Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

The Welfare-to-Work Grants Program: Enrollee Outcomes One Year After Program Entry

Publication Date
Jan 31, 2004

By:
Thomas M. Fraker, Dan M. Levy, Robert B. Olsen, Rita A. Stapulonis

Submitted to:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Project Officer: Alana Landey

Submitted by:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Project Director: Alan M. Hershey
Co-Principal Investigators: Thomas M. Fraker (Mathematica)
Demetra S. Nightingale (Urban Institute)

"

Introduction

Congress established the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grants program under Public Law 105-33, the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997.(1) Its purpose was to provide additional resources to supplement the welfare reform funds included in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants to states, which were authorized under Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996.(2) The federal WtW funds were distributed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to state and local grantees in 1998 and 1999. Initially, grantees were expected to spend the funds within three years of their receipt, but amendments in 1999 (Public Law 106-113) extended the period to five years.(3)

When it established the WtW grants program, Congress also mandated that it be evaluated. Under contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), along with its subcontractors the Urban Institute and Support Services International, is conducting that evaluation to document implementation of programs funded by the grants in states and localities across the nation and to analyze outcomes for participants. This is the first in a series of reports on the analysis of participant outcomes. It describes the individuals who participated in grant-funded programs in terms of the following:

  • Characteristics at the time of enrollment in WtW
  • Services received following enrollment
  • Employment and receipt of welfare following enrollment
  • Well-being one year after enrollment

WtW Objectives and Funding

The WtW grants program was to serve the hardest-to-employ and help them obtain employment that could ultimately result in long-term economic independence. Federal rules governing the program specified that its objectives were:(4)

  • 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;"
  • To provide a variety of activities, grounded in TANF's "work first" philosophy, to prepare individuals for, and to place them in, lasting unsubsidized employment;
  • To provide a variety of post-employment and job retention services which will assist the hard-to-employ welfare recipients and certain noncustodial parents to secure lasting unsubsidized employment;
  • To provide targeted WtW funds to high poverty areas with large numbers of hard-to-employ welfare recipients.

Congress recognized that certain populations and certain high-poverty areas might require higher investments of resources over a longer period of time than the regular welfare caseload. Long-term services to achieve economic self-sufficiency were encouraged  beginning a job, either subsidized or unsubsidized, was assumed to be just the first step. WtW funds were also to target individuals in need of intensive services: long-term welfare recipients, high school dropouts, substance abusers, and those approaching their TANF time limits. In addition, WtW programs could serve noncustodial parents with severe employment problems.

To address the employment and service needs of such a diverse target population, WtW grants could fund a broad range of employment services. The program activities that WtW funds were intended to support, as specified in section 5001(C)(i) of the BBA, were:

  • Community service and work experience programs
  • On-the-job training
  • Job creation through wage subsidies
  • Job retention services
  • Job readiness, job placement, and post-employment services
  • Support services such as substance abuse treatment

In addition, the 1999 amendments expanded this list of allowable activities to include up to six months of vocational education or job training.

Congress authorized $3 billion  $1.5 billion in FY 1998 and $1.5 billion in FY 1999  for the WtW grants program, and included specific provisions about how the WtW funds were to be distributed. Most of the funds were distributed through competitive and formula-based grants.(5)

While DHHS administers TANF at the national level, DOL administers the WtW program, but the latter was implemented within the context of welfare reform. Achieving the primary objectives of the WtW grants programs  targeting welfare recipients with the most serious difficulties and providing them with services to help them succeed in the job market  required that local programs funded by the grants reflect an understanding of the welfare policies and programs in their communities and include arrangements for interacting with them.

WtW in the Context of Welfare Reform

The WtW grants and the programs funded by them were to complement and supplement  but not duplicate  states' TANF funds and work programs. The federal TANF legislation enacted in 1996 solidified a trend among states to replace the former welfare system under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was based primarily on income transfers and benefit entitlements, with a work-based system of temporary public assistance. Welfare reform changed the nation's social assistance system in several ways, and shifted the focus to employment, which influenced the manner in which WtW grant-funded programs were implemented.

First, states have substantial flexibility in implementing TANF, meaning policies and programs vary considerably across states. States determine how to use their TANF block grant to fund cash assistance, work-related services, and other supports for low-income families with children. States also decide what types of work requirements are imposed on recipients and which individuals are subject to these requirements (within federal parameters). In contrast, the WtW legislation includes very specific provisions about who is eligible, and funds were specifically earmarked for employment services and could not be used for cash assistance payments. TANF recipients are the primary target group for WtW-funded services and are subject to state-determined welfare policies, which means WtW programs and participants must follow those policies.

Despite the flexibility states have, however, federal law specifies that federally funded welfare payments can only be temporary. More specifically, welfare is intended to be a short-term step toward securing employment and self-sufficiency. Unlike AFDC, TANF provides short-term assistance only  federal law stipulates that individuals can receive federal cash assistance for a maximum of 60 months in their lifetime, but states can opt to institute shorter time limits. Nearly all recipients of federally funded TANF cash assistance are, therefore, subject to a time limit. Some states, though, have decided to use state funds, rather than federal funds, to pay for some cash benefits, which allows them to extend the five-year time limit.

Congress underscored the emphasis on work by requiring states to meet steadily increasing requirements for the percentage of their TANF cases that must be engaged in unsubsidized employment or work-related activities. States were to have 45 percent of their caseload participating in work activities in fiscal year 2001 and 50 percent in 2002. To meet these goals, most state TANF policies stress job search activities and encourage or require recipients to find employment rapidly, rather than provide education or training.

The legislative and program changes in welfare contributed to a dramatic decline in caseloads. The welfare rolls, which began to shrink in the mid-1990s, continued to decline after the passage of PRWORA and the BBA. The number of cases receiving cash assistance under AFDC (and later TANF) decreased from 5.05 million in January 1994 to 2.01 million in July 2002, according to reports by DHHS (2003).(6) Prior research suggests the caseload reduction was due to a combination of the continuing strong national economy and the welfare reform policies that emphasize employment (see, for example, Wallace and Blank 1999).

Congress enacted the WtW grants program to complement state welfare reform policies by concentrating additional resources on parents who were particularly disadvantaged and likely to have the greatest difficulty finding and holding a job. The BBA gave authority to DOL to administer the WtW grants program, and local workforce investment boards (WIBs) have primary operational responsibility. In effect, at the local level, the job of moving welfare recipients into employment is shared by human services agencies responsible for TANF and its work programs, and the workforce development system, which oversees WtW grant programs.

Congress established eligibility criteria and spending rules for WtW grants to ensure that the funds were used primarily for individuals who had specific disadvantages in the labor market. As originally enacted, the BBA required that WtW grantees spend at least 70 percent of their grant funds on long-term TANF recipients or recipients within a year of reaching a TANF time limit, or noncustodial parents of children in a long-term TANF case. These individuals were further required to display two of three specific problems affecting employment prospects: (1) lack of a high school diploma or GED and low reading or math skills, (2) a substance abuse problem, and (3) a poor work history. The remaining funds, no more than 30 percent of the grant, could be spent on people who met less stringent criteria: TANF recipients (or noncustodial parents of TANF children) who had characteristics associated with long-term welfare dependence, such as being a school dropout or a teen parent, or having a poor work history.

As WtW grant programs were being implemented beginning in 1998, it became clear that the combination of the strict eligibility criteria and the "70-30" spending requirement were contributing to slow enrollment. In response, Congress modified the WtW legislation in 1999 as part of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations legislation for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies.(7) While the amendments left in place the requirement that 70 percent of WtW funds be spent on a defined category of participants, they broadened the population in two ways to make it easier for TANF recipients and noncustodial parents to qualify for WtW services under the 70 percent category:

  • TANF participants qualified simply by being long-term recipients. The amendments removed the requirement that long-term TANF recipients exhibit additional barriers to self-sufficiency, such as low skills, substance abuse, or a poor work history. TANF recipients were eligible if they had received assistance for at least 30 months, were within 12 months of reaching a time limit, or had exhausted their TANF benefits due to time limits.
  • Noncustodial parents qualified under less restrictive rules. Noncustodial parents were eligible if: (1) they were unemployed, underemployed, or were having difficulty making child support payments; (2) their minor children were receiving or eligible for TANF, or received TANF in the past year, or were eligible for or received assistance under the Food Stamp, Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, or Children's Health Insurance programs; and (3) they made a commitment to establish paternity, pay child support, and participate in services to improve their prospects for employment and paying child support.

The definition of the 30 percent category was also broadened to include youth who have received foster care, custodial parents (regardless of TANF status) with incomes below the poverty level, and TANF recipients who faced other barriers to self-sufficiency specified by the local WIB.

Objectives and Design of the WtW Evaluation

The evaluation of the WtW grants program has four core components:

  • A descriptive assessment of all WtW grantees, based on two surveys of all WtW grantees nationwide to document program planning and early operations (Perez-Johnson and Hershey 1999; and Perez-Johnson et al. 2000)
  • A process and implementation analysis, based on exploratory visits to 22 local WtW grant-funded programs (Nightingale et al. 2000), and more detailed analysis of programs in a subset of those sites, referred to as the "in-depth" study sites (Nightingale et al. 2002)
  • A program cost analysis in the in-depth study sites, documenting the total program costs and participant costs by service category and grantee site (Perez-Johnson et al. 2002)
  • A participant outcomes analysis in the in-depth study sites, based on analysis of longitudinal data on individual participants, integrating information from two follow-up surveys with administrative data on welfare receipt, employment, and earnings; this report is the first of three on the outcomes analysis

In addition to the four-part core evaluation, a special process and implementation study focuses on tribal programs. It documents welfare and employment systems operated by American Indian and Alaska Native WtW grantees, the supportive services they provide, and how these tribal grantees integrate funds from various sources to move members from welfare to work (Hillabrandt and Rhoades 2000; Hillabrandt et al.2001).

Originally this evaluation was to estimate the net impacts of the WtW grants program on participants, based on an experimental design, and then use those estimates to analyze the program's costs and benefits. However, enrollment in the local programs funded by the WtW grants proceeded much more slowly than expected (Nightingale et al. 2002). With the difficulties that service providers were experiencing in achieving their enrollment goals, they were uniformly unwilling to allow the random assignment of enrollees to treatment and control groups, as would be required under an experimental evaluation design.(8)

Given the impossibility of a rigorous experimental approach to estimating program impacts, DHHS consulted with its partners in the evaluation's interagency work group  DOL, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  and with Mathematica Policy Research to develop an alternate evaluation design. The resultant design entailed the replacement of the infeasible impact analysis based on random assignment with an outcomes analysis. The alternate design and data collection instruments for all components of the evaluation were submitted to OMB and received formal clearance. A critical implication of this change in the evaluation design is that none of the findings presented in this report on the outcomes analysis should be interpreted as estimates of the net impacts of the local WtW grant-funded programs that participated in the evaluation.

Methodology for the Outcomes Analysis

The findings presented in this report are based primarily on data from two surveys of WtW participants. The first was conducted at the time of enrollment in WtW. Participants completed a two-page background information form at their WtW service provider under the supervision of provider staff. The second survey was conducted as soon as possible after the first anniversary of enrollment in WtW. MPR survey staff conducted the approximately 35-minute interviews either by telephone or in-person using computer-assisted methodologies.(9) This report also includes findings on the employment and earnings of participants during the year prior to WtW enrollment that are based on Unemployment Insurance data from state administrative files. A forthcoming report will include more extensive findings based on state administrative data for Unemployment Insurance, TANF, and other programs.

The data that are the basis for the findings presented in this report were gathered in 11 sites where WtW services were provided under the auspices of ten WtW grantees. Each of the grantees was either the direct recipient of a WtW competitive grant or was a Workforce Investment Board that was participating in the state's formula grant as a subgrantee.(10) One of the grantees, Johns Hopkins University, was responsible for WtW services in two of the study sites. Exhibit I.1 identifies the study sites and the associated grantees.(11) The sites are not strictly representative of the universe of all sites where WtW-funded services were provided; rather, they were purposefully selected to achieve diversity in terms of grantee type, urban versus rural location, local economic conditions, and several other factors as enumerated in the report on this evaluation's implementation study (Nightingale et al. 2002).(12)

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is to describe the characteristics and subsequent experiences of individuals who enrolled in programs funded by the WtW grants. It documents the characteristics of WtW participants at the time of enrollment and their outcomes over the course of the following year. Future reports on the outcomes analysis will extend the description to include the second post-enrollment year.

Four research questions guided the outcomes analysis and provide the structure for this report. In Chapter II, data from the background information form and state Unemployment Insurance administrative systems are used to answer the question, "Who enrolled in WtW?" In each of the next three chapters, data from the 12-month follow-up survey are used to answer a question regarding the post-enrollment experiences and outcomes of WtW participants. Chapter III answers the question, "What services did WtW enrollees receive?" Chapter IV presents findings pertaining to the key question, "Did WtW enrollees achieve success in the labor market?" Finally, Chapter V answers the question, "How were WtW enrollees faring one year after entering the program?" The answers to these four research questions provide the basis for our conclusions regarding the WtW program, which are presented in Chapter IV.

There will be two additional reports on the WtW outcomes analysis. The next report will be based on data from state administrative files for Unemployment Insurance, TANF, and other assistance programs for the period beginning one year prior to enrollment and ending two years after enrollment. The report will describe time patterns of employment, earnings, and participation in assistance programs by WtW enrollees. The final report on the outcomes analysis will use data from the 24-month follow-up survey, in conjunction with data from the 12-month follow-up survey, to provide comprehensive descriptions of employment patterns over the full two years following WtW enrollment and the well-being of participants and their families at the end of that period.

Exhibit I.1
Study Sites for the Analysis of Welfare-to-work Enrollee Outcomes
Study Site Grantee Type of Organization Enrollmenta Fundingb (millions) Distinctive Features of Program Design
Baltimore Co., MD Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies Nonprofit Educ. Inst. 350c $5c Workplace liaisons work with employed individuals and their employers to promote retention and help participants move up a career ladder.
Boston, MA Office of Jobs and Community Services, Boston Econ. Dev. and Industrial Corp. Public agency
WIB
900 $11.3 Partnership programs: employers select participants and collaborate with nonprofit partners on employability and skill training.
Chicago, IL Mayor's Office of Workforce Development (MOWD) Public agency
WIB
8,900 $60 MOWD contracts with 26 agencies for case management, training, and support services.
Ft. Worth, TX Tarrant County Workforce Development Board (a.k.a. Work Advantage) Nonprofit
WIB
350 $7.2 Work Advantage contracts with about 10 community-based organizations for rapid work attachment services.
Milwaukee, WI WI Dept. of Corrections, Div. of Comm. Corrections, Region 3 (Milwaukee Co.) State agency 850 $2 Nontraditional Opportunities for Work (NOW) serves male noncustodial parents on probation or parole. Wisconsin Works (Wisconsin's TANF program) contractors provide employability and job retention services.
Nashville, TN Nashville Career Advancement Center (NCAC) Public agency
WIB
600 $4.2 The Pathways Case Management System entails monthly peer meetings to plan steps to employment, and intensive case management and problem-solving support.
Philadelphia, PA Transitional Work Corporation (TWC) Nonprofit
corporation
7,500 $22.4 Two weeks of job readiness class, followed by six months in a subsidized gov't. or nonprofit job, before placement in unsubsidized employment.
Phnix, AZ City of Phoenix Human Services Dept., Employment and Training Division Public agency
WIB
750 $5.95 Three weeks of pre-employment preparation, followed by job placement and retention support from career specialists.
St. Lucie Co., FL Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies Nonprofit Educ. Inst. 350c $5c Workplace liaisons work with employed individuals and their employers to promote retention and help participants move up a career ladder.
West Virginia (29 counties) Human Resources Development Foundation (HRDF) Nonprofit foundation 650 $4.9 Four-week job readiness workshop, followed by graduated-stress supported work experience over six-month period, with skills training where possible.
Yakima, WA Tri-Valley Workforce Development Council Nonprofit WIB 800 $6.4 Individualized case management, job search assistance, job placement, subsidized work placement, and supportive services.
 

Endnotes

1.  Public Law 105-33, section 5001, August 5, 1997.

2.  ublic Law 104-193, section 103, August 22, 1996.

3.  Public Law 106-113, Title VIII, sections 801-807, November 29, 1999.

4.  The Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor wrote the final rule for the WtW grants program. They were published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2001, and include on page 2712 the objectives for the program that are cited here.

5.  Competitive grants were distributed based on applications to DOL, whereas formula-based grants were allocated to states according to a formula based on each state's share of the poverty population and number of adults on welfare.

6.  After bottoming out at 2,006,155 families in July 2002, the U.S. total TANF caseload increased to 2,039,917 families in March 2003, which was the most recent month for which caseload statistics were available at the time this report was being written (DHHS 2003).

7.  Public Law 106-113, Title VIII, sections 801-807, November 29, 1999.

8.  Under an experimental evaluation design, members of the control group in a study site would have received minimal services or no services and, thus, would have contributed little or nothing toward the achievement of the enrollment goals of service providers in that site.

9.  Appendix C provides details on how the surveys were conducted and data were processed. This appendix is not included in this volume, but is available on the MPR website: www.mathematica-mpr.com.

10.  The grantees (and the WIBs that were subgrantees) typically did not directly provide services to WtW enrollees; rather, they subcontracted the provision of services to one or more for-profit or not-for-profit organizations in each site.

11.  Nightingale et al. (2002), Appendix D, provides a detailed description of each of the study sites.

12.  The study sites for the outcomes analysis are the same as for this evaluation's implementation study, with two exceptions: (1) A site in Southeastern Indiana was included in the implementation study but not in the outcomes analysis; and (2) Johns Hopkins University and the multiple locations where it administered WtW services constituted a single site in the implementation study, but its Baltimore County, Maryland, and St. Lucie County, Florida, operations were treated as two distinct study sites in the outcomes analysis.

Who Enrolled in Welfare-to-work?

The WtW Grants Program was designed to serve adults at risk of long-term dependency on TANF and other forms of public assistance. This chapter describes the individuals the program actually served by characterizing WtW enrollees at the time they enrolled (henceforth termed "at the time of program entry") in terms of their demographic characteristics, labor market assets and liabilities, previous involvement in the welfare system, and employment history.

The sources of the data used in this chapter are the evaluation's baseline survey of WtW enrollees, who completed a background information form when they entered the program, and state automated files containing employer-reported data on earnings on jobs covered by Unemployment Insurance.(13)

What Were the Demographic Characteristics of Enrollees?

Consistent with the profile of TANF recipients nationwide, the majority of WtW enrollees in the study sites tended to be unmarried women, less than 40 years old, and of a minority race or ethnicity (Exhibit II.1). The Boston site typifies this pattern. There, 93 percent of enrollees were women and 93 percent were also minorities. Only 5 percent of WtW enrollees in Boston were married. In sharp contrast to the typical study site, Milwaukee's Nontraditional Opportunities for Work (NOW) program, which served noncustodial parents who were on probation or parole or were scheduled to be released soon from prison, had a clientele that was 95 percent male. WtW enrollees in the three primarily rural sites (West Virginia, St. Lucie County, and Yakima) also defied typical patterns: they were less likely than their counterparts in the study's urban sites to be women or members of a minority group and somewhat more likely to be married. In West Virginia, only 17 percent of enrollees were minorities and more than a quarter were married.

In most sites, women represented more than three-quarters of WtW enrollees. Furthermore, over 90 percent of enrollees were women in all sites except Milwaukee (5 percent), West Virginia (79 percent), and Yakima (80 percent). In Nashville and Philadelphia, practically all WtW enrollees were women.

The majority of WtW enrollees were African American in all sites except West Virginia, where the proportion of enrollees who were black was 14 percent. In Chicago and Philadelphia, about 90 percent of WtW enrollees were black, reflecting the prevalence of African Americans in their TANF populations. Hispanics accounted for more than one in four WtW enrollees in Boston and Ft. Worth, reflecting the profile of the welfare population in these areas. In St. Lucie County, only 8 percent were Hispanic, despite a large Hispanic presence in Florida.

Very few WtW enrollees were married when they entered the program. With the exception of West Virginia, fewer than one in six WtW enrollees was married at the time of program entry. Moreover, also with the exception of West Virginia, the majority of enrollees had never been married. Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia exhibited particularly high rates of enrollees  about three in four  who had never been married at the time of program entry.

What Were the Labor Market Assets and Liabilities of Enrollees?

As indicated in the implementation report (Nightingale et al. 2002), many WtW enrollees in the study sites had characteristics often associated with disadvantages in the labor market: low levels of education, work-limiting health problems, and presence of a young child at home.

In six of the sites, more than a third of WtW enrollees were high school dropouts (Exhibit II.2). For example, about four in ten of the enrollees in the Milwaukee, Ft. Worth, and Philadelphia sites were high school dropouts. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Phoenix  a site that provided a rapid attachment WtW program  had, at 55 percent, the highest rate of WtW enrollees that had dropped out of high school by the time they enrolled in the WtW program. Not surprisingly, the two sites that emphasized career advancement  Baltimore and St. Lucie counties, which use the JHU model  had the lowest rates of high school dropouts among WtW enrollees, at 15 percent and 17 percent, respectively.

Work-limiting health problems were another factor that may have affected the employment prospects of WtW enrollees as they entered the program. In most sites, more than one in five enrollees had a work-limiting medical condition, physical disability, emotional or mental condition, drug or alcohol use, or other problem. There was a fair amount of variation in this proportion across the sites, ranging from 10 percent in St. Lucie County to 31 percent in Yakima.(14) There was also substantial variation across the sites in the types of work-limiting health problems reported by WtW enrollees  but in general, a medical condition was the most common, and drug or alcohol use the least common.(15)

The health problems or disabilities of a household member were a barrier to employment for about 1 in 10 WtW enrollees. Enrollees' responses to the BIF survey indicate that these conditions, while less prevalent than their own health problems, made it difficult for the enrollees to work, attend training, or go to school.

The presence of young children in the household also may have been a barrier to employment, especially where affordable child care options were scarce. There was great variation across sites in the percentage of enrollees who had a child aged 3 years or younger in the household, ranging from 11 percent in Baltimore County to 42 percent in Phoenix.

