How Effective Are Different Welfare-to-Work Approaches? Five-Year Adult and Child Impacts for Eleven Programs. High School Graduates

12/01/2001

As shown in Table 3.6, education and training credential receipt was prevalent among control group members who already had a high school diploma or GED certificate at study entry, although less so in both Atlanta programs. Trade licenses were by far the most common type of credential earned for this subgroup; very few individuals obtained college degrees. Atlanta HCD, the only program to increase graduate sample members' vocational training participation, also increased trade license receipt for this subgroup. The only other program to have this effect was the Atlanta LFA program. In Grand Rapids, where graduate control group members' self-initiated participation in post-secondary education and vocational training was common throughout the follow-up period, the LFA program actually decreased credential receipt for graduates, likely by diverting to job search sample members who would have participated in education or training activities on their own (and thus possibly have obtained an education credential). This pattern is also reflected in the participation impacts discussed in Section V.

Table 3.6
Five-Year Impacts on Education and Training Credentials for Sample Members With a High School Diploma or GED at Random Assignment

Site and Program

Sample Size Program Group (%) Control Group (%) Difference (Impact) Percentage Change (%)
Received any education or training credential
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 664 20.4 13.2 7.2 ** 54.7
Atlanta Human Capital Development 709 26.9 13.2 13.7 *** 104.2
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 663 18.3 29.8 -11.5 *** -38.7
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 641 28.7 29.8 -1.0 -3.4
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 562 20.5 25.4 -4.9 -19.2
Portland 334 28.9 22.4 6.5 28.9
Received a trade license or certificate
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 664 16.8 12.0 4.9 * 40.8
Atlanta Human Capital Development 709 23.6 12.0 11.6 *** 97.3
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 663 15.5 22.5 -7.0 ** -31.2
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 641 26.1 22.5 3.6 16.1
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 562 18.1 22.9 -4.8 -21.1
Portland 334 23.6 18.6 5.0 26.8
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the Five-Year Client Survey.
NOTES: See Appendix A.2.