Skip Navigation
Administration for Children and Families  
ACF
ACF Home   |   Services   |   Working with ACF   |   Policy/Planning   |   About ACF   |   ACF News   |   HHS Home

  Questions?  |  Privacy  |  Site Index  |  Contact Us  |  Download Reader™  |  Print      

Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation (OPRE) skip to primary page content
Advanced
Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

TABLES

Table 1
U.S. WELFARE-TO-WORK EVALUATIONS INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE
Type Program Title Short Program Name Evaluator/ Author Mid-point of Random Assignment Financial Incentive Scheme
MANDATORY Greater Avenues for Independence Program GAIN (California) MDRC 1989  
Job Search and Work Experience in Cook County Cook County MDRC 1985  
Community Work Experience Demonstrations West Virginia MDRC 1983  
WORK Program Arkansas MDRC 1983  
Employment Initiatives Baltimore MDRC 1983  
Saturation Work Initiative Model SWIM (San Diego) MDRC 1985  
Employment Services Program Virginia MDRC 1984  
Project Independence (Florida's JOBS Program) Florida MDRC 1991  
Jobs First Connecticut MDRC 1996 v
The Family Transition Program FTP (Florida) MDRC 1994  
The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN Evaluation Los Angeles MDRC 1996  
The San Diego Job Search and Work Experience Demonstration San Diego MDRC 1983  
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies NEWWS MDRC 1993  
Minnesota Family Investment Program MFIP MDRC 1994 v
Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. Vermont MDRC 1995 v
Teenage Parent Demonstration Teenage Parents Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) 1988  
Wisconsin Welfare Employment Experiment Wisconsin University of Wisconsin 1988  
Ohio Transitions to Independence Demonstration Ohio Abt Associates 1990  
The Indiana Welfare Reform Program Indiana Abt Associates 1995  
Saturation Work Program. Philadelphia PA Department of Public Welfare 1986  
To Strengthen Michigan Families TSMF (Michigan) Abt Associates 1993  
A Better Chance ABC (Delaware) Abt Associates 1996  
Virginia Independence Program VIEW MPR 1996  
Family Investment Program FIP (Iowa) MPR 1994  
Personal Responsibility and Employment Program PREP (Colorado) The Centers of the University of Colorado 1995  
Self-Sufficiency First/Pay for Performance Program SSF/PFP (Wisconsin) Institute for Research on Poverty, University of WI 1995  
California Work Pays Demonstration Program (financial incentive only) CWPDP UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research 1993 v
Child Assistance Program CAP (New York) Abt Associates 1989 v
VOLUNTARY Supported Work SW MDRC 1976  
Homemaker Health Aide HHA Abt Associates 1984  
Training Opportunities in the Private Sector Program TOPS (Maine) MDRC 1984  
New Jersey Grant Diversion Project NJGD MDRC 1985  
New York State Comprehensive Employment Opportunities CEOSC Abt 1989  
Support Centers Program        
Self-Sufficiency Project SSP (Canada) MDRC 1994 v
Self-Sufficiency Project Plus SSP+ Canada) SRDC 1985 v

Table 2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE MANDATORY PROGRAM IMPACT MEASURES
  Quarter since random assignment
3 3 7 7 11 11 15 15
Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted
EARNINGS Mean value for controls 757.7 675.2 1021.1 965.0 1129.8 1132.3 1406.5 1357.4
Mean impact 79.9 73.9 86.8 99.0 111.4 112.2 86.2 114.9
Standard Deviation 64.2 64.0 88.6 97.9 117.6 112.0 112.0 125.6
Median impact 135.5 88.0 164.8 102.1 145.1 103.2 192.1 87.5
Minimum -672.7 -672.7 -916.8 -916.8 -352.9 -352.9 -543.0 -543.0
Maximum 413.9 413.9 496.7 496.7 467.0 467.0 428.9 428.9
Number of observations 79 79 79 79 56 56 45 45
PERCENT EMPLOYED Mean value for controls 31.4 29.3 37.0 34.8 36.7 37.4 39.4 37.4
Mean impact 3.4 3.3 2.6 2.8 4.0 3.6 3.5 2.8
Standard Deviation 2.8 2.5 3.3 2.9 3.6 3.5 2.5 2.4
Median impact 3.5 3.7 4.1 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.9 2.8
Minimum -3.1 -3.1 -10.5 -10.5 -1.2 -1.2 -9.6 -9.6
Maximum 13.0 13.0 10.3 10.3 11.8 11.8 15.9 15.9
Number of observations 68 68 76 76 51 51 53 53
AFDC PAYMENTS Mean value for controls 1321.6 1032.8 1050.4 803.6 991.2 644.0 669.5 458.0
Mean impact 52.1 37.8 63.9 53.7 80.0 59.4 63.6 75.1
Standard Deviation 50.2 38.8 50.3 43.6 73.8 54.7 55.3 69.4
Median impact 140.6 104.0 122.9 99.8 124.8 88.5 62.0 41.4
Minimum -565.7 -565.7 -406.7 -406.7 -311.2 -311.2 -129.0 -129.0
Maximum 400.1 400.1 325.8 325.8 501.1 501.1 178.2 178.2
Number of observations 74 74 71 71 51 51 44 44
PERCENT RECEIVING AFDC PAYMENTS Mean value for controls 75.6 80.9 58.9 60.6 53.5 51.1 42.7 41.0
Mean impact 0.9 1.5 1.0 2.1 1.8 2.6 2.6 4.4
Standard Deviation 2.0 2.4 2.1 3.0 2.4 4.0 3.3 4.7
Median impact 4.5 3.6 5.1 4.3 5.3 4.8 3.9 3.2
Minimum -9.0 -9.0 -15.9 -15.9 -12.7 -12.7 -7.3 -7.3
Maximum 9.3 9.3 11.1 11.1 13.6 13.6 11.5 11.5
Number of observations 64 64 75 75 48 48 45 45

Table 3
MEANS OF AVAILABLE EXPLANATORY VARIABLES
  Number of Observations Mean Standard Deviation
Characteristics of Interventions Program impacts on the percentage who— Were sanctioned 62 6.37 7.77
Participated in job search 66 21.12 13.95
Participated in basic education 66 7.31 11.90
Participated in vocational education 66 2.81 5.02
Participated in work experience 76 2.86 5.57
Percentage of interventions that included financial incentives 79 31.65 46.81
Percentage of interventions that only provided financial incentives 79 15.19 36.12
Monthly amount of financial incentive after 13 months in a job in year 2000 dollars 79 82.75 135.68
Percentage of interventions that included time limit 79 15.19 36.12
Percentage of interventions targeted at 2-parent families 79 20.25 40.45
Net cost to the government in year 2000 dollars 61 1853.41 1711.49
Number of years since 1982 to mid-point of random assignment 79 8.85 3.69
Characteristics of Target Population Average age of target group 71 31.02 3.92
Average number of children in family 62 1.94 0.33
Percentage of target population-- Employed during year before random assignment 63 48.33 17.41
On AFDC for at least 2 years before random assignment 63 46.08 23.92
With either a high school degree or a GED 62 51.50 11.08
Who were under 25 years of age 58 26.64 21.93
With at least one child under 6 years of age 51 50.71 23.56
Who were white 77 41.24 23.36
Who were black 76 36.02 25.96
Who were Hispanic 70 17.24 14.73
Socio-Economic Conditions at Site Maximum ADC payment for a family of 3 in year 2000 dollars 79 602.67 199.43
Median household income in year 2000 dollars 79 40237.38 6670.37
Poverty rate 79 14.61 4.96
Unemployment rate 79 6.36 2.34
Percent of workforce in manufacturing employment 79 12.99 5.16
Annual percentage change in manufacturing employment 79 1.11 4.49
Percentage of sites that at first sanction specified minimum length or terminated full family benefits 79 6.33 24.50

