Share this program

Summary

The Atlanta 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, Atlanta Human Capital Development (HCD) Program, 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.

Atlanta LFA encouraged clients to move quickly into work without being selective about which job to take. Participants first spent up to three weeks in a job club operated in Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program offices and led by a community action agency. Then, participants applied to jobs for 1 to 2 weeks and were required to make 6 in-person inquiries or send 15 inquiry letters to employers per week. Individuals who did not find a job during this period could go on to participate in more job searching, vocational training, basic education, or unpaid work experience. Case managers offered counseling to participants during this time as well as child care and transportation assistance when needed. Case managers also could enforce participation rules by imposing sanctions on nonparticipating clients that temporarily reduced their welfare grant amounts by $45 for a family of three (in 1993 dollars). The sanction could last until the participant agreed to participate in the program activity. The combined job club and job search time lasted for about five weeks, and individuals who remained unemployed at the end of the five-week period could receive multiple rounds of short-term education or vocational training for up to 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. Atlanta LFA was administered in Atlanta, GA.

The effectiveness of LFA when compared with HCD indicates the effect of referral to the services that are unique to LFA, or how much better the offer of 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. Atlanta’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 Riverside, CA, and Grand Rapids, MI, and programs in Portland, OR; Detroit, MI; Oklahoma City, OK; and two programs in Columbus, OH (Columbus Integrated and Columbus Traditional).

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

Implementation at a glance

Primary service
Job search assistance
Program services
Case management, Job search assistance, On-the-job training, Paid work experience/internships, Transportation assistance, Unpaid work experience/internships
Setting(s)
Urban only
Year evaluation began
1992
Implementing organization(s)Georgia Department of Human 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 $656 per year 0.018 2936
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 favorable $-127 per year -0.037 2936
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 $12,532
Outstanding quality
Net benefit to participants, per participant -$547
Outstanding quality

Cost information

How much did the program cost per participant?

The average total program cost per participant was $12,532 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 -$547 per participant in 2024 dollars. This means that the net program benefit to participants (difference in benefits between the program and comparison group) was $547 less 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 $4,407 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
95%
White, not Hispanic
4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
1%

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.