Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Feb 26;2(2):CD009820.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009820.pub3.

Welfare-to-work interventions and their effects on the mental and physical health of lone parents and their children

Marcia Gibson  1 , Hilary Thomson, Kasia Banas, Vittoria Lutje, Martin J McKee, Susan P Martin, Candida Fenton, Clare Bambra, Lyndal Bond
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Welfare-to-work interventions and their effects on the mental and physical health of lone parents and their children

Marcia Gibson et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Lone parents in high-income countries have high rates of poverty (including in-work poverty) and poor health. Employment requirements for these parents are increasingly common. 'Welfare-to-work' (WtW) interventions involving financial sanctions and incentives, training, childcare subsidies and lifetime limits on benefit receipt have been used to support or mandate employment among lone parents. These and other interventions that affect employment and income may also affect people's health, and it is important to understand the available evidence on these effects in lone parents.

Objectives: To assess the effects of WtW interventions on mental and physical health in lone parents and their children living in high-income countries. The secondary objective is to assess the effects of welfare-to-work interventions on employment and income.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO EBSCO, ERIC EBSCO, SocINDEX EBSCO, CINAHL EBSCO, Econlit EBSCO, Web of Science ISI, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) via Proquest, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) via ProQuest, Social Services Abstracts via Proquest, Sociological Abstracts via Proquest, Campbell Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) (CRD York), Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), OpenGrey and Planex. We also searched bibliographies of included publications and relevant reviews, in addition to many relevant websites. We identified many included publications by handsearching. We performed the searches in 2011, 2013 and April 2016.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mandatory or voluntary WtW interventions for lone parents in high-income countries, reporting impacts on parental mental health, parental physical health, child mental health or child physical health.

Data collection and analysis: One review author extracted data using a standardised extraction form, and another checked them. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and the quality of the evidence. We contacted study authors to obtain measures of variance and conducted meta-analyses where possible. We synthesised data at three time points: 18 to 24 months (T1), 25 to 48 months (T2) and 49 to 72 months (T3).

Main results: Twelve studies involving 27,482 participants met the inclusion criteria. Interventions were either mandatory or voluntary and included up to 10 discrete components in varying combinations. All but one study took place in North America. Although we searched for parental health outcomes, the vast majority of the sample in all included studies were female. Therefore, we describe adult health outcomes as 'maternal' throughout the results section. We downgraded the quality of all evidence at least one level because outcome assessors were not blinded. Follow-up ranged from 18 months to six years. The effects of welfare-to-work interventions on health were generally positive but of a magnitude unlikely to have any tangible effects.At T1 there was moderate-quality evidence of a very small negative impact on maternal mental health (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.14; N = 3352; studies = 2)); at T2, moderate-quality evidence of no effect (SMD 0.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.05; N = 7091; studies = 3); and at T3, low-quality evidence of a very small positive effect (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.00; N = 8873; studies = 4). There was evidence of very small positive effects on maternal physical health at T1 (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.36; N = 311; 1 study, low quality) and T2 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; N = 2551; 2 studies, moderate quality), and of a very small negative effect at T3 (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; N = 1854; 1 study, low quality).At T1, there was moderate-quality evidence of a very small negative impact on child mental health (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; N = 2762; studies = 1); at T2, of a very small positive effect (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.01; N = 7560; studies = 5), and at T3, there was low-quality evidence of a very small positive effect (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; N = 3643; studies = 3). Moderate-quality evidence for effects on child physical health showed a very small negative effect at T1 (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.03; N = 2762; studies = 1), a very small positive effect at T2 (SMD 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12; N = 7195; studies = 3), and a very small positive effect at T3 (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; N = 8083; studies = 5). There was some evidence of larger negative effects on health, but this was of low or very low quality.There were small positive effects on employment and income at 18 to 48 months (moderate-quality evidence), but these were largely absent at 49 to 72 months (very low to moderate-quality evidence), often due to control group members moving into work independently. Since the majority of the studies were conducted in North America before the year 2000, generalisabilty may be limited. However, all study sites were similar in that they were high-income countries with developed social welfare systems.

Authors' conclusions: The effects of WtW on health are largely of a magnitude that is unlikely to have tangible impacts. Since income and employment are hypothesised to mediate effects on health, it is possible that these negligible health impacts result from the small effects on economic outcomes. Even where employment and income were higher for the lone parents in WtW, poverty was still high for the majority of the lone parents in many of the studies. Perhaps because of this, depression also remained very high for lone parents whether they were in WtW or not. There is a lack of robust evidence on the health effects of WtW for lone parents outside North America.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

MG: none known.

HT: none known.

KB: none known.

VL: none known.

MJM: none known.

SPM: none known.

CF: none known.

CB: none known.

