National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies

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

Chapter 12:
Impacts on Young Children

[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Contents

  1. Key Findings
  2. Analysis Issues
    1. Child Outcomes Examined
    2. Multiple Reporters
  3. Impacts on Children
    1. Social Skills and Behavior
    2. Academic Functioning
    3. Health and Safety
    4. Other Outcome
  4. "Mapping" Child and Adult Impacts Found in the Child Outcomes Study Sample
    1. Educational Attainment
    2. Employment and Earnings
    3. Cumulative Income and Poverty Status
    4. Child Care
  5. Discussion and Conclusions

Endnotes

Chapter 11 presented impacts on a circumscribed set of outcomes for children of all ages in the client survey sample (that is, all children in seven programs in four sites). This chapter examines in greater depth program impacts for a subset of these children — namely, "focal" children in the Atlanta, Grand Rapids, and Riverside sites who were aged 3 to 5 at baseline (aged 8 to 10 at the five-year follow-up).These young children and their families constitute the Child Outcomes Study (COS) sample (see Chapter 2 for details).(1)

Findings reported here should be viewed as extending those presented for "preschool-age children" in Chapter 11, which focused on problem outcomes for children in two developmental domains (academic functioning and health and safety).This chapter examines both problem and positive outcomes for young children, measured in three developmental domains (academic functioning, social skills and behavior, and health and safety). In addition, more numerous outcomes in each domain are examined and include information from mothers, teachers, and the children themselves, as well as from a standardized achievement test.

Because this chapter focuses on impacts for a subset of the children discussed in Chapter 11, it is important to begin with a brief overview of key adult impacts for this sample to set the stage for interpreting impacts on young children. Earlier chapters presented economic impacts for the full NEWWS sample (11 programs in seven sites); detailed information on economic impacts for the COS sample and for the client survey sample can be found in Appendix I. In sum, despite some differences in these samples,(2) the program impacts on economic functioning for COS families were similar to those for the larger samples. With the exception of a decrease in income resulting from the Riverside HCD program in the full sample (compared with a similar size, though non-statistically significant, increase in income in the COS sample), any differences in economic impacts were in the magnitude, rather than the direction, of a given impact. It should be kept in mind that, as discussed in Chapter 1, some control group members in the Atlanta and Grand Rapids sites became eligible for program services prior to the end of the five-year follow-up period. As a result, in these two sites impacts measured as of the end of the follow-up period are probably understated relative to what may have occurred if treatment differences had been maintained in those sites.

This chapter follows a discussion of analysis issues with an examination in depth of program impacts on focal children at the five-year point. (Key patterns of impacts by level of disadvantage and by focal child gender are noted in footnotes.)(3) In an effort to begin to understand the ways in which impacts on young children may have come about, the chapter "maps" impacts found for focal children onto the economic impacts found for their mothers. It concludes with a discussion of findings. (Table 12.1 summarizes impacts on focal child outcomes.)

Table 12.1
Summary of Impacts on Focal Child Outcomes
Social skills and behavior
(19 measures)		 Atlanta Grand Rapids Riverside
LFA HCD LFA HCD LFA
Full		 LFA
In-needa		 HCD
6 F 5 F       2 F 2 F
  2 f       2 f 1 f
    2 U 6 U 3 U    
1 u   1 u 1 u 1 u    

Academic functioning
Behavioral adjustment to school
(5 measures)		   2 F     1 F    
1 f            
    1 U 2 U 1 U    
Achievement
(6 mesures)		     1 F     1 F  
Academic progress and placement
(11 measures)		 1 F 1 F     1 F 1 F  
            1 f
        1 U    
1b       1 u 1 u  
Attendance
(2 measures)		 1 U 1 U         1 U
1 u            
Health and safety
(5 measures)		 2 U 1 U 1 U       1 U
  1 u          
Other (1 measure)              
NOTES: "F" indicates a statistically significant favorable impact. "U" indicates a statistically significant unfavorable impact. "f" indicates a favorable impact above the cutoff for statistical significance but part of the overall pattern. "u" indicates an unfavorable impact above the cutoff for statistical significance but part of the overall pattern. See Chapter 2 for the definition of a pattern. Blank spaces indicate that there were no impacts.
a This sample is a subset of the full Riverside LFA sample, containing only those members who lacked a high school diploma or basic skills at random assignment.
b The Atlanta LFA program decreased the percentage of children identified by teachers as needing and receiving special services, which would be favorable if the program decreased the percentage of children needing services but unfavorable if the program decreased the percentage of children in need of services who received them.

[Go To Contents]

I. Key Findings

[Go To Contents]

II. Analysis Issues

This section provides an overview of the outcomes examined for young children in the COS and discusses issues relating to interpreting information on child outcome measures from multiple sources. (A more detailed description of measures, including internal consistency reliabilities, can be found in Appendix J.)

A. Child Outcomes Examined

Child outcomes in three developmental domains were measured: social skills and behavior, academic functioning, and health and safety. Measures tapping both positive and problem outcomes were examined. Outcomes in the social skills and behavior domain consisted of subscales adapted from the Social Skills Ratings System, which was designed to tap "social behaviors that can affect teacher-student relations, peer acceptance, and academic performance."(4) Among the subscales are those that measure children's positive skills and behaviors (such as cooperation and self-control) as well as problem behaviors ("externalizing" behaviors such as fighting and arguing, "internalizing" behaviors such as acting sad or depressed, and hyperactive behaviors such as acting impulsively and being disruptive).

Outcomes in the academic functioning domain are particularly diverse and include (1) measures related to behavioral adjustment to school (for example, school engagement, disciplinary problems), (2) scores on a standardized assessment of focal children's math and reading skills (the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement — Revised),(5) administered by trained interviewers, (3) measures related to academic progress and placement (for example, grade repetition, performance below grade level), and (4) measures of attendance (absenteeism, tardiness).

Outcomes in the health and safety domain include a global rating of focal children's general health; the percentage of mothers rating focal children's health as very good or excellent; the percentage of mothers reporting that focal children had a physical, mental, or emotional condition that required frequent medical attention; the percentage of mothers reporting that focal children had a physical, mental, or emotional condition that impeded on their going to work or school; and the percentage of mothers reporting that focal children had an accident, injury, or poisoning requiring an emergency room visit.

An additional outcome pertains to focal children's living arrangements: the percentage of mothers reporting that focal children had lived away from them at some point since random assignment because they could not care for them. This measure is not a child outcome in the sense that it reflects directly on the developmental status or well-being of children. However, given the potential effect on children of living apart from their mother and a concern that welfare reform not contribute to this outcome, it is reported on here (under the category "other").

The accompanying chart summarizes the outcomes measured and the source of information for each outcome. Mothers reported on focal children's social skills and behavior, behavioral adjustment to school, academic progress and placement, health and safety, and living arrangements. Children reported on their positive social skills and their engagement in school. Teachers reported on focal children's social skills and behavior, behavioral adjustment to school, academic progress and placement, and attendance.(6)

Developmental Domains and Focal Child Outcomes Measured at the Five-Year Follow-Up, by Source
  Assessment Mother Child Teacher
Social Skills and Behavior
Externalizing   X   X
Internalizing   X   X
Hyperactivity   X   X
Cooperation   X X X
Positive assertion   X X X
Self-control   X X X
Empathy     X  
Responsibility   X    
Interpersonal skills       X
Positive approaches to learning       X

Academic Functioning

Behavioral adjustment to school
School engagement     X X
Suspended or expelled   X   X
Disciplinary action       X

Achievement
Math skills X      
Above-average math X      
Below-average math X      
Reading skills X      
Above-average reading X      
Below-average reading X      

Academic progress and placement
Grade repetition   X   X
Below grade level in math       X
Above grade level in math       X
Below grade level in reading       X
Above grade level in reading       X
In remedial math group       X
In remedial reading group       X
Physical, mental, or emotional condition requiring a special class or school X      
Needs and receives services*       X
Needs but does not receive services       X
Attendance        
Absent       X
Tardy       X

Health and Safety
General health rating   X    
In very good or excellent health   X    
Physical, mental, or emotional condition requiring frequent medical attention   X    
Physical, mental, or emotional condition impeding mother's work   X    
Accident, injury, or poisoning requiring an emergency room visit   X    

Other
Lived apart from mother   X    
* See Appendix J for a full description of services examined.

[Go To Contents]

B. Multiple Reporters

Obtaining information from multiple sources can provide a more comprehensive picture of children's behavior and development. Parents are an important source of such information, as they are "usually the most knowledgeable about their child's behavior across time and situations."(7) For school-age children, teachers can also provide important information on children's competencies and problems in the school setting. Children's reports can also be informative, for they represent subjective views of their own competencies and shortcomings. Finally, objective assessments of children's academic functioning — such as standardized achievement tests — provide a measure of performance on a specific "skill," free from subjective biases of informants.(8) Standardized assessments also are useful for comparing children's performance with those of their peers in the sample as well as to age-mates nationwide.

Mothers, teachers, and children provided information on children's social skills and behavior. Survey items in the social skills and behavior domain were worded specifically to capture social skills displayed in the classroom (for the teachers' report measures), social skills displayed in the home (for the mothers' report measures), and social skills more generally, as displayed in the home and/or the school (for the children's report measures). Thus, ratings of children's social skills and behavior by teachers should be seen as reflecting children's classroom behavior in the current school year, ratings of children's social skills and behavior by mothers likely capture the more stable component of children's behavior in the family, and children's ratings of their own social skills and behavior reflect their perceptions of their behavior in both the home and the school settings. Impacts on a social skill as rated by one reporter and not another thus may indicate changes in context-specific behavior. By contrast, a pattern of impacts that occurs on the same measure across reporters suggests a more global impact on children's positive and/or problem behavior.

Ratings of children's academic functioning were provided largely by teachers and, thus, reflect the teachers' views of how the children were performing (academically, socially) in school. While it is reasonable to expect that these reports — and any impacts on academic measures — would not contradict objective assessments of (and any impacts on) children's math and reading skills, such contradictions may arise if, for example, teachers' evaluations of children's academic capabilities reflect a more global perception of how the children are performing and behaving in school.

Finally, information on focal children's health and safety was obtained solely from mothers. Neither objective ratings of physical health (for example, height or weight) nor diagnoses by medical professionals were obtained. Thus, it is not clear to what extent mean levels and impacts on health and safety measures reflect the focal children's actual health status and to what extent they reflect mothers' perceptions of the children's health.

[Go to Contents]

III. Impacts on Children

This section presents impacts of the LFA and HCD programs in Atlanta, Grand Rapids, and Riverside on children's developmental outcomes in the domains of social skills and behavior, academic functioning, health and safety, and the outcome relating to living arrangements.

A. Social Skills and Behavior

Table 12.2 shows impacts on outcomes relating to focal children's social skills and behavior. As described above, outcomes examined in this domain come from reports by mothers, teachers, and children of both positive and problem behaviors.

Table 12.2
Impacts on Social Skills and Behavior a

Site and Program

 Sample Size Program Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Effect Size

Externalizing behavior (range of 0 to 18) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 542 3.8 4.2 -0.5** -0.20
Atlanta Human Capital Development 609 3.9 4.2 -0.3 -0.13
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 376 5.5 5.6 -0.1 -0.02
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 358 5.6 5.7 -0.1 -0.02
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 454 4.7 4.9 -0.3 -0.10
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 284 4.8 5.0 -0.2 -0.09
Riverside Human Capital Development 368 4.6 5.0 -0.4 -0.15

Externalizing behavior (range of 0 to 15) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 363 4.1 5.1 -1.0** -0.29
Atlanta Human Capital Development 409 4.2 5.1 -0.9** -0.25
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 283 3.7 4.0 -0.2 -0.08
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 259 4.8 3.8 0.9* 0.28
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 323 3.9 3.1 0.8** 0.28
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 205 3.9 3.4 0.5 0.18
Riverside Human Capital Development 272 3.0 3.5 -0.4 -0.16

Internalizing behavior (range of 0 to 24) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 546 7.7 7.8 -0.1 -0.03
Atlanta Human Capital Development 617 7.7 7.8 -0.0 -0.01
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 376 8.8 9.1 -0.3 -0.08
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 357 8.6 9.1 -0.5 -0.15
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 456 8.6 8.2 0.4 0.14
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 286 8.5 8.4 0.1 0.03
Riverside Human Capital Development 370 8.4 8.3 0.0 0.02

Internalizing behavior (range of 0 to 18) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 357 4.0 5.2 -1.2** -0.33
Atlanta Human Capital Development 404 4.2 5.1 -0.9** -0.25
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 281 3.6 4.0 -0.4 -0.13
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 257 4.8 3.9 0.9* 0.27
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 323 3.9 3.2 0.8** 0.27
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 204 3.9 3.5 0.5 0.17
Riverside Human Capital Development 266 3.1 3.6 -0.4 -0.15

Hyperactivity (range of 0 to 18) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 545 5.9 5.9 -0.0 -0.02
Atlanta Human Capital Development 616 5.9 5.9 -0.1 -0.03
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 379 6.8 6.9 -0.1 -0.02
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 360 6.8 6.9 -0.1 -0.02
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 459 6.6 6.1 0.5 0.17
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 290 6.4 6.1 0.2 0.11
Riverside Human Capital Development 373 6.2 6.1 0.1 0.03

Hyperactivity (range of 0 to 6) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 360 1.9 2.2 -0.3* -0.24
Atlanta Human Capital Development 401 1.9 2.2 -0.4** -0.25
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 283 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.03
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 261 2.5 2.0 0.5** 0.32
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 321 2.3 1.9 0.4** 0.29
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 204 2.2 2.0 0.2 0.16
Riverside Human Capital Development 270 2.1 2.1 -0.0 -0.01

Cooperation (range of 0 to 30) (child report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 558 22.5 23.2 -0.7 -0.17
Atlanta Human Capital Development 627 22.9 23.1 -0.3 -0.06
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 378 22.7 23.4 -0.6 -0.14
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 362 22.3 23.4 -1.0** -0.23
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 459 21.9 22.0 -0.1 -0.01
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 289 22.2 21.9 0.3 0.07
Riverside Human Capital Development 384 22.2 21.9 0.3 0.07

Cooperation (range of 0 to 39) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 549 22.4 21.9 0.5 0.10
Atlanta Human Capital Development 620 22.1 21.9 0.3 0.05
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 382 21.3 22.1 -0.9 -0.13
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 363 21.4 22.1 -0.7 -0.11
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 460 22.3 22.1 0.2 0.03
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 290 22.5 22.3 0.2 0.05
Riverside Human Capital Development 374 23.0 22.2 0.7 0.15

Cooperation (range of 0 to 27) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 367 16.2 15.1 1.0 0.18
Atlanta Human Capital Development 410 16.2 15.2 1.0 0.17
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 286 14.9 16.2 -1.3* -0.22
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 261 14.8 16.0 -1.2 -0.21
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 325 15.1 16.2 -1.1 -0.19
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 206 15.4 15.2 0.2 0.03
Riverside Human Capital Development 275 15.1 15.2 -0.2 -0.03

Positive assertion (range of 0 to 30) (child report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 557 20.0 20.1 -0.0 -0.01
Atlanta Human Capital Development 629 19.9 20.1 -0.2 -0.05
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 379 21.3 22.2 -0.9* -0.21
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 363 20.9 22.2 -1.3** -0.29
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 458 19.9 20.0 -0.2 -0.03
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 289 20.0 19.5 0.6 0.12
Riverside Human Capital Development 381 20.1 19.6 0.5 0.12

Positive assertion (range of 0 to 30) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 549 20.7 20.7 -0.0 -0.01
Atlanta Human Capital Development 619 21.0 20.7 0.3 0.06
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 380 21.2 21.6 -0.4 -0.08
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 360 21.4 21.6 -0.2 -0.05
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 459 21.5 21.7 -0.1 -0.03
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 289 20.9 20.9 -0.0 -0.00
Riverside Human Capital Development 371 21.8 21.0 0.8 0.21

Positive assertion (range of 0 to 18) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 363 11.6 10.8 0.8* 0.25
Atlanta Human Capital Development 405 11.6 10.9 0.7 0.21
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 279 10.6 11.0 -0.4 -0.13
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 253 10.5 11.0 -0.5 -0.15
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 318 11.8 11.8 0.1 0.02
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 201 12.2 11.1 1.2** 0.39
Riverside Human Capital Development 266 11.2 11.3 -0.0 -0.01

Self-control (range of 0 to 30) (child report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 558 19.6 19.5 0.1 0.02
Atlanta Human Capital Development 629 19.3 19.5 -0.3 -0.06
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 378 19.9 20.6 -0.7 -0.15
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 362 19.4 20.6 -1.2** -0.25
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 461 18.7 19.0 -0.3 -0.06
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 291 18.9 18.7 0.2 0.05
Riverside Human Capital Development 382 19.0 18.6 0.4 0.08

Self-control (range of 0 to 30) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 548 16.1 16.1 -0.0 -0.00
Atlanta Human Capital Development 619 15.8 16.0 -0.3 -0.07
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 380 15.4 15.4 0.0 0.01
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 359 15.4 15.5 -0.1 -0.03
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 461 16.4 15.8 0.6 0.14
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 291 16.2 15.2 1.0* 0.26
Riverside Human Capital Development 373 16.5 15.3 1.2** 0.29

Self-control (range of 0 to 27) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 359 16.3 15.4 0.9 0.15
Atlanta Human Capital Development 405 16.7 15.4 1.3* 0.23
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 261 15.9 16.0 -0.2 -0.03
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 239 15.3 16.1 -0.8 -0.14
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 307 18.0 17.7 0.3 0.05
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 198 18.4 17.0 1.5 0.28
Riverside Human Capital Development 260 17.3 17.0 0.2 0.05

Empathy (range of 0 to 30) (child report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 559 21.2 20.9 0.2 0.05
Atlanta Human Capital Development 627 21.4 21.0 0.4 0.08
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 377 22.3 22.7 -0.4 -0.09
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 361 22.3 22.8 -0.4 -0.10
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 457 21.0 21.7 -0.7 -0.15
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 288 21.1 21.5 -0.4 -0.08
Riverside Human Capital Development 380 20.9 21.6 -0.7 -0.14

Responsibility (range of 0 to 27) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 559 17.4 17.6 -0.2 -0.06
Atlanta Human Capital Development 624 18.1 17.5 0.5 0.14
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 383 17.8 17.7 0.1 0.03
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 365 17.8 17.8 0.0 0.01
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 473 17.6 17.8 -0.3 -0.07
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 298 17.4 17.3 0.1 0.03
Riverside Human Capital Development 390 18.3 17.4 0.9* 0.24

Interpersonal skills (range of 0 to 12) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 364 7.7 7.1 0.6** 0.26
Atlanta Human Capital Development 408 7.9 7.1 0.**7 0.30
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 279 7.4 7.5 -0.2 -0.07
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 254 7.1 7.5 -0.5 -0.18
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 322 8.2 8.3 -0.1 -0.04
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 205 8.4 7.9 0.5 0.26
Riverside Human Capital Development 272 8.0 8.0 -0.1 -0.03

Positive approaches to learning (range of 0 to 18)(teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 366 10.9 10.4 0.5 0.16
Atlanta Human Capital Development 408 10.9 10.4 0.5 0.15
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 279 10.1 10.7 -0.6 -0.16
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 254 10.0 10.7 -0.7 -0.19
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 324 10.6 10.8 -0.2 -0.07
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 206 10.5 10.2 0.3 0.10
Riverside Human Capital Development 274 10.5 10.3 0.2 0.07
SOURCE: Child Trends calculations from the Five-Year Child Outcomes Study Survey (mother, teacher, and child reports).
NOTES:  See Appendix A.2. 
A higher score on each measure indicates that the child demonstrates more of the construct.

The largest concentration of impacts across programs, and typically within a given program, occurred in this domain of outcomes. All six programs affected children's social skills and behavior, though the direction of these impacts differed depending on the site (the Atlanta and Grand Rapids programs) or on mothers' level of education at baseline (the Riverside programs). Both Atlanta programs improved social skills and behavior, as did the Riverside HCD program and the Riverside LFA program for children whose mothers lacked a high school diploma or basic skills at baseline. In contrast, both Grand Rapids programs had unfavorable impacts on children's social skills and behavior, as did the Riverside LFA program for the full sample (that is, regardless of mothers' level of education at baseline).

Both Atlanta programs decreased problem behaviors and simultaneously increased positive behaviors.(9) Specifically, both programs decreased teacher-reported levels of externalizing, internalizing, and hyperactive behavior and increased teacher-reported levels of interpersonal skills. Further, both programs resulted in lower levels of mother-rated externalizing behavior and higher levels of teacher-reported positive assertion (a measure of children's positive initiations toward others in social situations), though the differences for the HCD program were just beyond the cutoff for statistical significance. The Atlanta HCD program also increased levels of children's self-control as rated by the teacher.(10)

In contrast to Atlanta, the impacts on social skills and behavior in Grand Rapids were uniformly unfavorable, with both programs decreasing focal children's positive behaviors and the HCD program also increasing problem behaviors. For instance, both programs decreased child-reported levels of assertion and decreased levels of both child- and teacher-reported cooperation, although the differences in child-reported cooperation in the LFA program and teacher-reported cooperation in the HCD program were just beyond the cutoff for statistical significance.(11) The HCD program also decreased children's reports of their own self-control and simultaneously increased their problem behavior, increasing teacher-reported levels of externalizing, internalizing, and hyperactive behavior.

The impacts on social skills and behavior were fewer in Riverside than in Atlanta or in the Grand Rapids HCD program and varied according to mothers' level of education at baseline. The Riverside LFA program increased problem behaviors for the full sample (regardless of mothers' level of education at baseline), while both the LFA and the HCD programs increased positive behaviors for the subsample of children whose mothers had limited education at baseline. Specifically, in the full sample the LFA program increased levels of teacher-reported externalizing, internalizing, and hyperactive behavior.(12) This program also increased mother-reported levels of hyperactive behavior, though this difference was just beyond the cutoff for statistical significance (an effect size of .17). Yet, for the subsample of mothers without a high school diploma or basic skills at baseline, both the LFA and HCD programs improved behavioral outcomes, for example, increasing mother-reported levels of self-control in children. Further, the LFA program increased teacher-rated levels of assertion, self-control, and interpersonal skills for this subgroup.(13) Notably, the favorable impact of the Riverside LFA program on teacher-reported levels of positive assertion for this subgroup was quite large compared with the other impacts in the social skills and behavior domain, with an effect size of .39. The Riverside HCD program also increased mother-reported levels of responsibility and assertion, although the latter impact was just beyond the cutoff for statistical significance.

With few exceptions, the magnitude of the impacts in the social skills and behavior domain across the six programs ranged from .20 to .30 of a standard deviation. These effect sizes fall at the lower end of the effect size range for some of the more successful programs that directly targeted children, such as the Perry Preschool Program and the Abecedarian Project.(14) Given that the programs evaluated in this chapter did not directly intervene with children, the fact that these effect sizes are within the range of those found in the child-focused programs is perhaps surprising and suggests that the welfare-to-work programs examined here affected children's behavior in nontrivial ways.

Further, the impacts described in this section were found on social skills and behavior that are likely to be meaningful for children's future development. Positive social skills may be important for children's success in the school setting, as well as for the development of positive relationships with peers and adults, and therefore may have implications for successful functioning later in life.(15) In addition, research has shown that problem social behaviors that go untreated are related to "poor academic performance, and may result in later social maladjustment problems or serious psychopathology."(16) Early problem behaviors have also been identified as predictors of later delinquency in adolescence.(17)

[Go To Contents]

B. Academic Functioning

Table 12.3 shows the impacts on child outcomes related to academic functioning. As mentioned, these outcomes were reported by mothers, teachers, and children, as well as obtained from a standardized assessment, and fell into the following subdomains: behavioral adjustment to school, academic achievement, academic progress and placement, and attendance.

Table 12.3
Impacts on Academic Functioning

Site and Program

 Sample Size Program Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Effect Size

School engagement (range of 0 to 21) (child report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 552 16.6 16.8 -0.2 -0.07
Atlanta Human Capital Development 617 16.7 16.8 -0.1 -0.05
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 377 16.3 17.2 -0.9** -0.30
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 358 16.5 17.1 -0.6* -0.21
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 459 16.2 16.3 -0.1 -0.02
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 290 16.2 16.0 0.2 0.05
Riverside Human Capital Development 379 16.4 16.1 0.3 0.09

School engagement (range of 0 to 33) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 364 19.8 19.1 0.7 0.11
Atlanta Human Capital Development 414 20.6 19.2 1.4* 0.21
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 286 18.9 19.2 -0.3 -0.04
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 262 18.2 19.1 -0.9 -0.14
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 324 18.7 19.5 -0.9 -0.13
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 205 19.0 18.5 0.5 0.08
Riverside Human Capital Development 274 19.0 18.7 0.4 0.06

Suspended or expelled since last interview a (%) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 599 8.5 6.5 2.0 0.10
Atlanta Human Capital Development 676 7.0 6.1 1.0 0.05
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 428 5.7 9.0 -3.3 -0.13
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 410 7.0 8.3 -1.3 -0.05
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 533 2.8 6.8 -4.0* -0.17
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 338 3.3 4.6 -1.3 -0.07
Riverside Human Capital Development 438 6.0 4.5 1.4 0.08

Had disciplinary action taken weekly (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 369 30.8 37.3 -6.5 -0.17
Atlanta Human Capital Development 412 32.1 36.6 -4.5 -0.12
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 285 34.3 31.6 2.7 0.06
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 261 37.8 31.2 6.6 0.15
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 325 39.4 29.5 9.9* 0.24
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 206 32.4 30.6 1.8 0.05
Riverside Human Capital Development 274 33.9 30.9 3.0 0.08

Had a discipline problem that resulted in parent(s) being notified this school year (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 365 46.4 55.3 -8.9 -0.22
Atlanta Human Capital Development 407 42.4 55.8 -13.4*** -0.34
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 284 33.4 32.7 0.7 0.02
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 259 47.1 31.4 15.7** 0.36
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 325 35.7 29.2 6.4 0.15
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 205 24.6 31.9 -7.3 -0.19
Riverside Human Capital Development 274 35.0 33.2 1.8 0.05

Broad Math Score on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 557 99.7 99.5 0.2 0.01
Atlanta Human Capital Development 627 101.1 99.4 1.7 0.11
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 377 100.0 99.2 0.8 0.05
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 363 97.8 99.0 -1.2 -0.08
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 463 98.9 97.8 1.1 0.07
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 292 97.1 94.6 2.5 0.19
Riverside Human Capital Development 383 95.6 95.4 0.2 0.01

Had above-average Broad Math Score on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised (%)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 557 30.2 27.4 2.8 0.08
Atlanta Human Capital Development 627 31.3 27.8 3.5 0.10
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 377 31.4 23.6 7.8* 0.20
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 363 28.0 24.2 3.8 0.10
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 463 30.8 24.2 6.6 0.16
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 292 30.7 15.9 14.8*** 0.49
Riverside Human Capital Development 383 18.6 17.9 0.7 0.02

Had below-average Broad Math Score on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised (%)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 557 23.5 25.8 -2.3 -0.06
Atlanta Human Capital Development 627 22.2 26.3 -4.1 -0.11
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 377 24.5 21.4 3.1 0.08
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 363 28.5 21.8 6.8 0.18
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 463 25.2 27.0 -1.9 -0.05
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 292 27.9 31.7 -3.8 -0.10
Riverside Human Capital Development 383 34.9 30.1 4.9 0.13

Broad Reading Score on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 557 94.7 95.0 -0.2 -0.02
Atlanta Human Capital Development 627 95.5 95.0 0.5 0.04
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 377 100.2 98.8 1.4 0.09
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 363 97.7 98.7 -1.0 -0.06
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 463 95.4 95.2 0.3 0.02
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 292 93.5 92.6 0.9 0.06
Riverside Human Capital Development 383 93.7 93.2 0.5 0.03

Had above-average Broad Reading Score on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised (%)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 557 15.9 17.5 -1.6 -0.05
Atlanta Human Capital Development 627 17.5 17.6 -0.1 -0.00
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 377 31.5 25.4 6.1 0.15
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 363 27.1 26.1 1.0 0.02
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 463 18.9 19.6 -0.7 -0.02
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 292 17.4 16.9 0.5 0.02
Riverside Human Capital Development 383 15.2 17.9 -2.7 -0.09

Had below-average Broad Reading Score on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised (%)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 557 33.3 36.5 -3.2 -0.08
Atlanta Human Capital Development 627 32.1 36.3 -4.3 -0.11
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 377 24.4 27.9 -3.5 -0.08
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 363 30.2 28.7 1.5 0.04
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 463 36.0 33.7 2.2 0.05
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 292 43.2 38.7 4.5 0.11
Riverside Human Capital Development 383 40.1 37.1 3.0 0.08

Repeated a grade since last interview a (%) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 599 12.8 13.0 -0.1 -0.00
Atlanta Human Capital Development 676 10.9 12.9 -2.0 -0.07
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 428 16.4 11.8 4.6 0.15
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 410 16.1 12.2 3.8 0.13
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 533 3.2 9.4 -6.1** -0.23
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 338 4.8 10.2 -5.4* -0.22
Riverside Human Capital Development 438 6.1 9.9 -3.8 -0.16

Ever repeated a grade (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 336 15.0 11.8 3.2 0.13
Atlanta Human Capital Development 381 11.8 11.9 -0.1 -0.00
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 248 8.9 13.2 -4.3 -0.14
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 238 15.7 12.0 3.6 0.12
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 288 3.7 5.3 -1.6 -0.08
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 181 5.6 7.0 -1.4 -0.07
Riverside Human Capital Development 242 3.7 6.8 -3.1 -0.16

Below grade level in math (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 362 35.9 35.7 0.2 0.01
Atlanta Human Capital Development 401 32.1 35.0 -2.9 -0.08
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 283 38.9 38.4 0.5 0.01
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 257 42.7 38.2 4.4 0.10
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 321 47.4 39.7 7.8 0.18
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 204 46.6 47.1 -0.5 -0.01
Riverside Human Capital Development 269 43.0 45.0 -2.0 -0.05

Above grade level in math (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 362 9.8 8.0 1.8 0.08
Atlanta Human Capital Development 401 7.7 8.3 -0.6 -0.03
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 283 8.1 11.7 -3.6 -0.12
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 257 9.2 11.9 -2.7 -0.09
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 321 6.7 8.5 -1.8 -0.06
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 204 4.3 4.8 -0.5 -0.03
Riverside Human Capital Development 269 5.2 5.3 -0.1 -0.00

Below grade level in reading (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 369 38.8 42.7 -3.9 -0.10
Atlanta Human Capital Development 412 39.3 42.8 -3.5 -0.09
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 285 50.3 44.7 5.6 0.12
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 259 50.9 45.6 5.4 0.12
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 326 49.5 42.4 7.1 0.16
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 207 56.0 54.1 2.0 0.05
Riverside Human Capital Development 274 50.1 53.1 -3.0 -0.07

Above grade level in reading (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 369 12.6 6.9 5.6* 0.27
Atlanta Human Capital Development 412 11.4 6.2 5.2* 0.25
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 285 9.6 12.9 -3.2 -0.11
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 259 14.8 13.1 1.7 0.05
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 326 9.6 15.6 -6.0 -0.17
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 207 7.5 9.8 -2.3 -0.09
Riverside Human Capital Development 274 9.4 10.9 -1.5 -0.06

In remedial math group (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 368 27.7 33.9 -6.2 -0.17
Atlanta Human Capital Development 411 31.1 32.5 -1.4 -0.04
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 287 30.7 28.1 2.7 0.06
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 262 24.7 28.4 -3.7 -0.09
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 326 27.5 27.5 -0.0 -0.00
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 207 28.7 33.5 -4.7 -0.13
Riverside Human Capital Development 272 33.2 32.0 1.2 0.03

In remedial reading group (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 368 36.7 36.7 -0.0 -0.00
Atlanta Human Capital Development 413 35.6 36.8 -1.2 -0.03
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 285 34.1 39.3 -5.3 -0.12
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 262 41.8 40.6 1.2 0.03
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 326 44.5 34.8 9.7* 0.23
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 207 54.3 42.9 11.4 0.28
Riverside Human Capital Development 274 42.8 43.8 -0.9 -0.02

Goes to a special class or school, or gets special help in school, for a physical, emotional, or mental condition (%) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 600 8.2 6.7 1.5 0.07
Atlanta Human Capital Development 678 5.9 6.7 -0.8 -0.04
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 428 21.5 20.0 1.4 0.04
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 410 23.9 19.7 4.2 0.11
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 533 14.5 12.2 2.3 0.08
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 338 17.3 14.1 3.2 0.11
Riverside Human Capital Development 438 12.0 14.2 -2.2 -0.08

Identified as needing and receiving special services (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 377 33.5 42.9 -9.4* -0.24
Atlanta Human Capital Development 419 43.0 42.5 0.5 0.01
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 288 44.4 45.5 -1.1 -0.02
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 264 48.4 45.8 2.5 0.05
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 330 46.7 44.4 2.2 0.05
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 209 52.3 54.1 -1.8 -0.04
Riverside Human Capital Development 279 50.1 54.9 -4.8 -0.12

Identified as needing and not receiving special services (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 377 40.7 38.2 2.6 0.07
Atlanta Human Capital Development 419 32.9 38.3 -5.4 -0.14
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 288 33.0 29.3 3.7 0.09
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 264 31.9 28.3 3.6 0.09
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 330 41.2 32.0 9.2 0.22
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 209 43.7 34.2 9.5 0.24
Riverside Human Capital Development 279 29.1 33.2 -4.1 -0.11

Days absent during current school year (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 318 5.3 4.2 1.1 0.23
Atlanta Human Capital Development 359 5.9 3.8 2.1** 0.43
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 254 7.2 6.6 0.6 0.07
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 243 6.1 6.8 -0.7 -0.09
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 303 6.2 5.6 0.6 0.09
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 191 6.4 6.1 0.3 0.06
Riverside Human Capital Development 256 8.8 6.3 2.5** 0.48

Days tardy during current school year (%) (teacher report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 316 4.0 2.3 1.7* 0.44
Atlanta Human Capital Development 360 2.7 2.2 0.5 0.13
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 253 3.0 3.9 -0.9 -0.13
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 242 3.9 3.9 -0.0 -0.00
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 301 4.0 3.4 0.6 0.09
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 190 3.5 3.2 0.3 0.05
Riverside Human Capital Development 253 3.4 3.3 0.1 0.01

SOURCE:  Child Trends calculations from the Five-Year Child Outcomes Study survey (mother, teacher, and child reports).
NOTES:  See Appendix A.2.
Woodcock-Johnson Broad Math and Broad Reading scores are age-standardized, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
a Measures of events "since the last interview" apply to years 3 to 5 for 2,163 COS sample members (who responded to the survey at 2 years) and years 1 to 5 for 169 sample members (who were interviewed at baseline but not at 2 years).

