Study Details | Pathways to Work

3131.09-Study of Riverside L

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition, suggesting the findings can be attributed to the program.

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

Characteristics of study participants:

Adults (age 25+), Cash assistance recipients, Parents, Public benefits recipients, Single parents, Unemployed

Services provided:

Basic skills/bridge programs, Case management, Job development, Job search assistance, Paid work experience/internships, Transportation assistance

Setting: Urban only

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Evaluators randomly assigned a total of 8,322 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 Riverside, CA, into the Labor Force Attachment (LFA) program, the Human Capital Development (HCD) program, or the comparison group. Random assignment occurred between June 1991 and June 1993. State law limiting eligibility for the HCD services resulted in two separate random assignment processes. Recipients without a high school diploma or GED, with reading or mathematics skills below a basic threshold, or requiring English-as-a-second-language instruction were randomly assigned to the HCD, LFA, or comparison groups. Recipients who did not meet any of these criteria at the time of random assignment were assigned to either the LFA or comparison group but not to the HCD group. AFDC recipients were exempt if they had children younger than age 3, were employed 30 hours or more per week, were medically unable to work, or were in the last trimester of pregnancy. The random assignment occurred following a JOBS orientation (which not all JOBS-mandatory individuals attended, despite facing sanctions for failing to appear). Voluntary JOBS participants were not randomly assigned and were excluded from the analysis. The study included a two-year follow-up survey, which followed individuals who were randomly assigned to the LFA, the HCD, or comparison conditions between March 1992 and December 1992. The evaluators also administered a five-year follow-up survey to people who were randomly assigned between September 1991 and May 1993. This review focuses on the LFA versus HCD groups, with the LFA sample restricted to those who could have been assigned to the HCD group. Other reviews on this site compare these two conditions to the comparison group.

Time period of study:

Evaluators randomly assigned people into groups for the study between June 1991 and June 1993. The study reports impacts up to five years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Child well-being

Study funded by:

The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) 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 definitions

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Program group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase long-term earnings	Total earnings over follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	12,273.00	13,193.00	920.00	1994 dollars	3,182
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	17,176.00	17,171.00	-5.00	1994 dollars	3,182
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Months of AFDC/TANF receipt, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	30.00	30.10	0.10	months	3,182

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.

Means are not displayed when not reported or not aligned with the impact estimates. For example, if the impact estimate is regression-adjusted but only unadjusted means are reported in the study, the unadjusted means are not displayed as they are not aligned with the adjusted impact estimate.

Impact estimates are not shown when the estimate units cannot be converted to natural units.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the program. 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 program, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the program 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

The study examined single parents who were Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients. Among the 8,322 study participants (3,384 in the Labor Force Attachment [LFA] program, 1,596 in the Human Capital Development [HCD] program, and 3,342 in the comparison group), nearly 90 percent were female and were an average age of 32 years old. About half of the participants were White, and more than 30 percent were Hispanic. At the time the study began, nearly 33 percent were never married, and the average number of children was two per family. About 41 percent of parents had some earnings in the past 12 months, and about 11 percent of parents were employed at random assignment. Nearly 56 percent of parents had received a high school diploma or general education diploma (GED), and about 20 percent of parents were enrolled in education or training in the past 12 months. Only 1 percent were not receiving AFDC benefits at random assignment.

Age

Mean age	32 years
Young adults (age 16-24)	16%
Adults (age 25+)	84%

Sex

Female	89%
Male	11%

Race and ethnicity

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

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

Married	33%
Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Employment and public benefit status

Were employed	11%
Were unemployed	89%
Public benefits recipients	100%
Were long-term cash assistance recipients	65%
Cash assistance recipients	100%

Education

Had some postsecondary education	5%
Had a high school diploma or GED	56%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	44%
Postsecondary credential	5%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

California Department of Social Services, state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program administrator.

Program history:

The JOBS program through which the LFA and HCD programs were administered was created through the 1988 Family Support Act legislation.

Program services:

The LFA program focused on rapid job placement. Staff encouraged clients to move quickly into work without being selective about which job to take. Staff could impose financial sanctions (by reducing welfare grant amounts) if clients did not participate in required activities. In Riverside, the LFA program staff first assigned clients to a job club that JOBS staff operated in a JOBS center. After one week of participating in job club, clients began applying to jobs for at least two weeks. Clients had to make 25 to 35 employer contacts per week. Job developers who worked closely with employers helped identify employment opportunities. People who completed the job club and job search process were assigned to a different (unspecified) program activity. Case managers were accountable for the employment and education outcomes of their clients and therefore encouraged success, emphasized program participation, and sanctioned nonparticipating clients. The program also offered support with child care and transportation costs.

Mandatory services:

Individuals in the LFA and HCD programs were required to receive services in order to remain eligible for public assistance.

Comparison services:

The HCD program focused on providing education and training to support future employment. Staff stressed that clients should spend time receiving education or in training to prepare them for good jobs. Staff could impose financial sanctions (by reducing welfare grant amounts) if clients did not participate in required activities. In Riverside, when clients eligible for the HCD did not have a high school diploma or GED, case managers rarely assigned clients to vocational training. Instead, clients usually attended basic education classes in the public school system and had to make progress toward their goals (such as by increasing their literacy level). Case managers were accountable for the employment and education outcomes of their clients and therefore encouraged success, emphasized program participation, and sanctioned nonparticipating clients. The program also offered support with child care and transportation costs.

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.

Program 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 $7,300 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $8,623 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $-1,323 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 to Work converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2024 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.

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.

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