LB: none known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram. *An initial stage of screening reduced records from all other sources to 1609. The remaining records were then de‐duplicated against the Endnote library containing the electronic search results. Note this figure does not include publications found on websites without searchable databases.
2
2
Age of children at time of data collection by time point
3
3
Example of study logic model from NEWWS 2001 Copyright © 2001 MDRC: reproduced with permission.
4
4
5
5
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
6
6
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Time point 1 Maternal mental health, outcome: 1.1 Maternal mental health continuous.
8
8
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Time point 2 Maternal mental health, outcome: 2.1 Maternal mental health continuous.
9
9
Forest plot of comparison: 3 Time point 3 Maternal mental health, outcome: 3.1 Maternal mental health continuous.
10
10
Forest plot of comparison: 4 Time point 1 Maternal physical health, outcome: 4.1 In poor health (%).
11
11
Forest plot of comparison: 5 Time point 2 Maternal physical health, outcome: 5.1 In good or excellent health %. Event defined as In good or excellent health.
12
12
Forest plot of comparison: 6 Time point 3 Maternal physical health, outcome: 6.1 Self‐reported health (1‐5).
13
13
Forest plot of comparison: 7 Time point 1 Child mental health, outcome: 7.1 Child behaviour problems continuous.
14
14
Forest plot of comparison: 8 Time point 2 Child mental health, outcome: 8.1 Child behaviour problems continuous.
15
15
Forest plot of comparison: 9 Time point 3 Child mental health, outcome: 9.1 Child behaviour problems continuous.
16
16
Forest plot of comparison: 10 Time point 1 Child physical health, outcome: 10.1 General health rating (1‐5).
17
17
Forest plot of comparison: 11 Time point 2 Child physical health, outcome: 11.1 Child physical health continuous.
18
18
Forest plot of comparison: 12 Time point 3 Child physical health, outcome: 12.1 Child physical health continuous.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Time point 1 Maternal mental health, Outcome 1 Maternal mental health continuous.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Time point 1 Maternal mental health, Outcome 2 Maternal mental health dichotomous.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Time point 2 Maternal mental health, Outcome 1 Maternal mental health continuous.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Time point 2 Maternal mental health, Outcome 3 Maternal mental health dichotomous.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Time point 3 Maternal mental health, Outcome 1 Maternal mental health continuous.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Time point 3 Maternal mental health, Outcome 2 Maternal mental health dichotomous.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Time point 1 Maternal physical health, Outcome 1 In poor health (%).
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Time point 2 Maternal physical health, Outcome 1 In good or excellent health (%).
6.1
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Time point 3 Maternal physical health, Outcome 1 Self‐reported health (1‐5).
6.2
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 Time point 3 Maternal physical health, Outcome 2 In good or very good health (%).
7.1
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 Time point 1 Child mental health, Outcome 1 Child behaviour problems continuous.
7.2
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 Time point 1 Child mental health, Outcome 2 Child behaviour problems dichotomous.
8.1
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8 Time point 2 Child mental health, Outcome 1 Child behaviour problems continuous.
8.2
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8 Time point 2 Child mental health, Outcome 2 Adolescent mental health dichotomous.
9.1
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9 Time point 3 Child mental health, Outcome 1 Child behaviour problems continuous.
9.2
9.2. Analysis
Comparison 9 Time point 3 Child mental health, Outcome 2 Child behaviour problem continuous excluding SSP Applicants.
9.3
9.3. Analysis
Comparison 9 Time point 3 Child mental health, Outcome 3 NEWWS 2001 Child mental health.
10.1
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10 Time point 1 Child physical health, Outcome 1 General health rating (1‐5).
11.1
11.1. Analysis
Comparison 11 Time point 2 Child physical health, Outcome 1 Child physical health continuous.
11.2
11.2. Analysis
Comparison 11 Time point 2 Child physical health, Outcome 2 Child physical health dichotomous.
12.1
12.1. Analysis
Comparison 12 Time point 3 Child physical health, Outcome 1 Child physical health continuous.
12.2
12.2. Analysis
Comparison 12 Time point 3 Child physical health, Outcome 2 Child physical health dichotomous.
13.1
13.1. Analysis
Comparison 13 Time point 1 Employment status, Outcome 1 Currently employed (%).
13.2
13.2. Analysis
Comparison 13 Time point 1 Employment status, Outcome 2 Ever employed (%).
14.1
14.1. Analysis
Comparison 14 Time point 2 Employment status, Outcome 1 Ever employed (%).
14.2
14.2. Analysis
Comparison 14 Time point 2 Employment status, Outcome 2 Ever employed full‐time since randomisation (%).
14.3
14.3. Analysis
Comparison 14 Time point 2 Employment status, Outcome 3 Ever employed full‐time excluding MFIP (%).
14.4
14.4. Analysis
Comparison 14 Time point 2 Employment status, Outcome 4 Employed part‐time (%).
15.1
15.1. Analysis
Comparison 15 Time point 3 Employment status, Outcome 1 Currently employed (%).
15.2
15.2. Analysis
Comparison 15 Time point 3 Employment status, Outcome 2 Ever employed (%).
15.3
15.3. Analysis
Comparison 15 Time point 3 Employment status, Outcome 3 Currently employed full‐time (%).
15.4
15.4. Analysis
Comparison 15 Time point 3 Employment status, Outcome 4 Currently employed part‐time (%).
16.1
16.1. Analysis
Comparison 16 Time point 1 Income, Outcome 1 Total income.
16.2
16.2. Analysis
Comparison 16 Time point 1 Income, Outcome 2 Earnings.
17.1
17.1. Analysis
Comparison 17 Time point 2 Income, Outcome 1 Total income.
17.2
17.2. Analysis
Comparison 17 Time point 2 Income, Outcome 2 Total income excluding CJF.
17.3
17.3. Analysis
Comparison 17 Time point 2 Income, Outcome 3 Average earnings in year of survey (USD).
18.1
18.1. Analysis
Comparison 18 Time point 3 Income, Outcome 1 Total income.
18.3
18.3. Analysis
Comparison 18 Time point 3 Income, Outcome 3 Total earnings.
19.1
19.1. Analysis
Comparison 19 Time point 1 Welfare receipt, Outcome 1 Total AFDC received year 2 (USD).
19.2
19.2. Analysis
Comparison 19 Time point 1 Welfare receipt, Outcome 2 Proportion of sample receiving welfare (%).
20.1
20.1. Analysis
Comparison 20 Time point 2 Welfare receipt, Outcome 1 Average annual welfare benefit.
20.2
20.2. Analysis
Comparison 20 Time point 2 Welfare receipt, Outcome 2 Average annual welfare benefit excluding MFIP.
20.3
20.3. Analysis
Comparison 20 Time point 2 Welfare receipt, Outcome 3 Proportion of sample receiving welfare.
21.1
21.1. Analysis
Comparison 21 Time point 3 Welfare receipt, Outcome 1 Total welfare benefit received.
21.2
21.2. Analysis
Comparison 21 Time point 3 Welfare receipt, Outcome 2 Total welfare payments years 1‐5 (USD).
21.5
21.5. Analysis
Comparison 21 Time point 3 Welfare receipt, Outcome 5 Proportion of sample receiving welfare.
22.1
22.1. Analysis
Comparison 22 Time point 1 Health insurance, Outcome 1 Respondent has health insurance (%).
22.2
22.2. Analysis
Comparison 22 Time point 1 Health insurance, Outcome 2 Child health insurance (%).
23.1
23.1. Analysis
Comparison 23 Time point 2 Health insurance, Outcome 1 Health insurance (%).
24.1
24.1. Analysis
Comparison 24 Time point 3 Health insurance, Outcome 1 Health insurance.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

California GAIN 1994 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Riccio JA, Friedlander D, Freedman S, Farrell M, Fellerath V, Fox S, Lehman DJ. GAIN: Benefits, Costs, and Three‐Year Impacts of a Welfare‐To‐Work Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1994.
CJF 2002 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Bloom D, Scrivener S, Michalopoulos C, Morris P, Hendra R, Adams‐Ciardullo D, et al. Jobs First: Final Report on Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative. Summary Report. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2002.
    1. Muennig, P, Caleyachetty, R, Rosen, Z, & Korotzer, A. More money, fewer lives: the cost effectiveness of welfare reform in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 2015;105(2):324‐328. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wilde ET, Rosen Z, Couch K, Muennig PA. Impact of welfare reform on mortality: an evaluation of the Connecticut Jobs First program, a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health 2014;104(3):534‐8. - PMC - PubMed
CJF GUP 2000 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Fuller B, Kagan S, Loeb S, Carroll J, McCarthy J, Krelcher G, et al. New Lives for Poor Families? Mothers and Young Children Move Through Welfare Reform. The Growing Up in Poverty Project. [place unknown]: The University of California, 2002.
    1. Fuller B, Kagan SL. Remember the Children: Mothers Balance Work and Child Care under Welfare Reform. Growing Up in Poverty Project 2000; Wave 1 Findings ‐ California, Connecticut, Florida. [place unknown]: University of California, 2000.
CJF Yale 2001 {published data only}
    1. Horwitz SM, Kerker BD. Impediments to employment under welfare reform: the importance of physical health and psychosocial characteristics. Women & Health 2001;32(1):101‐17. - PubMed
    1. Horwitz SM, Kerker BD. Preschool and school age children under welfare reform. Child Psychiatry and Human Development 2001;32(2):107‐24. - PubMed
FTP 2000 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Bloom D, Kemple JJ, Morris P, Scrivener S, Verma N, Hendra R, et al. The Family Transition Program: Final Report on Florida's Initial Time‐limited Welfare Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 2000.
    1. Muennig P, Rosen Z, Wilde ET. Welfare Programs That Target Workforce Participation May Negatively Affect Mortality Erratum. Health Affairs 2014;33(6):1104. - PubMed
    1. Muennig P, Rosen Z, Wilde ET. Welfare programs that target workforce participation may negatively affect mortality. Health Affairs 2013;32(6):1072‐7. - PubMed
    1. Muennig, P. Caleyachetty, R, Rosen, Z, & Korotzer, A. More money, fewer lives: the cost effectiveness of welfare reform in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 2015;105(2):324‐328. - PMC - PubMed
IFIP 2002 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Fraker TM, Ross CM, Stapulonis RA, Olsen RB, Kovac MD, Dion MR. The Evaluation of Welfare Reform in Iowa: Final Impact Report. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Washington, DC, 2002.
IWRE 2002 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Beecroft E, Cahill K, Goodson BD. The Impact of Welfare Reform on Children: The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation. Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates Inc., 2002.
MFIP 2000 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Gennetian LA, Miller C. Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: Final Report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Volume 2: Effects on Children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000.
New Hope 1999 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Bos JM, Huston A, Granger RC, Duncan G, Brock T, McLoyd V, et al. New Hope for People with Low Incomes: Two‐Year Results of a Program to Reduce Poverty and Reform Welfare. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. New York, 1999.
    1. Huston A, Gupta AE, Bentley AC, Dowsett CJ, Ware A, Epps SR. New Hope’s Effects on Social Behavior, Parenting, and Activities at Eight Years. New York: MDRC 2008.
    1. Huston A, Miller C, Richburg‐Hayes L, Duncan G, Eldred C, Weisner T, et al. New Hope for Families and Children: Five‐Year Results of a Program To Reduce Poverty and Reform Welfare. New York: MDRC 2003.
NEWWS 2001 {published and unpublished data}
    1. McGroder SM, Zaslow MJ, Moore KA, LeMenestrel SM. Impacts on Young Children and Their Families Two Years After Enrollment: Findings From the Child Outcomes Study. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 2000.
    1. Hamilton G, Freedman S, Gennetian L, Michalopoulos C, Walter J, Adams‐Ciardullo D, et al. National Evaluation of Welfare‐to‐work Strategies: How Effective are Different Welfare‐to‐work Approaches? Five‐year Adult and Child Impacts for Eleven Programs. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2001.
Ontario 2001 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Browne G, Byrne C, Roberts J, Gafni A, Jamieson E. When the Bough Breaks: Provider‐Initiated Comprehensive Care is More Effective and Less Expensive for Sole‐support Parents on Social Assistance ‐ Four‐Year Follow‐up. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University, 2000. - PubMed
    1. Browne G, Byrne C, Roberts J, Gafni A, Whittaker S. When the bough breaks: provider‐initiated comprehensive care is more effective and less expensive for sole‐support parents on social assistance. Social Science and Medicine 2001;53(12):1697‐710. - PubMed
SSP Applicants 2003 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Ford R, Gyarmati D, Foley K, Tattrie D, Jimenez L. Can Work Incentives Pay for Themselves? Final Report on the Self‐Sufficiency Project for Welfare Applicants. Ottowa: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation 2003.
SSP Recipients 2002 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Michalopoulos C, Tattrie D, Miller C, Robins PK, Morris P, Gyarmati D, et al. Making Work Pay: Final Report on the Self‐Sufficiency Project for Long‐Term Welfare Recipients. Ottowa: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation 2002.
    1. Morris PA, Michalopoulos C. Self‐Sufficiency Project (SSP) at 36 Months: Effects on Children of a Program That Increased Parental Employment and Income. Ottowa: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation 2000.
UK ERA 2011 {published data only}
    1. Hendra R, Riccio JA, Dorsett R, Greenberg DH, Knight G, Phillips J, et al. Breaking the low‐pay, no‐pay cycle: final evidence from the UK Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) demonstration. Leeds: Corporate Document Service; UK Department for Work and Pensions; 2011. Research Report No: 765.

