Study Details | Pathways to Work

3176.02-GAIN: Program strate

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: Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN)

Population and employment barriers: Parents

Services provided: Case management, Education, Supportive services, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training, Subsidized employment, Work experience, Work readiness activities, Job development/job placement

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study Design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Head-of-household applicants for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) who were required to participate in GAIN were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison group at program orientation. The period over which random assignment occurred varied across sites and ended in each site when evaluators reached target sample sizes. Random assignment was complete in all sites by June 1990. On average, about 69 percent of household heads were assigned to the intervention group across sites.

Time period of study:

Random assignment took place in January 1987 through June 1990. Data were collected up to five years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment, Increase short-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

None

Study funded by:

California State Department of Social Services

Results

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	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	2,519.00	2,903.00	384.00	1991 dollars	9,960
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	3,526.00	3,967.00	441.00	1995 dollars	9,960
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	44.70	51.20	6.50	percentage points	9,960
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 5	High	37.80	42.00	4.20	percentage points	9,960
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	73.00	70.00	-3.00	percentage points	9,960
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	7,450.00	7,028.00	-422.00	1991 dollars	9,960
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	72.60	69.50	-3.10	percentage points	9,960
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	1,501.00	1,422.00	-79.00	1991 dollars	9,960
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly	Quarter 20	High	49.50	48.70	-0.80	percentage points	9,960
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 5	High	4,301.00	4,182.00	-119.00	1995 dollars	9,960
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, quarterly	Quarter 12	High	60.90	59.40	-1.50	percentage points	9,960
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 3	High	1,603.00	1,538.00	-65.00	1993 dollars	9,960

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 sample of heads of households in two-parent families included in this analysis lived in San Diego (33 percent), Riverside (24 percent), Tulare (19 percent), Los Angeles (14 percent), and Butte (10 percent). The sample was predominantly White (38 percent), with 28 percent of the sample being Hispanic, 24 percent Asian, and 6 percent Black. Sample members were, on average, 34 years old at the time of random assignment.

Age

Mean age

34 years

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	6%
White	38%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	28%
Asian	24%
Unknown, not reported, or other	3%

Family status

Parents

100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were long-term cash assistance recipients

37%

Intervention Implementation

Implementing organization:

California State Department of Social Services and county staff

Program history:

The California legislature passed GAIN in 1985 as a replacement for the state's earlier Work Incentive Program.

Intervention services:

Applicants for AFDC deemed eligible for GAIN and assigned to the intervention group received various services based on their educational attainment and assessed skills as of the time the program began. Supportive services, including assistance with child care and transportation, were immediately available to ensure that participants could take part in program activities. Participants first took a basic skills test and were assigned to a case manager. Individuals who lacked basic education (such as a high school diploma or general education diploma), who received low scores on the math or reading sections of the basic skills test, or who were not proficient in English entered basic education courses for three weeks before receiving job search assistance. GAIN clients who had initiated education or training (of a type deemed by the client’s case manager to be aligned with the client’s employment goals) before entering the program could pursue that activity if their case manager deemed it beneficial; those clients remained eligible for GAIN services for up to two years. All other participants first received job search assistance. Job search assistance included job clubs, supervised job searches, and connections to local employers with the assistance of a job developer. If, after completing the first series of activities, a GAIN program member did not find employment, program staff helped those clients assess career goals and develop an employment plan. GAIN clients would then undergo formal assessments and undertake further activities, including vocational or on-the-job training, unpaid work experience, supported work (paid work experience in a group), additional training, or additional education, in keeping with the employment plan.

Mandatory services:

Those assigned to GAIN were required to participate in it or face sanctions.

Comparison services:

Participants in the comparison condition were AFDC applicants who were not eligible for GAIN services, including child care reimbursement. They could seek out comparable services elsewhere in the community.

Service receipt duration:

Clients continued in GAIN until they found employment, left GAIN, or were exempted from the program for other reasons.

Intervention funding:

California State Department of Social Services

Study Publications

Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Friedlander, Winston Lin, and Amanda Schweder (1996). The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_561.pdf.

Friedlander, Daniel, James Riccio, and Stephen Freedman (1993). GAIN: Two-year impacts in six counties, New York: MDRC.

Martinson, Karin, and Daniel Friedlander (1994). GAIN: Basic education in a welfare-to-work program, New York: MDRC. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED368915.

Riccio, James, and Daniel Friedlander (1992) GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties, New York: MDRC. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED345089.pdf.

Riccio, James, Daniel Friedlander, and Stephen Freedman (1994). GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/gain_benefits_costs_fr.pdf.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

Study of Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN)—Two-parent households

3176.02-GAIN: Program strate

Study Design

Design:

Study group formation:

Time period of study:

Primary outcome domains examined:

Other outcome domains examined:

Study funded by:

Results

Sample Characteristics

Age

Participant race and ethnicity

Family status

Participant employment and public benefit status

Intervention Implementation

Implementing organization:

Program history:

Intervention services:

Mandatory services:

Comparison services:

Service receipt duration:

Intervention funding:

Study Publications