[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
The main goal of Philadelphia’s WtW programs was to help the hardest-to-employ TANF recipients become self-sufficient through increased employment, increased earnings, and reduced TANF receipt. This study examines RSC and TWC participants’ outcomes over time after WtW enrollment. Because the study was not experimental, differences between RSC and TWC participants should not be interpreted as relative impacts of the programs; they have differences other than the program services they received. Rather, this study is designed to provide an overall description of Philadelphia’s WtW program participants’ outcomes. While we cannot determine whether, or to what extent, the WtW programs are responsible for the outcomes observed over time, we can examine the extent to which the programs’ intended outcomes were being achieved. In this chapter, we examine outcomes for RSC and TWC participants over time after program entry. We first discuss participants’ employment patterns, then their earnings, and finally their TANF receipt.
Trends in employment and TANF receipt for the Philadelphia TANF caseload at the time study sample enrollment began provide context for the examination of outcomes for RSC and TWC participants. To provide this context, we used the entire Philadelphia TANF caseload as of September 1999 as a reference sample. This is the month when sample enrollment began at the RSCs and TWC. Administrative records data for the September 1999 Philadelphia TANF caseload indicate that, over time, TANF receipt declined sharply, while employment increased only slightly (Figure II.1).
Figure II.1
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Trends in Outcomes for TANF Caseload in Philadelphia, as of September 1999
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
However, although TANF receipt did decline, nearly half the September 1999 TANF caseload (48 percent) was still receiving TANF two years later. In addition, the majority of the caseload were not employed two years later — only 43 percent were employed in September 2001, a slight increase from 39 percent in September 1999.
While these overall trends provide a context in which to place the RSC and TWC participants, the September 1999 TANF caseload is different from the RSC and TWC study samples in two important ways. First, the September 1999 TANF caseload includes a mix of people with different patterns of TANF receipt and program participation, such as short-term TANF recipients, long-term TANF recipients enrolled in WtW or other programs, and long-term TANF recipients with deferrals (who were not required to participate in work activities). In contrast, the RSC and TWC study samples included only long-term TANF recipients enrolled in these WtW programs. Second, the September 1999 caseload included TANF recipients at one point in time, whereas the study sample were enrolled over a period of time. Therefore, study sample outcomes may reflect differences from September 1999 in economic or other conditions at the time of enrollment and during the follow-up period.
While their approaches differed, a central goal of both the RSC and the TWC programs was to help participants become employed. To help participants find jobs quickly, the RSCs emphasized short-term job search and placement. In contrast, TWC sought to enhance participants' overall employability by providing them with work experience in paid transitional jobs for up to six months before helping them find permanent, unsubsidized jobs. Here, we examine the trends over time in employment for RSC and TWC participants.
Employment rates initially increased. The participants in both programs had sharp increases in employment soon after program entry (Figure II.2). TWC participants' employment rates rose to a high of 79 percent during the quarter of program enrollment, reflecting their immediate placement in paid transitional work positions.[1] RSC participants’ employment rate rose to a high of 59 percent in the first quarter after program enrollment, as they quickly obtained jobs through the program's job search and placement services or through their own efforts. Nevertheless, because participants in both programs were likely to be at a relatively low point in their employment just before program enrollment, their postenrollment outcomes are likely to reflect some natural recovery from these lows.[2]
Figure II.2
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Employment Rates Over Time
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
After these initial increases, employment declined steadily over time. By six quarters after program enrollment, only 39 percent of TWC participants, and 49 percent of RSC participants, were employed (Figure II.2). TWC participants experienced a markedly steep decline in employment within the first three quarters of program enrollment, suggesting that many did not complete their transitional employment or move into unsubsidized employment. RSC participants experienced a smaller, yet consistent, decline in employment over the quarters after program entry.[3]
Because TWC participants primarily held transitional jobs in the first quarters after program enrollment while RSC participants held unsubsidized jobs, we do not focus on comparisons across these early quarters. The administrative data do not provide information on whether the employment was subsidized or not. Instead, we examine outcomes at least four quarters after program enrollment, when both TWC and RSC participants could have completed the program and reached unsubsidized employment (this is also true of subsequent analyses of earnings and TANF receipt).[4]
