Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

Chapter 1: Introduction

Overview of the National ERA Project

For over a decade, policymakers and program operators have struggled to learn what kinds of services, supports, and incentives are best able to help low-income working parents retain steady employment and move up to better jobs. This issue has assumed greater urgency in the wake of the 1990s welfare reforms, which made long-term welfare receipt much less feasible for families. Yet, although a great deal is known about alternative approaches to job preparation and placement, there is still relatively little hard evidence about effective strategies to promote employment retention and advancement. Previous studies on retention and advancement efforts –– notably, the Post-Employment Services Demonstration (PESD), a four-site project that tested programs providing follow-up case management to welfare recipients who found jobs –– generally failed to improve employment retention.1

The Employment Retention and Advancement project was designed to improve on past efforts in this area by identifying and testing innovative models designed to promote employment stability and wage progression among welfare recipients or other low-income groups. The project began in 1998, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued planning grants to 13 states to develop new programs. The following year, MDRC was selected by HHS to conduct an evaluation of the ERA programs.2 From 2000 to 2003, MDRC and its subcontractor, The Lewin Group, worked closely with the states that had received planning grants — and with several other states — to mount tests of ERA programs. MDRC, Lewin, and Cygnet Associates also provided extensive technical assistance to some of the states and program operators, since most were starting the project from scratch, with no proven models on which to build.

Ultimately, a total of 15 ERA experiments (also called “tests”) were implemented in eight states, including Texas. Almost all the programs target current or former recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) –– the cash welfare program that mainly serves single mothers and their children –– but the ERA program models are extremely diverse. One group of programs targets low-wage workers and focuses strongly on advancement. Another group targets individuals who are considered “hard to employ” and aims primarily to place them in stable jobs. Finally, a third group of programs has mixed goals and targets a diverse set of populations, including former TANF recipients, TANF applicants, and low-wage workers in particular firms. Some of these programs initiate services before individuals go to work, while others begin services after employment. Appendix Table A.1 describes each of the ERA programs and identifies its goals and target populations.

The evaluation design is similar in most of the sites. Individuals who meet ERA eligibility criteria (which vary from site to site) are assigned, at random, to a program group –– also called “the ERA group” –– or to a control group. Members of the ERA group are recruited for the ERA program (and, in some sites, are required to participate in it), whereas members of the control group are not eligible for ERA services. The extent and nature of the services and supports available to the control group vary from site to site, but it is important to note that, in most sites, the ERA program is not being compared with a “no services” control group. The random assignment process ensures that any differences in outcomes that emerge between the two research groups during the follow-up period can be confidently attributed to the ERA program, rather than to differences in the characteristics of people in the groups. To track both groups over time, MDRC is using surveys and administrative records (data on quarterly earnings in jobs covered by unemployment insurance and records of TANF and food stamp payments).

The Texas ERA Program

Origins and Goals of the Texas ERA Program

The Texas ERA program was designed to promote job placement, retention, and career advancement as well as to reduce recidivism for TANF applicants and recipients. The program provided both pre- and postemployment services and targeted a population applying for or receiving cash assistance, most of whom were not working when they entered the program. To encourage employment retention and advancement, the Texas ERA program included a monthly stipend of $200 for working TANF leavers. The ERA evaluation in Texas was conducted in three sites: Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, and Houston.3

The Texas ERA program was developed by the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS), in coordination with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). DHS was primarily responsible for determining eligibility and overseeing the TANF cash assistance program, while TWC managed TANF employment services. TWC oversaw employment services for the ERA program as well as for Choices — the standard welfare-to-work program in the state that provides employment-related services to TANF recipients.

The Texas ERA model was explicitly designed to improve on the poor performance of past retention and advancement programs, primarily PESD, as well as to enhance the services provided under Choices. Developed in 1999, the ERA program design grew out of a concern with the level of “recycling” in the TANF caseload in Texas. Because of the state’s low grant levels,4 most individuals will leave welfare when they find a job (after an earnings disregard period). However, mirroring the experiences of other states and localities, state administrators found that many of these individuals worked at low wages with poor benefits and ended up returning to the rolls. A secondary goal of the Texas ERA program was to increase TANF recipients’ participation levels in preemployment services and their overall employment levels.

