Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

Chapter 3: The Effects of the Texas ERA Program on Message and Service Receipt

Chapter 2 describes the Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) programs that were implemented and studied in three Texas sites: Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, and Houston.1 This chapter provides information about participation in the program and other similar services, focusing on the differences between the experiences of individuals in the ERA group and those in the control group. Examining these differences is central to understanding the outcomes on employment, public assistance, and income that are presented in Chapter 4. As noted previously, control group members were not eligible for ERA services but could receive services through Choices, the state’s standard welfare-to-work program for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), as well as through other programs and agencies in their area.

This chapter relies primarily on data from the ERA 12-Month Survey, which was administered to a subset of ERA and control group members in Texas about 12 months after they entered the study. Chapter 1 notes that the Fort Worth program administered the survey to a later cohort of sample members, who were thus more likely to receive the stronger program that developed later in the study period.2 Across the three sites, a total of 775 sample members responded to the survey. Respondents were asked a series of questions about their contact with case managers and similar staff and about their participation in employment-related activities. This chapter does not discuss receipt of the postemployment stipend. As noted in Chapter 2, program administrative records show that a moderate portion of ERA group members received this benefit, which was not available to control group members and thus represented a key difference in treatment between the two groups.

Key Findings

According to survey respondents, only the ERA programs in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth produced statistically significant increases in the proportion of ERA clients who received help with retention and advancement services. These services included help finding a better job while working, enrolling in life skills classes while working, and career assessment. Despite the program’s impacts, the overall level of receipt of retention and advancement services is somewhat lower than expected: Only about 40 percent of working survey respondents from the ERA program reported receiving assistance in this area. This could possibly reflect that –– because some individuals did not receive the stipend and more intensive retention and advancement services until they had spent more than a year in the program (see Chapter 2) –– this activity was not fully captured by the 12-month survey.

In Corpus Christi and Fort Worth, ERA group members were more likely than control group members to have had contact with a case manager or employment program during the year after entering the program. The differences between the two groups are not large, however; this indicates that control group members in Choices were assigned to a relatively strong welfare-to-work program that included case management services.

Reflecting Corpus Christi’s emphasis on employer site visits, staff contacts with ERA group members in that program only were more likely to occur at the workplace than were contacts with control group members, and staff were more likely to talk with an ERA respondent’s employer. However, the overall proportion of respondents in the ERA group who reported staff contacts at or with their employer is low. This is not surprising, given that many ERA group members did not reach the stage in the program where they were receiving the stipend and this type of postemployment service, as discussed in Chapter 2. Again, this activity may not be fully captured by the 12-month survey because stipend receipt (and, therefore, employer visits) occurred after more than a year in the program for some individuals.

Overall, participation rates in employment-related services are relatively high in all three sites for both the ERA group and the control group, and there were few other differences in the types of services that each group received. Again, this shows at least in part the relative strength of the Choices program, particularly in terms of preemployment services.

The Intensity and Nature of Contacts Between Clients and Staff

As discussed in Chapter 2, a key element of the Texas ERA program was individualized case management services at both the pre- and the postemployment stage of the program. Staff provided one-on-one assistance to help participants find jobs, arrange support services, and address job-related issues after participants found jobs. A key issue, then, in assessing the strength of the program “treatment,” is the intensity and nature of contacts between staff and clients. The ERA 12-Month Survey asked a series of questions intended to capture the nature of contact between respondents and program staff and other staff from employment and social service agencies. Given the nebulous nature of “case management,” it was a challenge to design these questions. (See Box 3.1.)

