[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]
This chapter examines the effects of employment- and education-focused programs on a variety of outcomes meant to capture the household and personal circumstances of families in the NEWWS Evaluation, such as sample members' household composition, relationships with other household members and with people outside the household (such as colleagues at work), and housing status.
Policymakers and researchers have increasingly come to recognize that welfare recipients' household and personal circumstances may influence the long-term impacts of welfare-to-work programs as well as mediate the impacts of these programs on children. For example, as welfare recipients go to work or increase their hours of employment, a spouse, partner, or extended family member may provide important support, particularly by caring for young children. The financial contribution of other members of the family or household may also play an essential role in moving a family out of poverty and into long-term self-sufficiency — particularly since, as demonstrated in earlier chapters, these programs do not necessarily increase respondents' total income. The quality of personal and other relationships and housing status can also influence employment and other economic outcomes. For instance, welfare recipients who must contend with verbal or physical threats or who are worried about leaving their children alone at home in an unsafe neighborhood may have difficulty getting a job and keeping it.
At the two-year follow-up, few of the 11 welfare-to-work programs evaluated were found to have effects on marriage or additional births (that is, the number of children born since random assignment).(1) This chapter examines whether these programs produced impacts on these and related outcomes five years after study entry. In addition, for six programs in three sites, it examines program impacts on measures not examined at the two-year point — specifically, measures of physical and nonphysical employment-related and domestic abuse by intimate partners or others.
Earlier chapters in this report presented impacts on employment, earnings, welfare receipt, and income for the full sample in the evaluation. This chapter examines outcomes and impacts for the Five-Year Client Survey sample, which included sample members in Atlanta, Grand Rapids, Riverside, and Portland (for details, see Chapter 2). In general, as discussed in Appendix I, the pattern of impacts for the client survey sample and the administrative records sample were similar for the LFA and HCD programs in Atlanta and Grand Rapids. The Riverside LFA program produced larger reductions in welfare and, consequently, larger losses in income for the client survey sample than for the full sample, and the Riverside HCD program produced larger increases in earnings, and, consequently, smaller losses in income for the client survey sample than for the full sample. The effects of the Portland program were also much less positive for the client survey sample than for the full sample. Thus, generalizations concerning how the Portland program effects on economic outcomes, especially those documented in earlier chapters, may have affected the outcomes described in this chapter should be made with considerable caution. Furthermore, it is important to remember that many of the family outcomes examined in this chapter were measured at the time of the five-year survey or during the last year of follow-up, by which time the control group embargo had been lifted in Atlanta and Grand Rapids.
The outcomes presented in this chapter depict important aspects of sample members' lives — as a representative subsample of welfare recipients — and, thus, are noteworthy whether or not program impacts occurred. For this reason, hypotheses are followed by a descriptive analysis of selected outcomes that are of particular interest in terms of welfare and employment policy: marriage, living with unrelated adults and reports of domestic abuse. The chapter discusses program impacts and, briefly, links between effects on these aspects of sample members' lives and program practices and program effects on employment.
These welfare-to-work programs generally had few effects on household and personal circumstances. The lack of dramatic changes in outcomes such as marriage and fertility are not surprising since these programs were structured primarily to alter employment behavior rather than aimed at decreasing additional births or affecting marriage. Even so, the lives of program participants were affected in ways that are reassuringly positive: Some program group members moved to get better housing, one program increased home ownership, and nearly all LFA and HCD programs reduced reports of physical abuse. Furthermore, there were more effects on these latter outcomes than would be expected by chance. All program effects on household and personal circumstances are summarized in Table 9.1.
| Atlanta | Grand Rapids | Riverside | Portland | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LFA | HCD | LFA | HCD | LFA Full | LFA In-need a | HCD | ||
| Marital status b | ||||||||
| Married | ||||||||
| Cohabiting | I | I | ||||||
| Separated or divorced c | D | |||||||
| Never married | ||||||||
Fertilityd |
||||||||
| Presence of a new baby | I | |||||||
Household composition b |
||||||||
| Lives alone | D | D | I | |||||
| Lives with other adult and/or children e | ||||||||
Moving and housing status |
||||||||
| Ever moved d | I | I | ||||||
| Moved more than once d | I | I | I | I | ||||
| Owns a home b | I | |||||||
| Other housing b, f | I | |||||||
| Domestic abuse in prior year g,h | D | D | D | D | ||||
NOTES: "I" indicates that the program produced a
statistically significant increase in the outcome. "D" indicates a statistically
significant decrease in the outcome. Blank spaces indicate that there were
no impacts. |
||||||||
[Go To Contents]
The outcomes examined in this chapter generally fall into the following categories: marital status, household composition, moving and housing status, and employment-related and domestic abuse by intimate partners and others. The relevant time periods for which these outcomes are measured also vary, with some capturing circumstances at the time of the survey interview, the month prior to the interview, during the last year of the follow-up, during the entire five-year follow-up period, or at any point during an individual's life.
Marital status was measured at one point in time: the month prior to the survey interview. Dynamic or cumulative patterns of marital status are therefore not captured. Five mutually exclusive categories of marital status were created: married and living with a spouse, cohabiting, separated, divorced, widowed, and never married.
