Appendix C: Criteria for Selection of Innovative Approaches and Programs

The primary goal of this project is to identify innovative approaches and programmatic examples of these approaches that warrant further research. HHS has expressed interest that this study effort is not overly rigid in the types of approaches that are considered, but that a determination of what should be included or excluded is still guided by established criteria. For this study, the approaches identified met more than one of the criteria described below, but were not be required to meet all of them. Given the range of outcomes this project is seeking to influence, this ensures that approaches that are particularly strong based on a more limited set of criteria are not excluded. Specifically, we included approaches that

• Address at least one (and preferably more than one) of the causes of low earnings among low-wage workers. A number of factors appear to contribute to this outcome, including low basic skills and educational attainment, employment in low-wage jobs with limited potential for advancement, problems with work supports, and personal issues such as mental health or substance abuse issues (see discussion above). An innovative approach addresses at least one of these issues that may be preventing long-term employment stability.

• Provide an untested intervention, but one that is grounded in research to date. As discussed above, a significant knowledge base on the effectiveness of a range of employment approaches has been developed. For some approaches, the body of evidence is fairly consistent; for others, the research suggests that further program development, redesign, or demonstrations might be warranted before conclusions about effectiveness can be drawn. It is important that potentially innovative approaches identified through this project build on the knowledge base about “what works” and are not duplicative of past efforts. However, the approaches identified should also be consistent with our understanding of what is effective, given the research evidence accumulated to date.

• Address specific policy interests of federal or state policymakers and/or program operators. Some approaches are considered because of a strong interest by policymakers in understanding the effectiveness of the particular approach. We consider approaches that are of particular interest to federal and state policymakers and administrators as well as to local program operators who are often at the forefront of developing innovative program models.

• Show generalizability of setting. Since the focus of this project is on identifying approaches that may improve outcomes for low-income families generally, it is important that the models considered have some potential for being adapted in other states and localities. While this project seeks to be inclusive in identifying approaches, the approach should have at least some promise of being implemented by others.

Once innovative approaches are identified, a more operational set of criteria are used to identify strong programs within each of the approaches. By programs, we mean specific interventions, initiatives, or even program components that operationalize a particular approach identified above. Again, because HHS is interested in being relatively inclusive when identifying these innovative programs, we proposed that the programs identified should meet more than one, but not necessarily all, of the proposed criteria. Specifically, we used the following criteria to identify innovative programs:

• Program design and strength. The identification of innovative programs includes an assessment of the strength of the design and services. Is the program well thought out and is there reason to expect it could improve individuals’ employment outcomes? Do participants typically receive a relatively strong “dosage” of the intervention? To the extent possible, we gauge the overall strength of the services provided along these dimensions.

• Operational maturity. This project will consider new as well as mature programs for inclusion. However, we recognize that programs that are operating at “steady state” implementation or for relatively long periods of time will be more appropriate for this project because they are more likely have established operational procedures. It is important, for example, to consider programs or initiatives that have operated for at least one year, and have strong management information and data capability, stable funding, capable staff, and an established reputation in their service community. At the same time, we realize that there are likely to be innovative efforts that have been implemented relatively recently. For more recent efforts, we considered the level of program maturity and stability achieved within a relatively short operational period.

• Scale. While both small and large programs would be considered for this effort, there is a federal policy interest in identifying programs that could eventually be operated on at least a moderate scale. In addition, because of the potential for reaching relatively large numbers of individuals, there is an interest in identify strategies that can be implemented on a systemwide basis. We consider local programs that serve at least 100 persons annually, and state initiatives that serve 500 annually to be of moderate scale.

• Evidence of positive outcomes, particularly economic outcomes. If available, we examine research or program data on the effects of the intervention, and particularly the employment outcomes for program participants. Although not definitive, this information provides some information on program effects.