[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
The employment rates, average earnings, and rates of TANF receipt for RSC and TWC participants are likely to reflect a wide range of influences. Individual, family, and social factors all influence whether people work and whether they are able to keep their jobs over time, as well as whether they use public assistance and how long they remain on it. Differences in observable characteristics (such as educational attainment, prior work experience, and household structure) and unobservable characteristics (such as personal motivation or innate ability) of RSC and TWC participants could also be reflected in their outcomes. Since RSC and TWC participants were enrolled in these programs over a 20-month period, trends in economic conditions could have influenced participant outcomes. In their design, the RSC and TWC programs reflected different philosophies about how best to support transitions to employment for the hard to employ. The services the programs offered — and how intensely or completely people participated in those services — also could have played a role in participant outcomes.
In this chapter, we explore three sets of factors that may have influenced the outcomes of RSC and TWC participants: (1) individual characteristics, (2) economic conditions, and (3) the intensity of program participation. This exploration is intended to help us identify factors we should control for as we examine RSC and TWC outcomes further. That is, once we identify substantive differences of statistical significance among RSC and TWC participants, we can control for these differences in multivariate models and explore the extent to which they help explain the differences in outcomes for these two groups.
[ Go to Contents ]
The RSC and TWC programs were designed to serve different groups of WtW-eligible people. Under the original client-flow process, the RSCs provided basic reemployment assistance to most WtW-eligible people in Philadelphia. The TWC program would then provide more intensive assistance to those WtW-eligible people who, after a short time at the RSCs, were found to have limited work experience or other noTable barriers to employment or who had not found a job after 30 days of RSC work search activities.[1] We can examine a number of participant characteristics to clarify how different the RSC and TWC participant populations ultimately were. These characteristics were not all necessarily used to determine the appropriate program referral and evaluate their participants’ employment needs. Rather, they reflect the mix of participants who ultimately participated in each program (for example, educational attainment and prior work experience were used, but marital status and number of children were not). Because of Pennsylvania’s “client choice” orientation, even though the programs were to focus on serving different populations, little formal assessment took place to sort clients to the appropriate program. Initially, the RSCs were to refer their unsuccessful participants to the TWC, but because of underenrollment, TWC conducted its own outreach. As a result, the differences in the characteristics of participants referred to each program may be less clear than the original distinctions in program intent might have suggested. Baseline information and administrative data for the preenrollment period suggest that, while RSC and TWC participants were similar in many demographic characteristics, the average RSC participant was somewhat less disadvantaged. We found statistically significant differences in the household structure, educational attainment, work history, and public assistance receipt of RSC and TWC participants. In general, however, these differences were small, suggesting that both programs served groups that were fairly disadvantaged.
Nearly all RSC and TWC participants were young, minority, single women. Both programs served primarily women, but the RSCs were more likely to serve some men (5 percent, compared with 1 percent among TWC participants; see Table III.1). On average, participants in both programs were 32 years old. The majority of both RSC and TWC participants were African American, but RSC participants were somewhat more likely to be Hispanic (15 percent, compared with 7 percent of TWC participants) or white (6 percent, compared with 2 percent of TWC participants). Few participants in either the RSC or the TWC programs were married at baseline, but TWC participants were more likely to have never been married (79 percent, compared with 70 percent among RSC participants).
