Employment Coaching Study Information Hub

Despite the differences across the study programs in their design and settings, coaching was successfully implemented in all four programs in the study. As specified by the coaching model, participants, guided by their coach, set goals and developed action steps during the sessions. Coaches were generally successful in being nondirective—guiding participants in a collaborative process. Participants were generally positive about their experiences in the program.

By clicking on the links below you can learn more about implementing coaching.

Coach-participant relationships. Coaches and participants reported strong, trusting relationships.

Setting goals. We learned that participants set goals during most sessions and goals were often directly related to jobs. We also learned that at times participants were not ready to set goals.

Being nondirective. Both coaches and participants viewed the nondirective and collaborative nature of coaching as beneficial. However, coaches sometimes found it challenging to be nondirective.

Coaching structure. The extent to which the coaching sessions were guided by structured processes and tools varied by program.

Focus on self-regulation skills. Programs differed in whether self-regulation skills were explicitly discussed.

Location and mode of coaching. Coaching can be provided in-person in homes, program offices, and other locations; coaching can also be conducted by telephone or other modes. There are advantages and disadvantages to different locations and modes.

Coaching TANF recipients. Coaching can be implemented in place of traditional case management in a TANF program without reducing the extent to which TANF participants work on goals related to employment.

Using financial incentives. Both participants and coaches felt financial incentives were a beneficial component of the program but views were mixed on their effectiveness in changing behavior. Administration of incentives can be burdensome to both participants and programs.

Complementary services. In addition to coaching, all four programs offered services and referrals to other programs. Some participants wished more services were offered.

Amount of coaching received.The average amount of coaching received varied considerably by program.

Additional resources that provide more information about implementing coaching include: a report on implementing coaching that draws on the experiences of all four programs, a report on implementing FaDSS, a report on implementing Goal4 It!, a report on implementing LIFT, and a report on implementing MyGoals.

 

Coach-participant relationships

Coaches understood participants

“She knows what I need, what I don’t need, she knows where I’m trying to go and where I’m not trying to go, so, I think [my coach] truly understands me and my goals and what’s important and what’s not important to me .”

-a LIFT participant

At the core of coaching is the relationship between the coach and the participant. In all programs, coaches and participants reported strong relationships, with some participants likening their coaches to a close friend or relative. Many participants noted that they did not have another source of this type of support. Coaches reported that the collaborative and nondirective nature of coaching facilitated these relationships. Participants reported that frequent coach turnover disrupts these relationships.

 

 

Participants interviewed for the hub talk about their relationship with coaches

 

 

Program staff members and coaches interviewed for the hub talk about building trust with families

 

Back to Top ^

---

 

Setting goals

We learned three main lessons about goal setting in the four study programs.

1. Most participants set goals in most sessions. In some sessions participants set long-term goals, in others they set shorter-term goals or action steps or revised long-term goals.

   Coaches and participants interviewed for this hub talk about setting long-term goals, shorter-term goals, and action steps

    

2. Although most goals discussed in coaching sessions focused on employment, many participants also discussed topics not related to employment. Setting goals directly related to obtaining or retaining employment was most common in the two programs that served TANF participants. This may have been because of TANF work requirements. Across all programs, many participants set goals related to education, training, or financial management. Goals related to health, family relationships, child development, and basic needs such as housing were also common.

   Coach and program staff member interviewed for this hub talk about goals discussed in coaching sessions

    

3. Some coaches in all programs reported that not all participants were ready or able to discuss goals at each session. For example, MyGoals coaches noted that some participants needed to address an immediate crisis such as a health issue or domestic violence or explore their interests and skills before identifying a long-term goal. In these cases, coaches and participants may focus on the immediate concerns and set short-term goals or action steps before they set longer-term goals.

   Program staff members interviewed for this hub report that not all participants were ready or able to discuss goals at each session

    

Back to Top ^

---

 

Being nondirective

What does nondirective mean? Being nondirective is a key difference between coaching and more typical interactions between program staff and participants. When coaches are nondirective, the coach does not specify goals for participants, develop plans to achieve those goals, or tell them what to do next. Rather, coaches guide participants in a collaborative process in which the participants determine their own goals and develop plans to achieve them.

