 |
Welfare & Barriers to Employment |
|
| |
|
Welfare Reform |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
|
 |
A Comparison of Two Job Club Strategies
The Effects of Enhanced Versus Traditional Job Clubs in Los Angeles
|
| |
|
|
2008. David Navarro, Gilda Azurdia, and Gayle Hamilton.
This report, from the Employment Retention and Advancement Project, finds that unemployed welfare recipients in an enhanced job club had no better employment outcomes than participants in a traditional job club. At the end of the 18-month follow-up period, about half of both groups were employed.
|
|
| |
|
|
Welfare Time Limits
An Update on State Policies, Implementation, and Effects on Families
|
| |
|
|
Published with the Lewin Group.
2008. Mary Farrell, Sarah Rich, Lesley Turner, David Seith, and Dan Bloom.
One of the most controversial features of the 1990s welfare reforms was the imposition of time limits on benefit receipt. This comprehensive review, written by The Lewin Group and MDRC, includes analyses of administrative data reported by states to the federal government, visits to several states, and a literature review.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Results from the Valuing Individual Success and Increasing Opportunities Now (VISION) Program in Salem, Oregon
|
| |
|
|
2008. Frieda Molina, Wan-Lae Cheng, and Richard Hendra.
A program to promote better initial job placements, employment retention, and advancement among unemployed applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program faced implementation challenges and had no employment-related impacts after one year of follow-up.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Results from Two Education and Training Models for Employed Welfare Recipients in Riverside, California
|
| |
|
|
2007. David Navarro, Stephen Freedman, and Gayle Hamilton.
Two education and training programs for employed, single-parent welfare recipients had small impacts on attendance in basic education or training overall but had larger impacts for disadvantaged groups. However, over two years, neither program increased employment and earnings levels overall or for any subgroup.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Impacts for Portland's Career Builders Program
|
| |
|
|
2008. Gilda Azurdia and Zakia Barnes.
A program in Portland, Oregon, to remove employment barriers and assist with job placement and employment retention and advancement for welfare applicants and recipients was never fully implemented and, not surprisingly, had no any effects on employment, earnings, or receipt of public assistance.
|
|
| |
|
|
Transitional Jobs for Ex-Prisoners
Early Impacts from a Random Assignment Evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Prisoner Reentry Program
Working Paper
|
| |
|
|
2007. Dan Bloom, Cindy Redcross, Janine Zweig (Urban Institute), and Gilda Azurdia.
After one year, CEO’s transitional jobs program generated a large but short-lived increase in employment for ex-prisoners. A subgroup of recently released prisoners showed positive effects on recidivism: They were less likely to have their parole revoked, to be convicted of a felony, and to be reincarcerated than the control group.
|
|
| |
|
|
Four Strategies to Overcome Barriers to Employment
An Introduction to the Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation Project
|
| |
|
|
2007. Dan Bloom, Cindy Redcross, JoAnn Hsueh, Sarah Rich, and Vanessa Martin.
This demonstration is evaluating four diverse strategies designed to improve employment and other outcomes for low-income parents and others who face serious barriers to employment.
|
|
| |
|
|
Experimentation and Social Welfare Policymaking in the United States
|
| |
|
|
2007. Gordon L. Berlin
In a speech given at a conference sponsored by the French government on the role of experimental studies in reducing poverty, MDRC President Gordon Berlin described how the results of random assignment studies have acted as powerful levers for changing social policy in the United States.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Results from the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) Program in New York City
|
| |
|
|
2007. Dan Bloom, Cynthia Miller, and Gilda Azurdia.
A random assignment study of a welfare-to-work program for recipients with work-limiting medical and mental health conditions shows that participants had increased employment and decreased welfare payments.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Results from the Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS) Program in Riverside, California
|
| |
|
|
2007. David Navarro, Mark van Dok, and Richard Hendra.
A random assignment evaluation of a voluntary postemployment program for workers who recently left welfare shows participants had increased employment and earnings during the first two years of follow-up.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Results from Minnesota's Tier 2 Program
|
| |
|
|
2007. Allen LeBlanc, Cynthia Miller, Karin Martinson, and Gilda Azurdia
An evaluation of a case management program for long-term welfare recipients shows little effect on participants’ involvement in program services or on their employment, earnings, or public assistance receipt during the first one-and-a-half years of follow-up.
