Skip to main content
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings on the labor force attachment and human capital development programs in three sites (Hamilton et al., 1997)

Review Guidelines

Causal Evidence Guidelines

Absence of conflict of interest.

Citation

Hamilton, G., Brock, T., Farrell, M., Friedlander, D., Hunter-Manns, J., Walter, J., & Weissman, J. (1997). 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, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and U.S. Department of Education. [Riverside LFA vs. Control]

Highlights

  • The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the comparison between the Labor Force Attachment (LFA) group and the control group in Riverside. The authors investigated similar research questions for other contrasts and sites, the profiles of which can be found here.
  • The study was a randomized controlled trial at the Riverside, California site. Using participant surveys and administrative data, the authors conducted statistical tests to compare the outcomes of the treatment and control group members.
  • The study found that treatment group participants were significantly more likely to be employed, have higher earnings, and were less likely to receive public benefits compared to control group participants.
  • This study receives a high evidence rating. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Riverside Labor Force Attachment (LFA) program, and not to other factors.

Intervention Examined

Riverside Labor Force Attachment (LFA)

Features of the Intervention

The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program was created by the Family Support Act of 1988, which required people who receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to either seek and accept employment or engage in activities such as training, education, or unpaid work through the welfare department. The Riverside Labor Force Attachment (LFA) program operated under the JOBS program. The LFA approach to JOBS typically began with a short course of classroom instruction on the job search process and supervised employment seeking. Following this phase, participants who had not found employment would undergo a reassessment process and then engage in some combination of continued job searching, short-term basic education or vocational training, subsidized employment, and unpaid work through the welfare department. The program served AFDC recipients who were determined to not meet any JOBS exemption criteria (e.g., having children under the age of three; being pregnant; being employed).

Features of the Study

This study was part of a three-site investigation of LFA and Human Capital Development (HCD) approaches to the JOBS program, a component of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies. This profile focuses on the LFA vs. control group analysis for the Riverside site.

The study used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of the Riverside JOBS program. The study sought to enroll AFDC recipients who were determined to not meet any JOBS exemption criteria. Applicants who enrolled in the study between June 1991 and December 1992 were randomized to one of two treatment groups (LFA or HCD) or a control group. The authors assigned 2,497 applicants to the treatment group that received the LFA approach to the JOBS program and 2,478 applicants to the no-treatment control group that did not receive program services but could independently pursue similar services in the community. The control group was also eligible to receive childcare while engaging in employment or training-related activities. Across all study groups at this site, participants were mostly (90%) female, with over half (51%) between the ages of 25 and 34, half (50%) identifying as White non-Hispanic, and over half (56%) were parenting at least one child aged five or younger. The data sources for the study were state unemployment insurance data, AFDC data, and a year two participant survey. The authors used statistical tests to compare the education, employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes of the treatment and control group members.

Findings

Earnings and wages

  • The study found that treatment participants earned $1212 more than control participants across the two study years and $561 more than control participants in year two. These differences were significant.

Education and skills gains

  • The study found no significant difference between treatment and control group participants' rates of obtaining a GED or high school diploma during the two-year study period.

Employment

  • The study found that 59% percent of treatment group participants and 45% of control group participants were employed at some point during the study period; this difference was significant.
  • The study found that the treatment group had a significantly higher average quarterly employment rate over the study period compared to the control group (32% vs. 24%).
  • The study also found that significantly more treatment participants than control participants were employed in year two (31% vs. 26%).

Public benefits receipt

  • The study found no significant difference between the groups in receipt of AFDC payments over the study period. However, significantly fewer treatment participants than control participants were receiving AFDC in the last quarter of year two (50% vs. 56%).
  • The study found that treatment participants received AFDC for fewer months over the study period than control participants, and that treatment participants received $1267 less in AFDC benefits over the study period. These differences were significant.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The study authors estimated multiple related impacts on outcomes related to employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt. Performing multiple statistical tests on related outcomes makes it more likely that some impacts will be found statistically significant purely by chance and not because they reflect program effectiveness. The authors did not perform statistical adjustments to account for the multiple tests, so the number of statistically significant findings in these domains is likely to be overstated. Also, the study reports a less stringent statistical significance level, considering p-values of less than 0.10 to be significant, though it is standard practice to consider statistical significance if the p-value is less than 0.05. Only results that demonstrate a p-value of less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this profile.

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Riverside LFA, and not to other factors.

Reviewed by CLEAR

July 2022

Topic Area