Submitted by user on
Study Name
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment (LFA) Program (as compared with Atlanta Human Capital Development [HCD] Program)
Study Sharepoint ID
3131.03
Evaluation name
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)
Strength of Evidence Tag
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.

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.

Settings in which the intervention was studied
Characteristics

Subgroups

Subgroup data - Female
No
Subgroup data - Male
No
Subgroup data - White
No
Subgroup data - Black
No
Percent homeless
0.70
Percent female
96.80
Percent Male
3.20
Percent Any postsecondary education
7.90
Percent No high school diploma or GED
40.00
Percent With a high school diploma or GED
60.00
Percent Parents
100.00
Percent Single Parents
100.00
Percent Employed
6.90
Percent welfare population
100.00
Percent Black or African American
95.20
Percent Hispanic or Latino of any race
0.80
Percent American Indian or Alaska Native
0.10
Percent White
3.50
Mean age
32.80
Group formation formatted

Evaluators randomly assigned a total of 4,433 single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients who were required to enroll in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program in Atlanta into the Labor Force Attachment (LFA) program, the Human Capital Development (HCD) program, or the comparison group. The random assignment occurred from January 1992 to June 1993 following a JOBS orientation. People often waited up to six months between an initial meeting with an income maintenance worker and being invited to a JOBS orientation. The study included two- and five-year follow-up surveys, which followed people who were randomly assigned into the LFA, HCD, or comparison conditions from March 1992 to June 1993. This review focuses on the LFA versus HCD contrast for Atlanta. Other reviews contrast the LFA and comparison groups and the HCD and comparison groups.

Study timing formatted

People were randomly assigned from January 1992 to June 1993. The study reports impacts five years after random assignment.

Study funding formatted

The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation) and by the U.S. Department of Education.

Sample Characteristics

The evaluation targeted single-parent recipients of AFDC. Among the 4,433 study participants—1,441 in the LFA group, 1,495 in the HCD group, and 1,497 in the comparison group—nearly 97 percent were female at an average age of about 33 when the study began. More than 96 percent of people in the sample were Black, and more than half of the participants were never married. Families had 1 and 2 children, on average. About 24 percent of parents had some earnings in the past 12 months, but less than 7 percent were employed at random assignment. Nearly 60 percent of parents had a high school diploma or equivalent certificate, and about 13 percent were enrolled in education or training in the past 12 months.

Implementing organization formatted

Georgia Department of Human Services (state AFDC agency)

Program history

NEWWS aimed to analyze the effectiveness of 11 mandatory welfare-to-work programs in 7 sites across the United States.

Treatment condition formatted

The LFA program focused on rapid job placement. Staff encouraged clients to move quickly into work without being selective about which job to take. In Atlanta, LFA program staff first assigned clients to up to three weeks in a job club (within the JOBS office and led by staff from a community action agency), followed by one to two weeks of time spent applying to jobs. Clients had to make 6 in-person inquiries or send 15 inquiry letters per week. People who did not find a job during this period could go on to participate in more job searching, vocational training, basic education, or unpaid work experience. Case managers emphasized customer service through counseling and assistance with child care and transportation. Case managers could sanction nonparticipating clients.

Comparison condition formatted

The HCD program focused on providing education and training to support future employment. Staff stressed that clients should spend time receiving education or in training to prepare them for good jobs. In Atlanta, case managers began by assigning clients to adult basic education (usually) or to vocational training programs (less often). Clients typically stayed in their assigned activity for two years or more. Case managers emphasized customer service through counseling and assistance with child care and transportation. Case managers could sanction nonparticipating clients.

Mandatory services formatted

People could face financial sanctions if they did not comply with participation requirements.

Timing of study formatted

For the LFA group, job clubs lasted for about one month, and clients who completed job club but remained unemployed could receive multiple rounds of short-term education or vocational training for nine months. The study did not specify how long the program monitored clients to examine whether a sanction should be applied to their case.

Program funding formatted

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Family Support Act

Setting details formatted

The study took place in Atlanta, GA.

Delivered by public or private entity?
Public
Secondary domains examined

Child well-being

Earliest publication year
1997
Most recent publication year
2001
Manuscripts
Check edits flag
No
Primary Service
Work-readiness activities
Enrollment Period
January 1992 to June 1993
Intervention Duration
10.00
Subgroup data - Hispanic
No
Intervention Cost
$9205
Comparison cost
$11162