Table 4
REGRESSION MODELS OF THE IMPACTS OF WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS ON EARNINGS
  Quarter since random assignment
3 3 7 7 11 11 15 15
Constant 11.644 (30.80) -126.070 (143.27) 3.714 (41.62) -5.523 (141.25) -1.695 (47.61) 217.358 (149.34) -62.258 (78.61) -128.846 (297.33)
Intervention impact on % sanctioned 1.340 (1.17) 2.426* (1.44) 4.586*** (1.43) 6.337*** (1.92) 2.217 (1.53) -0.652 (2.20) 0.085 (2.01) 0.713 (3.15)
Intervention impact on % participated in job search 2.395*** (0.77) 1.924** (0.81) 2.280*** (0.80) 1.711** (0.85) 3.582*** (0.97) 3.486*** (1.05) 2.025 (1.42) 1.909 (1.59)
Intervention impact on % participated in basic education -0.818 (1.09) -1.859 (1.18) -0.688 (1.11) -1.873 (1.24) 0.967 (1.13) 1.373 (1.25) -1.266 (1.90) -1.795 (2.35)
Intervention impact on % participated in vocational education -6.276** (2.58) -4.889* (2.75) -2.069 (2.63) 1.579 (2.88) -6.791** (3.09) -4.542 (3.36) 6.403 (4.88) 7.335 (6.01)
Intervention impact on % participated in work experience 0.583 (2.08) -1.238 (2.25) 0.919 (2.45) -2.763 (2.74) 6.530* (3.32) 6.487* (3.74) 4.212 (5.24) 1.826 (7.06)
Intervention included financial incentive=1 -63.761*** (19.53) -46.481** (21.31) -37.343* (21.13) -44.170* (23.06) -12.477 (23.02) -20.880 (25.70) 27.623 (34.93) 16.641 (39.02)
Intervention included time limit=1 -3.916 (23.63) -5.517 (25.47) 10.019 (25.88) 27.207 (31.26) 43.370 (27.88) 68.010** (32.95) -5.058 (38.84) 5.527 (46.82)
Number of years since 1982 4.431 (2.74) 0.497 (3.40) 2.933 (3.49) -1.452 (4.22) 2.845 (3.99) 5.583 (5.15) 10.209 (6.76) 8.677 (8.15)
Two-parent family target group=1 62.691* (34.25) 40.910 (40.40) 35.280 (33.15) 38.581 (39.22) -54.159 (34.60) -3.799 (40.94) 38.792 (50.73) 18.250 (72.87)
Average age of target group     4.694 (4.20)     5.413 (4.04)     -2.256 (4.33)     4.455 (7.42)
% of target group with recent employment     0.425 (0.85)     -1.041 (0.87)     -3.147*** (0.91)     -0.424 (1.53)
Annual % change in local manufacturing employment     7.636*** (2.82)     7.693** (3.15)     -2.617 (3.36)     -2.444 (4.90)
Poverty rate     0.943 (2.19)     -4.774** (2.26)     -1.087 (2.72)     -2.037 (5.10)
Adjusted R-squared 0.349 0.386 0.201 0.239 0.228 0.279 0.011 -0.075
F-test for regression 5.640***   3.179***   2.802***   1.054  
F-test for contribution of added variables   2.057*   1.855   1.825   0.299
Number of observations 79 79 79 79 56 56 45 45
***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level.

Table 5
REGRESSION MODELS OF THE IMPACTS OF WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS ON PERCENTAGE EMPLOYED
(Standard errors in parenthesis)
  Quarter since random assignment
3 3 7 7 11 11 15 15
Constant -2.059 ** (0.79) -3.983 (2.74) -1.519 (0.92) -5.193 * (3.08) -0.761 (1.43) 9.641 ** (3.78) -3.330 (2.09) -1.868 (5.03)
Intervention impact on % sanctioned 0.009 (0.03) 0.060 * (0.03) 0.106 *** (0.03) 0.180 *** (0.04) 0.029 (0.03) -0.083 (0.05) -0.036 (0.04) -0.030 (0.06)
Intervention impact on % participated in job search 0.129 *** (0.02) 0.098 *** (0.02) 0.084 *** (0.02) 0.068 *** (0.02) 0.124 *** (0.03) 0.134 *** (0.03) 0.148 *** (0.04) 0.142 *** (0.04)
Intervention impact on % participated in basic education 0.013 (0.02) -0.040 (0.03) 0.035 (0.02) -0.014 (0.03) 0.043 (0.03) 0.047 (0.03) 0.069 ** (0.03) 0.048 (0.04)
Intervention impact on % participated in vocational education -0.372 *** (0.06) -0.314 *** (0.07) -0.162 ** (0.06) -0.047 (0.07) -0.202 ** (0.08) -0.125 (0.08) -0.004 (0.12) 0.006 (0.13)
Intervention impact on % participated in work experience 0.071 * (0.04) 0.025 (0.04) 0.074 * (0.04) -0.037 (0.05) 0.087 (0.07) 0.091 (0.08) -0.155 (0.11) -0.201 (0.12)
Intervention included financial incentive=1 -1.189 ** (0.48) -0.741 (0.51) -0.198 (0.52) -0.097 (0.56) -0.204 (0.63) -0.786 (0.67) -0.791 (0.87) -0.718 (0.82)
Intervention included time limit=1 0.038 (0.66) -0.303 (0.70) 1.060 (0.74) 1.368 (0.83) 3.301 *** (0.83) 3.283 *** (0.93) 3.791 *** (0.99) 3.788 *** (1.12)
Number of years since 1982 0.406 *** (0.07) 0.206 ** (0.09) 0.204 *** (0.08) 0.051 (0.10) 0.120 (0.11) 0.228 (0.14) 0.304 * (0.16) 0.276 (0.18)
Two-parent family target group=1 -0.966 (0.63) -1.696 ** (0.76) -1.782 *** (0.65) -2.146 *** (0.80) 0.457 (0.73) 2.197 ** (0.86) 0.113 (0.92) 0.783 (1.03)
Average age of target group   0.146 * (0.08)   0.247 *** (0.09)   -0.154 (0.10)   0.069 (0.12)
% of target group with recent employment   0.013 (0.02)   -0.014 (0.02)   -0.101 *** (0.02)   -0.037 (0.03)
Annual % change in local manufacturing employment   0.270 *** (0.06)   0.129 * (0.07)   -0.093 (0.07)   -0.060 (0.08)
Maximum AFDC payment for a family of 3   -0.046 (0.05)   -0.129 ** (0.05)   -0.097 (0.06)   -0.092 (0.08)
Adjusted R-squared 0.355 0.403 0.191 0.221 0.328 0.493 0.261 0.279
F-test for regression 5.102 ***   2.967 ***   3.715 ***   3.037 ***  
F-test for contribution of added variables   2.158 *   1.636   4.330 ***   1.274
Number of observations 68 68 76 76 51 51 53 53
***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level.

