Upload
thomas-hines
View
222
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Teaching Self-Sufficiency:30-Month Impacts of a Home Visitation and
Life Skills Education Program for Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients
Findings from the Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation
Teaching Self-Sufficiency:30-Month Impacts of a Home Visitation and
Life Skills Education Program for Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients
Findings from the Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation
Alicia MeckstrothAndrew Burwick
Quinn MooreAndrew McGuirk
APHSA/CBPP Teleconference on Home Visiting in TANFJanuary 9, 2008
Alicia MeckstrothAndrew Burwick
Quinn MooreAndrew McGuirk
APHSA/CBPP Teleconference on Home Visiting in TANFJanuary 9, 2008
Nebraska’s TANF Policy Context Nebraska’s TANF Policy Context
Supportive, work-oriented TANF program
Targeted education and training
Two-year time limit
Various services available in target areas
Modest unemployment and poverty
Supportive, work-oriented TANF program
Targeted education and training
Two-year time limit
Various services available in target areas
Modest unemployment and poverty
2
NOT FOR CITATION
Building Nebraska Families (BNF)Building Nebraska Families (BNF)
Nonexempt, hard-to-employ TANF recipients
University extension and state welfare agency
Masters’ level educators with very small caseloads
11 service areas throughout Nebraska
Nonexempt, hard-to-employ TANF recipients
University extension and state welfare agency
Masters’ level educators with very small caseloads
11 service areas throughout Nebraska
3
NOT FOR CITATION
Building Nebraska Families (BNF)Building Nebraska Families (BNF)
4
NOT FOR CITATION
Individualized Life Skills Education Through Home Visits
Mentoring and Informal
Counseling
Service Coordination & Advocacy
Support
• Personal Improvement: goal setting, problem-solving, character development, coping skills, relationship-building, communication skills
• Family Life: child development, parenting, family management
• Practical Life Skills: money and time management, healthy home, nutrition
Research QuestionsResearch Questions
Program implementation and costs?
Effects on employment, earnings, welfare dependence, and well-being?
Implications and lessons?
Program implementation and costs?
Effects on employment, earnings, welfare dependence, and well-being?
Implications and lessons?
5
NOT FOR CITATION
Evaluation MethodsEvaluation Methods
Experimental design (358 Ts, 242 Cs)
Follow-up telephone surveys at 18 and 30 months(87 percent and 83 percent completion rates)
Administrative records
Program service use and participation data
Site visits and focus groups
Experimental design (358 Ts, 242 Cs)
Follow-up telephone surveys at 18 and 30 months(87 percent and 83 percent completion rates)
Administrative records
Program service use and participation data
Site visits and focus groups
6
NOT FOR CITATION
Subgroup Analysis:“More Disadvantaged”
Subgroup Analysis:“More Disadvantaged”
Met 2 or more of these criteria at baseline:
- Lack of high school credential- Health condition (self or HH member)- Transportation barrier (no driver’s license or
regular access to vehicle)- No earnings in prior year- Received TANF/AFDC for 2+ years in lifetime
43 percent were more disadvantaged
Met 2 or more of these criteria at baseline:
- Lack of high school credential- Health condition (self or HH member)- Transportation barrier (no driver’s license or
regular access to vehicle)- No earnings in prior year- Received TANF/AFDC for 2+ years in lifetime
43 percent were more disadvantaged
NOT FOR CITATION
Well-Implemented ProgramWell-Implemented Program
Services delivered successfully
Intensive services- Participation over 8 months- 22 contacts- 25 hours
Program group members more likely to receive skill-building services and mentoring
Total cost per participant = $7,200 (approx)
Services delivered successfully
Intensive services- Participation over 8 months- 22 contacts- 25 hours
Program group members more likely to receive skill-building services and mentoring
Total cost per participant = $7,200 (approx)
NOT FOR CITATION
Highlights of Impact Findings for the Full Sample
Highlights of Impact Findings for the Full Sample
Limited evidence that BNF improved employment status for the full sample
No convincing evidence that BNF improved earnings for the full sample
Limited evidence that BNF improved employment status for the full sample
No convincing evidence that BNF improved earnings for the full sample 9
NOT FOR CITATION
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Control Group Program Group
SOURCE: Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 30-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
NOTE: The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
*/**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.
