Study Details | Pathways to Work

3183.3183.02-Jobs First Greater A

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: Jobs-First Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents

Services provided:

Education, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (Work experience), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Nearly 21,000 prospective Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients in Los Angeles County who attended a program orientation at a county office from April 1 to September 11, 1996, and who were not exempt from welfare-to-work program participation, were randomly assigned either to Jobs-First GAIN or to the comparison group. Exemptions were granted for individuals who had a disabling condition, were employed full time, or resided in a rural area with no access to services, and for women who were in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. Both single-parent and two-parent households were included in the evaluation; this review focuses on the sample of 5,058 parents from two-parent households. (The first parent in the household to attend the orientation was randomly assigned; the second parent was not included in the research sample.) Most study participants were randomly assigned in order from a wait list, but a few participants requested and were allowed to jump to the top of the list. The participants that jumped to the top of the list were still randomly assigned to either the Jobs-First GAIN group or the comparison group.

Time period of study:

The Jobs First-GAIN program began in 1996 and concluded in 1999. The study estimates impacts after two years of follow-up.

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:

Physical health, Housing, Nutrition, Family formation, Child well-being

Study funded by:

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services commissioned the evaluation, with support from the Ford Foundation and from the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation of 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	3,538.00	2,455.00	-1,083.00	1996 dollars	5,048
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 2	High	4,111.00	5,095.00	984.00	1996 dollars	5,048
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	36.80	44.00	7.20	percentage points	5,048
Increase short-term employment	Number of quarters employed	Year 1	High	1.17	1.59	0.42	quarters	5,048
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 8	High	38.20	46.00	7.80	percentage points	5,048
Increase long-term employment	Number of quarters employed, annual	Year 2	High	1.47	1.77	0.30	quarters	5,048
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	6,847.00	6,180.00	-667.00	1996 dollars	5,048
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	2,759.00	2,449.00	-310.00	1996 dollars	5,048
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 1	High	98.10	96.80	-1.30	percentage points	5,048
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 1	High	97.40	95.80	-1.60	percentage points	5,048
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 2	High	4,885.00	4,123.00	-762.00	1996 dollars	5,048
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 2	High	1,992.00	1,696.00	-296.00	1996 dollars	5,048
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 2	High	79.60	73.60	-6.00	percentage points	5,048
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 2	High	79.70	73.50	-6.20	percentage points	5,048

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 analysis of parents from two-parent families focused on the primary wage earner. (If a household consisted of a married couple, the program required both parents to participate, and the study collected data on the parent who was the first to meet with program staff.) About 47 percent of sample members were female. Fewer than half (40 percent) had earned a high school diploma, GED, or college degree, and 86 percent were unemployed at the time of randomization. Sample members were predominantly Hispanic (47 percent) and White (28 percent); about half (52 percent) demonstrated English proficiency. The average sample member was 36 years old and had two children.

Age

Mean age

36 years

Sex

Female	47%
Male	53%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	5%
White	28%
Pacific Islander	20%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	47%

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	88%
Parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	14%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	41%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	60%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (county AFDC agency)

Program history:

Starting in 1988, Los Angeles launched a GAIN program focused primarily on basic education rather than job search activities. Evaluations of the original GAIN program indicated that education was costly and did not produce substantial increases in employment or reductions in welfare receipt. As a result, the county Department of Public Social Services modified the program between 1993 and 1995 to emphasize rapid return to work.

Intervention services:

Applicants to or recipients of AFDC who were assigned to the GAIN group participated in a program strongly emphasizing a rapid return to work, even in low-wage positions. The program orientation reinforced this message through a six-hour motivational meeting. The program then provided job development activities, including three-week job clubs comprising classroom sessions focused on job application techniques and a supervised job search. Program officials also provided job development, vocational skills assessment, basic education, vocational training, or work experience, depending on the program member's needs.

Mandatory services:

Some participants were required to participate in the study and faced sanctions for noncompliance (though these individuals were still randomly assigned).

Comparison services:

Applicants to or recipients of AFDC who were not assigned to the GAIN group could not participate in any GAIN-related activities and did not receive the strong work-first motivation. They did remain eligible to receive welfare and Food Stamps payments.

Service receipt duration:

The initial job club took place over three weeks. Further job development services were available until the recipient found work, exited the welfare system, or both.

Intervention funding:

California state; Los Angeles county AFDC.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $3,608 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $1,910 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $1,698 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, Jean Knab, Lisa Gennetian, and David Navarro (2000). The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN evaluation: Final report on a work first program in a major urban center, 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/full_568.pdf.

Freedman, Stephen, Marisa Mitchell, and David Navarro (1999). The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN evaluation: First year findings on participation patterns and impacts, 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/full_569.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 Jobs-First Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN)—Two-Parent Households