November 16, 1998

Welfare Recipients Who Find Jobs:
What Do We Know About Their Employment and Earnings?
by Sharon Parrott

Table of Contents

I.  Overview
II.  A Brief Description of Research Methodology
III.  Key Findings Regarding Employment and Earnings
IV.  Policy Implications
V.  References
VI.  Appendix

Click here for PDF version of this report

Overview

State cash assistance programs increasingly are oriented toward work. A large proportion of parents receiving assistance are now required to prepare for employment, seek work, or hold jobs. Many states are now considering how best to help parents find jobs and support their families.

The success of state efforts in these areas is likely to hinge at least in part on how clearly states understand the employment situation of parents who do find jobs. Recent studies of families that have left welfare and evaluations of state welfare-to-work programs provide information about the earnings of welfare recipients who find jobs and characteristics of the jobs they hold. These include studies of recipients who find jobs in California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.(1) While each report studies a somewhat different group of parents and covers different time periods, all of the studies demonstrate that recipients who find jobs typically work a substantial number of hours per week but are paid low wages. The jobs held by parents who have left welfare or parents combining work and assistance often fail to provide basic benefits such as paid sick days, vacation leave, and health benefits.

These findings suggest that recipients who find jobs are likely to have incomes that are inadequate to meet their families' basic needs. Earnings alone are likely to be particularly inadequate for families in which the parent has very low skills. For many families, a combination of earnings, cash and in-kind government income support, and — in the case of single-parents — child support from the non-custodial parent will be necessary to make ends meet. Many states have freed-up resources due to declining welfare caseloads. The findings described in this report highlight the importance of states using these and other resources to provide supports to working families whose income from their earnings alone leave them unable to meet their basic needs.

 

A Brief Description of Research Methodology

Recent studies of employment and earnings patterns for welfare recipients who find jobs have relied upon one of two basic approaches. One set of studies — including those conducted in Indiana, Maryland, South Carolina, Washington State, Wisconsin as well as Cuyahoga County (which encompasses Cleveland, Ohio) and the city of Milwaukee — have collected information from or about former welfare recipients who left their state's cash assistance program.(3) A second set of studies initiated before enactment of the 1996 federal welfare law — including recent evaluations in California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, and Oregon — follow a group of welfare recipients who were subject to new rules under welfare reform "demonstration" programs. The earnings and aid receipt of this group (called the "program group") were compared to the earning and aid receipt of a group of recipients in a "control group" who continued to receive assistance under the standard rules of the AFDC program. These evaluations include information on the employment rates and earnings of recipients who found jobs.(4)

In contrast to the studies of former recipients, these evaluations provide earnings information for all recipients who find jobs, including those who continue to receive cash assistance while they work.

Both types of studies employed varying methods to gather information about the employment rates and earnings of recipients who found jobs.

It is important to note that none of the studies reviewed here provide information on the employment rates and earnings of parents who, despite meeting the financial eligibility for a state's cash assistance program, do not apply for assistance or whose applications for assistance are denied. The extent to which parents in families "diverted" from cash assistance programs find jobs or have other sources of income from which they meet basic needs are important research questions.

Data from the Department of Labor Indicates
Increased Employment Rates Among Single Mothers

National data now indicate that employment rates among single mothers (the group most likely to receive welfare) have risen over the past several years. Between 1994 and 1997, unpublished data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the number of separated, divorced, and never-married mothers who held jobs at some point during the year increased by 14 percent — 867,000 more single mothers held jobs in 1997 than did in 1994.(6) While this increase is not entirely due to increased employment among former recipients, many of the additional single mothers who are now working would likely be receiving assistance if they were not employed. There are many likely reasons why employment rates among single mothers has increased — a strong economy increased the availability of jobs for less skilled workers, increased supports for low-income working families such as an expanded earned income tax credit and expanded Medicaid eligibility for children in low-income working families increased the returns to work, and an increased emphasis on work within welfare programs required parents to search and prepare for employment. It is difficult to disentangle the relative importance of these factors.a
____________________

a See "Can the Labor Market Absorb Three Million Welfare Recipients?" by Gary Burtless, Brookings Institution Working Paper, June 1998.

 

Key Findings Regarding Employment and Earnings

1. Most of the studies that track former welfare recipients have found that between half and three-quarters of parents are employed shortly after they leave the rolls.

Studies conducted in Indiana, Maryland, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and the city of Milwaukee found that between half and three-quarters of recipients who left welfare were working.(7)

A study of former recipients in the state of New York, however, found lower rates of employment among former recipients. Among former welfare recipients with children (New York also provides some cash assistance benefits to poor single individuals and childless couples), only 30 percent were working in the quarter after they left welfare.(10) It is unclear why the employment rate among former New York recipients is so substantially lower than that found in all of the other studies of former recipients.

 

2. Recipients who find employment typically work a significant number of hours.

Surveys of recipients who find jobs usually ask employed (or recently employed) parents how many hours per week they work. These studies typically find that recipients who find jobs work more than 30 hours per week. While recipients work a large number of hours when they are employed, quarterly earnings data from these and other studies suggest that, over a three-month period, many recipients experience weeks in which they either do not work at all or work less than the number of hours they report as typical.

Table 1 provides data from six studies on the number of hours recipients who find jobs work. For each study, the table describes the group of recipients for whom hours worked data were gathered. The column "Hours Worked" provides information on the hours worked by recipients who found jobs. Some studies provide information on the average number of hours worked by recipients who found jobs while others provide information on the distribution of hours worked. The table presents the data as they are presented in the studies.

Studies that measure the hours worked by employed former recipients and those that measure the hours worked by all recipients who found jobs — including those who combine work and aid receipt — find that parents typically work more than 30 hours per week. The Indiana study measured the hours worked by employed former recipients and those combining work and welfare separately. Those recipients combining work and aid receipt work substantially fewer hours than those no longer receiving assistance. This is not surprising — many families in which a parent works full-time at minimum wage will have incomes above the eligibility limits for Indiana's welfare program.(11)

Table 1: Number of Hours Worked Per Week By Recipients Who Find Jobs

Area Studied

Group Studied

Hours Worked

Escambia County, Floridaa

recipients who found jobs, including some who combined work and aid receipt and some who left welfare

93% worked 20+ hours/week
74% worked 30+ hours/week
47% worked 40+ hours/week

Indiana working former recipients

62% worked 35+ hours/week

working current recipients

35% worked 35+ hours/week

5 Urban Counties in Minnesota long-term urban recipients who found jobs, including some who combined work and aid receipt and some who left welfare average hours worked per week:
31
Portland,Oregon

recipients who found jobs, including some who combined work and aid receipt and some who left welfare

average hours worked per week:
35

South Carolina

working former recipients

average hours worked per week:
36

Washington State

former recipients who were working at the time of the survey or had worked in the prior 12 months

average hours worked per week:
34

Notes: a Escambia County encompasses the city of Pensacola.


