Evaluating Two Approaches to Case Management: Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program. Impacts for Educational Attainment Subgroups

06/01/2001

Employment and earnings impacts for people entering the programs with a high school diploma or GED (graduates) are presented in Table 5.3. Neither program increased three-year employment levels for graduates, but the integrated program produced small increases in employment levels in years 2 and 3. Measured over the three-year follow-up period, the traditional program increased graduates' average earnings by $1,105, or 7 percent; the $633 increase for the integrated program is not statistically significant. (The difference between the earnings of the integrated group and the traditional group is not statistically significant.) Table 5.4 shows that the two programs decreased the number of months that graduate sample members received welfare and their average welfare payments.

Table 5.3
Program Impacts on Employment and Earnings
for Sample Members with a High School Diploma or GED
  Integrated-Control Comparison Traditional-Control Comparison  
Outcome Integrated Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Percentage Change Traditional Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Percentage Change Integrated-
Traditional Difference (Impact)
Ever employed, years 1-3 (%) 85.5 83.0 2.0 2.4 84.2 83.0 1.2 1.4 0.8
Year1 65.8 65.3 0.5 0.8 64.3 65.3 -0.9 -1.5 1.5
Year2 70.8 68.0 2.8* 4.2 69.1 68.0 1.2 1.7 1.7
Year3 72.5 69.7 2.8* 4.0 71.5 69.7 1.8 2.6 1.0
Quarters employed, years 1-3 6.37 6.12 0.25* 4.2 6.34 6.12 0.22 3.6 0.03
Year1 1.85 1.84 0.01 0.5 1.89 1.84 0.05 2.8 -0.04
Year2 2.20 2.05 0.16** 7.7 2.17 2.05 0.12* 5.9 0.04
Year3 2.32 2.23 0.09 3.9 2.28 2.23 0.05 2.3 0.04
Earnings, years 1-3 ($) 15,544 14,911 633 4.2 16,016 14,911 1,105* 7.4 -473
Year1 3,558 3,617 -59 -1.6 3,854 3,617 237 6.6 -296*
Year2 5,404 5,014 390 7.8 5,525 5,014 511** 10.2 -121
Year3 6,582 6,280 302 4.8 6,637 6,280 357 5.7 -56
Sample size (total = 4,135) 1,428 1,230     1,477 1,230      
Sources: MDRC calculations from Ohio unemploment insurance (UI) earnings records.
Notes: Estimates were regression-ajusted using ordinary least squares, controlling for pre-random assignment characteristics of sample members. "Percentage change" equals 100 times "difference"divided by "control group". Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in calculating sums and difference. A two-tailed t-test was applied to differences between outcomes for the program and control groups and to differences between outcomes for the integrated and traditional program groups. Statistical significance levels are indicated as:* = 10 percent; ** = 5 percent; *** = 1 percent. Year 1 refers to quarters 2 to 5; year 2 refers to quarters 6 to 9; year 3 refers 10 to 13. Because quarter 1, the quarter of random assignment, may contain some earnings and AFDC payments from the period prior to random assignment, it is excluded from follow-up measures.

Table 5.4
Program Impacts on AFDC Receipt and Payments
for Sample Members with a High School Diploma or GED
  Integrated-Control Comparison Traditional-Control Comparison  
Outcome Integrated Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Percentage Change Traditional Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Percentage Change Integrated-
Traditional Difference (Impact)
Ever received AFDC, years 1-3 (%) 96.6 96.6 0.0 0.0 96.2 96.6 -0.4 -0.4 0.4
Year1 96.1 96.2 -0.1 -0.2 95.7 96.2 -0.5 -0.5 0.4
Year2 62.7 65.4 -2.7 -4.1 61.7 65.4 -3.7** -5.7 1.0
Year3 44.0 49.7 -5.7*** -11.5 44.0 49.7 -5.7*** -11.5 0.0
Months received AFDC, years 1-3 17.84 19.94 -2.10*** -10.5 18.23 19.94 -1.72*** -8.6 -0.38
Year1 8.66 9.30 -0.65*** -7.0 8.82 9.30 -0.49*** -5.2 -0.16
Year2 5.48 6.21 -0.72*** -11.6 5.59 6.21 -0.62*** -10.0 -0.10
Year3 3.70 4.43 -0.73*** -16.4 3.82 4.43 -0.61*** -13.8 -0.12
AFDC amount, years 1-3 ($) 5,633 6,486 -853*** -13.2 5,720 6,486 -766*** -11.8 -88
Year1 2,740 3,011 -271*** -9.0 2,778 3,011 -233*** -7.7 -38
Year2 1,723 2,028 -304*** -15.0 1,742 2,028 -286*** -14.1 -19
Year3 1,169 1,447 -278*** -19.2 1,201 1,447 -246*** -17.0 -31
Sample size (total = 4,135) 1,428 1,230     1,477 1,230      
Sources: MDRC calculations from Ohio AFDC records.
Notes: Estimates were regression-ajusted using ordinary least squares, controlling for pre-random assignment characteristics of sample members. "Percentage change" equals 100 times "difference"divided by "control group". Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in calculating sums and difference. A two-tailed t-test was applied to differences between outcomes for the program and control groups and to differences between outcomes for the integrated and traditional program groups. Statistical significance levels are indicated as:* = 10 percent; ** = 5 percent; *** = 1 percent. Year 1 refers to quarters 2 to 5; year 2 refers to quarters 6 to 9; year 3 refers 10 to 13. Because quarter 1, the quarter of random assignment, may contain some earnings and AFDC payments from the period prior to random assignment, it is excluded from follow-up measures.

