How Effective Are Different Welfare-to-Work Approaches? Five-Year Adult and Child Impacts for Eleven Programs. Any Child in the Family

12/01/2001

Table 11.2 shows impacts on child outcomes for any child in a survey respondent's family. As mentioned above, these analyses are similar to those conducted at the two-year follow-up point. Although some measures are directly comparable with the two-year measures, such as grade repetition and suspensions or expulsions, the estimates are shown for the five-year survey sample only (rather than for the sample that had information collected at both the two-year and five-year points).

Table 11.2
Impacts on Child Outcomes During Years 3 to 5 for Any Child in the Family at Random Assignment
(Aged 6 to 23 at the Five-Year Follow-Up)

Site and Program

Sample Size Program Group (%) Control Group (%) Difference (Impact) Effect Size
Any child ever repeated a grade
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1,048 21.3 25.6 -4.3* -0.10
Atlanta Human Capital Development 1,125 20.8 25.6 -4.8* -0.11
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1,077 20.8 16.9 3.9 0.10
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1,085 21.9 16.9 5.0** 0.13
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1,196 11.9 11.6 0.3 0.01
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 644 11.4 12.6 -1.2 -0.03
Riverside Human Capital Development 767 14.9 12.6 2.2 0.06
Portland 493 12.1 8.2 3.9 0.14
Any child suspended or expelled
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1,049 28.6 31.9 -3.3 -0.07
Atlanta Human Capital Development 1,125 32.4 31.9 0.5 0.01
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1,072 24.8 26.5 -1.7 -0.04
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1,081 22.0 26.5 -4.4* -0.10
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1,190 21.4 24.1 -2.7 -0.06
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 639 18.5 25.0 -6.5** -0.15
Riverside Human Capital Development 760 22.7 25.0 -2.3 -0.05
Portland 490 29.4 29.7 -0.3 -0.01
Any child ever dropped out of schoola
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1,049 17.3 18.4 -1.1 -0.03
Atlanta Human Capital Development 1,126 19.6 18.4 1.3 0.03
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1,077 19.3 17.8 1.5 0.04
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1,088 18.6 17.8 0.8 0.02
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1,198 15.5 13.7 1.8 0.05
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 643 16.3 14.2 2.2 0.06
Riverside Human Capital Development 768 17.9 14.2 3.8 0.11
Portland 495 21.8 20.1 1.6 0.04
Any child attended a special class for a physical, emotional, or mental conditionb
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1,050 12.6 12.0 0.6 0.02
Atlanta Human Capital Development 1,128 10.5 12.0 -1.5 -0.05
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1,077 28.9 28.3 0.6 0.01
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1,084 28.5 28.3 0.2 0.00
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1,197 20.1 18.0 2.1 0.06
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 643 20.9 18.8 2.1 0.05
Riverside Human Capital Development 768 20.3 18.8 1.4 0.04
Portland 494 29.2 24.8 4.4 0.10
Any child had a physical, emotional, or mental condition that impeded on mother's ability to go to work or schoolb
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1,048 6.9 5.8 1.1 0.05
Atlanta Human Capital Development 1,128 6.9 5.8 1.1 0.05
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1,080 13.0 14.7 -1.6 -0.05
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1,091 10.4 14.7 -4.3** -0.12
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1,200 10.0 12.1 -2.1 -0.06
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 645 7.7 9.9 -2.2 -0.07
Riverside Human Capital Development 768 13.9 9.9 4.0* 0.13
Portland 493 20.6 19.0 1.6 0.04
Any child had a physical, emotional, or mental condition that required frequent medical attentionb
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1,049 11.7 10.6 1.1 0.04
Atlanta Human Capital Development 1,127 8.9 10.6 -1.7 -0.06
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1,077 20.3 19.2 1.1 0.03
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1,085 15.5 19.2 -3.7 -0.10
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1,198 13.0 16.2 -3.2 -0.09
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 645 11.5 13.6 -2.1 -0.06
Riverside Human Capital Development 769 13.5 13.6 -0.1 -0.00
Portland 494 23.3 20.5 2.8 0.07
Any child ever had accident, injury, or poisoning that required an emergency room visit
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1,042 22.4 25.4 -3.1 -0.07
Atlanta Human Capital Development 1,118 21.4 25.4 -4.0 -0.09
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1,071 35.7 36.9 -1.2 -0.02
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1,085 31.5 36.9 -5.4* -0.11
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1,186 38.1 39.5 -1.3 -0.03
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 639 34.0 37.2 -3.2 -0.07
Riverside Human Capital Development 763 35.9 37.2 -1.3 -0.03
Portland 490 42.1 41.6 0.5 0.01
Any child did not live with mother because she could not care for child
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1,051 4.3 5.2 -1.0 -0.04
Atlanta Human Capital Development 1,129 4.0 5.2 -1.3 -0.06
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1,082 7.3 7.2 0.1 0.01
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1,094 7.7 7.2 0.5 0.02
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1,203 10.9 8.6 2.3 0.08
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 647 10.3 7.0 3.3 0.12
Riverside Human Capital Development 770 9.0 7.0 2.0 0.07
Portland 495 11.6 12.5 -1.0 -0.03
Any child ever had a baby as a teenc
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1,047 14.8 19.3 -4.5** -0.12
Atlanta Human Capital Development 1,126 18.2 19.3 -1.1 -0.03
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1,081 12.5 15.1 -2.6 -0.07
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1,091 15.0 15.1 -0.1 -0.00
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 1,199 12.0 10.0 2.0 0.07
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 645 15.5 10.6 4.9** 0.16
Riverside Human Capital Development 768 13.3 10.6 2.7 0.09
Portland 495 9.6 13.6 -4.1 -0.12
SOURCE:  MDRC calculations from the Five-Year Client Survey.
NOTES:  See Appendix A.2.
Owing to missing values, sample sizes may vary.
a Measures whether the child dropped out of school at any point during the child's lifetime.
b Refers to conditions that were current at the time the survey was administered.
c Measures whether the child had a baby while a teenager at any point during the five-year follow-up period.

Although there was no consistent pattern of effects on outcomes for any child in a family, there were more effects than would be expected by chance. Notably, of the effects that occurred, most were produced by the Grand Rapids HCD program. The effects, however, were both favorable and unfavorable within outcome or domain (across program approaches or site). For example, the Atlanta HCD program decreased the proportion of families who had a child retained in grade by approximately 5 percentage points, whereas the Grand Rapids HCD program increased it by 5 percentage points. The Grand Rapids HCD program also decreased the proportion of families with a child who had a physical, emotional, or mental condition that demanded a lot of attention, and the Riverside HCD program increased it. These noted effects also show that effects varied by program approach and site (across outcomes or domains). The conclusion drawn here about the effects of welfare-to-work programs on these outcomes measured for any child in the family are similar to the conclusion drawn at the two-year follow-up point.

As previously discussed, while evaluating effects on any child in a family may be useful in capturing a general snapshot, there are reasons to suspect that this kind of analysis may not be revealing clear patterns of effects on each child. The next sections review impacts presented in Tables 11.3-11.6 and show that some of the impacts that occurred for the analysis of any child in the family (such as effects in Atlanta on grade repetition) also generally occurred, though not always statistically significant, across children in many age groups. As would be expected, other effects, such as on teen childbearing, were concentrated among adolescents.