Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Appendix A: Supplementary Tables for Introduction
| State | Location | Target Group | Primary Service Strategies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advancement projects | Illinois | Cook (Chicago) and St. Clair (East St. Louis) Counties | TANF recipients who have worked at least 30 hours per week for at least 6 consecutive months | A combination of services to promote career advancement (targeted job search assistance, education and training, assistance in identifying and accessing career ladders, etc.) |
| California | Riverside County Phase 2 | Newly employed TANF recipients working at least 20 hours per week | Test of alternative strategies for promoting participation in education and training activities | |
| Placement and retention (hard-to-employ) projects | Minnesota | Hennepin County (Minneapolis) | Long-term TANF recipients who were unable to find jobs through standard welfare-to-work services | In-depth family assessment; low caseloads; intensive monitoring and follow-up; emphasis on placement into unsubsidized employment or supported work with referrals to education and training, counseling, and other support services |
| Oregon | Portland | Individuals who are cycling back into TANF and those who have lost jobs | Team-based case management, job search/job readiness components, intensive retention and follow-up services, mental health and substance abuse services for those identified with these barriers, supportive and emergency services | |
| New York | New York City PRIDE (Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment) | TANF recipients whose employability is limited by physical or mental health problems | Two main tracks: (1) Vocational Rehabilitation, where clients with severe medical problems receive unpaid work experience, job search/job placement and retention services tailored to account for medical problems; (2) Work Based Education, where those with less severe medical problems participate in unpaid work experience, job placement services, and adult basic education | |
| New York | New York City Substance Abuse (substance abuse case management) | TANF recipients with a substance abuse problem | Intensive case management to promote participation in substance abuse treatment, links to mental health and other needed services | |
| Projects with mixed goals | California | Los Angeles County EJC (Enhanced Job Club) | TANF recipients who have been required to search for employment | Job search workshops promoting a step-down method designed to help participants find a job that pays a "living wage" |
| California | Los Angeles County (Reach for Success program) | Newly employed TANF recipients working at least 32 hours per week | Stabilization/retention services, followed by a combination of services to promote advancement: education and training, career assessment, targeted job development, etc. | |
| California | Riverside County PASS (Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency program) | Individuals who have left TANF due to earned income | Intensive, family-based support services delivered by community-based organizations to promote retention and advancement | |
| Ohio | Cleveland | Low-wage workers with specific employers making under 20% of poverty who have been in their current jobs less than 6 months | Regular on-site office hours for counseling/case management; Lunch & Learn meetings for social support and presentations; newsletter for workers and employers; and supervisory training for employer supervisors | |
| Oregon | Eugene | Newly employed TANF applicants and recipients working 20 hours per week or more; mostly single mothers who were underemployed | Emphasis on work-based and education/training-based approaches to advancement and on frequent contact with clients; assistance tailored to clients' career interests and personal circumstances | |
| Oregon | Medford | Newly employed TANF recipients and employed participants of the Oregon Food Stamp Employment and Training program and the Employment Related Day Care program; mostly single mothers | Emphasis on work-based and on education/training-based approaches to advancement and on frequent contact with clients; assistance tailored to clients' career interests and personal circumstances; access to public benefits purposefully divorced from the delivery of retention and advancement services | |
| Oregon | Salem | TANF applicants | Job search assistance combined with career planning; once employed, education and training, employer linkages to promote retention and advancement | |
| South Carolina | 6 rural counties in the Pee Dee Region | Individuals who left TANF (for any reason) between 10/97 and 12/00 | Individualized case management with a focus on reemployment, support services, job search, career counseling, education and training, and use of individualized incentives | |
| Texas | Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, and Houston | TANF applicants and recipients | Individualized team-based case management; monthly stipends of $200 for those who maintain employment and complete activities related to employment plan | |
| Characteristic | Tier 2 Program | Tier 1 Program | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full sample | Gender (%) | Female | 93.8 | 92.6 | 93.2 |
| Male | 6.2 | 7.4 | 6.8 | ||
| Race/ethnicity | Hispanic | 1.7 | 2.7 | 2.2 | |
| Black, non-Hispanic | 69.6 | 66.1 | 67.8 | ||
| White, non-Hispanic | 15.8 | 16.8 | 16.3 | ||
| American Indian/Alaskan native | 6.4 | 7.1 | 6.8 | ||
