Study Details | Pathways to Work

3176.01-GAIN: Program strate

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: Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN)

Population and employment barriers:

Parents (Single parents)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (On-the-job training, Subsidized employment, Work experience), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Single-parent applicants for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with school-age children were required to register for potential participation in GAIN; other AFDC applicants could volunteer to participate in the program. Potential participants who attended a program orientation and appraisal at a GAIN office were randomly assigned to an intervention or a comparison group. The period over which random assignment occurred varied across sites, and ended in each site when target sample sizes were achieved. Random assignment was complete in all sites by June 1990. On average, about 78 percent of single parents were assigned to the intervention group across sites.

Time period of study:

Random assignment took place between January 1987 and October 1988. Data were collected up to nine years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Physical health, Mental health, Housing, Couple relationships, Family formation

Study funded by:

California State Department of Social 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	1,642.00	1,908.00	266.00	1991 dollars	22,791
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	3,107.00	3,800.00	693.00	1995 dollars	22,791
Increase very long-term earnings	Average annual earnings	Years 7-9	High	5,206.00	5,871.00	665.00	1999 dollars	1,205
Increase very long-term earnings	Average annual earnings	Years 7-9	High	3,386.00	3,689.00	303.00	1999 dollars	4,396
Increase very long-term earnings	Average annual earnings	Years 7-9	High	4,174.00	4,585.00	411.00	1999 dollars	5,508
Increase very long-term earnings	Average annual earnings	Years 7-9	High	4,948.00	5,394.00	446.00	1999 dollars	8,219
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	35.50	39.60	4.10	percentage points	22,791
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 5	High	36.40	39.40	3.00	percentage points	22,791
Increase very long-term employment	Average employment, annual	Years 7-9	High	40.90	41.00	0.10	percentage points	8,219
Increase very long-term employment	Average employment, annual	Years 7-9	High	37.80	39.30	1.50	percentage points	5,508
Increase very long-term employment	Average employment, annual	Years 7-9	High	33.10	36.90	3.80	percentage points	4,396
Increase very long-term employment	Average employment, annual	Years 7-9	High	45.30	45.30	0.00	percentage points	1,205
Increase very long-term employment	Average quarters worked, annual	Years 7-9	High	1.28	1.32	0.04	quarters	8,219
Increase very long-term employment	Average quarters worked, annual	Years 7-9	High	1.15	1.23	0.08	quarters	5,508
Increase very long-term employment	Average quarters worked, annual	Years 7-9	High	1.03	1.16	0.13	quarters	4,396
Increase very long-term employment	Average quarters worked, annual	Years 7-9	High	1.42	1.47	0.05	quarters	1,205
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Quarter 4	High	6,235.00	5,963.00	-272.00	1991 dollars	22,791
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	958.00	938.00	-20.00	1991 dollars	22,791
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	76.40	73.40	-3.00	percentage points	22,791
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	69.20	66.70	-2.50	percentage points	22,791
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 5	High	2,839.00	2,580.00	-259.00	1995 dollars	22,791
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 3	High	990.00	953.00	-37.00	1993 dollars	22,791
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly	Quarter 20	High	42.50	39.30	-3.20	percentage points	22,791
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, follow-up period	Years 1-3	High	89.00	89.10	0.10	percentage points	22,791

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

Across counties, the single-parent sample was 25 percent Black, 27 percent Hispanic, and 40 percent White. The average age of the sample at the time of random assignment was 35.

Age

Mean age

35 years

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	25%
White	40%
Unknown, not reported, or other	8%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	27%

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%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

California State Department of Social Services and county staff

Program history:

The California legislature passed GAIN in 1985 as a replacement for the state's earlier Work Incentive Program.

Intervention services:

Applicants for AFDC deemed eligible for GAIN and assigned to the intervention group received various services based on their educational attainment and assessed skills as of the time the program began. Supportive services, including assistance with child care and transportation, were immediately available to ensure that participants could take part in program activities. Participants first took a basic skills test and were assigned to a case manager. Individuals who lacked basic education (such as a high school diploma or general education diploma), who received low scores on the math or reading sections of the basic skills test, or who were not proficient in English entered basic education courses for three weeks before receiving job search assistance. GAIN clients who had initiated education or training (of a type deemed by the client’s case manager to be aligned with the client’s employment goals) before entering the program could pursue that activity if their case manager deemed it beneficial; those clients remained eligible for GAIN services for up to two years. All other participants first received job search assistance. Job search assistance included job clubs, supervised job searches, and connections to local employers with the assistance of a job developer. If, after completing the first series of activities, a GAIN program member did not find employment, program staff helped the client assess career goals and develop an employment plan. The GAIN client would then undergo formal assessments and undertake further activities, including vocational or on-the-job training, unpaid work experience, supported work (paid work experience in a group), additional training, or additional education, in keeping with the employment plan.

Mandatory services:

Those assigned to GAIN were required to participate in it or face sanctions.

Comparison services:

Participants in the comparison group were AFDC applicants who were not eligible for GAIN services, including child care reimbursement. They could seek out comparable services elsewhere in the community.

Service receipt duration:

Clients continued in GAIN until they found employment, left GAIN, or were exempted from the program for other reasons. The comparison group was eligible to participate in GAIN beginning in June 1993.

Intervention funding:

California State Department of Social Services

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $7,338 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $2,207 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $5,131 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

Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Friedlander, Winston Lin, and Amanda Schweder (1996). The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_561.pdf.

Friedlander, Daniel, James Riccio, and Stephen Freedman (1993). GAIN: Two-year impacts in six counties, New York: MDRC.

Hotz, V. Joseph, Guido W. Imbens, and Jacob A. Klerman (2006). Evaluating the differential effects of alternative welfare-to-work training components: A re-analysis of the California GAIN program, Journal of Labor Economics 24(3): 521-566. Available at https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/imbens/files/evaluating_the_differential_effects_of_alternative_welfare-to-work_training_components_a_re-analysis_of_the_california_gain_program.pdf.

Martinson, Karin, and Daniel Friedlander (1994). GAIN: Basic education in a welfare-to-work program, New York: MDRC. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED368915.

Riccio, James, and Daniel Friedlander (1992) GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties, New York: MDRC. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED345089.pdf.

Riccio, James, Daniel Friedlander, and Stephen Freedman (1994). GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/gain_benefits_costs_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 Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN)—Single-parent households