| Baseline Characteristics | RSC Enrollees | TWC Enrollees | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic Characteristics | |||
| Age Category | |||
| Younger than 20 years | 0 | 0 | ns |
| 20 to 29 years | 43 | 44 | ns |
| 30 to 39 years | 42 | 41 | ns |
| 40 years or older | 16 | 15 | ns |
| Average Age | 32.3 | 32.1 | ns |
| Gender | |||
| Female | 95 | 99 | *** |
| Race/Ethnicity | |||
| Hispanic | 15 | 7 | *** |
| White non-Hispanic | 6 | 2 | *** |
| Black non-Hispanic | 78 | 89 | *** |
| Other non-Hispanic | 2 | 2 | ns |
| Household Structure | |||
| Marital Status | |||
| Married | 6 | 3 | *** |
| Cohabiting | 7 | 6 | ns |
| Separated/divorced/widowed | 17 | 13 | *** |
| Never married | 70 | 79 | *** |
| Number of Children in Household | |||
| 0 | 5 | 5 | ns |
| 1 to 2 | 56 | 49 | *** |
| 3 to 5 | 35 | 41 | *** |
| 6 or more | 4 | 5 | ns |
| Average Number of Children in Household | 2.4 | 2.7 | ns |
| Age of Youngest Child in Household | |||
| Younger than 3 years | 13 | 23 | *** |
| Younger than 5 years | 39 | 46 | *** |
| Average Age of Youngest Child in Household | 6.0 | 6.8 | ns |
| Education | |||
| Educational Attainment | |||
| High school dropout | 43 | 47 | ns |
| Still attending high school or GED program | 3 | 6 | *** |
| GED | 5 | 4 | ns |
| High school diploma | 17 | 15 | ns |
| Postsecondary degree | 3 | 2 | ns |
| Vocational/technical certificate | 29 | 26 | ns |
| At Least High School Diploma or GED | 54 | 47 | ** |
| Employment History | |||
| Employment at Baseline | |||
| Currently employed | 8 | 8 | ns |
| Employed within the past year | 55 | 47 | *** |
| Employed more than a year ago | 29 | 34 | ** |
| Never employed in the past | 7 | 10 | ** |
| Welfare Receipt | |||
| TANF Receipt at Baseline | |||
| Currently receiving | 90 | 91 | ns |
| Received in the past but not currently receiving | 6 | 5 | ns |
| Never received | 4 | 3 | ns |
| Total Time on TANF or AFDC | |||
| Never on TANF or AFDC | 4 | 3 | ns |
| 1 to 24 months | 30 | 23 | *** |
| 25 to 60 months | 28 | 33 | ** |
| More than 60 months | 37 | 41 | * |
| Health Problems | |||
| Work-Limiting Problem | |||
| Own | 21 | 20 | ns |
| Other household member | 12 | 13 | ns |
| Type of Work-Limiting Problem (Own) | |||
| Medical condition | 9 | 10 | ns |
| Physical disability | 3 | 2 | ns |
| Mental health or substance abuse problem | 4 | 5 | ns |
| Sample Size | 1,109 | 1,282 | |
| Source: Baseline information forms of Welfare-to-Work
participants, MPR. ns = not significant. */**/*** Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test. |
|||
RSC participants had fewer young children. While the average number of minor children living with RSC and TWC participants at baseline was similar (2.4 and 2.7 children, respectively), TWC participants were more likely to have three or more minor children living with them (46 percent, compared with 39 percent of RSC participants). The average age of the youngest child in RSC and TWC participants’ households was similar (6 and 7 years old, respectively), but TWC participants were significantly more likely to have a child under age 5 living with them (46 percent, compared with 39 percent of RSC participants). This suggests that, on average, TWC participants had more minor children living with them and that these children included children who were both younger and older than the children of RSC participants.
RSC participants had higher educational attainment. RSC participants were more likely to have at least a high school diploma or GED (54 percent, compared with 47 percent for TWC participants). Further, RSC participants were somewhat more likely to have a postsecondary degree or vocational/technical certificate (32 percent, compared with 28 percent for TWC participants), although this difference was not statistically significant.
RSC participants were more likely to report some work history and to have worked consistently during the year before program entry. At baseline, 7 percent of RSC enrollees reported “ never having worked at a job for pay,” compared with 10 percent of TWC enrollees. In addition, RSC participants were more likely to report having been employed at some point in the year before enrollment (55 percent, compared with 47 percent for TWC participants). TWC participants were more likely to report that their last job had ended more than a year ago (34 percent, compared with 29 percent for RSC participants). Administrative data show comparable proportions of RSC and TWC participants, with some earnings in the four quarters before program enrollment (65 and 64 percent, respectively; Table II.1). Nevertheless, a larger share of RSC participants (15 percent, compared with 10 percent for TWC participants) had earnings in all four preenrollment quarters.
RSC participants were less likely to report long-term receipt of public assistance. Most RSC and TWC participants (90 and 91 percent) reported receiving TANF at baseline. The TANF administrative data show even higher rates of receipt of TANF at baseline among RSC and TWC participants (94 and 98 percent).[2] Both groups also displayed steady TANF receipt in the year before enrolling in WtW — 70 percent of RSC participants and 80 percent of TWC participants received TANF in all four quarters prior to the quarter of WtW enrollment, based on administrative data (Table II.7). At baseline, however, slightly more TWC participants reported having received public assistance for five or more years (41 percent, compared with 37 percent for RSC participants).