| Asian | 4.4 | 6.0 | 5.2 | ||
| Other | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.3 | ||
| Mixed race | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.4 | ||
| Age (%) | 20 years or less | 3.3 | 3.7 | 3.5 | |
| 21 to 30 years | 48.4 | 47.8 | 48.1 | ||
| 31 to 40 years | 29.5 | 32.1 | 30.8 | ||
| 41 years and older | 18.8 | 16.4 | 17.6 | ||
| Average age (years) | 31.6 | 31.2 | 31.4 | ||
| High school diploma or higher a(%) | 53.4 | 53.7 | 53.6 | ||
| Number of children (%) | 0 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.8 | |
| 1 | 33.4 | 36.6 | 35.0 | ||
| 2 | 33.7 | 31.4 | 32.6 | ||
| 3 or more | 32.2 | 31.1 | 31.6 | ||
| Average number of children in household | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | ||
| Age of youngest child in household (%) | Less than 3 years | 39.1 | 37.8 | 38.4 | |
| 3 to 5 years | 21.0 | 23.1 | 22.1 | ||
| More than 6 years | 39.9 | 39.1 | 39.5 | ||
| U.S. citizenship (%) | 69.7 | 70.8 | 70.2 | ||
| AFDC/TANF receipt history b | Less than 2 years | 28.9 | 31.9 | 30.4 | |
| 2 to 4 years | 71.1 | 68.1 | 69.6 | ||
| Primary language (%) | English | 80.6 | 85.5 | 83.0 | |
| Spanish | 1.3 | 0.8 | 1.1 | ||
| Russian | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | ||
| Vietnamese | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.5 | ||
| Other non-English language | 17.1 | 12.4 | 14.8 | ||
| Unknown | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | ||
| Completed Baseline Assessment Data | Yes | 58.3 | 61.6 | 60.0 | |
| No | 41.7 | 38.4 | 40.0 | ||
| Sample size | 845 | 847 | 1,692 | ||
| Sample members for whom Baseline Assessment Data are available c | Currently employed (%) | 15.8 | 14.0 | 14.9 | |
| Hourly wage (%) | Less than $5.15 | 5.7 | 7.5 | 6.6 | |
| $5.15 - $6.99 | 8.6 | 13.4 | 10.9 | ||
| $7.00 - $9.99 | 44.3 | 35.8 | 40.1 | ||
| More than $10.00 | 41.4 | 43.3 | 42.3 | ||
| Average hourly wage (among those currently employed) ($) | 10.42 | 9.67 | 10.06 | ||
| Number of hours worked per week | Less than 20 | 21.6 | 21.1 | 21.4 | |
| 21 - 30 | 37.8 | 39.4 | 38.6 | ||
| 32 or more | 40.5 | 39.4 | 40.0 | ||
| Percentage working full-time (32+ hours) (among those currently employed) (%) | 40.5 | 39.4 | 40.0 | ||
| Employment during the past 3 years | Did not work | 18.1 | 15.9 | 16.9 | |
| Worked less than 6 months | 18.7 | 18.8 | 18.7 | ||
| Worked 7 to 12 months | 22.7 | 20.9 | 21.8 | ||
| Worked 13 to 24 months | 23.1 | 25.1 | 24.1 | ||
| Worked for more than 2 years | 17.4 | 19.3 | 18.4 | ||
| Type of employment in past 3 years (among those who worked) (%) | Mostly part time | 28.2 | 24.8 | 26.5 | |
| Mostly full time | 55.4 | 58.8 | 57.2 | ||
| Equal amounts part and full time | 16.1 | 16.4 | 16.3 | ||
| Current housing status (%) | Rent, public housing | 11.6 | 12.5 | 12.0 | |
| Rent, subsidized housing | 36.6 | 39.8 | 38.3 | ||
| Rent, other | 42.3 | 38.3 | 40.2 | ||
| Own home or apartment | 3.9 | 5.2 | 4.5 | ||
| Emergency or temporary housing | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 | ||
| Other | 3.7 | 2.7 | 3.2 | ||
| Currently pregnant (%) | 7.1 | 7.7 | 7.4 | ||
| Body Mass Index (BMI) e (%) | Underweight | 1.3 | 1.8 | 1.6 | |
| Normal weight | 32.3 | 33.1 | 32.7 | ||
| Overweight | 31.6 | 31.8 | 31.7 | ||
| Obese | 34.8 | 33.3 | 34.0 | ||
| Severe domestic violence h (%) | 15.5 | 12.4 | 13.9 | ||
| Alcohol dependence i (%) | 2.6 | 2.1 | 2.4 | ||
| Drug dependence i (%) | 1.4 | 2.9 | 2.2 | ||
| Ever convicted of a felony (%) | 7.7 | 7.9 | 7.8 | ||
| Potential employment barriers (%) | Poor child health | 21.9 | 21.5 | 21.7 | |
| Activity limitation | 13.4 | 11.5 | 12.5 | ||
| Learning disabled f | 18.8 | 17.6 | 18.2 | ||
| Major depression i | 28.1 | 30.2 | 29.2 | ||
| Health problems d | 33.4 | 32.9 | 33.1 | ||
| Limited English ability | 21.3 | 18.6 | 19.9 | ||
| Any domestic violence g | 22.6 | 20.6 | 21.6 | ||
| At least one of the above | 72.2 | 71.1 | 71.6 | ||
| Sample size | 493 | 522 | 1,015 | ||
SOURCES: MDRC calculations from Minnesota's Baseline Assessment Data and administrative data from the State of Minnesota. NOTES: In order to assess differences in characteristics across research groups, Chi-square tests were used for categorical variables, and t-tests were used for continuous variables. Significance levels are indicated as follows: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.
Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in calculating sums and differences. Unless otherwise stated, results are for sample members randomly assigned from January 2002 to April 2003. a Those having 12 or more years of education are considered to have a high school diploma.. b This measure goes back only 9 years before random assignment. c Information is provided only for sample members who completed the Baseline Assessment Data. d If self-rated health as "fair" or "poor." e Based on BMI. f Based on the Learning Needs Screening Tool, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. g Based on the Modified Conflict Tactics Scale, "Yes" to any abuse. This measure is calculated only for women who reported being in a relationship at some point during the previous year. h Based on the Modified Conflict Tactics Scale, "Yes" to physical abuse. This measure is calculated only for women who reported being in a relationship at some point during the previous year, which was roughly 84 percent of the sample. i Based on the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, Short Form. |
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |