Search results

Showing 1 – 20 of 20 results.

Curated

Restricted

Connecticut's Jobs First Program Analysis Data, 1996-2001 (ICPSR 38126)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-26

Geographic coverage: New Haven, United States, Connecticut

Time period: 1996-01-01--2001-02-28

This study focused on two of Connecticut's welfare offices, Manchester and New Haven, and used an unusually rigorous research design to provide reliable evidence about Jobs First's impacts -- that is, the difference that Jobs First has made relative to the outcomes generated by the welfare system that preceded it. To facilitate this assessment, between January 1996 and February 1997, several thousand welfare applicants and recipients were assigned, at random, to one of two groups: the Jobs First group, whose members were subject to the welfare reform policies, and the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) group, whose members remained subject to the prior welfare rules. People were assigned to the groups through a random process, there were no systematic differences between the groups' members when people entered the study. The two groups experienced the same general economic and social conditions during the study period. Thus, any differences that emerged between the two groups over time -- for example, in employment rates or family income -- can reliably be attributed to Jobs First. The evaluation followed the two groups for four years. The study also collected detailed information about Jobs First's impacts on participants' children, and it includes an analysis comparing the financial benefits and costs of Jobs First for participants and for the government budget.

Curated

Employment Retention and Advancement Project, 2000-2007 [United States] (ICPSR 33181)

Released/updated on: 2012-03-30

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Chicago, Salem (Oregon), Minnesota, Fort Worth, California, New York (state), Cleveland, South Carolina, New York City, Illinois, Texas, Ohio, Los Angeles, Eugene, Houston, Riverside, Corpus Christi

Time period: 2000-01-01--2007-01-01

The Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) project was designed to fill the gap in knowledge about employment retention and advancement strategies that might be effective. The goal of ERA was to identify and rigorously test a diverse set of innovative models designed to promote employment stability and wage or earnings progression among current or former welfare recipients or other low-income groups. As part of ERA, over a dozen different program models have been evaluated over the past 10 years using random assignment research designs. These models embodied states' and localities' choices of program goals, target populations, and program features, and the programs were largely paid for through existing funding streams. The programs were thus "real-world" interventions initiated by practitioners and not programs set up and funded solely for research purposes. The diversity of the models presents an opportunity to explore the effectiveness of a variety of strategies implemented for different populations in order to identify what might work. This collection includes seven datasets, four classified as Core/Final Report Sites and three from Harder to Employ Sites. Almost all of the ERA programs targeted current or former recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the cash welfare program that mainly serves single mothers and their children. The programs differed, however, in terms of when services were first provided and to whom. The Harder to Employ Sites files focus on the three ERA models that served harder to employ populations; (1) Tier 2 program in Minnesota: unemployed welfare-to-work participants who were in welfare-to-work services for a year or longer and hadn't been employed in the previous three months were given welfare-to-work services aimed at addressing barriers to employment which took into account their employment limitations. The Tier 2 program focused on assessing barriers to employment and addressing those barriers through referrals to appropriate services and close monitoring and follow-up. (2) New York City PRIDE: welfare recipients who were deemed "employable with limitations" were required to take part in welfare-to-work activities -- which emphasized unpaid work experience, education, and job placement assistance -- however, the program took into account their employment limitations when placing them in activities. The PRIDE program began with an in-depth assessment of participants' work and education history and their medical conditions. (3) New York City Substance Abuse Case Management (SACM): public assistance applicants and recipients who screened positive for signs of substance abuse were given a mandatory appointment to assess the level of substance abuse treatment needed. Depending on the outcome of the assessment, clients were referred to treatment, employment services, or a combination of both. Noncompliance at any stage resulted in sanctions and loss of public assistance benefits. Information was collected on respondents' employment status, job training, pay rate and benefits, occupation sector, health care, childcare, transportation, and a variety of job related topics. Demographic variables included household income, housing arrangements, number of people living in household, and respondent health status.