Measures of household composition were constructed from a grid that questioned the respondent about all household members who stayed in her home for at least two nights a week during the month prior to the survey interview. For all measures of household composition, it is assumed that household members in the respondent's generation or older are adults(2) and that household members in a younger generation are children.(3) Adult extended family members include parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, and other adult relatives. For comparability with census definitions of "living with unrelated adults," the measure of living with unrelated adults was constructed based on information about household members and marital status.(4) If respondents listed unrelated adults as household members or reported not being married and living as a couple with a boyfriend or partner, they were considered to be living with unrelated adults. "Living with unrelated adults" includes cohabiting partners who may have fathered at least one child in the household.(5) All marital status categories were coded independently from household composition outcomes. For example, some respondents could have reported living with a "partner" or a "spouse" but may not have reported being "married" or "cohabiting."(6) Specific information about whether or not the father of at least one child lived in the household was not collected for all client survey respondents. Thus, respondents who reported being married or cohabiting may include marriage or cohabitation with the father of at least one child in the household. Presence of a new baby during the five-year follow-up period was measured by comparing the birth dates of each biological, legally adopted, or step child with the date of random assignment (plus nine months). To evaluate changes in outcomes over time and compare these patterns with national figures (described in the final section of this chapter), comparable outcomes were created for sample members who had information collected at both the two-year follow-up and the five-year follow-up.
Measures of moving reflect any moves that occurred during the five-year follow-up period. The proportion of respondents who moved is calculated as the number who reported moving at least once since the time of random assignment over all respondents. Measures of housing status reflect only status during the month prior to the survey interview. Respondents were considered to be renting a home or room if they reported renting their own home or room or living with family or friends and contributing to part of the rent. Respondents were considered to be living in other housing arrangements if they reported living in a group shelter, in jail, alone and rent free, in another unspecified housing arrangement, or being homeless.(7) Living in public or subsidized housing includes living in housing owned or operated by a local housing authority or other government agency as well as Section 8 housing.
Measures of employment-related and domestic abuse were collected at the five-year follow-up for sample members who were part of the Child Outcomes Study(8) via a self-administered questionnaire, a method intended to preserve the privacy of the interviewee and increase valid response rates to sensitive questions. Average rates of nonresponse on these outcomes ranged from about 4 to 10 percent for questions about employment-related abuse and from about 7 to 15 percent for more specific questions about domestic abuse.(9) Multiple measures depicting the quality of employment-related and other relationships were created, including job-related abuse that occurred at any time in a respondent's life, abuse (physical or nonphysical) by intimate partners or others at any time in a respondent's life, and abuse that occurred during the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview.
Employment-related abuse (including job discouragement, job harassment, and job deterrence) is measured over a respondent's lifetime (though individuals are likely to have experienced these employment-related aspects of abuse only as an adult when they were actually employed). Respondents were considered to have experienced job discouragement at any time in their life if they reported at least one of the following: someone ever tried to discourage them from finding a job or going to work; someone ever made them feel guilty about going to work; someone ever refused to help them or went back on promises to help with child care, transportation, or housework; someone ever made it difficult for them to attend or complete programs or classes that would help them get a good job. The measure of job harassment includes being harassed at the workplace over the telephone and/or in person. Respondents were considered to have experienced job deterrence at any time in their life if they reported that someone had ever caused them to quit or lose a job and/or someone ever prevented them from finding a job. These variables were coded as "0" for respondents reporting that they did not experience job discouragement, harassment over the phone or in person, or job deterrence.
Because individuals in program and control groups are similar at the time of random assignment in their observed and unobserved characteristics, including experience with abuse prior to random assignment, it is likely that program impacts on these "lifetime" measures will capture effects that occurred during the five-year follow-up period. Furthermore, program group members may have been more likely to experience these types of employment-related abuse during this period since these welfare-to-work programs targeted and increased employment. As a result, fewer reports of employment-related abuse for program group members than for control group members will be especially difficult to detect. Nonetheless these measures are important in providing a general picture of rates of employment-related abuse in welfare populations.
Measures of experiencing any physical or nonphysical domestic abuse were created for two points in time: at any time in the respondent's life and during the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview. Information about the timing of the most recent incident of abuse (for example, this week, a week ago, a month ago, six months ago, a year ago, or more than a year ago) was collected only for those respondents who reported any domestic abuse. Respondents were generally asked if they had experienced any of the following types of domestic abuse: being yelled at or put down on purpose, controlled, insulted, or sworn at; threatened with physical harm; hit, slapped, kicked, or otherwise physically harmed; or if "none of these things have ever happened to me." Measures of more recent domestic abuse were also created for those individuals who reported these same types of abuse in the year prior to the survey interview (for example, the most recent incident happened either the week of the survey interview or the week, month, six months, or year prior to the survey interview). For these measures of recent abuse, respondents who did not report any domestic abuse or who reported that the most recent incident occurred more than a year ago were coded as "0." The measures of more recent physical domestic abuse include being hit, slapped, kicked, or otherwise physically harmed; the measures of more recent nonphysical domestic abuse include all other types of abuse. Measures of physical abuse and nonphysical abuse are not mutually exclusive.
[Go to Contents]
The policies followed in the welfare-to-work programs examined in this report are not expected to directly affect, in this case increase or preserve, the likelihood of marriage.(10) Given the effects on economic outcomes such as employment, earnings, and income, how may these welfare-to-work programs affect the marital status of survey respondents? Increased employment may increase the likelihood of marriage by expanding a single mother's social network or increasing her self-esteem, and, perhaps, her attractiveness to a potential partner. Or increased employment may decrease the likelihood of marriage because less time is available to search for a partner or socialize with a partner.(11)Income may also affect marriage in distinct ways — by decreasing financial pressure to get married or, perhaps, by increasing the financial security of a respondent who would otherwise have less family income.
At the time of study entry all survey respondents were single mothers with children. How many of these mothers got married in the absence of the program? Figure 9.1 shows control group levels of marriage for the four survey sites using the sample of respondents who were in both the two-year and five-year surveys. This figure shows that across all sites between 8 percent and just over 20 percent of survey respondents reported being married at either the two-year or the five-year follow-up. This outcome was created to roughly capture a measure of "ever being married" during a five-year time period. This figure also shows that in Atlanta and Portland the majority of respondents in the control group who got married did so relatively late in the follow-up period, at some time during the last three years (that is, they were married at the five-year follow-up but not married at the two-year follow-up).
Figure 9.1
Control Group Levels of Marriage
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the Five-Year Client Survey.
NOTES: See Appendix A.2.
Owing to missing values, sample sizes may vary.
Table 9.2 shows that none of these welfare-to-work programs had an impact on marriage. Although all programs showed a consistent pattern of increasing cohabitation, only the Riverside LFA program increased cohabitation significantly ¯ by 4.6 percentage points, or 43 percent. It may be the case that more program group members are engaging in less-formal relationships than control group members, who are more likely to get married. Interestingly, in support of this hypothesis, program group members in Portland were 6.0 percentage points, or 43 percent, more likely to cohabit, and 6.2 percentage points, or 26 percent, less likely to get married than control group members. These effects approached statistical significance (p = 0.11). Thus, it appears that in Portland control group members were more likely to get married and program group members were more likely to cohabit. However, this hypothesized pattern of more program group members engaging in less-formal relationships than control group members is not clear in Atlanta and Grand Rapids.
Site and Program |
Sample Size | Program Group (%) | Control Group (%) | Difference (Impact) | Percentage Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Married, living with spouse |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,060 | 9.8 | 8.4 | 1.3 | 15.8 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,135 | 6.9 | 8.4 | -1.5 | -18.2 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,090 | 22.8 | 20.5 | 2.3 | 11.1 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,102 | 20.3 | 20.5 | -0.2 | -1.0 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,213 | 20.6 | 22.0 | -1.4 | -6.5 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 654 | 18.6 | 18.1 | 0.5 | 2.9 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 773 | 21.8 | 18.1 | 3.7 | 20.5 |
| Portland | 501 | 17.4 | 23.6 | -6.2 | -26.1 |
Cohabiting |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,060 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 0.4 | 5.8 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,135 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 0.1 | 1.0 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,090 | 17.4 | 15.9 | 1.5 | 9.4 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,102 | 16.2 | 15.9 | 0.3 | 2.0 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,213 | 15.3 | 10.7 | 4.6** | 42.6 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 654 | 15.9 | 11.1 | 4.9* | 43.9 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 773 | 13.7 | 11.1 | 2.6 | 23.6 |
| Portland | 501 | 19.9 | 13.9 | 6.0 | 43.0 |
Separated, divorced, or widowed |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,060 | 34.8 | 37.2 | -2.4 | -6.5 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,135 | 36.1 | 37.2 | -1.1 | -3.0 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,090 | 29.5 | 33.7 | -4.1* | -12.2 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,102 | 32.7 | 33.7 | -0.9 | -2.8 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,213 | 45.0 | 45.8 | -0.8 | -1.8 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 654 | 44.1 | 46.4 | -2.3 | -5.0 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 773 | 42.1 | 46.4 | -4.3 | -9.2 |
| Portland | 501 | 38.8 | 38.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Never married |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,060 | 48.4 | 47.7 | 0.7 | 1.5 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,135 | 50.3 | 47.7 | 2.6 | 5.4 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,090 | 30.3 | 30.0 | 0.4 | 1.2 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,102 | 30.8 | 30.0 | 0.8 | 2.7 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,213 | 19.1 | 21.4 | -2.3 | -10.9 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 654 | 21.3 | 24.4 | -3.1 | -12.5 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 773 | 22.3 | 24.4 | -2.1 | -8.5 |
| Portland | 501 | 23.9 | 23.7 | 0.2 | 0.7 |
| SOURCE: MDRC calculations
from the Five-Year Client Survey. NOTES: See Appendix A.2. Owing to missing values, sample sizes may vary. |
|||||
Only one other impact on marital status was found. Program group members in the Grand Rapid LFA program were less likely to report being separated, divorced, or widowed by 4.1 percentage points, or 12 percent. This latter effect is a result of either control group members moving into marriage or cohabitation or program group members getting married and then separating or divorcing by the time of the five-year follow-up. The lack of more pervasive impacts on these point-in-time measures of marital status is not surprising for two reasons. As noted above, these programs were not intended to affect marital behavior. Also, point-in-time measures of marital status will not capture effects on marital status changes, and program effects on employment, for example, that occurred earlier in the follow-up period may have been more likely to affect the timing of marriage. Also, a respondent could have married after the two-year survey and divorced by the time of the five-year survey, and this change would not be measured in the survey.
[Go To Contents]
While these welfare-to-work programs were not intended to alter fertility behavior, single mothers who are engaged in employment or training and who face a higher cost of becoming pregnant may be less likely to have another child. Or, because of age exemptions for the youngest child, they may have an incentive to have a baby in order to avoid any employment or training requirements.
Table 9.3 (first panel) shows impacts on fertility. There were few significant impacts on the presence of a new baby in the household during the five-year follow-up period. Although there were no program impacts for program group members in the Riverside HCD program, LFA in-need sample members (a subgroup without a high school diploma or GED at study entry) were significantly more likely to have a new baby in the household, and, in fact, a similar effect that approaches statistical significance exists for all program group members in the Riverside LFA program (p = 0.12). (Because respondents were not specifically asked about whether or not they had a baby, this measure captures new births as well as new additions of an infant through marriage, adoption, or foster care.)
| Site and Program | Sample Size | Program Group (%) | Control Group (%) | Difference (Impact) | Percentage Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Since random assignment |
|||||
| Presence of a new baby | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,069 | 11.6 | 12.4 | -0.8 | -6.7 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,145 | 12.5 | 12.4 | 0.1 | 0.7 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,097 | 22.6 | 21.7 | 0.9 | 4.3 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,109 | 22.2 | 21.7 | 0.5 | 2.4 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,218 | 25.5 | 22.1 | 3.4 | 15.5 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 656 | 28.2 | 23.1 | 5.1* | 22.2 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 777 | 24.1 | 23.1 | 1.0 | 4.5 |
| Portland | 504 | 17.3 | 22.7 | -5.3 | -23.6 |
During month prior to five-year interview |
|||||
| Lives alone | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,071 | 2.2 | 5.8 | -3.6*** | -62.7 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,146 | 3.2 | 5.8 | -2.6** | -44.4 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,097 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 13.1 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,109 | 4.1 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 17.4 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,219 | 3.7 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 52.8 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 657 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 159.9 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 778 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 2.3* | 190.4 |
| Portland | 504 | 2.8 | 3.2 | -0.4 | -11.6 |
| Lives with children only | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,071 | 62.9 | 61.8 | 1.1 | 1.7 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,146 | 65.6 | 61.8 | 3.8 | 6.1 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,097 | 45.1 | 49.6 | -4.5 | -9.1 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,109 | 49.2 | 49.6 | -0.3 | -0.7 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,219 | 46.0 | 46.6 | -0.6 | -1.2 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 657 | 50.3 | 50.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 778 | 47.2 | 50.1 | -2.9 | -5.9 |
| Portland | 504 | 48.6 | 45.2 | 3.5 | 7.7 |
| Lives with partner/spouse and children | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,071 | 14.4 | 12.3 | 2.1 | 16.9 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,146 | 11.3 | 12.3 | -1.0 | -8.3 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,097 | 34.4 | 31.5 | 2.9 | 9.0 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,109 | 31.7 | 31.5 | 0.2 | 0.6 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,219 | 31.2 | 28.5 | 2.6 | 9.3 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 657 | 29.4 | 25.5 | 3.9 | 15.2 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 778 | 29.9 | 25.5 | 4.4 | 17.1 |
| Portland | 504 | 28.5 | 32.7 | -4.2 | -12.9 |
| Lives with adult extended family and any children | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,071 | 17.1 | 16.7 | 0.4 | 2.7 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,146 | 18.2 | 16.7 | 1.5 | 8.8 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,097 | 13.4 | 12.5 | 1.0 | 7.9 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,109 | 9.8 | 12.5 | -2.7 | -21.7 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,219 | 14.3 | 16.4 | -2.0 | -12.4 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 657 | 13.8 | 17.1 | -3.3 | -19.3 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 778 | 15.8 | 17.1 | -1.3 | -7.9 |
| Portland | 504 | 12.8 | 12.7 | 0.1 | 0.4 |
| Lives with an unrelated adult | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,060 | 10.0 | 8.4 | 1.6 | 18.7 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,135 | 8.8 | 8.4 | 0.3 | 3.7 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,090 | 20.8 | 19.5 | 1.3 | 6.4 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,102 | 19.5 | 19.5 | -0.1 | -0.3 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,213 | 19.7 | 17.5 | 2.2 | 12.5 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 654 | 18.9 | 17.3 | 1.6 | 9.0 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 774 | 17.2 | 17.3 | -0.1 | -0.7 |
| Portland | 502 | 25.9 | 21.0 | 4.9 | 23.3 |
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the Five-Year Client Survey.
|
|||||
In the context of these programs, the immediate presence of other adults or family members may facilitate the transition to employment or may ease the burden of being employed during rotating or weekend hours because of available child care support. Thus, welfare-to-work programs may encourage single mothers to live with extended family. Decreases in income may also encourage program group members to live with extended family or a partner. Alternatively, increases in income may allow program group members to live independently, without the sup-port of relatives or other adults. Because it is often assumed that other household members contribute to family income, one outcome of particular policy interest is the proportion of single mothers who live with an unrelated adult. Unrelated adults who are not cohabiting partners may not contribute to family resources in the same way as spouses or cohabiting partners. Figure 9.2 shows the proportion of control group members who lived with unrelated adults, for the sample of respondents who were in both the two-year and five-year surveys. Approximately 10 percent (in Atlanta) to 25 percent (in Riverside) of the control group members lived with an unrelated adult at the two-year follow-up or the five-year follow-up (again, a best estimate of "ever" occurring over a five-year follow-up period). These outcome levels are somewhat comparable to recent figures showing that 24 percent of single mothers in the poorest income decile lived with an unrelated male in 1995 and 25 percent lived with an unrelated male in 1997.(12)
Figure 9.2
Control Group Levels of Living with an Unrelated Adult
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the Five-Year Client Survey.
NOTES: See Appendix A.2.
Owing to missing values, sample sizes may vary.
The lower panels of Table 9.3 show impacts on living with an unrelated adult and various other measures of household composition. Overall, there were few program impacts on household composition, except for impacts on living alone. The proportion of sample members who reported living alone at the five-year follow-up was less than 6 percent. The Atlanta LFA and HCD programs decreased the proportion of program group members who reported living alone by 3.6 and 2.6 percentage points, respectively; however, the Riverside HCD program increased the proportion by 2.3 percentage points. Although it is difficult to determine without further analysis, these effects may suggest that program group families in Atlanta are more likely to live with their children and program group families in the Riverside HCD program are less likely to live with their children. There is some, albeit rough, support for this hypothesis. As discussed in Chapter 11, very young children of program group members in Atlanta are less likely than children of control group members to have not lived with their mother because she could not care for them, and children of program group members in Riverside are more likely than children of control group members to have not lived with their mother because she could not care for them.