How are coaches nondirective? To be nondirective coaches:

• Asked participants what they wanted to do
• Listened carefully to what participants wanted
• Supported the participants in whatever they chose to do
• Asked permission before providing advice

Program and technical assistance staff talk about being nondirective in coaching

 

 

Being nondirective was viewed as important. Participants reported that coaches being nondirective made them feel they were in control of the process and that someone was not imposing something on them. Coaches felt that it improved their relationship with the participants and the effectiveness of the interactions.

Coaches reported that it was difficult to always be nondirective. Factors that reportedly increased the likelihood that coaches would be directive included:

1. Participants not making progress. In these instances, the coaches stated they were tempted to just tell the participant what to do next. Some programs suggested specific strategies that coaches could use to address this concern:
   • Goal4 It! coaches asked participants to describe the challenges to progress and how they could address those challenges.
   • MyGoals coaches used a process called “cognitive rehearsals,” in which participants talk about the challenges they faced in executing next steps and rehearse their response.
      
2. Coaches had previously learned to provide directive guidance. These coaches sometimes found it difficult to change their approach.
    
3. Participants who had previously worked with traditional case managers. These participants had difficulty understanding that they had autonomy in a coaching program.

Participants in crisis. Some coaches believed that it was not appropriate to be nondirective when the participant is in crisis such as homelessness, health problems, or domestic violence. Other coaches felt that even when the participant is in crisis it is important to ensure that the participant was a full partner in deciding what they needed to do.

Back to Top ^

---

 

Coaching structure

Programs varied in the extent to which coaches had autonomy over how the coaching session unfolded rather than being guided by structured processes and tools. Goal4 It! and MyGoals sessions were the most structured; FaDSS and LIFT sessions were the least structured. The table below summarizes the differences.

PROGRAM	COACHING STRUCTURE	COACHING TOOLS
FaDSS	Generally, no prescribed session format.	Three assessments: general family functioning, domestic violence screening, child development questionnaire. Goal planning form that records planned action steps.
Goal4 It!	Coaches used a four-step process for goal setting: Goal—setting a meaningful goal Plan—creating a plan to achieve the goal Do—putting the plan into action Review/Revise—reviewing progress and revising the goal or the plan accordingly The steps do not need to occur in order. For example, if a participant had a goal in mind, the coach and participant could start at Step 2.	Many tools are used. Examples include: Stepping Stones to Success obtains participant’s perception about challenges in various aspects of life Goal Storming helps participants identify potential goals, steps to achieve them, and resource needs My Goal Plan documents the four steps – Goal, Plan, Do, Review/Revise  My Pathway facilitates planning long-term goals by breaking them into short-term goals and action steps Potholes & Detours helps participants identify what could get in the way of success, and possible actions to prevent or address them
LIFT	Generally, no prescribed session format.	The Wheel of Life assessment is used to assess participants’ satisfaction with the following areas of their lives: finances; employment and career; education; basic needs; child well-being and parenting; health and well-being; family, friends, and relationships; and an “other” area that the participant could name. Goal planning form that records planned action steps.
MyGoals	A 12-step process to guide participants through a hierarchy of goal types, from broad ideas to specific supporting activities: long-term goals, milestones, SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound) goals, and action steps. The MyGoals process does not have to be linear. Coaches and participants have flexibility to reorder the steps depending on the participant’s circumstances.	Many tools are used. Examples include: Getting to Know You questionnaire asks about the participant’s interests, education and employment backgrounds, strengths, and qualifications Executive Skills Questionnaire assesses strengths and weaknesses on 12 self-regulation skills (referred to as executive skills in MyGoals)  Prerequisites Checklist lists prerequisites (such as stable housing) that need to be in place for participants to set goals Goodness of Fit Profiles document discussions with participants about the fit of their long-term goals with their strengths and weaknesses in self-regulation skills Goal Setting Forms document prerequisites, goals, and action steps Strategies Form provides a checklist of potential strategies participants can use to work towards goals

Back to Top ^

---

 

Focus on self-regulation skills

All coaching is hypothesized to facilitate positive outcomes by strengthening self-regulations skills. By helping participants to set goals and decide on action steps, coaching helps participants practice and strengthen self-regulation skills. Moreover, coaches likely discuss self-regulation skills (such as time management or emotional regulation) during coaching sessions even if the skills are not named or referred to as self-regulation skills. Go to the Coaching and self-regulation skills section of the hub to learn more.

Coaching programs differ in their explicit focus on self-regulation skills.