Curated

Employment Security Study, 1966 (ICPSR 7082)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

This study provides organizational information about 53 employment security agencies in the United States responsible for administering unemployment insurance and providing public employment services in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Data regarding the agencies' central offices, divisions, and local branches were collected at the central headquarters in each state. The variables cover the major characteristics of the agencies: the division of labor, levels of structure, routinization of roles, decentralization of authority, and the administrative practices in each agency.

Curated

Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO), New York City (ICPSR 33783)

Released/updated on: 2012-10-17

Geographic coverage: New York City, New York (state)

Time period: 2004-01-01--2008-01-01

The Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ (HtE) Demonstration and Evaluation Project was a 10-year study (taken on by the MDRC) that evaluated innovative strategies aimed at improving employment and other outcomes for groups who faced serious barriers to employment. The Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ is the first comprehensive attempt to understand the diverse low-income population and to test interventions aimed at the most common barriers that are encountered in this population's employment. The HtE demonstration was designed to evaluate a variety of innovative ways to boost employment, reduce welfare receipt, and promote well-being in low-income populations. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO), which is an employment program for former prisoners based in New York City. The CEO evaluation aimed to determine whether CEO's transitional jobs and other services are more effective than basic job search assistance. Enrollment for this study was conducted between January 2004 and October 2005 and resulted in a sample of 977 former prisoners (568 in the program group and 409 in the control group). Individuals assigned to the program group were eligible for all of CEO's services, including the pre-employment class, the transitional job, job coaching, job development, a fatherhood program, and post-placement services. Individuals assigned to the control group began with a shorter version of the pre-employment class and were given access to a resource room with basic job search equipment such as computers and fax machines. Evaluation of the CEO program found that the CEO operated as intended and substantially increased employment for the full study sample early in the follow-up period; however, that effect faded over time. The study also found that CEO significantly reduced recidivism, with the most promising impacts occurring among a subgroup of former prisoners who enrolled shortly after release from prison. Among the subgroup that enrolled within three months after release, program group members were less likely than their control group counterparts to be arrested, convicted of a new crime, and reincarcerated. The program's impacts on these outcomes represent reductions in recidivism of 16 percent to 22 percent. In general, CEO's impacts were stronger for those who were more disadvantaged or at higher risk of recidivism when they enrolled in the study. The evaluation of the CEO program included a benefit-cost analysis, which showed that CEO's financial benefits outweighed its costs under a wide range of assumptions. Respondents were asked about their employment history, recidivism history, time spent on parole, parole violations, and arrest history, including prior convictions, types of convictions, and length of incarceration. Information was collected about respondents' work experience with and without the assistance of the CEO; this information included whether respondents participated in group or individual job searches, vocational or educational training, received referrals to job openings, help with their resumes, advice about filing out job applications, job interviews, or how to behave on the job, help with child support issues and whether they participated in father discussion groups or parenting programs. Respondents were also asked about their current living situation, work schedule, hourly wage, job benefits, health coverage, whether they had a mentor, how often they saw their children, and the type of relationship they had with their children. Demographic information includes age, race, marital status, education, employment status, and home ownership status.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation Project, Philadelphia, PA (ICPSR 33784)

Released/updated on: 2013-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2004-01-01--2010-01-01

The Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ (HtE) Demonstration and Evaluation Project was a 10-year study (taken on by the MDRC) that evaluated innovative strategies aimed at improving employment and other outcomes for groups who face serious barriers to employment. The Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ was the first comprehensive attempt to understand the diverse low-income population and to test interventions aimed at the most common barriers to this population's employment. The HtE demonstration was designed to evaluate a variety of innovative ways to boost employment, reduce welfare receipt, and promote well-being in low-income populations. This study tests two employment strategies. The first employment strategy, administered by the Transitional Work Corporation (TWC), was a paid transitional employment program that combined temporary, subsidized employment with work-related assistance. The second employment strategy, the Success Through Employment Preparation (STEP) program, focused on assessing and treating employment barriers before participants obtained a job. From 2004 to 2006, 1,942 recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) who were not currently employed or participating in work activities were randomly assigned to one of the two program groups. Evaluation of the programs had three components: implementation and process analysis, impact analysis, and cost analysis. The implementation and process analysis examined how the programs operated, based primarily on site visits and interviews with program staff and administrators. The impact analysis measured the programs' effects on outcomes including employment, welfare use, and family functioning. The cost analysis compares the financial costs of the interventions. Outcomes for both groups were followed for at least three years, using public administrative records and surveys of study participants. In addition, follow-up surveys were conducted 15 and 36 months after random assignment in most sites. Information was collected on whether respondents participated in employment, vocational or education training activity. Respondents were asked whether they received help for things such as childcare, getting and/or keeping Medicaid and food stamps, paying for transportation, substance abuse treatment, addressing domestic violence, addressing legal issues, financial needs, or handling their household budget. Respondents were also asked if they received paid vacation time or sick days, where their income came from, and whether they earned any type of degree or certificate. Additional topics include health status, the length of time respondents received TANF funds, and employment history. Demographic information includes age, race, marital status, education, employment status, and home ownership status.

