Study Details | Pathways to Work

24968.02-Los Angeles County T

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: Los Angeles County Transitional Subsidized Employment Program—On-the-Job Training (OJT)

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents

Services provided:

Training, Work and work-based learning (On-the-job training, Subsidized employment)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

In Los Angeles County, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients who were not exempt from TANF work requirements were referred to the county's welfare-to-work program, Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN). TANF participants referred to GAIN participated in a four-week job club. Individuals who had not secured unsubsidized employment by the fourth week were assessed for additional GAIN activities that could improve their employability. At this point, or after completing additional GAIN activities, GAIN caseworkers recruited individuals for Transitional Subsidized Employment if they met the following additional criteria: (1) were able to work the hours required by On-the-Job Training (OJT) or Paid Work Experience (PWE), another intervention examined in this evaluation; (2) had at least five months of TANF eligibility remaining; (3) did not participate in Transitional Subsidized Employment in the last year; (4) did not have major employment barriers; and (5) demonstrated to staff that they could work and wanted to work (assessed by staff in various ways across locations). A total of 2,622 individuals who elected to participate were randomly assigned (with equal probability) between November 2012 and November 2013 to one of three groups: (1) PWE, (2) OJT, or (3) a comparison group eligible for standard welfare-to-work services. This review discusses the contrast of the OJT group versus the comparison group. Other Pathways Clearinghouse reviews analyze the contrasts of PWE versus the comparison group and PWE versus OJT.

Time period of study:

The study was conducted from November 2012 to April 2016. Individuals were randomly assigned between November 2012 and November 2013, and the evaluation followed individuals for about 30 months after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Health, Well-being, Social support

Study funded by:

ACF in 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	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	4,476.00	5,745.00	1,269.00	2013 dollars	1,748
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Quarters 6–9	High	9,777.00	9,951.00	174.00	2015 dollars	1,748
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Month 12	High	38.90	44.30	5.40	percentage points	1,392
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	14.90	20.70	5.80	percentage points	1,748
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 5	High	47.20	53.60	6.40	percentage points	1,748
Increase short-term employment	Number of quarters employed, annual	Year 1	High	1.50	2.00	0.50	quarters	1,748
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Month 30	High	56.50	56.90	0.40	percentage points	1,381
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Quarters 6–9	High	38.10	41.50	3.40	percentage points	1,748
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Quarters 6–9	High	68.00	70.30	2.30	percentage points	1,748
Increase long-term employment	Number of quarters employed, annual	Quarters 6–9	High	2.10	2.30	0.20	quarters	1,748
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	5,061.00	4,881.00	-180.00	2013 dollars	1,748
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	4,330.00	4,410.00	80.00	2013 dollars	1,748
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of UI payments, annual	Year 1	High	316.00	224.00	-92.00	2013 dollars	1,748
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received a child care subsidy or voucher, monthly	Month 12	High	14.00	13.80	-0.20	percentage points	1,392
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 1	High	99.30	99.90	0.60	percentage points	1,748
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received SNAP, monthly	Month 12	High	84.20	84.50	0.30	percentage points	1,392
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Quarters 6–9	High	3,390.00	3,241.00	-149.00	2015 dollars	1,748
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Quarters 6–9	High	3,311.00	3,363.00	52.00	2015 dollars	1,748
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of UI payments, annual	Quarters 6–9	High	182.00	222.00	40.00	2015 dollars	1,748
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received a child care subsidy or voucher, monthly	Month 30	High	4.70	4.10	-0.60	percentage points	1,381
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Quarters 6–9	High	67.70	67.10	-0.60	percentage points	1,748
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received benefits from Section 8 or other housing assistance programs, monthly	Month 30	High	9.90	11.60	1.70	percentage points	1,381
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received public assistance or welfare (not including WIC or Food Stamps), monthly	Month 30	High	48.90	47.10	-1.80	percentage points	1,381
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received SNAP, monthly	Month 30	High	68.60	69.10	0.50	percentage points	1,381
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Supplemental Security Income, monthly	Month 30	High	5.60	6.00	0.40	percentage points	1,381
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received UI, monthly	Month 30	High	1.90	2.60	0.70	percentage points	1,381
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received WIC benefits, monthly	Month 30	High	24.70	26.60	1.90	percentage points	1,381
Increase education and training	Earned professional license or certification	Month 12	High	13.10	9.30	-3.80	percentage points	1,392
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED	Month 12	High	1.60	1.20	-0.40	percentage points	1,392

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

The program served TANF participants who were unable to secure unsubsidized employment after a four-week job club. At the time of random assignment, all participants were unemployed parents. Participants were predominately young, single females. Across all three study groups included in the evaluation, the average age was 32 years. About 86 percent of study participants were female, and about 86 percent were not married. More than half (55 percent) of participants were Hispanic, and 32 percent were Black and non-Hispanic. More than two-thirds (68 percent) had been on TANF for a year or more, and more than one-third (39 percent) lacked a high school diploma or equivalent. About one-third (35 percent) of participants had worked fewer than six months over the last three years, and about half (48 percent) had never worked for the same employer for more than six months.

Age

Mean age

32 years

Sex

Female	86%
Male	15%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	32%
White, not Hispanic	7%
Asian	3%
Another race	4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	55%

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	14%
Parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were unemployed	100%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	61%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	39%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	2%
Were formerly incarcerated	6%
Were experiencing homelessness	6%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

The program was operated by the county TANF administrator in partnership with regional welfare-to-work offices and the local Workforce Investment Board. For the OJT group, employment was provided at private, for-profit employers.

Program history:

The Los Angeles County Transitional Subsidized Employment program started in 2003 but has been adapted somewhat over time.

Intervention services:

TANF recipients randomly assigned to the OJT intervention had the opportunity to be placed in a partially subsidized, six-month position in the private sector. OJT participants were paid up to $8 an hour by the Workforce Investment Board for the first two months, and then employers were expected to move the participants to their own payrolls, for which they received a partial subsidy (up to $550 per month). Forty-two percent of the OJT individuals were placed in subsidized employment, and the average placement lasted 84 days.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

The comparison group had access to TANF's standard welfare-to-work activities and supportive services.

Service receipt duration:

Participants assigned to the OJT program were offered two months of fully subsidized employment, followed by four months of partially subsidized employment.

Intervention funding:

ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $7,707 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $4,237 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $3,470 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

Anderson, Chloe, Mary Farrell, Asaph Glosser and Bret Barden (2019). Testing two subsidized employment models for TANF recipients: Final impacts and costs of the Los Angeles County Transitional Subsidized Employment Program, OPRE Report #2019-71, 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/opre/stedla_final_2019_508.pdf.

Glosser, Asaph, Bret Barden, Sonya Williams, and Chloe Anderson (2016). Testing two subsidized employment approaches for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implementation and early impacts of the Los Angeles County Transitional Subsidized Employment Program, OPRE Report #2016-77, 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.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/STED-LA_2016_FR.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 Los Angeles County Transitional Subsidized Employment Program—On-the-Job Training (OJT)