References to studies excluded from this review

ABC 1999 {published data only}
    1. Fein DJ. Will welfare reform influence marriage and fertility? Early evidence from the ABC demonstration. Evaluation and Program Planning 2001;24(4):427‐44.
    1. Fein DJ, Lee Wang S. The ABC Evaluation. Impacts of Welfare Reform on Child Maltreatment. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc., 2000.
    1. Fein DJ, Lee Wang S. The impacts of welfare reform on child maltreatment in Delaware. Children and Youth Services Review 2003;25(1‐2):83‐111.
    1. Fein DJ, Long D, Behrens JM, Lee Wang S. Turning the Corner: Delaware's A Better Chance Welfare Reform Program at Four Years. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc., 2001.
    1. Fein DJ, Wang SL, Schoenfiend EC. The ABC Evaluation: Do Welfare Recipients' Children Have a School Attendance Problem?. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc., 1999.
Action Emploi 2011 {published data only}
    1. Lacroix Guy, Brouillette Dany. Assessing the impact of a wage subsidy for single parents on social assistance. Canadian Journal of Economics 2011;44(4):1195‐221.
ARIZONA WORKS 2003 {published data only}
    1. Kornfeld R, Porcari D, Peck LR. The Arizona Works Pilot Program: A Three‐year Assessment. Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates Inc., 2003.
Bembry 2011 {published data only}
    1. Bembry JX. Strengthening fragile families through research and practice. Journal of Family Social Work 2011;14(1):54‐67.
BIAS 2014 {published data only}
    1. Richburg‐Hayes L, Anzelone C, Dechausay N, Datta S, Fiorillo A, Potok L, et al. Behavioral economics and social policy: designing innovative solutions for programs supported by the administration for children and families. OPRE Report No. 2014‐16a. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services 2014.
BIAS Next Generation 2016 {published data only}
    1. MDRC. Behavioral interventions to advance self‐sufficiency ‐ Next Generation. www.mdrc.org/project/behavioral‐interventions‐advance‐self‐sufficiency‐n... (accessed 28 April 16).
Bloom 2016 {published data only}
    1. Bloom D. Testing the next generation of subsidized employment programs: an introduction to the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration and the Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration. OPRE report no. 2015‐58. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC, 2015.
Callahan 1995 {published data only}
    1. Callahan M, Lumb C. My cheque and my children: the long road to empowerment in child welfare. Child Welfare 1995;74(3):795‐819. - PubMed
Cook 2009 {published data only}
    1. Cook K, Davis E, Smyth P, McKenzie H. The quality of life of single mothers making the transition from welfare to work. Women & Health 2009;49(6‐7):475‐90. - PubMed
CWEP 1986 {published data only}
    1. Friedlander D, Erickson M, Hamilton G, Knox V. West Virginia: Final Report on the Community Work Experience Demonstrations. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1986.
Danziger 2000 {published data only}
    1. Danziger SK, Seefeldt KS. Ending welfare through work first. Manager and client views. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 2000;81(6):593‐604.
Dockery 2004 {published data only}
    1. Dockery AM, Stromback T. An evaluation of a parenting payment intervention program. Australian Journal of Social Issues 2004;39(4):431‐42.
Duncan 2004 {published data only}
    1. Duncan G, Chase‐Lansdale P. For better and for worse: welfare reform and the well‐being of children and families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004.
EMPOWER 1999 {published data only}
    1. Kornfeld R, Peck LR, Porcari D, Straubinger J, Johnson C, Cabral C. Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Demonstration: Impact Study Interim Report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc., 1999.
ERA 2007 {published data only}
    1. Bloom Dan, Miller C, Azurdia GIlda. The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Results from the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) Program in New York City. New York: MDRC, 2007.
    1. Hendra R, Dillman KN, Hamilton G, Lundquist E, Martinson K, Wavelet M. The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: How Effective Are Different Approaches Aiming to Increase Employment Retention and Advancement? Final Impacts for Twelve Models. New York: MDRC, 2010.
    1. LeBlanc A, Miller C, Martinson K, Azurdia G. The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Results from Minnesota Tier 2 Program. New York: MDRC, 2007.
    1. Miller C, Deitch V, Hill A. The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Paths to Advancement for Single Parents. Executive Summary. New York: MDRC, 2010.
Farrell 2013 {published data only}
    1. Farrell M, Baird P, Barden B, Fishman M, aPardoe R. The TANF/SSI Disability Transition Project: innovative strategies for serving TANF recipients with disabilities. OPRE Report 2013‐51. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services 2013.
FLORIDA PI 1994 {published data only}
    1. Kemple JJ, Friedlander D, Fellerath V. Florida's Project Independence. Benefits, Costs, and Two‐Year Impacts of Florida's JOBS Program. New York: Manpower Research Demonstration Corporation, 1995:287.
    1. Kemple JJ, Haimson J. Florida's Project Independence. Program Implementation, Participation Patterns, and First‐Year Impacts. New York: Manpower Research Demonstration Corporation, 1994:224.
Fuller 2002 {published data only}
    1. Fuller B, Caspary G, Kagan SL, Gauthier C, Huang DSC, Carroll J, et al. Does maternal employment influence poor children's social development?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2002;17(4):470‐97.
Grogger 2009 {published data only}
    1. Grogger J, Karoly L. The effects of work‐conditioned transfers on marriage and child well‐being: a review. Economic Journal 2009;119(535):F15‐37.
Horton 2002 {published data only}
    1. Horton J, Shaw L. Opportunity and control: living welfare reform in Los Angeles County. In: Piven Frances Fox, Acker Joan, Hallock Margaret, Morgen Sandra editor(s). Work, Welfare, and Politics: Confronting Poverty in the Wake of Welfare Reform. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press, 2002:197‐212.
HPOG 2014 {published data only}
    1. Peck LR, Werner A, Rulf Fountain A, Lewis Buell J, Bell SH, Harvill E, et al. Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) impact study design report. OPRE Report 2014‐62. Washington, DC; US Department of Health and Human Services. 2014.
JOBS 1993 {published data only}
    1. United States General Accounting Office (GAO). Welfare to Work States Move Unevenly to Serve Teen Parents in JOBS: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1993.
JOBS 1995 {published data only}
    1. Bloom HS, Riccio JA, Verma N. Promoting Work in Public Housing: The Effectiveness of Jobs‐Plus. Final Report. New York: MDRC, 2005.
    1. Hamilton G, Brock T, Farrell M, Friedlander D, Harknett K. Evaluating Two Welfare‐to‐Work Program Approaches: Two‐Year Findings on the Labor Force Attachment and Human Capital Development Programs in Three Sites. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1997.
    1. Moore KA, Zaslow MJ, Coiro MJ, Miller SM, Magenheim EB. How Well Are They Faring? AFDC Families with Preschool‐Aged Children in Atlanta at the Outset of the JOBS Evaluation. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1995.
JOBS 1ST GAIN 1999 {published data only}
    1. Freedman S, Mitchell M, Navarro D. The Los Angeles Jobs‐First GAIN Evaluation. First‐Year Findings on Participation Patterns and Impacts. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1999:222.
Limoncelli 2002 {published data only}