Box 3.1 Measuring Participation in ERA In order to interpret the results of a random assignment evaluation, it is critical to understand the “dose” of services that each research group receives. In many studies, this is relatively straightforward because the “treatment” is easy to measure (for example, number of hours of training or the dollar value of incentive payments). In contrast, in many of the ERA programs, including Texas’s, services are mostly delivered in one-on-one interactions, during which staff advise, coach, or counsel participants. This type of service is inherently difficult to measure. In addition, to accurately measure a program’s impact on service receipt, it is important to collect data in the same way for both the ERA group and the control group. In practice, this means that survey questions cannot refer to the ERA program in particular but, instead, must ask in general about the kinds of services that ERA provided. MDRC sought to measure service receipt in three main ways, using the ERA 12-Month Survey. Each approach has both strengths and limitations, and each contributes to the overall analysis: First, the survey asked whether respondents participated in “traditional” employment-related services, such as job search workshops and training classes, and how many weeks they participated (see Table 3.3). These services are relatively easy to measure, but they are not the heart of most ERA programs. Second, the survey asked how frequently respondents had contact with staff from employment or social service agencies and where these contacts took place (see Table 3.1). These questions are more central to the ERA programs, but it is difficult to determine to which types of staff respondents were referring to. For example, contact with a worker who determines food stamps eligibility is likely to be quite different from contact with an ERA case manager. Moreover, it may be difficult for respondents to recall the number of such contacts over a one-year period. Third, the survey asked whether respondents received assistance in a variety of specific areas, some of which –– such as “finding a better job while working” –– are central to ERA (see Table 3.2). These questions are fairly straightforward, but they do not provide any information about the amount of service that was received in each area.

To estimate contact between sample members (both ERA and control group members) and program staff or other organizations or agencies that individuals may work with to find or keep jobs, the analysis combined two survey questions into a single measure. One question asked whether the respondent had had contact with “programs or organizations that help people find and keep jobs.” The other question was introduced with a sentence that referred to “agency staff [who] help people find and keep jobs,” but it asked whether the respondent had had “contact with a case manager or a staff person from an employment, welfare, or other agency.” In this chapter, the combined measure is referred to as “contacts with a case manager or employment program.”

Table 3.1 presents the program’s impacts on contacts with staff during the year following random assignment. Within each site’s set of three columns, the first column presents outcomes for the ERA group; the second column presents outcomes for the control group; and the third column presents the difference, or impact, between the two groups. Because random assignment ensures that there are no systematic differences between the ERA and control groups when they enter the study, any differences in the groups’ outcomes that emerge over time can be attributed to the program intervention. Tests of statistical significance were performed on all impacts presented in this report, to determine whether an impact can confidently be attributed to the program. An impact is considered statistically significant at the 10 percent level if there is less than a 10 percent chance that the estimated difference could have stemmed from a program that had no real effect. Statistical significance is also presented at the 5 percent and the 1 percent levels. Except where otherwise noted, only statistically significant impacts are discussed in the text.

As Table 3.1 shows, in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth (but not in Houston), the ERA program resulted in significantly more contacts with case managers after enrollment in the study. In these two sites, over 60 percent of the ERA group reported that they had contact with a case manager or employment program since they entered the study, while about 45 percent of the control group did. Although this difference, or impact, of 15.0 percentage points in Corpus Christi and 17.4 percentage points in Fort Worth is statistically significant, it is relatively small. Moreover, the overall level of contacts with case managers is relatively low.

These results also show that the control group was assigned to a relatively strong welfare-to-work program, Choices, which also included case management services. In Houston, as in the other sites, roughly 60 percent of ERA sample members had contact with ERA staff; however, unlike in the other sites, a similar proportion of control group members in Houston did so as well. There was no impact on the level of contact with program staff in Houston, which appears to reflect particularly strong case management in that site’s Choices program.

It is worth noting that the survey likely undercounted contacts with program staff for both research groups. The survey was administered a year after random assignment, and if sample members had contact with ERA or another program early in that year or if the contact was not very intensive, respondents might not have remembered it. But since the survey captured contact that the respondents remembered, it is not unreasonable to assume that it captured most of the contact that mattered to them and was likely to affect their outcomes.

Table 3.1 presents some details about sample members’ contact with program staff. Fort Worth was the only site to have a statistically significant impact on the average number of contacts with program staff, whether in person or by phone. ERA sample members in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth were also more likely than their control group counterparts to have spoken with a case manager in the four weeks before the survey.

