Table 1.

Description of the Studies Pooled for the Analyses

Study	Key Policy Features Tested	Sites	Year Study Began	Length of Follow-up Period	Sample Size	Age Composition at Random Assignment	Response Rates for Follow-up Surveys (%)	Primary Sources
NEWWS	M, E	Atlanta; Grand Rapids, MI; and Riverside, CA	1991	24 months	1,681	3–5 years	80–91	Hamilton et al. (2001)
MFIP	M, ES, CC	Seven counties in Minnesota	1994	36 months	1,060	2–5 years	80–81	Gennetian and Miller (2002)
New Hope	ES, CC	Milwaukee	1994	24 months	333	3–5 years	79	Bos et al. (1999); Huston et al. (2001, 2003)
SSP	ES	Two Canadian provinces	1992	36 months	1,178	2–4 years	81	Quets et al. (1999); Michalopoulos et al. (2002)
FTP	M, ES, TL, CC	Escambia County, FL	1994	48 months	326	1–2 years	78–80	Bloom et al. (2000)
CT Jobs First	M, ES, TL	New Haven and Manchester, CT	1996	36 months	789	2–4 years	71–80	Bloom et al. (2002)

Note.—NEWWS = National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies; MFIP = Minnesota Family Investment Program evaluation; SSP = Canada’s Self-Sufficiency Project evaluation; FTP = Florida’s Family Transition Program evaluation; CT Jobs First = Connecticut Jobs First evaluation; M = mandatory employment services; E = mandatory educational activities; ES = earnings supplements; TL = time limits on welfare receipt; CC = expanded child-care resources.