Despite these declines, overall employment success improved after program entry. In general, for both RSC and TWC participants, employment rates six quarters after program entry were higher than the highest preenrollment rates. Moreover, a higher proportion of both RSC and TWC participants were employed consistently during all four of the quarters after program entry (31 and 25 percent), compared to the four quarters before entry (15 and 10 percent; Table II.1). Further, RSC and TWC participants were more likely to be at least somewhat engaged in the labor market after program entry. More than three-quarters of RSC and TWC participants (76 and 84 percent, respectively) were employed at some point in the four quarters after program entry, compared with about two-thirds (65 and 64 percent, respectively) in the four quarters prior to program entry (Table II.1).[5]
| RSC | TWC | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Four Quarters Before Program Entry | |||
| Ever employed | 65.4 | 64.1 | *** |
| Employed in all four quarters | 15.4 | 10.0 | *** |
| Employed in at least one quarter | 50.0 | 54.1 | *** |
| Never employed | 34.6 | 35.9 | |
| Average annual earnings (dollars) | 2,204 | 1,561 | *** |
| Four Quarters After Program Entry | |||
| Ever employed | 75.5 | 84.0 | *** |
| Employed in all four quarters | 31.3 | 25.4 | *** |
| Employed in at least one quarter | 44.2 | 58.6 | *** |
| Never employed | 24.5 | 16.0 | *** |
| Average annual earnings (dollars) | 4,501 | 3,389 | *** |
| Sample Size | 2,338 | 2,543 | |
| Administrative records data from state of
Pennsylvania.
*/**/*** Difference between RSC and TWC estimates is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test. |
|||
Nevertheless, employment was unstable. Most RSC and TWC participants surveyed 12 months after sample enrollment reported that they had had at least one spell without employment in the year after program entry (90 and 95 percent, respectively; Table II.2). Their spells without employment made up a substantial proportion of the year after program entry. RSC and TWC participants who worked at some time in the year after program entry reported that, on average, they worked for only 61 and 49 percent of the year, respectively (Table II.2).
| Employment Measure | RSC | TWC | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Employment Spells | |||
| 0 | 22.6 | 26.2 | * |
| 1 | 52.4 | 51.2 | |
| 2 | 20.1 | 17.3 | |
| 3 or more | 4.9 | 5.3 | |
| Number of Spells Without Employment | |||
| 0 | 10.3 | 5.4 | *** |
| 1 | 53.9 | 56.1 | |
| 2 | 27.6 | 31.3 | * |
| 3 or more | 8.2 | 7.2 | |
| Proportion of YearAfter Program Entry Employed | |||
| All enrollees | 47.0 | 36.0 | *** |
| If employed sometime during year | 61.0 | 49.0 | *** |
| Sample Size | 944 | 1,110 | |
| Source: 2001-2003 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees. | |||
| Note 1: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all WtW enrollees in the respective sites. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. | |||
| */**/*** Difference between RSC and TWC estimates is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test. | |||
For TWC participants, some instability is likely to reflect movement from transitional jobs to unsubsidized jobs. The employment rate of TWC participants declines most sharply in the first three quarters after program entry, when they would be leaving their transitional jobs to look for unsubsidized work. In the follow-up survey, more than one-third of TWC participants reported that they left their first job because the work period ended (Table II.3).[6]
| Circumstance of Departure | RSC |
TWC |
Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reason for Departure from Job | |||
| Quit | 44.7 | 31.9 | *** |
| Laid off | 12.7 | 8.4 | ** |
| Fired | 13.3 | 10.2 | |
| Work period ended | 15.0 | 35.2 | *** |
| Self-employed job ended | 9.5 | 6.0 | ** |
| Other reason | 4.9 | 8.4 | ** |
| Sample Size | 439 | 605 | |
| 2001-2003 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees. | |||
| Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all WtW enrollees in the respective sites. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. The statistics presented in this table are for WtW enrollees who left the first job that they held on or following their entry into WtW. If there was more than one first job, then the principal job — the job with the most hours worked in a typical week — was selected. In the event of a tie on hours worked, several additional criteria were applied in sequence. |
|||
| */**/*** Difference between RSC and TWC estimates is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test. | |||
The employment instability among Philadelphia WtW participants is typical of that of similar groups. The employment instability observed for the RSC and TWC participants is consistent with findings of other research on the employment of former TANF recipients. Andersson et al. (2003) indicate that the retail and service industries — where RSC and TWC participants most commonly worked (Table II.4) — provided unstable employment. Moreover, an analysis of the Philadelphia caseload from 1997 to 1999 indicates that, while employment increased, much of it was short-term and unstable (Michalopoulos 2003).