[Go To Contents]
Program effects on employment and income may also affect the likelihood of moving or seeking better or different housing. For example, a decrease in income may encourage or force program group members to move into less expensive housing, whereas an increase in income may allow them to move into better housing or own a home.
Table 9.4 shows impacts on moving and housing. A high proportion of sample members — 66 to 86 percent of the control group — moved at least once during the five-year follow-up period. There was greater variation across sites in the proportion of control group members who moved more than once during the follow-up period: Nearly 30 percent moved more than once in Atlanta whereas up to 60 percent moved more than once in Riverside. Of the seven welfare-to-work programs, impacts on ever moving were produced only in Grand Rapids, where the LFA program increased the likelihood of moving by 7.6 percentage points, or 9.8 percent, and the HCD program increased the likelihood of moving by 5.4 percentage points, or 7 percent. Although the Riverside LFA program did not increase the likelihood of moving once during the follow-up, it did increase the likelihood of moving more than once by 7.9 percentage points, or 13 percent. A significant increase in moving more than once was also found for the Riverside in-need sample (respondents without a high school diploma or GED at study entry).
Site and Program |
Sample Size | Program Group (%) | Control Group (%) | Difference (Impact) | Percentage Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Since random assignment | |||||
| Ever moved | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,070 | 67.0 | 66.2 | 0.8 | 1.2 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,145 | 67.7 | 66.2 | 1.5 | 2.3 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,097 | 85.6 | 78.0 | 7.6*** | 9.8 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,109 | 83.4 | 78.0 | 5.4** | 6.9 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,219 | 86.4 | 84.0 | 2.4 | 2.8 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 657 | 83.6 | 81.8 | 1.8 | 2.2 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 778 | 81.8 | 81.8 | -0.0 | -0.0 |
| Portland | 504 | 84.8 | 85.7 | -0.9 | -1.0 |
| Moved more than once | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,068 | 30.6 | 29.7 | 0.9 | 3.1 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,144 | 31.1 | 29.7 | 1.4 | 4.7 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,096 | 62.0 | 53.9 | 8.2*** | 15.2 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,108 | 62.1 | 53.9 | 8.3*** | 15.3 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,219 | 67.5 | 59.6 | 7.9*** | 13.3 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 657 | 63.4 | 56.2 | 7.1** | 12.6 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 778 | 59.1 | 56.2 | 2.8 | 5.0 |
| Portland | 504 | 60.2 | 59.4 | 0.8 | 1.3 |
| At five-year interview | |||||
| Owns home | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,062 | 7.5 | 5.3 | 2.2 | 42.3 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,133 | 6.6 | 5.3 | 1.3 | 24.5 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,080 | 20.6 | 18.2 | 2.4 | 13.3 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,091 | 22.3 | 18.2 | 4.1* | 22.4 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,208 | 10.7 | 10.2 | 0.5 | 4.9 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 650 | 8.9 | 9.1 | -0.2 | -2.5 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 766 | 12.9 | 9.1 | 3.8 | 41.8 |
| Portland | 495 | 7.7 | 9.4 | -1.6 | -17.3 |
| Lives in public/subsidized housing | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,062 | 49.1 | 53.6 | -4.5 | -8.5 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,133 | 50.8 | 53.6 | -2.9 | -5.3 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,080 | 20.1 | 21.9 | -1.8 | -8.3 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,091 | 18.3 | 21.9 | -3.6 | -16.5 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,208 | 15.0 | 14.6 | 0.4 | 2.6 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 650 | 18.1 | 16.2 | 1.9 | 11.9 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 766 | 17.6 | 16.2 | 1.4 | 8.7 |
| Portland | 495 | 29.2 | 30.0 | -0.8 | -2.7 |
| Rents home or room | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,062 | 42.7 | 40.6 | 2.1 | 5.1 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,133 | 40.9 | 40.6 | 0.3 | 0.7 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,080 | 58.2 | 58.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,091 | 57.1 | 58.1 | -1.1 | -1.8 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,208 | 72.4 | 73.7 | -1.3 | -1.7 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 650 | 71.4 | 73.2 | -1.8 | -2.4 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 766 | 67.0 | 73.2 | -6.2* | -8.4 |
| Portland | 495 | 59.8 | 59.4 | 0.4 | 0.7 |
| Other housing | |||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 1,062 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 50.4 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 1,133 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 1.3** | 302.5 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 1,080 | 1.1 | 1.8 | -0.7 | -37.9 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 1,091 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 33.7 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 1,208 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 25.1 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 650 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 5.9 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 766 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 62.4 |
| Portland | 495 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 158.2 |
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the Five-Year Client Survey.
|
|||||
Why did survey respondents move? For program group members (across sites) who moved, the most important reasons were that they felt that their current housing was old or bad, that is, the neighborhood was unsafe; they wanted to leave a bad relationship; or the space was too small. The next most important reason for moving was that respondents wanted and could afford a better place to live. And these reasons were more commonly cited by program group members who moved than by control group members who moved, which suggests that program impacts on moving can be interpreted as a positive outcome for respondents' well-being.
Table 9.4 also shows that there were few program effects on home ownership or other housing situations, such as renting or living in public or subsidized housing. One impact of note, given the impacts on moving previously discussed, was that the Grand Rapids HCD program increased the likelihood of owning a home at the time of the five-year follow-up by 4.1 percentage points, or 22 percent. It is striking that rates of home ownership among control group members are nearly twice as high in Grand Rapids as in all other sites. This can be partly attributed to relatively low housing costs and relatively little access to apartments or public/subsidized housing compared with the other sites.