Curated

Evaluation of Employment Coaching for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Related Populations & Long-Term Follow-Up Study, 7 U.S. states, 2016-2026 (ICPSR 39080)

Released/updated on: 2025-01-13

Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States, Illinois, Texas, Colorado, California, New York (state), Maryland

Time period: 2016-02-01--2022-04-01

Employment coaching involves trained staff working collaboratively with participants to help them set individualized goals directly or indirectly related to employment and providing motivation, support, and feedback as participants work toward those goals. Unlike most traditional case managers, coaches work in partnership with participants and do not tell the participants what goals they should pursue or what action steps to take in pursuing them. Recently, there has been growing interest among policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and others in using employment coaching to assist Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients and other adults with low incomes.

To learn more about the potential of employment coaching, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) funded an experimental impact study of four employment coaching programs conducted as part of the Evaluation of Employment Coaching for TANF and Related Populations. The impact study evaluated the effectiveness of each program on study participants' self-regulation skills, employment, earnings, and other measures of personal and family well-being during the 21 months after participants enrolled in the study. Data and documentation for the longer term follow-up, 48 to 67 months after study enrollment, are forthcoming.

The four employment coaching programs included in the evaluation are:

Family Development and Self-Sufficiency (FaDSS), which serves TANF recipients and their family members in Iowa. Participation in FaDSS is voluntary and most coaching sessions occur in the participant's home.
Goal4 It!TM, which provides employment coaching to TANF recipients in Jefferson County, Colorado in lieu of traditional case management. Receipt of TANF benefits is conditional on participation in either Goal4 It! or traditional case management.
LIFT, which is a voluntary coaching program operated in four U.S. cities. Most coaching is conducted by unpaid student interns from Master of Social Work programs.
MyGoals for Employment Success (MyGoals), which is a voluntary coaching program that served recipients of public housing assistance in Baltimore, Maryland, and Houston, Texas.

The impact study addressed the following primary research questions:

Do the coaching programs improve the outcomes of adults with low incomes?

Specifically:

Do the coaching programs affect participants' intermediate outcomes related to self-regulation and other skills associated with labor market success?
Do the coaching programs affect participants' employment and economic security outcomes?
How do the impacts of the coaching programs change over time?
Are the coaching programs more effective for some groups of participants than others?

Between February 2017 and November 2019, about 4,300 adults who were eligible for one of the four employment coaching programs and who consented to participate in the evaluation were randomly assigned either to (1) a program group that had access to employment coaching, or (2) a control group that did not have access to employment coaching but could receive other services available in the community. The effectiveness of each employment coaching program was assessed based on differences in average outcomes between program and control group members. Impacts were estimated during two follow-up periods: at 9 to 12 months after study enrollment (depending on the program; Moore et al. 2023) and at 21 months after study enrollment (Moore et al. forthcoming).

To estimate the impacts of employment coaching, the study used data from: (1) a baseline survey or form administered to study participants at the time of study enrollment, (2) follow-up surveys administered to study participants approximately 9 to 12 months after study enrollment, and again approximately 21 months after study enrollment, (3) administrative employment and Unemployment Insurance records from the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), and (4) administrative records from state and local agencies on participation in public assistance programs.