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project

Table 3.1

Year 1 Impacts on Contacts with Program Staff

Texas

Outcome		Corpus Christi			Fort Worth			Houston
		ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)	ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)	ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)
Any contacts with staff/case manager since random assignment a (%)		61.5	46.5	15.0 **	62.6	45.2	17.4 **	59.6	58.2	1.4
Average number of contacts with staff/case manager		6.6	6.3	0.3	14.3	4.9	9.4 ***	9.9	5.9	4.0 *
	In person	3.3	3.2	0.1	6.6	2.2	4.4 ***	3.7	3.0	0.7
	By telephone	3.4	3.1	0.2	7.8	2.8	5.0 **	6.2	2.9	3.3 *
Talked with staff/case manager in past 4 weeks (%)		27.7	16.1	11.6 **	29.7	9.0	20.7 ***	20.8	20.3	0.5
Ever met with staff/case manager (%)		50.1	37.2	12.8 **	53.8	31.8	22.0 ***	44.3	46.6	-2.3
	At home	3.8	0.5	3.3 *	3.3	1.0	2.3	2.2	1.1	1.1
	At workplace	8.2	1.6	6.7 **	2.8	1.5	1.4	2.4	1.7	0.7
	At staff/case manager's office	49.5	35.7	13.9 **	50.9	31.5	19.4 ***	42.7	45.6	-2.9
	At school/training program	5.0	3.3	1.6	17.5	8.3	9.2 *	7.4	9.4	-2.0
	At other places	1.3	2.8	-1.5	4.1	2.3	1.9	5.0	7.8	-2.9
Staff/case manager talked with respondent’s employer (%)	Never	81.0	95.9	-14.9 ***	90.0	98.2	-8.2 **	92.1	91.7	0.4
	Once or twice	11.2	0.8	10.3 ***	1.8	2.4	-0.6	4.7	6.8	-2.1
	More than twice	6.9	0.9	6.0 **	6.7	-1.2	7.9 ***	1.1	1.6	-0.6
	Don’t know	1.0	2.4	-1.4	1.5	0.7	0.8	2.2	-0.2	2.3 *
Among those employed since random assignment: b Staff/case manager talked with respondent’s employer (%)	Never	75.8	93.6	-17.9	85.8	97.8	-12.0	88.3	87.1	1.2
	Once or twice	14.6	1.2	13.4	3.0	2.8	0.2	6.5	10.8	-4.3
	More than twice	8.5	1.7	6.8	9.0	-1.3	10.3	1.7	2.4	-0.7
	Don't know	1.2	3.5	-2.3	2.3	0.7	1.6	3.5	-0.4	3.9
Sample size (total = 775)		141	149		92	96		150	147

SOURCE: MDRC calculations from responses to the ERA 12-Month Survey. NOTES: See Appendix D. a This measure includes respondents who said "yes" to D1 or D3. However, the remaining questions regarding number and location of contacts were asked only of respondents who said "yes" to D3. Therefore, there are some respondents who reported contact but were not asked about the number and location of contacts. (Question D1: "Have you had any experiences with programs or organizations that help people find or keep jobs since your random assignment date?" Question D3: "Since your random assignment date, have you had any contact, in person or by phone, with a case manager or a staff person from an employment, welfare or other agency?") b Employment is calculated using the ERA 12-Month Survey and includes those who reported employment since random assignment. It includes formal employment and "odd jobs."

In Corpus Christi and Fort Worth, the largest increase was in the number of contacts that occurred at the case manager’s office. Notably, however –– reflecting the emphasis on employer visits in Corpus Christi –– staff contacts with ERA group members were more likely to occur at the workplace than were contacts with control group members, and ERA staff were more likely to talk with an ERA respondent’s employer “once or twice” or more than twice. Corpus Christi also produced a small increase in the proportion of contacts that took place at the participant’s home. In Fort Worth, while there was not an increase in reported contacts at the workplace, there was an increase in the proportion of respondents who said that ERA staff were also more likely to talk with their employer “more than two times.” There were no impacts on these measures in Houston.

Overall, the proportion of respondents in the ERA group who reported staff contacts at or with their employer is low. This is not surprising, given that many ERA group members did not reach the stage in the program where they were receiving the stipend and this type of postemployment service, as discussed in Chapter 2. In addition, this activity may not be fully captured by the 12-month survey because stipend receipt (and, therefore, employer visits) occurred after more than a year in the program for some individuals.

Impacts on Service Receipt

Table 3.2 presents information on areas in which individuals in the ERA and control groups received help during the year after random assignment. As shown at the top of the table’s second page, the ERA programs in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth produced increases in the proportion of ERA clients who received help with retention and advancement services, according to survey respondents. These impacts were 14.5 percentage points in Corpus Christi and 18.9 percentage points in Fort Worth. These services included help finding a better job while working, enrolling in life skills classes while working, and career assessment. No statistically significant differences in retention and advancement services were found overall in Houston, although there was a statistically significant increase in participation in activities while working. (Box 3.2 gives more information about how to read the tables in this report.)

