Rethinking Workforce Development Effectiveness: Human Capital Development Services and Baseline Income Differences Among Low-Income Women

Background and Purpose: Workforce development programs are central to promoting economic mobility among low-income populations, yet their effectiveness remains uneven—particularly for low-income women. Employment in health professions offers a promising pathway to self-sufficiency, but evidence on government-funded programs remains mixed. The Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) 1.0 showed limited overall impacts on earnings, though emerging evidence suggests that outcomes may vary by service type. In particular, Human Capital Development (HCD) services, such as occupational training and subsidized employment, may play a key role in improving economic outcomes. At the same time, participants enter programs with unequal baseline income, which may shape both program engagement and outcomes. This study revisits the HPOG 1.0 data to assess whether participation in HCD services promotes economic self-sufficiency among low-income women and whether baseline income shapes these effects.

Methods: This study uses data from HPOG 1.0, a multi-site randomized controlled trial across 17 program sites. The analytic sample includes 4,770 female participants who received TANF or reported household income below $20,000 at baseline. The primary outcome is attainment of earnings above the poverty line at 15 months and 3 years post-randomization. Participants are categorized into three groups: (1) those receiving HCD services, (2) those receiving non-HCD services (e.g., job readiness or soft skills training), and (3) a control group. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) is applied to adjust for baseline differences. Multilevel logistic regression models estimate treatment effects, incorporating baseline income categories and interaction terms to assess heterogeneity in impacts.

Results: Participation in HCD services was associated with higher odds of achieving earnings above the poverty line compared to the control group at both 15 months (OR = 1.27, 95% CI [1.03, 1.57]) and 3 years (OR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.10, 1.66]). In contrast, non-HCD services did not show a statistically significant advantage after adjustment. Predicted probabilities indicate that by 3 years, 49% of HCD participants achieved earnings above the poverty line, compared to 42% in the control group and 40% in the non-HCD group. Baseline income was a strong predictor of outcomes, with those entering the program with no income facing substantially lower odds of economic advancement. Notably, interaction results show that HCD services yield the greatest relative benefit for participants with the lowest baseline income. At 3 years, the HCD × $0 income interaction was statistically significant (OR = 2.30, 95% CI [1.53, 3.46]).

Conclusions and Implications: Findings suggest that more intensive, skill-based interventions can help offset initial economic disadvantage. HCD services appear more effective in supporting upward mobility among low-income women starting from the most disadvantaged position. These results highlight the importance of designing workforce policies that explicitly account for unequal starting points and prioritize those facing the greatest barriers. Strengthening targeted, evidence-based program design is essential for expanding meaningful economic opportunities and building inclusive pathways to self-sufficiency.