to Atlanta LFA’s: small gains in employment that were accompanied by similar increases in stable employment. Riverside HCD increased both types of employment — stable and unstable — similar to LFA. The other education-focused programs, Grand Rapids HCD and Columbus Traditional, had no effects.
Programs did not achieve “delayed effects.” Relatively few program group members remained jobless during years 1 and 2 and then achieved stable employment later in the follow-up — a possible employment pattern for programs that emphasized longer-term skill building activities. Similarly, few program group members worked sporadically in years 1 and 2 then advanced to stable employment in later years — a pattern expected of strongly employment-focused programs. Sample members who experienced these problems (along with those who never found work in four years) represent likely target groups for additional services and financial incentives to sustain employment.
Portland’s program led to the most consistent gains among different welfare populations, a notable achievement. Several other employment- and education-focused programs increased stable employment or earnings growth among sample members with more serious barriers to employment — also an encouraging finding. Programs did not do as well with sample members who entered the programs with fewer barriers to employment.

Those individuals who worked relatively continuously throughout the follow-up period started working relatively early in the follow-up period and were most likely to be in their initial or second job after random assignment. This group also experienced substantial earnings growth over the four-year follow-up period: earnings grew by close to 50 percent during this time.
The group of individuals who were least successful in sustaining employment were more likely to have only one relatively short spell of employment and to start working later in the follow-up period. This group had very low levels of earnings and almost no growth in earnings during the follow-up period. Those who worked for a “moderate” portion of the follow-up period were more likely to experience multiple employment spells. This group had low to moderate levels of quarterly earnings and earnings growth.
The group that was most successful in sustaining employment had higher education and basic skill levels, more recent work history, and fewer personal barriers (particularly family or personal problems, family attachment, and locus of control), compared to the group that was least successful. There were small or negligible differences between the groups based on age, ethnicity, marital status and children, and depression levels; and a somewhat larger difference in prior welfare receipt.
Health insurance — whether provided through public or private sources — appears to be critical if individuals are to sustain employment. The availability of employer-provided health insurance was twice as prevalent in the initial job among those who were most successful in sustaining employment, compared to those who were least successful. The most successful group was also twice as likely to have used transitional Medicaid. This indicates that health insurance is important in sustaining employment.
The group who was most successful in sustaining employment was also more likely to use transitional child care, although their usage rates were relatively low given their employment status: Approximately 20 percent used this benefit within two years, compared to 12 percent in the least successful group.
There were not large differences in the hourly wages of the initial job between those who were most and least successful in sustaining employment and only moderate differences in the hours worked.
Those who did not work after random assignment were most likely to have low education and basic skills, limited work experience, and to score high on scales measuring family attachment, family problems, and locus of control. In addition, this was an older group of individuals who had somewhat older children and tended to be long-term welfare recipients with little recent work experience at the time of random assignment. It is important to note, however, that even within this defined group of non-workers, a diverse range of welfare recipients is represented — including some with higher skills and education and no reported personal barriers.