The employment coaching restricted-use data collection includes nine files with data from these sources, excluding administrative and Unemployment Insurance records from the NDNH. Some of the files include data for a single program, while others combine data for more than one program. A user guide provides documentation for each file.

Long-term data will be added to this study homepage in the future.

Curated

Evaluation of the First Round of Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG 1.0), United States, 2010-2020 (ICPSR 37290)

Released/updated on: 2025-05-07

Geographic coverage: United States, Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Missouri, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona

Time period: 2010-01-01--2018-01-01

The Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG), administered by the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was created to provide education and training to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients and other low-income individuals for occupations in the healthcare field that pay well and are expected to either experience labor shortages or be in high demand.

HPOG programs are expected to target skills and competencies demanded by the healthcare industry; support career pathways; result in an employer- or industry-recognized certificate or degree; combine supportive services with education and training services to help participants overcome barriers to employment; and provide services at times and locations that are easily accessible to targeted populations.

In 2010, the first round of HPOG awards was made to 27 organizations located across 20 states to carry out five-year programs in their areas. The first round of HPOG grant awards is referred to as HPOG 1.0. In 2015, a second round of HPOG grant awards was made to 32 organizations located across 21 states for a new five-year period. This second round of grants is referred to as HPOG 2.0.

HPOG is authorized as a demonstration program with a mandated federal evaluation. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) is utilizing a multi-pronged evaluation strategy to document the operations and assess the success of the HPOG program. The evaluation strategy aims to provide information on program implementation, systems change, outcomes, and impacts.

This collection is organized into 22 data parts, including:

3 HPOG National Implementation Evaluation datasets of employers (DS1), grantees (DS2), and management and staff (DS3) surveys
a HPOG 15-month follow-up survey dataset (DS4)
an analysis file with HPOG participant covariates and outcomes (DS5)
6 Performance Reporting System (PRS) datasets
3 datasets from the Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education Evaluation (PACE) containing a subset of respondents who participated in both HPOG and PACE studies
5 datasets from the 3 year follow up impact reports (DS15 to DS20)
2 datasets from the 6 year follow up impact reports (DS21 and DS22)

The PRS is the federal management information system for HPOG grantees that was designed to support participant record and case management, program performance measurement, and program evaluation research.

The Participant dataset (DS6) is at the person-level and contains background information on participants at the time of intake into the HPOG program.
The Participant Supplemental dataset (DS7) is at the person-level and contains supplemental information for participants who participated in the HPOG impact evaluation.
The Education dataset (DS8) contains the date and type of remedial pre-training activities of participants during the HPOG program. This dataset is at the training-level, with one row for each educational activity.
The Employment dataset (DS9) contains the date and type of employment development activities of participants during the HPOG program, as well as job characteristics of participants who find employment. This dataset is at the employment activity level, with one row for each employment activity.
The Services dataset (DS10) is at the person-level and contains the date and type of supportive services received by participants from the HPOG program.
The Training dataset (DS11) contains the date and type of vocational training received by participants from the HPOG program. This dataset is at the training level, with one row for each occupational training activity.

The PACE study was designed to produce rigorous evidence for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers about the effectiveness of nine career pathways approaches that sought to increase credentials, employment, and self-sufficiency among low-income, low-skilled Americans. The 3 HPOG subset datasets from this study include the Basic Information Form Data File (DS12), the First Follow-Up Data File (DS13), and the Self-Administered Questionnaire Data File (DS14). For more information about the PACE study, please see its ICPSR study page (ICPSR #37289).

The follow-up impact report contains a 3 Year Updated Analysis Data File (DS15). Augmented Credentials Data File (DS16) contains data about previous academic and trade school accreditations. Augmented Job Spells Data File (DS17) pertains to the participant's duration of the training and income-based questions. Augmented School Spells Data File (DS18) contains data about the duration of education. Job Conditions Data File (DS19) pertains to job conditions and coworker support. Person Level Data File (DS20) contains person-level data on job benefits and conditions, training, income, self-perception, support networks, and childcare. The 6 year follow-up impact report contains a 6 year Updated Analysis Data File (DS21) and a 6 Year Survey Data File (D22).

Various demographic information, such as age, sex, race, and ethnicity, is also included in the data.

