This U.S. government report describes a meta-analysis of studies on interventions targeting employment and training for low-income individuals. Many interventions (144) were included in the 191 studies reviewed by Streke & Rotz.
Streke & Rotz found that interventions generally improved employment outcomes. Interventions showed greater success with short-term employment/education/training rather than more enduring circumstances and, on average, led to the equivalent of increased earnings[1] of about $1,000/year. On first glance, these findings look positive. However, although increasing short-term success is desirable, it is not cause for great celebration. Also, the earnings increase is not substantial even for low-income workers.
Of the 144 interventions that showed signs of being effective, only 29 had statistically significant evidence for effectiveness. The four categories of interventions that improved average outcomes were education and training, work and work-based learning, employment services, and incentives and sanctions. Interventions such as case management or other supports did not, on average[2], show evidence of improved outcomes, nor did interventions focusing on helping workers maintain employment. The report dives into more granular findings of which only a few can be listed here:
- Specific services—transitional jobs, occupational/sectoral training, subsidized employment, education opportunities, soft-skills training, and work experience—were related to larger intervention effects than other services.
- Effects were also larger when interventions were delivered by ‘private’ providers (e.g., non-profits) and in which participation was voluntary.
- Having a greater proportion of participants who identified as Black or Hispanic lowered the impact of the interventions, as did having a greater proportion of women.
- Longer interventions did not have larger effects.
- Interventions’ effects were similar whether the economy was shrinking or expanding.
Streke & Rotz also provide a table that compares effect sizes and equivalent change in annual earnings for 19 interventions that were included in ten or more studies. The least desirable was on-the-job training, resulting in an equivalent annual earnings drop of $520 (five other interventions resulted in a reduction as well). The biggest positive effect was the provision of transitional jobs, producing an equivalent annual increase of $1,250.
A key takeaway from this report is that offering run-of-the-mill employment services programming for low-income individuals produces very modest results (or worse). CDPs working in organizations that provide these services would be well-served to (a) review the details of this report and (b) find ways to add value to the programs they offer.
The report also provides a good reminder that employment services are highly dependent on the human resources providing the services. A service that produces little change on average may be stellar when delivered by someone else.
[1] “Increased earnings” here refers to an “earnings equivalent” derived from variables including effect sizes of interventions, low-income worker earnings, and public benefits.
[2] This is an important qualifier. Some case management approaches were quite beneficial, for example.
Responses