In general, the impacts on academic functioning were less numerous and their patterns less clear than those found within the social skills and behavior domain. Yet in five of the six programs there were impacts on measures relating to behavioral adjustment to school that, though few, were consistent with the impacts on social skills and behavior noted above. This suggests that impacts on more global ratings of children's social skills and behavior were accompanied by simultaneous changes on measures pertaining specifically to children's behavioral adjustment to school — namely, disciplinary problems and engagement in school.

The pattern of impacts on disciplinary problems and school engagement generally follows that found in the social skills and behavior domain. Both Atlanta programs decreased the likelihood that focal children had a discipline problem requiring parental notification, and the Grand Rapids HCD program increased this likelihood. The Riverside LFA program also increased problems in the full sample, increasing the likelihood of having disciplinary action taken at least weekly with the focal child in the few months prior to the survey. These four programs generally altered the likelihood of discipline problems by between 9 and 16 percentage points, decreasing levels from about 56 to 42 percent in both Atlanta programs and increasing levels from 31 to 47 percent in the Grand Rapids HCD program and from 30 to 39 percent in the Riverside LFA program. In addition, following the pattern of social skills and behavior impacts, the Atlanta HCD program also increased teacher-reported levels of children's engagement in school, whereas both Grand Rapids programs decreased child-reported levels of school engagement. The effect sizes of these impacts ranged between .20 and .30. Hence, the general pattern of findings in the social skills and behavior domain was replicated and extended for measures of academic functioning relating to children's behavioral adjustment to school. The singular exception to this pattern is a decrease in suspensions and expulsions (as reported by mothers) in the Riverside LFA program.

Impacts in the other subdomains of academic functioning were less prevalent across the six programs. Impacts on standardized tests of academic achievement were rare, with only two impacts found across the six programs and across the six measures. There were no aggregate impacts on mean age-standardized achievement test scores, with mean scores for program and control group children across the six programs falling between 93 and 100 on the reading assessment (representing the 32nd and 50th percentiles, respectively) and between 95 and 101 on the math assessment (representing the 37th and 51st percentiles, respectively).(18), (19) There were also no impacts on the prevalence of "below-average" scores — that is, mean age-standardized scores less than 90. The two impacts that were found were both favorable, increasing the prevalence of "above-average" scores (scores above 110) on the math assessment in the Grand Rapids LFA program and in the Riverside LFA program for the subgroup of children whose mothers had limited education at baseline.

Within the subdomain of academic progress and placement, impacts were also few, with no impacts on five of the eight measures. There were some impacts on measures of whether the focal child had repeated a grade (as reported by the mother), was in a remedial reading group, and performed above grade level in reading. The Riverside LFA program decreased the likelihood of having repeated a grade, dropping to about 4 percent from a control group level of about 10 percent for both the full sample and the subgroup of children whose mothers lacked a high school diploma or GED at baseline. The Riverside HCD program also decreased grade repetition by about 4 percentage points, though this difference was just above the cutoff for statistical significance. Yet the Riverside LFA program simultaneously increased the number of children who were in a remedial reading group by about 10 percentage points for both the full sample and those with limited education (from levels of about 35 and 43 percent, respectively), although the difference for the subgroup with limited education was just beyond the cutoff for statistical significance.(20) The Riverside LFA program also increased the percentage of children needing but not receiving services (an unfavorable finding), a difference just beyond the cutoff for statistical significance.

Finally, both Atlanta programs increased the proportion of children reported by their teachers as being above grade level in reading, increasing the levels from about 6 to 12 percent in both programs. In addition, the Atlanta LFA program increased the proportion of children needing and receiving services (an impact that may be favorable or unfavorable depending on whether it reflects more children needing services or more of those who need services receiving them).

Impacts on measures of attendance were also relatively scarce. Generally, control group children were absent for between 4 and 7 percent of days and were tardy between 2 and 4 percent of days in the current school year. Three of the programs (Atlanta LFA and HCD and Riverside HCD) increased absences, although the difference for the Atlanta LFA program was just beyond the cutoff for statistical significance.(21) The Atlanta LFA program also increased the percentage of days that children were tardy. All four of these differences were in the range of 1 to 3 percentage points. As speculated in the next section, the impacts may be related to unfavorable health impacts that were found in these three programs.

[Go To Contents]

C. Health and Safety

Impacts on measures of children's health and safety are shown in Table 12.4. The outcomes in this domain are available only from mothers' reports.

Table 12.4
Impacts on Health and Safety
Site and Program Sample Size Program Group Control Group Difference (Impact) Effect Size

General health rating (range of 1 to 5) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 568 4.2 4.3 -0.0 -0.08
Atlanta Human Capital Development 641 4.3 4.3 0.1 0.09
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 386 4.3 4.3 -0.1 -0.10
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 365 4.3 4.3 0.0 0.07
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 473 4.2 4.3 -0.1 -0.11
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 299 4.2 4.2 0.0 0.07
Riverside Human Capital Development 395 4.1 4.2 -0.1 -0.16

In very good or excellent health (%) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 568 81.8 85.2 -3.4 -0.12
Atlanta Human Capital Development 641 83.6 85.8 -2.1 -0.07
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 386 83.4 90.4 -7.0** -0.26
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 365 87.0 90.1 -3.2 -0.12
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 473 85.7 87.6 -2.0 -0.07
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 299 85.1 82.7 2.5 0.08
Riverside Human Capital Development 395 75.6 83.0 -7.4* -0.24

Has a physical, emotional, or mental condition that requires frequent medical attention, use of medication, or special equipment (%) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 600 6.6 2.7 3.9** 0.30
Atlanta Human Capital Development 678 6.9 2.5 4.4*** 0.34
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 428 13.6 12.8 0.8 0.02
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 410 13.4 13.2 0.2 0.01
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 533 6.7 7.3 -0.6 -0.02
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 338 6.3 6.5 -0.2 -0.01
Riverside Human Capital Development 438 6.5 6.8 -0.4 -0.02

Has a physical, emotional, or mental condition that impedes on mother's ability to go to work or school (%) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 600 4.5 1.2 3.3** 0.34
Atlanta Human Capital Development 678 3.1 1.3 1.8 0.18
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 428 6.4 8.1 -1.7 -0.07
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 410 6.3 8.3 -2.0 -0.08
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 533 4.0 6.2 -2.2 -0.10
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 338 3.1 5.0 -1.9 -0.10
Riverside Human Capital Development 438 5.3 5.2 0.1 0.01

Had an accident or injury requiring emergency medical attention, since the last interview (%) (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 600 15.7 16.4 -0.7 -0.02
Atlanta Human Capital Development 678 15.3 15.9 -0.6 -0.02
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 428 26.3 23.6 2.7 0.07
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 409 22.4 24.2 -1.8 -0.04
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 532 23.2 25.9 -2.7 -0.07
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 337 20.9 21.2 -0.3 -0.01
Riverside Human Capital Development 435 20.4 21.6 -1.3 -0.04
SOURCE: Child Trends calculations from the Five-Year Child Outcomes Study survey (mother reports)
NOTES:  See Appendix A.2. 

The impacts in this domain of development were relatively few. There were no impacts on three of the six measures of health and safety, including mean levels of children's general health, as reported by mothers. Overall, the children in these sites seemed to be relatively healthy compared with children nationally. The proportion of control group children rated by their mothers as being in very good or excellent health ranged from 85 percent (in Atlanta) to 90 percent (in Grand Rapids). These levels are higher than the 1994 estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, in which 78.5 percent of all children aged 5 to 17 and 61.5 percent of those from families with annual incomes below $10,000 were rated by their parents as being in very good or excellent health.(22)

Yet where impacts were found (in four of the six programs) they were consistently unfavorable.(23) Two programs (Grand Rapids LFA and Riverside HCD) decreased the proportion of children reported as being in very good or excellent health, reducing these levels by about 7 percentage points. It is worth noting, however, that these unfavorable impacts resulted from program mothers being more likely than control group mothers to rate the focal child as being in good — not fair or poor — health. In addition, both Atlanta programs unfavorably affected two measures of health, increasing the proportion of children whose mothers reported that they had a physical, emotional, or mental condition that required frequent medical attention or the use of medication or special equipment and increasing the proportion with such a condition that impeded mothers' ability to go to work or school (although the difference for the HCD program on the latter measure was just beyond the cutoff for statistical significance). The impacts on conditions requiring frequent medical attention or the use of medication or special equipment were each about 4 percentage points. The impacts on conditions impeding the mothers' work or schooling were generally smaller, about 3 percentage points in the LFA program and about 2 percentage points in the HCD program. These health impacts may shed light on the unfavorable impacts on absenteeism and tardiness that were found in the Atlanta programs and in the Riverside HCD program. It is possible that the decreases in health status caused by these programs led to an increased likelihood of a child's being absent or tardy.

[Go To Contents]

D. Other Outcome

There were no aggregate impacts on the likelihood that focal children lived away from their mothers because they could not care for them. Between 3 percent (in Atlanta) and 9 percent (in Riverside) of program group mothers reported separation from focal children for this reason, levels that did not differ significantly from those reported by the control groups in any site. (See Table 12.5.)

Table 12.5
Impacts on an Outcome Related to Living Arrangements

Site and Program

 Sample Size Program Group (%) Control Group (%) Difference (Impact) Effect Size

Lived apart from mother, since last interview,because she could not care for child (mother report)
Atlanta Labor Force Attachment 600 2.5 4.6 -2.1 -0.12
Atlanta Human Capital Development 678 3.1 4.9 -1.9 -0.11
Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment 428 6.0 5.9 0.1 0.00
Grand Rapids Human Capital Development 410 4.6 7.0 -2.4 -0.11
Riverside Labor Force Attachment 533 8.6 6.4 2.2 0.10
Lacked high school diploma or basic skills 338 6.1 6.2 -0.1 -0.01
Riverside Human Capital Development 438 5.0 6.8 -1.7 -0.09
SOURCE: Child Trends calculations from the Five-Year Child Outcomes Study survey (mother reports)
NOTES:  See Appendix A.2. 

[Go to Contents]

IV. "Mapping" Child and Adult Impacts Found in the Child Outcome Study Sample

There were relatively few impacts on young children's developmental outcomes at the five-year point; possible reasons why more numerous impacts on children were not found are addressed in the next section. Nevertheless, there were more statistically significant impacts than would be expected by chance, indicating that welfare-to-work programs can (though modestly) alter children's developmental outcomes — though in different ways across programs, sites, and developmental domains.

This section addresses the question: What may have led to the program impacts on children that were found at the five-year point? The sophisticated statistical analyses necessary to answer this question definitively are beyond the scope of the chapter. However, any such "pathways" analyses would need to begin with an examination of impacts on outcomes hypothesized to serve as pathways through which children were affected — for example, employment, income, and child care — and "map" these impacts onto the impacts found for children. If, for example, the programs producing predominantly favorable impacts on young children were the same programs that also increased mothers' employment, this may suggest that increasing employment is one way to improve child outcomes. If, in addition, the programs that did not produce favorable impacts on children also did not increase employment, then increasing employment would appear to be a necessary condition for improving child outcomes. To address this issue, the following section describes the patterns of key adult impacts that may explain the larger pattern of child impacts across programs.(24)

A. Educational Attainment

There is not a one-to-one relationship between impacts on mothers' educational attainment and impacts on young children across programs. Given the literature on the importance of mothers' education for children's developmental outcomes, one would expect increases in mothers' education to bode well for children.(25) On the one hand, this appears to be the case: Both the Atlanta and the Riverside HCD programs increased mothers' receipt of an education credential, and impacts of these programs on young children were favorable, whereas the Grand Rapids LFA program decreased receipt of such a credential, and impacts of this program on young children were unfavorable. On the other hand, increases in mothers' education do not appear necessary for improving child outcomes. The Atlanta LFA program did not increase mothers' educational attainment, nor did the Riverside LFA program for the subgroup of mothers lacking basic skills at baseline, yet these programs also improved child outcomes. Similarly, the Grand Rapids HCD program did not alter mothers' educational attainment but, like the LFA program in this site, it led to uniformly unfavorable impacts on children. Thus, impacts on mothers' education may, in part, underlie impacts on children in some programs, but not in other programs.

B. Employment and Earnings

The pattern of impacts on mothers' employment and earnings also does not appear to explain differences in child impacts across programs. For instance, while both Riverside programs produced relatively large gains in both earnings and employment (with the LFA program having these favorable effects both for the full sample and for the subgroup of mothers lacking a high school diploma at baseline), the pattern of child impacts varied according to mothers' education level, with few, but favorable, child impacts for children of mothers without a diploma and somewhat more numerous and unfavorable impacts for children of mothers in the full sample. Further, there were increases of a similar magnitude in earnings in both Atlanta programs and the Grand Rapids LFA program, yet the Atlanta programs generally improved child outcomes whereas the Grand Rapids programs worsened them. Hence, it is not likely that changes in employment and earnings can account for the different pattern of child impacts across programs.

C. Cumulative Income and Poverty Status

Some studies have shown that greater income is related to better child outcomes, though other studies have found that increased income is most beneficial when it lifts families out of poverty, since families with income below the poverty line are not likely to have sufficient resources to meet their basic needs.(26) However, there is no apparent relationship in the COS sample between impacts on total combined income across years 1 through 5, or on family poverty status in year 5, and impacts on young children. First of all, there were no impacts on total combined income in the COS sample, so income cannot be the driving force behind either the favorable or the unfavorable impacts on children. With respect to impacts on poverty status at the five-year point, the only program to significantly influence poverty levels, the Riverside HCD program, reduced poverty and improved functioning among focal children. However, the other programs had no significant influences on poverty, providing little support for the hypothesis that changes in poverty status in year 5 of the follow-up are the driving force in impacts on children. It is important to note, however, that this measure of poverty status does not capture program impacts on cumulative poverty over the five-year period. Yet previous research suggests that children's cumulative poverty experiences are more important for their developmental outcomes than is their poverty status in any given year.(27) Hence, although these findings suggest that poverty at the time of the follow-up is not likely to account for the pattern of impacts on children, we can draw few inferences about the role of cumulative poverty in accounting for these impacts.

D. Child Care

The pattern of impacts in the COS sample on measures of employment-related child care does not appear to explain differences in child impacts across programs. There were increases in the use of child care after leaving welfare (because of earnings) in both programs in Atlanta and Riverside, and in the LFA program in Grand Rapids; however, these programs did not have uniformly favorable or unfavorable impacts on children. Likewise, when impacts on the use of transitional child care benefits emerged in the COS sample, the programs increased the use of this benefit, yet impacts on young children within these programs were, again, both favorable and unfavorable.

Impacts on young children's supervision and child care during nonschool hours occurred almost exclusively in the Riverside site and, therefore, cannot explain the pattern of child impacts found across the programs.

[Go To Contents]

V. Discussion and Conclusions

The major goal of the Child Outcomes Study was to determine whether mandated participation in a welfare-to-work program could have implications for enrollees' children — particularly preschool-age children whose mothers were newly required by the Family Support Act of 1988 to engage in work preparation activities as a condition of receiving welfare. Some policymakers feared that requiring mothers of preschool-age children to secure employment would harm their children; others argued that the economic benefits of employment that would accrue to these families would benefit children. Findings from the COS indicate that there were relatively few long-term impacts of the JOBS programs evaluated in NEWWS on children's developmental outcomes. The lack of pervasive impacts on children is perhaps not surprising, given that the JOBS program was not aimed at children. It may be that impacts on outcomes important to children, such as mothers' employment, family income, and/or the children's immediate environments (home, school, child care), were too few, occurred for too brief a period, or were of an insufficient magnitude to lead to consistent, enduring impacts on young children. It is also possible that impacts at the five-year point are understated in Atlanta and Grand Rapids because some control group members in these sites became eligible for welfare-to-work program services in years 4 or 5 of the follow-up period.

