Table 8.1 Program Impacts on Health Care Coverage at the End of Two Years Sample Program Control Difference Percentage Site and Program Size Group Group (Impact) Change (%) Respondent has health care coverage (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 83.6 86.0 -2.4 -2.8 XSELFMED Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 83.8 86.0 -2.2 -2.6 XSELFMED Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 82.8 86.0 -3.3 -3.8 XSELFMED Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 84.3 86.0 -1.7 -2.0 XSELFMED Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 85.6 87.3 -1.8 -2.0 XSELFMED Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 87.2 87.5 -0.3 -0.3 XSELFMED Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 86.7 87.5 -0.8 -0.9 XSELFMED Columbus Integrated 728 79.8 85.0 -5.2 * -6.1 XSELFMED Columbus Traditional 723 85.9 85.0 0.8 1.0 XSELFMED Detroit 426 91.1 92.0 -0.9 -1.0 XSELFMED Oklahoma City 511 67.7 70.9 -3.3 -4.6 XSELFMED Portland 610 87.1 90.4 -3.3 -3.7 XSELFMED All dependent children have health care coverage (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 86.1 85.6 0.5 0.5 XCHLDMED Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 84.8 85.6 -0.8 -1.0 XCHLDMED Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 84.3 85.7 -1.4 -1.7 XCHLDMED Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 86.2 85.7 0.5 0.6 XCHLDMED Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 85.1 88.4 -3.3 ** -3.7 XCHLDMED Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 85.4 88.8 -3.4 * -3.8 XCHLDMED Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 88.1 88.8 -0.7 -0.8 XCHLDMED Columbus Integrated 728 80.1 86.3 -6.3 ** -7.2 XCHLDMED Columbus Traditional 723 86.6 86.3 0.2 0.3 XCHLDMED Detroit 426 90.3 90.9 -0.6 -0.6 XCHLDMED Oklahoma City 511 63.5 72.5 -9.0 ** -12.4 XCHLDMED Portland 610 83.7 88.6 -4.8 -5.5 XCHLDMED (continued) Table 8.1 (continued) Program Control Difference Percentage Site and Program Group Group (Impact) Change (%) Repondent and all children have health care coverage (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 79.8 80.7 -0.9 -1.1 XSFCHMED Atlanta Human Capital Development 79.7 80.7 -1.0 -1.2 XSFCHMED Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 77.3 80.4 -3.1 -3.9 XSFCHMED Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 79.3 80.4 -1.1 -1.4 XSFCHMED Riverside Labor Force Attachment 80.8 84.7 -3.9 ** -4.6 XSFCHMED Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 81.8 85.4 -3.6 * -4.3 XSFCHMED Riverside Human Capital Development 83.3 85.4 -2.1 -2.5 XSFCHMED Columbus Integrated 73.8 80.9 -7.1 ** -8.7 XSFCHMED Columbus Traditional 81.8 80.9 1.0 1.2 XSFCHMED Detroit 87.7 88.3 -0.6 -0.7 XSFCHMED Oklahoma City 56.7 67.6 -10.9 ** -16.1 XSFCHMED Portland 80.5 85.6 -5.1 -5.9 XSFCHMED
Appendix Table B.1 Welfare, Employment, and Health Care Coverage Status for Respondents and All Children at the End of Two Years Site and Program Program Control Difference Group Group (Impact) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 59.9 64.8 -4.9 ** JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 9.4 11.3 -1.9 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 50.5 53.5 -3.0 EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 40.1 35.2 4.9 ** (5) Employed 30.0 25.0 5.0 *** EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 15.6 12.5 3.1 ** EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 14.5 12.5 1.9 EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 10.0 10.2 -0.1 EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 4.3 3.4 0.9 EONADNSC (10) No coverage 5.7 6.8 -1.1 EONNOSCH Sample size 804 1086 Atlanta Human Capital Development (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 61.6 64.8 -3.2 JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 10.7 11.3 -0.6 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 50.9 53.5 -2.6 EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 38.4 35.2 3.2 (5) Employed 26.4 25.0 1.4 EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 14.0 12.5 1.5 EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 12.4 12.5 -0.2 EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 12.0 10.2 1.8 EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 4.1 3.4 0.7 EONADNSC (10) No coverage 7.9 6.8 1.2 EONNOSCH Sample size 1113 1086 (continued) Appendix Table B.1 (continued) Site and Program Program Control Difference Group Group (Impact) Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 42.4 49.1 -6.6 ** JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 15.6 13.9 1.7 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 26.8 35.1 -8.3 *** EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 57.6 50.9 6.6 ** (5) Employed 40.9 37.5 3.4 EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 25.0 23.9 1.1 EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 15.9 13.5 2.3 EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 16.7 13.4 3.2 EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 9.8 7.4 2.4 EONADNSC (10) No coverage 6.9 6.0 0.8 EONNOSCH Sample size 574 584 Grand Rapids Human Capital Development (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 46.6 49.1 -2.5 JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 15.6 13.9 1.7 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 30.9 35.1 -4.2 EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 53.4 50.9 2.5 (5) Employed 37.5 37.5 0.0 EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 22.8 23.9 -1.1 EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 14.6 13.5 1.1 EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 16.0 13.4 2.5 EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 9.9 7.4 2.5 EONADNSC (10) No coverage 6.1 6.0 0.0 EONNOSCH Sample size 574 584 (continued) Appendix Table B.1 (continued) Site and Program Program Control Difference Group Group (Impact) Riverside Labor Force Attachment (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 60.2 69.0 -8.8 *** JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 18.1 16.4 1.7 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 42.1 52.6 -10.5 *** EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 39.8 31.0 8.8 *** (5) Employed 24.4 19.0 5.4 *** EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 13.2 9.9 3.3 ** EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 11.3 9.1 2.1 EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 15.4 12.0 3.4 ** EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 7.4 5.8 1.6 EONADNSC (10) No coverage 8.0 6.2 1.8 EONNOSCH Sample size 564 1114 Riverside Human Capital Development (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 68.0 73.6 -5.6 ** JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 17.3 14.3 3.0 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 50.8 59.4 -8.6 *** EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 32.0 26.4 5.6 ** (5) Employed 19.6 14.2 5.4 ** EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 9.5 6.2 3.3 * EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 10.2 8.0 2.2 EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 12.3 12.2 0.2 EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 5.8 5.6 0.2 EONADNSC (10) No coverage 6.6 6.6 0.0 EONNOSCH Sample size 621 729 (continued) Appendix Table B.1 (continued) Site and Program Program Control Difference Group Group (Impact) Columbus Integrated (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 43.7 56.7 -13.0 *** JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 9.7 9.7 0.0 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 34.0 47.0 -13.0 *** EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 56.3 43.3 13.0 *** (5) Employed 42.2 30.9 11.3 *** EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 21.9 17.4 4.6 EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 20.2 13.5 6.7 ** EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 14.1 12.4 1.7 EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 8.1 6.8 1.4 EONADNSC (10) No coverage 6.0 5.6 0.4 EONNOSCH Sample size 371 357 Columbus Traditional (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 54.2 56.7 -2.5 JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 12.9 9.7 3.2 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 41.3 47.0 -5.7 EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 45.8 43.3 2.5 (5) Employed 33.1 30.9 2.2 EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 20.4 17.4 3.0 EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 12.7 13.5 -0.8 EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 12.7 12.4 0.3 EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 7.3 6.8 0.5 EONADNSC (10) No coverage 5.4 5.6 -0.2 EONNOSCH Sample size 366 357 (continued) Appendix Table B.1 (continued) Site and Program Program Control Difference Group Group (Impact) Detroit (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 65.3 67.6 -2.3 JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 18.8 15.6 3.2 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 46.5 52.0 -5.5 EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 34.7 32.4 2.3 (5) Employed 24.8 18.5 6.2 EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 16.1 11.2 4.8 EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 8.7 7.3 1.4 EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 10.0 13.9 -3.9 EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 6.4 9.5 -3.1 EONADNSC (10) No coverage 3.6 4.4 -0.8 EONNOSCH Sample size 210 216 Oklahoma City (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 33.7 41.1 -7.4 * JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 7.3 6.3 1.0 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 26.4 34.8 -8.4 ** EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 66.3 58.9 7.4 * (5) Employed 41.4 42.0 -0.6 EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 14.0 22.1 -8.1 ** EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 27.4 19.9 7.5 ** EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 24.8 16.9 7.9 ** EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 8.9 4.4 4.5 ** EONADNSC (10) No coverage 16.0 12.6 3.4 EONNOSCH Sample size 259 252 (continued) Appendix Table B.1 (continued) Site and Program Program Control Difference Group Group (Impact) Portland (1)On AFDC: has Medicaid 43.7 57.7 -14.0 *** JAFDCYN1 (2) Employed 8.1 8.2 -0.1 EORYADRY (3) Not employed 35.6 49.5 -13.9 *** EORNADRY (4)Off AFDC 56.3 42.3 14.0 *** (5) Employed 42.0 26.6 15.4 *** EORYADRN (6) Health coverage 27.3 18.9 8.4 ** EOYADNSC (7) No coverage 14.7 7.7 7.0 ** EOYNOSCH (8) Not employed 14.3 15.7 -1.4 EORNADRN (9) Health coverage 9.5 9.0 0.5 EONADNSC (10) No coverage 4.8 6.7 -1.9 EONNOSCH Sample size 297 313
Table 8.2 Program Impacts on Transitional Medicaid Benefits Sample Program Control Difference Percentage Site and Program Size Group Group (Impact) Change (%) A. All Respondents Ever employed and off welfare during follow-up (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 34.1 29.3 4.8 ** 16.2 VFADSTOP Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 30.4 29.3 1.1 3.8 VFADSTOP Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 47.6 36.2 11.4 *** 31.5 VFADSTOP Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 39.7 36.2 3.5 9.6 VFADSTOP Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 28.2 18.5 9.7 *** 52.5 VFADSTOP Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 21.7 13.5 8.2 *** 61.0 VFADSTOP Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 18.0 13.5 4.5 ** 33.4 VFADSTOP Columbus Integrated 728 45.5 31.4 14.1 *** 44.9 VFADSTOP Columbus Traditional 723 36.4 31.4 5.0 15.9 VFADSTOP Detroit 426 23.4 21.2 2.2 10.2 VFADSTOP Oklahoma City 511 39.1 38.3 0.8 2.1 VFADSTOP Portland 610 47.7 37.3 10.4 ** 27.8 VFADSTOP Ever covered by transitional medicaid during follow-up (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 20.8 17.7 3.1 * 17.5 VFmedCOV Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 20.0 17.7 2.3 VFmedCOV 12.8 Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 32.3 25.3 7.0 *** 27.7 VFmedCOV Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 26.8 25.3 1.5 6.1 VFmedCOV Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 18.5 10.4 8.1 *** 77.4 VFmedCOV Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 14.2 8.0 6.2 *** 78.2 VFmedCOV Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 12.6 8.0 4.7 ** 58.5 VFmedCOV Columbus Integrated 728 29.9 15.4 14.5 *** 94.1 VFmedCOV Columbus Traditional 723 23.2 15.4 7.7 ** 50.2 VFmedCOV Detroit 426 14.3 10.1 4.2 41.5 VFmedCOV Oklahoma City 511 19.7 23.4 -3.7 -15.7 VFmedCOV Portland 610 37.2 24.3 12.9 *** 52.9 VFmedCOV
Table 8.3 Program Impacts on Receipt of School Food Programs and Energy Assistance Sample Program Control Difference Percentage Site and Program Size Group Group (Impact) Change (%) Ever participated in school food program during follow-up (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 87.9 86.2 1.8 2.0 vkschlfd Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 89.6 86.2 3.4 ** 3.9 vkschlfd Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 68.3 67.1 1.2 1.8 vkschlfd Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 65.6 67.1 -1.5 -2.2 vkschlfd Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 76.3 78.1 -1.8 -2.2 vkschlfd Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 80.8 81.4 -0.7 -0.8 vkschlfd Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 81.9 81.4 0.4 0.5 vkschlfd Columbus Integrated 728 74.2 75.6 -1.4 -1.9 vkschlfd Columbus Traditional 723 74.7 75.6 -0.9 -1.2 vkschlfd Detroit 426 61.4 60.2 1.2 1.9 vkschlfd Oklahoma City 511 57.5 59.6 -2.1 -3.6 vkschlfd Portland 610 64.6 66.1 -1.6 -2.4 vkschlfd Ever received energy assistance in past year (%) Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1890 18.6 20.1 -1.5 -7.2 vkheat Atlanta Human Capital Development 2199 20.9 20.1 0.8 3.9 vkheat Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1158 23.5 26.0 -2.5 -9.6 vkheat Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1158 21.7 26.0 -4.2 * -16.2 vkheat Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1678 15.6 17.4 -1.8 -10.4 vkheat Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 1012 16.2 15.9 0.3 2.2 vkheat Riverside Human Capital Development 1350 17.2 15.9 1.3 8.1 vkheat Columbus Integrated 728 32.1 31.2 0.9 2.8 vkheat Columbus Traditional 723 33.8 31.2 2.6 8.4 vkheat Detroit 426 34.6 39.5 -5.0 -12.6 vkheat Oklahoma City 511 23.9 29.8 -6.0 -20.1 vkheat Portland 610 22.5 25.6 -3.1 -12.1 vkheat