Share this program

Summary

The Riverside Labor Force Attachment (LFA) program focused on rapid job placement for single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients to promote self-sufficiency. This evaluation directly compared LFA to a separate program called Riverside Human Capital Development (HCD) in order to better understand which of the two programs might be more effective; the distinctive features of LFA were rapid job placement and an emphasis on building work-related skills.

The Riverside LFA program encouraged clients to move quickly into work without being selective about which job to take. Participants first spent three weeks in a job club operated by Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program staff at the local public assistance office. Then, participants applied to jobs for at least 2 weeks and were required to make 25 to 35 employer contacts per week. Case managers were accountable for the employment outcomes of their clients and therefore encouraged success by recommending that participants take the first available job (including part-time or low-paying jobs) while full-time job developers continued searching for other opportunities for the participant. Case managers also emphasized program participation. Staff could impose financial sanctions (by reducing welfare grant amounts) if clients did not participate in required activities. The program also offered support with child care and transportation costs. The combined job club and job search time lasted for about five weeks, and clients who completed these activities but remained unemployed at the end of the five-week period could receive multiple rounds of short-term education or vocational training for periods of nine months. Eligible participants included single parents who received AFDC and who were required to enroll in the JOBS program as a condition of continuing to receive public benefits. However, AFDC recipients were exempt from JOBS if they had children younger than 3, were employed 30 hours or more per week, were medically unable to work, or were in the last trimester of pregnancy. Riverside LFA was administered in Riverside, CA.

The effectiveness of LFA when compared with HCD indicates the effect of being referred to a set of services that are unique to LFA, or how much better LFA meets participants’ needs than the offer of 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. Riverside’s 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 Grand Rapids, MI, and also compared the effectiveness of two distinct strategies for AFDC recipients: HCD and LFA.

Populations and employment barriers: Public benefits recipients, Cash assistance recipients, Adults (age 25+), Unemployed, Parents, Single parents

Implementation at a glance

Primary service
Job development
Program services
Basic skills/bridge programs, Case management, Job development, Job search assistance, Paid work experience/internships, Transportation assistance
Setting(s)
Urban only
Year evaluation began
1991
Implementing organization(s)California Department of Social Services

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

View table definitions

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2024 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Cannot assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $1,531 per year 0.042 3182
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Increase employment Short-term Cannot assess support
Long-term Cannot assess support
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Cannot assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $7 per year 0.002 3182
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Cannot assess support

Effectiveness ratings

  • Well- supported
  • Supported
  • Mixed support
  • Not supported
  • Insufficient evidence
  • Cannot assess support

Studies of this program

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1

Program cost

No cost information available.

Cost results

Estimate (in 2024 dollars) Quality of cost analysis that produced the estimate
Total program cost, per participant $9,939
Outstanding quality
Net benefit to participants, per participant $2,630
Outstanding quality

Cost information

How much did the program cost per participant?

The average total program cost per participant was $9,939 in 2024 dollars. This figure is based on cost information for this program reported in one cost study reviewed by Pathways to Work (for details, see the FAQ). This study received a rating of Outstanding quality for the cost analysis.

How much did the program cost relative to the benefits it generated?

A cost-benefit analysis was conducted in the cost study reviewed, receiving a rating of Outstanding quality. The net benefit to participants was $2,630 per participant in 2024 dollars. This means that the net program benefit to participants (difference in benefits between the program and comparison group) was $2,630 more than the net cost of the program to participants. The estimate is expressed as the net present value, which accounts for differences in the timing of when benefits and costs occurred. In addition, the net benefit to government was $1,189 per participant in 2024 dollars.

Cost information is not directly comparable across programs due to differences in the categories of costs reported and program length. Cost information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Implementation details

Local context

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
17%
White, not Hispanic
49%
Another race
3%
American Indian or Alaska Native
1%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
30%

Pathways to Work refers to programs by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some program names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.