Translate
Four programs are participating in the study: (1) Family Development and Self-Sufficiency (FaDSS), (2) Goal4 It!TM, (3) LIFT, and (4) MyGoals for Employment Success (MyGoals). Click the title of each program below to learn more about how each program operated during the time of the study.
FaDSS
- Served TANF participants in Iowa
- Participation was not mandatory for TANF
- Most coaching sessions occurred in the participant’s home
Goal4 It!
- Provided employment coaching to TANF participants instead of traditional case management
- Located in Jefferson County, Colorado
- Participation was mandatory for receipt of TANF benefits
LIFT
- A two-year coaching program operated in four U.S. cities
- Served parents of young children
- Most coaching was conducted by unpaid student interns from Master of Social Work programs
- Offered financial incentives linked to coaching engagement
MyGoals
- A three-year program that served recipients of housing assistance in Baltimore and Houston
- Used a structured 12-step process for setting goals
- Offered financial incentives linked to coaching engagement and employment
Comparing the programs
All four programs provided employment coaching in a manner that met the definition used by the study, but differed considerably in the context in which they were implemented, whom they served, and how, where, and for how long they provided coaching. The exhibit below illustrates some similarities and differences across the four programs.
| Description | FaDSS | Goal4 It! | LIFT | MyGoals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meeting format and coaching location for in-person sessions (prior to pandemic) | One-on-one or with family members in participant’s home | One-on-one in TANF office | One-on-one in community setting or LIFT office | One-on-one in MyGoals office |
| Maximum length of time in coaching | While receiving TANF and up to 7 months after leaving TANF | While receiving TANF | 2 years | 3 years |
| Typical caseload size for a full-time coach | 18 | 40 | 40 | 40 |
| Coach discusses self-regulation skills explicitly with participants | No | No | No | Yes |
| Coach status | Paid professional | Paid professional | Unpaid Master of Social Work intern | Paid professional |
FaDSS
Overview of the program
| Location | 17 local agencies across Iowa, study conducted in 7 agencies |
| Study sample and its characteristics | TANF recipients |
| Voluntary or mandatory participation | Voluntary; participation is not required for TANF receipt |
| Implementing organization | Iowa Department of Human Rights, which was not the agency that administered TANF in Iowa |
| Maximum length of time in the program | While receiving TANF plus 7 months |
| Focus of goal setting | Well-being of the whole family |
| Frequency of coaching | Twice per month in the first three months, monthly after that |
| Location of coaching sessions | In the participant’s home |
| Average caseload | 18 participants per full-time equivalent coach |
| Coaching approach | Coaches used information from three assessments to learn about the family’s strengths and challenges. Coaches asked participants questions to help them set goals and determine the next steps. Coaches used a goal planning form to record planned action steps for each family goal. In each session, the coach revisited the action steps identified in the previous session. |
Characteristics of FaDSS study participants at the time of study enrollment
The average FaDSS study participant was about 30 years old. Ninety-four percent were female. Forty-eight percent of them were White, non-Hispanic; 36 percent were Black, non-Hispanic; and 12 percent were Hispanic. 24 percent did not have a GED or high school diploma at study enrollment. One-third of participants worked for pay in the month before study enrollment.
Program staff interviewed for this hub talk about FaDSS
- For an overview of FaDSS, see this snapshot
- For a more complete description of the program's implementation during the time of the study, see this report
Back to Top ^
Goal4 It!