Similar proportions of RSC and TWC participants reported having work-limiting health problems. About one-fifth of both RSC and TWC participants reported having a health problem that limited their ability to work, including medical conditions, physical disabilities, and mental health or substance abuse problems (Table III.1). Another 12 percent of RSC participants and 13 percent of TWC participants reported that they were responsible for another household member with a health problem and that this responsibility limited their ability to work. Hence, although work-limiting health problems may have been an important factor in the employment outcomes of RSC and TWC participants, they are likely to have influenced both groups similarly.
[ Go to Contents ]
Since the RSC and TWC programs operated on different scales, and our study examines outcomes for a similar number of participants for each program, the study includes participants who enrolled in these programs over slightly different periods of time. The seven RSCs that operated throughout the city of Philadelphia had the capacity to enroll as many as 1,400 new WtW-eligible clients each month. In contrast, the TWC program was set up to serve about 1,500 clients each year. Because of these different scales of operation, the RSCs reached our sample goal of 2,000 WtW participants sooner than the TWC program. As Figure III.1 shows, RSC sample enrollment began in September 1999 and ended in January 2001, although most RSC sample members had been enrolled by June 2000. In contrast, TWC sample enrollment also began in September 1999 but progressed more gradually and continued until April 2001.[3] Hence, differences in economic conditions at the time of enrollment and during the follow-up period could have contributed to the differences for outcomes of RSC and TWC participants.
Figure III.1
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Cumulative Enrollment into RSC and TWC Study Samples
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
Rising unemployment may have contributed to poorer employment outcomes for TWC participants. As Figure III.2 shows, unemployment rates for Philadelphia had a pronounced upward trend from January 2001 through August or September 2002. Rising unemployment could have made it more difficult for later sample enrollees — mostly TWC participants — to find and keep jobs.[4] To test this hypothesis, we divided our TWC study sample into two groups — based on their date of enrollment — and compared their employment outcomes. TWC participants enrolled by June 30, 2000, were labeled “early” entrants, and TWC participants enrolled on or after July 1, 2000, were labeled “late” entrants. As Figure III.3 shows, for early TWC enrollees, employment rates after the subsidized-employment portion of the TWC program (that is, in quarter 3 and beyond) are lower than for RSC enrollees but follow a similar pattern. Compared with early TWC enrollees, late TWC enrollees appeared to have more success during the transitional work component of the program but poorer employment outcomes afterward.[5] Since late enrollees make up about half our TWC participant sample, their poorer employment outcomes during the unsubsidized portion of the program could have contributed to lower average employment rates for TWC participants overall.
Figure III.2
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Monthly Unemployment for Philadelphia
Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics, BLS
Figure III.3
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Employment Rates Over Time for RSC, TWC-Early, and TWC-Late Enrollees
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
[ Go to Contents ]
Differences in the services that the RSC and TWC programs offered and in how intensely or completely participants engaged in these services could also have influenced participant outcomes. Differences in RSC and TWC services were largely by design. That is, the RSC and TWC programs targeted somewhat different groups of WtW-eligible clients and, consistent with such targeting, emphasized different services (placement assistance versus work experience) and offered different levels of services (30 days versus six months). In contrast, participants’ levels of engagement and success in completing program services commonly reflect a combination of both program and participant factors. For example, participants can become more or less engaged in a program because of the types or convenience of services offered. The overall duration and intensity of services offered can also influence participants’ likelihood of completion. Program engagement levels can also reflect differences in both observable and unobservable participant characteristics (that is, self-selection). That is, motivated clients usually participate willingly and seek services, while harder-to-serve clients may avoid services or resist participation requirements. Next, we examine the types and levels of services that RSC and TWC participants received in the year after WtW enrollment, as well as the likelihood of their completing the program.
Most RSC and TWC participants reported receiving some labor market services.At followup, a majority of both RSC and TWC participants reported having received some type of labor market service during the year after enrollment. These services included job readiness training, job search or placement services, and life skills or self-management training. More TWC participants (85 percent, compared with 79 percent of RSC participants) said they had received labor market services (Table III.2).
Consistent with differences in program design, TWC participants reported receiving more intensive labor market services. Based on survey responses, we estimated the median number of days of job readiness training for TWC service recipients at 44 days, compared with 24 days for RSC service recipients. TWC service recipients also reported receiving more job search or placement assistance and more life skills or self-management training (Table III.2).
Table III.2
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Receipt of Employment Preparation Services
During the Year after Enrolling in Welfare-to-Work
| RSC Enrollees | TWC Enrollees | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Receipt of Labor Market Services (Percentages) | |||
| Job readiness training | 70.7 | 80.1 | *** |
| Job search or placement services | 68.6 | 72.6 | * |
| Life skills or self-management training | 39.7 | 51.6 | *** |
| Any Labor Market Service (Any of the Above) | 78.7 | 85.1 | *** |
| Duration of Labor Market Services for Those Who Received Them (Median Number of Days) | |||
Job readiness training |
23.8 | 44.0 | NA |
| Job search or placement services | 3.5 | 5.5 | NA |
| Life skills or self-management training | 14.0 | 23.8 | NA |
| Source: 2001-2003 12-month follow-up survey of
Welfare-to-Work participants, MPR. NA = not available. */**/*** Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test. |
|||
Placement success serves as a proxy for completion. We used program MIS records to examine the proportions of RSC and TWC participants who were successfully placed in unsubsidized employment through the programs and, hence, appeared to complete program services. Our approach was driven largely by limitations in the available MIS data.[6] Nevertheless, this seemed a reasonable approach in the context of the RSC and TWC programs, since neither terminated clients because staff determined they could not be successfully placed in unsubsidized employment. That is, both programs were committed to placing all enrolled WtW participants in unsubsidized jobs and would terminate a client only if he or she stopped participating. Moreover, lack of placement success through the programs does not necessarily predict poorer outcomes for RSC or TWC participants. The participants who were terminated from either program without being placed in unsubsidized employment could have been more motivated and committed to finding employment on their own, they could have been the hardest-to-serve, or they could have been a combination of these two types.
TWC participants were less likely to reach the point of unsubsidized job placement. About 36 percent of TWC participants were placed in unsubsidized employment through the program, compared with 59 percent of RSC participants (Figure III.4).[7] This finding is not surprising, given the longer duration and higher intensity of the TWC program. TWC participants may have faced a higher “bar” for program completion, that is, reaching placement in an unsubsidized job after successfully completing their transitional position. In contrast, RSC participants immediately focused on securing placement in unsubsidized work. Given their somewhat greater disadvantage, this objective may have been hard for TWC participants to achieve.
Figure III.4
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Rates of Completion of the RSC and TWC Programs
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
Outcomes varied by participants’ completion of either program. People who complete program interventions typically have better outcomes than those who do not, and, as discussed, differences in program completion tend to reflect both participant and program factors. To explore whether the different rates of completion observed for the RSC and TWC programs could have made a difference in participant outcomes, we examined separately the employment rates, quarterly earnings, and rates of TANF receipt for RSC and TWC participants placed in unsubsidized jobs through the programs (“program completers”) and for RSC and TWC participants who had no program record of unsubsidized job placement (“noncompleters”). Completers in both the RSC and TWC programs had higher employment rates, higher quarterly earnings, and lower rates of TANF receipt than their noncompleter counterparts (Figures III.5, III.6, and III.7). These findings suggest (not surprisingly) that remaining sufficiently engaged in either program to reach the point of unsubsidized job placement may have benefited people more than merely participating. The findings also suggest that differences in rates of program completion may have contributed to the observed differences in average RSC and TWC outcomes.