• In the absence of any welfare-to-work program over a five-year follow-up period, approximately three-quarters of single-parent welfare recipients found jobs, and more than half left the welfare rolls. Few of the 11 studied programs improved on this already-high rate of job-finding, but nearly all programs helped single parents work during more quarters of the follow-up and earn more than they would have in the absence of a program. Moreover, all programs decreased welfare receipt and expenditures over the five years. Measured combined income, however, was largely not affected: The programs led to individuals’ replacing welfare and Food Stamp dollars with dollars from earnings and EITCs, but the programs did not increase income above the low levels of the control group. The programs achieved their economic gains with few spillover effects on such family measures as marriage, fertility, and household composition. Notably, the adults’ gains in self-sufficiency (defined as increased employment and decreased welfare receipt) were achieved with few indications of harm or benefit to the well-being of their children.
• By rigorously comparing LFA and HCD programs — versions of employment-focused and education-focused programs designed to magnify the differences between the two types of strategies and operated side by side in three evaluation sites — it was found that the HCD approach did not produce added economic benefits relative to the LFA approach. Moreover, the LFA approach moved welfare recipients into jobs more quickly than did the HCD approach — a clear advantage when federally funded welfare months are time-limited. Finally, the LFA approach was much cheaper to operate than the HCD approach and, at the same time, did not affect sample members’ overall financial well-being or their children’s well-being any differently than the HCD approach. Surprisingly, these findings held true for program enrollees who lacked a high school diploma GED as of study entry, as well as for those who already possessed these education credentials.
• Dividing all 11 programs into two broad categories — employment-focused programs and education-focused programs — programs in the former category generally had larger effects on employment, earnings, and welfare receipt than those in the latter category. Given the large number of programs examined and their variety of served populations, implementation features, and labor markets, these results provide more support for the advantages of employment-focused programs than for education-focused ones.
• One program — the Portland (Oregon) one — by far outperformed the other 10 programs in terms of employment and earnings gains as well as providing a return on every dollar the government invested in the program. The Portland employment-focused program, unlike either the LFA or the HCD programs or the other education-focused programs, initially assigned some enrollees to very short-term education or training and others (the majority) to job search. Also, in another departure from the other programs, job search participants in Portland were counseled to wait for a good job, as opposed to taking the first job offered. While other aspects of the Portland program, such as its use of job developers and staff’s experience operating job search programs, were also noteworthy, these distinctive features, along with other past research, suggest that a “mixed” approach — one that blends both employment search and education or training — might be the most effective.
• Considering the six programs (three sites) in which children who were preschool age at random assignment were studied in depth, impacts were found on a small number of measures of child well-being — predominantly in the area of the young children’s social skills and behavior. Overall, the young-child impacts differed more often by site than by welfare-to-work approach. Program effects on child care — one important way in which children might be affected by welfare-to-work programs — diminished from the two-year follow-up point to the end of the five-year follow-up. As of this latter point, only the Portland program was still producing an increase in the use of child care. In the seven programs (four sites) in which a limited number of measures were examined for children of all ages, few effects were evident. Some impacts, however, were found relating to young adolescents’ academic functioning (but in only two of the four sites for which data are available), and these impacts on adolescents were predominantly unfavorable. As was the case for young children, impacts on children of all ages did not differ by welfare-to-work program approach.

"The findings from NEWWS provide compelling evidence that these programs succeeded in achieving many of FSA's and program operators' principal explicit goals. All the programs increased people's employment and earnings and decreased their receipt of welfare, thus resulting in gains in people's self-sufficiency. Notably, mothers who were single parents achieved these benefits with few concomitant indications of harm or benefit to the well-being of their children. Despite these successes, however, none of the programs met FSA's implicit goal of making people materially better off. The NEWWS programs generally did not increase income or reduce poverty. Indeed, some of the more disadvantaged program enrollees were made worse off financially."

• earlier impacts found were slightly more positive than negative; later impacts found were slightly more negative than positive


• it was in each of the three child development areas examined


• it did not vary according to welfare-to-work strategy


• it tended to vary according to the site in which the programs were implemented


• Favorable impacts occurred in Atlanta


• Unfavorable impacts were found in Grand Rapids


• Impacts of Riverside's programs varied by area of development, and differed according to mothers' initial levels education.

• By the two-year point, all six programs had substantially increased mothers' participation in activities designed to promote employment


• The three employment-focused programs generally did not alter, or even decreased, the likelihood of obtaining a high school diploma, GED, or trade certificate.


• Some, but not all, employment-focused programs increased employment over the five-year period, and one education-focused program did.


• All three education-focused programs increased degree receipt by the two-year point, though only two of these programs had long-term impacts on mothers' educational attainment.


• Impacts on welfare receipt varied over time and across programs.


• Only Riverside's programs increased total earnings, both early on and averaged over the entire follow-up period.


• Impacts on income and poverty were even more limited, and sometimes unfavorable.

• Although not required to participate in skill-building activities or look for work, the vast majority of Young Adult group members participated in at least one employment-preparation program on their own initiative.
• Similarly, both education-focused programs and employment-focused programs engaged a large majority of Young Adults in employment preparation activities.
• Employment focused programs achieved large two year and five year increases in the use of job search services, because relatively few control group members participated in these activities. In contrast, education focused programs showed more modest impacts on participation rates because a high percentage of control group members participated in skill building activities on their own initiative.
• Over five years, among Young Adults who lacked a high school diploma or General Education Diploma (GED) certificate at random assignment, education-focused programs led to a relatively large impact upon receipt of these credentials.
• Over five years, most education-focused and employment-focused programs helped Young Adults earn more on average than their control counterparts.
• The seven education-focused programs produced a wide range of earnings impacts for Young Adults.
• For the subgroup of Young Adults who entered the study with high school diploma or GED, the four most successful education-focused led to earnings at the high end of the range.
• There were no observed differences in program implementation that explain why some education focused programs succeeded for Young Adults while others did not.