The Riverside LFA program focused on rapid job placement for single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients to promote self-sufficiency. This evaluation directly compared LFA to a separate intervention called HCD in order to better understand which of the two interventions might be more effective; the distinctive features of LFA were rapid job placement and an emphasis on building work-related skills.

The Riverside LFA program focused on rapid job placement for single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients to promote self-sufficiency. This evaluation directly compared LFA to a separate intervention called HCD in order to better understand which of the two interventions might be more effective; the distinctive features of LFA were rapid job placement and an emphasis on building work-related skills.

The Riverside LFA program encouraged clients to move quickly into work without being selective about which job to take. Participants first spent three weeks in a job club operated by Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program staff at the local public assistance office. Then, participants applied to jobs for at least 2 weeks and were required to make 25 to 35 employer contacts per week. Case managers were accountable for the employment outcomes of their clients and therefore encouraged success by recommending that participants take the first available job (including part-time or low-paying jobs) while full-time job developers continued searching for other opportunities for the participant. Case managers also emphasized program participation. Staff could impose financial sanctions for nonparticipation, and child care and transportation assistance were available. The combined job club and job search time lasted for about five weeks, and clients who completed these activities but remained unemployed at the end of the five-week period could receive multiple rounds of short-term education or vocational training for periods of nine months. Eligible participants included single parents who received AFDC and who were required to enroll in the JOBS program as a condition of continuing to receive public benefits. However, AFDC recipients were exempt from JOBS if they had children younger than 3, were employed 30 hours or more per week, were medically unable to work, or were in the last trimester of pregnancy. Riverside LFA was administered in Riverside, CA.

The effectiveness of LFA when compared with HCD indicates the effect of the services that are unique to LFA, or how much better LFA meets participants’ needs than HCD. LFA focused on placing people into jobs quickly to build work habits and skills, whereas HCD focused on providing education and training as a precursor to employment. Riverside’s LFA and HCD programs were examined as part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies that also evaluated LFA and HCD programs in Atlanta, GA, and Grand Rapids, MI, and also compared the effectiveness of two distinct strategies for AFDC recipients: HCD and LFA.

Year evaluation began: 1991
Populations and employment barriers: Parents, Single parents
Intervention services: Education, Work experience, Job development/job placement
Setting(s): Urban only

Effectiveness Rating and Effect By Outcome Domain

Back to top
View Table Help Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below? View the "Table Help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $879 per year 0.04 3182
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $6 per year 0.00 3182
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support

Studies of this Intervention

Back to top
Study Quality Rating Study Counts per Rating
High High 1