|
|
| |
|
|
Between Welfare Reform and Reauthorization
Income Support Systems in Cuyahoga and Philadelphia, 2000 to 2005
|
| |
|
|
2007. David Seith, Sarah Rich, and Lashawn Richburg-Hayes.
This report, part of MDRC’s Project on Devolution and Urban Change, tells the story of Cleveland’s and Philadelphia’s welfare systems in the early 2000s, a time marked by an economic downturn, state budget cuts, and welfare time limits.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Results from the Chicago ERA Site
|
| |
|
|
2006. Dan Bloom, Richard Hendra, and Jocelyn Page.
An evaluation of a retention and advancement program for recently employed welfare recipients shows modest increases in employment and large reductions in welfare receipt during the first two years of follow-up.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Results from the Texas ERA Site
|
| |
|
|
2006. Karin Martinson and Richard Hendra.
An evaluation of a job placement, retention, and advancement program for individuals receiving welfare showed some effects — but not consistent or large effects — on employment and retention outcomes during the first two years of follow-up.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Power of Work
The Center for Employment Opportunities
Comprehensive Prisoner Reentry Program
|
| |
|
|
2006. The Center for Employment Opportunities and MDRC.
The Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) serves nearly 2,000 reentering prisoners a year with a structured program of pre-employment training, immediate short-term transitional work, and job placement services. This report, written jointly by CEO and MDRC, describes how the CEO program operates. Results from a random assignment evaluation by MDRC are expected next year.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Results from the South Carolina ERA Site
|
| |
|
|
2005. Susan Scrivener, Gilda Azurdia, and Jocelyn Page.
An MDRC evaluation of Moving Up, a program in South Carolina that aimed to help former welfare recipients obtain jobs, work more steadily, and move up in the labor market, found that the program had little effect on employment rates, earnings, employment retention, or advancement.
|
|
| |
|
|
Food Stamp Caseload Dynamics
A Study in Four Big Cities
A Technical Report
|
| |
|
|
2005. Lashawn Richburg-Hayes and Isaac Kwakye
This technical report describes food stamp caseload dynamics between January 1993 and December 2001 in Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Los Angeles, California; Miami-Dade County, Florida; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
|
|
| |
|
|
Welfare Reform in Los Angeles
Implementation, Effects, and Experiences of Poor Families and Neighborhoods
|
| |
|
|
2005. Denise F. Polit, Laura Nelson, Lashawn Richburg-Hayes, and David C. Seith, with Sarah Rich.
Welfare caseloads fell, employment increased, and neighborhood conditions improved in Los Angeles during a period of economic growth and welfare reform. However, most welfare recipients still remained poor, the concentration of poverty increased, and those who worked were usually in low-wage jobs without benefits.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Early Results from Four Sites
|
| |
|
|
2005. Dan Bloom, Richard Hendra, Karin Martinson, and Susan Scrivener.
Early results are mixed for Employment Retention and Advancement project programs in four sites, but programs in two sites appear to help some welfare recipients work more steadily and advance to higher-paying jobs.
|
|
| |
|
|
A Profile of Families Cycling on and off Welfare
|
| |
|
|
2004. Lashawn Richburg-Hayes and Stephen Freedman.
In MDRC’s study of over 160,000 single-parent welfare recipients, families who repeatedly return to welfare assistance—“cyclers”—were less disadvantaged in the labor market than long-term welfare recipients. At the same time, they were less able than short-term recipients to attain stable employment and to work without welfare.
|
|
| |
|
|
Welfare Reform in Miami
Implementation, Effects, and Experiences of Poor Families and Neighborhoods
|
| |
|
|
2004. Thomas Brock, Isaac Kwakye, Judy C. Polyné, Lashawn Richburg-Hayes, David Seith, Alex Stepick, Carol Dutton Stepick with Tara Cullen and Sarah Rich.
