(13) Grantees were given favorable consideration as potential study sites if they appeared likely to meet the following requirements for a random assignment study: likelihood of serving substantial numbers of participants, ability to identify more WtW referrals than they could serve, feasibility of integrating random assignment into their intake process, clarity of the distinction between WtW services and those available to a control group, and experience working with the WtW population.
(14) Detailed descriptions of the WtW study sites are provided in Appendix A of the evaluations implementation study report (Nightingale et al. 2002). Also, detailed descriptions of selected programs sponsored by the grantees in the study sites can be found in Appendix A of the evaluations cost analysis report (Perez-Johnson et al. 2002).
(15) In Chicago, there were 24 contractors in all, but 4 delivered support and specialized services to participants enrolled in other contractors programs rather than enrolling caseloads of their own. The situation was similar in Ft. Worth, where 5 of the 12 contractors provided a variety of special support or data services.
(16) In their 2004 report (summarized in Appendix G of this report), VanNoy and Perez-Johnson provide a side-by-side analysis of participant outcomes in two WtW programs in Philadelphia: Phil@Work and Regional Service Centers. These programs differed in their target populations and their service delivery approaches. Together, however, they captured the main elements of the overall WtW strategy developed by the local WIB and WtW grantee, the Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation.
(17) For a description of the Project Matchs Pathways case management system, see Herr and Wagner (2003).
(18) State data on UI-covered earnings could not be obtained for the Boston and Nashville study sites.
(19) These findings should be taken with caution given that a sizable portion of enrollees did not answer the BIF question related to their work-limiting health problems. In 9 of the 11 study sites, response rates for this item were in the range of 65 percent to 85 percent.
(20) This pattern may also reflect respondents unwillingness to acknowledge certain types of health problems.
(21) The quarterly TANF participation rates presented in this report are derived from monthly state TANF administrative data. The rates for the quarter of program entry (Appendix Exhibit D.2.a) are generally higher than those based on data from enrollees BIFs in the evaluations baseline survey (Appendix Exhibit E.1). The differences between these two methodologies which range in absolute value from 7 to 32 percentage points are probably due to one or more of the following: (1) rates based on baseline survey data reflect participation at a specific time, whereas those based on state administrative data reflect participation at any time during the quarter of enrollment; (2) in some sites, enrollees may not have recognized TANF because the program is known by its local program name; (3) the baseline survey asked whether the enrollee had received TANF or AFDC in his or her own name; enrollees who received TANF under anothers name may have reported no receipt; and (4) in some sites, the administration of BIFs was delayed until after enrollment, so some enrollees may have left TANF before completing a baseline form.
(22) Enrollees in the Baltimore County JHU program present a sharp contrast to the general pattern of a higher rate of TANF receipt in the quarter of program entry than in preceding quarters Exhibit III.5). This is consistent with the programs focus on employed individuals. Enrollees in Baltimore County were moving into employment during the immediate pre-entry period. With relatively high wages (discussed in Chapter IV), many of these individuals had worked their way off TANF before they entered WtW.
(23) Because Milwaukees NOW program targeted noncustodial parents rather than TANF recipients, we excluded the site from the comparative analysis of WtW enrollees with all TANF recipients. In addition, we were unable to obtain UI data for the Boston and Nashville sites.
(24) This finding should be taken with caution because data on employment and TANF receipt for WtW enrollees and/or reference sample members were not available or were incomplete in some sites. Specifically, there was no reference sample for Milwaukee, employment data were unavailable for both enrollees and reference sample members in Boston and Nashville, and only one quarter of employment data was available for reference group members in West Virginia prior to the sample selection month.
"report.pdf" (pdf, 1.18Mb)
"apc.pdf" (pdf, 75.49Kb)
"apd.pdf" (pdf, 27.02Kb)
"ape.pdf" (pdf, 12.59Kb)