Table 6
REGRESSION MODELS OF THE IMPACTS OF WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS ON AMOUNT OF AFDC PAYMENTS
(Standard errors in parentheses)
  Quarter since random assignment
3 3 7 7 11 11 15 15
Constant 29.429 *(16.66) 119.895 **(59.75) -20.133 (18.87) -177.367 *** (58.87) -174.792 *** (26.77) -203.292 *** (65.24) -36.465 (28.12) -33.129 (100.44)
Intervention impact on % sanctioned 4.111 ***(0.56) 3.261 ***(0.66) 3.692 ***(0.58) 5.842 ***(0.83) 0.916 *(0.53) 3.290 ***(1.01) -0.125 (0.84) 0.672 (1.17)
Intervention impact on % participated in job search 1.406 ***(0.33) 0.973 **(0.37) 2.701 ***(0.34) 1.093 ***(0.39) 4.183 ***(0.40) 1.945 ***(0.51) 2.928 ***(0.60) 1.437 *(0.85)
Intervention impact on % participated in basic education 1.673 ***(0.51) 1.143 *(0.60) 2.069 ***(0.51) -0.947 (0.64) 3.151 ***(0.54) -0.557 (0.74) 1.700 **(0.68) 1.251 (0.90)
Intervention impact on % participated in vocational education -3.393 ***(1.08) 0.125 (1.28) -1.988 *(1.05) 4.303 ***(1.28) -1.694 (1.19) 4.369 ***(1.46) -1.295 (1.90) -1.376 (2.36)
Intervention impact on % participated in work experience -1.640 (1.11) -0.840 (1.22) -1.294 (1.04) -4.835 ***(1.30) 1.865 (1.28) -1.958 (1.61) -1.897 (2.18) -1.278 (2.97)
Intervention included financial incentive=1 -118.585 ***(8.82) -138.649 ***(9.87) -84.248 ***(8.38) -111.666 ***(9.80) -78.413 ***(9.93) -107.303 ***(11.98) -20.716 (16.43) -26.539 (19.77)
Intervention included time limit=1 18.760 *(10.43) 31.165 ***(11.19) 32.241 ***(11.23) 64.701 ***(13.10) 43.899 ***(11.36) 73.533 ***(13.68) 38.507 **(15.69) 55.726 ***(18.70)
Number of years since 1982 -1.840 (1.42) -0.250 (1.62) 0.558(1.62) -4.144 *(2.17) 13.353 ***(2.02) 5.778 **(2.86) 5.826 **(2.32) 2.687 (2.74)
Two-parent family target group=1 61.322 **(24.21) 74.592 ***(25.51) 46.902 **(20.56) 4.649 (23.10) 7.911 (23.12) -16.586 (25.18) -97.158 ***(33.06) -81.327 **(38.10)
Average age of target group   -3.213 (2.00)   5.065 ***(1.82)   1.958 (1.82)   0.998 (2.93)
% of target group with recent employment   -1.354 ***(0.31)   -0.483(0.36)   -1.009 **(0.39)   -0.709(0.62)
Annual % change in local manufacturing employment   -0.572(1.21)   6.925 ***(1.54)   5.122 ***(1.50)   4.672 **(1.88)
Maximum AFDC payment for a family of 3   0.116 ***(0.03)   0.175 ***(0.03)   0.247 ***(0.04)   0.085 (0.06)
Adjusted R-squared 0.376 0.376 0.329 0.407 0.387 0.472 0.473 0.589
F-test for regression 5.880 ***   4.819 ***   4.508 ***   5.283 ***  
F-test for contribution of added variables   1.017   2.994 **   2.650 **   3.416 **
Number of observations 74 74 71 71 51 51 44 44
***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level.

Table 7
REGRESSION MODELS OF THE IMPACTS OF WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS ON PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATING IN AFDC
(Standard errors in parentheses)
  Quarter since random assignment
3 3 7 7 11 11 15 15
Constant 3.877 *** (0.75) 5.159 ** (2.33) 2.810*** (0.85) -1.755 (3.08) 1.846 (1.32) 4.321 (4.07) -1.825 (1.65) 0.360 (5.78)
Intervention impact on % sanctioned 0.075 ***(0.02) 0.072 **(0.03) 0.117*** (0.03) 0.181 *** (0.05) 0.103 *** (0.04) 0.107 * (0.06) 0.060 (0.05) 0.071 (0.08)
Intervention impact on % participated in job search 0.003 (0.02) -0.001 (0.02) 0.057*** (0.02) 0.026 (0.02) 0.085 *** (0.02) 0.053 * (0.03) 0.054 (0.03) 0.066 * (0.04)
Intervention impact on % participated in basic education -0.021 (0.02) -0.011 (0.02) -0.019 (0.02) -0.095 *** (0.03) -0.008 (0.03) -0.055 (0.03) 0.063 * (0.04) 0.056 (0.05)
Intervention impact on % participated in vocational education -0.085 (0.05) -0.125 ** (0.06) 0.002 (0.06) 0.131 * (0.07) -0.155 ** (0.08) -0.078 (0.08) -0.194 * (0.10) -0.229 * (0.13)
Intervention impact on % participated in work experience -0.074 * (0.04) -0.056 (0.05) -0.074 (0.05) -0.157 *** (0.06) 0.031 (0.08) -0.042 (0.09) 0.136 (0.11) 0.074 (0.16)
Intervention included financial incentive=1 -6.006 *** (0.46) -6.262 *** (0.50) -5.424 *** (0.55) -5.527 *** (0.63) -5.703 *** (0.70) -5.963 *** (0.82) -0.452 (0.84) -0.197 (1.10)
Intervention included time limit=1 1.121 * (0.62) 0.835 (0.64) 2.043 *** (0.74) 3.301 *** (0.81) 4.659 *** (0.84) 6.194 *** (0.93) 1.884 * (0.99) 2.974 ** (1.42)
Number of years since 1982 -0.109 * (0.06) -0.112 (0.08) -0.110 (0.07) -0.249 ** (0.10) -0.032 (0.11) -0.196 (0.15) 0.438 *** (0.14) 0.328 * (0.18)
Two-parent family target group=1 -1.664 *** (0.56) -1.783 ** (0.69) -2.660 *** (0.68) -3.722 *** (0.88) -5.044 *** (0.82) -4.601 *** (1.04) -4.843 *** (1.17) -3.638 ** (1.70)
Average age of target group   -0.052 (0.07)   0.159 (0.10)   0.025 (0.11)   0.057 (0.16)
% of target group with recent employment   0.021(0.01)   -0.021 (0.02)   -0.070 *** (0.02)   -0.045 (0.04)
Annual % change in local Manufacturing employment   0.050(0.06)   0.202 *** (0.07)   0.190 ** (0.09)   0.006 (0.10)
Maximum AFDC payment for a family of 3   -0.001 (0.00)   0.004 ** (0.00)   0.004 * (0.00)   -0.002 (0.00)
Adjusted R-squared 0.444 0.418 0.425 0.447 0.469 0.494 0.456 0.456
F-test for regression 6.593 ***   7.086***   5.605 ***   5.095 ***  
F-test for contribution of added variables   0.388   1.626   1.475   1.009
Number of observations 64 64 75 75 48 48 45 45
***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level.

Table 8
SENSITIVITY TESTS OF REGRESSION MODELS OF THE IMPACTS ON EARNINGS (7th QUARTER)
(Standard errors in parentheses)
  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Constant -5.523 (141.25) 180.587 (167.48) -54.502 (141.93) 92.961 (188.81) -2.906 (149.25)
Intervention impact on % sanctioned 6.337 *** (1.92) 6.170 *** (2.29) 6.608 *** (1.94) 3.328 (2.85) 6.773 *** (2.13)
Intervention impact on % participated in job search 1.711 ** (0.85) 1.510 (1.01) 1.610 * (0.85) 3.141 ** (1.23) 1.701 * (0.92)
Intervention impact on % participated in basic education -1.873 (1.24) -0.686 (1.47) -2.221 *(1.25) 0.053 (1.68) -1.997 (1.33)
Intervention impact on % participated in vocational education 1.579 (2.88) -0.370 (3.42) 0.937 (2.89) -0.924 (3.46) 1.906 (3.09)
Intervention impact on % participated in work experience -2.763 (2.74) -3.945 (3.25) -2.965 (2.75) 0.118 (3.79) -3.153 (2.89)
Intervention included financial incentive=1 -44.170 * (23.06) -29.174 (27.31) -45.387 * (23.14) -147.741 ** (64.80) -38.148 (24.09)
Intervention included time limit=1 27.207 (31.26) -10.960 (36.96) 27.091 (31.32) 109.571 (66.05) 32.577 (33.49)
Number of years since 1982 -1.452 (4.22) 6.167 (5.02) -2.703 (4.25) 9.926 (6.97) -3.297(4.42)
Two-parent family target group=1 38.581(39.22) 19.958 (48.52) -3.928 (41.12) 6.894 (64.82) 36.847 (40.66)
Average age of target group 5.413 (4.04) 1.674 (4.80) 6.990 * (4.07) -0.260 (5.45) 6.219 (4.29)
% of target group with recent employment -1.041 (0.87) -2.320 ** (1.03) -0.705 (0.87) -1.258 (1.16) -1.101 (0.91)
Annual % change in local manufacturing employment 7.693 ** (3.15) 7.185 *(3.76) 7.382 ** (3.19) 5.514 (4.74) 8.265 ** (3.32)
Poverty rate -4.774 **(2.26) -9.846 *** (2.67) -4.486 * (2.26) -6.291 * (3.71) -5.310 ** (2.35)
Adjusted R-squared 0.239 0.089 0.287 0.381 0.238
Number of observations 79 79 75 53 79
***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level. Legend:

[1] Original estimates,
[2] Unweighted estimates,
[3] Observations with two highest and lowest impacts omitted,
[4] Observations with missing data omitted,
[5] Observation using same controls given half weight

Table 9
SENSITIVITY TESTS OF REGRESSION MODELS OF THE IMPACTS ON PERCENTAGE EMPLOYED
(7th QUARTER)
(Standard errors in parentheses)
  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Constant -5.193 * (3.08) -1.326 (7.37) -3.748 (3.11) -4.578 (3.63) -5.470 (3.32)
Intervention impact on % sanctioned 0.180 *** (0.04) 0.207 ** (0.10) 0.159 *** (0.04) 0.111 ** (0.05) 0.217 *** (0.05)
Intervention impact on % participated in job search 0.068 *** (0.02) 0.064 (0.04) 0.059 *** (0.02) 0.100 *** (0.02) 0.072 *** (0.02)
Intervention impact on % participated in basic education -0.014 (0.03) 0.021 (0.06) -0.024 (0.03) 0.028 (0.03) -0.034 (0.03)
Intervention impact on % participated in vocational education -0.047 (0.07) -0.099 (0.16) -0.011 (0.07) -0.117 (0.08) -0.008 (0.08)
Intervention impact on % participated in work experience -0.037 (0.05) -0.002 (0.12) -0.009 (0.05) 0.048 (0.06) -0.077 (0.06)
Intervention included financial incentive=1 -0.097 (0.56) -0.083 (1.41) -0.132 (0.56) 0.972 (1.30) -0.099 (0.59)
Intervention included time limit=1 1.368 (0.83) 2.321 (1.56) 0.824 (0.84) 1.861 (1.41) 1.894 ** (0.90)
Number of years since 1982 0.051 (0.10) 0.011 (0.20) 0.113 (0.10) 0.262 ** (0.13) -0.055 (0.11)
Two-parent family target group=1 -2.146 ***(0.80) -1.451(1.45) -1.588 *(0.81) -1.614(1.07) -1.728 **(0.82)
Average age of target group 0.247 ***(0.09) 0.163(0.21) 0.197 **(0.09) 0.105(0.10) 0.290 ***(0.10)
% of target group with recent employment -0.014(0.02) -0.047(0.04) -0.022(0.02) -0.012(0.02) -0.016(0.02)
Annual % change in local manufacturing employment 0.129 *(0.07) 0.181(0.14) 0.096(0.07) -0.021(0.09) 0.180 **(0.08)
Poverty rate -0.129 **(0.05) -0.129(0.10) -0.125 **(0.05) -0.033(0.08) -0.145 ***(0.05)
Adjusted R-squared 0.221 0.107 0.208 0.260 0.290
Number of observations 76 76 72 56 76
***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level.

Legend:
[1] Original estimates,
[2] Unweighted estimates,
[3] Observations with two highest and lowest impacts omitted,
[4] Observations with missing data omitted,
[5] Observation using same controls given half weight

Table 10
SENSITIVITY TESTS OF REGRESSION MODELS OF THE IMPACTS ON AMOUNT OF AFDC PAYMENTS
(7th QUARTER)
(Standard errors in parentheses)
  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Constant -177.367 *** (58.87) -94.451 (206.03) -22.656 (58.96) 89.217 (68.64) -126.368 ** (62.27)
Intervention impact on % sanctioned 5.842 *** (0.83) 4.724 (2.89) 2.961 *** (0.87) 0.887 (1.11) 6.208 *** (0.94)
Intervention impact on % participated in job search 1.093 *** (0.39) 3.021 ** (1.33) 1.801 *** (0.37) 1.835 *** (0.45) 1.690 *** (0.40)
Intervention impact on % participated in basic education -0.947 (0.64) 1.718 (1.55) 1.317 ** (0.61) 1.497 ** (0.69) -0.024 (0.67)
Intervention impact on % participated in vocational education 4.303 *** (1.28) 0.166 (3.73) -1.385 (1.26) -2.129 (1.34) 1.766 (1.33)
Intervention impact on % participated in work experience -4.835 *** (1.30) -0.749 (3.23) -2.033 (1.33) -1.591 (1.47) -5.838 *** (1.40)
Intervention included financial incentive=1 -111.666 *** (9.80) -54.605 (41.12) -82.015 *** (9.37) -353.025 *** (23.44) -76.981 *** (9.50)
Intervention included time limit=1 64.701 *** (13.10) 25.285 (53.23) 31.286 ** (14.18) 261.099 *** (23.78) 48.564 *** (14.88)
Number of years since 1982 -4.144 * (2.17) 3.687 (5.86) -1.185 (2.16) 5.419 * (2.75) -7.036 *** (2.29)
Two-parent family target group=1 4.649 (23.10) 58.552 (43.11) 28.321 (23.41) 40.532 (31.99) 37.972 (24.98)
Average age of target group 5.065 *** (1.82) 1.519 (5.71) 3.943 ** (1.81) 1.803 (2.07) 8.166 *** (1.91)
% of target group with recent employment -0.483 (0.36) -0.796 (1.16) -0.769 ** (0.38) -0.911 ** (0.43) -0.503 (0.40)
Annual % change in local manufacturing employment 6.925 *** (1.54) 2.225 (3.60) 5.124 *** (1.54) 3.349 * (1.84) 7.261 *** (1.63)
Maximum AFDC payment for a family of 3 0.175 *** (0.03) 0.092 (3.31) -2.420 ** (1.02) -6.988 *** (1.28) -2.353 ** (1.08)
Adjusted R-squared 0.407 0.160 0.405 0.733 0.324
Number of observations 71 71 67 56 71
***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level.

Legend:
[1] Original estimates,
[2] Unweighted estimates,
[3] Observations with two highest and lowest impacts omitted,
[4] Observations with missing data omitted,
[5] Observation using same controls given half weight

Table 11
SENSITIVITY TESTS OF REGRESSION MODELS OF THE IMPACTS ON PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATING IN AFDC
(7th QUARTER)
(Standard errors in parentheses)
  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Constant -1.755 (3.08) -1.961 (8.31) -1.259 (3.36) 5.095 (3.59) -2.564 (2.76)
Intervention impact on % sanctioned 0.181 *** (0.05) 0.141 (0.11) 0.173 *** (0.05) 0.014 (0.05) 0.190 *** (0.04)
Intervention impact on % participated in job search 0.026 (0.02) 0.053 (0.05) 0.031 (0.02) 0.016 (0.02) 0.042 ** (0.02)
Intervention impact on % participated in basic education -0.095 ***(0.03) -0.057 (0.07) -0.058 ** (0.03) -0.019 (0.03) -0.076 *** (0.02)
Intervention impact on % participated in vocational education 0.131 * (0.07) -0.021 (0.17) 0.067 (0.07) -0.048 (0.08) 0.077 (0.06)
Intervention impact on % participated in work experience -0.157 *** (0.06) -0.091 (0.13) -0.180 *** (0.06) 0.050 (0.07) -0.183 *** (0.05)
Intervention included financial incentive=1 -5.527 *** (0.63) -4.970 *** (1.67) -4.114 *** (0.65) -14.738 *** (1.28) -4.406 *** (0.54)
Intervention included time limit=1 3.301 *** (0.81) 3.879 ** (1.75) 3.157 *** (0.85) 11.922 *** (1.38) 3.034 *** (0.71)
Number of years since 1982 -0.249 ** (0.10) -0.165 (0.21) -0.296 *** (0.10) 0.262 ** (0.13) -0.331 *** (0.09)
Two-parent family target group=1 -3.722 *** (0.88) -4.133 ** (1.76) -2.269 ** (0.99) -1.338 (0.98) -3.748 *** (0.75)
Average age of target group 0.159 (0.10) 0.145 (0.23) 0.218 ** (0.10) -0.009 (0.10) 0.265 *** (0.08)
% of target group with recent employment -0.021 (0.02) 0.007 (0.05) -0.022 (0.02) -0.008 (0.02) -0.009 (0.02)
Annual % change in local manufacturing employment 0.202 *** (0.07) 0.030 (0.15) 0.176 ** (0.07) -0.030 (0.09) 0.196 *** (0.06)
Maximum AFDC payment for a family of 3 0.004 ** (0.00) 0.049 (0.12) -0.008 (0.06) -0.200 ** (0.08) -0.034 (0.05)
Adjusted R-squared 0.447 0.311 0.398 0.691 0.382
Number of observations 75 75 70 57 75
***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level.