| Industry | RSC | TWC | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Services | 58.0 | 67.2 | ** |
| Retail Trade | 21.0 | 17.7 | |
| Manufacturing | 4.7 | 2.2 | * |
| Transportation and Utilities | 6.5 | 2.7 | *** |
| Wholesale Trade | 1.7 | 0.2 | ** |
| Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate | 3.7 | 4.1 | |
| Public Administration | 3.4 | 4.8 | |
| Other | 1.2 | 1.2 | |
| Sample Size | 476 | 420 | |
| Source: 2001-2003 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees. | |||
| Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all WtW enrollees in the respective sites. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. The statistics presented in this table pertain to the principal job held by a sample member at the time of the survey interview. If the sample member held more than one job at that time, then the principal job was identified as the job on which the most hours were worked in a typical week. In the event of a tie on hours worked, the job with the earliest starting date. |
|||
| */**/*** Difference between RSC and TWC estimates is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test. | |||
RSC participants were more likely to move successfully from one job to another. Most RSC and TWC participants who found a job in the year after program enrollment left that job within the year (60 and 73 percent, respectively; Table II.5). Among those who left their first job, RSC participants were more likely than TWC participants to find another job by one year after program enrollment (63 versus 53 percent, respectively).[7] However, because their transitional jobs ended, more TWC participants had to search for another job during the year following program entry.
| Work Status | RSC | TWC | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employed During Year After Program Entry | |||
| Still employed at first job 1 year after program entry | 39.9 | 27.4 | *** |
| Left first job during year after program entry | 60.1 | 72.5 | *** |
| Left first job during year after program entry, employed at another job 1 year after program entry | 37.9 | 38.2 | |
| Left first job during year after program entry, not employed 1 year after program entry | 22.2 | 34.3 | *** |
| Sample Size | 733 | 826 | |
| Source: 2001-2003 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees. | |||
| Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all WtW enrollees in the respective sites. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. The statistics presented in this table pertain to the principal job a sample member held at the time of the survey interview. If the sample member held more than one job at that time, then the principal job was identified as the job on which the most hours were worked in a typical week. In the event of a tie on hours worked, the job with the earliest starting date. |
|||
| */**/*** Difference between RSC and TWC estimates is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test. | |||
While helping participants become employed was a central goal of the WtW programs, the ultimate goal was to help participants become self-sufficient.To the extent that WtW participants were employed and had increased their earnings, they moved closer to self-sufficiency. Next, we describe the earnings of RSC and TWC participants after program entry.
Earnings improved over time after program enrollment. The average quarterly earnings across all RSC and TWC participants (including those with no earnings) increased after program entry and remained substantially higher than those of preprogram levels (Figure II.3).[8] One year after program enrollment, both RSC and TWC participants had average quarterly earnings ($1,232 and $841, respectively) that were about two times higher than one year before program enrollment ($520 and $429, respectively).[9] Improved employment success, evident in the increased employment rates in the quarters after program enrollment, is likely associated with higher earnings.
Figure II.3
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Earnings Over Time
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
Increases in wages and/or hours worked played a role in increased earnings. RSC and TWC participants who changed jobs during the first year after program entry, on average, reported higher hourly wages at their most recent job than at their first one (Table II.6). In addition, TWC participants who changed jobs reported working more hours each week. Hours worked and wage rates may also have increased for participants who stayed in the first job over the year after program entry; however, the follow-up survey data do not provide this information for these participants.
