Absence of conflict of interest.
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the impact of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training (E&T) pilots on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the Virginia SNAP E&T pilot, known as EleVAte. 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 Virginia site. The authors conducted statistical analyses of participant surveys and administrative data to compare the outcomes of the treatment and control group participants.
- The study found that EleVAte participants had lower earnings and higher SNAP benefits receipt than control group participants. The study found no statistically significant differences in employment between the EleVAte and 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 EleVAte, 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 Virginia, 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.
Virginia's SNAP E&T pilot, EleVAte, provided career counseling, case management, digital literacy and basic computer skills training, job readiness training, group counseling, adult basic education and GED services, occupational skills training, and support services. The program was designed to serve SNAP recipients, including but not limited to able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) and work registrants. Work registrants are SNAP participants who have not met any federal exemptions from SNAP work requirements and are therefore required to register for work.
Features of the Study
The study was a randomized controlled trial at the Virginia site that assigned 5,027 individuals to the treatment or control group. About three-quarters of the participants were Black, about three-quarters were female, and the average age was 37. About a fifth of study participants did not have a high school diploma or equivalent education. Nearly all participants had worked at some point, but only 28 percent were employed at the point of random assignment. Around 93 percent of study participants 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 career counseling, case management, digital literacy and basic computer skills training, job readiness training, group counseling, adult basic education and GED services, occupational skills training, and support services. 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 after random assignment. 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 significant differences in employment rates between EleVAte and control group participants.
Earnings
- Based on administrative data, the study found that EleVAte participants had lower earnings in Year 1 than control group participants. This Year 1 difference in earnings was statistically significant. However, the study found no statistically significant differences in earnings between EleVAte and control group participants in Year 2, Year 3, or Year 2 and Year 3 combined.
Public benefits receipt
- Based on administrative data, the study found that EleVAte participants had higher SNAP participation rates in Year 2 than control group participants. This Year 2 difference in SNAP participation was statistically significant. However, the study found no statistically significant differences in SNAP participation between EleVAte and control group participants in Year 1, Year 3, or Years 2 and 3 combined.
- Based on administrative data, the study found that EleVAte participants received higher SNAP benefit amounts and higher SNAP benefits as a percentage of maximum benefit amounts than control group participants in Year 1. These Year 1 differences were statistically significant. However, the study found no statistically significant differences between the two groups in Year 2, Year 3 or Years 2 and 3 combined.
- Based on administrative data, the study found no statistically significant differences in SNAP exit rates or the duration of SNAP participation between EleVAte and 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.
Due to reporting and data collection timelines, the authors did not have a full three years of UI wage data for all participants. However, the authors conducted sensitivity analyses to assess the exclusion of individuals without complete data and found their findings robust to this restriction.
Causal Evidence Rating
Additional Sources
Research Guidelines
Review Protocol: Living Systematic Annual Search and Review Protocol
Review Guidelines: Causal Evidence Guidelines