Welfare caseloads fell, employment increased, and social conditions generally improved in Miami-Dade County after the 1996 federal welfare reform law was passed, but the county’s welfare-to-work program was poorly implemented and unusually harsh.
|
|
| |
|
|
Testimony of David Butler, Vice President, MDRC Before the Senate Committee on Finance
On Temporary Assistance for Needy Families And the Hard-to-Employ
Congressional Testimony
|
| |
|
|
2004. David Butler.
|
|
| |
|
|
Service Delivery and Institutional Linkages
Early Implementation Experiences of Employment Retention and Advancement Programs
|
| |
|
|
2003. Jacquelyn Anderson, Karin Martinson.
Describing the initial experiences of 15 Employment Retention and Advancement programs in 8 states, this report emphasizes implementation issues and focuses on connections among the agencies and institutions that deliver retention and advancement services to low-income workers and hard-to-employ populations.
|
|
| |
|
|
Welfare Reform in Philadelphia
Implementation, Effects, and Experiences of Poor Families and Neighborhoods
|
| |
|
|
2003. Charles Michalopoulos, Kathryn Edin, Barbara Fink, Mirella Landriscina, Denise F. Polit, Judy C. Polyne, Lashawn Richburg-Hayes, David Seith, Nandita Verma.
Based on a comprehensive body of evidence, this report from the Project on Devolution and Urban Change examines how changes in Pennsylvania’s welfare reform policies combined with a strong regional economy in the late 1990s to create substantial change in the welfare system in Philadelphia.
|
|
| |
|
|
Housing Assistance and the Effects of Welfare Reform
Evidence from Connecticut and Minnesota
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2003. Nandita Verma, James A. Riccio, with Gilda L. Azurdia.
Using data from two random assignment welfare reform experiments, this report contributes insights to efforts to foster economic self-sufficiency in both the assisted housing and the welfare policy arenas.
|
|
| |
|
|
Community Service Jobs in Wisconsin Works
The Milwaukee County Experience
|
| |
|
|
2003. Andrea Robles, Fred Doolittle, Susan Gooden.
This report examines the implementation of the community service jobs component of Wisconsin's Temporary Aid for Needy Families program during the program’s first three years of operation.
|
|
| |
|
|
Monitoring Outcomes for Los Angeles County’s Pre- and Post-CalWORKs Leavers
How Are They Faring?
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
2003. Nandita Verma, Richard Hendra.
Responding to the growing need to understand whether people who have left the welfare rolls since the passage of the 1996 welfare reform law are able to find and keep jobs and earn enough to lift their families out of poverty, this study compares two groups of single-parent welfare recipients — one that left the welfare rolls in 1996, and a similar group who exited welfare in 1998 —investigating their background characteristics, their employment and earnings experiences, and their material well-being.
|
|
| |
|
|
Comparing Outcomes for Los Angeles County’s HUD-Assisted and Unassisted CalWORKs Leavers
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
2003. Nandita Verma, Richard Hendra.
This report studies the post-welfare experiences of three groups — two that received federal housing assistance when they left the welfare rolls and an unassisted group that did not — to see how they differ with respect to their labor market outcomes, material well-being, and propensity to return to the welfare rolls or rely on other forms of public assistance.
|
|
| |
|
|
WRP
Final Report on Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project
|
| |
|
|
2002. Susan Scrivener, Richard Hendra, Cindy Redcross,Dan Bloom, Charles Michalopoulos, Johanna Walter.
|
|
| |
|
|
Welfare Reform in Cleveland
Implementation, Effects, and Experiences of Poor Families and Neighborhoods
|
| |
|
|
2002. Thomas Brock, Claudia Coulton, Andrew London, Denise Polit, Lashawn Richburg-Hayes, Ellen Scott, Nandita Verma with Isaac Kwakye, Vanessa Martin, Judy C. Polyne, David Seith.
