Employment Coaching Study Information Hub

We compared the outcomes of people assigned to be able to participate in FaDSS (the program group) with the outcomes of people assigned to the control group. People in the control group could not participate in FaDSS but could receive other employment services in the community. As all study participants were receiving TANF when they enrolled in the study;, they also received case management from their TANF case manager.

The figures below summarize the impacts of FaDSS on goal-setting and attainment skills, monthly earnings—both self-reported and reported to unemployment insurance agencies—and economic hardship, and average monthly TANF cash benefits received.

FaDSS initially improved goal-setting and attainment skills, but this impact faded. Follow-up surveys asked study participants how much they agreed with eight statements about setting goals and working to meet those goals. Nine months after study enrollment, FaDSS improved program participants’ goal-setting and attainment skills compared to those of control group members, but that statistically significant impact faded over time. At the 21-month survey, FaDSS and control group members had similar levels of goal-setting and attainment skills; the difference was not statistically significant. 

FaDSS did not have large, positive impacts on participants’ self-reported earnings for either follow-up period.  Compared to control group members, FaDSS group members reported higher average self-reported earnings during Months 1 to 9 after study enrollment, although the impact was not statistically significant. During Months 10 to 21 after study enrollment, the FaDSS and control groups had about the same level of self-reported earnings. Bayesian analysis suggested that the impact of FaDSS on self-reported average monthly earnings during Months 1 to 9 was likely positive but small and the impact during Months 10 to 21 was likely near zero.

FaDSS did not increase earnings in jobs reported to the state unemployment agency. FaDSS and control group members had similar earnings reported to a UI agency, on average, from Months 1 to 9 and Months 10 to 21 after study enrollment. The differences were not statistically significant for either period. This type of earnings excludes earnings from self-employment, gig work, and other jobs that do not need to be reported to the unemployment insurance agency. Bayesian analysis of these impacts also suggested that they were likely near zero.

FaDSS reduced economic hardship over the short term, but this impact faded over time. FaDSS reduced the number of reported economic hardships between study enrollment and the 9-month follow-up survey. However, this impact faded over time. FaDSS and control group members reported the same levels of economic hardship on the 21-month follow-up survey.

FaDSS did not reduce the average monthly TANF cash benefits received. FaDSS aimed to reduce receipt of TANF cash assistance over the long term. FaDSS and control group members received similar amounts of TANF cash assistance benefits during Months 10 to 21 months after study enrollment. Average cash benefit amounts decreased for both groups relative to the period from Months 1 to 9 after study enrollment, although the difference between the FaDSS and control groups was not statistically significant. 

We compared the outcomes of people assigned to be able to participate in Goal4 It! (the program group) with the outcomes of people assigned to the control group. People in the control group could not participate in Goal4 It! but received TANF case management while they were receiving TANF. All study participants could receive other employment services in the community.

The figure below summarizes the impacts of Goal4 It! on goal-setting and attainment skills, monthly earnings—both self-reported and reported to unemployment insurance agencies—economic hardship, and average monthly TANF cash benefits received.

Goal4 It! did not improve goal-setting and attainment skills. Goal4 It! and control group members had similar levels of goal-setting and attainment skills based on both the 9- and 21-month surveys; the differences were not statistically significant for either period. It is possible that Goal4 It! would have larger impacts on goal-setting and attainment skills if the participants had more contacts with their coaches—Goal4 It! participants had on average only four contacts with their coaches during the 9 months after study enrollment, less than participants in the other programs participating in this study.

Goal4 it! did not have large impacts on participants’ self-reported earnings.  Goal4 It! group members reported higher average monthly earnings than control group members during the first 9 months after study enrollment, but the impact was not statistically significant. Goal4 It! group members reported lower average earnings than control group members during Months 10 to 21 after study enrollment. This difference was also not statistically significant. Bayesian analysis suggested that Goal4 It! likely had a small, positive impact on self-reported earnings during Months 1 to 9 after study enrollment and a small, negative impact during Months 10 to 21. Additional analysis suggests that negative impacts of Goal4 It! on self-reported earnings emerged with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because Goal4 It! initially increased employment in jobs that were not regular, full-time jobs—such as part-time jobs, temporary jobs, and self-employment—Goal4 It! group members may have been more vulnerable to layoffs and reductions in hours when the pandemic started.

Goal4 It! did not increase earnings in jobs reported to the state unemployment agency. Goal4 It! and control group members had similar average earnings reported to the unemployment insurance agency both between Months 1 to 9 and between Months 10 to 21 after study enrollment; the differences were not statistically significant for either period. The earnings reported to an unemployment insurance agency exclude earnings from self-employment, gig work, and other jobs that do not need to be reported to an unemployment insurance agency. Bayesian analysis of these impacts also suggested that they were likely near zero. 

