Table 9.7
Program Impacts on Transitional Child Care Benefits During the Two-Year Follow-Up Period
Sample Program Control Difference Percentage
Site and Program Size Group Group (Impact) Change (%)
A. For All Sample Members
Informed of transitional child care benefits (%)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 9.3 5.0 4.3 *** 84.8 VFCCINFO
Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 6.4 5.0 1.4 26.8 VFCCINFO
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 6.9 2.9 4.0 *** 135.0 VFCCINFO
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 4.2 2.9 1.3 44.6 VFCCINFO
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 10.4 3.2 7.1 *** 219.7 VFCCINFO
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 7.4 1.9 5.5 *** 286.6 VFCCINFO
Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 4.6 1.9 2.7 ** 142.0 VFCCINFO
Columbus Integrated 728 10.8 5.0 5.9 *** 118.0 VFCCINFO
Columbus Traditional 723 7.1 5.0 2.2 43.7 VFCCINFO
Detroit 426 3.7 3.4 0.3 9.2 VFCCINFO
Oklahoma City 511 10.2 11.7 -1.6 -13.2 VFCCINFO
Portland 610 20.2 13.5 6.7 ** 49.9 VFCCINFO
Used transitional child care benefits (%)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 12.1 5.3 6.8 *** 129.0 VFCCTRAN
Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 7.7 5.3 2.4 ** 45.3 VFCCTRAN
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 5.1 2.1 2.9 *** 135.2 VFCCTRAN
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 3.1 2.1 0.9 42.3 VFCCTRAN
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 3.4 1.5 1.9 *** 128.8 VFCCTRAN
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 2.9 1.0 1.8 ** 179.0 VFCCTRAN
Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 1.3 1.0 0.2 22.9 VFCCTRAN
Columbus Integrated 728 5.4 3.9 1.5 37.7 VFCCTRAN
Columbus Traditional 723 4.9 3.9 1.0 26.1 VFCCTRAN
Detroit 426 4.5 2.1 2.5 119.5 VFCCTRAN
Oklahoma City 511 11.5 14.0 -2.4 -17.4 VFCCTRAN
Portland 610 23.5 12.5 11.0 *** 87.5 VFCCTRAN
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