However, the number of impacts found exceeds chance levels, and there was a discernible pattern of impacts on young children.(28) At the five-year follow-up, all six JOBS programs examined affected children's social skills and behavior. Both Atlanta programs increased positive behaviors, and decreased problem behaviors; both Grand Rapids programs decreased positive behaviors, and the HCD program increased problem behaviors; and the Riverside LFA program increased problem behaviors in the full sample.(29), (30) For young children whose mothers lacked a high school diploma or basic skills at study entry, both programs in Riverside increased positive behaviors. Changes in problem behaviors may be especially important; research has shown that a history of antisocial behavior in childhood — which is partially measured by the problem behaviors examined in this study — is the strongest risk factor for chronic delinquency among adolescents.(31)

Impacts on young children's academic achievement were also relatively rare, but findings relating to behavioral adjustment to school (school engagement, disciplinary problems) were in accord with the patterns described above, with uniformly favorable impacts in Atlanta and uniformly unfavorable impacts in Grand Rapids. Impacts relating to how children were performing academically in school were scarce; however, when impacts were found on these outcomes and others, they were at the lower end of the effect size range for early intervention programs aimed directly at children. These findings suggest that welfare-to-work programs can affect children's performance in school, albeit not as frequently nor as systematically as they appear to affect children's behavior.

Finally, there were also few impacts in the domain of health and safety; however, they were all unfavorable, occurred in four of the six programs,(32) and tended to occur in programs that also increased children's school absenteeism and/or tardiness. In many cases, these unfavorable health impacts were being driven by the unfavorable impacts for boys, with girls' health left largely unaffected by these programs.

A second goal of the COS was to determine whether program impacts on young children of enrollees differed according to the welfare-to-work strategy employed — specifically, a Labor Force Attachment or a Human Capital Development strategy. Some believed that increases in mothers' educational attainment resulting from participation in an HCD program would bode particularly well for children — particularly for their school success — even if such participation did not lead immediately or ultimately to increased employment and earnings. Others argued that the quicker that mothers secured employment (through the LFA approach), the quicker that financial benefits would accrue to children. However, contrary to these initial hypotheses, the welfare-to-work strategy employed did not consistently produce different impacts on children at the five-year follow-up.(33) In direct comparisons of LFA and HCD programs, neither approach emerged as uniformly better or worse for children.

Did five-year impacts on children vary according to initial levels of family risk? The Family Support Act sought explicitly to reduce long-term welfare dependency by providing the services necessary to move long-term recipients into jobs. Many argued that the opportunities that JOBS provided would be more beneficial for the most disadvantaged participants (five-year impact findings for adults discussed in Chapter 7 support this hypothesis), thereby improving outcomes for children. Others feared that higher-risk participants might not be able to mobilize to meet JOBS requirements and would face sanctions, and they and their children would subsequently suffer. Contrary to these expectations, findings from the five-year follow-up do not show a discernible pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts — either across programs or within a single program — for children of the "most disadvantaged" mothers.(34) Thus, children aged 8 to 10 in these higher-risk families do not appear to have been consistently helped or hurt by their mothers' enrollment in the LFA and HCD programs. Rather — and somewhat unexpectedly — there emerged a concentration of unfavorable impacts on children of the least disadvantaged mothers in the Riverside LFA program.(35) Interestingly, the Riverside LFA program unfavorably affected the same problem behavior and discipline outcomes for girls, which begs the question of whether these unfavorable impacts were concentrated among the least disadvantaged girls.(36)

In the Riverside LFA program, the unfavorable impacts on the academic performance, school engagement, and problem behaviors of focal children with the least disadvantaged mothers found at the five-year point are consistent with those found at the two-year point: increased academic problems, emotional problems, and suspensions or expulsions of children in lower-risk families. Other than these impacts, the JOBS programs examined in COS did not appear to have a similar pattern of short- and long-term impacts on children from families varying in initial risk. The only other pattern of findings to emerge by family risk level at the two-year follow-up(37), (38) — a pattern of favorable (though relatively small) impacts on children in higher-risk families in all HCD programs and in the Atlanta LFA program — did not emerge at the five-year point for children with the most disadvantaged mothers.

What led to the program impacts on children at the five-year point? It is worthwhile to note what did not lead to these impacts. Recent reviews of experimental findings for children indicate that, when welfare-to-work programs increase both maternal employment and family income, children often benefit.(39) However, because none of the six JOBS programs examined here affected the income of COS sample families, income cannot be a pathway through which children were affected. Also, use of child care does not appear to underlie program impacts on children.

There is some evidence from a nonstatistical "mapping" of adult and child impacts at the five-year point that maternal education may have been an important pathway through which some children were affected by their mothers' enrollment in an LFA or HCD program. Three of these programs affected both maternal education and child outcomes in the same direction; in the other three programs, though maternal education was not affected, children were. Thus, changes in mothers' education may not necessarily lead to changes in child outcomes, but when mothers' education is affected, it may have implications for their children. This finding is consistent with results showing that increased participation in educational activities by mothers in these three COS sites predicted greater academic school readiness in their children.(40)

In addition to examining the pattern of impacts across programs, it is important to consider impacts specific to a particular program for identifying possible pathways through which children were affected by that program. For example, the Riverside LFA program reduced time spent in child care activities after school and decreased the use of formal child care as a regular arrangement. Given some emerging evidence on the potential benefits of more formal child care arrangements on children,(41) the reduction in the use of formal care may be related to the pattern of unfavorable impacts of this program on these young children. In addition, research has shown a negative association between family residential moves and children's behavior.(42) This may help to explain the pattern of unfavorable impacts in Grand Rapids, given that both the LFA and the HCD programs in this site increased the likelihood that families had moved since study entry and also had unfavorable impacts on social skills and behavior among children aged 8 to 10. In short, because program impacts on children represent the net effect of all impacts on outcomes important to their development and well-being, and because impacts on these "intervening" outcomes may differ in different programs, future research needs to examine pathways for each program separately and needs to consider, simultaneously, all the intervening outcomes that were affected by each program.(43)

What is clear is that the sites in which these six JOBS programs were implemented varied — geographically, economically, demographically (including the racial/ethnic composition of the caseloads), and in the policies, practices, and ethos of the local welfare offices.(44) Differences in program implementation may also help to explain the pattern of impacts. For example, though the Atlanta site successfully implemented distinct LFA and HCD models (in terms of the content and sequence of services), a large proportion of both HCD and LFA case managers in this site believed that an education-oriented welfare-to-work strategy was the best means of leaving welfare.(45), (46) In addition, case managers in the Atlanta site viewed their roles as very customer-oriented; they actively sought out necessary support services for their clients and were less strict about monitoring compliance. It may be that the policies, practices, and ethos of the Atlanta welfare office "fit" well with the needs of its female clients to balance both work and family responsibilities and that this context helps to explain the beneficial results for children in both the LFA and the HCD programs.

Although a national program, the JOBS program was implemented locally — in sites that differed in economic conditions, the population served, and in the ethos and practices of the welfare offices. These conditions, though not included in the statistical analyses reported on here, shape the way the JOBS programs were implemented in each site and, thus, can shape the impacts that these programs have on targeted and nontargeted adult outcomes and on child outcomes in as yet unknown ways. Future research on the effectiveness of welfare-to-work programs — for both generations — may need to focus increasingly on identifying what works for whom, and under what circumstances. Such research would be informative to state and local policymakers and program planners who increasingly bear the responsibility, in this age of devolution, to design and effectively target welfare-to-work programs.

[Go to Contents]

Endnotes

1.  Although focal children were aged 8 and 10 at the five-year follow-up, they are characterized as "young" children because they were preschool-age at random assignment.

2.  COS families consisted solely of single mothers with preschool-age children at random assignment; the larger samples included married couples and families not necessarily with a preschool-age child but with children of any age. COS mothers were somewhat younger, less likely to have been married, more likely to have a high school diploma or GED, and they had a slightly higher number of children on average than parents in the full evaluation sample. In addition, in Atlanta and Riverside, COS mothers were less likely to have ever worked full time for six months or more for the same employer at baseline. See Hamilton, 2000, p. 11.

3.  A more detailed analysis of program impacts on boys and girls at both the two-year and the five-year follow-up is beyond the scope of this report and will be done as part of future analyses.

4.  Gresham and Elliot, 1990, p. 1.

5.  Woodcock and Johnson, 1989, 1990.

6.  As noted in Chapter 2, the sample for the analyses of achievement test scores and of the mother- and child-reported child outcomes comprises 2,332 mothers and their focal children, and the sample for the analyses of teacher-reported child outcomes includes responses from 1,472 teachers of focal children in the final mother and child survey sample.