This report from the Project on Devolution and Urban Change examines how welfare reform has played out in Ohio's Cuyahoga County, which encompasses Cleveland, based on a comprehensive body of evidence that includes administrative records, surveys, and ethnographic interviews.
|
|
| |
|
|
Moving People from Welfare to Work
Lessons from the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2002. Gayle Hamilton.
This report distills lessons from the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) with a focus on the effectiveness of employment-focused versus education-focused programs in helping people move from welfare to work.
|
|
| |
|
|
An Analysis of Vermont’s Community Service Employment Program
|
| |
|
|
2002. Leslie Sperber, Dan Bloom.
|
|
| |
|
|
Readying Welfare Recipients for Work
Lessons from Four Big Cities as They Implement Welfare Reform
|
| |
|
|
2002. Thomas Brock, Laura C. Nelson, Megan Reiter.
|
|
| |
|
|
Improving Basic Skills
The Effects of Adult Education in Welfare-to-Work Programs
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2002. Johannes M. Bos, Susan Scrivener, Jason Snipes, Gayle Hamilton with Christine Schwartz, Johanna Walter.
Since the early 1980s, welfare policymakers and program operators have debated the role of adult education in program strategies to help welfare recipients make the transition from welfare to work. This report addresses key questions about how welfare-to-work programs that emphasize adult education activities affect the educational and economic outcomes of welfare recipients.
|
|
| |
|
|
New Strategies to Promote Stable Employment and Career Progression
An Introduction to the Employment Retention and Advancement Project
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2002. Dan Bloom, Jacquelyn Anderson, Melissa Wavelet, Karen N. Gardiner, Michael E. Fishman.
Welfare reform has resulted in millions of low-income parents replacing the receipt of public cash assistance with income from employment. But what strategies will help the new workforce entrants find more stable jobs, advance in the labor market, and achieve long-term self-sufficiency? The Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) evaluation is a comprehensive effort to explore this urgent public policy question.
|
|
| |
|
|
Jobs First
Final Report on Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative
|
| |
|
|
2002. Dan Bloom, Susan Scrivener, Charles Michalopoulos, Pamela Morris, Richard Hendra, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, Johanna Walter with Wanda Vargas.
|
|
| |
|
|
How Effective Are Different Welfare-to-Work Approaches?
Five-Year Adult and Child Impacts for Eleven Programs
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2001. Gayle Hamilton, Stephen Freedman, Lisa Gennetian, Charles Michalopoulos, Johanna Walter, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, Anna Gassman-Pines, Sharon McGroder, Martha Zaslow, Surjeet Ahluwalia, Jennifer Brooks with Electra Small, Bryan Ricchetti.
How best to help people move from welfare to work — particularly whether an employment-focused approach or an education-focused approach is more effective — has been a subject of long-standing debate. This report summary, which describes the long-term effects of 11 different mandatory welfare-to-work programs for single parents and their children, takes a major step toward resolving this debate.
|
|
| |
|
|
Exceptions to the Rule
The Implementation of 24-Month Time-Limit Extensions in W-2
|
| |
|
|
2001. Susan Gooden, Fred Doolittle.
|
|
| |
|
|
Is Work Enough?
The Experiences of Current and Former Welfare Mothers Who Work
|
| |
|
|
2001. Denise F. Polit, Rebecca Widom, Kathryn Edin, Stan Bowie, Andrew S. London, Ellen K. Scott, Abel Valenzuela.
|
|
| |
|
|
Complaint Resolution in the Context of Welfare Reform
How W-2 Settles Disputes
|
| |
|
|
2001. Suzanne Lynn.
|
|
| |
|
|
Matching Applicants with Services
Initial Assessments in the Milwaukee County W-2 Program
|
| |
|
|
2001. Susan Gooden, Fred Doolittle, Ben Glispie.
|
|
| |
|
|
Evaluating Two Approaches to Case Management
Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2001. Susan Scrivener, Johanna Walter with Thomas Brock, Gayle Hamilton.