Curated

Restricted

Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) Analysis, 7 counties, 1994-1998 (ICPSR 38093)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-05

Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota

Time period: 1994-01-01--1998-12-31

The Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) consisted of three key components:

Financial incentives to work-parents could keep more of their benefits when they worked and child care payments were paid directly to providers.
Participation requirements for long-term recipients--if not working full-time, long-term recipients had to participate in services designed to move them quickly into the workforce.
Simplification of rules and procedures-- AFDC, Food Stamps, and Family General Assistance were combined into a single program with one set of rules and procedures and one monthly payment.

MFIP began operating in April 1994 in three urban counties of Anoka, Dakota, and Hennepin and the four rural counties of Mille Lacs, Morrison, Sherburne, and Todd. Between April 1994 and March 1996, over 14,000 families were assigned at random, using a lottery-type process, to either the MFIP or AFDC systems. This package contains data files and documentation for the evaluation of the MFIP program. The program was evaluated using a random assignment design, in which applicants for and recipients of welfare were assigned at random into either the MFIP program or a control group. The included files are those that were analyzed for the final reports on the MFIP evaluation, issued in September 2000.

These data are a Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped for release, but not checked or processed.

Curated

National Evaluation of Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP), 1996-2003 [United States] (ICPSR 20740)

Released/updated on: 2009-01-29

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1996-01-01--2003-06-01

The goal of this study was to conduct a national empirical assessment of post-release employment and recidivism effects based on legislative intent for inmates participating in Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) as compared to participants in traditional industries (TI) and those involved in other than work (OTW) activities. The research design for this study was a quasi-experimental design using matched samples. The inmates were matched using six criteria. Exact matches were made on race, gender, crime type, and category matches on age, time served, and number of disciplinary reports. A cluster sampling strategy was used for site selection. This strategy resulted in a selection of five states which were not identified in the study. The researchers then collected data on 6,464 individuals by completing record reviews of outcomes for the 3 matched samples, each of approximately 2,200 inmates released from 46 prisons across 5 PIECP states between January 1, 1996, and June 30, 2001. Variables include demographic information, time incarcerated, number of disciplinary reports, crime type, number of major disciplinary reports reviewed, group type, number of quarters from release to employment, censored variables, number of quarters from employed to job loss, time from release variables, number of possible follow-up quarters, proportion of follow-up time worked, wage variables, number of quarters worked variables, no work ever, and cluster number of case.

Curated

Restricted

New Chance 42-Month, 10 U.S. states, 1989-1992 (ICPSR 38134)

Released/updated on: 2022-05-09

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Illinois, Colorado, Kentucky, Minnesota, California, Florida, New York (state), Michigan, Pennsylvania

Time period: 1989-01-01--1992-12-31

New Chance was an intervention designed for young mothers who had first given birth as teenagers, who had dropped out of high school, and who were receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The program was evaluated in 16 sites around the country, using an experimental research design with randomly selected experimental and control groups. The total size of the 42-month impact sample was 2,079, of which 1,401 were in the experimental group and 678 were in the control group. Those assigned to the experimental group were offered access to the New Chance program; those in the control group were excluded from the program but could pursue services elsewhere. The New Chance program was "two-generational" in its focus: it combined services to increase the employability of the young women in the program with services targeted at their children. Consequently, data on the experiences of the young women in the New Chance sample are supplemented with outcomes for a "focal child" selected from children of their own who were living with them.

Curated

New York City Court Employment Project Evaluation Study, 1976-1979 (ICPSR 7832)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1976-01-01--1979-01-01

