Random sample of 678 program group (receiving New Hope services) and 679 control group (not eligible for New Hope services but able to use other community services) members. Children 1-10 at baseline studied.

“New Hope created sufficient slots, in a mix of nonprofit agencies, to handle the demand for CSJs (community service jobs).”

“Work site sponsors saw the New Hope staffing structure as efficient and responsive to their site’s needs as host agencies.”

“Both site sponsors and participants described the CSJs as "real" jobs that involved productive activities.”

“Employment status at application to New Hope drove CSJ use more than other background characteristics.”

“About one-fourth of the sample worked in a CSJ at some point in their first year of New Hope eligibility because they either did not secure unsubsidized employment or needed more hours of work to meet the New Hope hourly requirement to receive program benefits.”

“New Hope successfully used a variety of methods to prevent extended stays in CSJs; and an appreciable proportion of the participants working in a CSJ seemed to be using it as a bridge to unsubsidized employment.”

"The random assignment impact research design was successfully implemented, providing a means to understand the net impact of New Hope on key outcomes. The goals of achieving a diverse and sizable sample were met; the background characteristics of the program and control groups are similar, allowing a comparison of the program and control groups’ levels of employment, earnings, public assistance receipt, family and child outcomes (where applicable), and other key measures. These findings, based on follow-up using administrative records and a survey, will be the subject of a later New Hope evaluation report."

"At some point in the year following random assignment, approximately three-quarters of the applicants accepted into the New Hope program group worked full time and claimed a program benefit. Use of New Hope benefits is affected by the availability of and changes in other "safety net" programs, as described earlier in this summary. During the follow-up period for this report, earnings supplements were most frequently used (by 72 percent of the program group), followed by health insurance (38 percent), and child care (23 percent). Twenty-four percent took a CSJ for at least a day as a way to meet the New Hope requirement of employment. About 60 percent of these CSJ workers made a transition to a full-time, unsubsidized job at a later point in the follow-up period, which qualified them for New Hope benefits."

"People used the program in many different ways, with differences in use reflecting their different initial circumstances, their ability to find and retain a full-time job, and their desire to maintain contact with the program. After an initial start-up period (defined as the first three months after random assignment), 32 percent of the program group used benefits steadily or nearly so, 39 percent intermittently, and 29 percent not at all. Since most participants do not use services continuously, it appears that New Hope serves principally as a resource for those beginning employment and as a support and safety net for those who obtain a job. Later data collection will provide details about reasons for nonuse of program benefits."

Overall, New Hope increased employment and earnings, leading in turn to increased income during the first year of follow-up and enabling more low-income workers to earn their way out of poverty. New Hope’s effects on employment and income, coupled with its provision of health insurance and child care subsidies, set off a chain of beneficial effects for participants’ families and their children. On average, New Hope participants were less stressed, had fewer worries, and experienced less material hardship (particularly that associated with lack of health insurance) than control group members. Participants’ children had better educational outcomes, higher occupational and educational expectations, and more social competence; boys also showed fewer behavior problems in the classroom.

Analyses found that New Hope’s effects varied with the employment status of its participants at random assignment. On the one hand, those working part time or not at all needed to either find a full-time job or increase their hours of work to qualify for earnings supplements, health insurance, and child care subsidies. New Hope project staff assisted them in this process, sometimes by offering CSJs when they were needed. On the other hand, those working full time (30 hours or more) could take advantage of program benefits immediately, without having to increase their work effort. Indeed, New Hope allowed these participants to make ends meet without excessive overtime or simultaneously holding multiple jobs.

Among those not employed full time at random assignment (about two-thirds of the sample), New Hope increased both work effort and earnings. Compared to the control group, New Hope reduced by half the number who were never employed during the two years of follow-up (from 13 percent for the control group to less than 6 percent for New Hope participants). Program group members who were not employed full time at random assignment worked in 5.5 out of 8 quarters (three-month periods covered by the earnings data for this report) compared with 4.8 quarters for control group members. The program increased average two-year earnings of the program group (including those who had no earnings) by $1,389, from $10,509 for the control group to $11,898 for the program group. This increase in earnings, boosted by New Hope’s earnings supplement and the Earned Income Credits (EICs), resulted in a substantial income gain of $2,645 over the two-year follow-up period, which made it possible for many of these participants to work their way out of poverty.