This report, from the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies, examines the relative effectiveness of traditional versus integrated case-management approaches in welfare-to-work programs.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Health of Poor Urban Women
Findings from the Project on Devolution and Urban Change
|
| |
|
|
2001. Denise F. Polit, Andrew S. London, John M. Martinez.
|
|
| |
|
|
Monitoring Outcomes for Cuyahoga County’s Welfare Leavers
How Are They Faring?
|
| |
|
|
2001. Nandita Verma, Claudia Coulton with Richard Hendra, Engel Polousky.
|
|
| |
|
|
Three-Year Impacts of Connecticut’s Jobs First Welfare Reform Initiative
|
| |
|
|
2001. Richard Hendra, Charles Michalopoulos, Dan Bloom.
|
|
| |
|
|
Social Service Organizations and Welfare Reform
|
| |
|
|
2001. Barbara Fink, Rebecca Widom with Richard Beaulaurier, Gilbert Contreras, Lorna Dilley, Rebecca Joyce Kissane.
|
|
| |
|
|
Post-TANF Food Stamp and Medicaid Benefits
Factors That Aid or Impede Their Receipt
|
| |
|
|
2001. Janet Quint, Rebecca Widom with Lindsay Moore.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Family Transition Program
Final Report on Florida's Initial Time-Limited Welfare Program
|
| |
|
|
2000. Dan Bloom, James J. Kemple, Pamela Morris, Susan Scrivener, Nandita Verma,
Richard Hendra with Diana Adams-Ciardullo, David Seith, Johanna Walter.
|
|
| |
|
|
Connecticut's Jobs First Program
An Analysis of Welfare Leavers
|
| |
|
|
2000. Laura Melton, Dan Bloom.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Experiences of Welfare Recipients Who Find Jobs
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2000. Karin Martinson.
|
|
| |
|
|
Four-Year Impacts of Ten Programs on Employment Stability and Earnings Growth
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2000. Stephen Freedman.
|
|
| |
|
|
Assessing the Impact of Welfare Reform on Urban Communities
The Urban Change Project and Methodological Considerations
|
| |
|
|
2000. Charles Michalopoulos, Johannes M. Bos, Robert Lalonde, Nandita Verma.
|
|
| |
|
|
Do Mandates Matter?
The Effects of a Mandate to Enter a Welfare-to-Work Program
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2000. Jean Tansey Knab, Johannes M. Bos, Daniel Friedlander, Joanna W. Weissman.
|
|
| |
|
|
What Works Best for Whom
Impacts of 20 Welfare-to-Work Programs by Subgroup
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2000. Charles Michalopoulos, Christine Schwartz with Diana Adams-Ciardullo.
|
|
| |
|
|
Oklahoma City's ET & E Program
Two-Year Implementation, Participation, Cost, and Impact Findings
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2000. Laura Storto, Gayle Hamilton, Christine Schwartz, Susan Scrivener.
|
|
| |
|
|
Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Two-Year Impacts of the Detroit Welfare-to-Work Program
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2000. Mary Farrell with Gayle Hamilton, Christine Schwartz, Laura Storto.
|
|
| |
|
|
Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project
Key Findings from the Forty-Two-Month Client Survey
|
| |
|
|
2000. Dan Bloom, Richard Hendra, Charles Michalopoulos.
|
|
| |
|
|
Do Mandatory Welfare-to-Work Programs Affect the Well-Being of Children?
A Synthesis of Child Research Conducted as Part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2000. Gayle Hamilton.
|
|
| |
|
|
Evaluating Alternative Welfare-to-Work Approaches
Two-Year Impacts for Eleven Programs
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2000. Stephen Freedman, Daniel Friedlander, Gayle Hamilton, JoAnn Rock, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman, Amanda Schweder, Laura Storto.
|
|
| |
|
|
Impacts on Young Children and Their Families Two Years After Enrollment
Findings From the Child Outcomes Study
|
| |
|
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education.
2000. Martha J. Zaslow, Sharon M. McGroder, Krist |