Overview of the program
| Location | Jefferson County, Colorado |
| Study sample and its characteristics | TANF recipients subject to work requirements |
| Voluntary or mandatory participation | Coaching or case management was mandatory for TANF receipt |
| Implementing organization | The Jefferson County Department of Human Services |
| Maximum length of time in the program | While receiving TANF |
| Focus of goal setting | Any area of life that relates to or supports employment and parenting |
| Frequency of coaching |
At least once per month if the participant was not working and bimonthly if the participant was employed |
| Location of coaching sessions | Central TANF office |
| Average caseload | 40 participants per full-time equivalent coach |
| Coaching approach | Coaches used a four-step process for goal setting: (1) “Goal”—setting a meaningful goal; (2) “Plan”—creating a plan to achieve the goal; (3) “Do”—putting the plan into action; and (4) “Review/Revise”—reviewing progress and revising the goal or the plan accordingly. The steps, however, did not need to occur in order; for example, if a participant already had selected a goal, the coach and participant could start at Step 2. Coaches shared tools with participants to facilitate each step in the process. |
Characteristics of Goal4 It! study participants at the time of study enrollment
Goal4 It! study participants’ average age was 32, and 90 percent were female. Forty-seven percent were White, non-Hispanic; and 42 percent were Hispanic. The remaining ten percent were Black, non-Hispanic or another race or ethnicity. 22 percent did not have a GED or high school diploma at study enrollment. About 27 percent were employed in the month before study enrollment.
Coaches and program staff interviewed for this hub talk about Goal4 It!
- For an overview of Goal4 It!, see this snapshot
- For a more complete description of the program’s implementation during the time of the study, see this report
Back to Top ^
LIFT
Overview of the program
| Location | Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City (in study) and Washington, DC (not in study) |
| Study sample and its characteristics | Parents or caregivers of children younger than 8 or expectant parents; have stable housing and are working or in school or another household member is working |
| Voluntary or mandatory participation | Voluntary |
| Implementing organization | LIFT, a nonprofit organization |
| Maximum length of time in the program | Two years |
| Focus of goal setting | Education, finances, and employment |
| Frequency of coaching | Twice in first month, monthly thereafter |
| Location of coaching sessions | LIFT office or other setting in the communities where participants reside |
| Average caseload | 16 (40 for a full-time equivalent coach) |
| Coaching approach | Participants used a tool called “The Wheel of Life” to assess their satisfaction with the many areas of their lives. Participants used the information to begin thinking about a goal, and the coach reviewed the completed tool prior to the first session to understand the participant’s circumstances. In each session, the coach summarized the action steps identified in the previous session, discussed participant’s progress toward those steps, celebrated successes, discussed any challenges, and connected the participant with resources as needed. The coach also worked with the participant to revise goals if needed, and discussed the next action steps. |
Characteristics of LIFT study participants at the time of study enrollment
LIFT study participants were almost all women (95 percent) in their 30s. More than 70 percent were Hispanic, and 28 percent were Black and non-Hispanic. A high percentage (38 percent) of study participants did not have a GED or high school diploma at study enrollment. About half of study participants were employed in the month before study enrollment.
Program staff interviewed for this hub talks about LIFT
- For an overview of LIFT, see this snapshot
- For a more complete description of the program’s implementation during the time of the study, see this report
Back to Top ^
MyGoals
Overview of the program
| Location | Baltimore and Houston |
| Study sample and its characteristics | Adult member of household receiving housing assistance; unemployed or working fewer than 20 hours per month |
| Voluntary or mandatory participation | Voluntary; participation not required for housing assistance receipt |
| Implementing organization | Baltimore and Houston public housing authorities |
| Maximum length of time in the program | Three years |
| Focus of goal setting | Employment and career development; education and training; financial management; personal and family well-being |
| Frequency of coaching | At least once per month |
| Location of coaching sessions | MyGoals offices adjacent to two housing developments (Baltimore) or at the main housing authority |
| Average caseload | 40 participants per full-time equivalent coach |
| Coaching approach |
Coaches used 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 did not have to be linear. Coaches and participants had flexibility to reorder the steps depending on the participant’s circumstances. MyGoals participants completed two questionnaires during their first session that help frame the discussions about goal setting. Coaches had other tools that they could use with participants as needed to support goal setting. |
Characteristics of MyGoals study participants at the time of study enrollment
Ninety-five percent of MyGoals study participants identified as Black, non-Hispanic and 88 percent identified as female. On average, study participants were 38 years old. 25 percent did not have a GED or high school diploma at study enrollment. About 2 percent study participants were employed at the time of enrollment.
Coaches and program technical assistance provider talk about MyGoals
- For an overview of MyGoals, see this snapshot
- For a more complete description of the program’s implementation during the time of the study, see this report
Back to Top ^