[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]
Enrollees in local programs funded by WtW grants received diverse services and experienced substantial economic progress during the initial year following program entry. Despite that progress, the year-end levels of employment and self-sufficiency were below what policymakers and taxpayers may have anticipated. These broad conclusions are supported by the statistical findings presented in this report, which are based primarily on survey data provided by WtW enrollees in 11 study sites across the country. This chapter summarizes key specific conclusions regarding the services received by WtW enrollees, their employment outcomes, and their well-being one year after enrollment.
Rather than mandating a specific set of services, the WtW grants program provided local programs with funding and considerable latitude to design their own service packages. It is therefore not surprising that enrollees in the local programs received services that varied greatly from one site to the next. The following conclusions are based on enrollee self-reports of the services they actually received, rather than on the design of the programs in which they enrolled.
WtW enrollees were much more likely to receive employment preparation services than skill enhancement services. Consistent with the legislation that authorized the WtW grants program, more than two-thirds of enrollees in each of the 11 study sites received services that were designed to prepare them for and move them into employment. However, there was considerable variability across the sites in the types and duration of these services. Only in three sites (Baltimore County, St. Lucie County, and Milwaukee) did more than a third of enrollees receive services, such as those provided by longer-term education and training programs, that were designed to enhance their skills so that they could qualify for better jobs.
The employment preparation services that WtW enrollees received were more consistent with rapid job entry in some sites than in others. WtW enrollees in Phoenix and Yakima received employment preparation services that were highly consistent with a rapid transition to employment. Those services consisted primarily of brief job readiness training followed by assisted job search. In contrast, enrollees in Boston, Chicago, Nashville, Philadelphia, and West Virginia typically received extended job readiness training (or, in the case of Nashville, education and training) followed by job search assistance. The time it took to become employed was generally lower for enrollees in the former group of sites than the latter, reflecting these differences in services received.
The few WtW enrollees who did receive skill enhancement services typically began receiving them prior to obtaining employment. Even as subsequently amended, the federal legislation that authorized the WtW grants program reflects a philosophy that skill enhancement services (education and training) should commence after, not before, employment. But this proved to be the exception rather than the rule. In most of the study sites, only between about one-fourth and one-half of WtW enrollees who participated in basic education and training programs had obtained their initial post-enrollment jobs prior to entering those programs. The proportions were marginally higher for advanced education and training programs; however, only in Baltimore and St. Lucie counties (hosts to the JHU program, which targeted employed individuals) and in Yakima were at least three-fourths of the enrollees who participated in advanced programs employed prior to entering those programs.
The proportion of WtW enrollees who received any employment preparation services appears to be related to the design of the WtW enrollment process. In every study site, some individuals reported that they had not received any employment preparation services after enrolling in WtW. The proportion of such individuals was small in most sites, but it was as large as one-third in Ft. Worth. This outcome may have been a function of the WtW enrollment process in Ft. Worth, which typically occurred at TANF offices rather than at the locations of WtW service providers. If enrollees referred to WtW service providers failed to show, they would receive no services. In contrast, WtW enrollment in Philadelphia typically occurred at the location of a service provider, thus minimizing the risk of no-shows. And the proportion of enrollees who reported that they had not received any employment preparation services was also lowest in Philadelphia.
Most WtW enrollees found jobs during the year following program entry. However, they tended to receive low wages and few fringe benefits and most of them left their initial jobs.
Enrollees who were employed worked a lot of hours but received low wages and few fringe benefits. In every study site, at least two-thirds of the enrollees who were employed one year after entering WtW were working 30 or more hours per week on their principal job. However, their hourly wage rate tended to be low, averaging between $7 and $8 per hour in most sites. If all employed enrollees had been consistently working 40 hours every week and had not been receiving any cash assistance through government programs, more than one-third would have been living in poverty in nine of the study sites. While low wages kept people in poverty, the scarcity of fringe benefits prolonged dependence on social welfare programs, most notably Medicaid. The proportion of enrollees who received health insurance benefits on their principal job exceeded 20 percent in only one of the study sites. Other fringe benefits, such as paid sick leave and a pension plan, were more common — nevertheless, fewer than half of employed enrollees received each of these benefits on their principal job in all but 9 of the 11 study sites.
Most individuals who enrolled in WtW subsequently obtained jobs, but their employment tended to be unstable. Roughly 5 to 25 percent of WtW enrollees in the non-JHU study sites were employed when they entered WtW. In contrast, much larger proportions — between 60 and 80 percent — were employed sometime during the year following enrollment. Thus, most WtW enrollees subsequently experienced some degree of success in the labor market, but they had trouble sustaining it. In the non-JHU sites, enrollees were employed for considerably less than half the year, on average; at the end of the year, about 40 percent of them were working for pay, an employment rate similar to that for adults nationwide who have left TANF.
The rate of job loss was high among WtW enrollees; however, many who left their initial job moved to a better one. Roughly two-thirds of WtW enrollees who became employed left their initial job within a year of entering the program. However, most of them found another, often better, job. In more than half of the study sites, job changers benefited from an increase in some positive job attribute: more fringe benefits, a higher wage rate, or more work hours.
Instability in employment meant that many enrollees who had found jobs sometime during the year were no longer working at the end of the year. As noted, only about 40 percent of enrollees in the non-JHU sites were employed at that time. The resulting diminished earnings among enrollees as a group forced many to rely on assistance from outside the household and caused end-of-year poverty rates to be higher than they would have been had the employment gains been sustained.
Enrollees typically availed themselves of diverse sources of financial and nonfinancial support one year after entering the WtW program. In most of the study sites, TANF participation rates fell dramatically in the year following enrollment in WtW. However, large majorities of enrollees, with the notable exception of the noncustodial parents/ex-offenders in the Milwaukee program, continued to receive assistance from other government programs, especially food stamps. During the year, most also received assistance from extended family members or friends, whereas far fewer received help from community organizations.
Few WtW enrollees were self-sufficient one year after program entry. Only in the Baltimore and St. Lucie county sites for the JHU program were more than half of enrollees self-sufficient (employed and not on TANF) one year after they entered WtW. In the nine other study sites, just 20 to 40 percent of enrollees were self-sufficient. Typically, the percentage of enrollees who were dependent (on TANF and not working) at the end of the year was as large or larger than the percentage who were self-sufficient.
Poverty was pervasive among WtW enrollees one year after they entered the program, but its incidence was lower among those who were employed. The end-of-year poverty rate for WtW enrollees exceeded 60 percent in every study site except Baltimore County, where it was 49 percent. However, obtaining and maintaining employment was often an important step out of poverty. Except in St. Lucie County and West Virginia, the rate of poverty among WtW enrollees who were employed at the end of the year following program entry was 20 to 30 percentage points lower than that for enrollees who were not employed. Even so, the generally low wages earned by enrollees and their lack of consistent full-time employment over an entire month meant that even for this group the incidence of poverty was high in an absolute sense — 50 percent or more in every study site except Baltimore County.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy
(HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)