CSJs were important in bringing about the employment effect for participants who were not employed full time at random assignment. However, it is unlikely that the entire employment effect was due to this program component. For that to be the case, one would have to assume that no CSJ user would have worked if there had been no CSJs. The data suggest the opposite, because most CSJ users transitioned into unsubsidized employment once their eligibility for CSJ employment ended, and many CSJ users had both CSJ earnings and earnings from unsubsidized employment in the same quarter.

For the remaining one-third of the sample (those employed full time at random assignment), there were modest reductions in hours worked and earnings. These participants were less likely to work more than 40 hours a week and did not experience net income gains, partly because New Hope reduced their receipt of AFDC and Food Stamps. In the second year of follow-up, New Hope’s effect on income for this group was a reduction of $1,148, or 7.5 percent.

The evaluation includes a "Child and Family Study" (CFS) of family dynamics and outcomes for children. Focusing on sample members with children aged 3-12 at the two-year follow-up — 89.8 percent of whom were women, and 69.4 percent of whom were receiving AFDC at enrollment — this study found evidence that New Hope increased the use of center-based child care and other structured out-of-school activities. Among those employed full time at random assignment, New Hope increased the quality of parent-child interactions. This may reflect participants’ greater ability to achieve a sustainable balance between work and parenting by cutting down on long work hours.

To capture possible effects on participants’ children, the CFS obtained permission to survey teachers of these children. From the teacher reports, it appears that New Hope had substantial positive effects on the classroom behavior, school performance, and social competence of children in the sample. These effects occurred primarily for boys, who also showed less problem behavior and higher educational and occupational expectations than boys in the control group.

This report has important implications for policymakers and program developers who are concerned with improving the lives of low-income working families. The analyses show that a package of earnings supplements, health and child care benefits, and full-time job opportunities can substantially increase the work effort, earnings, and income of those who are willing to work full time, but need assistance to do so. Such effects are not limited to nonworkers and welfare recipients, but extend to many different groups of low-income people.

On the other hand, the analyses show that earnings supplements may lead to modest reductions in work effort among those already working full time or more than full time. Interestingly, New Hope shows that such reductions can be kept to a minimum and can actually benefit the families involved to the extent that these reductions limit excessive overtime or multiple jobs.

Finally, the New Hope evaluation shows how modest changes in income, employment, and family resources can have significant effects on noneconomic outcomes, such as family well-being and child outcomes. A narrow focus on economic outcomes may understate the effects of interventions like New Hope, whose benefits extend beyond those outcomes.

• Parents in the New Hope group worked more and earned more than did parents in the control group.
• Although the effects diminished after Year 3, when the program ended, they did persist for some parents.
• Although New Hope had few effects on levels of material and financial hardship, it did increase parents’ instrumental and coping skills.
• Although New Hope had few effects on parenting, it did increase children’s time in formal center-based child care and after-school programs.
• At the end of both Year 2 and Year 5, children in the New Hope group performed better than control group children on several measures of academic achievement, and their parents reported that the children got higher grades in reading and literacy skills.

• The analyses show that a package of earnings supplements, health and child care benefits, and full-time job opportunities can substantially increase the work effort, earnings, and income of those who are willing to work full time, but need assistance to do so. Such effects are not limited to nonworkers and welfare recipients, but extend to many different groups of low-income people.
• On the other hand, the analyses show that earnings supplements may lead to modest reductions in work effort among those already working full time or more than full time. Interestingly, New Hope shows that such reductions can be kept to a minimum and can actually benefit the families involved to the extent that these reductions limit excessive overtime or multiple jobs.
• Finally, the New Hope evaluation shows how modest changes in income, employment, and family resources can have significant effects on noneconomic outcomes, such as family well-being and child outcomes. A narrow focus on economic outcomes may understate the effects of interventions like New Hope, whose benefits extend beyond those outcomes.