|В||Baltimore Co.||Boston||Chicago||Ft. Worth||Milwaukee||Nashville||Philadelphia||Phoenix||St. Lucie Co., FL||West Virginia||Yakima, WA|
|Monthly Household Income ($)|
|Difference in income by employment status is statistically significant||**||***||***||***||***||***||***||***||В||***||***|
|Household Income < Poverty Threshold (%)|
|Dif. in poverty rate by employment status is statistically significant||**||***||***||***||***||***||***||***||В||В||***|
|Index of Material Distress (mean)a|
|Difference in index by employment status is statistically significant||**||*||***||В||В||В||В||В||В||В||***|
|Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note 1: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all WtW enrollees in the respective sites. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown.
Note 2: The income amounts reported in the top third of this table include the value of food stamps received. However, food stamps were excluded from income for the purpose of determining poverty status, as reported in the middle third of this table. The latter is consistent with the standard methodology for determining poverty status.
a The five components of the index of material distress are identified in Exhibit B.22.
*/**/*** Difference between employed and not employed enrollees is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.