[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]
The WtW Grants Program was designed to serve adults at risk of long-term dependency on TANF and other forms of public assistance. This chapter describes the individuals the program actually served by characterizing WtW enrollees at the time they enrolled (henceforth termed "at the time of program entry") in terms of their demographic characteristics, labor market assets and liabilities, previous involvement in the welfare system, and employment history.
The sources of the data used in this chapter are the evaluation's baseline survey of WtW enrollees, who completed a background information form when they entered the program, and state automated files containing employer-reported data on earnings on jobs covered by Unemployment Insurance.(13)
[Go To Contents]
Consistent with the profile of TANF recipients nationwide, the majority of WtW enrollees in the study sites tended to be unmarried women, less than 40 years old, and of a minority race or ethnicity (Exhibit II.1). The Boston site typifies this pattern. There, 93 percent of enrollees were women and 93 percent were also minorities. Only 5 percent of WtW enrollees in Boston were married. In sharp contrast to the typical study site, Milwaukee's Nontraditional Opportunities for Work (NOW) program, which served noncustodial parents who were on probation or parole or were scheduled to be released soon from prison, had a clientele that was 95 percent male. WtW enrollees in the three primarily rural sites (West Virginia, St. Lucie County, and Yakima) also defied typical patterns: they were less likely than their counterparts in the study's urban sites to be women or members of a minority group and somewhat more likely to be married. In West Virginia, only 17 percent of enrollees were minorities and more than a quarter were married.
In most sites, women represented more than three-quarters of WtW enrollees. Furthermore, over 90 percent of enrollees were women in all sites except Milwaukee (5 percent), West Virginia (79 percent), and Yakima (80 percent). In Nashville and Philadelphia, practically all WtW enrollees were women.
The majority of WtW enrollees were African American in all sites except West Virginia, where the proportion of enrollees who were black was 14 percent. In Chicago and Philadelphia, about 90 percent of WtW enrollees were black, reflecting the prevalence of African Americans in their TANF populations. Hispanics accounted for more than one in four WtW enrollees in Boston and Ft. Worth, reflecting the profile of the welfare population in these areas. In St. Lucie County, only 8 percent were Hispanic, despite a large Hispanic presence in Florida.
Very few WtW enrollees were married when they entered the program. With the exception of West Virginia, fewer than one in six WtW enrollees was married at the time of program entry. Moreover, also with the exception of West Virginia, the majority of enrollees had never been married. Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia exhibited particularly high rates of enrollees — about three in four — who had never been married at the time of program entry.
[Go To Contents]
As indicated in the implementation report (Nightingale et al. 2002), many WtW enrollees in the study sites had characteristics often associated with disadvantages in the labor market: low levels of education, work-limiting health problems, and presence of a young child at home.
In six of the sites, more than a third of WtW enrollees were high school dropouts (Exhibit II.2). For example, about four in ten of the enrollees in the Milwaukee, Ft. Worth, and Philadelphia sites were high school dropouts. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Phoenix — a site that provided a rapid attachment WtW program — had, at 55 percent, the highest rate of WtW enrollees that had dropped out of high school by the time they enrolled in the WtW program. Not surprisingly, the two sites that emphasized career advancement — Baltimore and St. Lucie counties, which use the JHU model — had the lowest rates of high school dropouts among WtW enrollees, at 15 percent and 17 percent, respectively.
Work-limiting health problems were another factor that may have affected the employment prospects of WtW enrollees as they entered the program. In most sites, more than one in five enrollees had a work-limiting medical condition, physical disability, emotional or mental condition, drug or alcohol use, or other problem. There was a fair amount of variation in this proportion across the sites, ranging from 10 percent in St. Lucie County to 31 percent in Yakima.(14) There was also substantial variation across the sites in the types of work-limiting health problems reported by WtW enrollees — but in general, a medical condition was the most common, and drug or alcohol use the least common.(15)
The health problems or disabilities of a household member were a barrier to employment for about 1 in 10 WtW enrollees. Enrollees' responses to the BIF survey indicate that these conditions, while less prevalent than their own health problems, made it difficult for the enrollees to work, attend training, or go to school.
