Before starting with the review, the founders of the JOBS programme and the web page of the Michigan Prevention Research Center (MPRC) were consulted to obtain information regarding the JOBS programme and its dissemination. Electronic searches were undertaken to allocate articles identified on the web page. Next, a search was conducted to ascertain whether possible articles were excluded. Databases such as Google Scholar and EBSCOhost (Academic Search Premier, Africa-Wide Information, American Doctoral Dissertations, PsycARTICLES and PsycINFO) were utilised to find the relevant articles.

It was anticipated that the articles worth including in the review would refer to the JOBS programme in the articles themselves. Therefore, numerous searches were conducted by including the authors involved (as obtained from the dissemination page) with the term Job Opportunities and Basic Skills programme (e.g. AUTHOR: Vuori; IN-TEXT: ‘JOBS program*’). Because another programme, called the JOBS Program, yielded additional results when searching for ‘Jobs Program*’, it was necessary to include the various authors. The search string consisted of two search concepts joined by the Boolean operator AND; the second string contained a list of authors joined by the Boolean operator OR. The following search string was entered in the databases: [1] IN-TEXT: ‘jobs program*’ [2] AUTHOR: ‘Barry’, ‘Caplan’; ‘Choi’; ‘Kessler’ ‘Price’; ‘Schul’; ‘Van Ryn’ ‘Vinokur’ and ‘Vuori’.

To prevent the omission of essential articles, a complementary search was performed. Reference lists of the selected articles were reviewed for more relevant publications. During the process, it became evident that there were indeed articles that did not refer to the JOBS programme in their content. Therefore, an additional search was conducted using the authors involved from the different variations of the JOBS programme and each of the different JOBS variations (e.g. AUTHOR: ‘Barry’; IN-TEXT: ‘Winning New Jobs’). The second search string again consisted of two search concepts joined by the Boolean operator AND; the first string contained a list of names for variations of the JOBS programme and the second a list of authors, with both strings joined by the Boolean operator OR. The following search string was entered in the databases: (1) IN-TEXT: Jobs in China Project, Job-search Intervention, Työhön Job Search Program, or Winning New Jobs (2) AUTHOR: ‘Blonk’, ‘Brenninkmeijer’, ‘Choi’, ‘Donaldson’, ‘Fang’, ‘Friedland’, ‘Ling’, ‘Shirom’, and ‘Turner’.

Criteria for including articles were as follows:

Conference proceedings and papers to which access was limited or where no full-text papers were available were excluded. Price and Vinokur (2014) mention that the JOBS programme has previously been executed in Sweden and South Korea; however, the literature seemed limited and unavailable. Furthermore, the JOBS programme has also been implemented in organisational and school contexts. Considering that the circumstances of the participants are not the same, these studies were omitted. The inclusion and exclusion criteria narrowed the scope of this review. Finally, 34 articles met all the inclusion criteria (Figure 1).

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Humanities and Health Research Ethics Committee (HHREC), North-West University, with ethical clearance number: NWU-HS-2018-0006.

According to Vinokur and Price (2015), benefits of the JOBS programmes did not seem to be distributed equally to all the participants. Some findings are reported below; yet it should be noted that only a few of the studies included mentioned the impact of demographic variables on the intended outcomes. Findings regarding participants’ demographic variables were not always consistent and sufficient to substantiate these relationships. Compared to other demographic variables, education had the strongest impact on the outcomes of the job search interventions.

Gender: Female participants seemed to suffer greater economic losses and experience more difficulties regaining employment (Vinokur et al. 2000). Yet women generally benefitted more from the programme than their male counterparts (MPRC 2003). They were more likely to (1) obtain employment six months after the intervention (Shirom et al. 2008), (2) score higher on participant engagement (Caplan et al. 1989), (3) experience positive group participation (Vuori et al. 2005) and (4) participate voluntarily (Vuori et al. 2002).

Age: Unemployed people between the ages of 16 and 65 were generally the targeted population. The mean age of participants in the studies included was 36 (Standard deviation [SD] = 9). Vuori et al. (2005) state that younger participants were usually more positive and found employment more easily than older participants, but showed a higher tendency of non-participation (Van Ryn & Vinokur 1992; Vinokur et al. 2000; Vinokur, Price & Caplan 1991a). The training programme seemed to also have a positive impact on older participants regarding improved job search skills and increased self-confidence (Price & Choi 2001).

Level of education: The majority of participants in the programmes involved had a secondary level of education (equivalent to 12 years of schooling; mean of all the studies: 40.65%). Participants with higher levels of education more often gained in terms of obtaining re-employment (MPRC 2003), increases in job search self-efficacy (Choi, Price & Vinokur 2003), a lower likelihood of major depressive episode diagnosis (Vinokur et al. 2000) and non-participation (Caplan et al. 1989; Van Ryn & Vinokur 1992; Vinokur et al. 2000), and higher levels of voluntary participation (Vuori et al. 2002). Despite these positive findings, in some other studies, it was evident that the programme also clearly yielded mental health benefits and economic benefits for those less educated and most disadvantaged in terms of the job market (Price & Choi 2001; Vinokur, Price & Schul 1995b).

Duration of unemployment: The JOBS programme was originally designed to prevent further deterioration in mental health among the unemployed and was not specifically intended to deal with potential problems associated with long-term unemployment (Caplan et al. 1989). Therefore, the majority of the initial studies included only those who had been unemployed for less than 13 weeks (Caplan et al. 1989; Price et al. 1992; Van Ryn & Vinokur 1992; Vinokur et al. 1991a, 1991b, 1995a, 2000; Vinokur, Price & Caplan 1996; Vinokur & Schul 1997). However, because the long-term unemployed were reported as the most vulnerable, more recent developments included participants who had been unemployed for longer periods (Brenninkmeijer & Blonk 2011; Malmberg-Heimonen & Vuori 2005; Price & Choi 2001; Reynolds, Barry & Gabhainn 2010; Vuori et al. 2005).

Population: Eligibility criteria required individuals to be aged between 16 and 65. Prospective screening questionnaires were used in some studies to determine participants’ risk score for poor mental health (Vinokur et al. 1995b). However, those who showed major signs of mental illness, serious psychosocial problems or behavioural problems or who scored extremely high on depression symptoms were omitted from the study (Brenninkmeijer & Blonk 2011; Vinokur et al. 1995a).

Sample size: Most of the studies included were conducted as a part of large-scale field experiments, ranging from 1087 to 3402 participants. Smaller-scale studies ranged from 125 to 672 participants. Sample sizes did not seem to influence the results achieved or the sustainability of the programmes. It was rather the use (or lack) of effective methods that seemed to have an impact on the outcomes (Price & Vinokur 2014).

Recruitment: The primary method used to recruit participants was through recruiters who approached individuals eligible for employment benefits while collecting grants at employment offices. In studies including an experimental and control group, participants were told about the two programmes on job-seeking methods. One programme was described as a workshop consisting of five half-day sessions (the experimental condition); the other was described as a self-guided programme, in which participants received a booklet with job search information (the control condition). To prevent biases, participants had to show no preference for a type of intervention (experimental or control condition; Caplan et al. 1989; Vinokur et al. 1995a).

Voluntary or enforced participation: Participants from some programmes had to participate in the job search workshop to qualify for welfare benefits (Brenninkmeijer & Blonk 2011; Lee & Vinokur 2007). When studying the impact of voluntary or enforced participation, a Finnish study showed that enforced participation did not increase re-employment; however, it impaired the positive mental health impacts of the programme. Further analysis demonstrated that enforced participation in job search training decreased re-employment among the longer-term unemployed workers (Malmberg-Heimonen & Vuori 2005).

Dropout rates: In the US programmes, on average, 59% (varying by 5%) of participants failed to show up for the intervention (Caplan et al. 1989; Vinokur et al. 1995a). Consequently, dropout rates could be anticipated and, therefore, twice as many participants were recruited and allocated to intervention groups in the Israeli study (Shirom et al. 2008). In the Malmberg-Heimonen and Vuori (2005) study, it was surprising to find that response rates did not differ much among the enforced, voluntary and control groups (94%, 92%, and 91%).

The JOBS programme entails two main processes. On the one hand, job search skills (the actual content of the programme) are taught to participants, while, on the other hand, empowerment of the participants, by applying the programme’s underlying principles in the method of delivery, is the true underlying mission of the workshop. The following aspects guided the method of delivery used by the trainers:

Referent power: Moderate self-disclosures shared by facilitators create an environment in which participants feel safe to reveal their concerns and experiences. These also contribute to creating an atmosphere of unconditional acceptance and to enhancing feelings of being normal and valued.

Guiding behaviour: Specific positive feedback is given to participants to reinforce positive behaviour. Strategies used to generate positive feedback include active listening, observation and reflecting on what participants have shared as a means of showing participants that they are valued.

Inoculation against setbacks: The group is encouraged to identify potential setbacks and difficulties in the job search process. Strategies are developed to overcome the identified challenges and, consequently, participants realise that their problems can be solved. Participants are asked to commit themselves to action by selecting and vowing to undertake a solution most appealing to them.

Social support: Social support forms an integral part of the underlying processes, as exercises are specifically designed to create opportunities for facilitators and participants to support each other. An environment where participants are unconditionally accepted is created. Such a safe environment contributes to participants feeling comfortable to express their opinions and reveal their feelings.

Active leaning: The learning process relies greatly on participants’ knowledge and skills. Participants acquire job search skills by using active learning methods, elicited using group discussions and brainstorming sessions.

