The Jobs-First GAIN program began with a six-hour motivational meeting followed by job clubs, which were classroom sessions focused on participants’ job application techniques and a supervised job search. Participants were encouraged to take any job offer received, including low-wage positions. Job clubs lasted three weeks, but further job development services were available until the recipient found work, exited the welfare system, or both. Jobs-First GAIN focused on AFDC recipients. The Jobs-First GAIN evaluation took place in Los Angeles County, CA.
- 0.11,1.00
- 0.14,2.00
- 0.06,1.00
- 0.12,2.00
- 0.23,1.00
- 0.15,1.50
- 0.15,2.00
Summary
Jobs-First GAIN emphasized a rapid employment strategy to help recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) improve their earnings and employment outcomes.
Populations and employment barriers: Cash assistance recipients, Parents
Populations and employment barriers: Cash assistance recipients, Parents, Single parents
Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain
Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below?
View the "Table help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.
Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns
| Outcome domain | Term | Effectiveness rating | Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages | Effect in standard deviations | Sample size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Increase earnings | Short-term | 
|
$1,234 per year
|
0.059 | 20731 |
| Long-term |
|
$2,573 per year
|
0.123 | 20731 | |
| Very long-term |  |
||||
| Increase employment | Short-term |
|
9% (in percentage points)
|
0.213 | 20731 |
| Long-term |
|
6% (in percentage points)
|
0.147 | 20731 | |
| Very long-term | |
||||
| Decrease benefit receipt | Short-term |
|
$-292 per year
|
-0.106 | 20731 |
| Long-term |
|
$-382 per year
|
-0.139 | 20731 | |
| Very long-term | |
||||
| Increase education and training | All measurement periods | |
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.
Effectiveness rating key:
-
Well-supported
-
Supported
-
Not supported
-
Mixed support
-
Insufficient evidence
-
No evidence
Studies of this intervention
| Study quality rating | Study counts per rating |
|---|---|
 High
|
2 |
Implementation details
Dates covered by study
Jobs-First GAIN began in 1988 and most features of the program continue today under CalWORKS, California’s Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. Evaluators studied the Jobs-First GAIN Program from April 1996 to March 1998. Evaluators estimated impacts after one year and after two years of the program.
Organizations implementing intervention
Jobs-First GAIN is implemented by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (LA DPSS), which was the county’s AFDC agency.
Populations served
As the intervention was conducted during the AFDC era, the population served was a population of AFDC recipients. AFDC recipients were mandated to participate unless they had a disabling illness, were employed 30 or more hours per week, lived in a remote area that made program activities inaccessible, or if they were in their last trimester of pregnancy. Single parents that received AFDC were also exempt if they had a child under younger than 3. Individuals could volunteer for the program, but these participants were not included in the evaluation.
The single-parent household intervention group was 45 percent Hispanic, 31 percent African-American, 17 percent non-Hispanic white, and 6 percent Asian. Seven percent of this group identified as male while 93 percent of the group identified as female.
The two-parent household intervention group was 46 percent Hispanic, 28 percent non-Hispanic white, 20 percent Asian (primarily Indochinese), and 5 percent African American. Fifty-three percent of this group identified as male while 47 percent of this group identified as female.
Description of services implemented
The Jobs-First GAIN program began with a six-hour motivational meeting that emphasized a message to rapidly secure work first, followed by an individual meeting with a case manager. Participants then attended job clubs, run by the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), for three weeks. These were classroom sessions focused on participants’ job application techniques. After the job club, participants conducted up to two weeks of supervised job searching, with the assistance of Jobs-First GAIN staff, using job listings and agency phone banks. Participants were encouraged to take any job they were offered, including low-wage positions. Further job development services were available until the recipient found work, exited the welfare system, or both.
All Jobs-First GAIN participants attended the initial six-hour meeting, but relatively few participants (30 to 38 percent) engaged with employment-related activities after attending orientation. Of the individuals that did participate in employment-related activities, most participated in only the job club, and most participated in only one of the three weeks of job club. About 70 percent of participants received warnings that their grant might be reduced for nonattendance within the first year after entering the program.
Service intensity
Participants were expected to attend a 6-hour orientation, followed by 3 weeks of job clubs, and then 10 days of supervised job searching. Job clubs took place 5 days per week. By the end of each day of supervised job searching, each participant was expected to make at least 50 phone calls to employers, find at least 5 job opening leads, and either schedule or attend 3 interviews. Although service uptake was relatively low after orientation, study authors indicated that exposure to the “work first” message and Work Pays incentives might have encouraged individuals to find jobs on their own. In addition, DPSS administrators asserted that the mandatory participation requirements pushed participants to let staff know when they found employment.
Comparison conditions
The comparison group members for the evaluation were unable to receive the Jobs-First GAIN services but were eligible to receive cash assistance and Food Stamp payments, could seek other services in the community, and could receive child care assistance from DPSS for employment-related programs they signed up for on their own. Comparison group members were also eligible for Work Pays, which allowed welfare recipients who found a job to continue receiving welfare benefits and stay eligible for Medicaid. However, evaluators found that it was unlikely that many of the comparison group participants knew about this program.
Partnerships
The LACOE partnered with LA DPSS to design and operate job clubs for the participants.
Staffing
Jobs-First GAIN participants worked with income maintenance workers, LACOE staff, job developers, and case managers.
- Income maintenance workers managed the financial aspects of a participant’s case and were responsible for evaluating if an individual should be required to enroll in the program.
- LACOE staff facilitated the job clubs, providing participants with instruction on job application techniques.
- Job developers cultivated relationships with local employers to create lists of available jobs and then worked to assess and match participants to positions. They would also arrange mini job fairs with a few employers at a time to facilitate the job matching process.
- Case managers encouraged participants to engage with program activities and could reduce a participant’s grant for not meeting program requirements.
The evaluation did not include information on the number of staff or their training, degrees, or certifications.
Fidelity measures
The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the intervention model.
Funding source
Jobs-First GAIN is funded by LA DPSS. This funding was made possible through a waiver granted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that raised the income limit for participants to continue receiving government assistance.
Cost information
The average cost per participant was $4,930 in 2018 dollars.
This figure is based on cost information reported by authors of the study or studies the Pathways Clearinghouse reviewed for this intervention. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. Where there are multiple studies of an intervention rated high or moderate quality, the Pathways Clearinghouse computed the average of costs reported across those studies.
Cost information is not directly comparable across interventions due to differences in the categories of costs reported and the amount of time interventions lasted. Cost information is not an official price tag or guarantee.
State(s) where implemented
The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.