Table 9.1 Program Impacts on 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 (%) Ever used child care during most recent or current job (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 33.2 29.0 4.2 ** 14.4 vhanycc Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 31.8 29.0 2.9 9.9 vhanycc Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 50.0 43.3 6.7 ** 15.5 vhanycc Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 42.5 43.3 -0.8 -1.9 vhanycc Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 42.5 29.4 13.1 *** 44.6 vhanycc Lacked high school diploma or basic 1012 39.5 23.3 16.1 *** 69.2 vhanycc Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 30.1 23.3 6.7 ** 28.7 vhanycc Columbus Integrated 728 38.3 36.0 2.3 6.4 vhanycc Columbus Traditional 723 36.1 36.0 0.0 0.1 vhanycc Detroit 426 40.6 33.2 7.5 * 22.5 vhanycc Oklahoma City 511 53.3 43.6 9.6 ** 22.1 vhanycc Portland 610 48.9 39.0 9.9 ** 25.3 vhanycc Ever used paid child care during most recent or current job (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 25.5 19.7 5.8 *** 29.4 paidcc Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 23.9 19.7 4.2 ** 21.2 paidcc Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 39.6 32.3 7.4 *** 22.8 paidcc Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 32.0 32.3 -0.3 -0.8 paidcc Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 28.8 20.9 7.9 *** 37.6 paidcc Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 26.1 15.2 10.9 *** 72.1 paidcc Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 21.7 15.2 6.6 *** 43.3 paidcc Columbus Integrated 728 28.1 22.7 5.5 * 24.2 paidcc Columbus Traditional 723 25.1 22.7 2.4 10.6 paidcc Detroit 426 35.9 22.9 13.0 *** 56.5 paidcc Oklahoma City 511 36.1 29.5 6.6 * 22.4 paidcc Portland 610 41.3 29.4 11.9 *** 40.6 paidcc
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
Table 9.3 Program Impacts on Child Care Costs for Employment at Interview for All Sample Members and for Those Employed at Interview Sample Program Control Difference Percentage Site and Program Size Group Group (Impact) Change (%) A. For All Sample Members Monthly cost of child care paid by respondent ($) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 13 15 -2 -16.3 mntempai Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 18 15 3 20.6 mntempai Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 62 48 14 ** 29.8 mntempai Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 42 48 -6 -12.3 mntempai Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 34 24 10 ** 40.9 mntempai Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 25 17 8 47.2 mntempai Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 30 17 13 ** 77.5 mntempai Columbus Integrated 728 34 23 11 * 47.7 mntempai Columbus Traditional 723 28 23 5 23.0 mntempai Detroit 426 56 37 19 * 51.7 mntempai Oklahoma City 511 23 24 -1 -4.3 mntempai Portland 610 51 35 17 48.5 mntempai Out-of-pocket child care paid by respondent (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 10.2 10.9 -0.7 -6.3 pktempai Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 12.9 10.9 2.0 18.6 pktempai Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 25.5 22.0 3.5 16.0 pktempai Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 18.0 22.0 -4.0 * -18.0 pktempai Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 14.0 11.6 2.3 20.0 pktempai Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 10.5 8.4 2.1 25.2 pktempai Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 13.1 8.4 4.7 ** 55.7 pktempai Columbus Integrated 728 17.8 13.2 4.6 * 35.0 pktempai Columbus Traditional 723 14.5 13.2 1.4 10.4 pktempai Detroit 426 22.7 14.5 8.3 ** 57.4 pktempai Oklahoma City 511 18.5 16.7 1.8 10.7 pktempai Portland 610 21.5 15.3 6.2 * 40.7 pktempai (continued) Table 9.3 (continued) Program Control Percentage Site and Program Group Group Difference Change (%) B. For Those Employed at Interview Monthly cost of child care paid by respondent ($) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 34 41 -7 -18.1 jobstlin Atlanta Human Capital Development 50 41 9 21.1 jobstlin Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 115 97 19 19.4 jobstlin Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 87 97 -10 -10.1 jobstlin Riverside Labor Force Attachment 82 69 13 19.4 jobstlin Lacked high school diploma or basic ski 72 64 8 11.7 jobstlin Riverside Human Capital Development 87 64 23 36.0 jobstlin Columbus Integrated 69 56 14 24.8 jobstlin Columbus Traditional 64 56 8 15.1 jobstlin Detroit 134 110 24 22.1 jobstlin Oklahoma City 48 53 -4 -8.4 jobstlin Portland 104 100 4 4.0 jobstlin Out-of-pocket child care paid by respondent (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 27.2 29.7 -2.5 -8.3 jobstlin Atlanta Human Capital Development 35.3 29.7 5.7 19.2 jobstlin Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 47.1 44.2 3.0 6.7 jobstlin Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 37.1 44.2 -7.0 -15.9 jobstlin Riverside Labor Force Attachment 34.1 33.6 0.5 1.6 jobstlin Lacked high school diploma or basic ski 30.1 31.7 -1.6 -5.0 jobstlin Riverside Human Capital Development 37.8 31.7 6.1 19.3 jobstlin Columbus Integrated 36.5 32.0 4.5 14.1 jobstlin Columbus Traditional 33.1 32.0 1.1 3.3 jobstlin Detroit 54.6 43.1 11.5 26.7 jobstlin Oklahoma City 38.9 36.7 2.2 5.9 jobstlin Portland 43.4 44.1 -0.6 -1.5 jobstlin
Table 9.6 Program Impacts on Subsidized Child Care Use While Employed During Follow-Up Period for All Sample Members and for Those Who Used Paid Care Sample Program Control Difference Percentage Site and Program Size Group Group (Impact) Change (%) A. For All Sample Members Used subsidized child care for most recent job (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 8.8 2.6 6.2 *** 237.9 nopktcc Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 5.5 2.6 2.9 *** 111.7 nopktcc Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 2.1 0.6 1.4 * 231.0 nopktcc Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 2.6 0.6 1.9 ** 311.3 nopktcc Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 3.8 1.5 2.4 *** 158.3 nopktcc Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 3.3 0.7 2.7 *** 407.7 nopktcc Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 1.4 0.7 0.8 119.9 nopktcc Columbus Integrated 728 1.9 3.8 -1.9 -50.3 nopktcc Columbus Traditional 723 3.7 3.8 -0.1 -3.3 nopktcc Detroit 426 3.1 0.7 2.4 * 360.5 nopktcc Oklahoma City 511 5.5 5.0 0.5 9.2 nopktcc Portland 610 9.1 3.7 5.4 ** 147.3 nopktcc
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
Table 9.8 Program Impacts on Child Care-Related Work Attendance for Employment at Interview for All Sample Members and for Those Employed at Interview Sample Program Control Difference Percentage Site and Program Size Group Group (Impact) Change (%) A. For All Sample Members Missed or late for work at interview (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 5.6 6.9 -1.2 -18.0 prbempai Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 8.0 6.9 1.1 16.7 prbempai Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 12.7 10.9 1.8 16.5 prbempai Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 10.3 10.9 -0.5 -5.0 prbempai Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 8.6 5.8 2.8 ** 48.3 prbempai Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 7.6 3.6 3.9 *** 109.6 prbempai Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 7.8 3.6 4.2 *** 116.9 prbempai Columbus Integrated 728 10.9 10.2 0.7 6.5 prbempai Columbus Traditional 723 10.2 10.2 0.0 -0.1 prbempai Detroit 426 14.6 11.2 3.4 30.4 prbempai Oklahoma City 511 13.3 9.8 3.5 35.9 prbempai Portland 610 14.3 7.7 6.7 ** 87.3 prbempai