Study Details | Pathways to Work

3131.06-Grand Rapids Labor F

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment (LFA) Program (as compared with Grand Rapids Human Capital Development [HCD] Program)

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents (Single parents)

Services provided:

Work and work-based learning (Unpaid work experience, Work experience), Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Evaluators randomly assigned a total of 4,554 single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients who were required to enroll in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program in Grand Rapids into the Labor Force Attachment (LFA) program, the Human Capital Development (HCD) program, or the comparison group. The random assignment occurred between September 1991 and January 1994 and followed a JOBS orientation (which not all JOBS-mandatory individuals attended, but they faced sanctions for failing to appear). AFDC recipients were exempt if they had children younger than 1, had three or more children under age 10, were employed 30 hours or more per week, were medically unable to work, were in the last trimester of pregnancy, resided in a mental institution at all during the previous five years, had been enrolled in a rehabilitation center, or were taking medication for a mental illness. Voluntary JOBS participants were not randomly assigned and were excluded from the analysis. The study included two- and five-year follow-up surveys of randomly selected individuals who were randomly assigned between March 1992 and January 1994. This review focuses on LFA versus HCD. Other reviews contrast LFA and the comparison condition and HCD and the comparison condition.

Time period of study:

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

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase long-term earnings, Decrease long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

None

Study funded by:

This study is part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS). The NEWWS evaluation was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation) and by the U.S. Department of Education.

Results

View table help Need more context or definitions for the table below? View the table help to get insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase long-term earnings	Total earnings over follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	21,616.00	22,323.00	707.00	1995 dollars	3,099
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits over follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	11,199.00	10,414.00	-785.00	1995 dollars	3,099
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Months of AFDC/TANF receipt over follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	28.20	26.90	-1.30	months	3,099

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

Among the 4,554 study participants (1,557 in the LFA program; 1,542 in the HCD program; and 1,455 in the comparison group), nearly 96 percent were female. The average age of study participants at the outset of the study was 28 years old. More than half of the participants were White, and almost 40 percent were Black. Nearly 58 percent were never married. Families had between 1 and 2 children, on average. Almost half (46 percent) of parents had some earnings in the past 12 months, and about 11 percent were employed at random assignment. Nearly 60 percent of parents had received a high school diploma or GED, and about 39 percent of parents were enrolled in education or training in the past 12 months. More than 99 percent received some AFDC benefits at the time of random assignment.

Age

Mean age

28 years

Sex

Female	96%
Male	4%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	39%
White	50%
American Indian or Alaska Native	2%
Unknown, not reported, or other	1%
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.

Family status

Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	11%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	5%
Had a high school diploma or GED	59%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	41%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

Program history:

NEWWS aimed to analyze the effectiveness of 11 mandatory welfare-to-work programs in 7 sites across the United States.

Intervention services:

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 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.

Mandatory services:

AFDC could be decreased if clients did not comply with program requirements.

Comparison services:

The HCD program focused on providing education and training. Staff stressed that clients should spend time receiving education or training to prepare them for good jobs. The program began with a 15-hour, weeklong formal assessment component, during which public school staff assessed participants’ achievement, aptitude, and career interests. Participants then usually completed either high school completion programs (distinct from GED classes) or vocational training. If participants did not have a high school diploma or GED, the program provided basic education classes in the public school system to help participants make progress toward their goals (such as increasing their literacy level or obtaining a GED certificate). As with the LFA program, case managers focused primarily on monitoring and enforcing participation and could impose financial sanctions for nonparticipation. Child care and transportation assistance were available.

Service receipt duration:

For the LFA group, 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 nine months. The study did not specify how long the program monitored clients to examine whether a sanction should be applied to their case.

Intervention funding:

NEWWS programs were funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through the Family Support Act.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $11,623 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $13,947 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $-2,324 per person. This represents how much more it cost to provide intervention services compared to comparison services.

These figures are based on cost information reported by study authors. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Hamilton, Gayle, Stephen Freedman, Lisa Gennetian, Charles Michalopoulos, Johanna Walter, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, Anna Gassman-Pines, Sharon McGroder, Martha Zaslow, Jennifer Brooks, and Surjeet Ahluwalia (2001). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year adult and child impacts for eleven programs, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_391.pdf.

Hamilton, Gayle, Thomas Brock, Mary Farrell, Daniel Friedlander, and Kristen Harknett (1997). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings on the Labor Force Attachment and Human Capital Development programs in three sites, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_96.pdf.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

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.

Study of Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment (LFA) Program (as compared with Grand Rapids Human Capital Development [HCD] Program)