How Effective Are Different Welfare-to-Work Approaches? Five-Year Adult and Child Impacts for Eleven Programs. Impacts on Combined Income for Educational Attainment Subgroups

12/01/2001

Figure 6.2 shows program effects on combined income over five years for high school graduates and nongraduates. It appears that income was more adversely affected for high school nongraduates. Of the nine programs for which results can be compared for the two groups, six either increased income more for high school graduates than nongraduates or reduced income less for graduates than for nongraduates. The differences are most striking in Atlanta, where the average high school graduate program group members had about $1,500 to $2,000 more income than comparable control group members, but average nongraduate program group members had about the same income as comparable control group members. The main exception was Portland, which increased combined income for nongraduates by nearly $2,700 (or 7 percent) above the control group mean, but led to a much smaller gain for graduates. However, the program-control group difference for nongraduates was not statistically significant (p-value = .18).

Figure 6.2
Impacts on Combined Income in Years 1 to 5, by Hign School Diploma or GED Status

Impacts on Combined Income in Years 1 to 5, by Hign  School Diploma or GED StatusImpacts on Combined Income in Years 1 to 5, by Hign  School Diploma or GED Status

SOURCE:  MDRC calculations from state and county administrative records.
NOTES: See Appendix A.1.

There is not much indication that program approach produced important differences in income gains or losses. Both Atlanta programs had virtually no effect on income for high school nongraduates, and both had much larger effects for high school graduates. Likewise, both Grand Rapids programs resulted in lower combined income for program group members than control group members in each subgroup. On the other hand, the income losses from the Grand Rapids LFA program were more concentrated among high school graduates, whereas the income losses from the Grand Rapids HCD program were more concentrated among high school nongraduates.