National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program: Final Report. Endnotes

09/01/2004

(34) A more detailed analysis of enrollees outcomes in the first year after program entry can be found in Fraker et al. 2004.

(35) Given the timing of data collection, UI data were available up until four quarters after program entry for all sites except Boston and Nashville (where UI data were not available at all). There were some sites for which we were able to collect UI data for a slightly longer period (five to six quarters after program entry), but since the outcomes in those additional quarters were fairly stable, we decided for purposes of comparability to report UI-based results up until four quarters after program entry for all available sites.

(36) A key objective cited in the legislation was to facilitate the placement of hard-to-employ welfare recipients and certain noncustodial parents into transitional employment opportunities which will lead to lasting unsubsidized employment and self-sufficiency (Federal Register, January 11, 2001, p. 2712).

(37) The Milwaukee site was an exception to this pattern. There, the NOW program served an especially hard-to-employ population of noncustodial parents who had been incarcerated or were on probation or parole when they enrolled in WtW. The Milwaukee enrollees who were not employed at program entry required nearly six months, on average, to obtain their first jobs.

(38) Especially in the pre-employment model sites, the measured duration until the first job may have been distorted by the difficulty that some enrollees had in distinguishing between subsidized employment (a common service in these sites) and unsubsidized employment.

(39) Employment rates based on survey data can differ from employment rates based on UI data for a number of reasons. In this particular study, employment rates based on data from the 12-month follow-up survey tend to be lower than the employer-reported UI figures for the fourth quarter after program entry. This may be due in part to the fact that the follow-up survey provides a single-point-in-time measure whereas the UI data measure employment at any time during the fourth quarter after program entry (the latter will tend to overstate employment at any specific point in time). The most salient exception to this pattern was West Virginia, a rural site in which enrollees held jobs not likely to be registered by the UI system. In this site, 51 percent of enrollees reported employment 12 months after program entry; but according to UI records, only 39 percent of enrollees were employed in the fourth quarter after program entry.

(40) The ending of a work period encompasses three similar reasons for departure from a job: (1) a layoff, (2) the ending of a temporary job, and (3) the ending of a period of self-employment.

(41) Loprest (2003) reports a 42 percent employment rate among adults who had left TANF during the two years prior to the 2002 Survey of Americas Families. Some of these individuals had returned to TANF by the time of the survey interview.

(42) This discussion of differences in employment outcomes by program model focuses on the study sites that followed either the employment or pre-employment program models. These sites served individuals who were broadly typical of WtW enrollees nationwide; most were TANF recipients who were not employed when they enrolled in WtW. Even among these sites, differences in enrollee characteristics at program entry because of variation in local settings rule out interpretation of outcomes as indications of differences in program efficacy. Including post-employment and rehabilitative program models would be even more problematic, so we have chosen not to. The populations served by the study sites that followed these two program models (already employed persons and noncustodial fathers on probation or parole) were distinctly different from the majority of WtW enrollees, not only because of variation in local settings but also by design.

(43) WtW enrollees in Yakima, West Virginia, and Nashville had the highest rates of work-limiting health problems at the time of enrollment (Exhibit II.2, Fraker et al. 2004).

(44) Enrollees in Milwaukee were also more likely than their counterparts in other sites to have recently been laid off or fired, which suggests that their labor market difficulties went beyond finding employment.

(45) This evaluation also examined the availability of dental insurance, paid holidays, and paid vacation leave. Appendix Exhibit B.8 presents findings for the six types of fringe benefits examined.

(46) Even paid vacation leave, which was common relative to other fringe benefits, was unavailable for one-third or more enrollees in all study sites.

(47) The definition of availability of a benefit varies depending on the type of benefit. Availability of health insurance refers to active participation in an employers health insurance plan. Availability of paid sick leave and a pension refers to the potential for enrollees to participate in and benefit from these plans two years after enrolling in WtW (i.e., at the time of the interviews), whether or not they did so.

(48) PL 104-193, section 407, subsections (c) and (d). The 30-hour-per-week work requirement became effective in fiscal year 2000.

(49) The rate of satisfying the TANF 30-hour work requirement two years after program entry was very similar to the rate one year after program entry for all sites except Milwaukee and St. Lucie County, where the second-year rate dropped by 7 to 10 percentage points.

View full report

Preview
Download

"report.pdf" (pdf, 1.18Mb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®

View full report

Preview
Download

"apc.pdf" (pdf, 75.49Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®

View full report

Preview
Download

"apd.pdf" (pdf, 27.02Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®

View full report

Preview
Download

"ape.pdf" (pdf, 12.59Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®

View full report

Preview
Download

"apf.pdf" (pdf, 70.51Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®