Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

  • 0.08,5.00

Summary

The Grand Rapids LFA program focused on rapid job placement for single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients to increase employment and earnings and to decrease benefit receipt. This evaluation directly compared LFA with a separate intervention, HCD, in order to better understand which of the two interventions might be more effective. The distinctive features of LFA are rapid job placement and an emphasis on building work-related skills.

The Grand Rapids LFA program encouraged clients to move quickly into work without being selective about which job to take. Participants spent two weeks in a job club operated by public school staff, then began applying to jobs for up to three weeks. Participants who did not find a job during this period participated in unpaid work experiences, more job searching, vocational training, or basic education. Participants who completed the job club but remained unemployed could receive multiple rounds of short-term education or vocational training for periods of nine months. Case managers focused primarily on monitoring and enforcing participation and could impose financial sanctions for nonparticipation. Child care and transportation assistance were available.

The program’s primary population included single parents who received AFDC and were required to enroll in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills program. AFDC recipients were exempt from the enrollment requirement if they met any of the following: (1) had a child younger than 1, (2) had 3 or more children younger than 10, (3) were employed 30 hours or more per week, (4) were medically unable to work, (5) were in the last trimester of pregnancy, (6) had resided in a mental institution at all in the last 5 years, (7) had been enrolled in a rehabilitation center, or (8) were taking medication for a mental illness. Grand Rapids LFA was administered in Grand Rapids, MI.

The effectiveness of LFA when compared with HCD indicates the effect of the offer of services that are unique to LFA, or how much better LFA meets participants’ needs than HCD. LFA focused on placing people into jobs quickly to build work habits and skills, whereas HCD focused on providing education and training as a precursor to employment. Grand Rapids’ LFA and HCD programs were examined as part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies that also evaluated LFA and HCD programs in Atlanta, GA, and Riverside, CA, and also compared the effectiveness of two distinct strategies for AFDC recipients: HCD and LFA.

3131.06-Grand Rapids Labor F
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.

View table help

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 No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $565 per year 0.027 3099
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Supported favorable $-228 per year -0.083 3099
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support
* 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 Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1
Back to top

Implementation details

Dates covered by study

Individuals were randomly assigned between September 1991 and January 1994. The study reports impacts five years after random assignment.

Organizations implementing intervention

Grand Rapids LFA was implemented by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, which was the state agency for AFDC.

Populations served

All Grand Rapids LFA study participants were single parents who received AFDC benefits and were required to enroll in the JOBS program, a welfare-to-work program that required activities such as job searching, education, and job training as part of the Family Support Act of 1988. At the time of random assignment, 96 percent of participants were female, and the average participant was 28 years old. Half of participants were White; 39 percent of participants were Black or African American, not Hispanic; and 8 percent were Hispanic. Forty-one percent of participants did not have a high school diploma or GED.

AFDC recipients were exempt from the enrollment requirement if they (1) had children younger than 1, (2) had 3 or more children younger than 10, (3) were employed 30 hours or more per week, (4) were medically unable to work, (5) were in the last trimester of pregnancy, (6) had resided in a mental institution at all during the previous 5 years, (7) had been enrolled in a rehabilitation center, or (8) were taking medication for a mental illness.

Description of services implemented

The LFA program focused on rapid job placement. Staff encouraged clients to move quickly into work without being selective about which job to take. LFA program staff first assigned clients to a job club operated by public school staff in a community education center, which lasted for two weeks. Clients then spent up to three weeks applying to jobs. Clients had to make 6 in-person job inquiries or send 15 job inquiry letters per week. Participants who did not find a job during this period could go on to participate in unpaid work experiences, more job searching, vocational training, or basic education. Key elements of the program included the following:

  • Job clubs. Job clubs taught appropriate work behavior, job search skills, and career exploration. They included time for participants to call potential employers and schedule interviews from a “phone room.”
  • Basic education. Basic education programs included high school completion, GED, adult basic education, and English-as-a-second-language programs.
  • Vocational training. Vocational training was offered in areas such as automotive maintenance and repair, cabinet and furniture making, and truck driving. Participants could engage in vocational training for up to nine months.
  • Case management. Case managers, who had limited individualized involvement with clients, emphasized participation and enforced participation rules by requesting sanctions on nonparticipating clients. Case managers regularly visited service providers to ensure participants were attending programming. Case managers supported clients by directly paying child care providers and reimbursing transportation costs.
  • Sanctions. Sanctions were imposed by income maintenance staff and temporarily reduced AFDC grants by $88 per month. The first time participants were sanctioned, they had to meet participation requirements for five days before a sanction was lifted. Subsequent sanctions were only lifted after 10 days of appropriate participation.

Though education and training activities were available to LFA participants, they were not emphasized, and only 31 percent of participants engaged in any education or training activity. In contrast, 61 percent of HCD participants engaged in an education or training activity. Work experience, college education, and individual job search were available but rarely assigned in either condition.

Service intensity

Job clubs lasted for about one month, and clients who completed job club but remained unemployed could receive multiple rounds of short-term education or vocational training for periods of nine months. The study did not specify how long the program monitored clients to confirm that they participated in required activities.

Of the participants assigned to Grand Rapids LFA, 69 percent participated in any LFA activity, 48 percent participated in job search, and 31 percent participated in any education or training. Participants engaged in JOBS activities for an average of five months.

Comparison conditions

Participants in the comparison condition were randomly assigned to the HCD program. The HCD program focused on providing education and training to support future employment. Staff stressed that clients should spend time receiving education or training to prepare them for good jobs. Staff could impose financial sanctions (by reducing welfare grant amounts) if clients did not participate in required activities. In Grand Rapids, HCD began with a formal group assessment in the first week, during which public school staff spent 15 hours assessing achievement, aptitude, and career interests. Clients then usually participated in high school completion programs (distinct from GED classes) or vocational training. Case managers, who had limited individualized involvement with clients, emphasized participation and enforced participation rules by sanctioning nonparticipating clients. Case managers supported clients by directly paying child care providers and reimbursing transportation costs. A community education center offered job clubs. The program expected that most clients would complete training or educational activities within two years, but a longer duration could be approved based on client needs. The study did not specify how long the program monitored clients’ participation to examine whether a sanction should be applied to their case.

Partnerships

A community education center provided job clubs. Adult education programs were primarily provided by state and local educational institutions (though some participants attended programming at a for-profit learning center). Job Training Partnership Act agencies, public schools, and community colleges offered vocational training.

Staffing

Case managers developed participants’ service plans, provided supportive services, monitored participation, and requested that sanctions be imposed or lifted. They had about 10 years of work experience and about 6 years of experience in their current position, on average, and they all held bachelor’s degrees. They did not receive formal training on the JOBS program, though supervisors explained policies and procedures to new staff.

Income maintenance staff were authorized to impose and remove sanctions and referred individuals to the program. Their average caseload was 152 cases. On average, they had worked in their positions for 5.5 years. Less than one-third (30 percent) held a bachelor’s degree or higher. Case managers’ average caseload was 120 participants.

Teachers in the Adult Education programs had an average of eight years of experience.

The study authors did not include information on the number of staff.

Fidelity measures

The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the intervention model.

Funding source

Grand Rapids LFA was funded by the state of Michigan and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Education programs were typically funded by state and local education departments.

Cost information

The cost per participant was $8,940, including $3,314 in postsecondary education, $1,804 in vocational training, $1,422 in job search, and $1,368 in basic education costs. Program services for the HCD group were estimated to be $10,727 per participant, so services for LFA participants cost $1,787 less per participant. The study did not discuss a comparison of costs and benefits.

The information contained here reflects how the intervention was implemented at the time of the evaluation.

Local context

Grand Rapids LFA took place in Grand Rapids, MI. In 1993, the county unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. Grand Rapids averaged an AFDC caseload of 7,508, and the AFDC monthly grant was $474 for a family of 3. This grant amount was above the national median.

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
39%
White
50%
American Indian or Alaska Native
2%
Unknown, not reported, or other
3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
8%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

State(s) where implemented

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Canada

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.

Back to top