This study served as a controlled research evaluation of the New York City Court Employment Project (CEP) as it stood in 1976-1979. At the time of the study, CEP was an independent corporation under contract to New York City's Human Resources Administration. The ultimate aim of CEP was to change the income-generating behavior of its participants to reduce their subsequent criminal activity. CEP did this by diverting accused offenders from routine court procedures (criminal prosecution, sentencing, and possible incarceration) and instead placing them into jobs, training, or vocationally-oriented counseling services. Eligible defendants agreed to attend mandatory counseling sessions, to devise and execute individual plans for securing training and employment, and to avoid arrest and conviction during their participation. Charges were dismissed by the court if, at the end of six months, CEP counselors determined that the defendant had participated successfully. Research goals for this study were to accumulate data in order to: (1) assess the impact of diversion on recidivism and personal stability, (2) ascertain the outcome of court cases without diversion, and (3) assess the relationship of these outcomes to the social services aspect of diversion programs. The study compared a control group of non-CEP offenders with an experimental group of CEP participants to assess the program's effectiveness in helping offenders find and maintain employment or training and avoid criminal activity. Data were collected on 666 subjects, 410 in the experimental group and 256 in the control group. Three interviews were conducted at six-month intervals with each subject, initially to record self-reports about education, training, employment history, reliance on public assistance, criminal history, illegal activities, lifestyle, and utilization of social services, and then to maintain current information about their school, employment, income, and court processing status. In addition to the three personal interviews, official records data were obtained from a variety of agencies to gather information including criminal history, disposition of the case on which the defendant entered the research, information related to subsequent arrests, and (for members of the experimental group) information about participation in CEP. Other variables include attendance at counseling sessions, type of employment found, job attendance, self-evaluation of important life events and life satisfaction, social services programs utilized, and drug and alcohol use, as well as defendant's and defendant's parents' age, sex, and race.

Curated

New York Times Economic Insecurity Poll, December 1995 (ICPSR 4505)

Released/updated on: 2008-09-08

Geographic coverage: United States

This poll, fielded December 3-6, 1995 is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way Bill Clinton was handling his job as president, and rated the condition of the national economy, whether they were getting ahead financially, and how easy it was for someone in their community to get a good job. Opinions were solicited about which political party would be better at handling issues such as unemployment and the country's prosperity, and whether there was a need for a new third political party. Respondents were queried about their economic and job insecurities, including saving for retirement, making cut-backs in day-to-day spending, and the possibility of being out of work in the following year. Respondents who were currently employed were asked whether they or a household member had been forced to work less hours, accept a reduction in pay, or find an extra job in the past three years. A series of questions asked respondents about their experiences with job layoffs in the past 15 years, as well as the experiences of other household members, and respondents not in the labor market were asked a variety a questions about what they would do to increase their chances of keeping a job. Additional questions addressed job satisfaction, company and worker loyalty, the general feelings of workers in the workplace, where blame should be placed for the loss of jobs in the country, whether the loss of jobs was a temporary problem, and whether the government could and should do something about the lay-offs. Information was also collected on whether respondents considered themselves part of the religious right movement, whether they listened to political call-in radio shows, which social class best described them, and whether they felt at risk of falling out of the middle class. Additional topics included sending peace-keeping troops to Bosnia, immigration, government responsibilities, national health care insurance, charity contributions, and volunteer work. Demographic variables include sex, race, age, employment status, occupation, frequency of religious attendance, household income, education level, marital status, household union membership, political party affiliation, political philosophy, voter participation history and registration status, whether respondents had any children under the age of 18, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural).

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Omnibus Study, Spring 1973 (ICPSR 7453)

Released/updated on: 2023-03-13

Geographic coverage: United States

This study was sponsored by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan for researchers who needed data on national samples but only required part of an interview. The survey covered the following major topics: economic situation, quality of life, governmental service agencies, income tax, and background questions. In the economic section, respondents were asked how they viewed their own and the country's economic situations in comparison to the previous year, and what their expectations were for the next 12 months. Questions referred to personal finances, employment, price changes, and the national business situation. The economic variables are also included in SURVEY OF CONSUMER ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR, SPRING 1973 (ICPSR 7475). The second section focused on respondents' life satisfaction. General questions about quality of life were followed by a more extensive inquiry into specific aspects of respondents' lives: financial security, freedom, independence, safety, religious fulfillment, perceptions of pressure, and adaptability. The third section focused on respondents' experience with and attitudes toward various governmental agencies, particularly in the areas of health, welfare, and employment. Government service agencies at the local, county, state, and national levels were taken into consideration. The fourth section posed a series of questions about income taxes, tax rates, income tax withholding, and income tax refunds in 1973 as compared to 1972. The survey probed the extent to which people were aware of a change in tax law that had resulted in too much money having been withheld in 1972. Respondents were also asked what they did, or intended to do, with the extra refunds received in the spring of 1973. Demographic information includes sex, age, ethnicity, level of education, marital status, employment status, occupation, family income, home and car ownership, and multiple residences, if applicable.

Curated

Restricted

Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED), Chicago, Illinois, 2015-2019 (ICPSR 38468)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-25

Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois

Time period: 2015-01-01--2019-01-01

The Bridges to Pathways (Bridges) program was a violence prevention program in Chicago serving young men between the ages of 17 and 21 years old who were involved with the criminal or juvenile justice system and lacked a high school credential. This program was one of several evaluated as part of the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED) project. The Bridges program was launched in 2013, and aimed to improve the outcomes of young adults at high risk of violence. The program was developed by the Chicago Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS) and operated by two community-based organizations: Central States SER and SGA Youth and Family Services. The six-month program included four components: academic enrichment, social-emotional learning, workforce readiness, and intensive mentoring and case management.

These data are a Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped for release, but not checked or processed.

Curated

Restricted

Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED), Los Angeles, California, 2012-2019 (ICPSR 38460)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-28

Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles, California

Time period: 2012-01-01--2019-01-01

MDRC conducted randomized controlled trials to evaluate two distinct approaches to subsidized employment for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients in Los Angeles County. The first model studied, Paid Work Experience (PWE), subsidizes the wages of individuals placed at employers in the nonprofit or public sector for up to six months. The second, On-the-Job Training (OJT), offers wage subsidies to for-profit employers who agree to place employees onto their payrolls after an initial two-month tryout period; if they do, the wage subsidies can continue for up to an additional four months. The evaluation included an implementation study, an impact study, and a cost analysis.

Curated

Restricted

Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED), Minnesota, 2014-2019 (ICPSR 38469)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-25

Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota

Time period: 2014-01-01--2019-01-01

Minnesota's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, called the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), provides a full range of employment services to families receiving MFIP benefits, including job readiness workshops and job search assistance. However, in 2014, despite Minnesota's strong labor market, some MFIP recipients were unable to find employment. The state funded the Minnesota Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (MSTED) to improve the employment outcomes of MFIP recipients who were not able to find employment after receiving MFIP services for six months or more. MSTED placed participants into two different types of subsidized employment based on their job readiness - either in temporary paid work experience in the nonprofit and public sectors for participants who were less job-ready participants or in subsidized jobs in the private sector designed to roll over into permanent unsubsidized positions for the more job-ready participants. The evaluation of MSTED, conducted as a randomized controlled trial, included an implementation study, an impact study, and a cost analysis.

These data are a Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped for release, but not checked or processed.

Curated

Restricted

Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED), New York City, New York, 2013-2018 (ICPSR 38467)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-25

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 2013-01-01--2018-01-01

MDRC conducted a random assignment evaluation of the Young Adult Internship Program (YAIP), a subsidized employment program for young people in New York City who have become disconnected from school and work. This program was one of several evaluated as part of the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED) project. Operated by various provider agencies, YAIP offers disconnected young people between the ages of 16 and 24 a temporary paid internship, as well as various support services. MDRC conducted a random assignment evaluation of YAIP to determine whether the program makes a difference in the lives of the young people it serves. The evaluation included an implementation study, an impact study, and a cost analysis.

These data are a Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped for release, but not checked or processed.

Curated

Restricted

Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED), San Francisco, California, 2012-2018 (ICPSR 38461)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-26

Geographic coverage: San Francisco, United States, California

Time period: 2012-11-01--2018-12-31

The STEP Forward program offered job seekers opportunities to interview for jobs with private sector employers at weekly job fairs, and offered employers temporary wage subsidies to encourage them to try out job seekers whom they might not otherwise hire, with the goal of ultimately hiring these workers into permanent unsubsidized employment. A diverse group of low-income job seekers enrolled in the program, the vast majority of whom were either CalWORKs (California's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program) clients, individuals who had exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits, or CalFresh (California's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) recipients. MDRC's evaluation, conducted as a randomized controlled trial, included an implementation study, an impact study, and a cost analysis. This program was one of several evaluated as part of the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED) project.

These data are a Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped for release, but not checked or processed.

Curated

Transitional Aid Research Project (TARP), 1976-1977 (ICPSR 7874)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Georgia

Time period: 1976-01-01--1977-01-01

The Transitional Aid Research Project (TARP) was a randomized field experiment conducted in Texas and Georgia in 1976-1977 that was designed to reduce recidivism among ex-prisoners by lowering incentives for re-engaging in property crime through provision of minimal levels of income support and extension of some unemployment insurance coverage to released prisoners. This study evolved out of an earlier LIFE (Living Insurance for Ex-Prisoners) study conducted in Baltimore, Maryland in the early 1970s. In the LIFE study, 500 prisoners with a high probability of re-arrest were randomly assigned at release from prison to experimental and control groups which varied by the amount of money received (contingent upon employment or unemployment and job placement services provided). The results showed that ex-prisoners receiving payments were less likely to be re-arrested for property theft-related crimes than those who received only job placement or no services or payments of any kind. The United States Department of Labor commissioned the TARP experiment, designed to replicate the LIFE experiment while providing a larger and more representative sample of prisoners, greater variation in treatment conditions, and administration of payments and job placement services through existing agencies rather than by a special purpose project staff. Texas and Georgia were the states chosen for the experiment, and stratified random samples of inmates were assigned, at the time of release from prison, to experimental and control groups. The groups varied in the amount of money and job placement services they received upon their release. Originally, the data were recorded in nine files for each state corresponding to each of the nine different sources of information for each TARP case. The ICPSR data collection combines these into one file for each state: Part 1 for Texas, and Part 2 for Georgia. Each file contains over 1,500 variables, clustered in nine topic areas for each inmate: (1) prison history (e.g., background information, psychological and aptitude test data, and prior criminal and present incarceration activity), (2-5) data from four personal interviews (conducted at the prerelease, three-month, six-month, and 12-month stages and that include living arrangements, employment history, and financial status), (6) state arrest data, (7) records of TARP payments received, (8) social security wages, and (9) parole records.

Curated

Restricted

Welfare Restructuring Project Analysis, Vermont, 1994-2001 (ICPSR 38060)

Released/updated on: 2022-04-27

Geographic coverage: Vermont

Time period: 1992-01-01--2001-01-01, 1994-01-01--2001-01-01, 1998-01-01--1999-01-01

Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) was one of the earliest statewide welfare reform programs initiated under waivers of federal welfare rules granted before the passage of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. This program, which operated from 1994 to 2001, was designed to increase work and reduce reliance on welfare. WRP required that welfare recipients work in a wage-paying job after they had received cash assistance for a specified number of months (30 months for single-parent families and 15 months for two-parent families). Recipients received help finding jobs and were offered minimum-wage community service jobs if they could not find unsubsidized employment. If a recipient did not comply with the work requirement, the state took control of their grant, used the money to pay their bills, and required them to attend frequent meetings at the welfare office. The WRP program also included a set of financial incentives that were intended to encourage and reward work. WRP served as a model for Vermont's current welfare program, which took effect in mid-2001.

This study provides users with most of the data that were used for the final report. Parents who were applying for or receiving cash assistance in Vermont between July 1994 and December 1996 were assigned, at random, to one of three groups: (1) the WRP group, whose members received the financial work incentives and were subject to the work requirement; (2) the WRP Incentives Only group, whose members received the incentives but were not subject to the work requirement; or (3) the Aid to Needy Families with Children (ANFC) group, whose members remained subject to the pre-WRP welfare rules, which included neither the incentives nor the work requirement. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) followed all three groups for six years, using computerized records and a survey.

Data sources for this study were the Vermont and New Hampshire unemployment insurance earning records, Vermont ANFC (Aid to Needy Children) records, food stamp records, and other administrative records, as well as a survey questionnaire based on the quality of their jobs, wages, education, welfare use, education, job training, children's education, and childcare.