Were Enrollees Dependent on TANF?

The WtW grants program was designed to help adults who are at risk of long-term dependency on public assistance, and in most sites almost all WtW enrollees had received TANF at some point in their lives. In fact, in all of the study sites except Milwaukee  where the WtW program targeted noncustodial parents  87 percent or more of WtW enrollees had received TANF at some point in their lives (Exhibit II.3). In contrast, only 14 percent of Milwaukee's enrollees had received TANF by the time they entered WtW.(16)

While sites were very similar in terms of the predominance of WtW enrollees who had received TANF at some point in their lives, they exhibited more variation in the prevalence of WtW enrollees receiving TANF at the time of program entry. In sites like Chicago, Ft. Worth, and Philadelphia, over 90 percent of all WtW enrollees received TANF at the time of enrollment. But in Baltimore County  one of the two JHU sites focused on providing post-employment services  current TANF recipients accounted for only 24 percent of WtW enrollees. An even more dramatic contrast, though certainly not surprising, is Milwaukee, where current TANF recipients accounted for 1 percent of WtW enrollees.

While a history of welfare receipt was very common among WtW enrollees, long-term welfare receipt was less so. In most of the study sites, only about one-third of WtW enrollees who reported ever receiving TANF had received it for five years or more (Exhibit II.4).(17) Enrollees in Baltimore County and in Nashville had higher rates of long-term welfare receipt, while hardly any of the predominantly male enrollees in Milwaukee had received assistance for as long as five years. In most sites, more than half of WtW enrollees had been on assistance during their lifetime for more than a year.

How Much Recent Work Experience Did Enrollees Have?

WtW enrollees had relatively weak employment and earning histories. Very few were steadily employed during the year prior to program entry, and their total earnings during that year were very low. This section describes the employment and earnings patterns of WtW enrollees before they entered the program.

Befitting a program that in most sites was designed to move people who were not working into jobs, relatively few enrollees were employed when they entered the program. In all of the study sites except Baltimore and St. Lucie counties, fewer than one in three WtW enrollees were employed at the time of program entry (Exhibit II.5).(18) Even in these two sites  whose aim was to provide career advancement services to employed persons  not all WtW enrollees were employed. At the time of program entry, the rates were 83 percent in Baltimore County and 72 percent in St. Lucie County. The JHU-CTS model generally works with those already employed, usually receiving names of TANF recipients who had started working. In some cases, however, individuals were not yet working or they had not remained employed, meaning program staff began serving some people before employment, and helping some of them find jobs.

Given their history of welfare receipt, it is not surprising that WtW enrollees had generally poor employment histories. In all sites but West Virginia, at least nine in ten enrollees had some prior work experience (Exhibit II.6); but in most, fewer than one in four had been employed in all four quarters prior to the quarter of program entry.(19)In West Virginia, just 6 percent of WtW enrollees had been employed in all 4 quarters prior to program entry, and only 27 percent had been employed in any of those quarters.

In most sites, employment rates of WtW enrollees decreased over the year prior to program entry (Exhibit II.7). This decrease is to be expected since the program was designed to move people who were not working into jobs, and hence some enrollees were bound to have enrolled in the program shortly after losing their jobs. For example, in Ft. Worth and Phoenix, quarterly employment rates were in the 40 to 60 percent range and these rates decreased over time (5 to 8 percentage points) in the year prior to program entry. In Philadelphia, Yakima, and Chicago, employment rates were lower  in the 30 to 40 percent range  but these rates also decreased over time during the year prior to program entry. The West Virginia site had a very low employment rate to begin with (21 percent in the fourth quarter prior to program entry), which diminished to 12 percent in the quarter prior to program entry.

But in three sites, employment rates actually increased over the year prior to program entry. In the two JHU sites (Baltimore and St. Lucie counties), employment rates increased by more than 10 percentage points over the year prior to program entry. This is to be expected since these two sites offered programs designed to serve people already working, and therefore there were bound to be some enrollees who found a job shortly before enrolling in the program. In Milwaukee, employment rates also increased substantially  from 37 to 45 percent. The reason behind this increase is likely different, however, as most participants were men on probation or parole with little access to TANF. Hence, many of them could not stay without a job for very long.

Consistent with their poor employment histories, WtW enrollees had very low earnings in the year prior to program entry  in all sites, the median annual earnings in the year prior to program entry were less than $4,000, and less than $2,000 in all sites but one (Exhibit II.8). In Chicago, Philadelphia, West Virginia, and Yakima, the median annual earnings were below $500. In fact, the median annual earnings in West Virginia were zero, which reflects the fact that more than half of the site's enrollees were not employed at any point during the year prior to program entry.

Exhibit II.1
Demographic Characteristics of Welfare-to-work Enrollees at Program Entry
(Percentages)
  Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA RSC
Age
   Less than 20 years old 0 2 1 5 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0
   20 to 29 years old 31 54 50 54 53 47 45 59 47 39 45 44
   30 to 39 years old 49 35 35 31 36 40 39 31 35 44 34 40
   40 or more years old 20 9 14 10 10 12 16 10 15 17 21 16
Gender
   Female 92 93 97 94 5 99 99 96 92 79 80 95
   Male 8 7 3 6 95 1 1 4 8 21 20 5
Race
   Hispanic 1 32 6 26 9 1 7 NA 8 1 NA 15
   White non-Hispanic 21 7 2 22 5 11 2 NA 33 83 NA 6
   Black non-Hispanic 77 60 92 50 86 87 89 NA 59 14 NA 78
   Other non-Hispanic 1 2 1 2 0 1 2 NA 0 2 NA 2
Marital Status
   Married 6 5 3 9 5 3 3 7 13 27 15 6
   Cohabiting 2 3 5 2 19 2 6 4 2 8 15 7
   Separated/divorced/widowed 27 16 18 33 11 28 13 26 33 33 32 17
   Never married 66 76 74 56 65 67 79 63 52 31 38 70
Sample Size 121 797 1,915 996 276 643 1,279 286 168 290 369 1,109
Source: 1999-2002 baseline 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 categories of each of the four characteristics displayed in this exhibit, including marital status, are mutually exclusive and exhaustive
NA = not available.

Exhibit II.2
Labor Market Assets and Liabilities of Welfare-to-work Enrollees at Program Entry
(Percentages)
  Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Education
   Still in high school 5 4 5 6 6 20 7 4 8 6 NA
   High school dropout 15 34 37 40 43 23 44 55 17 28 NA
   GED 8 9 6 11 17 9 4 9 7 16 NA
   High school diploma 31 22 25 19 13 22 15 12 20 23 NA
   Postsecondary degree 5 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 5 NA
   Voc. or tech. degree or certif. 36 27 24 22 19 22 28 19 47 22 NA
Any Work-Limiting Health Problem 24 16 20 24 22 26 20 19 10 26 31
Type of Work-Lim. Health Problem
   Medical condition 7 6 10 11 6 10 10 8 6 13 13
   Physical disability 3 3 4 6 5 5 2 3 3 10 9
   Emotional or mental condition 4 4 2 6 4 7 4 4 2 10 7
   Drug or alcohol use 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 0 1 9
   Other 10 3 7 7 6 8 7 5 2 7 4
Health Problem of Oth. HH Member
   Limits Own Work or Training 10 9 11 11 4 13 13 14 5 9 11
Age of Youngest Child in Household
   No child 10 4 6 3 62 3 4 5 3 6 0
   Less than 3 years old 11 28 35 40 13 24 23 42 37 16 22
   3 or more years old 79 68 60 57 26 73 73 53 61 78 78
Sample Size 121 797 1,915 996 276 643 1,279 286 168 290 369
Source: 1999-2002 baseline survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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.
NA = not available.

Exhibit II.3
History of TANF Receipt by WtW Enrollees at Program Entry

History of TANF Receipt by WtW Enrollees at Program Entry

Exhibit II.4
Cumulative Years of TANF Receipt by WtW Enrollees at Program Entry

(if ever on TANF)

Cumulative Years of TANF Receipt by WtW Enrollees at Program Entry(if ever on TANF)

Exhibit II.5
Rate of Employment OF WtW Enrollees at Program Entry

Rate of Employment OF WtW Enrollees at Program Entry

Exhibit II.6
Rates of Employment of WtW Enrollees in the Four Quarters Prior to the Quarter of Program Entry

Rates of Employment of WtW Enrollees in the Four Quarters Prior to the Quarter of Program Entry

Exhibit II.7
Trends in Employment Rates for WtW Enrollees in the Four Quarters Prior to the Quarter of Program Entry

Trends in Employment Rates for WtW Enrollees in the Four Quarters Prior to the Quarter of Program Entry

Exhibit II.8
Median Annual Earnings of WtW Enrollees in the Four Quarters Prior to the Quarter of Program Entry

Median Annual Earnings of WtW Enrollees in the Four Quarters Prior to the Quarter of Program Entry

Endnotes

13.  The Yakima site administered a different background information form than the other sites. Data on UI-covered earnings could not be obtained from the states of Massachusetts and Tennessee for enrollees in the Boston and Nashville study sites.

14.  These findings should be taken with caution given that a sizable portion of enrollees did not answer the question related to their work-limiting health problems. Nine of the 11 study sites had response rates for this item in the range of 65 percent to 85 percent.

15.  This pattern may also reflect respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge certain types of health problems.

16.  The TANF participation rates presented in this section are based on data from the evaluation's baseline survey that was conducted when WtW enrollees entered the program. Consequently, these rates reflect the participants' self-reports of their TANF status at enrollment. These rates are generally lower than the TANF monthly participation rates based on state administrative data (to be presented in a subsequent report). These differences, which range from -30 percentage points to 15 percentage points, are probably due to one or more of the following reasons. First, the rates in the baseline survey reflect participation at a specific moment in time whereas the rates based on state administrative data reflect participation at any time in the month of enrollment. Second, some enrollees who were receiving TANF assistance under a different program name may not have known that the assistance they were receiving was TANF. Third, the question in the baseline survey used to compute participation rates asked whether the enrollee had received TANF or AFDC in his/her own name, which may have led some enrollees who received TANF but not under their name to report that they did not receive TANF. Finally, the baseline surveys were administered late in some sites and, given that caseloads were decreasing in many of these sites during the enrollment period, the TANF participation rates based on the baseline survey may be understating the actual rates of participation at baseline.

17.  These numbers refer to the total time of TANF receipt prior to program entry, not the duration of the most recent TANF spell. The numbers were computed only for enrollees who reported in the baseline survey that they had ever received benefits from TANF or its precursor program, AFDC.

18.  Employment figures reported in this exhibit are based on data from the evaluation's baseline survey that was conducted when WtW enrollees entered the program. These figures tend to be substantially lower than the employer-reported UI figures. Part of this discrepancy may be explained by the fact that the baseline survey provides a single-point-in-time measure whereas the UI data provide a measure of being employed at any time during the quarter of program entry (so the latter will tend to overstate employment at any specific point in time).

19.  Figures in this and the subsequent two exhibits are based on employer-reported UI data obtained from all our study sites except for Boston and Nashville.

What Services Did WtW Enrollees Receive?

PRWORA, the 1996 federal legislation that authorized TANF, requires parents or caretakers (with some exceptions) to engage in work within twenty-four months of receiving assistance and gives states the flexibility to establish shorter work requirements, which most have done.(20) Programs funded by WtW grants were expected to complement this "work first" emphasis by providing hard-to-employ TANF recipients and others at risk of long-term welfare dependency primarily with employment preparation services.(21) These services either help individuals overcome barriers that prevent them from securing employment or facilitate their progress in doing so. They typically address specific problems and are of short duration. In contrast, skill enhancement services help individuals qualify for better jobs than they otherwise would. These services, often referred to as "education and training," are designed to broadly increase human capital and may be of longer duration. The BBA restricted the provision of skill enhancement services funded by WtW grants to the post-employment period.(22) However, the 1999 amendments expanded the list of allowable pre-employment services to include education and training, but capped the duration of these services at six months.(23)

A 2002 report on the implementation of the WtW grants program, prepared under this evaluation, gives an in-depth description of the services provided by local programs (Nightingale et al. 2002). That description is based on data extracted from program administrative files and on information gathered through on-site observations of program operations, reviews of written policies, and interviews with program staff.

For the current analysis, we used WtW enrollees' self-reports of the services that they received during the year following their entry into the program, as gathered in this evaluation's 12-month follow-up survey. This methodology is limited by that fact that the survey respondents may not have known whether the services that they received were delivered by WtW-funded providers or other organizations. Thus, while we can use the survey data to richly document the receipt of services by WtW enrollees, we cannot be certain whether they were provided under the auspices of the WtW program. However, the types of services reported by the survey respondents are broadly consistent with the findings by Nightingale et al. (2002) on the services provided by the WtW grant-funded programs in the study sites. Consequently, we believe that WtW-funded providers did in fact deliver many, or even most, of the services that WtW enrollees reported receiving.

Section A of this chapter documents the receipt by WtW enrollees of the shorter-term and more narrowly focused employment preparation services that were expected to be central to WtW-funded programs. Section B describes enrollees' receipt of skill enhancement services. The chapter concludes with a classification of the 11 sites that participated in this evaluation, based on the services received by enrollees in those sites.

Did Enrollees Receive Employment Preparation Services?

Most WtW enrollees in the 11 study sites received employment preparation services sometime during the year following program entry. These diverse services included job readiness training, job search assistance, substance abuse treatment, and seven additional services measured in this evaluation.(24) The rate of receipt of any of these services was generally high and did not vary dramatically across the sites  ranging from a low of 68 percent in Ft. Worth to a high of 89 percent in Philadelphia (Exhibit III.1).

The generally high rates of receipt of employment preparation services indicate that the programs in the study sites were largely successful in delivering at least some assistance to each enrollee. Nevertheless, there was variation across the sites in the rate of service receipt, which appears related to differences in the design of the WtW enrollment process. In general, the closer the proximity of the place of enrollment to the place of service delivery, the higher the rate of service receipt.

Ft. Worth and Philadelphia  the sites where enrollees had the lowest and highest rates of receipt of employment preparation services, respectively  illustrate this principle. In Ft. Worth, many individuals were enrolled in WtW during the TANF application and assessment process, typically at one of eight county-operated career centers rather than at a WtW service provider. This enrollment design carried a significant risk that enrollees who were referred to a WtW provider would fail to show, and therefore receive no WtW services. In contrast, enrollment in the WtW program operated by the Transitional Work Corporation (TWC) in Philadelphia occurred at a service provider  either at TWC itself or at any of eight Regional Service Centers, which were also WtW service providers. The Regional Service Centers referred appropriate clients to TWC and also may have provided them with services. This design for WtW enrollment minimized the risk that no-shows would depress the rate of service receipt by enrollees in the program.

What Types of Employment Preparation Services Did Enrollees Receive?

The prototypical design for employment preparation services in a WtW program calls for teaching fundamental on-the-job behavior skills (job readiness training), followed by the provision of job search/placement services. The latter includes resume preparation, interview practice, and assistance in finding a job. These core services may be complemented by ancillary services that address specific problems or barriers to work, such as a substance abuse problem. Ancillary services may also include the provision of continuing support to enrollees who have achieved employment.

Most of the sites that participated in this evaluation conformed fairly closely to the prototypical design. The sites that deviated most sharply from it were Baltimore County and St. Lucie County (the two JHU sites), Nashville, and Milwaukee. The distinctive features of the WtW program designs in these four sites are highlighted later in this section.

During the year following program entry, the employment preparation assistance most frequently received by WtW enrollees in all of the 11 study sites were core services: job readiness training and job search/placement services. Job readiness training was received by more than half of the WtW enrollees in seven of the study sites and by about four in ten enrollees in the remaining sites (Exhibit III.2). Job search/placement services were equally common, with a very similar pattern of receipt across the study sites. Enrollees in Philadelphia were most likely to receive job readiness training and job search/placement services, while enrollees in Ft. Worth were least likely to receive them.

Fewer enrollees received ancillary services. The most common of these were life skills training, received by 25 to 50 percent of enrollees (Appendix Exhibit B.1), and counseling, received by roughly 20 to 40 percent of enrollees (Exhibit III.2). The remaining ancillary services  including mediation and substance abuse treatment  were generally received by no more than 15 percent of enrollees in a site. The exceptions to this pattern tend to be in the four sites where the WtW programs deviated most sharply from the prototypical design.

The distinctive nature of the Johns Hopkins University program model is revealed in the patterns of service receipt displayed in Exhibit III.2. The JHU model emphasizes job retention, skills development, and job advancement among employed individuals. Consistent with that model, WtW enrollees in the Baltimore County and St. Lucie County JHU sites received job readiness training and job search/placement services at lower rates than did enrollees in most of the other study sites but had higher rates of receipt of counseling and mediation services.(25)

The Nashville Works/Pathways program was based on the Project Match model, which emphasizes a holistic, human development approach to helping people move toward employment. This model specifies the provision of intensive case management, problem-solving assistance, and a broad range of other services in a supportive peer-group environment. Accordingly, the Nashville enrollees were more likely to have received counseling, structured peer support, mediation services, and mental health services than those in most of the other study sites.

Milwaukee's NOW program serves noncustodial parents who are on probation or parole or who are about to be released from prison. Although this program has a strong work-first emphasis in principle, the rates at which enrollees received the core employment preparation services were lower in Milwaukee than in all of the other study sites except Ft. Worth. On the other hand, NOW enrollees had relatively high rates of receipt of counseling and of ancillary services that were rarely received by WtW enrollees in other sites  including participation in peer support groups, legal assistance, and substance abuse treatment. This distinctive set of employment preparation services is consistent with the needs of the unusual population (for WtW programs) served by the program.

What Was the Duration of Employment Preparation Services?

A WtW program following the prototypical design for employment preparation services would provide several weeks of job readiness training followed by a week or so of job search/placement assistance. But even programs in the evaluation that were broadly consistent with the prototypical design tended to modify it in significant ways. For example, programs in some of the study sites reflect a philosophy that employment outcomes for the individuals they serve can be optimized by the provision of extended job readiness training prior to job search or placement. Conversely, job readiness training is downplayed in some other programs that target individuals who have already demonstrated their employability.

The duration of job readiness training was quite varied across the study sites, with the median number of days of training among enrollees who received it ranging from 6 in Ft. Worth and St. Lucie County and 8 in Baltimore County to 44 in Boston and Philadelphia (Exhibit III.3). The short duration of job readiness training in St. Lucie and Baltimore counties reflects the fact that the JHU program was designed primarily to assist employed persons in achieving greater success in the labor market. In Ft. Worth, the short duration of such training is consistent with the emphasis on rapid transition to employment in that site's program design. However, when viewed in light of relatively poor employment outcomes for Ft. Worth enrollees, documented in the next chapter, the short duration of job readiness training may also be symptomatic of lapses in the delivery of services to those who needed them.(26)

The median duration of job readiness training was highest in Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and West Virginia, consistent with the designs for these WtW programs, which specify the provision of extended job readiness training to all or to major segments of enrollees. For example, the design for the program operated by the Human Resource Development Foundation in West Virginia calls for all enrollees to participate in a four-week job readiness workshop prior to job placement. Exhibit III.3 shows that the median WtW enrollee in the West Virginia study site received 24 days of job readiness training. The program in Boston was based on two different designs, one of which entailed the provision of extensive training by major employers in the Boston area to prepare enrollees for jobs with those organizations. Enrollees in Boston received a median of 44 days of job readiness training.

The design and execution of job search/placement services was more consistent across sites, with much lower and less varied durations than job readiness training (Exhibit III.3). The median duration of job search/placement services was just 4 days or less in seven of the sites, and exceeded 10 days only in Boston.

The duration of ancillary services depended on their nature, the severity and complexity of the problems they were designed to address, and on the capacity of the enrollees to persist in the treatment. WtW enrollees typically received counseling, mediation, and legal services for short durations. The median duration of each of these services among those who received them in all of the study sites was 10 days or less for counseling and 4 days or less for mediation and legal services. In contrast, enrollees often received mental health services and substance abuse treatment for long durations. For example, WtW enrollees in Baltimore County and Boston who entered substance abuse treatment programs typically received services from those programs for about 100 days.

Were the Employment Preparation Services Useful?

WtW enrollees who received job readiness training and job search/placement services generally judged them to be useful, regardless of the study site. The perceived utility of the ancillary services tended to be lower and more varied across the sites.

The programs studied in this evaluation delivered core employment preparation services that were consistently judged to be useful by the enrollees who received them. On a scale ranging from 1 (not useful at all) to 3 (very useful), the mean values of indices of the usefulness of job readiness training and job search/placement services fall within bands that are both high and narrow, ranging from 2.4 to 2.7 (Appendix Exhibit B.3).(27)

Although assessments were less consistent across sites, enrollees generally held ancillary services in lower regard than the core services. The ancillary services that enrollees judged to be most useful were life skills training, counseling, peer support or discussion groups, and mediation services. Mediation services were viewed as being especially useful, with mean index values reaching 2.7 in Nashville and Philadelphia and 2.8 in Phoenix and St. Lucie County (Appendix Exhibit B.3). Enrollees viewed mental health services, legal assistance, and substance abuse treatment less favorably. They viewed legal assistance least favorably; the mean index value for that service was less than 2.0 in seven of the study sites.

Did Enrollees Receive Skill Enhancement Services?

WtW enrollees in the 11 study sites were only about half as likely to receive skill enhancement services during the year following enrollment in WtW as they were to receive the employment preparation services discussed in the previous section. Rates of participation in education and training ranged from 24 to 47 percent across the study sites (Exhibit III.4). Only in three sites did participation rates exceed 40 percent: Baltimore County, Nashville, and St. Lucie County. This is consistent with the focus of the programs operating in these sites. In Baltimore and St. Lucie counties, the JHU program aims to help already-employed participants move into better jobs. The Nashville program emphasizes human development and operates under Tennessee's federal TANF waiver that expanded the allowable services to permit a broader set of activities to satisfy work requirements.