The presence of young children in the household also may have been a barrier to employment, especially where affordable child care options were scarce. There was great variation across sites in the percentage of enrollees who had a child aged 3 years or younger in the household, ranging from 11 percent in Baltimore County to 42 percent in Phoenix.
[Go To Contents]
The WtW grants program was designed to help adults who are at risk of long-term dependency on public assistance, and in most sites almost all WtW enrollees had received TANF at some point in their lives. In fact, in all of the study sites except Milwaukee — where the WtW program targeted noncustodial parents — 87 percent or more of WtW enrollees had received TANF at some point in their lives (Exhibit II.3). In contrast, only 14 percent of Milwaukee's enrollees had received TANF by the time they entered WtW.(16)
While sites were very similar in terms of the predominance of WtW enrollees who had received TANF at some point in their lives, they exhibited more variation in the prevalence of WtW enrollees receiving TANF at the time of program entry. In sites like Chicago, Ft. Worth, and Philadelphia, over 90 percent of all WtW enrollees received TANF at the time of enrollment. But in Baltimore County — one of the two JHU sites focused on providing post-employment services — current TANF recipients accounted for only 24 percent of WtW enrollees. An even more dramatic contrast, though certainly not surprising, is Milwaukee, where current TANF recipients accounted for 1 percent of WtW enrollees.
While a history of welfare receipt was very common among WtW enrollees, long-term welfare receipt was less so. In most of the study sites, only about one-third of WtW enrollees who reported ever receiving TANF had received it for five years or more (Exhibit II.4).(17) Enrollees in Baltimore County and in Nashville had higher rates of long-term welfare receipt, while hardly any of the predominantly male enrollees in Milwaukee had received assistance for as long as five years. In most sites, more than half of WtW enrollees had been on assistance during their lifetime for more than a year.
[Go To Contents]
WtW enrollees had relatively weak employment and earning histories. Very few were steadily employed during the year prior to program entry, and their total earnings during that year were very low. This section describes the employment and earnings patterns of WtW enrollees before they entered the program.
Befitting a program that in most sites was designed to move people who were not working into jobs, relatively few enrollees were employed when they entered the program. In all of the study sites except Baltimore and St. Lucie counties, fewer than one in three WtW enrollees were employed at the time of program entry (Exhibit II.5).(18) Even in these two sites — whose aim was to provide career advancement services to employed persons — not all WtW enrollees were employed. At the time of program entry, the rates were 83 percent in Baltimore County and 72 percent in St. Lucie County. The JHU-CTS model generally works with those already employed, usually receiving names of TANF recipients who had started working. In some cases, however, individuals were not yet working or they had not remained employed, meaning program staff began serving some people before employment, and helping some of them find jobs.
Given their history of welfare receipt, it is not surprising that WtW enrollees had generally poor employment histories. In all sites but West Virginia, at least nine in ten enrollees had some prior work experience (Exhibit II.6); but in most, fewer than one in four had been employed in all four quarters prior to the quarter of program entry.(19)In West Virginia, just 6 percent of WtW enrollees had been employed in all 4 quarters prior to program entry, and only 27 percent had been employed in any of those quarters.
In most sites, employment rates of WtW enrollees decreased over the year prior to program entry (Exhibit II.7). This decrease is to be expected since the program was designed to move people who were not working into jobs, and hence some enrollees were bound to have enrolled in the program shortly after losing their jobs. For example, in Ft. Worth and Phoenix, quarterly employment rates were in the 40 to 60 percent range and these rates decreased over time (5 to 8 percentage points) in the year prior to program entry. In Philadelphia, Yakima, and Chicago, employment rates were lower — in the 30 to 40 percent range — but these rates also decreased over time during the year prior to program entry. The West Virginia site had a very low employment rate to begin with (21 percent in the fourth quarter prior to program entry), which diminished to 12 percent in the quarter prior to program entry.
But in three sites, employment rates actually increased over the year prior to program entry. In the two JHU sites (Baltimore and St. Lucie counties), employment rates increased by more than 10 percentage points over the year prior to program entry. This is to be expected since these two sites offered programs designed to serve people already working, and therefore there were bound to be some enrollees who found a job shortly before enrolling in the program. In Milwaukee, employment rates also increased substantially — from 37 to 45 percent. The reason behind this increase is likely different, however, as most participants were men on probation or parole with little access to TANF. Hence, many of them could not stay without a job for very long.
Consistent with their poor employment histories, WtW enrollees had very low earnings in the year prior to program entry — in all sites, the median annual earnings in the year prior to program entry were less than $4,000, and less than $2,000 in all sites but one (Exhibit II.8). In Chicago, Philadelphia, West Virginia, and Yakima, the median annual earnings were below $500. In fact, the median annual earnings in West Virginia were zero, which reflects the fact that more than half of the site's enrollees were not employed at any point during the year prior to program entry.
| Baltimore Co. | Boston | Chicago | Ft. Worth | Milwaukee | Nashville | Philadelphia | Phoenix | St. Lucie Co., FL | West Virginia | Yakima, WA | RSC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||||||||||
| Less than 20 years old | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 to 29 years old | 31 | 54 | 50 | 54 | 53 | 47 | 45 | 59 | 47 | 39 | 45 | 44 |
| 30 to 39 years old | 49 | 35 | 35 | 31 | 36 | 40 | 39 | 31 | 35 | 44 | 34 | 40 |
| 40 or more years old | 20 | 9 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 16 | 10 | 15 | 17 | 21 | 16 |
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Female | 92 | 93 | 97 | 94 | 5 | 99 | 99 | 96 | 92 | 79 | 80 | 95 |
| Male | 8 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 95 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 21 | 20 | 5 |
| Race | ||||||||||||
| Hispanic | 1 | 32 | 6 | 26 | 9 | 1 | 7 | NA | 8 | 1 | NA | 15 |
| White non-Hispanic | 21 | 7 | 2 | 22 | 5 | 11 | 2 | NA | 33 | 83 | NA | 6 |
| Black non-Hispanic | 77 | 60 | 92 | 50 | 86 | 87 | 89 | NA | 59 | 14 | NA | 78 |
| Other non-Hispanic | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | NA | 0 | 2 | NA | 2 |
| Marital Status | ||||||||||||
| Married | 6 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 13 | 27 | 15 | 6 |
| Cohabiting | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 19 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 15 | 7 |
| Separated/divorced/widowed | 27 | 16 | 18 | 33 | 11 | 28 | 13 | 26 | 33 | 33 | 32 | 17 |
| Never married | 66 | 76 | 74 | 56 | 65 | 67 | 79 | 63 | 52 | 31 | 38 | 70 |
| Sample Size | 121 | 797 | 1,915 | 996 | 276 | 643 | 1,279 | 286 | 168 | 290 | 369 | 1,109 |
| Source: 1999-2002 baseline survey of
Welfare-to-Work enrollees. Note 1: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all WtW enrollees in the respective sites. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Note 2: The categories of each of the four characteristics displayed in this exhibit, including marital status, are mutually exclusive and exhaustive NA = not available. |
||||||||||||
| Baltimore Co. | Boston | Chicago | Ft. Worth | Milwaukee | Nashville | Philadelphia | Phoenix | St. Lucie Co., FL | West Virginia | Yakima, WA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | |||||||||||
| Still in high school | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 20 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 6 | NA |
| High school dropout | 15 | 34 | 37 | 40 | 43 | 23 | 44 | 55 | 17 | 28 | NA |
| GED | 8 | 9 | 6 | 11 | 17 | 9 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 16 | NA |
| High school diploma | 31 | 22 | 25 | 19 | 13 | 22 | 15 | 12 | 20 | 23 | NA |
| Postsecondary degree | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | NA |
| Voc. or tech. degree or certif. | 36 | 27 | 24 | 22 | 19 | 22 | 28 | 19 | 47 | 22 | NA |
| Any Work-Limiting Health Problem | 24 | 16 | 20 | 24 | 22 | 26 | 20 | 19 | 10 | 26 | 31 |
| Type of Work-Lim. Health Problem | |||||||||||
| Medical condition | 7 | 6 | 10 | 11 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 13 | 13 |
| Physical disability | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 9 |
| Emotional or mental condition | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 10 | 7 |
| Drug or alcohol use | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 9 |
