Absence of conflict of interest.
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training (E&T) pilots on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the California SNAP E&T pilot, known as the California Bridge Academy (CBA). The authors investigated similar research questions for SNAP E&T pilots in other states, the profiles of which can be found here:
- The study was a randomized controlled trial at the California site. The authors conducted statistical analyses of participant surveys and administrative data to compare the outcomes of treatment and control group members.
- The study found no statistically significant differences in employment, earnings, and SNAP benefits receipt between CBA and no-service control group participants. The study also did not find statistically significant differences in these outcomes between CBA and existing-service control group participants.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to CBA, and not to other factors.
Intervention Examined
Features of the Intervention
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a Food and Nutrition Service initiative for individuals and families with low incomes. SNAP participants receive monthly benefits to access food. Some participants also receive work supports through SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) programs, such as assessment, support services, job search assistance, occupational skills training, and basic education. To expand the knowledge base on effective approaches for helping SNAP participants gain skills and find employment, Congress funded ten state SNAP agencies in 2015, including California, to implement SNAP E&T pilots that tested innovative strategies for connecting participants with jobs that boost their incomes and reduce their reliance on public assistance benefits.
California's SNAP E&T pilot, the California Bridge Academy (CBA), provided case management, financial incentives, GED preparation classes, job readiness preparation, job search assistance, occupational skills training, subsidized employment, and support services. The program was designed to serve new work registrants: individuals who were required to comply with SNAP work requirements because they did not meet a Federal exemption from these requirements.
Features of the Study
The study was a randomized controlled trial at the California site that assigned 3,930 individuals to one of three groups: a treatment group (CBA), an existing-services control group (ES), and a no-services control group (NS). The majority of study participants were Hispanic, about 6 in 10 were female, and the average age was 35. Almost a quarter of study participants did not have a high school diploma or equivalent education. Nearly all participants had worked at some point, but just 22 percent were employed at the time of random assignment. Most individuals had participated in SNAP in the year before enrolling.
Treatment group members were eligible to receive the enhanced set of E&T services developed under the pilot, which included case management, financial incentives, GED preparation classes, job readiness preparation, job search assistance, occupational skills training, subsidized employment, and support services. The no-services (NS) control group received no SNAP E&T services while the existing-services (ES) control group members were eligible for existing SNAP E&T services and programs as well as any other services available in the community.
The authors used administrative service use data, unemployment insurance (UI) wage records, SNAP administrative data, and follow-up survey data. Follow-up surveys were conducted at 12 months and 36 months. The authors used statistical models to compare the outcomes of treatment and control group members. The authors’ regression models controlled for participants’ baseline characteristics, and incorporated weights to ensure the results represented all participants in the pilot program.
Findings
- Employment. Based on administrative data, the study found no statistically significant differences in employment rates between CBA and no-service control group participants. The study also did not find statistically significant differences in employment rates between CBA and existing-service control group participants.
- Earnings. Based on administrative data, the study found no statistically significant differences in earnings between CBA and no-service control group participants. The study also did not find statistically significant differences in earnings between CBA and existing-service control group participants.
- Public benefits receipt. Based on administrative data, the study found no statistically significant differences in SNAP participation rates, SNAP benefit amounts, SNAP benefits as a percentage of maximum benefit amounts, SNAP exit rates, and duration of SNAP participation between CBA and no-service control group participants. The study also did not find statistically significant differences in these outcomes between CBA and existing-service control group participants.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
This profile summarizes study findings for outcomes measured using administrative data. Because they were measured using administrative data, these outcomes had low attrition and the analyses of these outcomes received a high causal evidence rating. The study authors also conducted analyses of outcomes measured using survey data. Outcomes measured using survey data had high attrition but analyses of these outcomes received a moderate causal evidence rating since the authors ensured that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention.
The study authors estimated multiple, related impacts on outcomes related to employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. Performing multiple statistical tests on related outcomes makes it more likely that some impacts will be found statistically significant purely by chance and not because they reflect program effectiveness. However, to address multiple comparisons bias, the authors selected two primary confirmatory outcomes before analyzing the data: (1) earnings (based on both the UI wage records and survey data) and (2) SNAP participation in the two years after random assignment.
The study authors report p-values of less than 0.10 as statistically significant. When assessing the statistical significance of study findings, CLEAR reviews use a p-value threshold of less than 0.05. Thus, only results that demonstrated a p-value of less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this profile.