The WtW enrollees who received skill enhancement services almost always received them in conjunction with employment preparation services, rather than by themselves. The Boston study site typifies this pattern; about nine of every ten enrollees in that site who received skill enhancement services also received employment preparation services (Appendix Exhibit B.27). This ratio was lowest in Baltimore County, but even there, three-fourths of recipients of skill enhancement services also received employment preparation services. In contrast, WtW enrollees typically received employment preparation services by themselves. Only between one-fourth and one-half of recipients of employment preparation services also received skill enhancement services. Thus, while skill enhancement services were rarely received on a stand-alone basis, employment preparation services usually were.

What Types of Skill Enhancement Services Did Enrollees Receive?

Rates of receipt of specific types of skill enhancement services did not exceed 20 percent other than for a few exceptional services in Baltimore County, Milwaukee, Nashville, and St. Lucie County (Exhibit III.5). These rates are well below those for the core employment preparation services but are comparable to those for some of the less common ancillary employment preparation services, such as mediation and mental health services. About 10 to 20 percent of WtW enrollees participated in GED/high school programs and in advanced education programs,(28) while 5 to 10 percent participated in adult basic education (ABE). Virtually no enrollees in any site other than Boston participated in English as a second language (ESL) programs; restrictions on the receipt of TANF by recent immigrants may have limited the number of WtW enrollees who could benefit from this instruction.

Milwaukee/NOW and Nashville Works/Pathways enrollees were most likely to participate in GED or high school programs, whereas enrollees in the two JHU programs were most likely to participate in college and other advanced education programs (Exhibit III.5). Enrollees in the Nashville site also had relatively high rates of participation in ABE and in advanced programs.

What Were the Duration and Intensity of Skill Enhancement Services?

The skill enhancement services received by WtW enrollees typically lasted for two to six months and entailed a commitment of 10 to 20 hours per week (Exhibit III.6). Thus, receipt of these services represented a substantially larger investment in human capital than did receipt of employment preparation services. Enrollees in the Milwaukee/NOW program who participated in GED or high school education programs did so for 12 hours per week for five months, on average. Their counterparts in Nashville were even more intensively engaged in these programs, averaging 12 hours of participation per week for five months. Enrollees in the Baltimore County and St. Lucie County JHU programs who participated in advanced education programs did so for roughly 15 hours per week over an interval of three to four months, on average.

Did Employment Precede the Receipt of Skill Enhancement Services?

The 1997 legislation that initially authorized the WtW grants program permitted skill enhancement services to be provided to enrollees only after they had obtained jobs.(29)Subsequent amendments to that legislation in 1999 eased this restriction by allowing such services prior to employment for a maximum of six months. Still, it is clear that federal policymakers intended for most investment in human capital under WtW grant-funded programs to occur after, rather than before, an enrollee obtained employment.(30) We used data from the evaluation's 12-month follow-up survey to investigate whether enrollees' participation in employment and training programs was consistent with the spirit of the legislation in this regard.

Receipt of skill enhancement services following, rather than preceding, employment was the exception rather than the rule for WtW enrollees. Exhibit III.7 shows that in most of the study sites, only between one-fourth and one-half of enrollees who received basic skill enhancement services began doing so after they had become employed. The results are a bit more favorable for advanced services  about 30 to 60 percent of the enrollees who participated in vocational or technical training, occupational skills training, or college programs did so after obtaining jobs.

Three of the study sites deviated notably from the general pattern. In Baltimore County and St. Lucie County, about 75 percent of WtW enrollees who participated in basic education and training programs and approximately 85 percent of those who participated in advanced programs did so after becoming employed (Exhibit III.7). The corresponding rates in Yakima were about 10 percentage points lower than in the JHU sites, but they were nevertheless high relative to the rates in the other eight sites.

A Classification of WtW Programs, Based on Services Actually Received by Enrollees

This evaluation's implementation report (Nightingale et al. 2002) uses three program models to classify the study sites, based on the key service-delivery features and on those aspects of the programs that administrators and staff highlighted as being their most prominent or defining features.(31) We thought it would be useful to provide in this outcomes report an alternative classification of the study sites based on the self-reports of services received by the WtW enrollees and then compare the results of the two classification schemes. Using the enrollee reports, our five-way classification of the 11 study sites is as follows:

  • Rapid Job Entry (Phoenix and Yakima). WtW enrollees in these sites had high rates of receipt of short-duration job readiness training. They also had high rates of receipt of job placement services. Relatively low or moderate proportions of enrollees received other employment preparation services and skill enhancement services. Overall, the services received by enrollees in these sites appear to have been limited to those necessary to move them quickly into jobs.
  • Extensive Pre-Employment Services (Boston, Chicago, Nashville, Philadelphia, and West Virginia). WtW enrollees in these five sites had high rates of receipt of job placement services, but they tended to receive those services after several months of job readiness training or, in Nashville, participation in education and training programs.(32)
  • Rehabilitative (Milwaukee). Enrollees in Milwaukee NOW program received a unique mix of ancillary employment preparation services that were chosen to facilitate reentry into society and employment by persons who have been incarcerated or are on parole. The service mix includes relatively high rates of counseling, participation in peer support groups, legal assistance, and substance abuse treatment.
  • Career Advancement (Baltimore County and St. Lucie County). These sites implemented the JHU service model, designed to assist employed individuals retain jobs and advance in their careers. Accordingly, relatively few WtW enrollees in Baltimore County and St. Lucie County received job search/placement services or job readiness training. Counseling and mediation services were common in these sites, as was participation in advanced education and training programs.
  • Minimal Services (Ft. Worth). The Ft. Worth site stands out in terms of enrollees' low rates of receipt of any services and the brevity of those services they did receive. While this could indicate that enrollees had little need for services, the next chapter documents that this was not the case: Ft. Worth is among the three study sites with the lowest percentage of enrollees who obtained jobs and the longest duration until employment for those who found jobs.

While somewhat subjective, our sense is that the program category Rapid Job Entry, based on enrollee reports, maps into the Enhanced Direct Employment (EDE) program model. The shaded cell in the top left of Exhibit III.8 designates this mapping. In a similar fashion, the Extensive Pre-Employment Services and Rehabilitative program categories map into the Developmental/Transitional Employment (DTE) model, as indicated by the two shaded cells in the middle of the exhibit. The Career Advancement program category maps cleanly into the Intensive Post-Employment Skills Development (IPESD) model, as indicated by the shaded cell in the lower right of Exhibit III.8. The Minimal Services program category is not consistent with any of the three program models.

The program classification based on enrollee reports is consistent with the program model based on administrator and staff reports for 8 of the 11 study sites. The three sites for which these are inconsistent are West Virginia, Milwaukee, and Ft. Worth. The lengthy job readiness training received by enrollees in West Virginia, combined with their protracted time until the first job, led us to classify this as an Extensive Pre-Employment Services site, which is consistent with the DTE model rather than EDE model. Low rates of receipt of job readiness training and job placement services by WtW enrollees in Milwaukee, combined with their high rates of receipt of ancillary employment preparation services, led us to classify this as a Rehabilitative site, which is consistent with the DTE model rather than the EDE model. Finally, low rates of receipt of any services by enrollees in Ft. Worth, combined with relatively poor employment outcomes, led us to classify this site as Minimal Services  a classification that is not consistent with any of the three program models.(33)

Exhibit III.1
Percentage of WtW Enrollees Who Received Any Employment Preparation Services
During the Year after Program Entry

Percentage of WtW Enrollees Who Received Any Employment Preparation Services  During the Year after Program Entry

Exhibit III.2
Percentages of WtW Enrollees Who Received Specific Types of Employment Preparation Services
During the Year after Program Entry

Percentages of WtW Enrollees Who Received Specific Types of Employment Preparation Services

Percentages of WtW Enrollees Who Received Specific Types of Employment Preparation Services
 

Exhibit III.3
Duration of Employment Preparation Services Received
by WtW Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry
(Median days of receipt by rnrollees who received services)

Duration of Employment Preparation Services Received by WtW Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry

Duration of Employment Preparation Services Received by WtW Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry

Exhibit III.4
Percentage of WtW Enrollees Who Received Any Skill Enhancement Services (Education and Training)
During the Year after Program Entry

Percentage of WtW Enrollees Who Received Any Skill Enhancement Services (Education and Training) During the Year after Program Entry

Exhibit III.5
Percentages of WtW Enrollees Who Received Specific Types of Skill Enhancement Services
During the Year after Program Entry

Percentages of WtW Enrollees Who Received Specific Types of Skill Enhancement Services During the Year after Program Entry

Exhibit III.6
Duration and Intensity of Skill Enhancement Services Received
by WtW Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry

Duration and Intensity of Skill Enhancement Services Received by WtW Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry

Exhibit III.7
Percentages of WtW Enrollees for Whom the Receipt of Skill Enhancement Services
Commenced on or Following Initial Employment

Percentages of WtW Enrollees for Whom the Receipt of Skill Enhancement Services Commenced on or Following Initial Employment

Percentages of WtW Enrollees for Whom the Receipt of Skill Enhancement Services Commenced on or Following Initial Employment

Exhibit III.8
Cross-classification of WtW Programs by Enrollee Reports and by Administrator and Staff Reports
Program Classification
(based on enrollee reports of services received)
Program Model
(based on administrator and staff reports of key program features)
Enhanced Direct Employment Developmental/ Transitional Employment Intensive Post-Employment Skills Development
Rapid Job Entry Phoenix, Yakima    
Extensive Pre-Employment Services West Virginia Boston, Chicago, Nashville, Philadelphia  
Rehabilitative Milwaukee    
Career Advancement     Baltimore Co., St. Lucie Co.
Minimal Services Ft. Worth    
Note: Shaded cells indicate consistency between the program classification based on enrollee reports and the program model based on administrator and staff reports. Study sites whose names appear outside of the shaded cells (West Virginia, Milwaukee, and Ft. Worth) are ones where the program classification based on enrollee reports and the program model based on administrator/staff reports appear to be inconsistent.

Endnotes

20.  The National Governor's Association reported that twenty-eight states submitted TANF plans to DHHS which indicate that they require at least some recipients to work before the end of the twenty-fourth month on assistance (NGA 1999).

21.  The interim rule for the WtW grants states that, "Activities conducted with WtW funds must be grounded in the 'work first' philosophy which is a fundamental tenet of the Act (PRWORA). Although a variety of activities are authorized under WtW, these activities should be viewed as employment-based developmental steps for helping individuals secure and retain unsubsidized employment." (DOL 1997, pages 61593-61594)

22.  DOL (1997, page 61594) states, "While the legislation (PL 105-33, 1997) does not permit stand-alone training activities independent of a job, allowing them as post-employment activities only while the participant is working in a subsidized or unsubsidized job reflects the basic 'work first' thrust of the legislation."

23.  Public Law 106-113 (1999).

24.  The evaluation's 12-month follow-up survey inquired about the receipt of each of ten services: (1) job readiness training, (2) job search or placement, (3) life-skills classes, (4) mental health services, (5) substance abuse treatment, (6) medical attention to correct a work-limiting physical condition, (7) legal assistance, (8) counseling, (9) peer support/discussion group, and (10) mediation services. Longer-run education and training programs are not included in this discussion of services, but rather are addressed in Section B.

25.  Referral to education and training programs is also a distinctive feature of the JHU program design. Evidence presented later in this chapter documents that WtW enrollees in Baltimore County and St. Lucie County were more likely to have participated in education and training programs than enrollees in most of the other study sites.

26.  Among the 11 study sites, Ft. Worth had the lowest rate of receipt of any employment preparation services by WtW enrollees (Exhibit III.1). It is also last or next-to-last among the sites in the duration of core employment preparation services  job readiness training and job search/placement services  by enrollees who received those services (Exhibit III.3). Chapter IV presents evidence that employment outcomes for WtW enrollees in Ft. Worth were relatively poor. Ft. Worth is among the three study sites with the lowest percentage of enrollees who were employed at any time during the year following enrollment (Exhibit IV.1) and among the three sites with the longest elapsed time until the first post-enrollment job (Exhibit IV.2).

27.  In the evaluation's 12-month follow-up survey, enrollees who reported having received a specific employment preparation service were asked whether it had been useful to them. Their responses of 1 (not useful at all), 2 (somewhat useful), and 3 (very useful) were incorporated in an index of the usefulness of each service.

28.  The 12-month follow-up survey gathered information on participation in the following advanced education and training programs: vocational or technical training, occupational skills training, and college programs.

29.  In its interim rule on WtW, DOL (1997, page 61549) states that, "The regulations . . . encourage the use of training interventions only after an individual begins to work to help participants retain their jobs and move toward self-sufficiency."

30.  This interpretation of the intent of federal policymakers is consistent with DOL's final rule for the WtW grants program (DOL 2001, page 2715, Sect. 645.220, paragraphs b and e).

31.  On page 67, Nightingale et al. (2002) identify three WtW program models based on service delivery features and on administrator and staff descriptions of their programs: (1) Enhanced Direct Employment, with an emphasis on providing individualized support and counseling prior to employment, job placement services, and post employment services; (2) Developmental/Transitional Employment, with an emphasis on skills development, transitional or subsidized employment, and job placement; (3) Intensive Post-Employment Skills Development, with a primary objective of improving job retention and specific occupational skills for employed individuals.

32.  The West Virginia site does not fit cleanly into the extensive pre-employment services category on the basis of the pattern of service receipt alone. The median duration of job readiness training for WtW enrollees in this study site, 24 days (Exhibit III.3), exceeds the median durations for the rapid job entry sites but is less than those in Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Our decision to classify the West Virginia site in the extensive pre-employment services category was influenced by the finding, discussed in Chapter IV, that the mean duration until the first job was markedly high for enrollees in this site (refer to Exhibit IV.2).

33.  Possible explanations for the three sites that are flagged as inconsistencies between the two classification schemes include: (1) deviation of a program as initially implemented from the program design; (2) evolution of a program between the time when data were collected for the evaluation's process study and the fielding period for the 12-month follow-up survey of enrollees; (3) subjective factors underlying the interpretation of data by the two largely different research teams for the implementation study and the outcomes study.

Did WtW Enrollees Achieve Success in the Labor Market?

The WtW grants program seeks to promote self-sufficiency through employment. Accordingly, in this evaluation, various aspects of the labor-market success of WtW enrollees are key outcome measures. This chapter uses these measures to describe the success of WtW enrollees in the labor market. The reader is cautioned that the values of these measures cannot necessarily be attributed to the program. This evaluation was not based on an experimental design; consequently, it is not possible to estimate the contributions of the program itself to the observed outcomes with a level of confidence that would be appropriate for this report to Congress.

Did Enrollees Become Employed?

Most WtW enrollees were employed during at least some part of the year after they entered the program. While this is encouraging, there was a notable lack of consistency in their employment  most enrollees were without jobs for at least half of the year, and few were substantially employed at the end of the year.

Were Enrollees Employed at All During the Year after Program Entry?

Few WtW enrollees in sites other than Baltimore County and St. Lucie County were employed when they entered the program, but most were employed at some time during the subsequent year. Thus, the study sites generally achieved the most fundamental objective of the WtW grants program, which was to move enrollees into employment. Not surprisingly, this measure of labor-market success was highest for the two sites that operated the JHU program, which was designed to serve persons who were already employed. In these sites  Baltimore County and St. Lucie County  most enrollees were employed when they entered the program, and more than 90 percent were employed at some time during the following year (Exhibit IV.1).(34) In the other nine study sites, the range of this measure is narrow, with a low value of 65 percent for Boston and Chicago and a high of 80 percent for West Virginia and Yakima.

Although most WtW enrollees in the study sites were employed at some time during the year following enrollment, substantial minorities of enrollees in the non-JHU sites failed to achieve even this modest level of labor-market success. Between one in five and one in three enrollees were not employed at all during the follow-up year in the non-JHU sites.

How Long Did it Take Enrollees to Find Jobs?

WtW enrollees who were not employed when they entered the program required an average of four to five months to find their first post-enrollment jobs (Exhibit IV.2).(35) The time that it took enrollees to find jobs was determined by a host of factors, including the nature of the services they received. Chapter III provided a classification of sites based on the services received by enrollees. In the two "rapid job entry" sites, Phoenix and Yakima, enrollees obtained their first jobs in an average of 3.8 and 4.3 months, respectively. The average elapsed time until the first job tended to be longer in the five "extensive pre-employment services" sites, ranging from a low of 4.3 months in Philadelphia to a high of 5.1 months in West Virginia.(36) Thus, the elapsed time until the first job tended to be lower in sites that provided services consistent with rapid job entry than in sites that provided more extensive pre-employment services.

Ft. Worth was classified in Chapter III as a site where WtW enrollees received "minimal services.". Exhibit IV.2 shows that those enrollees required an average of 5.1 months to find their first job. Only the ex-offender enrollees in Milwaukee required more time to become employed. This combination of factors suggests that the Ft. Worth enrollees had unmet needs for services.

For What Proportion of the Year Were Enrollees Employed?

WtW enrollees in all but the two JHU program sites were employed for an average of only between one-third and one-half of the follow-up year (Exhibit IV.3). Because the JHU program was designed to serve persons who already had jobs, it is not surprising that enrollees in the Baltimore County and St. Lucie County sites were employed for the largest proportions of the year  nearly three-quarters, on average. The much lower proportions for the other nine sites reflect the interplay among three intermediate employment outcomes: (1) the fraction of enrollees who were never employed during the year,(37) (2) the average duration until the first job for those who became employed, and (3) the rate of job loss by enrollees who were employed at enrollment or who subsequently became employed. These intermediate outcomes may be influenced by WtW service strategies, as follows:

  • A strategy of rapid job entry would be expected to minimize the duration until the first job (intermediate outcome #2) and perhaps also reduce the fraction of enrollees who are never employed during the year following program entry (intermediate outcome #1). However, this strategy might carry an elevated risk that enrollees will not be strongly attached to the jobs that they obtain, resulting in an elevated rate of job loss (intermediate outcome #3).(38)

  • A strategy of extensive pre-employment services might result in better matches of enrollees with jobs, thus reducing the risk of job loss (intermediate outcome #3).(39),(40) However, the extensive pre-employment services would likely extend the time until the first job (intermediate outcome #1) and might also increase the risk that an enrollee would remain without work for the entire year following program entry (intermediate outcome #2).

The Yakima and West Virginia study sites illustrate the trade-offs between these two service strategies with respect to employment outcomes. Yakima pursued a rapid entry strategy; only half of the WtW enrollees in that site received job readiness training, with an average duration of just 9 days. In contrast, West Virginia pursued an extensive services strategy; three-fourths of its enrollees received job readiness training for an average duration of 24 days. The enrollees in these two sites were equally likely to be employed sometime during the year following program entry (80 percent, Exhibit IV.1). However, the mean duration until the first job was longer for enrollees in West Virginia than those in Yakima: 5.1 months versus 4.3 months (Exhibit IV.2). The incidence of job loss was 58 percent in West Virginia, versus 71 percent in Yakima (Exhibit IV.8). Despite the substantial differences in two of the three intermediate employment outcomes, the mean percentage of time enrollees had a job during the year following program entry was similar in the two sites  49 percent in Yakima and 44 percent in West Virginia.

Were Enrollees Employed One Year after Program Entry?

In most of the study sites, less than half of WtW enrollees were employed one year after they entered the program; however, employment rates at that time were much higher than those at the time of program entry in all but the two JHU sites (where program participants tended to be employed when they enrolled).(41) West Virginia was the only non-JHU site to achieve an end-of-year employment rate in excess of 50 percent; however, Yakima fell just short of that threshold (Exhibit IV.4). In the other seven non-JHU sites, the rate was generally about 40 percent, which is very similar to the 42 percent employment rate for former TANF recipients nationwide reported by Loprest (2003).(42) The end-of-year employment rates for WtW enrollees were much lower than the rates of employment sometime during the year (Exhibit IV.1), indicating considerable instability in employment.

Local programs funded by WtW grants were expected to be integrated with the corresponding state TANF programs. It is therefore useful to assess end-of-year employment outcomes for WtW enrollees in terms of the TANF work requirement, as specified in the 1996 PRWORA legislation, which can be paraphrased as follows:

The nonexempt adult head of a single-parent TANF case must spend at least 30 hours per week working on a job for pay or participating in work-related activities. Participation in education and training programs may account for no more than 10 of the required hours.(43)

In Exhibit IV.5, the TANF work requirement is used as a standard against which to assess employment outcomes for WtW enrollees one year after program entry, without regard for their actual TANF participation status at that time. The exhibit displays the percentage of enrollees that would have satisfied the TANF work requirement based on 30 or more hours of paid employment alone (shown by the length of the dark section of each bar), as well as the percentage that would have satisfied the requirement based on 20-29 hours of paid employment plus an assumed 1-10 hours of participation in education, training, or other work-related activities (shown by the full length of each bar, including both its dark and light sections). The following discussion focuses only on the former percentage.

The rates at which WtW enrollees would have satisfied the TANF 30-hour-per-week work requirement if they had been on TANF one year after program entry were slightly lower than their rates of employment, but the patterns of these two measures were similar across the study sites. Exhibit IV.5 shows that about two-thirds of enrollees in the JHU sites were employed at levels consistent with the TANF requirement, whereas only about one-third of enrollees in the other sites were (with the exception of West Virginia, where 43 percent of enrollees were working at least 30 hours per week). Further analysis revealed that the absence of any employment, rather than insufficient hours of work by those who were employed, accounted for large majorities of the WtW enrollees in each of the study sites who were not working at levels consistent with the TANF 30-hour standard.(44)

The end-of-year employment results presented in this section might be regarded as disappointing by many readers. However, as programs funded by the WtW grants were required (by Public Law 105-33) to serve hard-to-employ adults who were either on assistance or were at risk of long-term welfare dependency, the results could be interpreted alternatively as representing a notable degree of success in a challenging program environment.

Why Were Some Enrollees Not Employed One Year after Program Entry?