The Texas ERA Model

The Texas ERA program was designed to provide both pre- and postemployment services to TANF applicants and recipients. As designed, the program had three key features:

• Preemployment job search and team-based case management services. For most participants, the ERA program initially provided job search, job readiness, and case management services. Because postemployment case management services had little effect on employment outcomes in past retention and advancement studies, Texas redesigned these services by having them begin at the preemployment stage and using a team-based approach. The goal was to involve partners from multiple agencies (including DHS, local workforce staff, and organizations working to prevent substance abuse or domestic violence) that had expertise in addressing specific employment-related barriers. Key case management services included employment assessment, goal setting and career planning, support services, resolution of employment barriers, and job search assistance.

• Stipend for welfare leavers. The ERA program provided monthly stipends of $200 per month to participants who have left TANF, were employed for a minimum of 30 hours per week, and participated in a postemployment “advancement” activity. The stipend was also available to those who combined 15 hours a week of employment with an education and training activity that lasted 15 hours per week. The stipend was available after a four-month earned income disregard, whereby 90 percent of earnings were disregarded in calculating the TANF grant.5 Individuals could receive the earned income disregard once in 12-month period (but the four months did not have to be used consecutively within this time period). There was a lifetime limit of 12 stipends (stipends also did not have to be used in consecutive months). The stipend was included in the ERA model based on other studies that found similar earnings supplements to be effective in encouraging job retention and increasing earnings (see Box 1.1).6

• Intensive postemployment services. The ERA program provided a comprehensive set of postemployment services, which could include assistance with job-related problems and support services, monitoring job performance and issues through regular site visits to employers, rapid reemployment assistance for participants who lost jobs, and support in meeting the requirements of the stipend. ERA postemployment services could continue for as long as an individual was eligible for the stipend.

Immediately following an eligibility or recertification interview for TANF (but, in the case of applicants, before they were approved for cash assistance), individuals were randomly assigned either to the ERA program or to the Choices program. Those who were assigned to ERA were introduced to the program and were then required to attend an orientation to the TANF program before being approved for cash assistance. Once these individuals were approved for TANF, they were then engaged in ERA program services. Individuals who were not approved for TANF were not eligible for the ERA program.

Participation in the ERA program was mandatory for most individuals, meaning they faced a reduction of termination of TANF benefits for noncompliance with program rules. Some individuals were not required to participate and did not face sanctions for noncompliance — this is known as being “exempt” — if they had a child younger than age 1, were ill or disabled, or were caring for a disabled family member. Exempt individuals were eligible for all components of the ERA program, and program staff strongly encouraged them to participate.

Once assigned to the ERA program, individuals completed an assessment; then they generally participated in job search and, if they did not find a job, community service (a volunteer position in a nonprofit or public organization) and also received case management services. Once participants were employed, they received postemployment services, and –– after leaving TANF and after receiving the earned income disregard –– they become eligible for the monthly stipend.