In contrast to traditional top-down, trainer-focused training methods, the JOBS programme relies heavily on its individual-focused approach. The delivery principles mentioned above contribute to the strong individual-focused approach. Principles are continuously applied and integrated and form the basis on which the content is delivered.

The programme consists of five sessions. During the first session, participants discover their job skills; the second session focuses on dealing with obstacles related to employment; the third session is used to introduce participants to some job search techniques; the fourth session covers topics such as curriculum vitae writing and preparing participants for job interviews; during the fifth session participants rehearse skills acquired throughout the week. The workshop concludes with a certificate ceremony, during which facilitators boost participants’ confidence by highlighting their strengths and skills and providing each participant with a sincere and inspiring message.

The JOBS protocol describes the programme processes meticulously. Yet these processes are flexible and can be altered, depending on the needs of the groups, without losing the intended effects of the programme. The majority of the disseminated versions of the JOBS programme were implemented strictly according to the protocol. The content differed in terms of minor language, cultural, procedural and scheduling changes to suit different contexts. To maintain the standard of the JOBS programme, all materials were piloted and approved. It is worth mentioning that, when the protocol was somewhat neglected, it was reported that the programme was less successful in achieving the intended outcomes (Shirom et al. 2008).

Participants were rewarded monetarily for participation or each returned questionnaire (varying between $5.00 and $15.00, depending on the currency of the country). In cases where questionnaires were not returned, an additional amount was issued on the completion of their questionnaires. This incentive was reported to result in a substantial increase in response rates (about 20%; Shirom et al. 2008). Participants in the JOBS programme and Netherlands JOBS programme also received a certificate of participation for completing the programme (Brenninkmeijer & Blonk 2011; Caplan et al. 1989).

Researchers obtained higher response rates when offering incentives: in cases with relatively high dropout rates, no mention of rewards or incentives was evident (Barry et al. 2006; Reynolds et al. 2010; Shirom et al. 2008). The same finding was, however, not true in the WNJ California studies, which managed to retain approximately 70% of their participants, seemingly without the use of incentives (Choi et al. 2003).

Pairing: Teams consisting of one male and one female trainer are prescribed by Curran et al. (1999) to complement each other well. An untested assumption existed that a pair of trainers reduced deviation from the principles of the JOBS programme. However, the assumed benefits of having male–female pair facilitators have not yet been tested. Benefit-cost research could determine whether the cost of using two trainers, rather than one, is outweighed by the benefits that are generated (Price et al. 1998).

Prerequisites: Facilitators were generally social workers, labour advisors, educational counsellors or high school teachers. It was suggested that facilitators ought to be skillful in working with people (public speaking and communications backgrounds). Because trained individuals (that is, mental health professionals, such as counsellors or clinicians) might execute strongly embedded techniques not necessarily consistent with unemployment-related counselling methods, professional training was not a prerequisite (Caplan et al. 1989).

Programme-related training: Facilitators had to undergo extensive formal training. The content of the training covered understanding of group processes, theoretical foundations of the programme and extensive rehearsal in the form of pilot studies. The duration of training varied from 6 to 30 days (48 h–240 h). The reason for the extensive training was that facilitators were not only conveyors of information, but also experts in navigating the group processes, with the ability to connect emotionally with the participants and facilitate interactions in a group setting. To promote conformity, trainers’ performance was evaluated by trained supervisors.

Some of the findings yielded by the original JOBS trial encouraged the revision of the programme, which consequently led to the development of the JOBS II intervention (Vinokur et al. 1995a). The first version (the JOBS I programme) spanned eight 3 h sessions, over a two-week period (four mornings per week; Caplan et al. 1989). To increase programme efficiency and the attendance of participants, meeting hours were reduced by 30%, delivered over five 4 h sessions in a one-week period in the JOBS II (Vinokur et al. 1995a). The majority of disseminated versions of the JOBS programme continued to apply the programme following the JOBS II protocol. In some groups, the Finnish programme was delivered over four days, as the first day was used to deal with recently laid-off workers’ negative emotions (Vuori et al. 2002) – an illustration of how the programme can be altered to meet the needs of the group, without affecting the outcomes.

Guidelines of the JOBS programme suggest groups consisting of 12–20 participants (Curran et al. 1999). There were exceptions, where the groups ranged from three to 110 participants per group (median = 11; Malmberg-Heimonen & Vuori 2005). Although only a few studies reported on the impact of group sizes, larger groups seemed to have more negative experiences than smaller groups (Vuori et al. 2005).

Venues such as community centres, school classrooms, churches and union halls, easily accessible to participants, were mostly used. Venues had to be large enough to accommodate 25 people and furnished with movable chairs, arranged in a semicircular layout. Such a layout was reported to be most effective in delivering the group intervention (Curran et al. 1999).