Among the WtW enrollees who were not employed one year after program entry, the most commonly cited reason for lack of employment was difficulty finding a job (Appendix Exhibit B.9). This was true for nearly half of the Milwaukee enrollees who were not employed and between one-tenth and one-third of their counterparts in the other study sites. A number of factors may have been underlying this reported difficulty, such as a weak local labor market, a bad match of the enrollee's skills with the requirements of the available jobs, and personal characteristics that present a challenge to employment. Given the additional liabilities that ex-offenders bring to the labor market, it is not surprising that WtW enrollees in Milwaukee were most likely to attribute their lack of employment to difficulty in finding a job.

The enrollee's poor health or work-limiting disability was the second most frequently cited reason for lack of employment. Nearly one in four enrollees in West Virginia gave this explanation for their lack of a job one year after enrollment, as did about one in five enrollees in Baltimore County, Ft. Worth, Nashville, and Phoenix (Appendix Exhibit B.9). These high rates may have been due to higher incidences of poor health or disabilities in these sites and/or to a mix of available jobs that required higher levels of physical functioning.(45)For example, relatively large proportions of enrollees age 40 or older in Baltimore County (20 percent) and West Virginia (17 percent) may have made those groups more susceptible to health problems and disabilities.

Some enrollees who were not employed one year after entering WtW attributed their lack of a job to factors other than those just noted. These percentages were generally low, with some notable exceptions:

  • Nashville Works/Pathways. Sixteen percent of jobless enrollees in this program cited participation in education or training programs as their principal reason for not being employed. This is consistent with two characteristics of the Nashville program. First, an unusually large proportion of enrollees in that program (one in five) were in high school at the time of enrollment (Exhibit II.2). Second, the 44 percent rate of participation by Nashville enrollees in education and training programs following enrollment is the second highest of the sites studied (Exhibit III.4).

  • West Virginia-HRDF. Fifteen percent of enrollees in this program who were not employed a year after enrollment cited transportation problems as the principal reason. West Virginia's TANF recipients often reside in rural areas, but the state's jobs are concentrated in urban centers, making it difficult for many TANF recipients to get to jobs. The HRDF program included specific features to address this problem, but the survey evidence suggests that gaps in access to transportation remained.

  • Milwaukee-NOW. Ten percent of ex-offenders who enrolled in this program and were jobless a year later cited legal problems as the principal reason for not being employed, indicating that a criminal record can be a substantial barrier to employment.

What Were the Characteristics of Jobs Obtained by Enrollees?

Welfare policymakers are concerned not only that able-bodied TANF recipients and other at-risk adults become employed, but also that they eventually obtain jobs that allow them to achieve substantial self-sufficiency. Expectations for initial jobs may be more modest, based on an assumption of subsequent advancement to better jobs. This section describes the characteristics of the principal job held by WtW enrollees who were employed one year after program entry. Section C presents findings on job advancement.

What Kinds of Jobs Did Enrollees Obtain?

WtW enrollees who were employed one year after program entry were most frequently in office and administrative support or sales occupations. Office and administrative support was the most common occupational category for enrollees in all but the Milwaukee and West Virginia sites, the latter being the most rural of the 11 study sites (Appendix Exhibit B.10). Nearly half of employed enrollees in Phoenix were in this occupational group, as were about a fourth in many of the other sites. Wholesale and retail sales occupations were also common in most sites, typically accounting for 10 to 20 percent of employed enrollees. The predominantly male enrollees in Milwaukee were concentrated in occupations, such as production and transportation, that were distinctly different from those favored by the mostly female enrollees in the other study sites.

About half or more of the principal jobs held by employed enrollees in 10 of the study sites were in service industries  primarily business, health, and social services (Appendix Exhibit B.11). Reflecting differences between the sexes, Milwaukee was the exceptional site, wherein jobs in manufacturing and transportation/utilities were held by nearly a third of the employed enrollees, as compared with about a tenth of enrollees most of in the other sites. The industries in which WtW enrollees worked likely reflect both the industrial base of the local economies and the job placement strategies of the WtW programs. For example, in Boston  a major market for the provision of health care, and a site in which the WtW program partnered with several local health care providers to train and hire WtW enrollees  the principal jobs held by 29 percent of employed enrollees were in the health services industry.

How Many Hours per Week Did Enrollees Work?

WtW enrollees who were employed one year after program entry typically put in a full workweek on their primary job. The top panel of Exhibit IV.6 shows that the mean hours of work per week on the principal job ranged from 32 to 37 across the 11 study sites. In no site did more than 10 percent of employed enrollees work fewer than 20 hours per week on their principal job (Appendix Exhibit B.12). This finding further substantiates our earlier observation that the absence of any employment, rather than inadequate hours of work by those who were employed, accounted for almost all of the enrollees who were not working at levels consistent with the TANF 30-hour standard.

How Well Were Enrollees Compensated for Their Labor?

The elements of employment compensation considered in this evaluation are the hourly wage rate and fringe benefits, with a focus on health insurance, paid sick leave, and pensions.(46) As in the preceding two sections, the findings on compensation are based on the principal job held by an employed WtW enrollee one year after program entry.

a. What Was Their Hourly Rate of Pay?

WtW enrollees in eight of the study sites had a mean wage rate on their primary job of between approximately $7 and $8 per hour (Exhibit IV.6, bottom panel). West Virginia, Baltimore County, and Boston were the exceptions to this pattern. Although enrollees in West Virginia had more favorable employment outcomes than those in many of the other study sites, their mean hourly wage rate ($5.75) was notably low. In contrast, the mean wage rates for WtW enrollees in Baltimore County ($9.08) and Boston ($9.82) were well above those for enrollees in the other sites.

If the employed WtW enrollees had been consistently working 40 hours per week for an entire month at the hourly wage on their primary job and had no income from government programs, but did have their actual income from other sources (such as the earnings of other household members), then their households would have experienced poverty rates ranging from a low of 20 percent in Baltimore County and Boston to a high of 71 percent in West Virginia.(47) In nine of the sites, the hourly wage received by WtW enrollees on their primary job was such that more than one-third of them would have been living in poverty even if they had been working full time and receiving no government assistance. This finding is based on a measure of income that does not include the earned-income tax credit (EITC).

b. What Fringe Benefits Were Available to Them?

Overall, fringe benefits were available to only modest proportions of WtW enrollees on their principal job one year after entering the program (Exhibit IV.7). Consequently, the self-sufficiency of most enrollees, to the extent that they achieved it, was precarious  contingent on remaining healthy and continuing to work.

Paid sick leave was the most common, or tied for the most common, of three key fringe benefits in every study site, followed by a pension plan. Health insurance was the least common. Rates of availability of these three benefits ranged across the study sites as follows:(48)

  • Paid Sick Leave. The availability of paid sick leave ranged from a low of 25 percent in West Virginia to a high of 63 percent in Baltimore County.

  • Pension Plan. The availability of a pension plan ranged from a low of 24 percent in Chicago, West Virginia, and Yakima to a high of 54 percent in Boston.

  • Health Insurance.Participation in an employer's health insurance plan ranged from a low of 11 percent in Chicago to a high of 42 percent in Baltimore County.

In general, fringe benefits were available to employed enrollees at relatively low or high rates in the same study sites where wage rates were respectively relatively low or high. For example, in West Virginia, employed enrollees had the lowest mean wage rate and the lowest rates of availability of paid sick leave and a pension plan. And in Boston, where the mean wage rate was highest among the study sites, these two fringe benefits were available to relatively large proportions of employed enrollees.(49)

Did Enrollees Move from Their Initial Jobs to Better Jobs?

Job turnover is often viewed as a barrier to the long-term success of at-risk adults in the labor market. Consequently, some WtW programs, most notably those following the JHU model, include services designed to reduce the rates at which enrollees who have achieved employment leave their jobs. However, in the broader population, changing jobs is often viewed as a career-enhancing step. This section documents job exit rates among WtW enrollees and presents evidence that job changes by these individuals sometimes resulted in additional fringe benefits.

Did Employed Enrollees Commonly Leave Their Jobs?

It was not at all unusual for WtW enrollees who had achieved employment to leave their jobs. Exhibit IV.8 shows that in all but two study sites, more than half of enrollees who were employed on or following program entry left their initial job during the follow-up year. The rate of exit from the initial job was highest  at least 70 percent  in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Yakima. It was lowest in Baltimore County and St. Lucie County, where the JHU program provided services designed to reduce job loss, and in Boston, where employer-sponsored programs fostered strong employee-employer bonds.

Enrollees who did leave their initial job tended to obtain another, rather than remain out of work. Nashville typified this pattern, with 57 percent of enrollees who left their initial job able to obtain another (Appendix Exhibit B.6). Five sites achieved higher reemployment rates  among them Yakima and West Virginia, where about two-thirds of enrollees who departed from their initial job moved to a new job. The mean number of jobs held by ever-employed individuals during the year following enrollment in WtW ranged from a low of 1.4 jobs in Boston and Chicago to a high of 1.8 jobs in Yakima (Appendix Exhibit B.6).(50)

The most common reason for departure from the initial job in most of the study sites was a voluntary quit (Exhibit IV.9). But in Philadelphia and Yakima half of enrollees lost their jobs because the work period had ended; this is not surprising, given that the design of the Philadelphia TWC program entailed placing WtW enrollees in six-month transitional jobs, and seasonal jobs are prevalent in Yakima's agricultural-based economy.(51)Dismissal by the employer for cause (firing) accounted for only 7 to 13 percent of departures from the initial job in sites other than the JHU sites, where it accounted for 17 percent of departures in Baltimore County and 18 percent in St. Lucie County.

Did Job Changers Advance to Better Jobs?

WtW enrollees who left the first job they held on or following program entry for another job often received additional fringe benefits on the new job. They less frequently received a higher wage or worked longer hours. The overall pattern of these findings suggests that job turnover can be conducive to job advancement by at-risk adults.(52)

In nearly half of the 11 study sites, WtW enrollees who left their initial post-enrollment job received more fringe benefits on the most recent job they held during the year following program entry. Appendix Exhibit B.14 shows that job changers in Chicago, Ft. Worth, Philadelphia, West Virginia, and Yakima were significantly more likely to have an additional fringe benefit available to them on their most recent job than on their initial job post-enrollment in WtW. In no site did job changers experience a significant reduction in the availability of any one of the six fringe benefits considered in this evaluation.(53) Exhibit IV.10 displays the findings pertaining to participation in an employer's health insurance plan on the initial and most recent jobs.(54)

In general, job changes did not result in a higher wage or more work hours; however, some study sites did deviate from this pattern. Exhibit IV.11 shows that job changers experienced statistically significant increases in weekly hours of work only in Nashville and Philadelphia, and in the hourly wage only in Philadelphia, West Virginia, and Yakima.

These findings show that job turnover, rather than impeding enrollees' labor-market success, often resulted in a job that provided more fringe benefits. It less often led to a job that provided longer hours or higher wages. Fringe benefit availability, work hours, and wages were almost never lower on the new job. This does not mean that all job turnover is conducive to positive outcomes. Nor does it mean that turnover is the only or the most efficient route to a better job; enrollees who remained on the initial job may have experienced growth in hours, wages, and benefits, but the available data cannot support an investigation of whether this occurred.(55)

Exhibit IV.1
Percentage of WtW Enrollees Who Were Employed Sometime During the Year after Program Entry

Percentage of WtW Enrollees Who Were Employed Sometime During the Year after Program Entry

Exhibit IV.2
Mean Number of Months until WtW Enrollees' First Job after Program Entry

Mean Number of Months until WtW Enrollees' First Job after Program Entry

Exhibit IV.3
Mean Percentage of Time with a Job by WtW Enrollees During the Year After Program Entry

Mean Percentage of Time with a Job by WtW Enrollees During the Year After Program Entry

Exhibit IV.4
Employment Status of WtW Enrollees at the Time of Program Entry and One Year Later

Employment Status of WtW Enrollees at the Time of Program Entry and One Year Later

Exhibit IV.5
Hours of Work by WtW Enrollees on All Jobs Held One Year after Program Entry,
Assessed Relative to the Tanf Work Requirement

Hours of Work by WtW Enrollees on All Jobs Held One Year after Program Entry, Assessed Relative to the Tanf Work Requirement

Exhibit IV.6
Hours of Work and Wage Rate on the Principal Job Held by
WtW Enrollees One Year after Program Entry

ours of Work and Wage Rate on the Principal Job Held by WtW Enrollees One Year after Program Entry

Hours of Work and Wage Rate on the Principal Job Held by WtW Enrollees One Year after Program Entry

Exhibit IV.7
Percentages of WtW Enrollees with Fringe Benefits on the Principal Job
Held One Year after Program Entry

Percentages of WtW Enrollees with Fringe Benefits on the Principal Job Held One Year after Program Entry

Exhibit IV.8
Rate of Departure by WtW Enrollees from the Initial Job Held after Program Entry

Rate of Departure by WtW Enrollees from the Initial Job Held after Program Entry

Exhibit IV.9
Circumstances of Departure by WtW Enrollees from the Initial Job Held After Program Entry

Circumstances of Departure by WtW Enrollees from the Initial Job After Program Entry.

Exhibit IV.10
Job Advancement During the Year after Program Entry: Percentage of Employed Enrollees
Who Participated in Employer's Health Insurance Plan

Job Advancement During the Year after Program Entry: Percentage of Employed Enrollees Who Participated in Employer's Health Insurance Plan

Exhibit IV.11
Job Advancement During the Year after Program Entry

Job Advancement During the Year after Program Entry, Mean Hours.

Job Advancement During the Year after Program Entry, Mean Wage.

Endnotes

34.  The JHU model targeted individuals who were already employed. However, some enrollees were not yet working or had been working but had recently lost their jobs at the time of program entry. In these relatively unusual cases, program staff began serving the enrollees prior to their employment and the services included assistance in finding jobs.

35.  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.

36.  Especially in the extensive pre-employment services 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.

37.  If enrollees who were never employed during the follow-up year are excluded from the analysis, Exhibit IV.3 shows that the average proportion of the year that the remaining enrollees were employed is about 10 to 20 percentage points higher than for all enrollees in the non-JHU sites.

38.  The incidence of job loss during the year following enrollment was, in fact, relatively high in the two "rapid job entry" sites  70 percent in Phoenix and 71 percent in Yakima (Exhibit IV.8).

39.  Hamilton (2002) reports a finding from the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies that, among programs with a strong focus on employment, those that emphasize job search while also providing a menu of short-term pre-employment services are more effective than those that offer primarily job search. An important dimension of the enhanced effectiveness of the mixed approach is an increase in the stability of employment.

40.  The incidence of job loss during the follow-up year was moderate in four of the five "extensive pre-employment services" sites  approximately 50 to 60 percent in Boston, Chicago, Nashville, and West Virginia. In contrast, the incidence of job loss was high, 74 percent, in Philadelphia. The latter may have been due in part to a program design that entailed placing enrollees in transitional subsidized jobs as a precursor to paid employment.

41.  We caution the reader not to interpret the differences in employment rates over the year following WtW enrollment (Exhibit IV.4) as impacts of the local programs. While the programs probably contributed to these positive differences, other factors were no doubt at work. One of those factors is the well-documented tendency for individuals to enter employment and training programs shortly after experiencing a dip in their employment. Even in the absence of the programs, many of these individuals could have had better employment outcomes over the succeeding months as a consequence of their own efforts and better luck.

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

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

44.  The figures presented in Appendix Exhibit B.8 can be transformed (by dividing the sum of the percentages in rows two and three by the sum of the percentages in rows one through three) to obtain the proportion of enrollees who were not satisfying the TANF 30-hour work requirement because they were employed but their hours of work were insufficient. This proportion was 26 percent in St. Lucie County and was lower in all of the other study sites. For example, it was just 5 percent in Phoenix.

45.  In four of these five sites (West Virginia, Baltimore County, Ft. Worth, and Nashville), WtW enrollees had relatively high rates of work-limiting health problems at the time of enrollment (Exhibit II.2).

46.  This evaluation also examined the availability of dental insurance, paid holidays, and paid vacation leave. Appendix Exhibit B.12 presents findings for all of the six types of benefits that were examined.

47.  Household poverty rates for employed enrollees in all of the study sites were simulated under the assumptions of 40 hours of work per week and 4.3 weeks per month at the actual wage rate on the primary job, no income from government programs (including the EITC), and whatever other income their households actually received in the month prior to the month of the survey interview. The simulated poverty rates are as follows (in percentages): Baltimore County 20, Boston 20, Chicago 60, Ft. Worth 44, Milwaukee 37, Nashville 42, Philadelphia 64, Phoenix 35, St. Lucie County 42, West Virginia 71, and Yakima 40. Alternatively, if the measure of income during the month prior to the month of the survey interview is assumed to include the enrollee's actual earnings during that month, no income from government programs, and whatever other income the household actually received, then the simulated poverty rates are higher, often substantially so: Baltimore County 42, Boston 58, Chicago 82, Ft. Worth 65, Milwaukee 59, Nashville 70, Philadelphia 82, Phoenix 76, St. Lucie County 63, West Virginia 87, and Yakima 61. An important factor contributing to the differences between these two sets of poverty rates is the lack of consistent full-time work by employed WtW enrollees over an entire month.

48.  The definition of availability of a benefit varies depending on the type of benefit. Availability of health insurance refers to active participation in an employer's health insurance plan. Availability of paid sick leave and a pension refers to the potential for the enrollee to participate in these plans one year after enrolling in WtW (i.e., at the time of the interview), whether or not the enrollee actually participated in or received benefits from the plans.

49.  Two study sites present exceptions to the positive relationship between wages and fringe benefits. In St. Lucie County, employed enrollees had relatively low wages but relatively high rates of availability of fringe benefits. Many of these enrollees were already employed when they entered the WtW program, thus affording them the opportunity to accrue greater tenure on their jobs, and perhaps satisfy the tenure requirements that many firms impose for access to fringe benefits. The opposite pattern prevailed in Yakima, where wages were high and the availability of fringe benefits was low. We can only speculate that this reflected the local economy and the types of jobs available and/or the job-placement strategy pursued by the Yakima WtW program.

50.  The measure of jobs held during the year following enrollment in WtW includes all jobs without regard for the degree of temporal overlap in the jobs.

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

52.  The findings on job advancement are based on comparisons between the most recent job held during the year after enrolling in WtW and the initial job for individuals who changed jobs during that time.

53.  In a few of the study sites, the estimated rates of availability of some fringe benefits are lower on the most recent job than on the first job; however, none of the difference in these estimated rates are statistically significant.

54.  The improvement in fringe benefits (and wages) may be inflated in Philadelphia and possibly other study sites as well by the fact that the local WtW program placed large proportions of enrollees in an initial job that was temporary and subsidized. Thus, by design, the initial job typically offered few or no benefits and paid a low wage.

55.  The 12-month follow-up survey gathered data on job characteristics at one point in time for each employer. Consequently, the data cannot support an analysis of job progression while an enrollee remained with an employer.

How Were WtW Enrollees Faring One Year after Entering the Program?

As noted in the preceding chapter, employment rates for WtW enrollees in 9 of the 11 study sites were much higher one year after entering the program than at the time of entry. Nevertheless, fewer than half of enrollees were employed in eight of the sites. Fringe benefits were available to only a fraction of those who were employed, and for many the rate of pay was too low to have allowed them to escape poverty even if they had been working full time. Consequently, many enrollees needed assistance to make ends meet. Even with that assistance most remained in poverty, though relatively few experienced high levels of material distress.

This chapter presents a broad range of measures of the well-being of WtW enrollees and their families one year after they entered WtW. Much of the variation in the values of these measures across the 11 study sites can be attributed to differences among the enrollees at the time of entry.(56)This chapter simply describes how enrollees and their families were faring one year after program entry; it does not present estimates of the impacts of the WtW programs on their well-being. For reasons that were given in Section I.C, this evaluation did not attempt to estimate the impacts of the WtW programs that were studied.

What Assistance Did Enrollees Receive to Make Ends Meet?

Notwithstanding the modest success that enrollees experienced in the labor market after entering WtW, most needed help from outside their households to make ends meet. This section documents the monetary and nonmonetary assistance that enrollees received from extended family members and friends, community organizations, and government programs.

Did Enrollees Receive Assistance from Family/friends and Community Organizations?

Most WtW enrollees received assistance from extended family members and friends during the year following program entry, but only a minority received help from community organizations (Exhibit V.1).(57) Across the study sites, about 7 or 8 of every 10 enrollees received help from family and friends  most often in the form of transportation, which was received by half or more of enrollees in all sites other than Philadelphia (Appendix Exhibit B.15). The enrollees in Philadelphia had the lowest rate of receipt of any assistance from family and friends. In contrast, the male noncustodial parents on probation or parole who comprised the enrollees in the Milwaukee NOW program had the highest rate of receipt of this type of assistance, which was especially important given that community organizations were largely unresponsive to their needs and there were few government programs that they could turn to for support.

Assistance from community organizations was less pronounced among WtW enrollees. Exhibit V.1shows that between one-quarter and one-half of enrollees across the study sites received assistance from food pantries or soup kitchens, crisis hotlines or centers, thrift shops, or churches. Enrollees in Philadelphia and Milwaukee had the lowest rates of receipt of assistance from community organizations. The unique characteristics of the Milwaukee enrollees may have made it more difficult for them to access assistance from community organizations that could have addressed their particular needs.

Did Enrollees Receive Assistance from Government Programs?

Receipt of assistance from government programs was pervasive among WtW enrollees one year after program entry.(58) Only in Milwaukee were fewer than half of enrollees and their households receiving some form of government assistance (Exhibit V.2), which is further evidence of their limited options for assistance. In other sites, rates of receipt of such assistance ranged from 65 percent in Baltimore County to 87 percent in Chicago and Philadelphia. Among enrollees whose households were receiving some form of government assistance one year after enrollment, the average monthly amount ranged from about $550 to $750, except in the two JHU sites, where it was $508 and $441, respectively (Appendix Exhibit B.16).

Food stamps were the most common type of government assistance for WtW enrollees in every site one year after program entry, with rates of receipt as high as 82 percent (Appendix Exhibit B.16). TANF was the second most common form of government assistance in nine sites; in Baltimore County and Milwaukee the rate of receipt of Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance exceeded that of TANF. In every site, very small percentages  8 percent or less  of enrollees received assistance from each of the other programs considered in this evaluation.(59)

In all of the study sites except Baltimore County, Milwaukee, and Nashville, WtW enrollees were far less likely to be receiving TANF one year later than they were at the time of enrollment.(60) Recipiency rates in many of the sites were roughly 50 percent lower at the end of the follow-up period than at the beginning (Exhibit V.3). While the WtW programs may have contributed to these differences, other factors may also have been instrumental. Consequently, we again caution the reader not to interpret the differences as impacts of the programs.

Did Enrollees Achieve Independence from TANF Through Employment?

The movement of families off welfare and into work was the fundamental objective of both PRWORA and the legislation that authorized the WtW grants program. Perhaps the best available measure of the success of the program in achieving this objective is the proportion of enrollees who were employed and off TANF at the end of the evaluation's one-year follow-up period. In all of the study sites except the two hosting the JHU program, no more than 40 percent of enrollees were employed and off TANF one year after program entry (Exhibit V.4). In six of these nine sites, the proportion of enrollees who were on TANF and not working was about as large or larger than the proportion who were employed and off TANF  meaning that heavy dependency on welfare was more common than self-sufficiency.(61)

Becoming employed and leaving TANF is a milestone for a WtW enrollee, but securing employment even without leaving TANF is a noteworthy partial success. One year after entering the program, roughly 10 percent of WtW enrollees in most of the study sites were employed and on TANF (Exhibit V.4). Nashville, West Virginia, Philadelphia, and Yakima were the best-performing sites according to this measure, with values of 15 percent or higher.

How Much Income Did Enrollees Receive and Was it Adequate?

The total income received by the households of WtW enrollees was very low or moderately low in all of the study sites one year after program entry. In all but one site, household incomes were below the poverty threshold for more than half of the enrollees. Nevertheless, they did not report having experienced high levels of material distress during the year following enrollment.

What Were the Amounts and Sources of Household Income for Enrollees?

The mean monthly total income received by the households in which WtW enrollees were residing one year after program entry ranged from $1,000 to $1,600 across the study sites (Exhibit V.5).(62) It was nearly $1,400 or more in only four sites: Baltimore County, Milwaukee, Yakima, and St. Lucie County.

Earnings by WtW enrollees and the persons with whom they were living were critical sources of household income in these four higher-income sites; the combined earnings from these two sources exceeded $1,000 per month, on average. Milwaukee provides a striking example of how important the earnings of other household members can be in determining total household income. In this site, earnings by other persons with whom WtW enrollees were living accounted for $686, or nearly half of the mean monthly total household income. This is consistent with the pattern of strong support from family and friends and weak support from other sources for the Milwaukee enrollees.

Low combined earnings by enrollees and persons with whom they were living characterized the household incomes of enrollees in the seven study sites where the mean total income was substantially less than $1,400 per month. The low combined earnings were only partially offset by relatively high amounts of government assistance, leaving mean total incomes well below those in the four higher-income sites. In West Virginia for example, the mean combined earnings of enrollees and others in their households was just $656 and the mean total income was only $1,186 (Exhibit V.5).

Did Enrollees Escape Poverty?

The incomes received by the households of WtW enrollees one year after they entered the program generally did not exceed the federal poverty threshold.(63)Baltimore County was the only site wherein a majority of enrollees had above-poverty incomes (Exhibit V.6). In contrast, more than two-thirds of enrollees in Boston, Chicago, Ft. Worth, Nashville, Philadelphia, Phoenix, West Virginia, and Yakima were living in poverty at the one-year follow-up point. And in six of these sites (all but West Virginia and Yakima), most enrollees were living in severe poverty, with total incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty threshold.

Did Enrollees Experience Material Distress?

A high incidence of poverty did not necessarily mean that WtW enrollees experienced especially high levels of material distress. This evaluation measured five types of material distress that enrollees and their families may have experienced during the year after program entry: inability to fully pay the rent or mortgage, eviction, inability to fully pay a utility bill, termination of a utility, and disconnection of the telephone. Among these, inability to fully pay the rent or mortgage was most common in Milwaukee and St. Lucie County, whereas inability to pay a utility bill in its entirety was most common in the other sites (Appendix Exhibit B.22). An index created for this evaluation summarizes the five types of material distress on a 0-to-1 scale, with higher values indicating greater distress.(64), (65) Across the study sites, the mean value of the index ranged from 0.23 to 0.32, corresponding to the experience of between one and one-and-a-half types of distress (Exhibit V.7).

A relatively high incidence of poverty in a study site was not always accompanied by a relatively high mean value of the index of material distress. For example, WtW enrollees in Chicago, Philadelphia, and West Virginia had relatively low mean index values despite having the highest poverty rates among the study sites. In these same three sites, enrollees had very high rates of receipt of assistance from government programs (Exhibit V.2), which may have helped them to avoid the most extreme consequences of poverty.

Did Employed Enrollees Have Higher Incomes?

Enrollees who were employed one year after entering WtW typically had much higher total household incomes and were less likely to be living in poverty than those who were not employed. Nevertheless, the two groups experienced similar levels of material distress in most of the study sites.

Employed enrollees in all but the St. Lucie County site enjoyed significantly higher mean incomes than those who were not employed (Appendix Exhibit B.23). The average income differential associated with employment exceeded $500 per month in six of the sites. Given these differences in income, it is not surprising that household poverty rates were significantly lower for employed enrollees in all of the sites except St. Lucie County and West Virginia, as shown in Exhibit V.8. But the link between poverty and material distress again proved to be weak  in most of the sites where employed enrollees had significantly lower rates of poverty they did not have correspondingly lower mean values of the index of material distress.(66)

What Specific Hardships Did Enrollees Experience?

Although the household poverty rate at the one-year follow-up point was high for WtW enrollees in most of the study sites, the incidence of specific hardships was generally low. This section presents findings on homelessness and lack of health insurance. Due to the unique population served by the WtW program in Milwaukee, these two hardships were especially prevalent at that site.

Did Enrollees Experience Homelessness?

WtW enrollees in three of the study sites exhibited high rates of homelessness. Fifteen percent of enrollees in Boston lived in emergency or long-term shelters sometime during the post-enrollment year (Exhibit V.9). A more extreme form of homelessness was common among enrollees in Milwaukee; 17 percent of them lived on the streets sometime during the year. These two forms of homelessness were both prevalent at the same high rate of 12 percent among WtW enrollees in Phoenix.(67) In sharp contrast, the rates of these two forms of homelessness did not exceed 2 percent in St. Lucie County and West Virginia. And in the remaining study sites they were 7 percent or lower.(68)

WtW enrollees in Milwaukee were far more likely than enrollees in any of the other study sites to have experienced the more extreme of the two forms of homelessness  living on the streets. Furthermore, the ratio of the rate of living on the streets to the rate of living in shelters, was far larger in Milwaukee (3.4) than in any other site, the next highest being 1.8 in Baltimore County. This high ratio suggests that WtW enrollees in Milwaukee had needs for shelter that were not being met. This is further evidence of a point made earlier in this chapter (Section A.1) that the unique characteristics of WtW enrollees in Milwaukee made it more difficult for them to access needed assistance from community organizations.

Did Enrollees or Their Children Lack Health Insurance?

Almost all children of WtW enrollees were covered by public or private health insurance at the one-year follow-up point, but coverage for the enrollees themselves was markedly spottier. Coverage rates for children were 95 percent or higher in seven of the study sites and were no less than 85 percent in the other four sites (Exhibit V.10).(69) Most of the enrollees in Milwaukee were not receiving TANF and therefore were unlikely to qualify for Medicaid; consequently, only one-third of them were covered by health insurance. In two other sites  Baltimore County and Ft. Worth  somewhat less than three-fourths of enrollees were covered by health insurance one year after they entered WtW. In contrast, the coverage rate for enrollees exceeded 90 percent in Boston, Nashville, and Philadelphia and was just short of that threshold in Chicago.(70)

Exhibit V.1
Percentage of WtW Enrollees Who Received Assistance from Support Networks During the Year after Program Entry

Percentage of WtW Enrollees Who Received Assistance from Support Networks During the Year after Program Entry

Exhibit V.2
Percentage of WtW Enrollees Who Were Receiving Assistance
from Government Programs One Year after Program Entry

Percentage of WtW Enrollees Who Were Receiving Assistance from Government Programs One Year after Program Entry

Exhibit V.3
Percentages of WtW Enrollees Who Were Receiving TANF
at the Time of Program Entry and One Year Later

Percentages of WtW Enrollees Who Were Receiving TANF at the Time of Program Entry and One Year Later

Exhibit V.4
Employment and Receipt of TANF by WtW Enrollees One Year after Program Entry

E5.4.gif

Exhibit V.5
Mean Monthly Household Income of WtW Enrollees,
by Source, One Year after Program Entry

Mean Monthly Household Income of WtW Enrollees, by Source, One Year after Program Entry

Exhibit V.6
Incidence of Household Poverty among WtW Enrollees One Year after Program Entry

Incidence of Household Poverty among WtW Enrollees One Year after Program Entry

Exhibit V.7
Mean Value of Index of Material Distress Experienced by WtW Enrollees
And Their Households During the Year after Program Entry

Mean Value of Index of Material Distress Experienced by WtW Enrollees And Their Households During the Year after Program Entry

Exhibit V.8
Incidence of Household Poverty among WtW Enrollees,
by Employment Status, One Year after Program Entry

Incidence of Household Poverty among WtW Enrollees, by Employment Status, One Year after Program Entry

Exhibit V.9
Percentages of WtW Enrollees Who Experienced Two Forms of Homelessness
During the Year after Program Entry

Percentages of WtW Enrollees Who Experienced Two Forms of Homelessness  During the Year after Program Entry

Exhibit V.10
Percentages of WtW Enrollees and Their Children Who Were Covered by Health Insurance
One Year after Program Entry

Percentages of WtW Enrollees and Their Children Who Were Covered by  Health Insurance One Year after Program Entry

Endnotes

56.  For example, the JHU sites in Baltimore County and St. Lucie County primarily served persons who were already working at the time of enrollment, whereas the other nine study sites targeted persons who were not working. Based on this difference in targeting strategies alone, we would expect enrollees in the JHU sites to be doing better, on average, than enrollees in the other sites one year after program entry.

57.  The evaluation's 12-month follow-up survey gathered information on help received from family and friends in the form of transportation, use of a telephone, a place to stay, groceries or meals, children's things, and money. It also gathered information on help received from the following community organizations: food pantry or soup kitchen, crisis hotline or center, thrift shop, and church. See Appendix Exhibit B.15 for details.

58.  The 12-month follow-up survey explicitly inquired about the receipt of income from seven government programs: food stamps, TANF, Supplemental Security Income or Disability Insurance, Social Security retirement or survivors benefits, Unemployment Insurance, General Assistance, and foster care or adoption assistance. Some respondents reported assistance from other government programs and that was also included in this analysis.

59.  The analysis of assistance from government programs included programs for which we were able to conveniently measure both the receipt and the dollar value of benefits. Measurement of the value of public housing would have been problematic in the 12-month follow-up survey. Consequently, we did not attempt to gather information on the dollar value of either public housing or Section 8 housing subsidies in the survey. If housing assistance (public housing and Section 8 subsidies) had been included in the analysis of recipiency, it would have been the first or second most common form of government assistance in five sites and the third or fourth most common in six sites. Appendix Exhibit B.18 reports rates of receipt of housing assistance ranging from 5 percent in Milwaukee to 78 percent in Boston.

60.  Many of the Milwaukee enrollees were incarcerated at the time of enrollment and consequently prohibited from receiving TANF. During the ensuing year, most left prison or jail and a few joined existing TANF units or formed new units, causing the TANF receipt rate to rise from 1 to 6 percent.

61.  Milwaukee  where the NOW program had a distinctive focus on ex-offenders/noncustodial parents  presents the sharpest deviation from the pattern of greater welfare dependency than self-sufficiency. Also, in West Virginia and Yakima more enrollees were employed and off of TANF than were on TANF and not working.

62.  The measure of total income reported here includes the value of food stamp benefits.

63.  To be consistent with the standard methodology for determining poverty status, food stamps were excluded from the measure of household income for the poverty analysis.

64.  The value of the index of material distress was computed for an enrollee by adding up the number of affirmative responses to the questions regarding the presence of the five types of material distress and dividing by the number of valid responses. If all five types of distress were experienced, the index took on its maximum value of 1; if only one type was experienced, it took on a value of 0.2 (assuming valid responses to all five questions); and if no type of distress was experienced, the index took on its minimum value of 0.

65.  The design for the index of material distress closely resembles that for the "index of material hardship," which was used in several random-assignment evaluations of state welfare-reform initiatives in the 1990s (Bloom et al. 2002, Fraker et al. 2002, and Miller et al. 2000). However, two of seven specific types of distress, both reflecting failure to see a health care professional when needed, were omitted from the index in this study. Those two types of distress were instead included in this study's index of health-related distress (Appendix Exhibit B.22).

66.  Appendix Exhibit B.23 shows that poverty status differed significantly by employment status, but the mean value of the index of material distress did not in five of the study sites (Ft. Worth, Milwaukee, Nashville, Philadelphia, and Phoenix). Both measures differed significantly by employment status in only four of the sites (Baltimore County, Boston, Chicago, and Yakima).

67.  Enrollees who experienced one of the two forms of homelessness often experienced the other form as well. Consequently, in most sites the overall incidence of homelessness was substantially less than the sum of the two rates. The overall rates of homelessness are presented in Appendix Exhibit B.22.

68.  Rates of homelessness were not consistently high in sites where rates of participation in government housing programs (receipt of housing subsidies or residence in public housing) were low. Exhibit B.18 shows that, across the 11 study sites, Boston had the highest rate of participation by WtW enrollees in government housing programs, while St. Lucie and West Virginia were among the four sites with the lowest rates of participation in government housing. Yet Exhibit V.9 shows high rates of homelessness in Boston and low rates in St. Lucie County and in West Virginia. On the other hand, enrollees in Milwaukee rarely participated in government housing programs but they had relatively high rates of homelessness.

69.  The health insurance coverage rate for children was high over the entire one-year follow-up period, except in three sites  2 in 10 enrollees in Baltimore County and Phoenix and 3 in 10 enrollees in Ft. Worth had at least one child for whom there was a lapse in health insurance coverage sometime during the follow-up period (Appendix Exhibit B.25).

70.  Consistent with their generally high levels of health insurance coverage, WtW enrollees and their families did not experience much health-related distress over the evaluation's one-year follow-up period. The mean value of an index summarizing three types of health-related distress ranged from 0.20 to 0.29 in eight of the study sites (Appendix Exhibit B.22). This was indicative of less than one type of distress, on average. The mean value of the index was below 0.20 in Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia, where health insurance coverage rates were especially high.

Conclusions

Enrollees in local programs funded by WtW grants received diverse services and experienced substantial economic progress during the initial year following program entry. Despite that progress, the year-end levels of employment and self-sufficiency were below what policymakers and taxpayers may have anticipated. These broad conclusions are supported by the statistical findings presented in this report, which are based primarily on survey data provided by WtW enrollees in 11 study sites across the country. This chapter summarizes key specific conclusions regarding the services received by WtW enrollees, their employment outcomes, and their well-being one year after enrollment.

WtW Enrollees Received Services That Differed Greatly Across Sites

Rather than mandating a specific set of services, the WtW grants program provided local programs with funding and considerable latitude to design their own service packages. It is therefore not surprising that enrollees in the local programs received services that varied greatly from one site to the next. The following conclusions are based on enrollee self-reports of the services they actually received, rather than on the design of the programs in which they enrolled.

WtW enrollees were much more likely to receive employment preparation services than skill enhancement services. Consistent with the legislation that authorized the WtW grants program, more than two-thirds of enrollees in each of the 11 study sites received services that were designed to prepare them for and move them into employment. However, there was considerable variability across the sites in the types and duration of these services. Only in three sites (Baltimore County, St. Lucie County, and Milwaukee) did more than a third of enrollees receive services, such as those provided by longer-term education and training programs, that were designed to enhance their skills so that they could qualify for better jobs.

The employment preparation services that WtW enrollees received were more consistent with rapid job entry in some sites than in others. WtW enrollees in Phoenix and Yakima received employment preparation services that were highly consistent with a rapid transition to employment. Those services consisted primarily of brief job readiness training followed by assisted job search. In contrast, enrollees in Boston, Chicago, Nashville, Philadelphia, and West Virginia typically received extended job readiness training (or, in the case of Nashville, education and training) followed by job search assistance. The time it took to become employed was generally lower for enrollees in the former group of sites than the latter, reflecting these differences in services received.

The few WtW enrollees who did receive skill enhancement services typically began receiving them prior to obtaining employment. Even as subsequently amended, the federal legislation that authorized the WtW grants program reflects a philosophy that skill enhancement services (education and training) should commence after, not before, employment. But this proved to be the exception rather than the rule. In most of the study sites, only between about one-fourth and one-half of WtW enrollees who participated in basic education and training programs had obtained their initial post-enrollment jobs prior to entering those programs. The proportions were marginally higher for advanced education and training programs; however, only in Baltimore and St. Lucie counties (hosts to the JHU program, which targeted employed individuals) and in Yakima were at least three-fourths of the enrollees who participated in advanced programs employed prior to entering those programs.

The proportion of WtW enrollees who received any employment preparation services appears to be related to the design of the WtW enrollment process. In every study site, some individuals reported that they had not received any employment preparation services after enrolling in WtW. The proportion of such individuals was small in most sites, but it was as large as one-third in Ft. Worth. This outcome may have been a function of the WtW enrollment process in Ft. Worth, which typically occurred at TANF offices rather than at the locations of WtW service providers. If enrollees referred to WtW service providers failed to show, they would receive no services. In contrast, WtW enrollment in Philadelphia typically occurred at the location of a service provider, thus minimizing the risk of no-shows. And the proportion of enrollees who reported that they had not received any employment preparation services was also lowest in Philadelphia.

Most Enrollees Obtained Jobs, but Pay Was Low and Rates of Job Loss Were High

Most WtW enrollees found jobs during the year following program entry. However, they tended to receive low wages and few fringe benefits and most of them left their initial jobs.

Enrollees who were employed worked a lot of hours but received low wages and few fringe benefits. In every study site, at least two-thirds of the enrollees who were employed one year after entering WtW were working 30 or more hours per week on their principal job. However, their hourly wage rate tended to be low, averaging between $7 and $8 per hour in most sites. If all employed enrollees had been consistently working 40 hours every week and had not been receiving any cash assistance through government programs, more than one-third would have been living in poverty in nine of the study sites. While low wages kept people in poverty, the scarcity of fringe benefits prolonged dependence on social welfare programs, most notably Medicaid. The proportion of enrollees who received health insurance benefits on their principal job exceeded 20 percent in only one of the study sites. Other fringe benefits, such as paid sick leave and a pension plan, were more common  nevertheless, fewer than half of employed enrollees received each of these benefits on their principal job in all but 9 of the 11 study sites.

Most individuals who enrolled in WtW subsequently obtained jobs, but their employment tended to be unstable. Roughly 5 to 25 percent of WtW enrollees in the non-JHU study sites were employed when they entered WtW. In contrast, much larger proportions  between 60 and 80 percent  were employed sometime during the year following enrollment. Thus, most WtW enrollees subsequently experienced some degree of success in the labor market, but they had trouble sustaining it. In the non-JHU sites, enrollees were employed for considerably less than half the year, on average; at the end of the year, about 40 percent of them were working for pay, an employment rate similar to that for adults nationwide who have left TANF.

The rate of job loss was high among WtW enrollees; however, many who left their initial job moved to a better one. Roughly two-thirds of WtW enrollees who became employed left their initial job within a year of entering the program. However, most of them found another, often better, job. In more than half of the study sites, job changers benefited from an increase in some positive job attribute: more fringe benefits, a higher wage rate, or more work hours.

Despite Employment Gains, Most Enrollees Were Poor and Dependent on Assistance One Year after Entering WtW

Instability in employment meant that many enrollees who had found jobs sometime during the year were no longer working at the end of the year. As noted, only about 40 percent of enrollees in the non-JHU sites were employed at that time. The resulting diminished earnings among enrollees as a group forced many to rely on assistance from outside the household and caused end-of-year poverty rates to be higher than they would have been had the employment gains been sustained.

Enrollees typically availed themselves of diverse sources of financial and nonfinancial support one year after entering the WtW program. In most of the study sites, TANF participation rates fell dramatically in the year following enrollment in WtW. However, large majorities of enrollees, with the notable exception of the noncustodial parents/ex-offenders in the Milwaukee program, continued to receive assistance from other government programs, especially food stamps. During the year, most also received assistance from extended family members or friends, whereas far fewer received help from community organizations.

Few WtW enrollees were self-sufficient one year after program entry. Only in the Baltimore and St. Lucie county sites for the JHU program were more than half of enrollees self-sufficient (employed and not on TANF) one year after they entered WtW. In the nine other study sites, just 20 to 40 percent of enrollees were self-sufficient. Typically, the percentage of enrollees who were dependent (on TANF and not working) at the end of the year was as large or larger than the percentage who were self-sufficient.

Poverty was pervasive among WtW enrollees one year after they entered the program, but its incidence was lower among those who were employed. The end-of-year poverty rate for WtW enrollees exceeded 60 percent in every study site except Baltimore County, where it was 49 percent. However, obtaining and maintaining employment was often an important step out of poverty. Except in St. Lucie County and West Virginia, the rate of poverty among WtW enrollees who were employed at the end of the year following program entry was 20 to 30 percentage points lower than that for enrollees who were not employed. Even so, the generally low wages earned by enrollees and their lack of consistent full-time employment over an entire month meant that even for this group the incidence of poverty was high in an absolute sense  50 percent or more in every study site except Baltimore County.

Appendix A: Supporting Exhibits for Chapter II: Characteristics of Welfare-to-work Enrollees at Program Entry

Exhibit A.1 History of the Receipt of Public Assistance by Welfare-to-work Enrollees at the Time of Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit A.1
History of the Receipt of Public Assistance by Welfare-to-work Enrollees
at the Time of Program Entry

(Percentages)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
TANF History
Currently receiving 24 56 91 92 1 64 92 68 42 77 87
Received in the past; not currently 70 39 7 5 13 35 5 27 56 10 5
Never received 6 5 2 3 86 1 3 6 2 13 9
Total time on TANF for All Enrollees
Never on TANF 6 5 2 3 86 1 3 6 2 13 9
0 1 Year 12 27 18 51 9 19 9 22 53 26 14
1 5 years 34 39 44 30 4 40 45 50 21 37 50
> 5 years 48 29 36 16 1 40 42 22 24 24 27
Total time on TANF if Ever On
0 l year 13 28 18 53 63 19 9 24 54 30 15
1-5 years 36 41 45 31 32 41 47 53 21 42 55
> 5 years 51 31 37 16 5 40 44 23 25 28 30
 
Other Public Assistance Receipt
Yes 53 8 11 10 20 15 13 11 10 26 NA
No 47 92 89 90 80 85 87 89 90 74 NA
Sample Size 121 797 1,915 996 276 643 1,279 286 168 290 369
Source: 1999-2002 baseline survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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.
NA = not available.

Exhibit A.2 History of the Employment and Earnings of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees at the Time of Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit A.2
History of the Employment and Earnings of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees
at the Time of Program Entry
(Percentages)
  Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Employment History
Currently employed 83 6 3 15 25 27 8 3 72 5 6
EmployedВ inВ theВ past 17 88 89 82 72 71 82 92 28 79 86
Never employed in the past 1 7 7 3 4 2 10 4 0 16 8
Earnings in Last 12 Months
< $1,000 19 68 64 61 65 64 73 62 25 76 NA
$1,000 - <$5,000 16 20 25 23 26 25 21 26 31 17 NA
$5,000 - <$10,000 30 7 6 9 5 8 5 8 32 6 NA
>$10,000 36 5 4 7 3 3 2 4 12 1 NA
Hourly Wage Rate, Most Recent Joba
<$5 1 3 3 5 2 4 2 2 1 19 NA
$5 - < $7 24 18 43 43 35 42 51 40 58 59 NA
$7 - < $9 39 34 36 30 41 43 31 35 32 16 NA
> $9 36 44 18 21 22 11 16 22 10 7 NA
Sample Size 121 797 1,915 996 276 643 1,279 286 168 290 369
Source: 1999-2002 baseline survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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.
a If previously employed.
NA = not available.

Exhibit A.3 Employment and Earnings of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees in The Four Quarters Prior to the Quarter of Program Entry

Exhibit A.3
Employment and Earnings of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees
in The Four Quarters Prior to the Quarter of Program Entry
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
4 Quarters Before Enrollment
Employment rate 51% NA 36% 54% 37% NA 35% 50% 49% 21% 38%
Mean quarterly earnings $1,468 NA $652 $1,107 $765 NA $429 $891 $899 $284 $595
3 Quarters Before Enrollment
Employment rate 52% NA 36% 51% 40% NA 35% 50% 48% 18% 40%
Mean quarterly earnings $1,456 NA $610 $1,034 $806 NA $423 $933 $894 $225 $644
2 Quarters Before Enrollment
Employment rate 52% NA 35% 49% 44% NA 36% 49% 49% 18% 37%
Mean quarterly earnings $1,487 NA $542 $879 $800 NA $415 $837 $865 $205 $547
1 Quarter Before Enrollment
Employment rate 64% NA 31% 46% 45% NA 34% 45% 57% 12% 31%
Mean quarterly earnings $1,702 NA $408 $663 $717 NA $295 $645 $820 $132 $438
All 4 Qtrs. Before Enrollment
Employed in any quarter 77% NA 58% 76% 65% NA 64% 75% 74% 27% 61%
Employed in every quarter 32% NA 12% 24% 20% NA 10% 23% 22% 6% 12%
Median annual earnings $3,603 NA $314 $1,601 $807 NA $410 $1,367 $1,302 $0 $499
Sample Size 242 NA 3,249 3,201 276 NA 2,543 497 234 337 618
Source: State Unemployment Insurance earnings records.
NA = not available.

Appendix B: Supporting Exhibits for Chapters III - V: Participant Outcomes

Exhibit B.1 Receipt of Employment Preparation Services by Welfare-to-work Enrolles During the Year after Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit B.1
Receipt of Employment Preparation Services by Welfare-to-work Enrolles
During the Year after Program Entry (Percentages)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Labor Market
В В В Job readiness training 43.6 59.9 71.7 38.7 40.0 60.2 80.1 62.2 49.5 73.1 52.0
В В В Job search or placement services 43.9 56.0 66.5 43.5 44.9 59.6 72.6 62.8 47.3 63.9 60.4
В В В Life skills or self-management training 27.8 33.0 41.7 25.2 28.5 42.5 51.6 47.2 31.7 43.8 24.7
Health
В В В Mental health services 14.3 10.7 4.2 8.0 6.7 14.3 6.8 11.1 5.3 12.0 8.4
В В В Substance abuse treatment 7.2 2.4 3.8 3.2 20.6 4.6 3.9 3.9 2.3 3.0 8.0
В В В Treatm't for other chronic health condition 15.9 11.0 8.7 9.1 6.9 14.6 11.0 12.0 8.7 23.3 14.2
Counseling
В В В Talked with caseworker or counselor 35.9 26.3 19.2 19.4 31.6 29.3 20.0 36.0 32.8 24.5 31.0
В В В Peer support group or discussion group 21.2 13.9 12.3 10.9 27.9 20.5 15.8 14.8 5.7 9.6 12.0
Mediation (with employer, landlord, etc.) 31.2 7.8 4.6 7.0 13.5 12.7 6.3 11.5 29.2 12.9 12.2
Legal Assistance 6.0 6.3 3.2 5.1 13.6 7.9 3.7 6.5 7.4 8.5 8.4
Any Service (any of the above) 73.3 79.2 82.5 67.8 80.2 84.7 89.2 82.8 79.6 87.1 85.7
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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.

Exhibit B.2 Duration of Employment Preparation Services Received by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry(Median Number of Days Received Service Among those Receiving)

Exhibit B.2
Duration of Employment Preparation Services Received by
Welfare-to-Work Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry

(Median Number of Days Received Service Among those Receiving)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Labor Market
В В В Job readiness training 8.0 44.0 30.3 5.5 13.0 18.0 44.0 21.0 6.0 23.8 8.7
В В В Job search or placement services 4.3 14.0 8.7 3.5 7.5 3.5 5.5 3.5 1.5 3.5 3.5
В В В Life skills or self-management training 7.5 16.5 11.0 3.5 16.0 8.7 23.8 11.0 3.5 15.2 4.0
Health
В В В Mental health services 18.0 12.0 9.0 7.5 18.0 12.0 13.0 3.5 3.5 7.0 24.0
В В В SubstanceВ abuseВ treatment 104.0 95.3 22.0 11.0 14.0 23.8 30.3 28.0 17.3 1.5 23.8
В В В Treatm't for other chronic health condition 7.5 3.5 7.5 7.5 1.5 3.5 7.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.5
Counseling
В В В Talked with caseworker or counselor 4.5 7.0 3.5 4.0 10.0 7.5 3.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.5
В В В Peer support group or discussion group 3.5 10.5 8.0 4.3 17.3 9.0 17.3 14.0 1.5 13.0 6.0
Mediation (with employer, landlord, etc.) 1.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 3.5 1.5 3.5 3.5
Legal Assistance 1.5 1.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Sample Sizea 73 481 1,317 585 157 473 993 181 115 232 248
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: Each service day counts as one time on which the service was received.
a The sample size shown is the number of survey respondents who received any service. This is the numerator for the percentage in the final row of outcomes in Table 1. It is the upper bound for the size of the sample used to compute the median number of days of receipt of a specific service.

Exhibit B.3 Usefulness of Employment Preparation Services for Welfare-to-work Enrollees Who Received Them During the Year after Program Entry (Mean Value of Index of Usefulness; Maximum Value = 3)

Exhibit B.3
Usefulness of Employment Preparation Services for Welfare-to-work Enrollees
Who Received Them During the Year after Program Entry

(Mean Value of Index of Usefulness; Maximum Value = 3)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Labor Market
В В В Job readiness training 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.4
В В В Job search or placement services 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.5
В В В Life skills or self-management training 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.4
Health
В В В Mental health services 2.4 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 1.6
В В В SubstanceВ abuseВ treatment 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.4 1.8 2.6 1.9 2.2
В В В Treatm't for other chronic health condition 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.2
Counseling
В В В Talked with caseworker or counselor 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.2
В В В Peer support group or discussion group 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.1
Mediation (with employer, landlord, etc.) 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.4
Legal Assistance 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.9
Sample Sizea 73 481 1,317 585 157 473 993 181 115 232 248
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: Each service day counts as one time on which the service was received.
a The sample size shown is the number of survey respondents who received any service. This is the numerator for the percentage in the final row of outcomes in Table 1. It is the upper bound for the size of the sample used to compute the mean value of the index of usefulness for a specific service.

Exhibit B.4 Receipt of Skill Enhancement Services by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry

Exhibit B.4
Receipt of Skill Enhancement Services by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees
During the Year after Program Entry
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Receipt of Service (%)
В В В Basic education and training programs
В В В В В В GEDВ orВ highВ school 14.3 8.7 9.9 15.8 23.2 24.4 16.2 15.3 14.4 13.9 20.5
В В В В В В Adult basic education 8.6 7.1 5.1 6.2 10.5 14.4 9.2 9.2 10.0 11.1 10.0
В В В В В В EnglishВ asВ aВ secondВ language 0.9 4.6 0.4 0.5 2.3 0.2 2.7 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.4
В В В В В В Any of the above 19.3 16.6 12.6 18.8 25.4 28.6 21.5 19.8 18.6 20.3 22.1
В В В Any advanced educ. & training pgm.b 28.2 16.5 12.9 11.8 13.8 19.0 9.8 8.6 31.4 17.8 18.2
В В В Any program (any of the above) 42.6 30.6 24.3 29.0 33.3 44.2 29.6 25.3 47.0 34.6 37.2
Mean Hours of Receipt per Weeka
В В В GED or high school 12.5 15.8 15.4 18.0 12.1 20.1 13.2 16.6 16.3 14.4 12.2
В В В Adult basic education 12.4 15.4 16.8 17.9 12.8 18.6 14.4 19.4 12.3 18.8 10.7
В В В English as a second language NA 16.0 12.2 13.9 8.1 NA 16.2 NA NA 21.2 10.9
В В В Advanced educ. & training pgms.b, c 15.2 19.2 19.6 22.1 21.2 21.5 20.7 22.5 13.5 26.6 11.9
Mean Duration of Receipt (in Months)
В В В GED or high school 4.0 3.4 3.8 3.9 5.0 6.0 4.0 3.4 3.9 4.6 5.5
В В В Adult basic education 6.9 4.7 3.0 5.1 2.7 4.7 3.3 2.3 3.5 2.5 5.7
В В В English as a second language NA 6.0 1.7 4.5 3.9 NA 3.0 NA NA 1.2 2.4
В В В Advanced educ. & training pgms.b, c 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.7 2.0 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.0 3.6 3.4
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum
a Among WtW enrollees who participated in the specified type of education or training program.
b The 12-month follow-up survey gathered information on participation in the following advanced education and training programs: vocational or technical training, occupational skills training, and college programs.
c For enrollees who participated in multiple advanced programs, hours and months of participation are for the most recent program.

Exhibit B.5 The Timing of the Commencement of Skill Enhancement Services for Welfare-to-Work Enrollees Relative to Their Initial Post-Entry Employment (Percentages)

Exhibit B.5
The Timing of the Commencement of Skill Enhancement Services for
Welfare-to-Work Enrollees Relative to Their Initial Post-Entry Employment

(Percentages)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Basic Programs
GED or High chool
В В В Began before initial employment 32.3 64.1 61.4 72.8 44.8 69.5 46.3 75.1 12.5 54.0 36.2
В В В Began on or after initial employment 67.7 36.0 38.6 27.2 55.2 30.5 53.7 24.9 87.6 46.0 63.8
Adult Basic Education
В В В Began before initial employment 17.5 73.0 61.3 77.8 55.5 64.4 44.3 64.8 33.5 46.5 34.4
В В В Began on or after initial employment 82.5 27.0 38.7 22.2 44.5 35.6 55.7 35.2 66.5 53.5 65.6
All Basic Programs (the above plus ESL)
В В В Began before initial employment 27.7 69.8 64.1 73.6 45.4 67.6 46.2 71.3 20.5 48.5 35.3
В В В Began on or after initial employment 72.3 30.2 35.9 26.4 54.6 32.4 53.8 28.7 79.5 51.5 64.7
Advanced Programs
В В В Began before initial employment 18.5 65.1 57.4 53.9 40.2 47.2 51.9 70.8 12.7 58.0 25.2
В В В Began on or after initial employment 81.5 34.9 42.6 46.1 59.8 52.8 48.1 29.2 87.3 42.0 74.9
All Programs (any of the above)
В В В Began before initial employment 20.0 68.6 61.2 66.7 47.7 59.8 48.5 73.7 15.4 55.9 31.7
В В В Began on or after initial employment 80.0 31.4 38.8 33.3 52.3 40.2 51.5 26.3 84.6 44.1 68.3
Sample Size 42 183 379 242 59 240 309 52 59 88 106
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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
Note 2: Statistics are based on WtW enrollees who received the designated skill enhancement services beginning on or following the date of enrollment in WtW. For an enrollee, value = "before" if the first day of service receipt preceded the first day of employment; value = "on or after" if the first day of service receipt was on or following the first day of employment.

Exhibit B.6 Jobs Held by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry (Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)

Exhibit B.6
Jobs Held by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry

(Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)
Measure of Jobs Held Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
All Jobs Since Enrollment
Any Job 90.9 65.4 64.5 66.0 72.3 70.1 74.4 67.4 97.1 79.9 80.4
If Any Job В В В В В В В В В В В
В В В Number of jobs В В В В В В В В В В В
В В В В В В 1 60.3 71.1 70.6 54.4 51.0 59.9 54.6 59.7 57.0 55.7 45.5
В В В В В В 2 33.8 22.2 22.8 30.1 32.9 29.8 30.9 31.7 31.5 27.7 32.7
В В В В В В 3 3.5 4.9 5.5 11.6 12.1 8.2 11.0 6.5 7.8 11.5 16.0
В В В В В В 4В orВ more 2.4 1.8 1.1 3.9 4.0 2.1 3.5 2.1 3.7 5.1 5.8
В В В В В В MeanВ numberВ ofВ jobs 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
В В В Left first job 42.3 48.7 54.6 63.4 61.2 61.5 73.8 69.6 52.2 58.5 70.5
В В В В В В Found another job (if left first) 80.3 49.3 45.1 63.4 57.1 56.8 52.7 53.2 68.9 67.8 64.7
Jobs Held 1 Year After Enrollment
Any Job 71.8 42.8 40.5 40.5 41.1 42.6 35.8 32.6 73.0 57.1 48.7
If Any Job В В В В В В В В В В В
В В В Number of Jobs В В В В В В В В В В В
В В В В В В 1 97.0 98.1 98.0 95.0 87.5 95.6 96.3 97.2 95.4 95.2 88.4
В В В В В В 2 3.0 2.0 1.5 5.0 12.5 4.4 3.7 2.8 4.6 3.5 9.1
В В В В В В 3 or more 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.6
В В В В В В Mean number of jobs 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.

Exhibit B.7 Employment of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry (Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)

Exhibit B.7
Employment of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry

(Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)
Employment Measure Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Proportion of Year Employed
000 .049 10.6 37.5 38.1 37.0 29.7 34.0 28.7 35.4 3.5 24.4 21.2
.050 .249 4.5 11.3 10.5 13.2 16.1 12.3 16.9 12.9 8.1 14.5 14.0
.250 .499 11.4 13.5 15.2 13.1 16.9 15.7 21.4 17.5 13.7 15.8 14.9
.500 .749 11.8 13.4 12.5 13.2 7.9 11.7 15.9 14.7 16.2 21.3 16.0
.750 .949 9.4 12.6 12.6 10.3 10.7 10.7 9.3 14.2 19.7 12.4 15.5
.950 1.000 52.4 11.7 11.1 13.1 18.7 15.5 7.9 5.2 38.7 11.7 18.5
Mean Proportion of Year Employed
В В В All enrollees 0.724 0.379 0.368 0.369 0.411 0.400 0.362 0.351 0.716 0.436 0.488
В В В If emp. sometime during year 0.798 0.587 0.573 0.565 0.576 0.580 0.494 0.525 0.737 0.553 0.610
Number of Employment Spells
В В В 0 9.1 34.9 35.6 34.4 28.3 30.3 26.2 32.8 2.9 20.5 19.9
В В В 1 66.1 52.1 51.0 42.7 50.6 48.3 51.2 46.6 69.1 54.8 50.1
В В В 2 22.5 11.4 11.8 18.8 17.5 18.7 17.3 16.2 24.1 16.7 22.1
В В В 3 or more 2.2 1.6 1.6 4.1 3.6 2.7 5.3 4.5 4.0 8.0 7.9
Number of Spells w/o Employment
В В В 0 47.9 9.1 7.0 9.7 15.2 12.7 5.4 2.7 28.1 6.7 14.8
В В В 1 29.9 67.8 66.8 61.4 56.0 57.8 56.1 57.4 45.8 58.5 49.8
В В В 2 15.6 20.0 22.5 20.3 22.7 24.1 31.3 30.9 20.3 24.4 24.7
В В В 3 or more 6.6 3.1 3.7 8.6 6.2 5.4 7.2 9.0 5.9 10.4 10.7
Duration Until First Job (if employed after enrollment)
В В В 1 month or less 8.8 14.2 22.1 18.6 16.7 14.7 23.8 26.8 37.1 17.9 26.4
В В В 2 3 months 11.8 27.4 23.2 20.7 17.8 27.6 22.3 31.2 17.1 23.6 23.1
В В В 4 1 51.9 26.7 24.1 23.5 18.6 29.3 24.2 18.6 20.9 27.3 18.0
В В В 7 0 21.5 29.5 26.4 30.2 42.0 24.4 27.2 20.2 22.2 23.6 27.2
В В В MoreВ thanВ 12В months 6.0 2.3 4.2 7.0 4.9 4.0 2.6 3.2 2.7 7.7 5.3
В В В Mean duration (months)a 4.9 4.7 4.5 5.2 5.8 4.6 4.3 3.8 4.0 5.1 4.3
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
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 enrolleess in the respective sites. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
Note 2: Survey interviews were conducted as soon as possible following the one-year anniversary of enrollment in WtW. Some were conducted several months after the anniversary, resulting in a reference period that is longer than 12 months for those sample members. The distribution of the timing of interviews is presented in Appendix A.
a The mean duration until the first job was calculated only for sample members who obtained employment after enrolling in WtW. Those who were employed at enrollment or who were never employed after enrollment were excluded from this calculation.

Exhibit B.8 Hours of Work by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees on All Jobs Held One Year after Program Entry (Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)

Exhibit B.8
Hours of Work by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees on All Jobs Held One Year after Program Entry

(Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)
Hours Worked per Week Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
0 (not employed) 28.3 57.3 59.8 59.8 59.7 57.8 64.4 67.4 27.1 43.4 51.5
1 to 19 5.4 3.8 2.8 3.7 1.4 3.5 1.5 1.5 3.7 4.4 3.4
20 to 29 2.9 6.5 7.2 5.4 5.3 8.9 9.3 1.8 5.7 8.7 11.4
30 or More 63.5 32.4 30.2 31.0 33.6 29.9 24.9 29.3 63.6 43.5 33.8
MeanВ NumberВ ofВ Hours 26.3 14.5 13.7 14.2 15.4 13.8 12.2 12.3 25.8 19.8 16.6
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.

Exhibit B.9 Principal Barrier to Employment for Welfare-to-Work Enrollees Who Were Not Employed One Year after Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit B.9
Principal Barrier to Employment for Welfare-to-Work Enrollees
Who Were Not Employed One Year after Program Entry

(Percentages)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Children
В В В MaternityВ leaveВ orВ pregnancy 4.7 8.1 7.5 7.3 0.0 7.6 9.6 13.3 20.2 3.9 4.3
В В В Child care problem or can'tВ afford child care 6.5 11.4 6.8 13.2 4.2 9.0 5.0 10.7 2.2 6.1 1.3
В В В Child's health problem 0.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 0.0 4.9 4.4 6.3 0.0 0.8 1.9
В В В Wants to stay home with children 2.7 2.6 1.6 2.5 0.0 0.7 0.9 5.4 4.4 3.2 3.2
В В В Other child-related problem 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.6 1.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Labor Market
В В В Difficulty finding a job 25.5 29.0 36.0 17.9 47.2 23.0 30.6 13.9 10.7 26.5 26.6
В В В Just got laid off or fired; hasn't found job yet 4.4 3.8 7.5 3.1 6.6 3.1 6.4 2.6 15.1 0.9 11.9
В В В Just moved; hasn't found job yet 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.5 1.6 0.6 1.5 0.6 4.4 3.1 2.0
В В В Just finished school/military; hasn't found job 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.7 1.9 0.0 0.0
Health
В В В Own health problem or disability 22.2 15.3 12.3 16.9 7.0 16.5 15.5 17.9 6.3 24.2 14.6
В В В Relative's health problem or disability 0.0 0.3 1.5 1.0 1.2 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.0 4.5 0.7
Skills
В В В In school or training 7.9 7.1 4.3 5.7 5.3 16.1 4.5 1.3 4.5 2.5 5.3
В В В Lack of skills or education 7.6 4.5 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.5 1.9 2.7 7.7
Other
В В В Transportation problem 5.5 0.0 2.4 13.3 2.8 2.5 0.6 3.8 6.8 15.0 6.8
В В В Arrested or other legal problem 4.6 1.0 0.9 1.2 9.8 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.9 0.0 4.5
В В В Other 8.5 11.4 10.9 10.2 11.2 7.2 13.9 16.0 19.6 6.6 9.1
Sample Size 28 336 939 538 77 316 669 145 41 114 148
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum tp something other than 100.

Exhibit B.10 Occupation of the Principal Job Held by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees One Year after Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit B.10
Occupation of the Principal Job Held by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees One Year after Program Entry

(Percentages)
Occupation Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Business Operations and Management 0.0 0.8 0.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Technical Occupations 0.0 4.9 0.7 3.0 1.1 2.4 2.4 1.2 4.0 0.0 2.4
Education, Training, & Library Occs. 23.0 7.6 2.8 5.8 0.0 4.5 2.0 3.2 7.9 0.0 6.0
Healthcare Support 4.1 11.4 10.2 10.5 2.2 4.5 12.3 5.1 8.6 13.4 5.3
Protective Services 4.3 1.5 8.7 1.7 2.2 2.2 6.4 0.0 3.2 0.6 2.3
Food Preparation and Serving 11.4 7.7 10.7 8.6 20.8 12.9 7.4 5.3 9.6 11.0 14.1
Cleaning and Maintenance 8.5 5.2 8.3 7.9 7.7 9.4 14.2 5.8 8.5 18.8 4.8
Personal Care and Services 4.8 8.5 14.0 8.0 4.9 9.9 8.1 4.7 7.0 4.8 13.1
Sales 5.3 10.4 16.2 14.0 9.6 22.0 15.6 11.2 13.5 17.2 10.7
Office & Administrative Support 30.0 33.1 19.3 23.5 5.9 23.0 25.3 48.9 16.4 11.7 19.9
Production 0.0 1.1 2.3 3.8 11.2 1.2 1.6 3.3 10.7 4.9 5.6
Transportation 3.0 3.9 4.8 6.4 18.4 5.5 2.6 5.2 8.0 8.1 6.5
Other Occupations 5.6 4.0 1.3 3.8 16.1 2.6 1.2 6.1 2.7 9.6 9.2
Sample Size 72 262 626 328 85 235 420 72 104 151 141
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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
Note 2: The statistics presented in this table pertain to the principal job held at the time of the survey interview. If there were multiple jobs at that time, then the principal job was identified as the job on which the most hours were worked in a typical week and, in the event of a tie on hours worked, the job with the earliest starting date.

Exhibit B.11 Industry of the Principal Job Held by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees One Year after Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit B.11
Industry of the Principal Job Held by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees One Year after Program Entry

(Percentages)
Industry Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Services
В В В Lodging 0.0 4.8 2.9 2.7 0.0 2.5 2.0 2.7 6.7 3.1 1.1
В В В Business 5.2 10.0 14.3 11.0 9.3 10.7 22.0 20.6 8.7 11.4 4.3
В В В Health 10.9 28.6 17.3 16.5 2.2 12.9 13.4 9.0 14.2 12.5 19.0
В В В Legal 1.0 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
В В В Educational 14.9 6.8 4.7 4.8 0.0 10.3 6.5 1.4 7.9 1.7 4.8
В В В Social 25.6 13.6 9.6 10.2 3.4 13.9 15.9 6.5 13.8 13.3 19.6
В В В Personal & private households 0.0 4.2 7.0 4.3 3.8 5.0 3.5 2.7 1.9 4.2 3.0
В В В Other 0.0 1.2 3.0 2.5 10.3 3.1 3.3 2.9 0.8 1.4 4.3
В В В Subtotal: services 57.5 69.4 58.9 53.0 29.0 58.8 67.2 47.1 54.0 47.5 55.9
Retail Trade
В В В GeneralВ merchandiseВ stores 1.3 0.7 2.5 2.0 1.1 2.2 0.5 0.0 0.8 1.9 0.0
В В В Food stores 7.0 2.6 3.8 3.1 1.1 1.3 2.0 3.8 4.9 0.6 4.1
В В В Eating and drinking places 4.7 6.5 9.5 6.7 19.7 13.5 4.9 5.3 11.5 16.2 6.3
В В В Other 4.4 6.8 7.7 9.7 5.2 10.2 10.2 6.5 9.5 5.6 9.7
В В В Subtotal: retail trade 17.3 16.6 23.6 21.6 27.1 27.2 17.6 15.6 26.7 24.2 20.2
Manufacturing 2.5 1.5 4.0 7.2 19.9 1.3 2.2 6.7 0.8 7.0 3.0
Transportation and Utilities 6.0 2.8 6.2 5.1 9.8 4.2 2.7 6.7 2.6 5.0 5.4
Wholesale Trade 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 8.0 1.3 1.3
Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 2.5 4.5 4.9 6.7 1.5 2.6 4.1 11.3 1.4 3.2 0.5
Public Administration 12.4 3.4 1.0 1.5 1.1 3.4 4.8 9.6 3.2 5.4 6.4
Other 1.7 1.5 1.2 3.5 10.5 2.1 1.2 3.1 3.5 6.5 7.2
Sample Size 72 262 626 328 85 235 420 72 104 151 141
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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
Note 2: The statistics presented in this table pertain to the principal job held at the time of the survey interview. If there were multiple jobs at that time, then the principal job was identified as the job on which the most hours were worked in a typical week and, in the event of a tie on hours worked, the job with the earliest starting date.

Exhibit B.12 Hours of Work and Remuneration on the Principal Job Held by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees One Year after Program Entry (Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)

Exhibit B.12
Hours of Work and Remuneration on the Principal Job Held by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees
One Year after Program Entry
(Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)
Job Characteristic Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Hours Worked per Week
Less than 20 hours 7.5 9.0 7.1 9.5 3.5 9.4 4.4 4.5 5.1 8.5 8.5
20 to 29 hours 4.0 16.3 18.7 13.8 14.4 20.8 26.2 5.6 7.8 16.2 23.8
30 hours or more 88.5 74.7 74.2 76.7 82.2 69.8 69.5 89.9 87.2 75.3 67.7
MeanВ hoursВ perВ week 35.9 33.5 33.6 34.5 36.7 32.3 33.3 36.9 34.6 34.1 32.4
Hourly Wage
Less than $5.15 (min.В wage) 6.3 2.8 9.6 5.5 13.4 6.4 8.5 8.6 11.2 19.3 7.4
$5.15 to $7.99 30.6 14.6 53.1 50.2 45.9 52.2 54.6 38.3 57.0 70.9 59.8
$8.00 to $9.99 28.4 29.7 23.0 24.9 24.5 32.1 23.8 36.2 24.4 4.9 18.0
$10.00 or more 34.7 53.0 14.3 19.4 16.2 9.3 13.1 17.0 7.5 5.0 14.8
Mean wage (dollars) $9.08 $9.82 $7.58 $8.01 $7.44 $7.58 $7.36 $7.83 $7.08 $5.75 $7.90
Insurance Benefits on Job
Participates in health ins. plan 42.0 17.4 11.4 22.1 25.7 18.1 12.7 18.8 18.2 11.8 18.0
Participates in dental ins. plan 35.3 13.3 10.7 21.4 17.9 16.3 12.1 11.2 14.3 11.1 11.8
Other Benefits on Job
Paid sick leave available 62.6 53.7 30.6 41.6 32.3 40.4 32.1 41.7 46.0 24.6 37.8
Paid vacation leave available 67.9 59.7 42.3 53.8 47.5 48.4 38.8 54.6 58.1 34.3 35.3
Paid holidays available 71.5 61.0 47.5 54.4 47.9 48.0 44.3 57.9 54.2 37.1 43.5
Pension plan available 46.7 53.8 24.1 36.9 27.8 37.0 28.0 40.8 38.7 24.3 24.4
Mean Round-Trip Commuting
Time (minutes) 56.6 75.8 99.9 41.7 59.5 45.1 80.8 75.0 36.7 50.0 35.6
Sample Size 72 262 626 328 85 235 420 72 104 151 141
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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
Note 2: The statistics presented in this table pertain to the principal job held at the time of the survey interview. If there were multiple jobs at that time, then the principal job was identified as the job on which the most hours were worked in a typical week and, in the event of a tie on hours worked, the job with the earliest starting date.

Exhibit B.13 Circumstances of Departure by WtW Enrollees from the Initial Job after Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit B.13
Circumstances of Departure by WtW Enrollees from the Initial Job after Program Entry

(Percentages)
Circumstance of Departure Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Reason for Departure from Job
Quit 46.6 42.4 37.2 46.6 52.5 45.8 31.9 55.2 52.5 46.3 34.6
Laid off 19.9 12.2 19.6 11.3 9.0 9.4 8.4 13.5 7.8 7.3 10.6
Fired 16.6 12.7 13.9 13.1 12.9 7.1 10.2 7.7 18.2 10.3 9.8
Work period ended 4.3 17.0 19.1 13.6 9.5 26.4 35.2 12.7 6.8 26.0 37.6
Self-employed job ended 0.0 4.6 6.2 6.4 5.1 5.6 6.0 7.5 6.8 3.9 3.3
Other reason 12.6 11.0 4.1 9.1 11.0 5.7 8.4 3.5 7.9 6.3 4.1
If Quit, Reason (multiple reasons possible)
Took another job 37.1 11.8 17.0 9.4 12.5 12.1 14.8 10.2 26.3 22.1 38.3
Dissatisfied with job 23.4 23.9 30.1 19.5 36.3 24.2 24.6 23.4 26.7 19.5 26.8
Enrolled in school 5.0 0.0 2.4 3.6 2.2 4.7 2.7 1.8 0.0 1.6 1.9
Child-related reason 0.0 15.1 9.6 14.9 2.2 15.8 14.5 14.0 6.5 3.2 6.9
Transportation problem 4.2 6.3 5.1 15.4 9.9 10.8 8.1 13.8 6.1 1.6 6.6
Pregnancy or maternity leave 0.0 10.2 6.5 8.0 0.0 3.8 4.9 5.5 4.3 6.8 1.9
Problem with boss or co-worker 17.5 6.2 7.2 15.0 11.2 7.0 7.5 14.5 14.0 6.4 11.6
Own/relativeboss or co-worker 0.0 10.9 10.3 10.0 2.2 10.6 14.7 13.9 9.5 21.9 11.6
Legal or immigration problem 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.3 1.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.6
Retired or does not need income 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other reason 27.0 22.9 14.2 17.4 19.3 13.9 11.5 24.3 15.1 18.7 16.3
No reason given 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
If Laid Off or Fired, Reason (mult. reasons pos.)
Attendance or performance problem 38.5 32.1 26.7 35.3 40.3 31.2 35.0 24.3 48.9 44.4 46.2
Problem with boss or co-worker 11.8 6.3 8.5 5.8 17.2 5.4 7.4 8.7 4.9 4.9 0.0
Not enough work 49.1 34.4 34.3 31.2 15.1 38.9 33.0 30.4 4.2 29.1 29.7
Arrested or incarcerated 19.5 0.0 2.3 1.0 4.9 2.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1
Other reason 11.7 32.1 28.9 25.2 29.6 21.9 24.1 36.1 33.6 21.7 15.3
No reason given 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 4.7 8.4 0.0 0.0
Sample Size 38 191 541 335 85 239 605 100 76 129 159
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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
Note 2: The statistics presented in this table are for WtW enrollees who left the first job that they held on or following program entry. If there were multiple first jobs, then the principal jobВ the job with the most hours worked in a typical weekВ was selected. In the event of a tie on hours worked, several additional criteria were applied in sequence.

Exhibit B.14 Comparison of the Initial Job and the Most Recent Job Held by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry: Hours of Work and Remuneration (Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)

Exhibit B.14
Comparison of the Initial Job and the Most Recent Job Held by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees
During the Year after Program Entry: Hours of Work and Remuneration

(Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville
Job Characteristic First Most Recent Sig. First Most Recent Sig. First Most Recent Sig. First Most Recent Sig. First Most Recent Sig. First Most Recent Sig.
Hours Worked per Week
Less than 20 hours 2.9 2.4 В 7.9 6.3 В 11.0 10.1 В 5.1 8.9 В 0.0 0.0 В 8.1 8.6 В
20 to 29 hours 5.0 8.4 В 19.7 21.2 В 14.2 17.3 В 15.4 14.2 В 3.6 8.0 В 35.1 18.9 ***
30 hours or more 92.1 89.2 В 72.4 72.6 В 74.7 72.6 В 79.6 76.9 В 96.4 92.0 В 56.9 72.5 ***
Mean hours per week 36.6 37.3 В 34.0 33.5 В 32.6 32.7 В 35.4 34.2 В 41.2 38.7 В 30.0 33.6 ***
Hourly Wage
Less than $5.15 (min. wage) 3.6 5.8 В 4.2 1.0 В 4.4 10.7 *** 4.7 9.3 * 1.9 10.9 * 6.1 7.5 В
$5.15 to $7.99 44.9 37.1 В 28.6 24.7 В 68.2 55.1 *** 54.2 57.2 В 46.5 42.5 В 70.2 61.5 В
$8.00 to $9.99 29.9 20.0 В 28.4 29.3 В 17.3 20.4 В 28.4 22.0 * 35.8 32.1 В 15.5 24.9 **
$10.00 or more 21.6 37.1 В 38.8 45.1 В 10.1 13.9 В 12.8 11.5 В 15.8 14.5 В 8.3 6.1 В
Mean wage (dollars) $8.32 $8.39 В $9.19 $9.39 В $7.14 $7.41 В $7.69 $7.25 В $8.11 $7.46 ** $7.02 $7.13 В
Insurance Benefits on Job
Participates in health ins. plan 13.0 30.7 В 9.6 6.7 В 8.8 11.3 В 11.2 15.8 В 15.3 15.4 В 12.1 10.4 В
Participates in dental ins. plan 10.1 22.8 В 8.4 6.8 В 6.5 8.7 В 11.3 11.7 В 12.3 16.1 В 10.5 8.0 В
Other Benefits on Job
Paid sick leave available 31.9 51.7 В 29.4 38.8 В 22.4 29.6 * 29.2 37.1 В 30.2 25.2 В 23.1 32.7 В
Paid vacation leave available 39.9 46.2 В 41.6 43.0 В 25.9 36.6 *** 34.2 43.4 * 31.2 32.3 В 29.5 35.6 В
Paid holidays available 45.8 51.6 В 45.1 49.8 В 29.2 41.7 *** 41.7 45.4 В 37.5 37.7 В 29.9 38.5 В
Pension plan available 27.3 39.0 В 27.0 42.2 В 19.8 19.9 В 30.6 29.9 В 23.5 25.5 В 24.6 28.2 В
Sample Size 31 31 В 94 94 В 243 243 В 200 200 В 49 49 В 135 135

Exhibit B.14 (continued)

  Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Job Characteristic First Most Recent Sig. First Most Recent Sig. First Most Recent Sig. First Most Recent Sig. First Most Recent Sig.
Hours Worked per Week
Less than 20 hours 4.0 3.9   3.4 3.8   3.3 0.0 *** 5.0 9.0   4.2 8.9  
20 to 29 hours 44.2 31.9 *** 15.9 18.0   13.2 17.8   19.9 13.5   43.1 24.4 ***
30 hours or more 51.9 64.1 *** 80.7 78.3   83.4 82.2   75.1 77.5   52.7 66.7 **
Mean hours per week 29.6 31.6 *** 36.1 35.4   35.0 34.8   32.8 33.8   30.9 31.3  
Hourly Wage
Less than $5.15 (min. wage) 8.6 7.3   7.7 7.5   1.7 7.0   43.2 26.2 *** 2.4 7.7 **
$5.15 to $7.99 73.8 60.0 *** 52.4 45.9   72.1 58.1   54.1 62.2   80.3 63.9 ***
$8.00 to $9.99 13.4 24.0 *** 33.2 33.5   24.5 27.4   0.0 5.7 *** 10.1 17.7 *
$10.00 or more 4.2 8.7 ** 6.7 13.2   1.7 7.5 *** 2.7 5.9   7.2 10.8  
Mean wage (dollars) $6.28 $7.09 *** $7.14 $7.59   $6.76 $7.08   $4.34 $5.57 *** $7.27 $7.62 *
Insurance Benefits on Job
Participates in health ins. plan 3.5 8.6 *** 5.6 9.2   11.7 16.7   6.8 11.8   3.1 12.1 **
Participates in dental ins. plan 2.0 7.2 *** 9.2 9.5   4.8 8.6   7.0 8.3   0.0 6.2 ***
Other Benefits on Job
Paid sick leave available 11.2 25.0 *** 35.7 31.8   36.2 38.7   16.2 24.3   27.5 30.4  
Paid vacation leave available 13.3 28.9 *** 39.5 41.9   42.0 48.9   16.6 25.2 * 14.4 25.6 **
Paid holidays available 16.9 34.3 *** 42.4 41.8   41.4 44.2   15.1 26.3 ** 36.6 34.1  
Pension plan available 7.6 21.0 *** 41.0 38.3   32.0 27.0   11.3 20.4 *** 6.8 17.7 **
Sample Size 331 331   54 54   54 54   88 88   104 104  
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
Note 2: The statistics presented in this table pertain to WtW enrollees who left the first job that they held on or following enrollment in WtW and who subsequently obtained another job. If there were multiple first jobs or multiple most recent jobs, then the principal job  the job with the most hours worked in a typical week  was selected. In the event of a tie on hours worked, several additional criteria were applied in sequence.
*/**/*** Difference between the first job and the most recent job is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.

Exhibit B.15 Reliance on Support Networks by Welfare-to-work Enrollees During the Year after Program Entry (Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)

Exhibit B.15
Reliance on Support Networks by Welfare-to-work Enrollees
During the Year After Program Entry

(Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Private Support (parents, relatives, friends, etc.)
Transportation 54.2 52.8 49.8 60.6 59.6 64.2 43.3 57.1 67.3 51.6 58.0
Use of a telephone 28.0 41.8 51.6 54.4 58.0 45.7 39.1 53.8 50.5 51.8 49.5
Place to stay 19.5 32.9 35.5 39.5 55.5 24.9 28.0 42.1 30.2 33.3 34.2
Groceries or meals 29.3 37.3 34.8 39.5 51.8 35.7 31.4 38.5 42.9 26.2 39.6
Children's things (clothes, toys, diapers, etc.) 29.6 34.1 32.2 40.5 33.9 36.3 26.3 35.7 39.9 27.4 31.1
Gifts or loans of money 32.5 31.6 29.6 26.6 43.0 30.3 26.2 26.3 38.0 22.2 28.6
Any private support (any of the above) 69.6 72.3 71.7 80.5 81.7 77.0 64.7 77.9 82.2 74.9 74.4
Index of private support (mean)a 0.32 0.38 0.39 0.44 0.50 0.40 0.32 0.42 0.45 0.35 0.40
Community Support
Food pantry or soup kitchen 24.0 29.9 19.6 30.6 18.4 21.2 10.8 19.5 16.5 31.6 31.9
Crisis hotline or walk-in center 8.6 11.4 5.9 11.2 7.9 6.5 9.4 7.4 7.9 6.0 4.4
Thrift shop, Goodwill Ind., or similar groups 20.2 15.5 14.0 21.7 13.7 15.2 12.1 18.2 22.9 25.8 23.4
Church (money, food, or other assistance) 23.5 15.6 13.9 30.6 15.8 24.1 11.4 29.0 13.4 21.2 15.6
Any community support (any of the above) 35.7 36.7 28.4 45.9 23.6 37.9 23.6 43.3 35.0 48.4 44.4
Index of community support (mean)a 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.23 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.18 0.15 0.21 0.19
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum
a The index value for a survey respondent is the proportion of the total number of types of support that were actually received (0 to 1 scale).

Exhibit B.16 Monthly Government Assistance Received by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees and Their Households One Year after Program Entry

Exhibit B.16
Monthly Government Assistance Received by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees and
Their Households One Year after Program Entry
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Receipt of Assistance, by Type (%)
TANF 15.3 40.9 40.4 42.9 5.1 63.9 58.4 47.3 16.1 36.5 44.3
Food Stamps 48.3 59.1 81.7 67.7 25.8 79.4 82.1 72.6 60.0 78.5 70.5
SSI or SSDI 18.3 11.8 16.4 9.7 13.8 15.7 16.7 15.1 12.6 19.0 12.7
Social Security 4.5 3.1 4.4 5.8 8.4 4.8 3.7 5.6 2.9 3.3 5.2
Unemployment Insurance 3.8 4.9 4.3 3.4 4.6 0.7 1.7 1.4 4.0 0.7 4.2
General Assistance 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.7
Foster care or adoption assistance 3.4 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other assistance 2.2 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.0 1.8 1.4
Any type of government assistance 65.5 68.9 87.1 75.8 43.5 85.1 86.9 77.0 68.0 83.3 78.8
Mean Amount of Assistance, by Type ($)a
TANF 376 454 312 208 454 202 373 337 258 431 474
Food Stamps 235 259 353 342 253 296 313 363 258 279 259
SSI or SSDI 571 574 627 605 814 500 618 641 666 578 507
Social Security 241 335 654 666 673 414 398 814 192 931 563
Unemployment Insurance 567 652 419 422 547 319 353 418 426 258 539
General Assistance NA 547 233 NA NA 82 172 139 NA NA 257
Foster care or adoption assistance 550 613 711 NA NA NA 471 NA NA NA NA
Other assistance 174 243 255 603 600 358 659 250 NA 414 488
All types of government assistance 508 655 637 557 643 534 683 741 441 619 636
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
a Among WtW enrollees whose households received the specified type of government assistance.