Box 1.1 The Design of Programs Using Financial Incentives to Promote Work The Texas ERA program was designed in part to build on the results of other programs that used financial incentives to encourage work –– particularly, the Minnesota Family Investment Program and the Canadian Self-Sufficiency Project. As described below, these programs and the Texas ERA program had some similarities but also some important differences. Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) MFIP, which began operating in 1994, allowed cash assistance applicants and recipients to remain eligible for welfare until their income reached 140 percent of the poverty line. Like the Texas ERA program, MFIP operated as part of the state’s welfare-to-work system in several counties. Under MFIP, the financial incentive was provided as a generous earned income disregard and was automatically received by all welfare recipients who went to work and remained on assistance. This resulted in an increase in income of approximately $150 to $250 per month, depending on wages and hours worked. Recipients who were not working at least 30 hours per week were required to participate in job search and other work preparation and training programs. Overall, an experimental evaluation of the program showed that MFIP produced relatively large increases in employment, earnings, income, and job stability and reductions in poverty. (Control group members were not required to participate in employment services and faced a sharp reduction in benefits as their earnings increased.) Canadian Self-Sufficiency Project (SSP) Operating between 1992 and 1999, SSP was a demonstration project designed to test a work-based alternative to welfare. It paid a substantial monthly earnings supplement for up to three years to single-parent long-term welfare recipients who worked full time (at least 30 hours a week). The supplement equaled half the difference between a participant’s earnings and an “earnings benchmark” (which equaled $30,000 or $37,000, depending on the site). After taxes, SSP made most families better off by $3,000 to $7,000 per year than if they worked full time and remained on cash assistance. Sponsored by the Canadian government, SSP was operated outside the welfare system by private agencies in parts of two provinces. Participation was voluntary, but recipients could not receive welfare benefits and earnings supplement payments at the same time. A person could sign up for the supplement if she found full-time work within a year of enrollment. An experimental evaluation of SSP found that it increased full-time employment and earnings, reduced poverty, and resulted in more stable employment and wage growth over time. (The control group was eligible for cash assistance and received no extra financial incentive to work.) Comparison of the Texas ERA Program with MFIP and SSP The Texas ERA stipend was similar to the MFIP incentive in that it was provided through the cash assistance system and at a similar financial level. However, unlike MFIP’s incentive, the stipend was not provided automatically to all individuals who became employed and stayed on assistance. ERA participants had to meet certain requirements in terms of hours worked, completing the four-month earnings disregard, and participating in a monthly employment activity. The SSP incentive was more generous than the ERA benefit, and the program operated outside the welfare system. However, like ERA, SSP required individuals to take the initiative to receive the supplement, and they had to work a certain number of hours of work in order to be eligible.

The Counterfactual: What Is ERA Being Compared With?

As discussed above, members of the control group were not eligible for ERA services and were assigned to participate in Choices, the state’s standard welfare-to-work program. Although Choices also provided pre- and postemployment services to TANF recipients, Table 1.1 shows that there were important differences between the two programs, particularly in terms of postemployment services:

Although Choices also provided pre- and postemployment services to TANF recipients, Table 1.1 shows that there were important differences between the two programs, particularly in terms of postemployment services:

• Preemployment services. These services were similar under both programs. As in ERA, individuals who were assigned to Choices completed an assessment and participated in job search or –– if they did not find employment –– community service. Choices also provided case management services, but these generally did not involve multiple agencies and focused less on longer-term career planning. Like ERA, Choices services were mandatory for most TANF recipients, although the program encouraged those who were exempt to participate as well.

• Postemployment services. Choices participants were not eligible for the monthly $200 stipend. Once employed, however, they were eligible for the earned income disregard for four months (for the same amount as in the ERA program). In Choices, postemployment case management services generally lasted only for the duration of the earnings disregard, whereas services continued for up to an additional 12 months in ERA, for those who were receiving the stipend. Postemployment services in Choices were also less intensive — consisting primarily of monthly contacts with participants to verify employment status. Members of both groups were eligible for transitional child care subsidies once they left TANF after receiving the earned income disregard. (While receiving the disregard, individuals continued to receive child care through TANF.)

Because of the job search and case management services, participation requirement, and support services, the control group in the ERA evaluation received a relatively strong set of services, compared with other experimental studies of programs involving financial incentives. Box 1.1 describes two such programs: the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) and the Canadian Self-Sufficiency Project (SSP).