Despite the program’s impacts, the overall level of receipt of retention and advancement services is somewhat lower than expected: Only about 40 percent of working survey respondents from the ERA program reported receiving assistance in this area. This could possibly reflect that –– because some individuals did not receive the stipend and more intensive retention and advancement services until they had spent more than a year in the program (see Chapter 2) –– this activity was not fully captured by the 12-month survey.

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project

Table 3.2

Impacts on Areas in Which Respondent Received Help

Texas

Outcome (%)		Corpus Christi			Fort Worth			Houston
		ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)	ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)	ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)
Received help with support services		44.5	32.4	12.1 **	54.2	43.9	10.3	43.2	41.0	2.3
	Finding or paying for child care	39.7	30.9	8.7	44.7	34.2	10.5	38.9	36.5	2.4
	Finding or paying for transportation	18.5	13.4	5.1	30.1	25.3	4.8	25.9	13.7	12.2 ***
Received help with basic needs		39.3	45.4	-6.1	40.1	49.0	-8.9	43.1	51.2	-8.1
	Housing problems	8.1	11.8	-3.6	10.9	17.7	-6.9	13.0	11.2	1.7
	Access to medical treatment	33.7	34.5	-0.8	33.2	39.1	-5.9	36.0	46.3	-10.3 *
	Financial emergency	7.0	8.2	-1.2	8.2	9.9	-1.7	12.7	8.8	3.9
Received help with public benefits		75.3	71.0	4.3	65.5	71.6	-6.0	57.9	70.8	-12.9 **
	Getting Medicaid	68.7	67.2	1.6	60.6	64.8	-4.3	55.2	66.9	-11.7 **
	Getting food stamps	69.6	59.6	10.0	57.2	60.9	-3.7	51.8	63.5	-11.7 **
Received help with job preparation		42.7	40.1	2.6	51.6	43.3	8.4	42.2	40.7	1.5
	Enrolling in job readiness or training	27.7	18.8	8.9 *	27.8	22.3	5.5	32.9	29.7	3.3
	Looking for a job	35.2	28.4	6.8	42.5	36.3	6.2	34.8	36.6	-1.8
	Finding clothes, tools, or supplies for work	25.3	20.4	4.9	21.6	17.9	3.8	15.1	13.9	1.2
Received help with retention/ advancement		28.5	14.0	14.5 ***	30.4	11.5	18.9 ***	24.5	17.9	6.6
	Finding a better job while working	13.6	3.9	9.7 ***	13.2	3.0	10.3 **	9.5	6.0	3.5
	Other activities while working(a)	12.1	2.0	10.1 ***	13.5	2.7	10.8 **	14.6	3.4	11.2 ***
	Career assessment	17.9	7.2	10.7 ***	20.5	6.4	14.2 ***	12.8	10.8	2.0
	Dealing with problems on the job	8.0	1.8	6.2 **	6.1	1.5	4.6	11.9	6.3	5.6
	Addressing a personal problem that makes it hard to keep a job	8.1	5.1	3.0	5.6	3.0	2.6	7.8	7.0	0.9
Among those employed since random assignment: (b)	Received help with retention/ advancement	36.8	19.9	16.9	42.5	15.2	27.3	37.2	27.5	9.7
	Finding a better job while working	17.8	5.4	12.4	18.7	3.7	15.0	14.9	8.8	6.1
	Other activities while working (a)	16.3	2.3	14.0	18.4	3.9	14.5	22.5	5.5	17.0
	Career assessment	23.0	10.5	12.5	27.9	9.2	18.7	19.3	16.6	2.7
	Dealing with problems on the job	11.0	2.0	8.9	7.8	2.6	5.2	17.3	10.5	6.7
	Addressing a personal problem that makes it hard to keep a job	10.3	7.4	2.9	7.2	4.5	2.8	11.3	11.3	0.0
Received help with getting a stipend (c)		19.1	5.0	14.1	26.4	0.8	25.6	18.4	3.4	14.9
Sample size (total = 775)		141	149		92	96		150	147

SOURCE: MDRC calculations from responses to the ERA 12-Month Survey. NOTES: See Appendix D. a This measure includes other activities such as life skills and child development classes. b Employment is calculated using the ERA 12-Month Survey and includes those who reported employment since random assignment. It includes formal employment and "odd jobs." c This was measured only in the Texas sites.

