Table 9.2
Program Impacts on Employment Status and Child Care Use
While Employed During the Two-Year Follow-Up Period
Sample Program Control Difference Percentage
Site and Program Size Group Group (Impact) Change (%)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment
Child care used for employment (%) 1890 33.2 29.0 4.2 ** 14.4 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 22.1 21.9 0.2 0.9 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 10.1 6.6 3.4 *** 51.6 ccwrknft
Atlanta Human Capital Development
Child care used for employment (%) 2199 31.8 29.0 2.9 9.9 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 24.9 21.9 2.9 * 13.3 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 6.8 6.6 0.2 2.3 ccwrknft
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment
Child care used for employment (%) 1158 50.0 43.3 6.7 ** 15.5 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 34.6 31.8 2.8 8.8 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 15.2 11.3 3.9 ** 34.9 ccwrknft
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development
Child care used for employment (%) 1158 42.5 43.3 -0.8 -1.9 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 30.9 31.8 -0.9 -2.8 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 11.2 11.3 -0.1 -0.8 ccwrknft
Riverside Labor Force Attachment
Child care used for employment (%) 1678 42.5 29.4 13.1 *** 44.6 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 29.9 18.8 11.1 *** 58.7 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 12.6 10.5 2.1 19.5 ccwrknft
Riverside Labor Force Attachment for those who
lacked a high school diploma or basic skills
Child care used for employment (%) 1012 39.5 23.3 16.1 *** 69.2 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 26.9 15.3 11.6 *** 76.1 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 12.6 8.1 4.5 ** 56.0 ccwrknft
Riverside Human Capital Development
Child care used for employment (%) 1350 30.1 23.3 6.7 ** 28.7 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 20.9 15.3 5.6 ** 36.7 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 9.2 8.1 1.1 13.7 ccwrknft
(continued)
Table 9.2 (continued)
Sample Program Control Difference Percentage
Site and Program Size Group Group (Impact) Change (%)
Columbus Integrated
Child care used for employment (%) 728 38.3 36.0 2.3 6.4 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 29.4 26.8 2.6 9.6 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 8.4 8.5 0.0 -0.5 ccwrknft
Columbus Traditional
Child care used for employment (%) 723 36.1 36.0 0.0 0.1 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 25.8 26.8 -1.0 -3.6 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 10.0 8.5 1.5 17.7 ccwrknft
Detroit
Child care used for employment (%) 426 40.6 33.2 7.5 * 22.5 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 28.1 23.1 5.0 21.5 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 12.5 10.0 2.5 24.9 ccwrknft
Oklahoma City
Child care used for employment (%) 511 53.3 43.6 9.6 ** 22.1 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 40.8 33.4 7.4 * 22.1 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 12.4 9.9 2.6 26.0 ccwrknft
Portland
Child care used for employment (%) 610 48.9 39.0 9.9 ** 25.3 vhanycc
Worked full time and used child care 39.5 27.7 11.8 *** 42.4 ccwrkft
Worked part time and used child care 9.4 10.9 -1.5 -13.7 ccwrknft
Home Pages:
NEWWS
Human Services Policy
(HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)
Last modified on 09/10/01