    1. Limoncelli S. Some of us are excellent at babies: paid work, mothering, and the construction of need in a welfare‐to‐work program. In: Piven FF, Acker J, Hallock M, Morgen S editor(s). Work, Welfare and Politics: Confronting Poverty in the Wake of Welfare Reform. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press, 2002:81‐94.
Maynard 1979 {published data only}
    1. Maynard RA, Murnane RJ. The effects of a negative income tax on school performance: results of an experiment. Journal of Human Resources 1979;14(4):436‐76.
Meckstroth 2006 {published data only}
    1. Meckstroth A, Burwick A, Moore Q, Ponza M, Marsh S, McGuirk A, et al. Teaching Self‐sufficiency: An Impact and Benefit‐cost Analysis of a Home Visitation and Life Skills Education Program. Washington DC: Administration for Children and Families, 2008.
    1. Meckstroth A, Burwick A, Ponza M, Marsh S, Novak T, Phillips S, et al. Paths to Work in Rural Places: key Findings and Lessons from the Impact Evaluation of the Future Steps Rural Welfare‐to‐work Program. Washington DC: Administration for Children and Families, 2006.
    1. Meckstroth A, Person A, Moore Q, Burwick A, McGuirk A, Ponza M, et al. Testing Case Management in a Rural Context: An Impact Analysis of the Illinois Future Steps Program. Washington DC: Administration for Children and Families, 2008.
MFSP 1991 {published data only}
    1. Business Council for Effective Literacy. Off welfare, into work. BCEL Newsletter for the Business and Literacy Communities 1991, issue 26:1,6‐7.
MICHIGAN FAMILIES 1997 {published data only}
    1. Werner A, Kornfeld R. The Evaluation of To Strengthen Michigan Families: Final Impact Report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc., 1997.
Michigan Work First 2000 {published data only}
    1. Danziger SK, Seefeldt KS. Ending welfare through work first: manager and client views. Families in Society 2000;81(6):593‐601.
Morris 2005 {published data only}
    1. Morris PA, Scott EK, London AS. Effects on children of parents' transitions from welfare to employment: Integrating quantitative and qualitative research. In: Duerr Berrick J, Fuller B editor(s). Good Parents or Good Workers? How Policy Shapes Families' Daily Lives. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
New Jersey FDP 1998 {published data only}
    1. Camasso H, Jagannathan R, Killingsworth M. New Jersey's Family Development Program, Results on Program Impacts, Experimental‐Control Group Analysis. Trenton, NJ: State of NJ Department of Human Services, 1998.
    1. Jagannathan R, Camasso MJ, Sambamoorthi U. Experimental evidence of welfare reform impact on clinical anxiety and depression levels among poor women. Social Science & Medicine 2010;71(1):152‐60. - PubMed
Opportunity NYC Family Rewards 2013 {published data only}
    1. Riccio J, Dechausay N, Miller C, Nuñez S, Verma N, Yang E. Conditional Cash Transfers in New York City: The Continuing Story of the Opportunity NYC‐Family Rewards Demonstration. New York: MDRC, 2013.
Opportunity NYC Work Rewards 2015 {published data only}
    1. Nuñez S, Verma N, Yang E. Building Self‐Sufficiency for Housing Voucher Recipients: Interim Findings from the Work Rewards Demonstration in New York City. New York: MDRC, 2015.
PACE 2014 {published data only}
    1. Abt Associates Inc. Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education evaluation design report. OPRE Report 2014‐76. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2014.
SIME/DIME 1983 {published data only}
    1. ASPE. Overview of the Seattle‐Denver Income Maintenance Experiment Final Report. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, 1983.
    1. ASPE. Seattle‐Denver Income Maintenance Experiment: Design & Results (Volume 1). Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, 1983.
    1. SRI International. Final Report of the Seattle/Denver Income Maintenance Experiment. Vol. 1, Design and Results, Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 1983.
STED 2015 {published data only}
    1. Bloom D. Testing the next generation of subsidized employment programs: an introduction to the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration and the Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration.OPRE report no. 2015‐58. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2015.
SUPPORTED WORK 1979 {published data only}
    1. Masters S, Maynard R. Supported Work: A Demonstration of Subsidized Employment. Madison: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, 1979:45 pp.
SWIM 1989 {published data only}
    1. Friedlander D, Hamilton G. The impact of a continuous participation obligation in a welfare employment program. Journal of Human Resources 1996;31(4):734‐56.
    1. Hamilton G, Friedlander D. Saturation Work Initiative Model in San Diego. Final Report. Sacramento: California State Dept. of Social Services 1989.
TEEN JOBS 1993 {published data only}
    1. US General Accounting Office. Welfare to Work: States Move Unevenly to Serve Teen Parents in JOBS. Washington DC: US General Accounting Office, 1993.
The SNAP Employment and Training Evaluation 2014 {published data only}
    1. Klerman JA. SNAP Employment and Training Pilot Projects Programmatic Strategies for States To Reduce Dependency and Increase Work Effort. Policy brief. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. 2014.
TPD 1989 {published data only}
    1. Aber JL, Berlin L, Brooks‐Gunn J, Carcagno G. The Interactions and Developmental Processes study of the Teenage Parent Demonstration Project: Final report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, 1995.
    1. Aber JL, Brooks‐Gunn J, Maynard RA. Effects of welfare reform on teenage parents and their children. Future of Children 1995;5(2):53‐71. - PubMed
    1. Granger RC, Cytron R. Teenage parent programs: a synthesis of the long‐term effects of the new chance demonstration, Ohio's learning, earning, and parenting program, and the teenage parent demonstration. Evaluation Review 1999;23(2):107‐45. - PubMed
    1. Hershey A, Nagatoshi C. Implementing Services for Welfare Dependent Teenage Parents: Experiences in the DHHS/OFA Teenage Parent Demonstration. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, 1989.
    1. Kisker E, Rangarajan A, Boller K. Moving into Adulthood: Were the Impacts of Mandatory Programs for Welfare‐Dependent Teenage Parents Sustained After the Program Ended?. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1998.
TWRW 2003 {published data only}
    1. Schexnayder DT, Schroeder DG, Olson JA, Kum H. Achieving Change for Texans: Evaluation of the Texas Welfare Reform Waiver; Final Impact Report. Washington DC: Administration for Children and Families, 2003.
VERMONT WRP 1998 {published data only}
    1. Bloom D, Hendra R, Michalopoulos C. WRP: Key Findings from the Forty‐two Month Client Survey. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000.
    1. Bloom D, Michalopoulos C, Walter J, Auspos P. WRP: Implementation and Early Impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1998.
    1. Scrivener S, Hendra R, Redcross C, Bloom D, Michalopoulos C, Walter J. WRP: Final Report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. New York: Manpower DemonstrationResearch Corporation, 2002:88.
Walker 2005 {published data only}
    1. Walker R, Greenberg D. Determining what works and for how long. In: Cebulla A, Greenberg D, Ashworth K, Walker Robert editor(s). Welfare‐to‐Work: New Labour and the US experience. Aldenshot: Ashgate, 2005:85‐115.
Weil 2002 {published data only}
    1. Weil A, Finegold K. Welfare Reform: The Next Act. Urban Institute Press, 2002.
Zaslow 2002 {published data only}
    1. Zaslow MJ, Moore KA, Brooks JL, Morris PA, Tout K, Redd ZA, et al. Experimental studies of welfare reform and children. Future Child 2002;12(1):78‐95. - PubMed