Program characteristic	FaDSS	Goal4 It!	LIFT	MyGoals
The program explicitly incorporated approaches to strengthen self-regulation skills
Coaches were trained on the importance of self-regulation skills
Participants are assessed for strengths and weaknesses in self-regulation skills
Self-regulation skills were discussed explicitly with participants				referred to as executive skills

MyGoals was the only program among the four in which coaches discussed self-regulation skills explicitly with participants using the formal names for the skills. MyGoals coaches discussed with participants their strengths and weaknesses in self-regulation skills, using the term “executive skills” to refer to self-regulation skills. They discussed the skills using their formal names, such as “response inhibition,” “emotional control,” and “time management.” To begin the conversation about these skills, coaches asked participants to complete an assessment of their strengths and challenges in self-regulation skills, The Executive Skills Questionnaire.

Coaches supported participants by sharing strategies to manage challenges in using self-regulation skills that impeded the attainment of goals. Examples of these strategies included:

• Changing the environment or the task to accommodate a particular self-regulation skill challenge 
• Visualizing the completion of a task and mentally walking through potential obstacles (called cognitive rehearsals) 
• Participants giving themselves rewards once they complete a task

Coaches reported that referring to specific self-regulation skills during coaching sessions helped participants identify and practice “workarounds” for challenging areas. 
 

Back to Top ^

---

 

Location and mode of coaching

Where coaching took place and whether it was in-person or virtual varied by program. While Goal4 It!, LIFT, and MyGoals offered coaching mostly in-person and in program offices, coaching in FaDSS largely occurred in-person in participants’ homes. All programs conducted some coaching by telephone, although to varying degrees.

Coaching in the home offered advantages and disadvantages over coaching in the program office or a community location. FaDSS was the only program that offered coaching in participants’ homes. The table below shows the advantages and disadvantages.

 

Coaches interviewed for this hub discuss advantages and disadvantages of coaching in the home

Coaching by telephone is feasible and has advantages and disadvantages. Depending on the program, between 23 percent and 47 percent of contacts occurred by telephone during the first 12 months after study enrollment. The table below summarizes what we learned about the advantages and disadvantages of contacts by telephone.

This report discusses the switch to virtual coaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. All programs planned to continue some virtual coaching after the pandemic as a supplement to in-person coaching.

 

Coaches interviewed for this hub discuss advantages and disadvantages of coaching by telephone or virtual coaching

 

Back to Top ^

---

 

Coaching TANF recipients

Recently, there has been growing interest in whether coaching can replace traditional case management for TANF recipients. Two of the four programs in the study served TANF recipients:

• Goal4 It! was offered in place of traditional case management by the Jefferson County, Colorado, TANF agency. Attending coaching sessions was mandatory to receive TANF benefits for those assigned to the program group just as meeting with a case manager was mandatory for those assigned to the control group.
• FaDSS is operated by the Iowa Department of Human Rights, a government agency distinct from the one that operates the TANF program. Attending coaching sessions was voluntary in FaDSS. FaDSS coaches were mindful of TANF work requirements, but they were not responsible for sanctioning participants who did not comply.

Coaching TANF recipients differs from coaching other participants due to the TANF work requirements. As a condition of receiving TANF benefits, TANF recipients are required to engage in employment-related activities such as job search, subsidized or unsubsidized employment, community service, or vocational training for a set number of hours each week. 

Lessons learned from our study about coaching TANF recipients included:

1. It was possible to implement coaching in a TANF environment. Goal4 It! was successfully implemented in the Jefferson County TANF program. However, Jefferson County does not emphasize to participants the need to conduct activities that meet the work requirements. Jefferson County coaches had differing opinions on the importance of this policy to the success of Goal4 It!.
    
2. Goals were likely to be related to employment in the two programs that served TANF recipients. The vast majority of Goal4 It! and FaDSS participants set some goals related to employment in the first 12 months after study enrollment. For FaDSS about 90 percent of goals discussed by participants were related to employment or career management, the corresponding numbers for Goal4 It was 85 percent.
    
3. It may be harder to develop a trusting relationship when the coach can sanction the participant. Though most Goal4 It! participants had positive or neutral comments about their Goal4 It! coach, a few described the relationship as feeling transactional.
    
4. We are measuring the impacts of coaching on TANF recipients’ self-regulation skills, earnings, and other outcomes. We are beginning to learn about the effectiveness of the coaching programs that served TANF recipients. Early lessons on effectiveness can be found here for FaDSS and here for Goal4 It! 

