Table 4.1
Program Impacts on Sanctioning
Sample Program Control Difference
Site and Program Size Group Group (Impact)
Ever informed of possibility that welfare
grant would be reduced for non-compliance
with program requirements (%)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 68.0 44.3 23.6 *** sancinfo
Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 68.7 44.3 24.3 *** sancinfo
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 80.9 56.4 24.5 *** sancinfo
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 82.6 56.4 26.2 *** sancinfo
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 69.7 47.4 22.3 *** sancinfo
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 71.1 50.2 20.9 *** sancinfo
Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 71.7 50.2 21.4 *** sancinfo
Columbus Integrated 728 68.0 29.6 38.4 *** sancinfo
Columbus Traditional 723 69.1 29.6 39.5 *** sancinfo
Detroit 426 57.7 44.3 13.4 *** sancinfo
Oklahoma City 511 44.5 23.3 21.2 *** sancinfo
Portland 610 67.3 35.5 31.8 *** sancinfo
Ever sanctioned (%)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 10.9 3.7 7.2 *** sanction
Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 20.7 3.7 17.1 *** sanction
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 32.0 8.5 23.5 *** sanction
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 30.4 8.5 22.0 *** sanction
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 14.1 4.5 9.6 *** sanction
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 16.3 4.7 11.6 *** sanction
Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 20.3 4.7 15.6 *** sanction
Columbus Integrated 728 26.1 4.2 21.9 *** sanction
Columbus Traditional 723 30.9 4.2 26.7 *** sanction
Detroit 426 3.4 2.2 1.2 sanction
Oklahoma City 511 3.8 2.1 1.7 sanction
Portland 610 18.4 4.4 14.0 *** sanction
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