Table 3.
Impacts on Parents’ Economic Outcomes and Child Achievement, by Program Type and by Study/Site
| Dependent variables |
IV model results |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program type and study/site | Prop. of quarters employed over follow-up | Average annual income (in $l,000s) | Log average annual income | Prop. of quarters receiving any welfare over follow-up | Child achievement | Effects of income on child achievement | Effects of log income on child achievement |
| Program type (not mutually exclusive) | |||||||
| Earnings supplements (n = 8,941) | 0.086 (0.010)*** | 1.468 (0.158)*** | 0.137 (0.018)*** | –0.035 (0.010)*** | 0.076 (0.024)*** | 0.052 (0.017)*** | 0.554 (0.188)*** |
| Work first (n = 9,957) | 0.079 (0.010)*** | 0.446 (0.156)*** | 0.025 (0.021) | –0.022 (0.010)** | 0.040 (0.025) | 0.089 (0.064) | 1.627 (1.710) |
| Education/training first (n = 6,017) | 0.044 (0.014)*** | 0.308 (0.196) | 0.046 (0.025)* | –0.003 (0.013) | 0.027 (0.037) | 0.089 (0.130) | 0.596 (0.852) |
| Time limits (n = 2,631) | 0.061 (0.016)*** | 0.505 (0.251)** | 0.033 (0.035) | –0.014 (0.015) | 0.064 (0.041) | 0.127 (0.105) | 1.926 (2.461) |
| Child care assistance programs (n = 4,084) | 0.072 (0.013)*** | 0.961 (0.244)*** | 0.074 (0.031)** | 0.001 (0.013) | 0.050 (0.034) | 0.052 (0.037) | 0.681 (0.543) |
|
Study/site | |||||||
| Self-Sufficiency Project (SSP) | |||||||
| British Columbia (n = 2,131) | 0.076 (0.023)*** | 1.609 (0.327)*** | 0.146 (0.031)*** | –0.056 (0.020)*** | 0.112 (0.050)** | 0.070 (0.034)** | 0.768 (0.375)** |
| New Brunswick (n = 1,844) | 0.135 (0.023)*** | 1.916 (0.274)*** | 0.192 (0.035)*** | –0.142 (0.023)*** | 0.125 (0.054)** | 0.065 (0.030)** | 0.648 (0.306)** |
| SSP Plus–New Brunswick (n = 471) | 0.116 (0.047)** | 2.244 (0.455)*** | 0.243 (0.071)*** | –0.170 (0.043)*** | 0.061 (0.113) | 0.027 (0.052) | 0.252 (0.491) |
| Connecticut's Jobs First (n = 1,521) | 0.053 (0.021)** | 0.813 (0.362)** | 0.074 (0.041)* | 0.038 (0.020)* | 0.032 (0.054) | 0.040 (0.069) | 0.436 (0.779) |
| MFIP | |||||||
| Urban Full (n = 1,101) | 0.114 (0.022)*** | 1.302 (0.409)*** | 0.130 (0.057)** | 0.071 (0.022)*** | 0.045 (0.056) | 0.035 (0.044) | 0.345 (0.461) |
| Urban Incentives Only (n = 988) | 0.050 (0.024)** | 0.914 (0.413)** | 0.109 (0.063)* | 0.105 (0.024)*** | –0.016 (0.062) | –0.018 (0.068) | –0.150 (0.569) |
| Rural Full (n = 378) | 0.086 (0.041)** | 1.630 (0.585)*** | 0.158 (0.075)** | 0.077 (0.039)** | –0.013 (0.093) | –0.008 (0.057) | –0.081 (0.591) |
| New Hope (n = 1,049) | 0.065 (0.023)*** | 1.630 (0.541)*** | 0.125 (0.047)*** | –0.023 (0.023) | 0.034 (0.066) | 0.021 (0.041) | 0.272 (0.533) |
| NEWWS | |||||||
| Atlanta LFA (n = 2,324) | 0.046 (0.023)** | 0.317 (0.286) | 0.043 (0.029) | –0.020 (0.022) | 0.074 (0.059) | 0.232 (0.264) | 1.705 (1.663) |
| Atlanta HCD (n = 2,607) | 0.020 (0.021) | 0.398 (0.262) | 0.055 (0.027)** | –0.007 (0.019) | 0.101 (0.056)* | 0.255 (0.205) | 1.835 (1.265) |
| Grand Rapids LFA (n = 1,458) | 0.104 (0.027)*** | 0.072 (0.452) | –0.045 (0.062) | –0.074 (0.028)*** | 0.030 (0.070) | 0.414 (2.720) | –0.667 (1.873) |
| Grand Rapids HCD (n = 1,388) | 0.026 (0.026) | 0.004 (0.462) | –0.007 (0.056) | 0.011 (0.027) | –0.050 (0.078) | –12.823 (1,511.755) | 7.043 (54.664) |
| Riverside LFA (n = 1,896) | 0.121 (0.028)*** | 0.095 (0.497) | –0.042 (0.077) | –0.079 (0.029)*** | 0.007 (0.070) | 0.071 (0.801) | –0.162 (1.732) |
| Riverside HCD (n = 2,022) | 0.099 (0.024)*** | 0.557 (0.354) | 0.072 (0.053) | 0.007 (0.024) | –0.036 (0.066) | –0.065 (0.123) | –0.505 (0.971) |
| LA-GAIN (n = 169) | –0.004 (0.062) | –1.047 (0.884) | –0.112 (0.096) | 0.009 (0.045) | 0.000 (0.157) | 0.000 (0.150) | –0.003 (1.405) |
| FTP (n = 1,110) | 0.069 (0.022)*** | 0.137 (0.330) | –0.019 (0.059) | –0.084 (0.020)*** | 0.112 (0.063)* | 0.816 (2.041) | –6.021 (19.141) |
Note. Standard errors are in parentheses. Means and standard deviations of each variable are as follows: average hours employed per quarter (M = 145.3, SD = 167.3); average quarters receiving any welfare (M = .747, SD = .321); average annual income (M = 11.0, SD = 5.2); log average annual income (M = 9.19, SD = .583); child achievement (M = .030, SD = .993). Economic variables were measured over study follow-up, and child achievement was measured at the time of follow-up. Separate regression equations were conducted for each study impact. The regressions also included the following covariates measured at baseline: child's age, earnings in the prior year, earnings in the prior year squared, amount of time mother was on welfare, employed in prior year, mother had no high school degree or equivalent, mother's marital status, number of children in the family, age of youngest child, mother's race/ethnicity, and whether parents’ age was less than 18 at the time of child's birth; also included were the following additional covariates: elapsed time between study entry and follow-up, type of achievement report (e.g. parent or test/teacher, when applicable). IV = instrumental variables; Prop. = proportion; MFIP = Minnesota Family Investment Program; NEWWS = National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies; LFA = Labor Force Attachment; HCD = Human Capital Development; LA–GAIN = Los Angeles Jobs-First Greater Avenues for Independence Evaluation; FTP = Florida's Family Transition Program.
p < .10.
p < .05.
p < .01.