| RSC | TWC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job Characteristic | First | Most Recent | Sig. | First | Most Recent | Sig. |
| Hours Worked per Week | ||||||
| Less than 20 hours | 7.0 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 3.9 | ||
| 20 to 29 hours | 23.5 | 21.2 | 44.2 | 31.9 | *** | |
| 30 hours or more | 69.5 | 74.5 | 51.9 | 64.1 | *** | |
| Mean hours per week | 32.9 | 33.7 | 29.6 | 31.6 | *** | |
| Hourly Wage | ||||||
| Less than $5.15 (min. wage) | 6.2 | 6.0 | 8.6 | 7.3 | ||
| $5.15 to $7.99 | 62.0 | 53.1 | ** | 73.8 | 60.0 | *** |
| $8.00 to $9.99 | 22.0 | 13.4 | 24.0 | *** | ||
| $10.00 or more | 9.8 | 17.2 | *** | 4.2 | 8.7 | ** |
| Mean wage (dollars) | $7.15 | $7.72 | *** | $6.28 | $7.09 | *** |
| Insurance Benefits on Job | ||||||
| Participates in health insurance plan | 5.7 | 12.8 | *** | 3.5 | 8.6 | *** |
| Participates in dental insurance plan | 4.7 | 11.5 | *** | 2.0 | 7.2 | *** |
| Other Benefits on Job | ||||||
| Paid sick leave available | 14.5 | 32.7 | *** | 11.2 | 25.0 | *** |
| Paid vacation leave available | 18.4 | 35.4 | *** | 13.3 | 28.9 | *** |
| Paid holidays available | 23.9 | 36.4 | *** | 16.9 | 34.3 | *** |
| Pension plan available | 15.8 | 26.6 | *** | 7.6 | 21.0 | *** |
| Sample Size | 280 | 280 | 331 | 331 | ||
| Source: 2000-2003 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees. | ||||||
| Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative
of all WtW enrollees in the respective sites.Survey item nonresponse may
cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown.
Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
The statistics presented in this table pertain to the principal job held by a sample member at the time of the survey interview. If the sample member had more than one job at that time, then the principal job was identified as the job on which the most hours were worked in a typical week. In the event of a tie on hours worked, the job with the earliest starting date. |
||||||
| */**/*** Difference between the first job and the most recent job is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test. | ||||||
| a The hourly wage is likely less than minimum wage for some participants because of errors in how the data are reported and imputed. Participants reported their monthly wage or provided a range of their monthly wage as well as the number of hours they worked. These estimates are thus based on self reported data and may reflect some measurement error. | ||||||
In addition, benefits improved over time.As RSC and TWC participants moved into jobs with increased wages and hours worked, they also received better benefits. Both RSC and TWC participants who switched jobs were more likely to report receiving such benefits in their most recent job as participation in their employers’ health or dental insurance plan, availability of a pension plan, and receipt of sick leave, vacation leave, or paid holidays (Table II.6).
WtW programs ultimately sought to help participants move off TANF. Time limits on TANF receipt encouraged participants to leave TANF. At the same time, Pennsylvania offers generous earnings disregards to TANF recipients that would allow WtW participants who became employed to continue to receive TANF up to a certain earnings threshold. Here, we discuss RSC and TWC participants' TANF receipt before and after program entry, as well as the extent to which program participants combined employment and TANF receipt after program entry.
TANF receipt declined steadily. Four quarters before program entry, most RSC and TWC participants received TANF (81 and 89 percent, respectively; Figure II.4). By six quarters after program entry, the rate of TANF receipt among RSC and TWC participants had declined to 49 and 64 percent, respectively. Given that WtW-eligible participants were all long-term TANF recipients, these declines represent a major reduction in TANF receipt, although about half of them continued to receive TANF. Fewer TWC and RSC participants received TANF during all four quarters after program entry (47 and 64 percent, respectively) than received TANF during all four quarters before program entry (70 and 80 percent, respectively; Table II.7).
