View the full project profile

Project Description

The Ohio Works First program is Ohio’s implementation of the TANF program that provides temporary assistance to individuals in need.

Key features of the Ohio Works First program include a 36-month time limit on eligibility, an earned income disregard that ignores a portion of employment income in the calculation of benefits, a self-sufficiency contract and three tiered sanction process. In addition, child care, Medicaid, and Food Stamp benefits are extended to individuals leaving Ohio Works First to help them transition off cash assistance. Able-bodied individuals are required to work for 30 hours per week.

In addition to Ohio Works First, Ohio implemented the Prevention, Retention and Contingency (PRC) program, which provides short term cash assistance and services to OWF clients and other low income individuals to help them obtain and maintain employment or to meet short term needs that were formerly covered by the Emergency Assistance Program in order to help individuals stay off OWF cash assistance.

Project duration: Oct 1998 - Jun 2004

Sites studied include Ohio

Sample Characteristics and Sites Studied

N=1,052 random sample of former OWF participants who left between October 1997 and March 1998 and had been off OWF for at least 12 consecutive months (for the Legislative Outcome Study.)

N=1,951 randomly selected from a stratified statewide sample of Ohio Works First recipients who received assistance in both January and June 2000(for the longitudinal survey of participants.)

N=13,989 randomly selected Ohio Works First recipients statewide who received assistance in both January and June 2000 (for the longitudinal administrative study).

Recent Findings in Brief

12/17/03: The Ohio Works First Evaluation: Final Report

Final Implementation and Outcomes Findings

• OWF had an effect on the administration of public assistance in three ways. First, it promoted some unique responses to processing caseloads. Of particular importance was how work development activities and diversion approaches were integrated into agency processes. In general, there were three models that existed in 2002-2003:
  • An approach in which a single caseworker is responsible for all aspects of an individual’s case. Two counties adopted this approach.
  • An approach that functionally separates eligibility and workforce development and assigns these activities to different workers. Seven counties adopted this approach.
  • An eligibility-focused approach, in which the agency outsources all workforce development work. One county, Hamilton, adopted this approach.
• At various times during the period of this study, counties have adopted different approaches and variations of these approaches, indicating that agencies were constantly rethinking their approach in order to provide better services.
• Second, practices varied from counties that took a strict approach to transitioning individuals off welfare to counties that seemed more lenient. The former have experienced dramatic declines in caseloads, while the latter have experienced a higher rate of recidivism. Additionally, county success in placing individuals into unsubsidized employment (and failing that, their placement of individuals in various work activities) is important. The relationship between unsubsidized employment and work experience is critical, since the latter substitutes for unsubsidized employment when it is difficult to achieve.
• Third, information on OWF outcomes indicates that OWF participation and cash assistance amounts have declined drastically. However, individuals receiving cash assistance have a 16-percent chance of being on OWF after a two-year period, and they are more likely to be work experience participants. Income rises, but not uniformly across the population. Individuals with small earnings when they are receiving welfare see larger earnings during the following two years, while growth among those with larger incomes is small. Family and child well-being, however, remains constant.
• Although changes in earnings and assistance levels are generally similar to those in the rest of the state, among the 10 counties, we find that Franklin and Licking have large increases in earnings as well as smaller decreases in cash assistance. We find the opposite pattern in Scioto. It should be pointed out that Scioto is one of the counties we have identified as aggressively transitioning individuals off OWF, while Franklin is one of the counties that actually saw increases in caseloads. Overall, however, employment income outcomes were determined by individual characteristics more than by county-level characteristics.

Contact