Additional references

Alderson 2008
    1. Alderson DP, Gennetian LA, Dowsett CJ, Imes A, Huston AC. Effects of employment‐based programs on families by prior levels of disadvantage. Social Service Review 2008;82:361‐94. - PMC - PubMed
Alderson 2009
    1. Alderson P, Green S. Cochrane Collaboration open learning material for reviewers Version 1.1. [no longer available online]: Cochrane Collaboration, 2009.
Armstrong 2011
    1. Armstrong R, Waters E, Doyle J (editors). Chapter 21: Reviews in health promotion and public health. In Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org..
Basu 2016
    1. Basu S, Rehkopf DH, Siddiqi A, Glymour MM, Kawachi I. Health behaviors, mental health, and health care utilization among single mothers after welfare reforms in the 1990s. American Journal of Epidemiology 2016;183(6):531‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Benzeval 1998
    1. Benzeval M. The self‐reported health status of lone parents. Social Science & Medicine 1998;46(10):1337‐53. - PubMed
Berlin 1998
    1. Berlin G, Bancroft W, Card D, Lin W, Robins PK. Do Work Incentives Have Unintended Consequences? Measuring "Entry Effects" in the Self‐Sufficiency Project. Do Work Incentives Have Unintended Consequences? Measuring "Entry Effects" in the Self‐Sufficiency Project. Ottawa, ON: Human Resource Development Canada, 1998:59.
Bitler 2006
    1. Bitler MP, Gelbach JB, Hoynes HW. What mean impacts miss: distributional effects of welfare reform experiments. American Economic Review 2006;96(4):988‐1012.
Blank 1997
    1. Blank SW, Blum BB. A brief history of work expectations for welfare mothers. The Future of Children Special Issue Welfare To Work 1997; Vol. 7, issue 1. - PubMed
Bloom 1997
    1. Bloom D, Kemple JJ, Rogers‐Dillon, R. The Family Transition Program: Implementation and early impacts of Florida's time‐limited welfare program. The Family Transition Program: Implementation and Early Impacts of Florida's Time‐limited Welfare Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1997.
Bloom 1998
    1. Bloom D, Farrell M, Kemple JJ, Verma N. The Family Transition Program: Implementation and interim impacts of Florida's initial time‐limited welfare program. The Family Transition Program: Implementation and Interim Impacts of Florida's Initial Time‐limited Welfare Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1998.
Bloom 1999
    1. Bloom D. Welfare Time Limits: An Interim Report Card. The Cross‐State Study of Time‐Limited Welfare. Welfare Time Limits: An Interim Report Card. The Cross‐State Study of Time‐Limited Welfare. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1999.
Bloom 2000
    1. Bloom D, Melton L, Michalopoulos C, Scrivener S, Walter J. Jobs First: Implementation and early impacts of Connecticut's welfare reform initiative. Jobs First: Implementation and Early Impacts of Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000.
Bloom 2002
    1. Bloom D, Scrivener S, Michalopoulos C, Morris P, Hendra R, Adams‐Ciardullo D, et al. Jobs First: Final Report on Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative. Summary Report. Jobs First: Final Report on Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative. Summary Report. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2002:54.
Bonnell 2011
    1. Bonell CP, Hargreaves J, Cousens S, Ross D, Hayes R, Petticrew M, et al. Theory and methods: Alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public health interventions: design challenges and solutions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2011;65(7):582‐7. - PubMed
Bos 2002
    1. Bos J, Vargas W. Maternal Employment and Changes in Adolescent Outcomes: Evidence from Two Evaluations of Programs That Promote Work. Maternal Employment and Changes in Adolescent Outcomes: Evidence from Two Evaluations of Programs That Promote Work. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2002.
Brown 1997
    1. Brown GW, Moran PM. Single mothers, poverty and depression. Psychological Medicine 1997;27(1):21‐33. - PubMed
Burford 2012
    1. Burford BJ, Rehfuess E, Schünemann HJ, Akl EA, Waters E, Armstrong R, et al. Assessing evidence in public health: the added value of GRADE. Journal of Public Health 2012;34(4):631‐5. - PubMed
Campbell 2016
    1. Campbell M, Thomson H, Fenton C, Gibson M. Lone parents, health, wellbeing and welfare to work: a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMC Public Health 2016;16(1):1‐10. - PMC - PubMed
Card 2000
    1. Card D. Reforming the Financial Incentives of the Welfare System. Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, 2000.
Card 2005
    1. Card D, Robins PK. How important are "entry effects" in financial incentive programs for welfare recipients? Experimental evidence from the Self‐Sufficiency Project. Journal of Econometrics 2005;125(1‐2):113‐39.
Carnochan 2005
    1. Carnochan S, Ketch V, Marco A, Taylor S, Abramson A, Austin MJ. Assessing the initial impact of welfare reform: a synthesis of research studies (1998‐2002). Social Policy Journal 2005; Vol. 4, issue 1:3‐31.
Clark‐Kauffman 2003
    1. Clark‐Kauffman E, Duncan G, Morris P. How welfare policies affect child and adolescent achievement. American Economic Review 2003;93(2):299‐303.
Coe 2002
    1. Coe R. It's the effect size, stupid: what effect size is and why it is important [British Educational Research Association annual conference]. Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association; 2002 Sept 12‐14: Exeter. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm, 2002.
Cohen 2013
    1. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press, 2013.
Commission on Social Determinants of Health 2008
    1. Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008.
Craig 2008
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337(a1655). - PMC - PubMed
Cremieux 2004
    1. Cremieux P Greenberg D, Kessler R, Merrigan P, Audenrode M. Employment, Earnings Supplements, and Mental Health: A Controlled Experiment. Ottawa: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation, 2004.
Crosby 2001
    1. Crosby DA, Gennetian LiA, Huston AC. Does Child Care Assistance Matter? The Effects of Welfare and Employment Programs on Child Care for Very Young Children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2001.
Crosby 2005
    1. Crosby DA, Gennetian L, Huston AC. Child care assistance policies can affect the use of center‐based care for children in low‐income families. Applied Developmental Science 2005;9:86‐106.
Crosby 2010
    1. Crosby DA, Dowsett CJ, Gennetian LA, Huston AC. A tale of two methods: comparing regression and instrumental variables estimates of the effects of preschool childcare type on the subsequent externalizing behavior of children in low‐income families. Developmental Psychology 2010;46(5):1030‐48. - PMC - PubMed
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses.In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
Department for Work and Pensions 2007
    1. Department for Work and Pensions. Ready for work: full employment in our generation. Department for Work and Pensions, 2007. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/readyforwork.pdf. London: Department for Work and Pensions,, (accessed 5 March 2012).
Department for Work and Pensions 2008
    1. Department for Work and Pensions. No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility. Department for Work and Pensions, 2008. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/noonewrittenoff‐complete.pdf. London: Department for Work and Pensions,, (accessed 5 March 2012).
Department for Work and Pensions 2012
    1. Department for Work and Pensions. Income Support Claimants (5% sample) Caseload (Thousands) : Family Type by Statistical Group May 2008 Department for Work and Pensions Statistical Tabulations, 2008. 83.244.183.180/100pc/is/ccstatgp/cnage/a_carate_r_ccstatgp_c_cnage_may08.html (accessed 9 March 2012).
Department of Health 2008
    1. Department of Health. Health inequalities: progress and next steps. Department of Health, 2008. www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/d.... London: Department of Health, (accessed 5 March 2012).
Dorsett 2013
    1. Dorsett R, Robins PK. A multilevel analysis of the impacts of services provided by the U.K. Employment Retention and Advancement Demonstration. Evaluation Review 2013;37:63‐108. - PubMed
Dorsett 2014
    1. Dorsett R, Oswald AJ. Human well‐being and in‐work benefits: A randomized controlled trial. Human Well‐being and In‐work Benefits: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Discussion Paper No. 7943. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), 2014.
Duncan 2011
    1. Duncan GJ, Morris PA, Rodrigues C. Does money really matter? Estimating impacts of family income on children’s achievement with data from random‐assignment experiments. Developmental Psychology 2011;47(5):1263‐79. - PMC - PubMed
Endnote 2016 [Computer program]
    1. Thomson Reuters. Endnote. Version X7.7. New York: Thomson Reuters, 2016.
Evans 2001
    1. Evans M. Welfare to Work and the Organisation of Opportunity: Lessons from Abroad. London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2001.