[Go to Contents]
Current debates about welfare policy include whether or not and how to protect welfare recipients from abusive relationships. Although these welfare-to-work programs did not test the effects of time limits or special exemptions for victims of domestic abuse, increased employment and earnings may indirectly affect the incidence of employment-related or domestic abuse. On the one hand, increased employment may enhance self-esteem and encourage program group members to leave abusive relationships, or increased hours of employment may simply reduce contact with intimate partners or family members who are abusive or remove individuals from abusive situations. On the other hand, increased employment may exacerbate abuse that is occurring in a current relationship as a partner or spouse negatively or violently reacts to the enhanced independence and self-sufficiency that accompanies employment.(13) In addition, because welfare benefits are replaced by earned income, increased employment in the context of these programs may not lead to increased personal resources or, possibly, the ability to leave an abusive relationship.
As noted, information about job-related and domestic abuse was collected only for respondents in the Child Outcomes Study sample in Atlanta, Grand Rapids, and Riverside. Employment-related abuse is measured over a respondent's lifetime. However, because information about the timing of domestic abuse is available, these outcomes are presented for two time periods — at any time during a respondent's life and in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview.
Figure 9.3 shows the proportion of control group members who experienced domestic abuse at any time in their life (for example, had been threatened, yelled at, insulted, or physically harmed) and who experienced domestic abuse by an intimate partner in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview. Nearly 50 to 70 percent of control group members reported ever being abused. Control group rates of any domestic abuse by intimate partners in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview ranged from 15 to 20 percent. This is roughly 9 percentage points lower than the abuse rates documented for long-term recipients with young school-age children in the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) and for recipients and applicants in Florida's Family Transition Program (FTP).(14) However, state and national estimates suggest that approximately 20 percent of the welfare population currently experiences domestic abuse and from 40 to 70 percent experienced domestic abuse at any time during their life.(15)
Figure 9.3
Control Group Levels of Having Experienced Any Domestic Abuse
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the Five-Year Client Survey.
NOTES: See Appendix A.2.
Owing to missing values, sample sizes may vary.
Impacts on employment-related abuse and domestic abuse that occurred at any time during a respondent's life are shown in Table 9.5. Less that 10 percent of control group members reported experiencing any job harassment (being interrupted by phone or in person by someone) and up to approximately 30 percent reported experiencing job deterrence (being forced to quit or prevented from taking a job). The first three panels of Table 9.5 show that none of the programs in the three sites affected reports of any lifetime experience of having been discouraged from taking a job, harassed while holding a job, or deterred from getting a job. The relatively low levels and lack of impacts on these outcomes are quite encouraging given recent literature that finds that conflicts with intimate partners or others serve as an important barrier to work faced by former welfare recipients.(16) Table 9.5 also shows reported any lifetime experience of domestic abuse. With one exception, none of programs affected reports of any lifetime experience of domestic abuse. Program group members in the Grand Rapids LFA program were 11 percentage points, or 17 percent, more likely to report any lifetime experience of domestic abuse. Further analyses suggest that this experience occurred before random assignment or during the first few years of follow-up and, for the most part, was nonphysical abuse by someone other than an intimate partner, such as a friend or family member (not shown). There were significant differences between the LFA and HCD program approaches on this outcome in Grand Rapids.
Site and Program |
Sample Size | Program Group (%) | Control Group (%) | Difference (Impact) | Percentage Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Any lifetime experience of having been discouraged from taking a job a |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 573 | 29.1 | 29.6 | -0.5 | -1.8 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 646 | 30.7 | 29.6 | 1.0 | 3.5 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 417 | 36.1 | 39.5 | -3.4 | -8.6 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 398 | 33.0 | 39.5 | -6.5 | -16.4 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 502 | 36.7 | 36.5 | 0.2 | 0.6 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 317 | 31.6 | 36.7 | -5.1 | -13.9 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 418 | 34.5 | 36.7 | -2.2 | -6.1 |
Any lifetime experience of having been harassed while holding a job a |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 565 | 6.0 | 8.1 | -2.1 | -25.6 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 639 | 6.2 | 8.1 | -1.9 | -23.9 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 415 | 8.5 | 9.9 | -1.4 | -14.1 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 398 | 8.0 | 9.9 | -1.9 | -19.4 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 496 | 9.9 | 8.6 | 1.3 | 15.3 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 311 | 11.3 | 7.2 | 4.1 | 56.7 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 413 | 7.2 | 7.2 | -0.1 | -0.8 |
Any lifetime experience of having been deterred from getting or holding a job a |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 575 | 20.9 | 20.8 | 0.1 | 0.4 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 654 | 20.2 | 20.8 | -0.6 | -3.1 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 417 | 21.2 | 29.0 | -7.8* | -26.8 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 400 | 23.4 | 29.0 | -5.6 | -19.3 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 501 | 27.0 | 24.6 | 2.3 | 9.5 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 315 | 23.2 | 23.7 | -0.5 | -2.1 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 415 | 24.5 | 23.7 | 0.8 | 3.6 |
Any lifetime experience of domestic abuse |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 541 | 51.5 | 49.6 | 1.9 | 3.8 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 610 | 48.7 | 49.6 | -1.0 | -1.9 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 396 | 75.8 | 65.0 | 10.8** | 16.6 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 379 | 62.8 | 65.0 | -2.2 | -3.5 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 471 | 61.4 | 65.1 | -3.7 | -5.7 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 289 | 55.8 | 61.2 | -5.4 | -8.8 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 380 | 64.0 | 61.2 | 2.8 | 4.6 |
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the Five-Year Client Survey.
|
|||||
Table 9.6 shows impacts on measures of domestic abuse in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview. Although programs had few effects on measures of employment-related or domestic abuse that occurred at any point in a respondent's life, the welfare-to-work programs did affect one important aspect of the quality of more recent relationships. In particular, in all of the LFA and HCD programs, program group members reported fewer incidences of experiencing physical domestic abuse (for example, hitting) during the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview, by 3 to 6 percentage points, than control group members, and nearly all of these program-control group differences achieved or approached statistical significance.(17)
Site and Program |
Sample Size | Program Group (%) | Control Group (%) | Difference (Impact) | Percentage Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Experienced any abuse in prior year |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 541 | 21.4 | 20.1 | 1.3 | 6.4 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 610 | 16.4 | 20.1 | -3.7 | -18.3 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 396 | 24.5 | 22.2 | 2.3 | 10.2 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 379 | 17.5 | 22.2 | -4.7 | -21.2 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 471 | 15.6 | 19.2 | -3.5 | -18.4 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 289 | 16.0 | 18.9 | -2.9 | -15.6 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 380 | 19.2 | 18.9 | 0.3 | 1.4 |
Experienced physical abuse in prior year |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 541 | 3.7 | 7.4 | -3.7** | -50.2 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 610 | 4.4 | 7.4 | -2.9 | -39.7 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 396 | 10.9 | 13.7 | -2.8 | -20.4 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 379 | 7.9 | 13.7 | -5.8* | -42.4 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 471 | 7.5 | 13.1 | -5.6** | -42.5 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 289 | 6.0 | 12.3 | -6.3** | -51.4 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 380 | 7.0 | 12.3 | -5.2 | -42.6 |
Experienced nonphysical abuse in prior year |
|||||
| Atlanta Labor Force Attachment | 541 | 21.0 | 19.7 | 1.3 | 6.6 |
| Atlanta Human Capital Development | 610 | 15.8 | 19.7 | -3.9 | -20.0 |
| Grand Rapids Labor Force Attachment | 396 | 24.5 | 21.7 | 2.8 | 13.0 |
| Grand Rapids Human Capital Development | 379 | 17.5 | 21.7 | -4.2 | -19.2 |
| Riverside Labor Force Attachment | 471 | 15.6 | 18.8 | -3.2 | -16.9 |
| Lacked high school diploma or basic skills | 289 | 16.0 | 18.4 | -2.4 | -13.0 |
| Riverside Human Capital Development | 380 | 19.2 | 18.4 | 0.9 | 4.7 |
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the Five-Year Client Survey.
|
|||||
[Go to Contents]
Of all of the outcomes and impacts examined in this chapter, only one may be differentiated by a particular program practice: The effect of the Grand Rapids LFA program on having experienced domestic abuse at any point during a respondent's lifetime is significantly different from the effect of the HCD program. Although puzzling, it is unlikely that this effect depicts a general difference between LFA and HCD program approaches since these differences did not occur in Atlanta or Riverside, or on measures that were confined to the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview. These welfare-to-work programs had few effects on measures of any lifetime experience of employment-related or domestic abuse. However, a striking and consistent pattern of impacts was found on the measure of quality of relationships in the prior year, with fewer program group members than control group members reporting experiences with physical domestic abuse (for example, by an intimate partner) in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview. At the same time, there is no evidence that these programs altered respondents' living arrangements at the time of the survey interview.
The effects on physical domestic abuse are reassuringly positive and suggest that employment can play a role in influencing some aspects of the quality of relationships. Unlike policies that include an enhanced earned income disregard, increased employment, in the context of these welfare-to-work programs, did not always lead to enhanced personal resources or income that ultimately may help domestic abuse victims to leave their relationships. For example, recent MFIP findings suggest that MFIP's financial incentives, rather than the added effects of MFIP's participation requirements, produced the effects on decreased domestic abuse.(18) Although these financial incentives contributed to increased employment, their most pronounced effects were to increase income and decrease poverty. The welfare-to-work programs evaluated in this report do not have a similar policy component, and certainly do not mirror MFIP's effects on income. In fact, as previously mentioned, cumulative effects on average combined income varied considerably across sites. The differences in program effects on average combined income — that also exist during the final year of follow-up — and similarities in program effects on domestic abuse across sites suggest that some other program effect may be contributing to decreased reported rates of physical abuse.
Research suggests that women who have experienced recent abuse are as likely to be employed as those who have not had a similar experience with abuse and that most women on welfare want to work and have work experience whether or not they have been victims of abuse.(19) Program effects on employment somewhat support these research conclusions; that is, though most programs increased employment at some point during the follow-up period some programs did not necessarily increase employment during the last year of follow-up, yet these same programs led to fewer reports of physical abuse. Thus, in some cases current employment may have played an important role, while in other cases early boosts in employment may have played an important role. Employment may not have always led to increased financial resources, but it may have increased self-esteem or self-efficacy, giving respondents the courage to leave abusive relationships, or may have simply reduced contact with abusive partners or situations.