Characteristics of the Texas ERA Sites

The three Texas sites in the ERA evaluation differ significantly in terms of their local economy and the demographic characteristics of the ERA target population. Corpus Christi, a midsize city located on the Gulf Coast, has an economy based on petroleum, shipping, and tourism. Economic conditions have been relatively poor: In 2003, the unemployment rate was 6.7 percent — having increased from 6.3 percent in 2000, when the study began.7

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project

Table 1.1

Comparison of Services Provided in the Texas ERA Program and in the Control Group Program (Choices)

Services		ERA Program	Choices
Preemployment job search services	Strong focus on immediate employment	Yes	Yes
	4 weeks of job search followed by community service for those who did not find jobs	Yes	Yes
Preemployment case management	Team based	Yes	No
	Assessment and monitoring participation	Yes	Yes
	Barrier identification and career planning	Yes	Limited
	Support services including child care and transportation	Yes	Yes
Financial incentives	For those who find jobs, 4-month earned income disregard period where 90 percent of earnings are disregarded in calculating the welfare grant	Yes	Yes
	$200 per month stipend for TANF leavers who are working full time or working part time combined with school	Yes	No
Postemployment services	Case management during earned income disregard period	Yes	Limited
	Intensive case management during stipend period including employer site visits and rapid re-employment services	Yes	No
	Transitional child care for TANF leavers	Yes	Yes

In contrast, Fort Worth is the sixth-largest city in Texas.8 Located in Tarrant County, it is a major mercantile, commercial, and financial center providing agribusiness and wholesale services to much of west Texas. The city also has diversified manufacturing and significant tourism industries. In December 1999, the unemployment rate was 2.8 percent, and it increased to 6.4 percent by 2003.9 The child poverty rate in Forth Worth was very low compared with the rest of the state, while median household income was comparatively high.

Houston is not only the largest city in Texas but also the largest city in the southern United States and the fourth-most-populous city in the nation. Houston is regarded as a major port and corporate management center, and the city is home to many businesses. Houston’s highly industrialized economy is based on petrochemicals, medical research and health care delivery, high technology (including computers and aerospace), manufacturing and distribution, and related service industries, among others.10 As of December 1999, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent, but it increased to 6.9 percent in 2003. The child poverty rate was similar to rates in the rest of the state, while median household income was relatively high.

The ERA Target Population

Table 1.2 shows selected characteristics of ERA group members at the point they entered the study in each of the three Texas sites. As expected, given that the program targets TANF applicants and recipients, very few ERA sample members — ranging from 4 percent to 9 percent across the sites — were employed at the time of random assignment. The low levels of employment at this point were also due to the relatively low grant levels in Texas (see below), which meant that few sample members combined work and welfare. In addition, nearly 15 percent had not worked in the past three years, and roughly 40 percent had worked a year or less in this same time period. The majority of those who worked did so “mostly full time.”

The sample members across the sites varied the most in terms of race/ethnicity. In Corpus Christi, the sample is primarily Hispanic; in Fort Worth and Houston, the majority are African-American, though Houston also has a sizable Hispanic population. Over half the sample members in Houston and Corpus Christi did not have a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED) certificate when they entered the study, while slightly less than half the sample members in Fort Worth were in this group.

Across all the Texas sites, sample members were generally not long-term TANF recipients: About one-third had no history with Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or TANF, and over 40 percent had received assistance for fewer than two years. Over 80 percent of the sample members were TANF applicants, and about one-quarter were exempt from the mandate to participate in program services, usually because they had a child younger than age 1.