Exhibit B.17 Employment and Receipt of TANF by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees At the Time of Program Entry and One Year Later (Percentages)

Exhibit B.17
Employment and Receipt of TANF by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees
At the Time of Program Entry and One Year Later

(Percentages)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Employment
EmployedВ atВ enrollment 81.5 5.9 3.2 15.4 26.3 28.0 7.5 3.0 71.5 5.6 5.8
Employed 1 year later 71.8 42.8 40.5 40.5 41.1 42.6 35.8 32.6 72.9 57.0 48.7
Difference in employment rates is statistically significant * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** В *** ***
Receipt of TANF
Received at enrollment 24.3 55.6 90.6 91.5 0.6 64.1 91.5 66.9 41.1 78.1 85.0
Received 1 year later 15.3 40.9 40.4 42.9 5.1 63.9 58.4 47.3 16.1 36.5 44.3
Difference in recipiency rates is statistically significant В *** *** *** *** В *** *** *** *** ***
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Sources: 1999-2002 baseline survey and 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note 1: Data for survey respondents have been weighted to be representative of all WtW enrolleess in the respective sites. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
Note 2: Data on employment and TANF receipt at enrollment are from the evaluation's baseline survey. Data on employment and TANF receipt one year after enrollment are from the evaluation's 12-month follow-up survey. The results are based on weighted data for respondents to both the baseline survey and the 12-month follow-up survey. Results pertaining to the time of WtW enrollment may differ slightly from the results presented in Exhibit A.2, which are based on weighted data for respondents to the baseline survey.
*/**/*** Difference between the rate of employment or TANF receipt at enrollment and one year later is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.

Exhibit B.18 Housing Arrangements of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees One Year after Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit B.18
Housing Arrangements of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees One Year after Program Entry

(Percentages)
Housing Measure Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Type of Housing
Owns home 6.7 0.8 0.9 5.5 2.4 1.0 6.5 2.5 6.7 14.7 7.7
Rents home 76.4 80.7 74.6 62.5 31.7 85.0 69.7 71.2 76.5 66.2 73.2
Lives with relatives or friends 14.3 14.6 23.0 30.2 42.5 13.0 21.9 23.3 16.3 17.8 17.0
Lives in emergency or long-term shelter 1.1 3.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4
Lives in institution (prison/jail/group home/halfway house) 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 22.8 0.4 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.3 1.4
Homeless; lives on the street 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4
Lives in Government-Owned Housing or Receives Housing Subsidy 55.1 77.8 34.0 44.1 5.3 74.5 40.2 46.9 34.9 32.4 23.3
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.

Exhibit B.19 Employment Status of Welfare-to-work Enrollees and Their Receipt of TANF orAny Government Assistance One Year after Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit B.19
Employment Status of Welfare-to-work Enrollees and Their Receipt of TANF or
Any Government Assistance One Year after Program Entry

(Percentages)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Employment Status & Receipt of TANF
Not employed; on TANF 11.3 31.2 27.4 34.6 3.2 44.6 42.4 37.4 10.0 19.0 29.3
Employed; on TANF 4.1 9.7 13.0 8.3 1.9 19.3 16.0 9.9 6.0 17.5 15.1
Not employed; not on TANF 17.0 25.9 32.1 24.9 56.4 12.9 21.7 30.3 17.0 23.9 22.1
Employed; not on TANF 67.7 33.2 27.5 32.2 38.5 23.2 19.9 22.4 66.9 39.6 33.6
If on TANF, percent employed 26.4 23.7 32.1 19.3 37.3 30.2 27.4 20.9 37.6 47.9 34.0
Emp. Status & Receipt of Any Gov't. Assistance
Not employed; on gov't. assistance 24.0 48.6 55.4 50.6 23.9 54.0 59.0 54.3 21.5 35.9 44.6
Employed; on gov't. assistance 41.5 20.3 31.8 25.2 19.7 31.2 28.0 22.7 46.6 47.4 34.2
Not employed; not on gov't. assistance 4.2 8.7 4.1 9.2 35.9 3.5 5.4 13.3 5.6 7.3 6.8
Employed; not on gov't. assistance 30.3 22.4 8.7 15.0 20.6 11.4 7.7 9.7 26.4 9.4 14.4
If on gov't. asst., percent employed 63.3 29.5 36.4 33.3 45.2 36.6 32.2 29.5 68.5 56.9 43.4
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.

Exhibit B.20 Monthly Household Income of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees,By Source, One Year after Program Entry

Exhibit B.20
Monthly Household Income of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees,
By Source, One Year after Program Entry
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Mean Amount of Income, by Source ($)
Own Earnings 891 466 363 460 530 403 340 341 660 391 530
Earnings of other household members 329 229 305 398 686 148 197 264 390 265 493
Government assistance 321 437 548 413 232 451 583 563 295 510 486
Othera 62 36 22 38 39 47 16 38 53 31 47
Totalb 1,611 1,165 1,247 1,321 1,505 1,046 1,141 1,247 1,397 1,186 1,546
Distribution of Income, by Source (%)
Own Earnings 55.7 33.4 26.9 29.8 36.3 29.5 25.6 24.0 49.7 31.2 34.3
Earnings of other household members 10.3 9.9 10.4 17.1 35.1 7.3 9.4 13.3 16.1 12.8 19.0
Government assistance 30.1 52.6 59.8 49.0 22.1 58.3 62.9 59.2 28.8 52.7 42.8
Other 3.9 4.2 2.9 4.1 6.5 4.8 2.1 3.6 5.4 3.3 3.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum
a Other income consists of child support, gifts and loans, and any other income (e.g., rent, alimony, interest, pension benefits, lottery winnings).
b The mean total income may not equal the sum of the mean amounts from the four income sources. This is because the mean total income was computed on the basis of survey respondents for whom there was no missing data on income from any of the four sources.

Exhibit B.21 Incidence of Household Poverty among Welfare-to-Work EnrolleesOne Year after Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit B.21
Incidence of Household Poverty among Welfare-to-Work Enrollees
One Year after Program Entry

(Percentages)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Household Income is Below Poverty Threshold 49.2 73.8 85.7 77.3 64.6 81.1 87.5 81.6 61.5 85.2 68.4
Zero Household Income 6.6 9.9 12.5 5.6 25.2 4.4 6.9 8.5 5.5 6.7 4.1
Household Poverty Categories
0.00 ВЈ income/poverty threshold < 0.50 19.0 51.0 56.7 52.2 39.5 57.1 57.0 55.8 28.5 47.3 35.5
0.50 ВЈ income/poverty threshold < 1.00 30.2 22.8 29.0 25.1 25.1 24.0 30.5 25.8 33.0 38.0 32.9
1.00 ВЈ income/poverty threshold < 1.50 34.1 13.9 8.9 11.8 12.3 13.1 7.3 12.2 25.4 6.4 19.7
1.50 ВЈ income/poverty threshold < 2.00 10.0 8.5 2.9 6.1 8.3 3.9 2.9 3.2 9.8 3.4 6.8
2.00 ВЈ income/poverty threshold 6.6 3.8 2.5 4.8 14.7 1.8 2.3 3.0 3.3 4.9 5.1
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
Note 2: The measure of income used to determine poverty status is the same monthly measure reported in Exhibit B.20, except that income from from food stamps has been dropped to be consistent with the standard methodology for determining poverty status.

Exhibit B.22 Hardships Experienced by WtW Enrollees and Their Households During the Year after Program Entry (Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)

Exhibit B.22
Hardships Experienced by WtW Enrollees and Their Households
During the Year after Program Entry

(Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co. FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Material Distress
Could not pay full rent or mortgage 38.9 34.8 37.0 41.3 39.3 33.1 34.1 43.8 47.9 29.1 38.6
Evicted from home or apartment 6.1 5.3 6.5 12.2 10.1 6.3 6.3 17.2 7.5 6.5 11.3
Could not pay full gas/oil/electricity bill 45.4 36.0 38.0 46.1 33.7 35.0 37.1 48.2 31.3 43.3 46.2
Gas/oil/electricity turned off by utility 13.5 12.9 15.7 19.2 15.3 18.3 10.6 18.3 18.1 13.2 20.6
Telephone disconnected by tel. company 22.5 34.5 28.5 40.8 34.1 34.2 30.3 33.5 32.9 23.6 36.8
Index of material distress (mean)a 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.32 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.31
Health-Related Distress
HH member needed to see dentist but did not 34.1 14.7 18.4 45.3 32.3 35.1 12.4 39.7 47.6 37.9 36.1
HH member needed to see doctor but did not 22.1 5.9 6.8 14.6 12.7 7.6 5.0 12.8 9.8 15.9 9.2
Adult in HH cut size of meal or skipped meal 30.0 22.4 15.1 24.2 20.7 18.2 18.0 27.8 19.0 16.8 30.9
Index of health-related distress (mean)a 0.29 0.14 0.13 0.28 0.22 0.20 0.12 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.25
Homelessness
Has lived in emergency or long-term shelter 2.4 14.9 5.4 5.6 4.9 2.5 6.3 11.5 1.8 1.4 5.0
Has lived on the streets 4.4 7.1 6.2 6.2 16.8 4.9 4.4 12.2 1.3 2.0 7.3
Has either lived in shelter or on the streets 5.5 17.9 9.3 10.0 17.2 6.2 9.1 19.2 3.1 3.0 10.6
Number of Times Changed Living Place
0 times 68.7 64.6 61.1 50.6 40.4 63.2 68.4 41.3 52.9 51.4 47.2
1 times 19.4 21.1 23.8 26.6 24.2 24.0 20.3 27.5 26.8 24.9 25.3
2 times 6.2 6.6 9.5 11.8 18.1 7.5 7.0 12.0 10.5 14.9 11.8
3 times or more 5.7 7.7 5.6 11.0 17.3 5.3 4.3 19.2 9.9 8.8 15.7
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum
a The index value for a survey respondent is the proportion of the total number of types of distress that were actually experienced (0 to 1 scale).

Exhibit B.23 Household Income, Poverty Status, and Material Distress of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees,by Employment Status, One Year after Program Entry

Exhibit B.23
Household Income, Poverty Status, and Material Distress of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees,
by Employment Status, One Year after Program Entry
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Monthly Household Income ($)
Employed 1,754 1,469 1,451 1,717 2,206 1,382 1,385 1,570 1,453 1,316 1,799
Not employed 1,215 924 1,102 1,034 1,059 789 1,001 1,086 1,230 1,016 1,273
Difference in income by employment status is statistically significant ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** В *** ***
Household Income < Poverty Threshold (%)
Employed 41.7 53.8 78.3 61.4 50.4 63.9 78.3 68.3 58.1 83.3 54.0
Not employed 70.1 89.9 91.0 88.7 73.8 94.3 92.8 88.1 72.1 87.7 84.0
Dif. in poverty rate by employment status is statistically significant ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** В В ***
Index of Material Distress (mean)a
Employed 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.34 0.28 0.21 0.25
Not employed 0.39 0.26 0.27 0.31 0.27 0.26 0.24 0.32 0.27 0.25 0.36
Difference in index by employment status is statistically significant ** * *** В В В В В В В ***
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
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.

Exhibit B.24 Children less than Age 18 Living Outside the Households Of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees One Year after Program Entry (Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)

Exhibit B.24
Children less than Age 18 Living Outside the Households Of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees
One Year after Program Entry

(Percentages, Unless Otherwise Indicated)
Measure of Children Outside the Household Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
All WtW Enrollees
One or More Children Outside the Household
All live with other biological parent 3.0 4.3 2.2 5.6 59.9 3.0 1.8 4.5 5.6 13.4 15.0
Some do not live with other biological parent 0.9 6.3 4.4 8.2 16.7 7.0 9.3 10.9 8.5 8.2 12.8
Total 3.8 10.6 6.6 13.8 76.6 10.2 11.0 15.4 14.1 21.6 27.8
WtW Enrollees w/ Children Outside Household
Number of Children Outside the Household
1 76.5 58.5 57.6 63.3 27.3 70.6 59.3 47.1 56.2 62.0 46.4
2 23.5 27.3 16.5 24.3 34.5 12.1 17.0 30.5 17.7 19.4 36.5
3 or more 0.0 14.2 26.0 12.4 38.2 17.3 23.7 22.4 26.2 18.7 17.1
Mean number of children outside household 1.2 1.7 1.8 1.6 2.5 1.6 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.8
One or More Children Are Living:a
With a biological parent 76.8 46.5 37.4 50.0 89.8 40.5 25.8 53.6 44.6 65.7 64.3
With a grandparent 0.0 30.2 38.8 30.4 11.8 37.6 42.6 29.6 51.5 23.1 10.6
With another relative 23.2 18.8 22.0 14.1 5.3 15.8 25.5 16.7 22.5 3.5 19.3
With an adoptive parent 0.0 1.6 4.0 8.9 0.8 1.9 1.9 9.5 0.0 0.0 3.6
With a foster parent 0.0 6.1 3.5 2.7 4.9 11.0 14.7 3.4 4.7 2.1 6.2
With another adult, a friend, or on own 0.0 4.7 6.4 8.1 1.2 3.6 8.6 11.7 0.0 4.5 8.4
In a prison, jail, or group home 0.0 1.6 2.7 3.2 0.0 3.6 3.5 7.9 4.2 4.6 1.1
All Children Outside the Household Live with
the Other Biological Parent 76.8 40.3 33.0 40.7 78.2 30.1 16.1 29.4 39.7 62.1 54.0
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
a Percentages may sum to more than 100 because some survey respondents had multiple children living outside of their households and those children may have lived with different persons or in different institutional settings.

Exhibit B.25 Health Insurance Coverage of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees And Their Children During the Year after Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit B.25
Health Insurance Coverage of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees And Their Children
During the Year after Program Entry
(Percentages)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Enrollee's Own Health Insurance Coverage
Covered one year after enrollment 71.9 95.6 87.3 70.1 32.1 96.9 93.8 81.8 77.8 76.5 78.5
Not covered sometime during the year 44.8 10.1 19.0 45.6 76.9 6.2 11.7 31.8 38.5 35.0 29.3
Length of time without coveragea
1 day to 1 month 15.4 22.2 15.1 13.9 1.2 27.0 21.4 16.4 14.0 13.8 7.5
2 3 months 19.4 30.2 24.8 18.2 3.9 37.4 28.2 26.1 19.3 16.5 12.9
4 6 18.1 20.4 23.8 22.6 12.9 15.9 20.5 21.2 20.3 21.2 10.8
7 12 21.8 15.8 19.1 23.2 22.1 13.2 19.2 26.2 20.9 27.9 38.8
More than 12 months 25.3 11.4 17.1 22.2 59.8 6.4 10.7 10.0 25.6 20.7 30.0
Children's Health Insurance Coverage
Covered one year after enrollment 88.9 96.7 96.1 85.1 94.8 98.5 96.6 89.8 91.3 94.9 95.0
Not covered sometime during the year 19.9 7.2 8.5 29.3 11.4 3.5 8.1 21.4 13.6 9.9 7.9
Length of time without coveragea
1 day to 1 month 30.4 37.2 25.3 22.8 11.7 30.2 38.1 40.3 38.4 20.1 25.2
2 3 months 36.9 18.3 28.6 21.7 16.9 40.5 35.0 25.8 14.5 31.3 20.6
4 6 5.1 16.9 17.1 25.0 42.7 24.0 11.4 18.8 10.7 25.3 13.4
7 12 22.4 15.4 17.6 18.4 11.7 5.4 10.8 12.5 27.3 19.7 26.2
More than 12 months 5.1 12.2 11.3 12.1 16.9 0.0 4.7 2.6 9.1 3.7 14.5
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
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. Rounding may cause percentages to su
Note 2: Sample sizes for children's health care coverage constructs may be smaller than indicated because not all survey respondents had children.
a Among those who were without coverage sometime during the year following enrollment in WtW.

Exhibit B.26 Incidence of the Incarceration, Probation, and Parole Of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees Before and after Program Entry (Percentages)

Exhibit B.26
Incidence of the Incarceration, Probation, and Parole Of Welfare-to-Work Enrollees
Before and after Program Entry

(Percentages)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Ever Spent Time in a Correctional Institution
В В В BeforeВ enrollingВ inВ WtW 7.1 5.3 5.1 17.7 71.4 9.4 5.6 18.9 16.5 15.1 27.0
В В В After enrolling in WtW 0.0 2.6 2.9 10.0 65.6 6.8 1.5 8.8 6.6 6.7 19.8
Time Served Since Enrollment Datea
В В В 1 5 days NA 32.8 46.1 41.7 7.2 45.6 47.3 54.3 39.1 29.2 40.8
В В В 6 30 days NA 27.3 28.2 33.4 15.0 29.0 28.8 22.2 52.4 39.7 29.7
В В В More than 30 days NA 39.9 25.7 24.9 77.8 25.4 23.9 23.5 8.5 31.1 29.4
Currently Incarcerated 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.6 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 1.1
Currently on Probation or Parole 0.8 5.6 2.7 5.5 44.8 5.0 4.4 8.2 5.4 3.5 10.4
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
a Among WtW enrollees who spent time in a correctional institution after enrollment.

Exhibit B.27 Correspondence Between the Receipt of Employment Preparation Services And Skill Enhancement Services by Welfare-to-work Enrollees (Percentages)

Exhibit B.27
Correspondence Between the Receipt of Employment Preparation Services and Skill Enhancement Services
by Welfare-to-Work Enrollees

(Percentages)
В Baltimore Co. Boston Chicago Ft. Worth Milwaukee Nashville Philadelphia Phoenix St. Lucie Co., FL West Virginia Yakima, WA
Received employment prep. services only 41.0 52.6 61.4 44.6 49.0 45.4 61.1 61.2 39.0 54.8 51.2
Received skill enhancement services only 10.3 4.0 3.1 5.9 2.2 4.6 1.6 3.8 6.3 2.6 2.9
Received neither type of services 16.4 16.9 14.2 26.4 17.7 10.5 9.3 13.4 14.1 10.5 11.4
Received both types of services 32.3 26.5 21.2 23.1 31.1 39.5 28.0 21.6 40.7 32.1 34.5
Sample Size 100 607 1,594 873 195 559 1,110 221 146 269 293
Source: 2000-03 12-month follow-up survey of Welfare-to-Work enrollees.
Note: 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. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.

References

Bloom, Dan, Susan Scrivner, Charles Michalopoulos, Pamela Morris, Richard Hendra, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, Johanna Walter, and Wanda Varga. "Jobs First: Final Report on Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative." Submitted to the Connecticut Department of Social Services. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2002.

Fraker, Thomas M., Christine M. Ross, Rita A. Stapulonis, Robert B. Olsen, Martha D. Kovac, M. Robin Dion, and Anu Rangarajan. "The Evaluation of Welfare Reform in Iowa: Final Impact Report." Submitted to the Iowa Department of Human Services. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2000.

Hamilton, Gayle. "Moving People from Welfare to Work: Lessons from the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies." Submitted to USDHHS and the U.S. Department of Education. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2002.

Hillabrandt, Walter, and Mack Rhoades, Jr. "The Evaluation of the Tribal Welfare-to WorkWelfare-to-Work Program: Initial Lessons from Tribal Experience." Submitted to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, USDHHS. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2000.

Hillabrandt, Walter, Mack Rhoades, Jr., Nancy Pindus, and John Trutko. "The Evaluation of the Tribal Welfare-to WorkWelfare-to-Work Program: Initial Implementation Findings." Submitted to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, USDHHS. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2001.

Kish, Leslie. "Weighting in Deft2." The Survey Statistician. No. 1, June 1987.

Loprest, Pamela. "Fewer Welfare Leavers Employed in Weak Economy." Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, August 2003. Available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310837_snapshots3_no5.pdf.

Miller, Cynthia, Virginia Knox, Lisa A. Gennetian, Martey Dodoo, Jo Anna Hunter, and Cindy Redcross. "Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: Final Report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program." Volume I: "Effects on Adults." Submitted to the Minnesota Department of Human Services. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000.

National Governors' Association, "Round Two Summary of Selected Elements of State Programs for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families." March 14, 1999. Available at http://www.nga.org/cda/files/TANF1998.pdf.

Nightingale, Demetra Smith, Terri Thompson, Nancy Pindus, Pamela Holcomb, Edgar Lee, Jesse Valente, and John Trutko. "Early Implementation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Programs: Findings from Exploratory Site Visits and Review of Program Plans." Submitted to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, USDHHS. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, February 2000.

Nightingale, Demetra Smith, Nancy Pindus, and John Trutko. "The Implementation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program." Submitted to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, USDHHS. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., August 2002.

Perez-Johnson, Irma, and Alan Hershey. "Early Implementation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program: Report to Congress." Submitted to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, USDHHS. Princeton, N.J.NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., March 1999.

Perez-Johnson, Irma, Alan Hershey, and Jeanne Bellotti. "Further Progress, Persistent Constraints: Findings From a Second Survey of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program." Submitted to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, USDHHS. Princeton, N.J.NJ: Mathematica Policy Research Inc., April 2000.

Perez-Johnson, Irma, Debra Strong, and Michelle Van Noy. "Understanding the Costs of the DOL Welfare-to-Work Grants Program." Submitted to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, USDHHS. Princeton, N.J.NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., August 2002.

Ruppert, David. "Trimming and Winsorization." In Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, vol. 9, edited by Samuel Kotz and Norman L. Johnson. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988, pp. 348-53.

Rust, K.F., and J.N.K. Rao. "Variance Estimation for Complex Surveys Using Replication Techniques." Statistical Methods in Medical Research, vol. 5, no. 3, September 1996.

Stapulonis, Rita, Shawn Marsh, and Jason Markesich. "The National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program: 12 Month Follow-Up Survey Instrument." Submitted to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, USDHHS. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2003. Available at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/wtw12que.pdf.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "State by State Welfare Caseloads Since 1993 (Families)," "TANF: Total Number of Families, by State, FY 2002," and "TANF: Total Number of Families and Recipients, by State, Mar02-Mar03." Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/stats/newstat2.shtml. Accessed November 4, 2003.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. "Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants; Interim Rule." Federal Register, vol. 62, no. 222, November 18, 1997, pp. 61587-61613. Available at http://www.doleta.gov/regs/fedregs/final/97_29966.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2003.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. "Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants; Final Rule; Interim Final Rule." Federal Register, vol. 66, no. 8, January 11, 2001, pp. 2689-2723. Available at http://www.doleta.gov/whatsnew/wtw_regs1_01.txt. Accessed October 30, 2003.

Wallace, Geoffrey, and Rebecca M. Blank. "What Goes Up Must Come Down? Explaining Recent Changes in Public Assistance Caseloads." In Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform, edited by Sheldon H. Danziger. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute, 1999.