Box 3.2 How to Read the Tables in This Report Most tables in this report use a similar format, illustrated below. The top panel shows a series of participation outcomes for the ERA group and the control group in Houston. For example, the table shows that about 80 (80.2) percent of the ERA group members and about 69 (68.5) percent of the control group members participated in a job search activity. Because individuals were assigned randomly either to the ERA program or to the control group, the effects of the program can be estimated by the difference in outcomes between the two groups. The “Difference” column in the table shows the differences between the two research groups’ participation rates — that is, the program’s impacts on participation. For example, the impact on participation in a job search activity can be calculated by subtracting 68.5 from 80.2, yielding 11.6. Differences marked with asterisks are “statistically significant,” meaning that it is quite unlikely that the differences arose by chance. The number of asterisks indicates whether the impact is statistically significant at the 1 percent, 5 percent, or 10 percent level (the lower the level, the less likely that the impact is due to chance). For example, as shown below, the ERA program had a statically significant impact of 11.6 percentage points at the 5 percent level on participation in a job search activity. (One asterisk corresponds to the 10 percent level; two asterisks, the 5 percent level; and three asterisks, the 1 percent level.) The bottom panel shows the participation outcomes among those who participated in each activity in the two research groups. Measures shown in italics are considered “nonexperimental” because they include only a subset of the full report sample. Because participants in the ERA group may have different characteristics than participants in the control group, differences in these outcomes may not be attributable to the ERA program. Statistical significance tests are not conducted for these measures. Impacts on Participation in Job Search, Education, and Training Activities Outcome Houston ERA Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Participated in a job search activity   80.2 68.5 11.6 ** Group job search/job club 60.8 50.9 9.8 * Individual job search 68.1 59.1 8.9 Among those who participated in each type of activity: Average number of weeks participating in: Job search activities 8.8 7.9 0.8 Education/training activities 17.3 12.1 5.2 Unpaid work/subsidized employment 19.2 13.2 6.1

Overall, Table 3.2 also confirms that the major treatment difference between ERA and Choices appears to have occurred at the postemployment stage. There were few differences for most activities that took place primarily during the preemployment stage — particularly, help with job preparation or job search. Again in part showing the relative strength of the Choices program, ERA participants generally did not receive more assistance than control group members with such support services as child care and transportation (except in Corpus Christi) or more help with such basic needs as housing and public benefits.

Table 3.3 shows the percentages of the ERA and control group members who participated in various employment-related activities during the year after they entered the study. Participation rates in employment-related services were relatively high in all sites for both the ERA group and the control group. For example, the proportion of the control group who participated in some type of services ranged from 68 percent in Corpus Christi to 78 percent in Houston. As the table indicates, only the ERA program in Fort Worth produced a statistically significant increase (of 12 percentage points) in the overall participation rate in employment and education activities.

As Table 3.3 shows, the ERA programs produced some increases in participation levels in certain types of employment and education services — above and beyond the control group — although there was variation across the sites. In Fort Worth and Houston, there were increases in the use of group job search activities. As discussed in Chapter 2, group job search activities were stressed somewhat more strongly in ERA than in Choices, with most sites designing a job readiness class specifically for ERA participants. In Corpus Christi and Houston, there were increases in the use of employment and education activities while working. This could reflect either the requirement that individuals participate in an employment-related activity each month in order to receive the stipend or the option to combine work and school while receiving the stipend.

Table 3.4 shows that, for the most part, the ERA group in all three sites was no more likely than the control group to report receiving mental health, domestic violence, or substance abuse services. The one exception is that there was an impact of 4 percentage points on the receipt of domestic violence services in Houston, where a staff person from a domestic violence organization was colocated at the ERA program.