As Table 5.5 shows, the integrated program was much more successful than the traditional program in generating earnings gains for sample members who entered the programs without a high school diploma or GED (nongraduates). The integrated program increased nongraduates' average three-year earnings by $1,730, or 21 percent; the gain of $734, or 9 percent, in the traditional program is not statistically significant. Both programs decreased time on welfare and welfare payments for nongraduates, although the integrated program did so to a greater extent (see Table 5.6). The integrated program decreased months of welfare receipt by 14 percent, compared with 7 percent for the traditional program, and decreased welfare payments by $1,404, or 17 percent, compared with $874, or 11 percent, for the traditional program. Both programs produced small, not statistically significant reductions in average combined income from earnings, AFDC, and Food Stamps for graduates and nongraduates, as they did for the full sample.

Table 5.5
Program Impacts on Employment and Earnings
for Sample Members Without a High School Diploma or GED
  Integrated-Control Comparison Traditional-Control Comparison  
Outcome Integrated Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Percentage Change Traditional Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Percentage Change Integrated-
Traditional Difference (Impact)
Ever employed, years 1-3 (%) 75.9 72.9 2.9 4.0 76.1 72.9 3.2* 4.4 -0.2
Year1 52.0 53.4 -1.4 -2.6 54.0 53.4 0.6 1.1 -1.9
Year2 57.7 56.3 1.3 2.3 58.1 56.3 1.8 3.2 -0.5
Year3 63.9 59.9 3.9* 6.5 63.0 59.9 3.0 5.1 0.9
Quarters employed, years 1-3 4.89 4.6 0.29* 6.3 4.79 4.60 0.19 4.1 0.10
Year1 1.35 1.33 0.02 1.5 1.35 1.33 0.02 1.7 0.00
Year2 1.66 1.52 0.14** 9.1 1.64 1.52 0.12* 7.8 0.02
Year3 1.89 1.76 0.13* 7.5 1.80 1.76 0.05 2.6 0.09
Earnings, years 1-3 ($) 9,938 8,208 1,730*** 21.1 8,942 8,208 734 8.9 996**
Year1 2,201 1,986 215 10.8 2,079 1,986 93 4.7 121
Year2 3,409 2,632 777*** 29.5 3,042 2,632 410** 15.6 367*
Year3 4,328 3,590 738*** 20.5 3,821 3,590 231 6.4 507**
Sample size (total = 3,073) 1,072 915     1,086 915      
Sources: MDRC calculations from Ohio unemploment insurance(UI) earnings records.
Notes: Estimates were regression-ajusted using ordinary least squares, controlling for pre-random assignment characteristics of sample members. "Percentage Change" equals 100 times "difference"divided by "control group". Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in calculating sums and difference. A two-tailed t-test was applied to differences between outcomes for the program and control groups and to differences between outcomes for the integrated and traditional program groups. Statistical significance levels are indicated as:* = 10 percent; ** = 5 percent; *** = 1 percent. Year 1 refers to quarters 2 to 5; year 2 refers to quarters 6 to 9; year 3 refers 10 to 13. Because quarter 1, the quarter of random assignment, may contain some earnings and AFDC payments from the period prior to random assignment, it is excluded from follow-up measures.
Table 5.6
Program Impacts on AFDC Receipt and Payments
for Sample members Without a High School Diploma or GED
Integrated-Control Comparison Traditional-Control Comparison  
Outcome Integrated Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Percentage Change Traditional Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Percentage Change Integrated-
Traditional Difference (Impact)
Ever received AFDC, years 1-3 (%) 96.0 97.4 -1.3* -1.4 96.8 97.4 -0.6 -0.6 -0.8
Year1 95.4 97.1 -1.7** -1.7 96.7 97.1 -0.4 -0.4 -1.2
Year2 68.5 74.2 -5.6*** -7.6 72.0 74.2 -2.2 -2.9 -3.4*
Year3 51.0 60.8 -9.8*** -16.1 55.8 60.8 -5.1** -8.3 -4.7**
Months received AFDC, years 1-3 20.25 23.58 -3.33*** -14.1 21.93 23.58 -1.64*** -7.0 -1.68***
Year1 9.26 10.04 -0.78*** -7.8 9.65 10.04 -0.40*** -3.9 -0.39***
Year2 6.49 7.59 -1.09*** -14.4 7.10 7.59 -0.48** -6.4 -0.61***
Year3 4.50 5.95 -1.45*** -24.4 5.18 5.95 -0.77*** -12.9 -0.69***
AFDC amount, years 1-3 ($) 6,661 8,065 -1,404*** -17.4 7,191 8,065 -874*** -10.8 -530***
Year1 3,071 3,462 -392*** -11.3 3,190 3,462 -272*** -7.9 -120**
Year2 2,124 2,603 -479*** -18.4 2,335 2,603 -268*** -10.3 -211***
Year3 1,467 1,999 -532*** -26.6 1,666 1,999 -334*** -16.7 -199***
Sample size (total = 3,073) 1,072 915     1,086 915      
Sources: MDRC calculations from Ohio AFDC records.
Notes: Estimates were regression-ajusted using ordinary least squares, controlling for pre-random assignment characteristics of sample members. "Percentage change" equals 100 times "difference"divided by "control group". Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in calculating sums and differences. A two-tailed t-test was applied to differences between outcomes for the program and control groups and to differences between outcomes for the integrated and traditional program groups. Statistical significance levels are indicated as:* = 10 percent; ** = 5 percent; *** = 1 percent. Year 1 refers to quarters 2 to 5; year 2 refers to quarters 6 to 9; year 3 refers 10 to 13. Because quarter 1, the quarter of random assignment, may contain some earnings and AFDC payments from the period prior to random assignment, it is excluded from follow-up measures.