Legend:
[1] Original estimates,
[2] Unweighted estimates,
[3] Observations with two highest and lowest impacts omitted,
[4] Observations with missing data omitted,
[5] Observation using same controls given half weight

Table 12
COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED IMPACTS AND REGRESSION-PREDICTED IMPACTS FOR THE 7TH QUARTER
RANDOMLY SELECTED INTERVENTIONS
  EARNINGS PERCENT EMPLOYED AVERAGE AFDC PAYMENTS % RECEIVING AFDC
Estimated Impact Predicted Impact Absolute Difference Estimated Impact Predicted Impact Absolute Difference Estimated Impact Predicted Impact Absolute Difference Estimated Impact Predicted Impact Absolute Difference
CASE 1 2.57 89.06 86.49 2.08 1.79 0.29 14.23 -97.99 112.22 5.30 -3.99 9.29
2 404.90 142.21 262.69 3.80 6.35 2.55 -44.56 29.56 74.11 -0.20 0.92 1.12
3 -77.51 80.28 157.78 -2.70 1.18 3.88 9.01 253.61 244.60 5.40 -1.23 6.63
4 -3.96 36.27 40.23 -0.40 2.95 3.35 275.14 -26.28 301.42 0.50 3.59 3.09
5 211.26 214.00 2.74 5.30 0.69 4.61 9.97 38.75 28.78 -1.50 2.35 3.85
6 -53.38 -40.80 12.58 -4.80 -2.27 2.53 62.71 16.85 45.86 3.40 4.31 0.91
7 90.04 172.68 82.64 2.80 3.24 0.44 -2.79 178.27 181.06 -4.30 -2.65 1.65
8 150.08 -42.37 192.46 4.80 2.85 1.95 175.25 100.52 74.74 2.40 4.50 2.10
9 31.50 -24.68 56.18 1.00 2.74 1.74 108.99 86.39 22.60 5.30 3.56 1.74
10 -96.74 0.61 97.35 10.20 4.24 5.96 129.45 199.10 69.65 3.80 4.45 0.65
AVERAGE 65.88 62.72 99.11 2.21 2.37 2.73 73.74 77.88 115.50 2.01 1.58 3.10
MOST RECENT INTERVENTIONS
  EARNINGS PERCENT EMPLOYED AVERAGE AFDC PAYMENTS % RECEIVING AFDC
Estimated Impact Predicted Impact Absolute Difference Estimated Impact Predicted Impact Absolute Difference Estimated Impact Predicted Impact Absolute Difference Estimated Impact Predicted Impact Absolute Difference
CASE A 93.17 109.41 16.24 8.10 3.95 4.15 64.90 -20.49 85.40 5.40 -2.21 7.61
B 255.43 62.87 192.56 7.60 3.72 3.88 49.20 6.57 42.63 5.70 -1.40 7.10
C 211.26 248.60 37.35 6.30 6.53 0.23 129.45 200.13 70.69 4.70 5.84 1.14
D 277.54 321.02 43.48 7.20 3.38 3.82 181.23 188.14 6.91 4.60 2.98 1.62
E -18.91 152.01 170.92 -0.10 5.31 5.41 50.83 62.92 12.09 0.80 2.64 1.84
AVERAGE 163.70 178.78 92.11 5.82 4.58 3.50 95.12 87.45 43.54 4.24 1.57 3.86

Table 13
THE IMPACT OF WELFARE-TO-WORK OVER TIME
  EARNINGS % EMPLOYED AFDC PAYMENTS % RECEIVING AFDC
CONTROL VARIABLES--
Excluded Included Excluded Included Excluded Included Excluded Included
Constant 16.189 *** (5.69) -106.468 *** (33.37) 1.895 *** (0.15) -3.362 *** (0.86) -11.119 *** (2.82) -155.903 *** (14.14) -0.460 *** (0.11) -1.261 * (0.74)
Number of quarters 16.706 *** (1.43) 18.207 *** (1.37) 0.379 *** (0.04) 0.323 *** (0.04) 12.364 *** (0.65) 13.124 *** (0.65) 0.471 *** (0.03) 0.564 *** (0.03)
Number of quarters squared -0.679 *** (0.07) -0.766 *** (0.07) -0.021 *** (0.00) -0.019 *** (0.00) -0.473 *** (0.03) -0.614 *** (0.03) -0.014 *** (0.00) -0.021 *** (0.00)
Adjusted R-squared 0.078 0.361 0.043 0.369 0.048 0.484 0.112 0.464
Number of observations 857 857 875 875 857 857 906 906
Quarter of peak growth 12.3 11.9 8.9 8.4 13.1 10.7 17.1 13.6
Quarter at which zero impact reached 25.5 24.4 21.9 21.9 25.2 21.2 33.1 26.2

Table 14
NUMBER OF QUARTERLY IMPACT ESTIMATES THAT ARE OUTLIERS, QUARTERS 3, 7, 11 AND 15
  Total Non-Outliers Outliers Type of Outliers
Only Type A Only Type B Both Types A & B
Earnings 259 188 71 23 14 34
Percent employed 248 123 125 53 25 47
Mean AFDC payment 240 153 87 37 19 31
Percent receiving AFDC 232 115 117 44 26 47

Table 15
OUTLIER INTERVENTIONS, QUARTERS 3, 7, 11 AND 15
  All Interventions Interventions with Multiple Outliers
Number of Interventions with At Least Two Outliers Number of Outliers Accounted for by Interventions with At Least Two Outliers
Any Type Type B* Any Type Type B*
Earnings 99 17 9 42 23
Percent employed 87 42 21 99 46
Mean AFDC payment 90 27 15 69 35
Percent receiving AFDC 84 32 20 83 46
Note: *Includes some cases that are also outliers under Type A.

Table 16
WELFARE-TO-WORK INTERVENTIONS WITH MULTIPLE POSITIVE OUTLIERS, BY TYPE AND IMPACT
Program Title Site/Intervention: Number of Parents Earnings % Employed AFDC Payments % Receiving AFDC
Type A Type B Type A Type B Type A Type B Type A Type B
ONE-PARENT FAMILY PROGRAMS Greater Avenues for Independence Program Butte         (1) 2    
Riverside 3 3 4 3 4 (1) 2  
WORK Program (Arkansas) Jefferson & Pulaski S       2     3 (1)
Employment Initiatives (Baltimore)         3        
Saturation Work Initiative Model (San Diego)       3   2   2  
Jobs First (Connecticut) Manchester     2       2 (1)
New Haven     2 (1)     2 (1)
Family Transition Program (Florida)       2       2 (1)
Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN Evaluation   2   3          
San Diego Job Search and Work Experience Demonstration Job search & work experience 2 (1)            
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) Grand Rapids -LFA     2 (1) 2 2 3 2
Riverside-LFA     2 (1) 3 (1) 3  
Riverside: HCD         2   3  
Portland (OR) 3 (1) 3 2 3   4 3
Columbus-Integrated case mgt             4 (1)
Minnesota Family Investment Program Urban - Services & incentives     2 (1)        
Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project Rutland - Services & incentives     2 2        
California Work Pays Demonstration Alameda (1) 2            
San Bernardino         (1) 2    
New York State Child Assistance Program Monroe (1) 3           3
Niagara (1) 2           2
Suffolk               2
TWO PARENT FAMILY PROGRAMS Greater Avenues for Independence Program Butte 3 3 2   (1) 2   2
Los Angeles     4 4        
Riverside     (1) 2 2 (1)    
San Diego         2      
Saturation Work Initiative Model (San Diego)           3 (1)    
Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN Evaluation   3   3   3      
San Diego Job Search and Work Experience Demonstration Job search only             2 (1)
Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project Combined areas - Incentives only 2 2            
California Work Pays Demonstration Alameda         3 3    
San Bernardino 3 3 2 2 2 2    
Legend:
Type A = Outlier before controlling for explanatory variables.
Type B = Outlier after controlling for explanatory variables only.
LFA - Labor Force Attachment.
HCD - Human Capital Development

Note: Positive outliers are defined as one standard deviation or more above the mean impacts in quarters 3, 7, 11 and 15.