7.  Achenbach, 1991.

8.  Admittedly, even objective assessments of childrens' academic skills may contain some cultural biases.

9.  Interestingly, the favorable impacts on behavior in the Atlanta programs were largely concentrated among girls, with girls showing fewer problem behaviors and more positive behaviors in both programs and, in the HCD program, fewer disciplinary problems as well.

10.  There was a single finding that did not fit with this overall pattern of favorable impacts on social skills in the Atlanta programs: The LFA program decreased child-reported cooperation, though this difference was just beyond the cutoff for statistical significance (p = .11).

11.  Although the difference for teacher-reported cooperation in the Grand Rapids HCD program was just beyond the cutoff for statistical significance, it was of a size comparable to similar impacts in other programs that were statistically significant.

12.  The impacts on behavior in the Riverside LFA program occurred especially (or, in many cases, only) for the least disadvantaged subgroup and were part of a larger picture of unfavorable impacts for this subgroup that extended past behavior into teachers' reports of academic progress and placement. Further, the increases in problem behavior in this program were concentrated largely among girls and were accompanied by an increase in disciplinary problems among girls.

13.  Though the latter two differences were above the cutoff for statistical significance, they were both of a size comparable to impacts in other programs that were statistically significant.

14.  Berrueta-Clement et al., 1984; Campbell and Ramey, 1994.

15.  Although relatively little is known about predictors and consequences of positive development in children and youth, there are some indications that positive development can lead to more successful future functioning. See Moore and Glei, 1995.

16.  Gresham and Elliot, 1990, p. 1. See, for example, Coie and Dodge, 1983; Cowen et al., 1973; Parker and Asher, 1987.

17.  Farrington, 1987, as cited in Yoshikawa, 1995.

18.  Scores on that fall between 90 and 110, representing the 25th to the 75th percentiles, respectively, are classified as "average" or "normal" (Woodcock and Mather, 1989, 1990).

19.  Nevertheless, there were impacts on mean math scores within gender subgroups in both Riverside programs. Both programs increased mean math scores for boys whose mothers lacked a high school diploma or GED at baseline. Additionally, the Riverside HCD program also increased boys' mean reading scores and, interestingly, decreased girls' mean math and mean reading scores.

20.  While the impacts of the Riverside LFA program may seem inconsistent (simultaneously decreasing the number of children repeating a grade and increasing the number in a remedial reading group), these impacts occurred on experiences that apply to only a minority of the sample and thus may not pertain to the same children. In other words, the children who were in a remedial reading group may not be the same individuals who repeated a grade. Alternatively, it may be that teachers' evaluations of children's reading and math skills are highly dependent on children's classroom behavior, in which case the impact on being in a remedial reading group may reflect the behavioral impacts of this program more so than its impacts on measures of academic progress or placement. This speculation is supported by a set of findings for the least disadvantaged subgroup, in which there is a general pattern of unfavorable impacts on teachers' reports of behavior. At the same time, however, there is a single finding that appears to diverge from this pattern. Program group children of the least disadvantaged mothers are more likely to score above average on the reading test than controls yet are less likely to be rated as above grade level in reading by their teachers. This suggests that teachers' evaluations of children's performance in reading incorporate more than the children's actual reading skills (which, in fact, increased for program group children). For example, teachers perceiving less school engagement and more disciplinary problems in children (which was more true for the Grand Rapids HCD program group than for the control group) may have difficulty accurately gauging a child's reading skills if the child is having difficulty remaining seated or following instructions during reading class. Likewise, even among children with identical capabilities in reading, a teacher might be less likely to move a child into a higher-level reading group (and/or more likely to move him or her into a lower-level group) if the child tends to be disruptive to other students in the class.

21.  The increase in absenteeism in the Atlanta LFA program occurred especially among the least disadvantaged subgroup, a finding that was part of a broader pattern of unfavorable impacts for this subgroup.

22.  Adams and Marano, 1995. It may be surprising that mothers in the COS sample reported higher health ratings for their children aged 8 to 10 than were reported for both all children aged 5 to 17 and those from low-income families in a national sample. However, mothers were exempt from participation in JOBS welfare-to-work activities if they were needed at home to care for an ill or incapacitated family member, including a child. Consequently, the COS sample of children is relatively healthy, whereas national samples of children would include some severely and chronically ill children.

23.  The pattern of unfavorable health impacts, including some new impacts in subgroups that were masked in the aggregate, was found to be largely concentrated among boys.

24.  The adult economic impacts discussed in this section pertain to adults in the COS. See Appendix I for detailed tables of these impacts. The smaller sample sizes of the COS at times led differences that were of a similar magnitude to significant impacts in the larger evaluation samples to be nonsignificant in the COS sample. Hence, this discussion reports on differences in the COS that were either statistically significant or of a similar or greater size than a significant difference in the larger sample of adults within a given program.

25.  See Duncan and Magnuson, 2001.

26.  Duncan and Brooks-Gunn, 1997.

27.  Duncan and Brooks-Gunn, 1997.

28.  Impacts on young children two years after enrollment (when focal children were aged approximately 5 to 7) tended to vary by developmental domain, with only favorable aggregate impacts in the cognitive domain and only unfavorable impacts in the health and safety domain. Impacts on young children's behavior and socioemotional functioning were both favorable and unfavorable. See McGroder et al., 2000; and Zaslow, McGroder, and Moore, 2000.

29.  These patterns of impacts for young children do not match findings discussed in Chapter 11, as the client survey sample respondents did not provide any information on social skills and behavior for all of their children. Only mothers in the COS provided this information for the focal children, as presented in this chapter, and it is precisely this domain of child outcomes most consistently affected by these programs.

30.  As stated previously, the favorable impacts of the Atlanta programs on young children's positive and problem behaviors were especially pronounced for girls. At the same time, the unfavorable impacts of the Riverside LFA program on young children's problem behaviors were also especially pronounced for girls.

31.  Farrington, 1987, as cited in Yoshikawa, 1995.

32.  Interestingly, as reported in Chapter 11, favorable impacts were found for preschool-age children on whether any child had a condition that impeded on the mother's ability to go to work or school in the Riverside LFA program (for both the full sample and for those in need). Approximately two-thirds of the children in this age group were included in the COS sample presented in this chapter. As shown in Table 12.4, though, there were no favorable health impacts on this measure for the Riverside LFA program in the COS sample. However, the difference in the means between the program and control groups did go in the same direction. Perhaps the larger size of the client survey sample (and, thus, smaller standard errors) accounts for the difference in the presence of impacts.

33.  Similarly, impacts on young children at the two-year follow-up did not vary consistently by welfare-to-work strategy employed. See Hamilton, 2000; McGroder et al., 2000; and Zaslow, McGroder, and Moore, 2000.

34.  The most disadvantaged mothers did not have a high school diploma as of random assignment, did not work in the year prior to random assignment, and had been on welfare for at least two years as of random assignment. The least disadvantaged mothers had none of these barriers, and the moderately disadvantaged mothers had one or two of these barriers. See Chapter 7.

35.  Although samples sizes for the least disadvantaged subgroup in these programs were relatively small, impacts for this subgroup are being reported because they were relatively numerous and were consistent in direction (they were mainly unfavorable). A similar pattern of unfavorable impacts was found for children in lower-risk families (defined by greater employment and low levels of welfare receipt) assigned to Florida's Family Transition Program. See Bloom et al., 2000a.

36.  Small sample sizes precluded testing this hypothesis empirically.

37.  See McGroder et al., 2000.

38.  These comparisons rely on different child outcomes measured at the two-year and five-year follow-ups (with no child or teacher reports in the two-year follow-up) and on different (though similar) characterizations of subgroups.

39.  Zaslow et al., forthcoming.

40.  Magnuson and McGroder, 2001.

41.  NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2000; see also U.S. Department of Education, 1995. As discussed in Chapter 10, the NICHD findings also suggest that extensive participation in formal child care arrangements may have the unfavorable result of increasing children's externalizing behavior problems.

42.  Zaslow and Eldred, 1998.

43.  Findings from the two-year COS suggest that young children may be affected through multiple pathways, that pathways can vary according to the child outcome considered, and that different programs may activate different pathways in affecting children. See McGroder et al., 2000.

44.  Hamilton and Brock, 1994.

45.  Hamilton et al., 1997.

46.  This may be one reason that only the LFA program in Atlanta improved mothers' educational attainment by the two-year follow-up. See McGroder et al., 2000; Zaslow et al., 2000.

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents

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)