Figure III.5
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Employment Rates Over Time for RSC and TWC "Completers" Versus
"Noncompleters"
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
Figure III.6
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Earnings Over Time for RSC and TWC "Completers" Versus "Noncompleters"
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
Figure III.7
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Rates of TANF Receipt Over Time for RSC and TWC "Completers" Versus
"Noncompleters"
Source: Administrative Data from State of Pennsylvania
For both programs, there were important differences in the characteristics of completers versus noncompleters. Relative to RSC completers, RSC noncompleters were more likely to be African American and unmarried, have a child under age 3 in their household, lack a high school diploma or GED, lack recent work experience (within the past year), be long-term recipients of public assistance (60 months or more), and be responsible for another person with a health or other condition that limits their ability to work (Table III.3). There were fewer significant differences in the baseline characteristics of TWC completers versus noncompleters. Relative to the completers, TWC noncompleters were more likely to lack a high school diploma or GED.[8]
Table III.3
Philadelphia WTW Outcomes Study:
Baseline Characteristics of RSC and TWC enrollees,
by Program Completion
| Baseline Characteristics | RSC Completers | RSC Noncompleters | Significance | TWC Completers | TWC Noncompleters | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic Characteristics | ||||||
| Age Category | ||||||
| Younger than 20 years | 0 | 0 | ns | 0 | 0 | ns |
| 20 to 29 years | 45 | 43 | ns | 44 | 43 | ns |
| 30 to 39 years | 41 | 41 | ns | 41 | 41 | ns |
| 40 years or older | 14 | 16 | ns | 15 | 16 | ns |
| Average Age | 31.8 | 32.3 | ns | 32.4 | 32.2 | ns |
| Gender | ||||||
| Female | 96 | 98 | *** | 98 | 97 | ns |
| Race/Ethnicity | ||||||
| Hispanic | 12 | 10 | ns | 9 | 12 | ns |
| White non-Hispanic | 6 | 3 | *** | 2 | 4 | ns |
| Black non-Hispanic | 79 | 85 | *** | 88 | 82 | ** |
| Other non-Hispanic | 3 | 2 | ns | 1 | 2 | ns |
| Household Structure | ||||||
| Marital Status | ||||||
| Married | 7 | 3 | *** | 3 | 5 | * |
| Cohabiting | 5 | 6 | ns | 6 | 6 | ns |
| Separated/divorced/widowed | 17 | 14 | * | 14 | 15 | ns |
| Never married | 71 | 76 | ** | 77 | 74 | ns |
| Number of Children in Household | ||||||
| 0 | 4 | 5 | ns | 4 | 5 | ns |
| 1 to 2 | 57 | 50 | *** | 48 | 54 | * |
| 3 to 5 | 33 | 40 | *** | 40 | 37 | ns |
| 6 or more | 5 | 5 | ns | 8 | 4 | *** |
| Average Number of Children in Household | 2.4 | 2.6 | ns | 2.9 | 2.4 | ns |
| Age of Youngest Child in Household | ||||||
| Younger than 3 years | 13 | 20 | *** | 24 | 17 | *** |
| Younger than 5 years | 42 | 43 | ns | 47 | 41 | ** |
| Average Age of Youngest Child in Household | 6.6 | 6.2 | ns | 6.0 | 6.5 | ns |
| Education | ||||||
| Educational Attainment | ||||||
| High school dropout | 38 | 45 | *** | 35 | 45 | *** |
| Still attending high school or GED program | 3 | 6 | *** | 5 | 5 | ns |
| GED | 5 | 4 | ns | 5 | 5 | ns |
| High school diploma | 20 | 15 | ** | 19 | 16 | ns |
| Postsecondary degree | 3 | 2 | ns | 3 | 3 | ns |
| Vocational/technical certificate | 32 | 28 | * | 34 | 27 | ** |
| At Least High School Diploma or GED | 59 | 49 | *** | 60 | 50 | *** |
| Employment History | ||||||
| Employment at Baseline | ||||||
| Currently employed | 9 | 8 | ns | 7 | 8 | ns |
| Employed within the past year | 58 | 48 | *** | 53 | 51 | ns |
| Employed more than a year ago | 28 | 33 | *** | 33 | 32 | ns |
| Never employed in the past | 5 | 10 | *** | 8 | 9 | ns |
| Welfare Receipt | ||||||
| TANF Receipt at Baseline | ||||||
| Currently receiving | 92 | 91 | ns | 94 | 90 | ** |
| Received in the past but not currently receiving | 5 | 5 | ns | 3 | 6 | ns |
| Never received | 3 | 3 | ns | 2 | 4 | * |
| Total Time on TANF or AFDC | ||||||
| Never on TANF or AFDC | 3 | 3 | ns | 2 | 4 | * |
| 1 to 24 months | 33 | 24 | *** | 22 | 28 | * |
| 25 to 60 months | 29 | 31 | ns | 35 | 30 | ** |
| More than 60 months | 35 | 41 | ** | 40 | 39 | ns |
| Health Problems | ||||||
| Work-Limiting Problem | ||||||
| Own | 19 | 21 | ns | 18 | 22 | ns |
| Other household member | 7 | 11 | ** | 12 | 13 | ns |
| Type of Work-Limiting Problem (Own) | ||||||
| Medical condition | 7 | 11 | ** | 8 | 10 | ns |
| Physical disability | 4 | 2 | * | 2 | 3 | ns |
| Mental health or substance abuse problem | 3 | 5 | * | 5 | 5 | ns |
| Sample Size | 633 | 386 | 427 | 636 | ||
| Source: Baseline information forms of Welfare-to-Work
participants, Mathematica Policy Research. ns = not significant. */**/*** Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test. |
||||||
Both TWC completers and TWC noncompleters were similar to RSC noncompleters. As noted, there were few observable differences of statistical significance among TWC completers and noncompleters. In addition, we found that the average TWC participant — regardless of program completion — was similar along observable characteristics to the average RSC noncompleter. For instance, 43 percent of RSC noncompleters lacked recent work history (that is, within the past year; Table III.3), compared with 44 percent of TWC participants overall (Table III.1) and 41 percent of both TWC completers and TWC noncompleters (Table III.3).[9] This suggests that the TWC program was well targeted — that it served people with a strong likelihood of failure at the RSC intervention.
In this chapter, we explored a variety of factors that could have contributed to the difference in outcomes for RSC and TWC participants. We found some statistically significant differences in the background characteristics of RSC and TWC participants. These differences were generally small, however, suggesting that both programs worked with fairly disadvantaged populations. We also found differences in the periods of sample enrollment and in deteriorating economic conditions over time, which could have played a role in the deteriorating employment outcomes, especially for later TWC participants. Finally, we found important differences in the rates of program completion among RSC and TWC participants, in the characteristics of completers versus noncompleters of both programs, and in the outcomes of participants in either program according to whether or not they completed the programs. These differences could reflect differences in observable and unobservable participant characteristics, as well as differences in the services offered by, and received by participants from, the RSC and TWC programs. In the next chapter, we examine the extent to which differences in observable characteristics of RSC and TWC participants, economic conditions, and program completion account for differences in the outcomes for RSC and TWC participants.
[ Go to Contents ]
[1] As noted in Chapter I, because of insufficient referrals to the TWC program, this two-stage client-flow process eventually was modified so that WtW-eligible TANF recipients could be referred directly to TWC. To be referred directly to TWC, however, WtW-eligible clients still had to have limited or no work experience or other severe barriers to employment.
[2] The proportion of the sample who do not receive TANF are most likely noncustodial parents, as males make up 5 percent of RSC participants and 1 percent of TWC participants.
[3] As already noted, the TWC program encountered enrollment challenges early in its operations that affected enrollment into our study sample. This can be seen in the lower rate of enrollment into our study through January 2000 (Figure III.1).
[4] January 2001 was the month when TWC participants who were enrolled in the program in June 2000 and later would typically be moving to unsubsidized employment (after their six-month subsidized work experience assignment). As noted, most RSC sample members had enrolled in the program by June 2000.
[5] Higher employment rates during the first two quarters after program enrollment for the late TWC enrollees suggest improved program success with placement in transitional work, possibly due to maturation of the program. Worsening economic conditions could also have contributed to this pattern, since qualifying employers may have become more receptive to hosting “free” TWC workers.
[6] Neither the RSC nor the TWC data contained information on completion of specific program components. The programs defined completion as a participant obtaining an unsubsidized job and retaining employment for their stipulated retention support period. However, the available data did not include information that would allow the definition of program completion in this way.
[7] The placement rate we estimate for the TWC program is somewhat lower than those reported in other reports, including a cost analysis of WtW programs (48 percent, Perez-Johnson et al. 2002) and a study of transitional employment programs (48.5 percent, Kirby et al. 2002). These differences mainly reflect differences in the participant samples examined. Both earlier studies examined outcomes for TWC participants enrolled through December 2000, while this study includes participants enrolled as late as May 2002. The placement rate we estimate could be lower because of (1) some truncation of employment records for participants enrolled later in the program, and (2) weakening economic conditions over time.
[8] We found other significant, yet counterintuitive, differences in the characteristics of TWC completers versus noncompleters. Specifically, TWC completers were more likely to have six or more children, to have a child under age 5, and to have been on TANF for more than 24 months. Higher rates of program completion among TWC participants with six or more children and participants with younger children could reflect special efforts on the part of TWC staff to attend to the needs of such participants. Higher rates of program completion among people on TANF for more than 24 months could reflect work participation requirements.
[9] The difference in rates for TWC participants overall (44 percent) versus TWC completers and noncompleters (41 percent) is due to missing data for participants who were still active in the intervention at the time the program provided MIS records.
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)