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project

Table 1.2

Selected Characteristics of Texas ERA Group Members a

Characteristic		Corpus Christi	Fort Worth	Houston
Gender (%)	Male	5.7	3.8	2.3
	Female	94.3	96.2	97.7
Average age (years)		28.5	28.6	28.2
U.S. citizen (%)	Yes	98.7	99.2	96.2
	No	1.3	0.8	3.8
Limited English (%)	Yes	3.3	0.6	2.8
	No	96.7	99.4	97.2
Race/ethnicity (%)	White, non-Hispanic	15.9	21.5	9.3
	Black, non-Hispanic	8.3	66.9	61.9
	American Indian/Alaska native	0.1	0.1	0.1
	Hispanic	73.6	10.8	27.7
	Other	2.1	0.6	1.0
Education (%)	GED	16.4	13.6	15.7
	High school diploma	25.6	39.1	25.7
	Technical/Associate's degree/2-year college	5.4	1.7	2.7
	4-year (or more) college	0.9	0.8	0.7
	None of the above	51.7	44.9	55.2
Current cash assistance status (%)	Applicant	88.3	81.7	84.4
	Recipient	11.7	18.3	15.7
Registration status (%)	Mandatory	75.1	77.8	77.5
	Exempt	24.9	22.2	22.5
Total prior AFDC/TANF receipt (%)	None	38.8	35.5	38.5
	Less than 3 months	5.7	6.0	9.4
	3 months or more and less than 2 years	34.9	43.9	34.9
	2 years or more and less than 5 years	12.7	8.1	9.9
	5 years or more and less than 10 years	5.7	5.0	5.4
	10 years or more	2.3	1.6	2.0
Months employed in last 3 years	Did not work	14.6	13.1	14.7
	6 or less	18.3	22.2	21.0
	7 to 12	18.1	17.4	22.1
	13 to 24	21.2	21.2	19.7
	More than 24	27.9	26.2	22.5
Type of employment in last 3 years (among those who worked) (%)	Mostly part time	28.4	18.3	21.9
	Mostly full time	56.4	62.8	73.3
	Equal amounts part time and full time	15.2	19.0	4.8
Currently employed (%)	Yes	8.8	4.3	6.8
	No	91.3	95.7	93.2
Hours worked per week (among those currently employed) (%)	10 or less	7.3	12.9	8.9
	11 to 20	36.5	21.0	23.2
	21 to 40	37.2	40.3	40.2
	More than 40	19.0	25.8	27.7
Average hourly wage (among those currently employed) ($)		6.15	7.91	6.83
Number of children (%)	0	1.5	0.3	1.2
	1	44.1	41.9	37.1
	2	28.9	30.7	29.4
	3 or more	25.6	27.1	32.3
Sample size (total = 5,237)		1,723	1,564	1,950

SOURCE: Texas baseline information sheets. NOTES: See Appendix B. a This table includes single-parent ERA sample members only. Two-parent families are not included.

The External Environment

The Texas ERA program was developed and implemented during a period when several policy changes were occurring in the state. In 1995, prior to the implementation of ERA, responsibility for TANF employment services was shifted by the state legislature from DHS to TWC. In addition, during the early phases of the program, Texas was operating under a waiver from the federal welfare reform law that allowed individuals to participate in a wide range of employment and training activities in order to meet the federal work participation requirements. When the waiver ended in July 2002, Texas was required to follow the federal rules — which placed more limitations on the types of activities that counted toward meeting federal participation rates — and more strongly emphasized work-focused activities. Across all the Texas sites, this resulted in a stronger focus on immediate employment both in ERA and in Choices.

During the period of the ERA evaluation, TANF caseloads were increasing slightly in Texas. From 2000 to 2003, caseloads increased from 342,000 to 370,000 — an increase of 8 percent.11 TANF grant levels also increased slightly; the average basic monthly grant for a family of three in Texas went up from $188 in 2000 to $203 in 2003.12 The state’s TANF grant levels were among the lowest in the nation.13

More recently, there has been a reorganization of agencies involved in the program at the state level. In 2004, DHS was merged with a larger umbrella agency that is responsible for a range of social services, which changed the state-level management of ERA. In addition, Texas, like many other states, recently experienced tighter state budgets. Because of these factors, the ERA program ended in August 2004.

About the Evaluation

Research Questions

The ERA evaluation includes two major components: (1) an implementation analysis, which studies the way the program operates, and (2) an impact analysis, which assesses what difference the program makes relative to the current environment. Contingent on future evaluation design decisions, a benefit-cost analysis –– which will compare the financial benefits and costs of the ERA program for participants and for the government budget –– may also be conducted.