Program staff interviewed for this hub talk about coaching TANF participants

 

Back to Top ^

---

 

Using financial incentives

What financial incentives did programs offer? Two study programs—LIFT and MyGoals—offered participants financial incentives linked to their program engagement, participants’ employment outcomes, or both. The programs’ rationale for offering incentives was to encourage ongoing participation in coaching sessions, improve motivation by providing a reward for desired outcomes, and address participants’ financial needs. The details of the financial incentives offered by LIFT and MyGoals are provided below. FaDSS and Goal4 It! did not offer financial incentives.

	LIFT	MyGoals
What they reward	Program engagement	Program engagement Employment Job retention
Amount	$150 if attend two sessions in a quarter	$50 for first meeting $30 for subsequent meetings in the first two years $70 becoming employed part-time (available once per person) $150 becoming employed full-time (available once per person) $450 staying employed three months in a row (available twice per person) $900 staying employed six months in a row (no limit until reach maximum incentive amount available per person)
Payment frequency	Quarterly	Monthly
Maximum amount available	$1,000	$5,000

 

What did we learn about financial incentives? The table below summarizes what our study has learned about incentives.

Whether financial incentives are beneficial

Considerations for offering financial incentives

Coaches and participants both viewed the incentives as a beneficial component of the program. Incentives were often used in ways that were supportive of participants’ goals, such as purchasing work clothes or adding to savings accounts. Some evidence from both participants and coaches suggest incentives may encourage people to sign up for a program; but mixed evidence on whether the incentives affected ongoing program engagement.   Some coaches thought that the incentives improved employment outcomes; participants we talked with said they didn’t. Incentives provided an opportunity for participants to practice the financial management skills taught by the programs.  Incentives provided a way for coaches to celebrate successes with participants.

Administering incentives is complex and time-consuming for both participants and coaches, and may require specialized software.  Confirming a participant met a milestone—including even determining whether a participant attended a session—can be complex. Paying financial incentives for employment outcomes is particularly complex, especially because of the prevalence of self-employment. Many participants were employed in gig jobs (such as working for Uber or Door Dash) or other self-employment. Those participants had to verify their income through tax forms. Participants reported that they missed out on some incentives because of the difficulty of verification.

A participant and program staff interviewed for this hub talk about using financial incentives in coaching

 

Back to Top ^

---

 

Complementary services

All four study programs offered some other services that complemented coaching; the following graphic summarizes these additional services.

	FaDSS	Goal4 It!	LIFT	MyGoals
Workshops on employment such as job search and resume writing
Workshops on financial literacy such as banking and savings
Workshops on health such as nutrition
Childcare and transportation assistance
Social events
Local labor market information
Other complementary services

Coaches in all four programs also made referrals to other services in the community such as job search, education and training, transportation, child care, mental health, housing, domestic violence, and basic needs. 

Some participants we talked with wanted more complementary services. In particular, they wanted more concrete assistance with looking for a job and connections with employers. They also suggested that the program provide additional child care resources.

 

Back to Top ^

---

 

Amount of coaching received in the first year after study enrollment

As shown in the figure below, the amount of coaching received varied by program:

• FaDSS participants received about 8 hours of coaching on average and were in contact with a coach for an average of 7 months in the first year after study enrollment. The average amount of time participants were on TANF was 4 months, but they could continue participating in FaDSS for 7 months after they left TANF. About one quarter (27%) of participants were still in contact with the program at the end of the first 12 months after study enrollment.
• Receipt of coaching was lowest in Goal4 It!. On average, Goal4 It! participants received only 3 hours of coaching and were in contact with their coach for an average of 4 months in the first year after study enrollment. Participants could only receive Goal4 It! coaching while they were receiving TANF, which was for an average of 4 months. Only 9 percent of participants were still in contact with the program at the end of the first 12 months after study enrollment.
• LIFT participants received an average of 8 hours of coaching and were enrolled in LIFT for an average of 8 months in the first year after study enrollment. They could participate in LIFT for up to two years.  Nearly half of the participants (46%) were still in contact with the program at the end of the first 12 months after study enrollment.
• MyGoals participants were enrolled in MyGoals for an average of 10 months in the first 12 months after study enrollment. They could participate in MyGoals for up to three years.  Over half of the participants (56%) were still in contact with the program at the end of the first 12 months after study enrollment.

Back to Top ^