Study Details | Pathways to Work

2955.2955-Los Angeles, CA Empl

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: Enhanced Job Club (EJC)

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Employment status and income level (Unemployed), Parents (Single parents)

Services provided:

Employment retention services, Work readiness activities (Employment coaching, Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The study focused on individuals who were unemployed, receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and participating in California's mandatory welfare-to-work program for this evaluation. Selected individuals were randomly assigned between June 2004 and September 2004 to either the Enhanced Job Club (EJC) or Traditional Job Club (TJC) groups. This study includes 1,183 research sample members who were single parents. (Another study examines effects for two-parent families.) A random sample of participants was selected to participate in a 12-month follow-up survey. Of these 809 participants who were randomly selected to participate in the survey, 608 responded: 311 from the ERA group and 297 from the comparison group.

Time period of study:

Random assignment occurred from June 2004 to September 2004 and follow-up lasted three years.

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

Other outcome domains examined:

None

Study funded by:

The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in ACF at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded the study, with support from the U.S. Department of Labor.

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 1–6	High	8,730.00	9,103.00	373.00	2006 dollars	1,183
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 3	High	9,098.00	8,875.00	-223.00	2007 dollars	1,183
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	12 months	High	36.30	37.10	0.80	percentage points	608
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Quarters 1–6	High	33.10	37.20	4.10	percentage points	1,183
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	49.50	50.60	1.10	percentage points	1,183
Increase long-term employment	Employed at any time in follow-up period	Years 1–3	High	82.80	82.60	-0.20	percentage points	1,183
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 3	High	36.20	37.40	1.20	percentage points	1,183
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Quarters 1–6	High	7,434.00	7,596.00	162.00	2006 dollars	1,183
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Quarters 1–6	High	3,849.00	3,918.00	69.00	2006 dollars	1,183
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	63.60	63.90	0.30	percentage points	1,183
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	64.40	66.10	1.70	percentage points	1,183
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average annual AFDC/TANF benefits received, follow-up period	Years 1–3	High	3,926.00	4,037.00	111.00	2006 dollars	1,183
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average annual Food Stamp/SNAP benefits received, follow-up period	Years 1–3	High	2,125.00	2,213.00	88.00	2006 dollars	1,183
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 3	High	57.30	58.20	0.90	percentage points	1,183
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 3	High	52.30	55.20	2.90	percentage points	1,183

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 study involved 1,183 unemployed single-parent TANF clients. Among all study participants, 91 percent were women. Participants’ average age was 30, and 57 percent had one or two children. More than half (56 percent) were Hispanic, and 35 percent were Black. Most participants spoke English, and 15 percent spoke Spanish. Slightly more than half of the members did not have a high school diploma or a GED.

Age

Mean age

30 years

Sex

Female	91%
Male	9%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	35%
Unknown, not reported, or other	9%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	56%

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

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	48%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	52%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (state TANF agency) and Los Angeles County Office of Education

Program history:

Development of the EJC model began in 2000. The model was first implemented in 2002.

Intervention services:

The EJC model aimed to increase unemployed TANF clients' employment retention and advancement in fields aligned with their occupational interests. EJC included classroom activities and targeted job search activities, and clients had access to a job developer and a job coach. EJC was provided over the course of five weeks. During the first week, individuals participated in a career planning and job search preparation workshop. During the second week, participants refined plans and discussed their job search. During the third and fourth weeks, individuals who remained unemployed expanded the scope of their job search. During the fifth week, individuals who remained unemployed received individualized job search assistance.

Mandatory services:

Participants were mandated to participate in the assigned job club and could face sanctions for failing to do so. (The fifth week of the EJC condition was voluntary.)

Comparison services:

Individuals in the comparison group received job club services through a TJC model. The TJC model aimed to place unemployed TANF clients rapidly in any job, including jobs not necessarily aligned with clients’ occupational interests. TJC operated over a three-week period and included mostly job search activities.

Service receipt duration:

EJC services lasted for five weeks.

Intervention funding:

California TANF

Study publications

Hendra, Richard, Keri-Nicole Dillman, Gayle Hamilton, Erika Lundquist, Karin Martinson, Melissa Wavelet, Aaron Hill, and Sonya Williams (2010). The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/the-employment-retention-and-advancement-project-how-effective-are.

Navarro, David, Gilda Azurdia, and Gayle Hamilton (2008). The Employment Retention and Advancement project: A comparison of two job club strategies: The effects of Enhanced versus Traditional Job Clubs in Los Angeles, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/era_la.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 Enhanced Job Club (EJC)—Single Parents