BNF Improved Employment for the More Disadvantaged Group
BNF Improved Employment for the More Disadvantaged Group
** *
Percentage Employed
10
NOT FOR CITATION
** ** *
Program Group
Control Group
*
*
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Control Group Program Group
SOURCE: Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 30-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
NOTE: The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
*/**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.
BNF Substantially Increased Earnings for the More Disadvantaged Group
BNF Substantially Increased Earnings for the More Disadvantaged Group
*** *
Average Earnings
** ** **
11
NOT FOR CITATION
** ** ** **
Program Group
Control Group
** ** * *
Program Group Members Held Better JobsProgram Group Members Held Better Jobs
12
NOT FOR CITATION
20 20 2029
0
20
40
60
80
100
Employed 35 or morehours per week
Hourly Wage > $8 Health Insurance Paid vacation
Program Group (More Disadvantaged)Control Group (More Disadvantaged)
9**
19*
6*** 8**
Percentage
SOURCE: Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 30-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
NOTE: The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups. The sample for these variables includes working and nonworking members.
*/**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.
BNF Reduced Welfare ReceiptBNF Reduced Welfare Receipt
NOT FOR CITATION
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Control Group (More Disadvantaged)
Program Group (More Disadvantaged)
SOURCE: Administrative records data from the State of Nebraska, compiled by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
NOTE:The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
*/**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.
Percentage Receiving TANF
Control Group
Program Group
** ** *** *** ** ** ***
13
*
*** *** ***
BNF Increased Household IncomeBNF Increased Household Income
14
NOT FOR CITATION
1,670
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Program Group (More Disadvantaged)
Control Group (More Disadvantaged)
1,234***
0
20
40
60
80
100
72*60
Total Household Income at 30-
Month Follow-up
Living in Poverty at 30-Month Follow-up
Percentage2004 dollars
SOURCE: Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 30-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
NOTE: The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
*/**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.
Fewer Health-Related Hardships, More Household Hardships
Fewer Health-Related Hardships, More Household Hardships
NOT FOR CITATION
15
146
60
44
74
37
15*23*
54**
46**
30**
61**
0
20
40
60
80
100
Program Group (More Disadvantaged)
Control Group (More Disadvantaged)
Overall health fair
or poor
Self-reported depression or mental health
issue
Spousal or partner
abuse
Had utility turned off
Ever had serious housing problem
Often or sometimes not enough money
to buy food
Percentage
SOURCE: Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 18-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
NOTE: The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
*/**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.
What Might Influence BNF’s Impacts on Employment and Earnings?
What Might Influence BNF’s Impacts on Employment and Earnings?
Services complement existing employment-related assistance
Home visits allow for individualized support—especially valuable to more disadvantaged
Well-developed life skills curriculum
Highly-qualified, professional staff
Low caseloads
Services complement existing employment-related assistance
Home visits allow for individualized support—especially valuable to more disadvantaged
Well-developed life skills curriculum
Highly-qualified, professional staff
Low caseloads 16
NOT FOR CITATION
Questions and ImplicationsQuestions and Implications
What consideration should be given to BNF’s cost?
How might BNF operate within context of new work and participation requirements?
Could the BNF program model transfer to other environments?
What additional supports might be needed for clients who become employed?
What consideration should be given to BNF’s cost?
How might BNF operate within context of new work and participation requirements?
Could the BNF program model transfer to other environments?
What additional supports might be needed for clients who become employed?
17
NOT FOR CITATION
Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration Evaluation
Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration Evaluation
For more information:
Mathematica Policy ResearchAlicia Meckstroth, (614) 505-1401, [email protected] evaluation reports available at www.mathematica-mpr.com
U.S. DHHS, ACFMichael Dubinsky, (202) 401-3442, [email protected] Koerper, (202) 401-4535, [email protected]
University of Nebraska Cooperative ExtensionMarilyn Fox, (308) 385-5088, [email protected](BNF curriculum)
For more information:
Mathematica Policy ResearchAlicia Meckstroth, (614) 505-1401, [email protected] evaluation reports available at www.mathematica-mpr.com
U.S. DHHS, ACFMichael Dubinsky, (202) 401-3442, [email protected] Koerper, (202) 401-4535, [email protected]
University of Nebraska Cooperative ExtensionMarilyn Fox, (308) 385-5088, [email protected](BNF curriculum)
18