Print

The Los Angeles County Transitional Subsidized Employment Program—PWE provided fully subsidized work opportunities and support with job searches to increase Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients’ employability. This evaluation directly compared PWE to a separate intervention, OJT, in order to better understand which of the two interventions might be more effective; the distinctive features of PWE are job search assistance from case managers and full subsidies for work experience that also covered some time searching for jobs.

Skip to:  Effectiveness Ratings   |  Studies of this Intervention

The Los Angeles County Transitional Subsidized Employment Program—PWE provided fully subsidized work opportunities and support with job searches to increase Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients’ employability. This evaluation directly compared PWE to a separate intervention, OJT, in order to better understand which of the two interventions might be more effective; the distinctive features of PWE are job search assistance from case managers and full subsidies for work experience that also covered some time searching for jobs.

The Los Angeles County Transitional Subsidized Employment Program—PWE placed each participant in a fully subsidized, six-month position at a public-sector or nonprofit organization, where they were paid minimum wage by the local Workforce Investment Board. Case management was provided to assist participants in searching for unsubsidized employment, and in the final month of subsidized employment, participants also received 16 hours of paid time to engage in a job search. The average placement lasted six months. TANF recipients who were not exempt from TANF work requirements were referred to Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN), the county’s welfare-to-work program. These participants who were not able to find unsubsidized work during their four-week job club under GAIN were recruited for Transitional Subsidized Employment if they met the following additional criteria: (1) able to work the hours required by PWE or OJT; (2) had at least five months of TANF eligibility remaining; (3) did not participate in Transitional Subsidized Employment in the last year; (4) did not have major employment barriers; and (5) had demonstrated to staff that they could and did want to work (assessed by staff in various ways across locations). PWE was offered in Los Angeles County, CA.

The effectiveness of PWE when compared with OJT indicates the effect of the services that are unique to PWE, or how much better PWE meets participants’ needs than OJT. The Workforce Investment Board only paid participants’ wages for the first two months of each OJT job placement, compared to all six months of each PWE placement; this meant that, starting in the third month, employers had to add OJT participants to their payroll and would receive a partial subsidy. PWE participants were placed in the nonprofit and public sectors, whereas OJT participants were placed in the for-profit sector. Unlike PWE participants, those in OJT could not receive wages for any time spent searching for jobs, nor did they have access to job search assistance from case managers. The evaluation of PWE as compared with OJT also tested PWE and OJT separately, compared with other services available in the community.

Year evaluation began: 2012
Implementing organization(s): The program was operated by the county TANF administrator in partnership with regional welfare-to-work offices and the local Workforce Investment Board. For the PWE group, employment was provided in the public sector and at nonprofit organizations. For the OJT group, employment was provided at private, for-profit employers.
Populations and employment barriers: Cash assistance recipients, Parents
Intervention services: Training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment, Work readiness activities, Job search assistance
Setting(s): Tested in multiple settings

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 Supported favorable $1,150 per year 0.06 1745
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $753 per year 0.04 1745
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Supported favorable 1% (in percentage points) 0.04 1745
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 2% (in percentage points) 0.04 1745
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Supported favorable $-385 per year -0.14 1745
Long-term Supported favorable $-187 per year -0.07 1745
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Little evidence to assess support unfavorable -1% (in percentage points) -0.02 1398
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this Intervention

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