Table 17
WELFARE-TO-WORK INTERVENTIONS WITH MULTIPLE NEGATIVE OUTLIERS, BY TYPE AND IMPACT
Program Title Site/Intervention: Number of Parents Earnings % Employed AFDC payment % Receiving AFDC
Type A Type B Type A Type B Type A Type B Type A Type B
ONE-PARENT FAMILY PROGRAMS Greater Avenues for Independence Program (GAIN) Butte             (1) 2
Tulare     2 (1)   2    
Employment Services Program (Virginia)         2   2   2
The San Diego Job Search and Work Experience Demonstration Job search only       2        
Project Independence (Florida) Duval 2 (1)            
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) Detroit     2          
Oklahoma City     4          
Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) Urban - service & incentives         3 3 3 3
Urban - incentives only 2       3 3 3 3
Rural - services & incentives         2 2 2 2
Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project Barre - Incentives only             2 2
Burlington - incentives only     2 (1)        
Newport - services & incentives     (1) 2        
Newport - Incentives only     2 2        
Teenage Parent Demonstration Newark     2          
The Indiana Welfare Reform Program Cohort - 1998-99       2        
California Work Pays Demonstration Los Angeles 2 (1) 2 (1)        
New York State Child Assistance Program Niagara             2 (1)
TWO-PARENT FAMILY PROGRAMS Greater Avenues for Independence Program (GAIN) Alameda         (1) 2 2 2
San Diego     2 (1)        
Tulare (1) 2       3 2 (1)
Employment Initiatives (Baltimore)   2 2 2   2 2    
The San Diego Job Search and Work Experience Demonstration Job Search & Work Experience     (1) 2        
Job search only     2 2        
Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) Urban - Services & incentives             2 2
Urban + Rural - Services & incentives     3 (1)     3 3
Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project Combined areas - Services & incentives     2 2 2   4 2
Combined areas - Incentives only     3 2 3 2 4 (1)
Legend:
Type A = Outlier before controlling for explanatory variables.
Type B = Outlier after controlling for explanatory variables.
LFA - Labor Force Attachment.
HCD - Human Capital Development

Note: Negative outliers are defined as one standard deviation or more below the mean impacts in quarters 3, 7, 11 and 15.

Table 18
STYLIZED COST-BENEFIT FRAMEWORK OF WELFARE=TO-WORK PROGRAMS
  Society (B + C) (A) Program Group (B) Non-Assignees (C) Government (D)
In-Program Output + 0 + 0
Earnings + + 0 0
Tax Payments by Program Group 0 - + +
AFDC Payments 0 - + +
Other Transfer Payments 0 - + +
Net Program Operating Costs - 0 - -
Net Benefits of Program (column sum) ? ? ? ?

Table 19
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR COST-BENEFIT OUTCOMES
  MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION MEDIAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM NO OF OBS
Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted
PERSPECTIVE PROGRAM GROUP 121 122 3002 2932 -54 56 -6559 11040 49
GOVERNMENT -236 54 3088 2950 246 436 -9207 5287 49
NON-ASSIGNEES -188 88 3133 2992 436 570 -9372 5287 49
SOCIETY 76 355 2928 2785 438 507 -5904 5966 49
NET COST TO GOVERNMENT 1967 1773 1861 1738 1346 1346 -290 8613 49

Table 20
REGRESSION MODELS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE BENEFIT-COST OUTCOMES FROM ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES
(Standard errors in parentheses)
PERSPECTIVE Program Group Government Non-Assignees Society
Constant -964.33 (1658.9) -10487.83 (6826.2) 1957.22 (1719.0) 4672.17 (6664.3) 2130.83 (1713.6) 4628.66 (6711.4) 1513.32 (1627.5) -5620.21 (6023.3)
Intervention impact on % sanctioned -99.42 (75.0) -48.45 (85.4) 20.84 (77.7) 64.83 (83.4) 4.74 (77.5) 50.07 (83.9) -28.22 (73.6) 67.47 (75.3)
Intervention impact on % participated in job search 31.99 (31.3) 26.28 (34.7) -1.21 (32.4) -44.04 (33.9) -8.73 (32.3) -50.11 (34.1) 7.71 (30.7) -35.98 (30.6)
Intervention impact on % participated in basic education 53.82 (44.6) 46.87 (57.8) -104.85 ** (46.2) -177.54 *** (56.4) -106.96 ** (46.1) -175.82 *** (56.8) -39.22 (43.8) -105.54 ** (51.0)
Intervention impact on % participated in vocational education -217.98 * (123.0) -282.42 * (139.4) -91.74 (127.5) 29.59 (136.1) -106.44 (127.1) 9.77 (137.0) -352.74 *** (120.7) -323.63 ** (123.0)
Intervention impact on % participated in work experience 70.13 (89.4) 29.83 (94.7) -38.91 (92.6) -4.73(92.4) 5.03 (92.4) 40.53 (93.1) 84.08 (87.7) 78.98 (83.5)
Intervention included financial incentive=1 3735.60 *** (1103.3) 4620.01 *** (1263.2) -3686.69 *** (1143.3) -5462.32 *** (1233.3) -3830.52 *** (1139.7) -5560.00 *** (1242.0) -88.86 (1082.4) -766.41 (1114.7)
Intervention included time limit=1 1612.98 (1326.6) 1068.73 (1371.1) 727.29 (1374.7) 602.75 (1338.6) 563.18 (1370.4) 434.46 (1348.0) 1956.49 (1301.5) 1188.55 (1209.8)
Number of years since 1982 32.67 (156.4) -116.14 (174.5) -51.00 (162.1) -53.02 (170.4) -46.66 (161.6) -41.14 (171.6) -48.66 (153.4) -196.12 (154.0)
Two-parent family target group=1 -1541.57 (1143.9) -3159.42 ** (1501.5) 135.70 (1185.3) -1000.40 (1465.9) 232.61 (1181.6) -892.60 (1476.2) -1566.91 (1122.2) -4331.89 *** (1324.9)
Average age of target group   334.09 (216.5)   -219.28 (211.4)   -215.89 (212.9)   130.52 (191.1)
% of target group with recent employment   67.84 *(36.8)   7.93(35.9)   9.43(36.1)   83.12 **(32.4)
Annual % change in local manufacturing employment   90.88 (153.2)   77.92 (149.5)   53.26 (150.6)   142.51 (135.2)
Maximum AFDC payment for a family of 3   -4.2(3.2)   8.0 **(3.2)   7.9 **(3.2)   2.7(2.9)
Adjusted R-squared 0.256 0.280 0.210 0.322 0.238 0.332 0.206 0.378
F-test for contribution of added variables 2.834 ** 1.324 2.422 ** 2.599 * 2.662 ** 2.370 * 2.385 ** 3.703 **
Number of observations 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49
***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level.

Table 21
WELFARE-TO-WORK EVALUATIONS REPORTING SUBGROUP IMPACTS AND INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE
Program Title County AFDC Applicants AFDC Recipients Employed in year before RA Not employed in year before RA With High School Diplomas Without High School Diplomas Long-term AFDC Participants Short-term AFDC Participants
GAIN Alameda   O X X     X X
Butte     X X     X X
Los Angeles   O X X     X X
Riverside     X X     X X
San Diego     X X     X X
Tulare     X X     X X
Job Search and Work Experience in Cook County   X X X X        
Community Work Experience                  
Demonstrations                  
WORK Program (Arkansas) Jefferson X X     X X    
Pulaski South X X            
Combined Jefferson & Pulaski South X X         X X
Employment Initiatives (Baltimore)   X X X X        
Saturation Work Initiative Model (SWIM,San Diego)   X X            
Employment Services Program (Virginia)   X X   X X      
Project Independence (Florida’s JOBS Program) All Florida Counties     X X X X X X
Jobs First (Connecticut) Manchester & Newhaven X X X X     X X
The Family Transition Program (FTP,Florida)       X X   X    
The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN Evaluation   X   X X X X X X
The San Diego Job Search and Work Experience Demonstration   O   X X   X X  
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) Atlanta     X X X X X X
Grand Rapids     X X X X X X
Riverside     X X X X X X
Portland (OR)     X X X X X X
Columbus     X X X X X X
Detroit     X X X X X X
Oklahoma City O   X X X X X X
Minnesota Family Investment Program Urban X X            
Rural   X            
Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project. Barre X X            
All research districts X X X X X X    
Teenage Parent Demonstration Camden O              
Newark O              
Chicago O              
To Strengthen Michigan Families (TSMF) All sites X X            
Kalamazoo X X            
Madison Heights X X            
McNichols/ Goddard X X            
Schaefer/ Six Mile X X            
Virginia Independence Program (VIEW) Lynchburg X X            
Prince William X X            
Petersburg X X            
Family Investment Program (FIP, Iowa)   X X X X        
California Work Pays Demonstration Program Alameda X X            
Los Angeles X X            
San Bernardino X X            
Combined X X            
New York State Child Assistance Program (CAP)     O            
Note: X - subgroup impacts available; O - program targeted at subgroup

Table 22
MEAN IMPACTS OF WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS FOR SELECTED SUBGROUPS
AFDC Applicant (A) versus AFDC Recipients (R)
QUARTER Percentage receiving AFDC Amount of AFDC payment Earnings Percentage employed
A R A R A R A R
3 0.811 1.204 73.756 48.975 -27.827 33.553 2.268 2.508
N for 3 29 18 23 13 20 11 33 19
7 0.172 1.74 48.67 55.288 36.215 58.684 1.774 2.711
N for 7 23 16 13 15 16 11 29 19
11 -0.423 -0.064 34.665 31.314 127.552 52.244 1.375 2.677
N for 11 8 13 6 9 10 11 14 13
15 0.836 2.011 28.32 79.434 101.932 -33.243 1.895 2.604
N for 15 6 9 6 7 1 6 10 9
Employed (E) versus Not Employed in Year Prior to Random Assignment (NE)
QUARTER Percentage receiving AFDC Amount of AFDC payment Earnings Percentage employed
E NE E NE E NE E NE
3 4.076 0.311 55.941 56.038 89.748 87.033 2.655 0.838
N for 3 3 3 5 6 4 3 3 3
7 2.652 2.929 81.223 92.407 72.949 143.747 1.466 3.001
N for 7 6 6 12 12 15 15 6 6
11 1.4 2.8 69.028 89.55 191.084 172.011 6 2.3
N for 11 1 1 1 1 8 8 1 1
15 -0.53 2.772     155.597 21.189 5.733 6.998
N for 15 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2
High School Diploma (HSD) versus No High School Diploma (nHSD)
QUARTER Percentage receiving AFDC Amount of AFDC payment Earnings Percentage employed
HSD nHSD HSD nHSD HSD nHSD HSD nHSD
3 -4.031 2.39 88.937 77.651 126.832 91.6 4.031 3.158
N for 3 8 9 10 11 10 11 9 10
7 -3.914 3.069 89.56 88.987 118.84 103.384 3.914 3.095
N for 7 8 9 10 12 11 11 8 9
11   5.76       117.52   5.4
N for 11 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1
15 -5.629 4.542     71.687 74.759 5.629 4.941
N for 15 2 3 0 0 2 3 2 3
Long-Term AFDC Recipient (LT) versus Short-Term AFDC Recipients (ST)
QUARTER Percentage receiving AFDC Amount of AFDC payment Earnings Percentage employed
LT ST LT ST LT ST LT ST
3 -3.4 -2.639 52.944 -39.897 5.701 12.952 8.211 1.749
N for 3 2 2 4 4 3 4 3 3
7 -1.753 -1.524 113.179 81.577 154.903 44.266 8.513 2.269
N for 7 5 5 16 15 12 16 5 5
11 -7.67       161.971 308.949 5.96  
N for 11 2 0 0 0 7 5 2 0
15                
N for 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 23
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE IMPACTS OF WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS ON SUB-GROUPS
(standard errors in parentheses)
Subgroup Impacts
Participation in AFDC Amount of AFDC Payment Earnings Percentage employed
Mean Difference N Mean Difference N Mean Difference N Mean Difference N
AFDC Applicants - AFDC Recipients Unadjusted, pure subgroups -1.568 (0.47) *** 39 -6.618 (4.07) 28 -22.469 (28.62) 27 -0.937 ** (0.43) 48
Regression adjusted, pure subgroups -1.342 (0.50) ** 39 13.156 (14.95) 28 -24.565 (29.35) 27 -1.291 ** (0.50) 48
Regression adjusted, mixed groups -0.659 (0.55) 70 -68.336 *** (12.77) 60 -49.021 ** (23.27) 82 -1.562 *** (0.44) 84
Employed - Not Employed in Year Prior to Random Assignment Unadjusted, pure subgroups -0.277 (0.79) 12 -11.184 (12.26) 24 -70.798 ** (25.73) 30 -1.535 * (0.75) 12
Regression adjusted, pure subgroups -0.252 (0.80) 12 -8.67 (12.30) 24 -58.96 ** (25.89) 30 -2.203 ** (0.76) 12
Regression adjusted, mixed groups -0.647 (0.79) 61 -27.634 ** (12.76) 69 -32.553 (27.92) 74 -0.93 (0.75) 60
High School Diploma - No High School Diploma Unadjusted, pure subgroups -0.037 (0.69) 17 0.573 (9.55) 22 15.456 (26.56) 22 0.819 (0.70) 17
Regression adjusted, pure subgroups -0.033 (0.69) 17 3.119 (9.58) 22 55.1 * (29.12) 22 1.038 (0.70) 17
Regression adjusted, mixed groups -0.118 (0.68) 58 2.202 (9.56) 50 15.342 (26.82) 53 0.680 (0.70) 55
Short-Term AFDC Participants - Long-Term AFDC Participants Unadjusted, pure subgroups 0.229 (0.93) 10 -31.602 *** (10.68) 31 -110.637 *** (21.84) 28 -6.244 *** (1.24) 10
Regression adjusted, pure subgroups -0.651 (0.93) 10 -29.659 *** (10.77) 31 -103.994 *** (24.37) 28 -6.305 *** (1.00) 10
Regression adjusted, mixed groups -2.204 (0.82) ** 20 -42.433 *** (10.85) 45 -95.76 *** (24.12) 49 -5.408 *** (0.96) 20
Significance of Difference: ***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level. RA= random assignment

Table 24
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS FOR PROGRAMS REPORTING CHILD OUTCOMES
PROGRAM CHARACTERISTIC Connecticut FTP LA GAIN NEWWS MFIP WRP Iowa
Financial Incentive Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Time Limit Yes Yes No No No Yes No
Program impacts on the percentage who Were sanctioned (net) 3.0 22.0 21.0 9.1* 0 0 **
Participated in job search 17.5 20.6 31.1 24.1* 12.6 13.8 1.6
Participated in basic education -0.1 9.8 -0.4 11.9* -1.1 1.8 3.4
Participated in vocational education 0.2 13.1 -2.1 3.3* -2.3 7.2 0
Participated in unpaid work experience -1.1 6.7 4.6 3.1* 0.5 0 1.5
Net benefits received by individual assigned to program group in year 2000 dollars 6,103 1,759 732 -4,439* 8,993 1,619 434
Net government operating cost in year 2000 dollars 2,275 8,613 1,448 2,293* 200 1,323 180

Table 25
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR CHILD OUTCOME MEASURES
  All Observations Young Age School Age Adolescents
Unwghted Weighted Unwghted Weighted Unwghted Weighted Unwghted Weighted
BEHAVIORAL/ EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS Mean value for controls 10.78 8.68 6.81 5.83 13.00 15.32 10.56 5.21
Mean effect size 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.05 -0.08 -0.06 0.07 0.02
Standard Deviation 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.15 0.32 0.12
Median effect size 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.03 0.01 0.01
Minimum -0.74 -0.74 -0.13 -0.13 -0.47 -0.47 -0.74 -0.74
Maximum 0.96 0.96 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.96 0.96
Q-test for homogeneity   418.39   78.70   183.21   114.82
Critical Chi-squared at p=.05   55.76   14.07   25.00   26.30
Number of observations 41 41 8 8 16 16 17 17
EVER SUSPENDED OR EXPELLED Mean value for controls 17.61 15.38 8.09 7.56 13.01 13.08 26.69 22.60
Mean effect size -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02
Standard Deviation 0.18 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.09 0.26 0.10
Median effect size -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.05 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01
Minimum -0.91 -0.91 -0.16 -0.16 -0.21 -0.21 -0.91 -0.91
Maximum 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.39 0.39
Q-test for homogeneity   113.75   12.87   81.53   80.19
Critical Chi-squared at p=.05   56.94   14.07   26.30   26.30
Number of observations 42 42 8 8 17 17 17 17
REPEATED A GRADE Mean value for controls 10.90 11.71 9.15 9.80 11.30 12.32 11.22 12.13
Mean effect size 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06
Standard Deviation 0.22 0.17 0.35 0.30 0.14 0.09 0.22 0.12
Median effect size 0.03 0.03 -0.02 -0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.07
Minimum -0.46 -0.46 -0.18 -0.18 -0.34 -0.34 -0.46 -0.46
Maximum 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.28 0.28 0.49 0.49
Q-test for homogeneity   693.23   432.16   82.93   115.64
Critical Chi-squared at p=.05   56.94   14.07   27.59   25.00
Number of observations 42 42 8 8 18 18 16 16
SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT Mean value for controls 13.49 10.12     9.75 8.76 18.00 12.73
Mean effect size 0.06 0.03     0.05 -0.01 0.06 0.11
Standard Deviation 0.22 0.12     0.16 0.10 0.29 0.13
Median effect size 0.07 0.00     0.04 -0.06 0.07 0.13
Minimum -0.30 -0.30     -0.23 -0.23 -0.30 -0.30
Maximum 0.77 0.77     0.30 0.30 0.77 0.77
Q-test for homogeneity   123.93       51.30   47.93
Critical Chi-squared at p=.05   32.67       19.68   16.92
Number of observations 22 22     12 12 10 10
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR Mean value for controls         74.20 44.90    
Mean effect size         0.07 0.01    
Standard Deviation         0.10 0.02    
Median effect size         0.03 0.00    
Minimum         0.00 0.00    
Maximum         21.00 21.00    
Q-test for homogeneity           2.27    
Critical Chi-squared at p=.05           7.82    
Number of observations         4 4    
HEALTH Mean value for controls         23.81 32.36    
Mean effect size         -0.03 0.01    
Standard Deviation         0.11 0.08    
Median effect size         -0.04 0.04    
Minimum         -0.13 -0.13    
Maximum         0.08 0.08    
Q-test for homogeneity           24.80    
Critical Chi-squared at p=.05           7.82    
Number of observations         4 4    

Table 26
REGRESSION MODELS OF THE IMPACTS OF WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS ON CHILDHOOD BEHAVIORAL/EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS
(Standard errors in parentheses)
  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Constant 0.003 (0.02) -0.029 (0.05) -0.088 (0.04)
School Age Dummy -0.049 ** (0.02) -0.061 *** (0.02) -0.066 *** (0.02)
Adolescent Dummy -0.016 (0.02) -0.006 (0.02) -0.006 (0.02)
Intervention included financial incentive=1 -0.135 *** (0.02)    
Intervention included time limit=1   -0.071 *** (0.02)  
Program impacts on the percentage who: were sanctioned   0.008 *** (0.00)  
participated in job search     0.002 (0.00)
participated in basic education     0.004 ** (0.00)
participated in vocational education     -0.008 (0.01)
participated in unpaid work experience     0.024 ** (0.01)
Net cost to the government in 1,000s of year 2000 dollars 0.022 *** (0.00)    
Adjusted R-squared 0.202 0.232 0.174
F-test 2.956 ** 3.951 *** 2.404 **
Number of observations 31 39 40
***significant at the 1-percent level; **significant at the 5-percent level; *significant at the 10-percent level. Note: Regressions were also calculated by imputing the mean for missing values with virtually the same results.

Table 27
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR VOLUNTARY PROGRAM IMPACT MEASURES
  All Observations High Cost Programs Low Cost Programs
Unwghted Weighted Unwghted Weighted Unwghted Weighted
EARNINGS 7th quarter since random assignment Mean value for controls 1109.4 1016.0 1086.6 1168.1 1132.2 873.7
Mean impact 198.1 165.0 229.0 166.8 167.1 163.2
Standard Deviation 209.6 132.3 132.3 132.3 184.9 122.8
Median impact 209.6 120.3 225.0 131.1 213.9 109.5
Minimum -170.1 -170.1 37.8 37.8 -170.1 -170.1
Maximum 545.2 545.2 545.2 545.2 371.8 371.8
Q-test for homogeneity   10.1   5.7   5.1
Critical Chi-squared value at p=.05   16.9   9.5   9.5
Number of observations 10 10 5 5 5 5
11th quarter since random assignment Mean value for controls 1149.7 1134.2 1191.9 1149.6 1097.0 1110.6
Mean impact 480.7 545.1 674.1 712.1 239.0 290.5
Standard Deviation 482.2 578.7 601.3 601.3 209.3 317.6
Median impact 295.8 280.5 200.6 200.9 198.5 172.4
Minimum 55.1 55.1 463.8 463.8 55.1 55.1
Maximum 987.4 987.4 987.4 987.4 482.2 482.2
Q-test for homogeneity   25.5   8.2   4.6
Critical Chi-squared value at p=.05   15.5   9.5   7.8
Number of observations 9 9 5 5 4 4
AMOUNT OF AFDC PAYMENTS 7th quarter since random assignment Mean value for controls 1214.2 1022.2 1403.1 1136.2 1025.4 916.4
Mean impact 496.6 417.4 811.5 668.2 181.7 184.7
Standard Deviation 377.0 344.0 652.4 541.8 90.1 65.0
Median impact 507.9 445.4 546.8 512.6 182.8 162.3
Minimum -0.6 -0.6 126.7 126.7 -0.6 -0.6
Maximum 1433.9 1433.9 1433.9 1433.9 409.9 409.9
Q-test for homogeneity   267.9   173.2   18.6
Critical Chi-squared value at p=.05   16.9   9.5   9.5
Number of observations 10 10 5 5 5 5
11th quarter since random assignment Mean value for controls 898.1 768.8 922.8 736.4 867.2 821.6
Mean impact 227.6 186.7 345.2 236.7 80.6 105.5
Standard Deviation 124.5 124.5 141.4 124.5 43.0 107.2
Median impact 343.2 291.2 426.8 350.3 138.8 112.5
Minimum -30.1 -30.1 14.2 14.2 -30.1 -30.1
Maximum 1071.9 1071.9 1071.9 1071.9 266.3 266.3
Q-test for homogeneity   96.7   74.5   4.5
Critical Chi-squared value at p=.05   15.5   9.5   7.8
Number of observations 9 9 5 5 4 4

Figure 1: HOW WELFARE POLICIES MIGHT AFFECT CHILDREN

[D]

Source: Welfare Reform and Children: A Synthesis of Impacts in Five States. (2005). Washington DC: Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved March 17, 2005, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/welfare_employ/ch_outcomes/reports/welfare_reform_children/welfare_reform_toc.html.



 

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next