National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies

How Effective Are Different Welfare-to-Work Approaches?
Five-Year Adult and Child Impacts for Eleven Programs:

Appendix D:
Supplementary Tables to Chapter 5

[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Appendix Table D.1
Impacts on Welfare Receipt and Payments in Years 1 to 3
Site and Program Sample Size Program Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Percentage Change (%)
Average number of months receiving welfare in years 1 to 3
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 2,938 24.6 26.3 -1.8*** -6.7
Atlanta Human Capital Development 2,992 25.1 26.3 -1.2*** -4.6
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 3,012 20.1 23.2 -3.1*** -13.4
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 2,997 21.3 23.2 -1.9*** -8.3
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 6,726 19.7 21.9 -2.2*** -9.9
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 3,125 21.0 23.0 -2.1*** -8.9
Riverside Human Capital Development 3,135 21.3 23.0 -1.7*** -7.5
Columbus Integrated 4,672 18.9 21.5 -2.6*** -12.2
Columbus Traditional 4,729 19.8 21.5 -1.7*** -8.0
Detroit 4,459 26.2 27.3 -1.1*** -3.9
Oklahoma City 6,896 14.7 15.6 -0.9*** -5.8
Portland 4,028 16.3 20.1 -3.8*** -18.9
Average total welfare payments received in years 1 to 3 ($)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 2,938 6,504 7,058 -554*** -7.9
Atlanta Human Capital Development 2,992 6,578 7,058 -480*** -6.8
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 3,012 7,853 9,793 -1,940*** -19.8
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 2,997 8,545 9,793 -1,247*** -12.7
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 6,726 11,175 13,068 -1,893*** -14.5
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 3,125 12,122 14,164 -2,042*** -14.4
Riverside Human Capital Development 3,135 12,432 14,164 -1,732*** -12.2
Columbus Integrated 4,672 6,072 7,151 -1,079*** -15.1
Columbus Traditional 4,729 6,335 7,151 -816*** -11.4
Detroit 4,459 11,538 11,921 -383** -3.2
Oklahoma City 6,896 4,532 4,822 -290*** -6.0
Portland 4,028 7,270 9,179 -1,910*** -20.8
SOURCE:  MDRC calculations from state and county administrative records.
NOTES: See Appendix A.1.

Appendix Table D.2
Impacts on Welfare Receipt in the Last Quarter of Years 1 to 5

Site and Program

 Program Group (%) Control Group (%) Difference (Impact) Percentage Change (%)

Atlanta Labor Force Attachment
Year 1 78.2 82.7 -4.5*** -5.5
Year 2 64.7 70.9 -6.2*** -8.7
Year 3 56.1 61.2 -5.1*** -8.3
Year 4 44.5 50.1 -5.7*** -11.3
Year 5 32.6 36.5 -3.9** -10.8
Sample size 1441.0 1497.0

Atlanta Human Capital Development
Year 1 80.8 82.7 -2.0 -2.4
Year 2 66.2 70.9 -4.8*** -6.7
Year 3 57.4 61.2 -3.8** -6.2
Year 4 46.9 50.1 -3.2* -6.4
Year 5 34.5 36.5 -2.1 -5.6
Sample size 1495.0 1497.0

Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment
Year 1 68.8 77.8 -9.1*** -11.6
Year 2 53.5 60.8 -7.3*** -12.1
Year 3 41.2 48.0 -6.8*** -14.2
Year 4 32.5 38.0 -5.6*** -14.6
Year 5 24.3 27.8 -3.5** -12.5
Sample size 1557.0 1455.0

Grand Rapids Human Capital Development
Year 1 73.7 77.8 -4.2*** -5.4
Year 2 54.3 60.8 -6.4*** -10.6
Year 3 41.7 48.0 -6.3*** -13.1
Year 4 32.5 38.0 -5.6*** -14.6
Year 5 25.8 27.8 -2.0 -7.1
Sample size 1542.0 1455.0

Riverside Labor Force Attachment
Year 1 62.9 69.6 -6.7*** -9.6
Year 2 50.1 56.4 -6.4*** -11.3
Year 3 42.7 47.6 -4.8*** -10.2
Year 4 37.0 41.1 -4.2*** -10.1
Year 5 30.2 34.6 -4.4*** -12.8
Sample size 3384.0 3342.0

Riverside Labor Force Attachment
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills
Year 1 66.4 72.3 -6.0*** -8.3
Year 2 54.2 60.0 -5.8*** -9.7
Year 3 47.1 52.1 -5.0*** -9.6
Year 4 41.5 46.3 -4.7*** -10.2
Year 5 34.5 39.0 -4.5*** -11.6
Sample size 1586.0 1539.0

Riverside Human Capital Development
Year 1 68.2 72.3 -4.1*** -5.7
Year 2 55.9 60.0 -4.1** -6.8
Year 3 46.2 52.1 -5.9*** -11.4
Year 4 38.7 46.3 -7.5*** -16.3
Year 5 33.3 39.0 -5.7*** -14.7
Sample size 1596.0 1539.0  

Columbus Integrated
Year 1 68.0 72.5 -4.5*** -6.2
Year 2 47.1 53.8 -6.8*** -12.5
Year 3 33.2 40.3 -7.1*** -17.6
Year 4 22.3 27.6 -5.3*** -19.3
Year 5 12.7 16.5 -3.8*** -23.1
Sample size 2513.0 2159.0