Goal4 It! did not reduce economic hardship. Goal4 It! and control group members reported similar levels of economic hardship and the difference between two research groups was not statistically significant. On average, during the 21 months after study enrollment, members of both groups had experienced about 3 of the 6 economic hardships included in the survey. Analysis of data 9 months after study enrollment showed similar patterns.

Goal4 It! did not reduce the average monthly TANF cash benefits received. This program aimed to reduce receipt of TANF cash assistance over the long term. Goal4 It! and control group members received similar average amounts of TANF cash benefits during Months 10 to 21 after study enrollment. Average cash benefit amounts decreased for both groups relative to the period from Months 1 to 9 after study enrollment, although the difference between the Goal4 It! and control groups was not statistically significant. 

We compared the outcomes of people assigned to be able to participate in LIFT (the program group) with the outcomes of people assigned to the control group. People in the control group could not participate in LIFT but could receive other employment services in the community.

The figure below summarizes the impacts of LIFT on goal-setting and attainment skills, self-reported monthly earnings, and economic hardship.

LIFT did not improve goal-setting and attainment skills. LIFT used a less structured process for setting goals than the other programs participating in this study. Coaches of LIFT learned about self-regulation skills as part of their training but did not assess or discuss them with program participants. LIFT and control group members had similar scores on goal-setting and attainment skills based on both the 9- and 21-month surveys; the differences between the two groups research were not statistically significant for either period.

LIFT did not have large, positive impacts on self-reported earnings during Months 1 to 9 and Months 10 to 21 after study enrollment, although we found impacts on outcomes related to education and training. LIFT members reported higher earnings than control group members during Months 1 to 9 and Months 10 to 21 after study enrollment. But the differences between the two research groups were not statistically significant for either period. Bayesian analysis suggested that during both periods the impacts of LIFT on self-reported earnings were more likely to be positive than negative but unlikely to be large. LIFT had some statistically significant and positive impacts on participating in education or training programs and completion of a bachelor’s degree during the 21-month follow-up period, which might dampen earnings in the short term (as participants engage in education and training activities rather than jobs) but increase them in the long term. The program’s goal-setting coaching often focused on education, which could lead to impacts on earnings that are slower to emerge.

LIFT did not reduce economic hardship. During the 21-month follow-up period, LIFT group members reported experiencing 2.36 of the 6 hardships included in this measure compared with 2.54 for the control group. This difference was not statistically significant. Bayesian analysis suggested impacts for both periods were likely to be favorable but small. Analysis of data 9 months after study enrollment showed similar patterns. 

LIFT improved some financial outcomes, although these were not the study’s main measures of economic well-being. LIFT group members were more likely to have a positive savings balance than control group members and to use a budget to track expenses. These differences were statistically significant. However, LIFT and control group members were similar in terms of other financial outcomes, including paying bills on time and having a checking or savings account.

We compared the outcomes of people assigned to be able to participate in MyGoals (the program group) with the outcomes of people assigned to the control group. People in the control group could not participate in MyGoals but could receive other employment services in the community.

The figure below summarizes the impacts of MyGoals on goal-setting and attainment skills, monthly earnings—both self-reported and reported to the unemployment insurance agency—and economic hardship.

MyGoals had a persistent positive impact on goal-setting and attainment skills. MyGoals improved goal-setting and attainment skills at the 12-month follow-up survey and again at the 21-month follow-up survey. The differences between the two research groups were statistically significant for both periods. These impacts on self-regulation skills are consistent with the explicit focus of MyGoals on assessing self-regulation skills and talking about them with program participants.

MyGoals did not have large, positive impacts on participants’ self-reported earnings. Based on survey data, MyGoals group members reported higher earnings than control group members during Months 1 to 12 and Months 13 to 21 after study enrollment. However, in each period, the difference was not statistically significant. Bayesian analysis suggested that MyGoals likely had a small, positive impact on self-reported earnings during both periods. MyGoals had positive and statistically significant impacts on whether study participants were enrolled in education or training at the time of the 21-month follow-up survey and an impact on completion of training programs that was statistically significant at the 10 percent level. This could have temporarily depressed earnings during the second follow-up period (as participants engage in education and training activities rather than jobs) and could translate into higher earnings in the future.

MyGoals did not increase earnings reported to an unemployment insurance agency. During Months 1 to 12 and months 13 to 31 after study enrollment, MyGoals group members had lower average monthly earnings reported to an unemployment insurance agency than control group members did, although these differences were not statistically significant. Bayesian analysis of these impacts suggested that the impact during Months 1 to 12 was likely negative but small and then faded afterward.

MyGoals did not reduce economic hardship. On average, during the 21-month follow-up period, MyGoals group members reported experiencing 3.10 out of 6 hardships included in the measure compared with 3.05 for the control group, a difference that was not statistically significant. Bayesian analysis of this impact confirmed it was likely near zero. Analysis of data during the 12-month follow-up period showed similar patterns.