This report focuses on program implementation and early impacts and addresses the following questions.

• Implementation. How did each of the Texas sites execute its ERA program? What services and messages did ERA clients in Texas receive? How did case managers spend their time? How did implementation of the ERA program compare with implementation of the Choices program?

• Participation. Did the ERA program succeed in engaging a substantial proportion of individuals in its services? What types of services did people receive? What proportion received a stipend? How did participation levels in ERA compare with levels of participation in Choices?

• Impacts. Within the follow-up period, did each of the Texas ERA programs — relative to the experiences of the control group — increase employment and earnings and reduce public assistance receipt? Did individuals’ measured income increase as a result of the program?

The final report on the evaluation of the ERA project will provide program impacts covering a longer-follow-up period and may include a benefit-cost analysis.

The ERA Research Design

As discussed above, to produce reliable estimates of the effects of the Texas ERA program, the evaluation uses a random assignment research design. The random assignment process ensures that any differences in various outcomes that emerge between the two research groups during the follow-up period can be confidently attributed to the ERA program. These differences in outcomes are known as impacts.

The random assignment process began in November 2000 in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth and in March 2001 in Houston. Random assignment ended in all the Texas sites in December 2002, and the ERA program ended in August 2004. Thus, the amount of time that sample members could potentially be exposed to the ERA program ranged from 20 months to 46 months, depending on when they were randomly assigned. However, it is unlikely that participants would be engaged in ERA for as long as 46 months. Because of differences in program implementation across the sites, impacts are presented for each site and are generally not pooled.

Most sample members were single parents when they entered the study, and this group is the focus of the evaluation. Appendix Table E.12 compares single parents who were assigned to the ERA group with single parents in the control group, showing that the groups are similar along most dimensions. Because program administrators in Texas had an interest in understanding the effects of the program for two-parent families, this group was included in the random assignment process in Corpus Christi. However, as discussed below, sample sizes were too small to conduct most of the analyses.

When a TANF applicant or recipient met with a DHS staff person to complete an eligibility or recertification interview, staff referred those who they believed would be certified (or recertified) for TANF for random assignment in the ERA evaluation. After staff completed baseline paperwork for each individual — recording such standard client characteristics as educational background and welfare history — individuals were randomly assigned to either the ERA or the Choices group.14

Both ERA and control group members were assigned to attend a workforce orientation, which was required in order to be certified for TANF. (Individuals who did not attend the orientation could not receive TANF or participate in either ERA or Choices.) The sites operated separate orientations for ERA and Choices, and the content reflected the differences in the programs. As in all welfare-to-work programs, many individuals who were referred to ERA or to Choices did not attend a workforce orientation or a program activity — some found employment on their own; some were not approved for receiving TANF; and some chose not to participate in program services (thereby facing possible sanctions). The attrition between TANF application and certification for both groups is examined in this report.

Data Sources

Most of the report’s findings cover a two-year follow-up period. The data sources and the sizes of the samples for each type of analysis are described below and in Table 1.3.

Unemployment Insurance, TANF, and Food Stamp Records Data

Employment, earnings, and public assistance impacts were computed using automated records data from the Texas unemployment insurance (UI) system and administrative records from the TANF and Food Stamp Programs. One year’s records of UI, TANF, and food stamp receipt are available for all the sample members in all the Texas sites. The sample sizes reported in Table 1.3 are for single parents, who are the primary focus of the analysis. As discussed above, 178 two-parent families were also randomly assigned, primarily in Corpus Christi.

The primary sample used in the impact analysis — known as the “report sample” — includes single parents for whom two years of follow-up data are available. This includes those who were randomly assigned between October 2000 and June 2002 in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth and between March 2001 and June 2002 in Houston. The report sample represents 76 percent of the full sample in Corpus Christi, 74 percent in Fort Worth, and 93 percent in Houston. Three years of data are available for an early cohort assigned through June 2001 in all the sites. This cohort represents 39 percent of the full sample in Corpus Christi, 45 percent in Fort Worth, and 35 percent in Houston.