Additional analyses were conducted to examine the relationship, if any, between effects on employment attributed to the LFA and HCD programs and effects on domestic abuse. These analyses do not reveal whether or not employment led to less physical abuse or vice versa, but can reveal whether or not effects on employment or program practices were at all related to effects on physical abuse: Did the same program group members who experienced increased employment also report less physical abuse? This hypothesis was examined by estimating impacts on joint outcomes depicting combinations of "being employed at any time during the follow-up period" and "experiencing physical domestic abuse in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview" and "being employed in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview" and "experiencing physical domestic abuse in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview." Effects on these joint outcomes showed that both Riverside programs and the Grand Rapids HCD program significantly increased the likelihood of being employed and reporting no physical abuse in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview. The pattern of effects was similar, though not statistically significant, for both Atlanta programs. Similar effects were not found for the joint measure of "employed and reporting no physical domestic abuse in the year prior to the five-year follow-up interview," suggesting that early effects on employment may have contributed to decreased reports of physical abuse later in the follow-up.(20)
Research suggests that abuse by intimate partners may be a critical barrier to employment: Abusers sabotage women's employment efforts, often leaving them with little choice except to quit or miss work or schooling.(21) In this regard, it may have been the mandate to engage in employment-related activities and the very real threat of losing portions of the welfare benefit that helped women overcome any partner interference in their training or employment.(22)
Other possible explanations for observed effects on physical domestic abuse that occurred later in the follow-up period include program practices by caseworkers early in the follow-up period. Did program group members who reported less physical abuse later in the follow-up period also report that JOBS staff helped them with particular problems or provided them with particular services early in the follow-up period? Program group members who reported physical abuse in the last year of follow-up were more likely than program group members who reported no abuse to also report at the two-year follow-up that JOBS staff were highly likely to help them with problems that made it difficult to participate in JOBS. Again, these differences were especially pronounced among sample members in both Riverside program and the Grand Rapids HCD program. Thus, some of the impact on decreased physical abuse later in the follow-up period may be attributed to effects on "increased attention" by JOBS staff to deal with problems, such as domestic abuse, that might have made participation in employment or employment-related activities difficult.
The TANF program of PRWORA paid special attention to women who experienced or were at imminent risk of serious partner violence and intimidation. As a result, states were given the option to engage in procedures to identify and assess risk, provide services, and, if necessary, temporarily waive program requirements for victims of abuse. The findings of this study are encouraging because they highlight the fact that for some battered women, employment and/or caseworker attention to special services may lead to greater safety. Perhaps these women were able to make changes in their relationships or separate from their abusers, or, through employment, were able to physically remove themselves from abusive situations. Thus, the belief that most battered women need to be relieved of employment requirements is not born out by this study. However, employment at a time of risk may not have such positive results for other abused women, particularly those who are at imminent risk and may require temporary relief from employment requirements. Identifying these women and their needs is important so that various approaches may be developed and implemented to best assist all battered women to move into employment and off welfare.(23) The impacts on physical domestic abuse noted in this chapter are quite striking and merit further analysis and attention. Questions for further research include: How does employment and the characteristics of employment affect employment-related and domestic abuse? Does employment-related and domestic abuse affect employment stability? Are effects on employment-related and domestic abuse linked to effects on marital status or household composition?
[Go to Contents]
1. Freedman et al., 2000a, Appendix C.
2. This category includes spouse, partner, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, uncle, aunt, cousin, other adult male or female relative, and other unrelated male or female adult.
3. This category includes son, daughter, nephew, niece, grandson, granddaughter, and other unrelated male or female child.
4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000.
5. Including cohabitors who may have fathered at least one child in the household is consistent with recent work by Primus et al., 1999, that documents the proportion of single mother families who live with unrelated adults using data from the Current Population Survey. Information about whether or not a father lives in the household is available for a subset of client survey respondents (those who were also in the Child Outcomes Study sample). However, even this information is relevant only for the focal child in the family.
6. The percentage of respondents who reported these types of discrepancies is small: 2.6 percent of respondents reported being married or cohabiting and did not list a spouse or partner as a household member; 0.7 percent of respondents reported not being married or cohabiting but listed a spouse or partner as a household member.
7. The incidences of each of these categories alone were negligible — less than 5 percent of the client survey sample reported living in any one of these arrangements.
8. For more detailed information on the Child Outcomes Study sample, see Chapter 12.
9. Gallup-Black, 1999, discusses in detail the quality of data on domestic abuse and domestic barriers to work when collected via self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) and Computer-Assisted Self-Interview (CASI). CASI users sit alone with a computer and headphones and type their answers directly into the computer. Gallup-Black compared SAQ-based NEWWS data with CASI-based Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) data. She found that NEWWS respondents were less likely to answer questions about sensitive items than MFIP respondents.
10. An example of a policy that can be expected to affect marriage is streamlining eligibility rules for two-parent families on welfare by excluding any restrictions about the number of hours a spouse may work, often called the "100-hour" rule.
11. See Harknett and Gennetian, 2001, for detailed hypotheses about how welfare and employment programs, or changes in employment and income, may affect marital behavior.
12. Primus et al., 1999, using data from the Current Population Survey.
13. Riger and Krieglstein, 2000.
14. Gennetian and Miller, 2000; Bloom et al., 2000a.
15. Allard et al., 1997; Raphael and Tolman, 1997.
16. Danziger et al., 1999.
17. The effect for the Atlanta HCD program is significant at the p = 0.12 level and the effect for the Riverside HCD program is significant at the p = 0.11 level.
18. Gennetian and Miller, 2000.
19. Lyon, 2000.
20. According to a similar analysis, the puzzling effects on ever experiencing abuse in the Grand Rapids LFA program do not appear to be linked with employment at all.
21. Riger, Ahrens, and Blickenstaff, 2001, Chapter 7. Some examples of sabotage include turning off alarm clocks, failing to fulfill child care responsibilities, destroying textbooks, and administering beatings so that a woman has highly visible bruises. Raphael, 1996.
22. Unfortunately, the survey collected only information about whether or not a respondent "ever" experienced various barriers to employment by intimate partners and others, and, thus, these measures cannot be confined to the same period of time as the abuse measures.
23. The survey questions in the five-year interview in this study were not structured to identify women at imminent risk (or the effects of any exemptions for these women), but rather to capture whether or not personal or other relationships affected women's ability to participate in program requirements or employment, and whether or not services by program staff, enhanced employment, or other resources, including income, can alter the quality of relationships.
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)