Evans 2004
    1. Evans M, Harkness S, Ortiz RA. Lone parents cycling between work and benefits. Department for Work and Pensions, 2004. research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2003‐2004/rrep217.pdf. London: Department for Work and Pensions, (accessed 5 March 2012).
Evans 2010
    1. Evans J. Social trends 40. Office for National Statistics, 2010. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?pageSize=50&newquery=Social+Tre.... London: Office for National Statistics, (accessed 5 March 2012).
Farrell 1999
    1. Farrell M, Kemple JJ, Verma N. The Family Transition Program: Implementation and three‐year impacts of Florida's initial time‐limited welfare program. The Family Transition Program: Implementation and Three‐year Impacts of Florida's Initial Time‐limited Welfare Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1999.
Farrell 2000
    1. Farrell M. Implementation, Participation Patterns, costs, & Two‐Year Impacts of the Detroit Welfare‐to‐Work Program. Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, & Two‐Year Impacts of the Detroit Welfare‐to‐Work Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000.
Finn 2010
    1. Finn D, Gloster R. Lone parent obligations: a review of recent evidence on the work‐related requirements within the benefit systems of different countries. Department for Work and Pensions, 2010. research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009‐2010/rrep632.pdf. Department for Work and Pensions, (accessed 5 March 2012).
Foley 2003
    1. Foley K, Schwartz S. Earnings supplements and job quality among former welfare recipients: evidence from the Self‐Sufficiency Project. Relations Industrielles 2003;58(2):258‐86.
Ford 2003
    1. Ford R, Gyarmati D, Foley K, Tattrie D, Jimenez L. Can Work Incentives Pay for Themselves? Final Report on the Self‐Sufficiency Project for Welfare Applicants. Ottawa: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation, 2003.
Freedman 2000
    1. Freedman S, Friedlander D, Hamilton G, Rock J, Mitchell M, Nudelman J et. al. National Evaluation of Welfare‐to‐Work Strategies Evaluating Alternative Welfare‐to‐Work Approaches:Two‐Year Impacts for Eleven Programs. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000.
Gartlehner 2006
    1. Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Nissman D, Lohr KN, Carey TS. Criteria for Distinguishing Effectiveness From Efficacy Trials in Systematic Reviews. April. Vol. 12, Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2006. - PubMed
Gassman‐Pines 2006
    1. Gassman‐Pines A, Yoshikawa H. Five‐year effects of an anti‐poverty program on marriage among never‐married mothers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2006;25(1):11‐30.
Gennetian 2000
    1. Gennetian L, Miller C. Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Volume 2: Effects on children. Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: Final Report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Volume 2: Effects on Children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000.
Gennetian 2002a
    1. Gennetian LA, Duncan GJ, Knox VW, Vargas WG, Clark‐Kauffman E, London AS. How Welfare and Work Policies for Parents Affect Adolescents: a Synthesis of Research. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2002.
Gennetian 2002b
    1. Gennetian LA, Miller C. Children and welfare reform: a view from an experimental welfare program in Minnesota. Child Development 2002;73(2):601‐20. - PubMed
Gennetian 2003
    1. Gennetian LA. Welfare policies and domestic abuse among single mothers: experimental evidence from Minnesota. Violence Against Women 2003;9(10):1171‐90.
Gennetian 2004a
    1. Gennetian LA, Crosby DA, Huston AC, Lowe ED. Can child care assistance in welfare and employment programs support the employment of low‐income families?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2004;23(4):723‐43.
Gennetian 2004b
    1. Gennetian LA. How sibling composition affects adolescent schooling outcomes when welfare reform policies increase maternal employment. Eastern Economic Journal 2004;30:81‐100.
Gennetian 2005
    1. Gennetian L, Miller C, Smith J. Turning welfare into work support: six year impacts on parents and children from the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Turning welfare into work support: six year impacts on parents and children from the Minnesota Family Investment Program. New York: MDRC, 2005.
Gennetian 2006
    1. Gennetian LA, Crosby DA, Huston AC, Cabrera N, Hutchens R, Peters HE. Welfare and child‐care policy effects on very young children's child‐care experiences. From Welfare to Child Care: What Happens to Young Children When Mothers Exchange Welfare for Work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2006:77‐100.
Gennetian 2008
    1. Gennetian LA, Crosby DA, Dowsett C, Huston A. Center‐based Care and the Achievement of Low‐income Children: Instrumental Variables Evidence from Experimental Employment Based Programs. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 2008.
Gennetian 2010
    1. Gennetian LA, Hill HD, London AS, Lopoo LM. Maternal employment and the health of low‐income young children. Journal of Health Economics 2010;29(3):353‐63. - PMC - PubMed
Gibson 2003
    1. Gibson CM. Privileging the participant: The importance of sub‐group analysis in social welfare evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation 2003;24(4):443‐69.
Gibson‐Davis 2005
    1. Gibson‐Davis CM, Magnuson K, Gennetian LA, Duncan GJ. Employment and the risk of domestic abuse among low‐income women. Journal of Marriage and Family 2005;67(5):1149‐68.
Gottschalk 2005
    1. Gottschalk PT. Can work alter welfare recipients' beliefs?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2005;24(3):485‐98.
GRADEpro GDT 2014 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University. GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed prior to 4 April 2017. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University, 2014.
Greenberg 2005
    1. Greenberg D, Cebulla A, Bouchet S. Report on a Meta‐Analysis of Welfare‐to‐Work Programs. Wisconsin: Institute for Research on Poverty, 2005.
Greenberg 2013
    1. Greenberg D, Walter J, Knight G. A cost‐benefit analysis of the random assignment UK employment retention and advancement demonstration. Applied Economics 2013;45(31‐33):4335‐54.
Greenhalgh 2015
    1. Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Jagosh J, Greenhalgh J, Manzano A, Westhorp G, et al. Protocol—the RAMSES II study: developing guidance and reporting standards for realist evaluation. BMJ Open 2015;5(8):1‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Greenwood 2000a
    1. Greenwood J. Earnings supplementation as a means to reintegrate the unemployed. Canadian Public Policy‐Analyse De Politiques 2000;26(Supplement):S235‐56.
Greenwood 2000b
    1. Greenwood J, Voyer JP. Experimental evidence on the use of earnings supplements as a strategy to 'make work pay.'. OECD Economic Studies 2000:43‐67.
Grogger 2002
    1. Grogger J, Karoly LA, Klerman JA. Consequences of Welfare Reform. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002.
Grogger 2003a
    1. Grogger J. The effects of time limits, the EITC, and other policy changes on welfare use, work, and income among female‐headed families. Review of Economics and Statistics 2003;85(2):394‐408.
Grogger 2003b
    1. Grogger J, Haider SJ, Klerman J. Why did the welfare rolls fall during the 1990's? The importance of entry. American Economic Review 2003;93(2):288‐92.
Gueron 2002
    1. Gueron JM, Hamilton G. The Role of Education and Training in Welfare Reform. Welfare Reform and Beyond. Policy Brief. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2002.
Haidich 2010
    1. Haidich AB. Meta‐analysis in medical research. Hippokratia 2010;14:29‐37. - PMC - PubMed
Hamilton 2000
    1. Hamilton G. Do Mandatory Welfare‐to‐Work Programs Affect the Well‐Being of Children? A Synthesis of Child Research Conducted as Part of the National Evaluation of Welfare‐to‐Work Strategies. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary and Office of Vocational and Adult Education, 2000.
Harknett 2006
    1. Harknett K. Does receiving an earnings supplement affect union formation? Estimating effects for program participants using propensity score matching. Evaluation Review 2006;30(6):741‐78. - PubMed
Higgins 2011a
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Higgins 2011b
    1. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hill 2011
    1. Hill HD, Morris PA, Castells N, Walker JT. Getting a job is only half the battle: maternal job loss and child classroom behavior in low‐income families. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2011;30:310‐33. - PMC - PubMed
Hoffman 2014
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. - PubMed
House of Commons 2009
    1. House of Commons Health Committee. Health inequalities. Third Report of Session 2008‐09 2009; Vol. 1, issue HC 286–I.
Hoxhallari 2007
