Literature from the Field – CalWORKs 2.0 | Next Generation

Detroit Welfare-to-Work Program – 2 year impacts

Rachel Nicolosi — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 01:44:38 +0000

National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Two-Year Impacts of the Detroit Welfare-to-Work Program

Click to access full_399.pdf

August 2000 Prepared by: Mary Farrell with Gayle Hamilton Christine Schwartz Laura Storto Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation

Do Financial Incentives Encourage Welfare Recipients to Work? Initial 18-month Findings from the Self-Sufficiency Project

Rachel Nicolosi — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 01:28:32 +0000

This report presents an analysis of the early impacts of the Self-Sufficiency Project (SSP) on employment, earnings, and welfare receipt.

http://www.srdc.org/media/8697/do_fin_inc_encourage.pdf

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Final results from Hard-to-Employ 2012

Rachel Nicolosi — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 01:22:16 +0000

What Strategies Work for the Hard-to-Employ? Final Results of the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation Project and Selected Sites from the Employment Retention and Advancement Project

OPRE Report 2012-08

March 2012

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/strategies_work.pdf

The Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ (HtE) Demonstration and Evaluation Project seeks to answer a critical question about this population: how might we improve the prospects of the many Americans who grapple with serious barriers to finding and holding a steady job? The HtE evaluation was a 10-year study that used rigorous random assignment research designs to evaluate innovative strategies aimed at improving employment and other outcomes for groups who face serious barriers to employment. The strategies were tested in New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Kansas, and Missouri.

This report describes the HtE programs that were tested and summarizes the final results for each program. Similar information is presented for three of the programs in the ACF sponsored Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) project — programs that also targeted hard-to-employ populations, operated around the same time, and were evaluated with an identical methodology.

The inclusion of these ERA results permits an analysis of a wider variety of programs targeting those with serious barriers to finding and holding a steady job. The HtE and ERA programs had a variety of goals, but they all aimed, directly or indirectly, to increase employment and earnings, and most aimed to reduce reliance on public assistance.

Alternative Welfare-to-Work Strategies for the Hard-to-Employ, Philadelphia

Rachel Nicolosi — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 01:08:09 +0000

Alternative Welfare-to-Work Strategies for the Hard-to-Employ Testing Transitional Jobs and Pre-Employment Services in Philadelphia

October 2009

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/alternative_welfare.pdf

Dan Bloom, Sarah Rich, Cindy Redcross ,Erin Jacobs

Jennifer Yahner (Urban Institute) Nancy Pindus (Urban Institute)

Employment Retention and Advancement Project Early Results: Chicago, South Carolina, Riverside CA, Texas

Rachel Nicolosi — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:58:53 +0000

Click to access early_results.pdf

2005

This report presents early evidence on the effectiveness of four diverse programs designed to help current or former welfare recipients work more steadily and increase their earnings. The programs are part of the Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) project, which is testing 15 such programs nationwide. At this point, MDRC has followed the groups for one year, and this report presents early results from four of the sites: • Chicago, Illinois. This program aims to help participants increase their earnings; it targets welfare recipients who are working steadily but earning too little to leave the rolls. • Riverside, California. This program is testing two strategies for encouraging employed welfare recipients to use education or training as a route to advancement. • Pee Dee Region, South Carolina. This program targets former welfare recipients in six rural counties and offers services to help participants work more steadily and move to higher-paying jobs. • Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, and Houston, Texas. This program targets welfare recipients who are seeking work; it uses financial incentives and other services to help participants find jobs, stay employed, and increase their earnings.

Jobs First: Final Report on Connecticut’s Welfare Reform Initiative

Rachel Nicolosi — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:51:43 +0000

Since its launch in 1996, Connecticut’s Jobs First program has attracted national attention because it includes all the key elements of the 1990s welfare reforms: time limits, financial work incentives, and work requirements. Specifically, Jobs First limits families to 21 cumulative months of cash assistance unless they receive an exemption or extension. It includes an unusually generous financial work incentive that allows employed recipients to retain their full welfare grant as long as they earn less than the federal poverty level. And it requires recipients to work or to participate in employment services designed to help them find jobs quickly.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/ct_jobsfirst.pdf

Implementation and Early Impacts of Jobs First, Connecticut’s Welfare Reform Initiative

Rachel Nicolosi — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:47:26 +0000

Connecticut’s Jobs First program is a statewide welfare reform initiative that began operating in January 1996. Jobs First was one of the earliest statewide programs to impose a time limit on welfare receipt: Families are limited to 21 months of cash assistance unless they receive an exemption or extension. The program also includes generous financial work incentives and requires recipients to participate in employment-related services targeted toward rapid job placement. Jobs First was initiated under waivers of federal welfare rules that were granted before the passage of the 1996 federal welfare law (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, orPRWORA); how the program fares over time may provide important lessons on the likely results of welfare reforms implemented in other parts of the country in response to the federal law.

http://www.mdrc.org/publication/implementation-and-early-impacts-jobs-first-connecticuts-welfare-reform-initiative

Florida’s Family Transition Program, Final Report, 2000

Rachel Nicolosi — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:41:46 +0000

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/fl_final_transition.pdf

Final Report

Launched in 1994, Florida’s pilot Family Transition Program (FTP) was the first welfare reform initiative in which some families reached a time limit on their welfare eligibility and had their benefits canceled. Today, almost all states have welfare time limits (and there is a 60-month lifetime limit on federally funded assistance), although relatively few families have yet reached those limits. FTP, which operated in Escambia County (including Pensacola) until 1999, limited most families to 24 months of cash welfare assistance in any 60-month period (the least job-ready were limited to 36 months in any 72-month period) and provided a wide array of services and incentives to help welfare recipients find work. Florida’s statewide welfare program incorporates many of the pilot program’s features but differs from it in key ways; thus, the evaluation of FTP did not assess the statewide program.

Florida’s Family Transition Program, 1997

Rachel Nicolosi — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:31:05 +0000

Florida’s Family Transition Program (FTP) combines a welfare time limit of 24-36 months with services, requirements, and financial incentives designed to help welfare recipients find and hold jobs.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED407606

Indiana Welfare Reform Later Cohort

Rachel Nicolosi — Thu, 13 Jul 2017 22:35:40 +0000

The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Five-Year Impacts, Implementation, Costs and Benefits

September 2003

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/indiana_5yr_rpt.pdf

Prepared for Indiana Family and Social Services Administration

Division of Family and Children

Prepared by Erik Beecroft, Wang Lee, David Long, Abt Associates Inc.

Pamela A. Holcomb, Terri S. Thompson, Nancy Pindus, Carolyn O’Brien, Jenny Bernstein, The Urban Institute