| Other | 10 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Health Problem of Oth. HH Member | |||||||||||
| Limits Own Work or Training | 10 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 4 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 5 | 9 | 11 |
| Age of Youngest Child in Household | |||||||||||
| No child | 10 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 62 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 0 |
| Less than 3 years old | 11 | 28 | 35 | 40 | 13 | 24 | 23 | 42 | 37 | 16 | 22 |
| 3 or more years old | 79 | 68 | 60 | 57 | 26 | 73 | 73 | 53 | 61 | 78 | 78 |
| Sample Size | 121 | 797 | 1,915 | 996 | 276 | 643 | 1,279 | 286 | 168 | 290 | 369 |
| Source: 1999-2002 baseline survey of
Welfare-to-Work enrollees. Note: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all WtW enrollees in the respective sites. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. NA = not available. |
|||||||||||
Exhibit II.3
History of TANF Receipt by WtW Enrollees at Program Entry
Exhibit II.4
Cumulative Years of TANF Receipt by WtW Enrollees at Program Entry
(if ever on TANF)
Exhibit II.5
Rate of Employment OF WtW Enrollees at Program Entry
Exhibit II.6
Rates of Employment of WtW Enrollees in the Four Quarters Prior to the Quarter
of Program Entry
Exhibit II.7
Trends in Employment Rates for WtW Enrollees in the Four Quarters Prior to
the Quarter of Program Entry
Exhibit II.8
Median Annual Earnings of WtW Enrollees in the Four Quarters Prior to the
Quarter of Program Entry
[Go To Contents]
13. The Yakima site administered a different background information form than the other sites. Data on UI-covered earnings could not be obtained from the states of Massachusetts and Tennessee for enrollees in the Boston and Nashville study sites.
14. These findings should be taken with caution given that a sizable portion of enrollees did not answer the question related to their work-limiting health problems. Nine of the 11 study sites had response rates for this item in the range of 65 percent to 85 percent.
15. This pattern may also reflect respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge certain types of health problems.
16. The TANF participation rates presented in this section are based on data from the evaluation's baseline survey that was conducted when WtW enrollees entered the program. Consequently, these rates reflect the participants' self-reports of their TANF status at enrollment. These rates are generally lower than the TANF monthly participation rates based on state administrative data (to be presented in a subsequent report). These differences, which range from -30 percentage points to 15 percentage points, are probably due to one or more of the following reasons. First, the rates in the baseline survey reflect participation at a specific moment in time whereas the rates based on state administrative data reflect participation at any time in the month of enrollment. Second, some enrollees who were receiving TANF assistance under a different program name may not have known that the assistance they were receiving was TANF. Third, the question in the baseline survey used to compute participation rates asked whether the enrollee had received TANF or AFDC in his/her own name, which may have led some enrollees who received TANF but not under their name to report that they did not receive TANF. Finally, the baseline surveys were administered late in some sites and, given that caseloads were decreasing in many of these sites during the enrollment period, the TANF participation rates based on the baseline survey may be understating the actual rates of participation at baseline.
17. These numbers refer to the total time of TANF receipt prior to program entry, not the duration of the most recent TANF spell. The numbers were computed only for enrollees who reported in the baseline survey that they had ever received benefits from TANF or its precursor program, AFDC.
18. Employment figures reported in this exhibit are based on data from the evaluation's baseline survey that was conducted when WtW enrollees entered the program. These figures tend to be substantially lower than the employer-reported UI figures. Part of this discrepancy may be explained by the fact that the baseline survey provides a single-point-in-time measure whereas the UI data provide a measure of being employed at any time during the quarter of program entry (so the latter will tend to overstate employment at any specific point in time).
19. Figures in this and the subsequent two exhibits are based on employer-reported UI data obtained from all our study sites except for Boston and Nashville.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy
(HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)