    1. Hoxhallari L, Conolly A, Lyon N. Families with children in Britain: findings from the 2005 Families and Children Study (FACS). Department for Work and Pensions, 2007. research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007‐2008/rrep424.pdf. London: Department for Work and Pensions., (accessed 5 March 2012).
Hróbjartsson 2012
    1. Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen ASS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non‐blinded outcome assessors. BMJ 2012;344:1119. - PubMed
Huston 2001
    1. Huston A, Duncan G, Granger RC, Bos H, McLoyd V, Mistry Rashmita, et al. Work‐based anti‐poverty programs for parents can enhance the school performance and social behavior of children. Child Development 2001;72:318‐36. - PubMed
Huston 2003
    1. Huston AC, Miller C, Richburg‐Hayes L, Duncan GJ, Eldred CA, Weisner TS, et al. The New Hope Project Effects on Families and Children After Five Years. New York: MDRC, 2003.
Huston 2005
    1. Huston A, Duncan G, McLoyd V, Crosby D, Ripke M, Weisner T, et al. Impacts on children of a policy to promote employment and reduce poverty for low‐income parents: New Hope after 5 years. Developmental Psychology 2005;41:902‐18. - PubMed
Huston 2006
    1. Huston A. Effects of a family poverty intervention program last from middle childhood to adolescence. In: Huston A, Ripke M editor(s). Developmental Contexts in Middle Childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006:383‐408.
Huston 2008
    1. Huston A, Walker JT, Dowsett CJ, Imes AE, Ware A. Long‐Term Effects of New Hope on Children’s Academic Achievement and Achievement Motivation. Long‐Term Effects of New Hope on Children’s Academic Achievement and Achievement Motivation. New York: MDRC, 2008.
Jagannathan 2004
    1. Jagannathan R, Camasso MJ, Killingsworth M. Do family caps on welfare affect births among welfare recipients? Reconciling efficacy and effectiveness estimates of impact through a blended design strategy. American Journal of Evaluation 2004;25:295‐319.
Johnsen 2016
    1. Johnsen S. First Wave Findings: Lone Parents. York: University of York, 2016.
Kaushal 2007
    1. Kaushal N, Gao Q, Waldfogel J. Welfare reform and family expenditures: how are single mothers adapting to the new welfare and work regime?. Social Service Review 2007;81(3):369‐96.
Kissane 2007
    1. Kissane RJ, Krebs R. Assessing welfare reform, over a decade later. Sociology Compass 2007;1(2):789‐813.
Knox 2000
    1. Knox V, Miller C, Gennetian L. Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: A Summary of the Final Report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000.
Kunzli 2000
    1. Kunzli N, Ackermann‐Liebrich U, Brandli O, Tschopp JM, Schindler C, Leuenberger P. Clinically "small" effects of air pollution on FVC have a large public health impact. Swiss Study on Air Pollution and Lung Disease in Adults (SAPALDIA). European Respiratory Journal 2000;15(1):131‐36. - PubMed
Loeb 2003
    1. Loeb S, Fuller B, Kagan S L, Carrol B. How welfare reform affects young children: experimental findings from Connecticut ‐ a research note. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2003;22(4):537‐50.
Lucas 2008
    1. Lucas P, McIntosh K, Petticrew M, Roberts HM, Shiell A. Financial benefits for child health and well‐being in low income or socially disadvantaged families in developed world countries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006358.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Magnuson 2003
    1. Magnuson K. The Effect of Increases in Welfare Mothers’ Education onTheir Young Children’s Academic and Behavioral Outcomes: Evidence from the National Evaluation of Welfare‐to‐Work Strategies Child Outcomes Study. Institute for Research on Poverty, 2003.
Maplethorpe 2010
    1. Maplethorpe N, Chanfreau J, Philo D, Tait C. Families with children in Britain: Findings from the 2008 Families and Children Study (FACS). Department for Work and Pensions, 2010. research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009‐2010/rrep656.pdf. Department for Work and Pensions, (accessed 5 March 2012).
McLoyd 2008
    1. McLoyd V, Kaplan R, Purtell KM. New Hope’s Effects on Children’s Future Orientation and Employment Experiences. New York: MDRC, 2008.
Michalopoulos 2000
    1. Michalopoulos C Card D, Gennetian L, Harknett K, Robins PK. The Self‐Sufficiency Project at 36 months: Effects of a Financial Work Incentive on Employment and Income. Ottawa: Social Research Demonstration Corporation, 2000.
Michalopoulos 2002
    1. Michalopoulos C, Tattrie D, Miller C, Robins PK, Morris P, Gyarmati D, et al. Making Work Pay: Final Report on the Self‐Sufficiency Project for Long‐Term Welfare Recipients. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2002.
Michalopoulos 2005
    1. Michalopoulos C, Robins PK, Card D. When financial work incentives pay for themselves: evidence from a randomized social experiment for welfare recipients. The Journal of Public Economics 2005;89:5‐29.
Miller 1997
    1. Miller AR, Knox V, Auspos P, Hunter‐Manns JA, Orenstein A. Making welfare work and work pay: Implementation and 18‐month impacts of the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Making Welfare Work and Work Pay: Implementation and 18‐month Impacts of the Minnesota Family Investment Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1997.
Miller 2008
    1. Miller C, Huston A, Duncan G, McLoyd V, Weisner T. New Hope for the Working Poor: Effects after Eight Years for Families and Children. New York: MDRC, 2008.
Mistry 2002
    1. Mistry RS, Crosby DA, Huston AC, Casey DM, Ripke M. Lessons from New Hope: the impact on children's well‐being of a workbased anti‐poverty program for parents. In: Duncan GJ, Chase‐Lansdale L editor(s). For Better or Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well‐being of Families and Children. New York: Russell Sage, 2002:179‐200.
Moffitt 2004
    1. Moffitt RA. The role of randomized field trials in social science research: a perspective from evaluations of reforms of social welfare programs. American Behavioral Scientist 2004;47(5):506‐40.
Morris 2001
    1. Morris PA, Huston AC, Duncan GJ, Crosby DA, Bos JM. How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Children: A Synthesis of Research. How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Children: A Synthesis of Research. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2001:126.
Morris 2002
    1. Morris PA. The effects of welfare reform policies on children. Social Policy Report 2002;16(1):4‐19.
Morris 2003
    1. Morris PA, Gennetian LA. Identifying the effects of income on children's development using experimental data. Journal of Marriage & Family 2003;65(3):716‐29.
Morris 2003a
    1. Morris P, Bloom D, Kemple J, Hendra R. The effects of a time‐limited welfare program on children: the moderating role of parents' risk of welfare dependency. Child Development 2003; Vol. 74, issue 3:851‐74. - PubMed
Morris 2003b
    1. Morris P, Michalopoulos C. Findings from the Self‐Sufficiency Project: effects on children and adolescents of a program that increased employment and income. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2003; Vol. 24, issue 2:201‐39.
Morris 2003c
    1. Morris P, Bloom D, Kemple J, Hendra R. The effects of a time‐limited welfare program on children: the moderating role of parents' risk of welfare dependency. Child Development 2003;74:851‐74. - PubMed
Morris 2003d
    1. Morris P, Michalopoulos C. Findings from the Self‐Sufficiency Project: Effects on Children and Adolescents of a Program that Increased Employment and Income. Ottawa: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation, 2003:201‐39.
Morris 2004
    1. Morris P, Kalil A. Out‐of‐school time‐use during middle childhood in a low‐income sample: do combinations of activities affect achievement and behavior? The Self‐Sufficiency Project. In: Huston A, Kripke M editor(s). Developmental Contexts in Middle Childhood: Bridges to Adolescence and Adulthood. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004:237‐59.
Morris 2006
    1. Morris PA, Gennetian L, Fitzgerald HE, Lester BM, Zuckerman B. Welfare and antipoverty policy effects on children's development. The Crisis in Youth Mental Health: Critical Issues and Effective Programs. Vol. 1: Childhood disorders, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006:231‐55.
Morris 2008
    1. Morris PA. Welfare Program Implementation and Parents' Depression. Social Service Review 2008; Vol. 82, issue 4:579‐614. - PMC - PubMed
Morris 2009
    1. Morris PA, Hendra R. Losing the safety net: how a time‐limited welfare policy affects families at risk of reaching time limits. Developmental Psychology 2009;45(2):383‐400. - PMC - PubMed
Oakley 2003
    1. Oakley A, Strange V, Toroyan T, Wiggins M, Roberts I, Stephenson J. Using random allocation to evaluate social interventions: three recent U.K. examples. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2003;589:170‐189.
OECD 2009
    1. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Child well‐being and single parenthood. Doing better for children, 2009. dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264059344‐7‐en. New York: OECD, (accessed 5 March 2012).
Ogilvie 2005
    1. Ogilvie D, Egan M, Hamilton V, Petticrew M. Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go?. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2005;59(10):886‐92. - PMC - PubMed
Page 1997
    1. Page SB, Larner MB. Introduction to the AFDC program. Future of Children 1997; Vol. 7, issue 1:20‐7. - PubMed
Pavetti 2015
    1. Pavetti L. Testimony of LaDonna Pavetti, Ph. D. Vice President, Family Income Support Policy, Before the House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Hearing on State TANF Spending and its Impact on Work Requirements. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. http://www.cbpp.org/family‐income‐support/ladonna‐pavetti‐testifies‐befo... (accessed 12 March 2015).
Petticrew 2012
    1. Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Kristjansson E, Oliver S, Ueffing E, Welch V. Damned if you do, damned if you don't: subgroup analysis and equity. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2012;66(1):95‐8. - PubMed
Petticrew 2013
    1. Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66(11):1209‐14. - PubMed
Pratt 2008
    1. Pratt LA, Brody DJ. Depression in the United States household population 2005–2006. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief. U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008, issue 7.
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Riccio 1993
    1. Riccio J, Friedlander D, Freedman S. GAIN: Two‐Year Impacts in Six Counties. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1993.
Riccio 2008
    1. Riccio JA, Bewley H, Campbell‐Barr V, Dorsett R, Hamilton G, Hoggart L, et al. Implementation and second‐year impacts for lone parents in the UK Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) demonstration. Implementation and Second‐Year Impacts for Lone Parents in the UK Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Demonstration Leeds: Corporate Document Service; UK Department for Work and Pensions. 2008.
Ryan 2016
    1. Ryan R, Synnot A, Hill S, Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. Describing results Version 1.0 (updated June 2016). Available at cccrg.cochrane.org/author‐resources.
Schünemann 2011a
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Schünemann 2011b
    1. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (editors). GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2011. The GRADE Working Group, 2011. Available from guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook. Available from http://: The GRADE Working Group.
Scrivener 1998
    1. Scrivener S, Hamilton G, Farrell M, Freedman S, Friedlander D, Mitchell M, et al. GAIN: Two‐Year Impacts in Six Counties. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.
Scrivener 1998a
    1. Scrivener S, Hamilton G, Farrell M, Freedman S, Friedlander D, Mitchell M, et al. Evaluating Two Welfare‐to‐Work Program Approaches: Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs & Two‐Year Impacts of the Portland (Oregon) Welfare‐to‐Work Program. Evaluating Two Welfare‐to‐Work Program Approaches: Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs & Two‐Year Impacts of the Portland (Oregon) Welfare‐to‐Work Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1998.
Scrivener 2001
    1. Scrivener S, Walter J. Evaluating Two Approaches to Case Management: Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Three‐Year Impacts of the Columbus Welfare‐to‐Work Program. National Evaluation of Welfare‐to‐Work Strategies. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001:129.
Siegrist 2009
    1. Siegrist J, Benach B, McKnight A, Goldblatt P, Muntaner C. Employment arrangements, work conditions and health inequalities Report on new evidence on health inequality reduction. Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post 2010 (Marmot Review). www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/employment‐and‐work‐task‐group‐.... London, (accessed 5 March 2012).
Siontis 2011
    1. Siontis GCM, Ioannidis JPA. Risk factors and interventions with statistically significant tiny effects. International Journal of Epidemiology 2011;40:1292‐307. - PubMed
Spencer 2000
    1. Spencer N. Poverty and Child Health [Poverty and Child Health]. Poverty and Child Health. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 2000.
Spencer 2005
    1. Spencer N. Does material disadvantage explain the increased risk of adverse health, educational, and behavioural outcomes among children in lone parent households in Britain? A cross sectional study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2005; Vol. 59, issue 2:152‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Stewart 2011
    1. Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Clarke M. Chapter 19: Reviews of individual patient data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
Suhrcke 2009
    1. Suhrcke M, Paz NC, Otano C, Coutts A. Lone parents policies in the UK: the impact of the New Deal For Lone Parents (NDLP) on socioeconomic and health inequalities. Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post 2010 (Marmot Review), 2009. www.instituteofhealthequity.org/Content/FileManager/pdf/economic‐lone‐pa.... London, (accessed 9 March 2012).
Summer Budget 2015
    1. Her Majesty's Treasury. Summer Budget Report – July 2015. Stationery Office 2015; Vol. HC 264.
Targosz 2003
    1. Targosz S, Bebbington P, Brugha T, Farrell M, Jenkins R, Lewis G, et al. Lone mothers, social exclusion and depression. Psychological Medicine 2003; Vol. 33, issue 4:715‐22. - PubMed
Tattrie 2003
    1. Tattrie D, Ford R. Evaluation using random assignment experiments: demonstrating the effectiveness of earnings supplements. National Institute Economic Review 2003;186(1):73‐84.
The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 1998
    1. The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Early child care and self‐control, compliance, and problem behavior at 24 and 36 months. Child Development 1998; Vol. 69, issue 4:1145‐70. - PubMed
Thomson 2013
    1. Thomson H. Improving utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy: the three Rs (Relevance, Rigor, and Readability [and Resources]). American Journal of Public Health 2013;103(8):17‐23. - PMC - PubMed
Tout 2004
    1. Tout K, Brooks JL, Zaslow MJ, Redd Z, Moore KA, McGarvey A, et al. Welfare Reform and Children: A Synthesis of Impacts in Five states. Welfare Reform and Children: A Synthesis of Impacts in Five States. Washington DC: Administration for Children and Families, 2004.
Waddell 2006
    1. Waddell G, Burton AK. Is Work Good For Your Health And Well‐Being?. London: Department for Work and Pensions. Department for Work and Pensions, 2006.
Waldfogel 2007
    1. Waldfogel J, Danziger SK, Danziger S, Seefeldt K. Welfare Reforms and Child Well‐Being in the US and UK. Vol. 126, London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, 2007.
Weitoft 2003
    1. Weitoft GR, Hjern A, Haglund B, Rosén M. Mortality, severe morbidity, and injury in children living with single parents in Sweden: a population‐based study. Lancet 2003; Vol. 361, issue 9354:289‐95. - PubMed
Weitoft 2004
    1. Weitoft GR, Hjern A, Rosen M. School's out! Why earlier among children of lone parents?. International Journal of Social Welfare 2004; Vol. 13, issue 2:134‐44.
Whitehead 2000
    1. Whitehead M, Burstrom B, Diderichsen F. Social policies and the pathways to inequalities in health: a comparative analysis of lone mothers in Britain and Sweden. Social Science & Medicine 2000; Vol. 50, issue 2:255‐70. - PubMed
Wilk 2006
    1. Wilk P, Boyle MH, Dooley MD, Lipman EL. The Effect of the Self‐Sufficiency Project on Children. The Effect of the Self‐Sufficiency Project on Children. Ottawa: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation, 2006.
World Bank 2011
    1. World Bank. Country and Lending Groups Data. data.worldbank.org/about/country‐classifications/country‐and‐lending‐groups (accessed 13 September 2011).
Yoshikawa 2002
    1. Yoshikawa H, Magnuson KA, Bos JM, Hsueh J. Effects of Welfare and Anti‐Poverty Policies on Adult Economic and Middle‐Childhood Outcomes Differ for the “Hardest to Employ”. Effects of Welfare and Anti‐Poverty Policies on Adult Economic and Middle‐Childhood Outcomes Differ for the “Hardest to Employ”. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2002.
Yoshikawa 2003
    1. Yoshikawa H, Magnuson KA, Bos JM, Hsueh J. Effects of earnings‐supplement policies on adult economic and middle‐childhood outcomes differ for the "hardest to employ". Child Development 2003;74(5):1500‐21. - PubMed
Zaslow 2000
    1. Zaslow MJ, McGroder SM, Moore KA. Impacts on Young Children and Their Families Two Years After Enrollment: Findings From the Child Outcomes Study. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000.
Ziliak 2015
    1. Ziliak JP. Temporary assistance for needy families. Economics of Means‐Tested Transfer Programs. Chicago: NBER and University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Publication types

MeSH terms