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project

Table 3.3

Impacts on Participation in Job Search, Education, Training, and Other Activities

Texas

Outcome		Corpus Christi			Fort Worth			Houston
		ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)	ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)	ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)
Ever participated in any activity a (%)		73.8	67.7	6.1	89.1	77.1	12.0 **	83.5	78.0	5.5
Participated in any employment-related activity b (%)		62.0	58.2	3.8	78.6	73.7	4.9	80.6	70.1	10.5 **
Participated in a job search activity		62.0	58.2	3.8	78.0	72.2	5.8	80.2	68.5	11.6 **
	Group job search/job club	48.5	42.7	5.8	63.4	48.6	14.8 *	60.8	50.9	9.8 *
	Individual job search	49.8	42.9	6.9	67.7	66.4	1.3	68.1	59.1	8.9
Participated in an education/training activity c (%)		30.3	23.0	7.2	38.6	29.7	8.9	36.0	34.1	1.9
	ABE/GED	11.6	8.5	3.0	21.1	16.2	4.9	19.6	20.8	-1.1
	ESL	1.7	1.1	0.6	1.6	3.7	-2.2	1.0	1.7	-0.6
	College courses	14.8	12.2	2.6	11.5	10.9	0.6	12.9	10.0	3.0
	Vocational training	5.3	4.4	0.9	11.7	6.5	5.2	8.3	9.2	-0.9
Participated in unpaid work/subsidized employment (%)		3.9	1.7	2.3	13.8	12.8	1.0	6.9	10.7	-3.8
Ever participated in an employment or education activity while working (%)		34.2	24.7	9.5 *	27.1	20.9	6.2	34.3	23.5	10.8 **
Average number of weeks participating in	Job search activities	2.5	2.2	0.3	8.9	10.4	-1.4	7.0	5.4	1.6
	Education/training activities	5.6	5.3	0.3	7.2	7.0	0.2	6.2	4.1	2.1
	Unpaid work/subsidized employment	0.3	0.5	-0.1	2.7	1.6	1.2	1.3	1.4	-0.1
Among those who participated in each type of activity Average number of weeks participating in	Job search activities	4.1	3.8	0.3	11.4	14.4	-2.9	8.8	7.9	0.8
	Education/training activities	18.6	23.0	-4.4	18.7	23.7	-5.0	17.3	12.1	5.2
	Unpaid work/subsidized employment	8.1	27.4	-19.3	19.7	12.1	7.6	19.2	13.2	6.1
Sample size (total = 775)		141	149		92	96		150	147

SOURCE: MDRC calculations from responses to the ERA 12-Month Survey. NOTES: See Appendix D. a "Any activity" includes employment-related activities, education/training activities, life skills, and other types of activities. b Employment-related activities include job search activities, unpaid jobs, and on-the-job training. c Education/training activities include adult basic education (ABE), General Educational Development (GED), and English as a Second Language ("ESL") classes.

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project

Table 3.4

Impacts on Receipt of Mental Health, Domestic Violence, and Substance Abuse Services

Texas

Outcome (%)		Corpus Christi			Fort Worth			Houston
		ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)	ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)	ERA Group	Control Group	Difference (Impact)
Received mental health services		15.5	14.2	1.3	16.6	15.4	1.2	10.1	9.4	0.8
	Respondent	7.3	5.9	1.4	12.5	12.0	0.5	5.0	5.1	-0.1
	Family member	6.6	5.2	1.4	1.7	1.5	0.3	3.5	3.3	0.2
	Both respondent and family members	1.7	3.1	-1.5	2.4	1.9	0.5	1.0	1.0	0.1
Received domestic violence services		4.5	5.1	-0.6	6.5	3.2	3.3	6.0	2.0	4.0 *
	Respondent	2.2	1.3	1.0	3.3	3.1	0.2	4.8	1.3	3.5 *
	Family member	0.8	0.0	0.8	1.2	-0.1	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0
	Both respondent and family members	1.6	3.9	-2.3	2.0	0.2	1.8	1.2	0.8	0.4
Received substance abuse services		5.3	3.7	1.6	2.6	2.7	-0.1	0.6	0.8	-0.2
	Respondent	4.4	1.9	2.6	2.5	1.8	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.0
	Family member	0.9	1.9	-1.0	0.1	0.9	-0.8	0.0	0.7	-0.7
	Both respondent and family members	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.1	0.4
Sample size (total = 775)		141	149		92	96		150	147

SOURCE: MDRC calculations from responses to the ERA 12-Month Survey. NOTES: See Appendix D.

---

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next