Study Details | Pathways to Work

90002-Standard Job Club ve

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: Standard Job Club (as compared with Fast Track Job Club)

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients

Services provided:

Soft skills training, Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

This study is a randomized controlled trial. To qualify for study enrollment, individuals had to (1) be enrolled in the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) cash assistance program, (2) not previously have completed a Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance (DHA) job club, (3) have been deemed a suitable candidate by program staff, and (4) consent to study participation. Random assignment took place from 2016 to 2018, with 493 participants randomly assigned to either the intervention condition (Standard Job Club) or the comparison condition (Fast Track Job Club).

Time period of study:

Study participants were randomly assigned between April 2016 and July 2017. The study followed participants for three quarters after they completed the eight-week program.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase earnings, Increase short-term earnings, Increase employment, Increase short-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Job quality

Study funded by:

Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, within ACF at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

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 short-term earnings	Total earnings over follow-up period	Quarters 1–3	High	7,003.00	7,467.00	464.00	2017 dollars	477
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Month 6	High	33.90	48.50	14.60	percentage points	240
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 3	High	55.20	58.00	2.80	percentage points	477
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Quarters 1–2	High	2,827.00	2,797.00	-30.00	2017 dollars	479
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Quarters 1–2	High	2,534.00	2,517.00	-17.00	2017 dollars	479
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, follow-up period	Quarters 1–2	High	95.50	96.70	1.20	percentage points	479
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, follow-up period	Quarters 1–2	High	98.50	96.20	-2.30	percentage points	479

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

All participants received public welfare benefits via CalWORKs. Most (70 percent) participants identified as female, 35 percent of participants identified as Black, 34 percent identified as White, and 15 percent identified as Hispanic (15 percent of participants did not disclose their race). About one-quarter (24 percent) of participants lacked a high-school diploma or equivalent certificate, whereas about 42 percent had at least some college education. Average earnings in the year before random assignment were around $6,800.

Sex

Female	70%
Male	31%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	35%
White, not Hispanic	34%
Unknown or not reported	15%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	15%

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.

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%
Were long-term cash assistance recipients	66%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	42%
Had a high school diploma or GED	76%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	24%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance (DHA)

Program history:

Both the Standard Job Club and Fast Track Job Club began operations in 2016. Sacramento County's DHA developed and operated both programs.

Intervention services:

Intervention group members enrolled in a Standard Job Club. This consisted of an eight-week program broken into three-week and five-week segments. The first segment required that enrollees attend one week of daily eight-hour group classes on workplace behavior skills and two weeks of daily eight-hour group classes on job-search skills. The second segment required that enrollees complete five weeks of supervised job search. During this time, enrollees had to make daily trips to the Standard Job Club office, where they receive individual assistance from program staff.

Mandatory services:

Noncompliance with the program could lead to enrollees losing part of their CalWORKS cash assistance benefit.

Comparison services:

Comparison group members enrolled in a Fast Track Job Club. The eight-week program was broken into three-and-one-half-day and seven-week segments. The first segment required that enrollees attend three days of eight-hour daily group classes on job-search skills and one half day of individual meetings and activities with Fast Track Job Club staff. The second segment required that enrollees complete seven weeks of independent job search. During this time, enrollees had to make weekly trips to the Fast Track Job Club office to meet with program staff. Noncompliance with the program could lead to enrollees losing part of their cash assistance.

Service receipt duration:

Both the Standard Job Club and Fast Track Job Club were eight-week programs.

Intervention funding:

CalWorks (California Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)

Study publications

Martinson, Karin, Alicia Meckstroth, Eleanor Harvill, Correne Saunders, Daniel Litwok, and Steve Bates (2019). Implementation and relative impacts of two job search assistance programs in Sacramento County, California, OPRE Report #2019-72, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/jsa_sacramento_report_final2_withcover_508.pdf.

Martinson, Karin, Eleanor Harvill, and Deena Schwartz (2020). The effectiveness of different approaches for moving cash assistance recipients to work: Findings from the Job Search Assistance Strategies Evaluation, OPRE Report #2020-113, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/jsa_cross_site_paper_sep_2020.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 Standard Job Club versus Fast Track Job Club