3. Recipients who find employment typically are paid low wages.

The studies that surveyed recipients who found jobs provide data on the hourly wage rates of recipients who found jobs. While there is some variation among the studies, all find that recipients who find jobs earn low wages, typically below $8 per hour and often below $6 per hour. As would be expected, states such as Oregon and Washington State that have higher-than-average wage levels generally also have higher wage rates among recipients who find jobs.(12)

Table 2: Hourly Wages of Recipients Who Find Jobs

Area Studied

Group Studied Hourly Wages

Escambia County,
Florida

recipients who found jobs,including some who combined work and aid receipt and some who left welfare

64% earned less than $6/hour
77% earned less than $7/hour
93% earned less than $10/hour
Indiana working former recipients 39% earned less than $6/hour
80% earned less than $8/hour
5 Urban Counties in Minnesota long-term urban recipients who found jobs, including some who combined work and aid receipt and some who left welfare

average hourly wage:
$6.55

Portland, Oregon

recipients who found jobs, including some who combined work and aid receipt and some who left welfare

average hourly wage:
$7.34

South Carolina

working former recipients

average hourly wage:
$6.44

Washington State

former recipients who were working at the time of the survey or had worked in the prior 12 months

average hourly wage: $8.42
median wage: $7.40a

Notes: a The median wage in the Washington State study was significantly lower than the average wage. The median wage figure means that among former recipients in Washington State, half earned less than $7.40 while half earned more than this amount. This indicates that a group of recipients earn wages substantially higher than the median figure, which increases the average.


4. Studies that measure parents' earnings over three-month periods find earnings levels well below the poverty line.

As discussed above, some evaluations of welfare demonstration programs and some studies of former recipients use data from the unemployment insurance system to measure parents' quarterly earnings — that is, their earnings over a three month period. Evaluations of demonstration programs in California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Michigan, and Oregon consistently find that recipients who find jobs earned an average of between $2,000 and $2,700 per quarter, or between $8,000 and $10,800 annually. Studies of former welfare recipients in Maryland, Milwaukee, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio find very similar quarterly earnings levels.

These quarterly earnings data are important because they show working recipients' earnings over a three-month period. Many recipients who find jobs do not work every week during a three-month period, a fact which is captured by quarterly earnings measures but not by surveys that ask parents about their hourly wages and the hours they usually work when employed.

As noted, average quarterly earnings figures in studies measuring earnings in this manner typically fall between $2,000 and $2,700, or between $154 and $210 per week. By contrast, the South Carolina evaluation found that, on average, employed former recipients earned $230 per week and in Washington State, the typical (or median) employed former recipient earned $250 per week. (The average weekly earnings of Florida recipients who found jobs was lower at $207 per week.)(13)

While the findings from the studies that measure quarterly earnings and those that measure weekly earnings may seem to be in conflict, they are not. When individuals are surveyed and asked about their weekly earnings (or their hourly wage and number of hours worked per week), only those individuals who worked in the week the survey asks about provide data on their earnings. Thus, the figures represent the average weekly earnings of recipients or former recipients when they are working.(14) The quarterly earnings figures, by contrast, represent parents' earnings over a three-month period. All parents who worked at some point over the three-month period are included when determining average quarterly earnings of those who worked. Therefore, the quarterly earnings of a parent who was employed during part of the quarter and unemployed during part of the quarter would be included when determining average quarterly earnings of parents employed at some point during the quarter.

As is discussed later, some studies indicate that a large number of recipients who find jobs work in temporary employment agencies. Employees for such agencies often have must wait significant periods of time between assignments. The quarterly earnings of a temporary agency employee could be well below what might be expected if only her weekly earnings during the weeks she was employed were examined.

Thus, the data presented in this report on average quarterly earnings probably provide a better sense of families' earnings over the course of a year, while the data on weekly and hourly earnings provide a better sense of the types of jobs recipients find and the hours they work during periods when they are employed.

Table 3: Quarterly Earnings of Former Welfare Recipients
Area Studied Time Period over which earnings were measured Quarterly Earnings
Maryland Number of quarters following exit: 1a

Calendar period over which recipients studied had exited welfare program: October 1996 - September 1997

Average quarterly earnings:
$2,384

(avg. monthly: $794)

Wisconsin Number of quarters following exit: 3b

Calendar period over which recipients studied had exited welfare program: August 1995 - July 1996

Average quarterly earnings:
$2,563

(avg. monthly: $854)

Cuyahoga County, Ohio Number of quarters following exit: 3c

Calendar period over which recipients studied had exited welfare program: January 1996 - December 1996

21% earned less than $1,000 per quarter

40% earned less than $2,000 per quarter

Milwaukee, Wisconsin This study followed parents who received assistance in December 1995 but were not receiving aid in September 1996. Earnings were measured in the fourth quarter of 1996.

42% earned less than $2,500 per quarter

76% earned less than $4,000 per quarter

Notes:a The Maryland study followed some former recipients for two quarters following their welfare exit. In the second quarter following the exit, 53 percent of former recipients were working. Employed former recipients earned an average of $2,439 in the second quarter following their welfare exit.
b This study measured earnings for each of the five quarters following a recipient's welfare exit. The third quarter earnings figures are shown in the table. Additional information is available in the Appendix.
c This study measured earnings for each of the four quarters following a recipient's welfare exit. The third quarter earnings figures are shown in the table. Additional information is available in the Appendix.

Table 3 summarizes the quarterly earnings findings from three studies of former recipients — done in Maryland, the state of Wisconsin, Cuyahoga County, Ohio (the county that encompasses Cleveland), and Milwaukee. The table includes a description of the point at which earnings were measured relative to when the family left the state's welfare program. Table 4 summarizes the findings from six evaluations of state welfare demonstration programs in which the quarterly earnings of all recipients who found jobs were measured, including those who continued to receive cash assistance. Table 4 also describes the point at which earnings were measured relative to when the recipient was assigned to the waiver program. For example, the Delaware evaluation provides information on participants' earnings four quarters — or one year — after the recipient was first assigned to Delaware's waiver program.(15) In both tables, the column labeled "quarterly earnings" provides the quarterly earnings among those families in which an adult was employed at some point during the quarter.

Table 4: Quarterly Earnings of Welfare Recipients (Including Those No Longer Receiving Assistance and Those Combining Welfare and Work) Who Find Employment
Area Studied Time Period over which earnings were measured Quarterly Earnings Quarterly Earnings as a Percent of Poverty Linea

Los Angeles, California

Types of families in demonstration: sample of current recipients and new applicants

Number of quarters after families assigned to demonstration program: 3

Calendar Period earnings data reflect: fourth quarter 1996

$2,085 (avg. monthly:
$695)

67%

Delaware

Types of families in demonstration: sample of current recipients and new applicants

Number of quarters after families assigned to demonstration program: 4

Calendar period earnings data reflect: late 1996 and early 1997

$2,115

(avg. monthly: $705)

66%

Escambia County, Florida

Types of families in demonstration: sample of current recipients and new applicants

Number of quarters after families assigned to demonstration program: 8

Calendar period earnings data reflect: mid-1996 and early 1997

$2,046

(avg. monthly: $682)

65%

Michigan

Types of families in demonstration: sample of current recipients only

Number of quarters after families assigned to demonstration program: 16

Calendar period earnings data reflect: late 1994 and mid 1996

$2,723

(avg. monthly: $907)

90%

5 Urban Counties in Minnesota

Types of families in demonstration: sample of single-parent recipients in urban counties who had received assistance 24 of the 36 months prior to being assigned to the Minnesota Family Investment Program

Number of quarters after families assigned to demonstration program: 6

Calendar period earnings data reflect: late 1995 to mid-1996

$2,098

(avg. monthly: $699)

67%

Portland, Oregon

Types of families in demonstration: sample of applicants who did not find jobs upon initial job search and recipients

Number of quarters after families assigned to demonstration program: data reflect the average quarterly earnings per quarter worked during the first two years following random assignment

Calendar period earnings data reflect: random assignment occurred between February 1993 and December 1994

 

$2,136

(avg. monthly: $712)

70%
Notes: a The poverty line is adjusted each year based on inflation. The poverty line figures used in these calculations reflect the measure for the year in which earnings were measured.

Finally, both tables show the average monthly earnings of recipients who are employed at some point during the quarter examined. While included in the table because monthly earnings are often easier to understand than quarterly earnings figures, it is important to note that many families will have varying earnings in each of the three months of the period.


5. Earnings of welfare recipients who find jobs typically are higher for those who had a high school diploma at the time of program enrollment than for those who did not have a diploma.

Data from a three-site study of welfare-to-work programs conducted by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation show that among recipients who find jobs, those with a high school diploma have significantly higher earnings.(16) The three site evaluation was designed to determine the relative merits of welfare-to-work programs that focused on immediate employment versus those that focus on upgrading skills. In each of the three sites studied, recipients participated in either a welfare-to-work program that emphasized immediate employment (called a "labor force attachment" program) or one that emphasized upgrading skills through education and training (called a "human capital development" model). Recipients were assigned to the welfare-to-work programs during either 1991 or 1992. As part of this evaluation, MDRC measured average quarterly earnings data for two categories of recipients who found jobs — those who had a high school diploma or GED at the time they entered the program and those who did not.

Table 5: Average Quarterly Earnings Among Working Participants With and Without a High School Diploma or GED
Site Studied Average Quarterly Earnings Among Working Participants With a High School Diploma or GED Average Quarterly Earnings Among Working Participants Without a High School Diploma or GED
Atlanta, Georgia $2,126 $1,644
Grand Rapids, Michigan $1,838 $1,541
Riverside, California $2,663 $2,075

The data presented in Table 5 represent average quarterly earnings of employed adults during the first year after they entered the program. The data reflect the earnings of participants in the labor force attachment programs.(17) While neither group had high earnings, those with a diploma or GED had significantly higher earnings on average — between 19 percent and 29 percent higher — than those who lacked a diploma. This suggests that when recipients with very low skills find jobs, their earnings are likely to be far below what is needed to meet their families' basic needs.


6. Recipients who find jobs typically find jobs in sales, food preparation, clerical support, or other service jobs.

Five studies — those of former recipients in Maryland, South Carolina, Washington State, Wisconsin, and a Milwaukee study of jobs held by recipients and former recipients — provide information on the industries and occupations of recipients who find jobs. The Maryland, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee studies categorized jobs by the industry or type of firm a parent worked in (i.e., department store, restaurant, temporary employment agency) while the other two studies categorized jobs by the type of work the former recipient performed. While characterizing the jobs somewhat differently, all four studies indicate that a substantial portion of former recipients work in sales, food preparation, or clerical support jobs and a large portion work for temporary employment agencies. For example:


7. Many welfare recipients who find jobs do not receive employment-related benefits such as paid vacation and sick leave.

Two studies — the Florida evaluation and a study of former Washington state recipients — provide some information on the extent to which recipients who find jobs receive paid sick and vacation leave. Among Florida recipients who found jobs, only 36 percent worked in jobs that offered paid sick days, 46 percent received paid vacation days, and 43 percent worked for employers that offered health benefits.(19) A Washington State study of former recipients found similar rates of receipt of such fringe benefits. This lack of basic benefits such as paid sick leave and vacation days is particularly problematic for working parents. Without paid sick or vacation leave, a parent could lose a significant portion of her monthly income if a child was sick for two days with the flu or the parent needed to take time off to attend a teacher's conference.

It is important to note that many recipients who find jobs will not be covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which requires employers to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for employees who need time off for certain reasons. For example, the FMLA requires employers to provide unpaid leave to employees who need to care for a child with a serious health condition or to attend to their own serious health condition. However, only employees who have worked for their current employer for at least one year and who worked at least 1,250 hours — approximately 25 hours per week — in the last year are covered under the FMLA. Thus, many recipients who lack paid leave also may not have access to unpaid leave, even when a family member is seriously ill.(20)


8. Many welfare recipients who find jobs do not receive employer-provided health insurance.

The Florida evaluation and the studies of former recipients in Indiana, Washington State, and South Carolina each provide some information on health care coverage of recipients who find jobs or leave welfare. While each study asks the health insurance questions differently, they all indicate that many welfare recipients find jobs that do not offer employer-sponsored health care coverage. The studies of former recipients show that many employed former recipients are without any form of health insurance.

The Florida evaluation and the Indiana study of families that left welfare provide information on the extent to which those recipients who found jobs worked in jobs in which health benefits were offered to employees. In both cases, the surveys asked working respondents whether their employers offered health insurance. The surveys did not ask whether respondents actually were covered by an employer-sponsored health care plan. Because someone who chooses not to participate in an employer-sponsored health plan will be classified as someone who works in a job that "offers" health insurance, these figures over-estimate the proportion of individuals who actually receive employer-provided coverage.

Some employees offered employer-provided health insurance choose not to participate in the health plans. Employees decline coverage for a variety of reasons — some choose not to participate because the premiums employees must pay are too costly or the benefit package is too limited while others do not participate because they have access to health care coverage through their spouses' employer-sponsored plan or through Medicaid. Data compiled by KPMG Peat Warwick indicate that families had to contribute an average of $1,615 a year for employer-based family coverage in 1996, an amount that makes coverage inaccessible for many low-income working families.(21) Cost-sharing requirements even for employee-only coverage (as distinct from full family coverage) can be prohibitive. The surveys do not ask respondents whether the employer provides health benefits to the employee only or also to his or her dependents.

Among former recipients in Washington State who were working at the time of the survey or had worked at some point during the prior 12 months, 37 percent worked for employers that "provided" health benefits. The wording of the question makes it unclear whether this represents the proportion who received health benefits through their employer or the proportion offered such coverage.

The South Carolina study of former welfare recipients also gathered some information on health insurance coverage. The health insurance data were not reported separately for working and non-working former recipients. The South Carolina study interviewed 391 households (about two-thirds of former recipients were working). These households included a total of 820 children and 550 adults. (Some of these adults and children may not have been part of the welfare "case" — that is, they may not have been part of the assistance unit receiving assistance.)

 

Policy Implications

The findings outlined above suggest that recipients who find jobs continue to struggle to meet their basic needs despite working a substantial number of hours per week when employed. As the number of non-working families receiving basic cash assistance falls, states should consider investing in efforts that support low-income working families. Policies that provide supports to low-income working families — such as income supplements, child care assistance, help in meeting their transportation needs, health care coverage to children and parents, and skill upgrading opportunities — can help parents meet their families' basic needs, retain employment, and find better-paying and more stable jobs.

 

References

The following is a list of the studies used in this report. They are listed alphabetically by the state(s) studied.

1. Los Angeles, California

The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN Evaluation: Preliminary Findings on Participation Patterns and First-Year Impacts, by Stephen Freedman, Marisa Mitchell, and David Navarro, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation Working Paper, August 1998. This evaluation is available on the web going to www.mdrc.org and clicking on "publications" and scrolling down to "Los Angeles's Jobs-First GAIN Program."

Geographic Region Covered: Los Angeles County, California

2. Riverside, California
Atlanta, Georgia
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Evaluating Two Welfare-to-Work Program Approaches: Two-Year Findings on the Labor Force Attachment and Human Capital Development Programs in Three Sites, by Gayle Hamilton, et al., Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December 1997.

Geographic Regions Covered: Riverside, California; Atlanta, Georgia; and Grand Rapids, Michigan.

3.  Delaware

The ABC Evaluation: The Early Economic Impacts of Delaware's A Better Chance Welfare Reform Program, by David Fein and Jennifer Karweit, Abt Associates, December 1997.

Geographic Region Covered: Recipients in five of the state's 13 welfare offices participated in the state's welfare demonstration project. The five offices — in Carroll's Plaza, Georgetown, Hudson, Thatcher, and Williams — were located throughout the state.

4.  Florida

The Family Transition Program: Implementation and Interim Impacts of Florida's Initial Time-Limited Welfare Program, by Dan Bloom, et al., Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, March 1998.

Geographic Region Covered: Escambia County, Florida — this county includes Pensacola, Florida.

5.  Atlanta, Georgia

See #2 above.

6.  Indiana

The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Who is On and Who Is Off? Comparing Characteristics and Outcomes for Current and Former TANF Recipients, Abt Associates, September 1997.

Geographic Region Covered: Survey was representative of the entire state.

7. Maryland

Life After Welfare: Second Interim Report, School of Social Work, University of Maryland, March 1998.

Geographic Region Covered: Statewide

8. Michigan

Final Impact Report: The Evaluation of To Strengthen Michigan Families, by Alan Werner and Robert Kornfeld, Abt Associates, Inc., September 1997.

Geographic Region Covered: Kalamazoo County, Madison Heights district welfare office in Oakland County (a suburb of Detroit), and two district offices (McNichols/Goddard and Schaefer/Six Mile) in Wayne County (the county that encompasses Detroit).

9.  Grand Rapids, Michigan

See #2 above.

10.  Minnesota

Making Welfare Work and Work Pay: Implementation and 18-Month Impacts of the Minnesota Family Investment Program, by Cynthia Miller, et al., Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, October 1997.

Geographic Region Covered: The evaluation followed recipients in three urban counties — Hennepin (which includes Minneapolis), Anoka, and Dakota — and four rural counties. The findings used in this report are those for long-term recipients from the three urban counties.

11.  Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Work After Welfare: Employment in the 1996 Exit Cohort, Cuyahoga County, by Claudia Coulton, Marilyn Su, Neil Bania, and Edward Wang, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change Briefing Report No. 9803. This report is available on the web at: http://povertycenter.cwru.edu/br9803work_.PDF.

Geographic Region Covered: Cuyahoga County, Ohio which includes the city of Cleveland.

12.  Portland, Oregon

Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Two-Year Impacts of the Portland Welfare-to-Work Program, by Susan Scrivener, et al., Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, May 1998.

13.  South Carolina

Survey of Former Family Independence Program Clients: Cases Closed During April Through June, 1997, South Carolina Department of Social Services, July 1998.

Geographic Region Covered: Survey was representative of the entire state.

14.  Washington State

Washington's TANF Single Parent Families Shortly After Welfare — Survey of Families Which Exited TANF Between December 1997 and March 1998, Department of Social and Health Services, July 1998.

Geographic Region Covered: Survey was representative of the entire state.

15.   Wisconsin (statewide study)

Post-Exit Earnings and Benefit Receipt Among Those Who Left AFDC in Wisconsin, by Maria Cancian, Robert Haveman, Thomas Kaplan, and Barbara Wolfe, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin — Madison, October 1998. http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/research/home.htm

Geographic Region Covered: The state of Wisconsin

16.  Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Employment and Earnings of Milwaukee County Single Parent AFDC Families: Establishing Benchmarks for Measuring Employment Outcomes Under "W-2," by John Pawasarat, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute www.uwm.edu/Dept/ETI/afdcearn.htm

The Employer Perspective: Jobs Held by the Milwaukee County AFDC Single Parent Population (January 1996 - March 1997), by John Pawasarat, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute. This report is available on the web: www.uwm.edu/Dept/ETI/employer.htm.

Geographic Region Covered: Milwaukee, Wisconsin

 

APPENDIX

Florida

The Family Transition Program: Implementation and Interim Impacts of Florida's Initial Time-Limited Welfare Program, by Dan Bloom, et al., Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, March 1998.

The evaluation of Florida's Family Transition Program (FTP) included a survey of families two years after they had first been assigned either to FTP or to the control group. The families surveyed had been assigned to FTP between December 1994 and February 1995, thus the survey was conducted between December 1996 and February 1997. Some of the families surveyed were still receiving assistance while others were not. The survey included questions about adults' current — or most recent — job. (The results described below represent the responses of the "program" group, not the "control" group. While a larger proportion of program group members found jobs, the characteristics of those jobs, including their wage levels, did not differ substantially from those found by the control group.)


Earnings of Recipients Who Found Jobs

Survey respondents who had worked at some point since they initially participated in FTP were asked about the hourly wage they earned in either their current or most recent job. The column labeled "Percent of Survey Respondents" in Table 6 below shows the proportion of respondents whose earnings in their current or most recent job fall within each of the various ranges. The column labeled "Cumulative Percent" shows the proportion of respondents who earn no more than the wage in the corresponding row. For example, the table shows that 32.2 percent of respondents who were (or had been) employed earned no more than $4.99 per hour.

Table 6: Florida FTP Participants' Wages in Current or Most Recent Job

Hourly Wages Earned in Current or Most Recent Job

Percent of Survey Respondents

Cumulative Percent

Less than $4.25 17.7% —-
$4.25 - $4.99 14.5% 32.2%
$5.00 - $5.99 31.9% 64.1%
$6.00 - $6.99 12.9% 77.0%
$7.00 - $9.99 15.7% 92.7%
$10.00 or More 7.3% 100.0%
How to read this table: 14.5 percent of survey respondents earned between $4.25 and $4.99 per hour in their current or most recent job. 32.2 percent of respondents earned below $5.00 per hour while 64.1 percent earned less than $6.00 per hour.


Hours Worked By Recipients Who Found Jobs

While respondents reported low wages, they also reported working a substantial number of hours.


Weekly Earnings

Respondents also provided information on their weekly earnings in their current or most recent job.

Table 7: Florida FTP Participants' Weekly Earnings in Current or Most Recent Job
Weekly Earnings Percentage Distribution Cumulative Distribution
Less than $100 11.6%  
$100 - $149 17.3% 28.9%
$150 - $199 24.9% 53.8%
$200 - $299 29.7% 83.5%
$300 or more 16.5% 100.0%
How to read this table: 17.3 percent of survey respondents earned between $100 and $149 per week in their current or most recent job. 28.9 percent of respondents earned below $149 per week while 53.8 percent earned less than $199 per week.

 

Employer-Provided Fringe Benefits

Table 8 below shows the proportion of Florida recipients who found jobs who were offered various types of employer-provided benefits.

Table 8: Proportion of Florida FTP Participants Who Found Jobs That Provided or Offered Different Types of Benefits

Employer-Sponsored Benefit

Percent of Recipients Who Found Jobs That Offered Benefits

(some recipients who found jobs continued to receive aid while others left welfare)

Paid Sick Days 36.3%
Paid Vacation Days 46.0%
Health Benefitsa 43.3%
Dental Benefitsa 34.9%
Tuition Assistance or Paid Training Classes 24.4%
a The survey from which these data were obtained asked respondents whether their jobs offered health and dental benefits, not whether the respondent was actually covered by those policies. An employee might choose not to participate in an employer health or dental plan if, for example, the employee decided he or she could not afford the premiums.


Indiana

The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Who is On and Who Is Off? Comparing Characteristics and Outcomes for Current and Former TANF Recipients, Abt Associates, September 1997.

Abt Associates Inc. conducted a survey in early 1997 of 1,600 families that had participated in Indiana's welfare program between May 1995 and May 1996. The report on the survey findings provides data separately for families still receiving assistance at the time of the survey and families no longer receiving aid.

Percent of Former Recipients Who Were Working

Earnings of Former Recipients

Hours Worked By Employed Former Recipients

Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Coverage


Maryland

Life After Welfare: Second Interim Report, School of Social Work, University of Maryland, March 1998.

This study followed a random sample of Maryland families whose welfare cases closed between October 1996 and September 1997. The study uses data available through the unemployment insurance system to determine the employment rates and earnings of families no longer receiving assistance. The study provides information about adults' earnings in each of the two quarters immediately following their families' exit from welfare as opposed to reporting families earnings for a particular calendar quarter.

Percent of Former Recipients Who Were Working

Earnings of Former Recipients

Subsequent Receipt of Cash Assistance

Industry in Which Former Recipients Work

 

Minnesota

Making Welfare Work and Work Pay: Implementation and 18-Month Impacts of the Minnesota Family Investment Program, by Cynthia Miller, et al., Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, October 1997.

The evaluation of the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) included a survey of families that had been assigned to the MFIP program between September and December 1994. The families were surveyed one year after they had been assigned to MFIP. The families surveyed were long-term recipients — recipients who had received assistance in 24 of the 36 months prior to being assigned to MFIP — who lived in urban areas.

Almost two-thirds of the survey respondents were employed. (Some of those who were employed continued to receive welfare while others left the program entirely.) Those employed earned an average of $6.55 per hour and worked an average of 31 hours per week — or about 13 percent below the poverty line for a family of three in 1995. More than four in ten working recipients had held at least two jobs since they had been assigned to MFIP suggesting significant job turnover.


Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Work After Welfare: Employment in the 1996 Exit Cohort, Cuyahoga County, by Claudia Coulton, Marilyn Su, Neil Bania, and Edward Wang, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change Briefing Report No. 9803.(28)

This study used administrative welfare data and unemployment insurance data to track the employment and earnings of adults who left the Cuyahoga County cash assistance rolls in 1996. In total, there were 18,570 exits of adults from the welfare program in Cuyahoga County (a small number of these exits reflected adults who left the program, subsequently received aid during the year, and then left a second time). The researchers tracked these adults' employment rates and earnings for four quarters following their exit from the welfare program.

Percent of Former Recipients Who Were Working

Earnings of Former Recipients

Subsequent Receipt of Cash Assistance


Portland, Oregon

Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Two-Year Impacts of the Portland Welfare-to-Work Program, by Susan Scrivener, et al., Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, May 1998.

The evaluation of the JOBS program in Portland, Oregon provides information on hourly and weekly earnings of recipients who found employment. Portland's JOBS program is part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies, being conducted by MDRC, which is evaluating welfare-to-work programs in seven cities across the country. A sample of applicants (who had not found jobs through an initial job search) and recipients were assigned to either the program group or the control group. Program group members were required to participate in welfare-to-work activities while control group members did not face a participation requirement. The welfare-to-work program in Portland focused on placing recipients in jobs, rather than on education and training, but did make heavier use of short-term training and education than many "Work First" programs.

Applicants and recipients were assigned to the welfare-to-work program between February 1993 and December 1994. The study followed recipients for two years after they initially were assigned to the program. The Portland program produced some of the largest impacts on employment rates and earnings measured in a welfare-to-work program. That is, the program group members had significantly higher employment rates and earnings than members of the control group and the difference was larger than has been measured in most welfare-to-work programs. At the end of two years, clients were surveyed.

Percent of Recipients Who Were Working

Hourly Earnings of Employed Recipients

Hours Worked By Employed Recipients

Weekly Earnings


South Carolina

Survey of Former Family Independence Program Clients: Cases Closed During April Through June, 1997, South Carolina Department of Social Services, July 1998.

The South Carolina Department of Social Services conducted interviews with almost 400 families that had left the state's welfare program between April and June of 1997. The interviews were conducted between February and April of 1998. Some types of families were excluded from the study. Specifically, only those families in which the adult was required to look for work (or the adult was voluntarily seeking work) while they were receiving assistance were included in the study. (In South Carolina, families headed by an incapacitated or pregnant adult and families in which the youngest child is under one year of age are not required to participate in work activities.) While these were the only families included in the study, this does not mean that all of the families left the program because they found employment. Finally, only those families that had not received cash assistance since their case had been closed were included in the study. Thus, this study provides information on the employment characteristics of adults who left the state's welfare program and did not receive assistance in the next 8-12 months.

Percent of Former Recipients Who Were Working

Hours Worked By Employed Former Recipients

Occupations of Employed Former Recipients

Health Insurance

The South Carolina study of former welfare recipients also gathered some information on health insurance coverage. The health insurance data was not provided separately for working and non-working former recipients. The South Carolina study interviewed 391 households (about two-thirds of former recipients were working). These households included a total of 820 children and 550 adults. (Some of these adults and children may not have been part of the welfare "case" — that is, they may not have been part of the assistance unit receiving assistance.)


Washington State

Washington's TANF Single Parent Families Shortly After Welfare — Survey of Families Which Exited TANF Between December 1997 and March 1998, Department of Social and Health Services, July 1998.

Washington State surveyed 560 single parent families that had left the TANF program between December 1997 and March 1998. Among these families, 58 percent reported leaving the program due to increased earnings while another 10 percent left due to increased income from other sources. An additional 12 percent left due to a conflict with program requirements.(32)

Percent of Former Recipients Who Were Working

Earnings of Former Recipients Who Worked At Some Point

Hours Worked By Employed Former Recipients

Occupations in Which Employed Former Recipients Work

Table 9: Occupations of Former Recipients in Washington State

Occupation

Proportion of former recipients who were employed at the time of the survey or who had worked during the prior 12 months

Administrative support/clerical/general office 17%
General labor/construction/equipment operation 14%
Retail and other sales 14%
Health care 11%
Food and beverage services 9%
Child care/personal services 9%
Janitors/maids 5%
Teacher aids/educational services 5%
Other 14%
Note: Figures do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Paid Sick and Vacation Leave

Health Insurance

 

Wisconsin (Statewide)

Post-Exit Earnings and Benefit Receipt Among Those Who Left AFDC in Wisconsin, Maria Cancian, et al., Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin — Madison, October 1998.

This study followed Wisconsin AFDC recipients who left welfare between August 1995 and July 1996. Using data from the Unemployment Insurance system as well as administrative records from public assistance programs, the study followed former recipients for five quarters after they left the cash assistance program.

Percent of Former Recipients Who Were Working

Table 10 shows the proportion of recipients who left welfare between August 1995 and July 1996 who worked in each of the five quarters following their exit from the program. The Table presents data on two different groups of recipients who left welfare. The column labeled "All Leavers" shows the proportion of all recipients who left welfare who worked in each of the five quarters following their exit regardless of whether the recipient subsequently received cash assistance. The column labeled "Continuous Leavers," by contrast, provides information on the employment rates of those former recipients who did not subsequently receive aid during the five quarters following their welfare exit. Some 70 percent of recipients who left welfare between August 1995 and July 1996 did not subsequently receive assistance in the following five quarters.(33)

Table 10: Employment Rates of Former Wisconsin Recipients
Quarter Following Exit All Leavers Continuous Leavers
First Quarter 72.4% 74.2%
Second Quarter 72.5% 77.2%
Third Quarter 73.3% 79.0%
Fourth Quarter 74.3% 79.6%
Fifth Quarter 75.8% 81.1%

Earnings of Former Recipients

Table 11 shows median quarterly earnings of employed former Wisconsin recipients. As in the previous table, this table shows median quarterly earnings figures for "All Leavers" and "Continuous Leavers." In both cases, however, only those former recipients with earnings were considered when median earnings were calculated.

Table 11: Median Earnings of Employed Former Wisconsin Recipients
Quarter Following Exit All Leavers Continuous Leavers
First Quarter $2,383 $2,583
Second Quarter $2,437 $2,682
Third Quarter $2,460 $2,715
Fourth Quarter $2,602 $2,845
Fifth Quarter $2,632 $2,861
How to read this table: The median earnings for all recipients who left welfare between August 1995 and July 1996 and who were employed in the first quarter following their exit from welfare was $2,383. That is, half of the former recipients earned more than this level and half earned less than this level. The median earnings figure for those former recipients who did not subsequently receive assistance during the five quarters following their exit from welfare were higher. In the first quarter following their exit from welfare, the median earnings of these "continuous leavers" was $2,583.

The authors of this study conducted statistical tests to determine whether certain characteristics of former recipients were associated with higher earnings. The authors found that, "the following factors seemed to be most closely associated with higher earnings:

It is important to note that the statistical tests performed by the authors enabled them to test the independent effect of various factors on earnings. Thus, when the authors conclude that having been sanctioned is associated with lower earnings, this means that recipients who had been sanctioned had lower earnings than recipients who had not been sanctioned independent of other differences — such as differences in education levels — that might have existed between recipients who had been sanctioned and those who had not.

Subsequent Receipt of Cash Assistance

Industry in Which Former Recipients

Table 12 shows the industries in which former recipients worked in the first quarter following their exit from welfare. The industries are listed in order according to the median earnings of former recipients in those industries. The first industry listed — temporary agencies — is the industry with the lowest median earnings among former recipients in the first quarter following their welfare exit while the last industry listed — the financial, insurance and real estate industry — is the industry with the highest median earnings among former recipients.

The study finds that many former recipients change industries during the first five quarters following their exit from welfare. The study states, "No more than 40 percent of the leavers who started in an industrial classification with relatively low median earnings stayed in the same classification across all quarters of observation. For those who started in classifications with the very lowest median earnings (Temporary Agencies, Agriculture/Forestry/Mining, and Hotels/Lodging) many more moved up than down the classification hierarchy."(35)

Table 12: Industries in Which Former Wisconsin Recipients Worked in the First Quarter Following Their Exit From Welfare

Industry

Proportion of Employed Former Recipients Working in Industry

Median Earnings of Former Recipients in First Quarter Following Welfare Exit
Agriculture, Forestry, Mining .6% $1,536
Restaurants 11.8% $1,630
Hotels, Lodging 3.1% $1,666
Temporary Agencies 9.6% $1,782
Retail Trade 13.0% $1,960
Other Services 1.6% $1,980
Personal Services 2.5% $2,198
Business Services 6.7% $2,220
Wholesale Trade 2.7% $2,550
Social Services, Public Administration, Education 14.1% $2,665
Non-durable Manufacturing 5.5% $2,809
Construction .5% $2,867
Transportation, Communications, Public Utilities 3.0% $2,877
Health Services 14.6% $2,947
Durable Manufacturing 6.9% $3,093
Financial, Insurance, Real Estate 3.5% $3,284
Note: Figures may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.  

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Employment and Earnings of Milwaukee County Single Parent AFDC Families: Establishing Benchmarks for Measuring Employment Outcomes Under "W-2," by John Pawasarat, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute

The Milwaukee study tracked families that received AFDC in December 1995 and were not receiving assistance in September 1996. Using data from the unemployment insurance system, these families' earnings were measured in the last quarter of 1996 (October-December) and the first quarter of 1997 (January-March). Because of the manner in which the sample of families was selected, the study measured the earnings of some families immediately following their exit from the welfare program while other families had left welfare eight months prior to the quarter in which their earnings were measured. Thus, the data in the report on the earnings of Milwaukee families that left welfare is best understood as information that reflects the earnings of adults who recently left welfare.

Percent of Former Recipients Who Were Working

Earnings of Former Recipients

Industries in Which Former Recipients Work

A second Milwaukee study — Employer Perspective: Jobs Held by the Milwaukee County AFDC Single Parent Population (January 1996 - March 1997) by John Pawasarat of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute — reviewed the jobs held between January 1996 and March 1997 by single parents who received AFDC in December 1995. Some of those who worked during the January 1996 to March 1997 period continued receiving cash assistance while others had left the welfare rolls. The 18,126 recipients who worked at some point during the period studied held a total of 42,120 jobs.


End Notes:

1. Many of these studies follow recipients in a particular region of the state. The references section of this report provides the citations for all of the studies used in this report as well as a description of the geographic regions studied.

2. Throughout this report, earnings are compared to the poverty line for families of 3 and 4. It is important to note that while a family's earnings might be below the poverty line, the family might also receive the earned income tax credit and food stamps. The combination of earnings, the EITC, and the food stamps can lift a family with earnings below the poverty line out of poverty.

3. In these studies, families were tracked regardless of the reason they no longer were receiving assistance. Families may leave assistance because their earnings make them ineligible for aid, but they also may leave for reasons such as being subject to a full-family sanction, failing to follow procedural requirements that lead to case closure, having unearned income (such as social security income) that makes the family ineligible for aid, or no longer having a child young enough to qualify the family for assistance.

4. Because current TANF-related programs states are running are more similar to the waiver programs states implemented than to the former standard AFDC program, the data presented in this report represent the earnings of program-group members, not control group members. In general, waiver programs — which often included more rigorous work requirements and greater financial incentives to work — increased the proportion of parents working. However, working program-group members typically had earnings that were similar to the earnings of working control group members.

5. In contrast, some recent studies of former recipients conducted in Kentucky and New Mexico obtained responses from less than 20 percent of the former recipients they tried to contact, making it difficult to gain reliable information from these studies.

6. See "Can the Labor Market Absorb Three Million Welfare Recipients?" by Gary Burtless, Brookings Institution Working Paper, June 1998.

7. Throughout this report, data from several studies are presented to illustrate consistent findings. While the data presented point to a consistent finding, the findings from each study are not necessarily comparable. That is, because of different methodologies used to determine which group of families would be studied and the time period over which earnings would be measured, readers should not use figures here to draw conclusions about the differences in the employment rates and earnings of recipients or former recipients between states. For example, the Maryland study found that about half of former recipients worked in the quarter following their exit while the South Carolina study found that nearly 70 percent of former recipients worked. However, the South Carolina study followed a group of families that had left welfare and had not returned to the program for about nine months while the Maryland study followed all families that exited, regardless of whether they subsequently returned to the program. Such differences — which are not always evident from the text of this report - make comparisons between findings presented here unwise. It is important to note that differences in findings between the study of former recipients in the entire state of Wisconsin and the city of Milwaukee also should not be interpreted to mean that former recipients in Milwaukee systematically differ from those in the rest of the state. While both studies used administrative data and data from the Unemployment Insurance system, methodological differences make such comparisons ill-advised.

8. The estimates of the proportion of former recipients who work are highest in the statewide study of former Wisconsin recipients. This study, however, uses a somewhat different methodology than many of the other studies when calculating employment rates of former recipients which is likely to make the Wisconsin estimates appear higher than those in other states. The difference stems from the way in which researchers choose to treat former recipients for whom no employment or public assistance-related information is available.

In some quarters, a former Wisconsin recipient may not appear in any of the databases used in the study — that is, the recipient may not appear in the Unemployment Insurance database (suggesting that the individual is unlikely to have worked in Wisconsin in that quarter) and also may not appear in any public assistance database. In some cases, the individuals not found in any records may be working in another state, working in a job not covered by the Unemployment Insurance system, or may not be working at all. In this study, former recipients for whom no information was available in a particular quarter were excluded from the sample when the employment rates of former recipients were calculated. If these former recipients are less likely to be working than former recipients for whom data are available, this methodology is likely to overstate employment rates. Other studies — including the Milwaukee, South Carolina, and Maryland studies — do not adopt this approach. These studies include all former recipients in the sample when determining the employment rates of former recipients. This is likely to understate employment rates among former recipients. Both approaches are reasonable, but the approach used can affect the measured employment rates of former recipients.

9. The findings presented here from the Milwaukee study of former recipients and the statewide Wisconsin study of former recipients should not be compared. While the two studies use similar methodologies, the way in which families were selected for the research sample, the time period over which earnings were measured, and the way in which the researchers treated certain families for whom no information could be found differ. These differences make the findings difficult to compare.

10. See the sixth edition of the quarterly performance measures for the New York State Social Services System.

11. Indiana's treatment of earnings mirrors that of the former AFDC program. In Indiana, a family of three in which a parent has worked fewer than 5 months In Indiana, is eligible for assistance until earnings exceed $550. A family of three in which the parent has worked more than four but fewer than 12 months are eligible for assistance until the family's earnings equal $410 while a family in which the parent has worked for more than 12 months becomes ineligible for assistance when the family's earnings exceed $380. See One Year after Federal Welfare Reform: A Description of State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Decisions as of October 1997, Gallagher et al., Urban Institute, June 1998.

12. A recent Center study found that after Oregon's state minimum wage rose in two stages to $6 an hour in January 1998, the average earnings of newly employed welfare recipients climbed 76 cents an hour, a nine percent increase after adjusting for inflation. See, New Findings from Oregon Suggest Minimum Wage Increases Can Boost Wages for Welfare Recipients Moving to Work, by Ed Lazere, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 1998.

13. The weekly earnings figures for South Carolina and Washington State were calculated by multiplying the average hourly wages of employed former recipients by the average number of hours worked by these recipients. While not a precise way to measure average weekly earnings, it is unlikely that the actual figures differ substantially from these estimates.

14. Moreover, the surveys often ask - implicitly or explicitly - for the number of hours the parent typically works. While many parents in any particular week work fewer-than-typical hours, most survey respondents are likely to answer according to the typical number of hours they work.

15. Because families that were already receiving assistance participated in the waiver programs and were included in the evaluation, measuring earnings four quarters after assignment to the program is not the equivalent to measuring earnings four quarters after a family first received assistance. Some families participating in the program may have been receiving aid for a long period of time while others may have been new applicants.

16. Evaluating Two Welfare-to-Work Program Approaches: Two-Year Findings on the Labor Force Attachment and Human Capital Development Programs in Three Sites, by Gayle Hamilton, et al., Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December 1997.

17. The pattern of earnings among recipients who participated in human capital development programs was similar. The average earnings of those recipients with a high school diploma who found jobs exceeded the average earnings of those without a diploma by 18 percent in Atlanta and 40 percent in Grand Rapids. In Riverside, California, the human capital development approach was only available to those without a high school diploma.

18. The Employer Perspective: Jobs Held by the Milwaukee County AFDC Single Parent Population (January 1996 - March 1997), by John Pawasarat, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute. This report is available on the web: www.uwm.edu/Dept/ETI/employer.htm. This paper was written by the same researcher who studied the earnings of former Milwaukee recipients.

19. It is likely that receipt of fringe benefits such as paid vacation and sick leave is lowest when a parent first begins a job. Some jobs that offer such benefits to some employees do not offer them to new employees. Some of the parents surveyed in Florida and in Washington State are likely to be relatively new employees in their current jobs. A recent study by Harvard researchers measured the receipt of paid sick and vacation leave by women who worked more than half-time, were between the ages 28 to 35, and had received welfare at some point between 1978 and 1992. Among those women who had received welfare for two years or less during that time period, 47 percent did not receive paid sick leave and 28 percent received no paid vacation. While still showing a high rate of non-receipt of these fringe benefits, the figures do show higher rates of receipt than those reported in the Florida and Washington State studies. One of the reasons for this difference is likely to be that, because many of the women in the Harvard study had not received assistance for a significant period of time, that group had a higher average number of years of work experience and had remained with their current employer for a longer average period of time. See, "The Work-Family Balance: What Hurdles Are Parents Leaving Welfare Likely to Confront," by S. Jody Heymann and Alison Earle in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1998.

20. See Employee Rights Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by Catherine K. Ruckelshaus, National Employment Law Project.

21. See Paying More and Losing Ground: the Employer Cost-Shifting Is Eroding Health Coverage of Working Families, commissioned by the AFL-CIO (Lewin Group, Inc. 1998).

22. Federal law requires states to provide Medicaid to children under the age of six with family income below 133 percent of the poverty line, as well as to older children born after September 30, 1983, with family income below 100 percent of poverty. The requirement to phase in coverage of older children assures that by the year 2002 all children under the age of 19 will be eligible for Medicaid if they have family income below the poverty line. At present, the requirement means that states must cover children between the ages of six and about 14 with family income below the poverty level. These are federal minimum requirements; a majority of states have expanded coverage above these eligibility standards, and more can be expected to do so as a result of the child health block grant included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

23. Parents not receiving cash assistance can be eligible for Medicaid. First, parents in families that meet the income and resource standards of the state's AFDC program in place in 1996 are eligible for Medicaid regardless of whether the family receives any form of cash assistance. Moreover, parents may also be eligible for Medicaid for a transitional period for up to 12 months if their incomes rise above this level because their earnings increase or because the child support paid by a non-custodial parent increases. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act also gave states the option of extending Medicaid coverage to a broader group of low-income parents. See Taking the Next Step: States Can Now Expand Health Coverage to Low-income Working Parents Through Medicaid, by Jocelyn Guyer and Cindy Mann, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 19, 1998.

24. This figure assumes the family has been working more than four months. See pages 8-9 of One Year after Federal Welfare Reform: A Description of State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Decisions as of October 1997, by L. Jerome Gallagher et al., Urban Institute, June 1998.

25. Washington State has recently implemented a program to help low-income working parents improve their skills and find better jobs. The program offers low-income parents working at least 20 hours per week the opportunity to participate in training programs including those based at community colleges. The program also links parents to child care assistance for hours parents are working and hours parents are participating in training.

26. The average hours per week worked was one area in which the difference between the control and program groups was substantial. While 47.1 percent of program group members worked at least 40 hours per week in their current or most recent job, only 37.9 percent of control group members worked this many hours. However, the difference narrows when comparing the proportion of respondents who worked at least 30 hours per week — 74.2 percent of program group members and 70.2 percent of control group members worked at least 30 hours per week in their current or most recent job.

27. The remaining 22 percent of working former recipients were employed in a range of "other" industries. For example, less than seven percent were employed in manufacturing firms and less than five percent worked in the transportation industry. See Life After Welfare: Second Interim Report.

28. This report is available on the web: http://povertycenter.cwru.edu/br9803work_.PDF.

29. South Carolina has conducted three such studies of former recipients. The other two studies — of families that left the rolls between October and December 1996 and those that left between January and March 1997 — also surveyed families eight to 12 months after they had ceased receiving assistance. Only those families that did not receive aid during that time period were included in the survey. The earlier two studies reported somewhat lower employment rates among former recipients at the time of the survey. Among those who left the rolls between October and December 1996, some 59 percent were employed at the time of the follow-up survey. Among those who left the program between January and March 1997, some 64.6 percent were employed at the time of the follow-up survey.

30. The South Carolina study finds higher rates of employment among former recipients than is found in other studies. This is likely due in part to the study design in which families that left the program but received assistance again before the time of the follow-up survey were excluded from the sample.

31. See Survey of Former Family Independence Program Clients: Cases Closed During April Through June, 1997.

32. These represent former recipients characterizations of why they no longer receive assistance. The state welfare agency may code the reasons for case closures differently.

33. For a discussion of one of the reasons the measured employment rates in the statewide Wisconsin study may by higher than that in other studies of former recipients, see footnote 7.

34. Post-Exit Earnings and Benefit Receipt Among Those Who Left AFDC in Wisconsin, pg. 22.

35. Post-Exit Earnings and Benefit Receipt Among Those Who Left AFDC in Wisconsin, pgs. 24-25.

Related analyses: