Share this intervention

  • -0.14,1.00
  • -0.12,2.25
  • -0.06,1.00
  • -0.08,1.00

Summary

The Los Angeles County Transitional Subsidized Employment Program—OJT provided partially subsidized work opportunities to move Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients into unsubsidized permanent employment. This evaluation directly compared OJT to a separate intervention, PWE, in order to better understand which of the two interventions might be more effective; the distinctive features of OJT include job placement in the for-profit sector without job search assistance.

At the time this evaluation occurred, two Transitional Subsidized Employment programs were active in Los Angeles County: OJT and a paid work experience (PWE) program. OJT placed participants in a partially subsidized, six-month position at a for-profit, private-sector organization, where they were paid $8 an hour by the local Workforce Investment Board (WIB) for the first two months. The intervention aimed to have participants make the transition into unsubsidized positions with the same employer when the subsidy ended. The average placement lasted two and a half months.

TANF recipients who were not exempt from TANF work requirements were referred to Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN), the county’s welfare-to-work program. (Work requirement exemptions could be due to having very young children, having a disability, or caring for an ill or disabled person.) Participants who were not able to find unsubsidized work during their four-week job search under GAIN were recruited for Transitional Subsidized Employment if they met the following additional criteria: (1) able to work the hours required by OJT or PWE; (2) had at least five months of TANF eligibility remaining; (3) did not participate in Transitional Subsidized Employment in the last year; (4) did not have major employment barriers; and (5) had demonstrated to staff that they could and wanted to work (assessed by staff in various ways across locations). OJT was offered in Los Angeles County, CA.

This evaluation of OJT also analyzes the PWE model, and a comparison of OJT versus PWE. The effectiveness of OJT when compared with the PWE indicates the effect of being referred to a set of services that includes those unique to OJT; the comparison indicates how much better the offer of OJT meets participants’ needs than the offer of PWE. The Workforce Investment Board only paid participants’ wages for the first two months of each OJT job placement, compared to all six months of each PWE placement; this meant that, starting in the third month, employers had to add OJT participants to their payroll and would receive a partial subsidy PWE participants were placed in the nonprofit and public sectors, whereas OJT participants were placed in the for-profit sector. Unlike PWE participants, those in OJT could not receive wages for any time spent searching for jobs, nor did they have access to job search assistance from case managers. The evaluation of OJT as compared with PWE also tested OJT and PWE separately, compared with other services available in the community.

Populations and employment barriers: Cash assistance recipients, 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 Not supported unfavorable $-1,150 per year -0.055 1745
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $-753 per year -0.036 1745
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Not supported unfavorable -1% (in percentage points) -0.036 1745
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable -1% (in percentage points) -0.028 1745
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Not supported unfavorable $385 per year 0.140 1745
Long-term Not supported unfavorable $187 per year 0.068 1745
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Little evidence to assess support favorable 1% (in percentage points) 0.022 1398

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1

Implementation details

Cost information

The average cost per participant was $10,404 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.

Local context

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
32%
Asian
3%
Unknown or not reported
10%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
55%
No state or region specified.

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.