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project

Table 1.3

Overview of Report Sample Sizes, by Site and Research Group

Site		Report Sample	Early Cohort	12-Month Survey
Corpus Christi	Random assignment period	Oct. 2000 - June 2002	Oct. 2000 - June 2001	Jan. 2002 - June 2002
	ERA group	656	337	141
	Control group	653	331	149
	Total sample size	1,309	668	290
Fort Worth	Random assignment period	Oct. 2000 - June 2002	Oct. 2000 - June 2001	Sept. 2002 - Dec. 2002
	ERA group	577	347	92
	Control group	586	363	96
	Total sample size	1,163	710	188
Houston	Random assignment period	Mar. 2001 - June 2002	Mar. 2001 - June 2001	Jan. 2002 - June 2002
	ERA group	904	340	150
	Control group	912	333	147
	Total sample size	1,816	673	297

The ERA 12-Month Survey

Clients’ experiences in the program and their service receipt –– as well as some measures of their income and job characteristics –– are based on results compiled from a survey administered approximately one-year after random assignment to a sample that was evenly split between ERA and control group members. The survey sample was selected from adults in single-parent families who spoke either English or Spanish and who were randomly assigned from January through June 2002 in Corpus Christi and Houston and from September through December 2002 in Fort Worth.15 This report includes the responses of 775 individuals (290 in Corpus Christi, 188 in Fort Worth, and 297 in Houston). The response rates for the survey are 82 percent in Corpus Christi, 75 percent in Fort Worth, and 80 percent in Houston.

Field Research

Periodically between 2000 and 2004, MDRC staff interviewed case managers, service providers, and program administrators from both ERA and Choices. Information was collected about a range of issues, including program goals; the nature of job search, education and training, and support services; marketing and administration of the stipend; retention and advancement services; management philosophies and structure; relationships between organizations involved in the program; and enforcement of the participation mandate.

Data on Stipend Receipt

MDRC received program tracking data from each of the sites on stipend receipt for the full sample of individuals in the ERA group. Stipend data are available for the entire period that the Texas ERA program operated, from October 2000 to August 2004.

Time Study of Program Staff

MDRC drew on data collected from a two-week time study that was administered to ERA staff. The time study collected detailed information on the nature of staff-client interactions and on the topics covered in these interactions. In addition, the study collected information on how case managers typically spent their time each day. The time study was administered confidentially, using MDRC-assigned identification numbers to protect the identity of case managers. The time study was administered in 2003, from July 14 to 27 in Corpus Christi and Houston and from January 29 to February 11 in Fort Worth. In Corpus Christi, 73 percent of staff completed the time study, while 94 percent of staff in Fort Worth and Houston did so. A total of 22 staff completed the time study in Texas: 9 in Corpus Christi, 6 in Fort Worth, and 7 in Houston.

Telephone Discussions

Between October 2003 and March 2004, MDRC conducted a special study in which a small number of sample members were contacted by telephone to discuss their experiences with the ERA postemployment stipend. Drawing from the sample of individuals who completed the 12-month survey in Corpus Christi and Houston, this sample includes 20 individuals who, as of May 2003, (1) had received more than two monthly stipends or (2) had not received a stipend but were employed for four or more consecutive months, according to ERA program records.

Baseline Demographic Data

Data on clients’ characteristics, such as educational background and welfare history, were collected by welfare staff after eligibility interviews and are available for all individuals in the research sample.

Roadmap of the Report

As previously mentioned, this report focuses on the Texas ERA program’s implementation and impact findings. Chapter 2 further describes the program and its implementation. Chapter 3 provides information regarding impacts on service receipt. Chapter 4 covers impacts on employment, earnings, job characteristics, and other outcomes.

---

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next