Skip to main content
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

The enhanced transitional jobs demonstration: Implementation and early impacts of the next generation of subsidized employment programs (Redcross et al., 2016)

  • Findings

    See findings section of this profile.

    Evidence Rating

    Not Rated

Review Guidelines

Implementation Guidelines

Absence of conflict of interest. 

Citation

Redcross, C., Barden, B., Bloom, D., Broadus, J., Thompson, J., & Williams, S. (2016). The enhanced transitional jobs demonstration: Implementation and early impacts of the next generation of subsidized employment programs. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Highlights

  • The study’s objective was to examine the implementation of GoodTransitions, a transitional jobs program for noncustodial parents in Atlanta, GA. 

  • The study authors conducted an implementation evaluation using data collected from site staff through staff interviews during two site visits, regular contact while providing technical assistance, and staff reporting of time spent on program activities. 

  • The study found the program met its enrollment targets but had some challenges with recruitment of participants. The program delivered core components of the program model as intended and all program participants received program services. Program group members were more likely to be employed during the early follow-up. 

Intervention Examined

GoodTransitions

Features of the Intervention

The U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services selected seven organizations to operate transitional job programs for low-income noncustodial parents or formerly incarcerated individuals. Goodwill of North Georgia in Atlanta, GA operated the GoodTransitions program. The target population was noncustodial parents in Atlanta. Participants worked at a Goodwill store for one month and were then transitioned to subsidized private employers for three months. Participants received case management and training through the program. Other program components included participant screening and individual assessment, ancillary supports, short-term training, and job placements. Goodwill partnered with two local organizations to operate the program: Center for Working Families, Inc and Urban League of Greater Atlanta. The partner organizations were initially supposed to offer similar services as Goodwill. The role of these partner organizations was scaled back due to difficulties implementing the program services. 

Features of the Study

The program was implemented at five Goodwill locations in Atlanta, GA. The study used both qualitative and quantitative data to address the research questions. The qualitative data were collected during multiple site visits that included semi-structured interviews with program administrators and staff, focus groups of program participants, observations, and review of program materials. The implementation study also included quantitative data from two sources to track program participation and services provided. Authors used data from a management information system and from program questionnaires completed by program staff and participants. No information is provided on data analysis methods. 

Study Sites

The program was implemented at five Goodwill locations in Atlanta, GA. 

Findings

Intervention activities/services: 

  • The study found that GoodTransitions delivered the core components of the program as intended and all program participants received program services. Almost all (97%) of participants worked in transitional jobs with Goodwill and 63% worked in other community-based locations. 

  • The study found that program participants received services including job coaching, case management, and job development services as intended. 

  • The study found that the program group received more employment services than the control group of participants. 

  • The study found that the program provided participants with confidence, experience and help searching for a community job. Community jobs provided participants with real-world work experience but there were limited positions available and limited advancement opportunities. 

  • The study found that due to the intensive screening process, participants who enrolled were highly motivated and contributed to the program's high retention. 

  • The study found that program participants were more likely to be employed, have higher earnings, and were more likely to pay child support during the first year of follow-up but the differences between the intervention and the control groups decreased over time. 

Implementation challenges and solutions: 

  • The study found that the program met its enrollment targets but had challenges with recruitment due to reliance on referrals and an intensive screening process. Staff found it difficult to keep participants motivated in the program due to low take-home pay after child support deductions. 

  • The study found that the program had difficulty recruiting community employers. In focus groups and questionnaires, participants reported frustration about lack of long-term employment opportunities. 

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The data collection methods and analysis were not fully discussed. It is unclear if there were any issues in data collection due to lack of detail provided by the study authors. There is no information on how personal data were kept confidential/anonymous during data analysis given the small sample sizes of the participant groups. The study authors did not provide a detailed description of the observations made during study visits or the qualitative interview data that were analyzed. 

Reviewed by CLEAR

July 2023

Topic Area