Figure II.4
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Rates of TANF Receipt Over Time
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
| RSC | TWC | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Four Quarters Before Program Entry | |||
| Ever on TANF | 92.3 | 97.6 | *** |
| On TANF in all four quarters | 70.0 | 80.2 | *** |
| On TANF in at least one quarter | 22.3 | 17.4 | *** |
| Never employed | 7.7 | 2.4 | *** |
| Four Quarters After Program Entry | |||
| Ever on TANF | 89.1 | 68.4 | *** |
| On TANF in all four quarters | 47.3 | 63.7 | *** |
| On TANF in at least one quarter | 41.8 | 31.7 | *** |
| Never employed | 11.0 | 4.6 | *** |
| Sample Size | 2,338 | 2,543 | |
| Source: Administrative records data from State of Pennsylvania. | |||
| */**/*** Difference between RSC and TWC estimates is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test. | |||
TWC participants were more likely to remain on TANF, regardless of their employment status. TWC participants were more likely than RSC participants to combine work with TANF receipt after program entry (Figures II.5 and II.6). Since most TWC participants were placed in transitional jobs that paid minimum wage, the earnings disregard would likely allow them to continue receiving TANF. Over the quarters after program entry, the percentage of TWC participants who combined work and TANF receipt declined, while the percentage of TWC participants who received TANF and did not work increased. As TWC participants completed or dropped out of their transitional jobs, many continued to receive TANF but did not find another job.
Figure II.5
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
RSC-Combination of Work and TANF
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
Figure II.6
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
TWC-Combination of Work and TANF
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
In contrast, RSC participants were more likely to use employment to move off TANF. The percentage of both TWC and RSC participants who worked and did not receive TANF (white portion of bar graphs) increased over time. However, a higher proportion of RSC participants than TWC participants worked and did not receive TANF after program entry. At the same time, the proportion of RSC participants who received TANF and worked declined over time; the proportion who received TANF and did not work remained fairly stable.
Over time, an increasing percentage of TWC and RSC participants neither received TANF nor worked. During the quarters after program entry, the proportion of both TWC and RSC participants not on TANF and not employed increased (black portion of bar graphs). Some of this population may have been living on sources of support, such as supplemental security income, unemployment insurance, saved earnings, or partners' income (Wood and Rangarajan 2003).[10] Others, however, may have been among the least stable, with no formal source of income.
Employment and earnings for RSC and TWC participants increased over time after program entry, while TANF receipt declined. Although participants' employment success improved after program entry, their employment often was unstable. Ultimately, RSC participants were more able than TWC participants to move from one job to another during the year after program entry. However, both RSC and TWC participants experienced increased earnings over time after program entry. At the same time, both RSC and TWC participants' receipt of TANF declined overall. RSC participants were more likely to leave TANF for work, whereas TWC participants were more likely to continue to receive TANF. Several factors-including participant characteristics upon program entry, program services, and economic conditions-may be related to these RSC and TWC participants' outcomes, as well as to the differences in outcomes. In Chapter III, we discuss these factors in detail.
[1] Some TWC participants may have dropped out of the program very soon after enrollment, before placement in transitional work.
[2] This pattern of recovery from a preprogram low is typically referred to as "Ashenfelter's dip," for his observation that adult participants in job training programs often have a dip in earnings prior to their decision to participate (Ashenfelter and Card 1985).
[3] The declines in the employment rate could be due in part to participants' taking out-of-state jobs, which would not be captured in the state wage data (Corson 1989).
[4] To account for differences in participants' entry into unsubsidized employment, we compared RSC participant outcomes to "lagged" outcomes for TWC participants (see Appendix). That is, we compared TWC participants' outcomes from quarter three after program entry to RSC participants' outcomes from quarter one after program entry. At these quarters, participants from both programs should have exited the program and entered unsubsidized work. This examination of outcomes reveals that the overall pattern does not change.
[5] The percentage of TWC participants who worked after program entry is particularly high because they participated in paid transitional work positions.
[6] The survey was designed as a broad instrument to collect data over all WtW programs included in the outcomes analysis for the national evaluation. Thus, it does not identify TWC participants' first unsubsidized job.
[7] We calculated these percentages by dividing the percentage who left their first job after program entry and were employed at another job one year after program entry by the percentage who left their first job after program entry.
[8] To make consistent comparisons across quarters, we include the full sample in these estimates, not just those with earnings who are working.
[9] In addition, participants in both programs had higher employment rates one year after program entry compared to one year before program entry.
[10] Some of these people may be employed outside the state.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)