Columbus Traditional
Year 1 68.9 72.5 -3.6*** -5.0
Year 2 49.3 53.8 -4.6*** -8.5
Year 3 34.9 40.3 -5.5*** -13.5
Year 4 24.7 27.6 -3.0** -10.7
Year 5 14.1 16.5 -2.4** -14.3
Sample size 2570.0 2159.0

Detroit
Year 1 85.4 86.5 -1.1 -1.2
Year 2 70.1 73.7 -3.6*** -4.8
Year 3 56.6 61.4 -4.8*** -7.9
Year 4 45.1 48.1 -3.0** -6.3
Year 5 35.0 35.2 -0.2 -0.5
Sample size 2226.0 2233.0

Oklahoma City
Year 1 50.0 53.1 -3.1*** -5.9
Year 2 39.1 41.0 -1.9 -4.6
Year 3 30.3 32.7 -2.4** -7.3
Year 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Year 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sample size 3430.0 3466.0  

Portland
Year 1 59.8 68.0 -8.3*** -12.2
Year 2 40.6 53.3 -12.7*** -23.9
Year 3 25.8 38.6 -12.8*** -33.2
Year 4 16.5 22.5 -6.0*** -26.7
Year 5 12.3 17.1 -4.8*** -28.2
Sample size 3529.0 499.0  
SOURCE:  MDRC calculations from state and county administrative records.
NOTES: See Appendix A.1.

Appendix Table D.3
Impacts on Food Stamp Payments and Receipt in Years 1 to 3
Site and Program Sample Size Program Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Percentage Change (%)
Average number of months receiving Food Stamps in years 1 to 3
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 2,938 28.4 29.0 -0.7* -2.3
Atlanta Human Capital Development 2,992 28.4 29.0 -0.6* -2.2
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 3,012 22.6 25.1 -2.5*** -10.0
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 2,997 23.5 25.1 -1.5*** -6.1
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 6,726 17.6 20.0 -2.5*** -12.3
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 3,125 18.9 21.2 -2.3*** -10.9
Riverside Human Capital Development 3,135 19.0 21.2 -2.2*** -10.6
Columbus Integrated 4,672 21.7 23.7 -2.0*** -8.5
Columbus Traditional 4,729 22.3 23.7 -1.4*** -5.9
Detroit 4,459 28.3 29.4 -1.0*** -3.5
Oklahoma City 6,896 19.6 20.0 -0.4 -1.9
Portland 4,028 21.4 23.5 -2.0*** -8.7
Average total Food Stamps received in years 1 to 3 ($)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 2,938 7,165 7,371 -207** -2.8
Atlanta Human Capital Development 2,992 7,302 7,371 -69 -0.9
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 3,012 4,680 5,092 -412*** -8.1
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 2,997 4,858 5,092 -234** -4.6
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 6,726 3,322 3,875 -553*** -14.3
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 3,125 3,652 4,218 -566*** -13.4
Riverside Human Capital Development 3,135 3,683 4,218 -536*** -12.7
Columbus Integrated 4,672 5,618 6,312 -694*** -11.0
Columbus Traditional 4,729 5,830 6,312 -482*** -7.6
Detroit 4,459 6,646 6,888 -241*** -3.5
Oklahoma City 6,896 4,887 4,988 -100 -2.0
Portland 4,028 5,182 5,822 -640*** -11.0
SOURCE:  MDRC calculations from state and county administrative records.
NOTES: See Appendix A.1.

Appendix Table D.4
Impacts on Food Stamp Receipt and Payments in the Last Quarter of Year 5

Site and Program

 Sample Size Program Group (%) Control Group (%) Difference (Impact) Percentage Change (%)

Ever received Food Stamps in last quarter of year 5
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 2,938 51.6 54.7 -3.1* -5.7
Atlanta Human Capital Development 2,992 52.6 54.7 -2.2 -3.9
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 3,012 27.4 29.8 -2.4 -8.0
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 2,997 29.1 29.8 -0.6 -2.1
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 6,726 30.4 34.4 -4.0*** -11.6
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 3,125 34.8 38.6 -3.8** -9.8
Riverside Human Capital Development 3,135 33.3 38.6 -5.3*** -13.8
Columbus Integrated 4,672 21.5 26.1 -4.5*** -17.4
Columbus Traditional 4,729 24.7 26.1 -1.4 -5.2
Detroit 4,459 35.6 36.1 -0.5 -1.4
Oklahoma City n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Portland 4,028 30.9 34.0 -3.1 -9.1

Received Food Stamps but not welfare in last quarter of year 5
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 1,929 22.3 22.7 -0.4 -1.8
Atlanta Human Capital Development 1,953 23.6 22.7 0.9 4.1
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 1,087 8.8 7.3 1.5 20.7
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 1,084 7.8 7.3 0.5 6.4
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 6,726 3.4 3.2 0.2 5.2
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 3,125 3.8 3.1 0.8 25.0
Riverside Human Capital Development 3,135 3.8 3.1 0.8 24.7
Columbus Integrated 3,095 9.5 10.3 -0.7 -7.1
Columbus Traditional 3,100 11.1 10.3 0.8 8.0
Detroit 4,459 7.9 8.2 -0.3 -4.2
Oklahoma City n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Portland 4,028 20.4 19.0 1.4 7.3
SOURCE:  MDRC calculations from state and county administrative records.
NOTES: See Appendix A.1.

Where to?

Top of Page

Home Pages:
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)