National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies: 2-Year Client Survey Files: Annotated tables display key outcomes of medical coverage and non-cash benefits

09/10/2001

                                                          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