Crucial to the success of the WNJ programme in Ireland was that the developers of the original JOBS programme were involved from the outset and contributed to obtaining buy-in from strategic stakeholder agencies. Despite a substantial initial investment of resources for demonstration, neither the WNJ in California nor the JOBS in China project continued beyond their initial stages, as commitment of resources for continuation was not offered by the government or other stakeholders. Therefore, the success of programme dissemination depended considerably on the involvement of, and support received from, stakeholders (Vinokur & Price 2015).

Self-administered questionnaires were used to assess participants’ attitudes, intentions, various behavioural components and experience of the workshop (Van Ryn & Vinokur 1992). In cases of unreturned questionnaires or where participants failed to show up for the workshop, telephonic interviews were conducted (Barry et al. 2006).

Randomised field study designs were used to investigate the intervention effect between experimental and control conditions (Caplan et al. 1989; Vinokur et al. 1995a; Vuori et al. 2002). Programmes that made use of a randomised field study design had three to four interval times, namely pre-intervention (two weeks before the programme), post-intervention (directly after the programme), post-post-intervention (between two and six months after the programme) and long-term follow-ups, varying from 12 to 32 months after the intervention (Barry et al. 2006; Brenninkmeijer & Blonk 2011; Vinokur et al. 1991a). Other programmes only tested pre-intervention and post-intervention to determine the impact of the programme (Lee & Vinokur 2007; Shirom et al. 2008).

The first check to determine the validity of the programme was to determine whether the statistical analyses were conducted on a randomised (true) experimental design. This was established by comparing the demographic and other tested variables of the experimental and control conditions at baseline to identify possible differences. In cases where differences were found, these variables were controlled for in further analyses (Vinokur et al. 1995a).

The second test was to test the strength and integrity of the intervention through self-reported questionnaires at the end of each session. Participants were asked to evaluate their experience of facilitators and the programme. These evaluations were used to determine whether various intervention elements had been implemented and had operated as designed (Vinokur et al. 1995a). Participants who scored high on these measures also reported higher levels of internal control and job-seeking self-efficacy (Choi et al. 2003), decreases in depression and anger, and increases in self-esteem and quality of life (Caplan et al. 1989). Also, trainer skills (one of the evaluated variables) exhibited during group interactions contributed to increased re-employment, even at the 12-month follow-up (Reynolds et al. 2010).

Two additional methods were used to ensure the quality of the programme and a high level of trainer adherence to the protocol. Firstly, members of the research team frequently observed programme trainers: after each session, constructive feedback was given to trainers. Secondly, the facilitators met weekly to discuss skill-related topics they encountered during their sessions (Vinokur et al. 1995b).

The positive outcomes of the JOBS programme were documented amply. Below are some of the most prominent findings related to the two core objectives of the JOBS programmes: prevention of poor mental health and promotion of re-employment, and other post-hoc outcomes.

Prevention of poor mental health: Participation in the intervention resulted in increased self-esteem, self-efficacy and social assertiveness among participants; consequently, participants also showed improved psychological and mental health and well-being (Lee & Vinokur 2007; Reynolds et al. 2010). Furthermore, long-term effects of the programme revealed that participants experienced lower symptoms of depression (Price et al. 1992; Vuori & Silvonen 2005), improved self-esteem (Reynolds et al. 2010) and an enhanced ability to deal with setbacks. A noteworthy finding is that participants screened for showing higher risk for depression seemed to benefit the most in terms of mental health and re-employment outcomes (Vinokur et al. 1995b).

Promotion of re-employment: Several programmes demonstrated increased rates of re-employment, with an average of 46% after the intervention, compared to the control group, with an average of 18% (Brenninkmeijer & Blonk 2011; Caplan et al. 1989; Donaldson 2012; Shirom et al. 2008; Vuori et al. 2005). Programme participants also showed higher motivation to persist in job search efforts (Caplan et al. 1989), were employed in better jobs (in terms of earnings and job satisfaction) (Vinokur et al. 1991b), were employed faster, had less recurring episodes of unemployment (Vinokur & Price 2015) and experienced reduced economic hardship after being employed (Barry et al. 2006). Results remained over time, as long-term effects of the programme revealed that participants, compared to their counterparts, experienced higher re-employment (Brenninkmeijer & Blonk 2011). Another crucial finding is that both the Työhön and the Netherland’s JOBS programmes confirmed the effectiveness of the intervention to help even the more vulnerable long-term unemployed gain employment (Brenninkmeijer & Blonk 2011; Vuori et al. 2002).

Consequential outcomes: Finally, the JOBS programme demonstrated substantial cost-benefit effectiveness because the higher earnings led, on average, to higher tax revenues and decreased welfare grants for governments (Vinokur et al. 1991b).