http://www.researchforum.org/project_general_12.html

New York Child Assistance Program (NY CAP) Evaluation

General Information

View a brief abstract of this project.

View a complete, printer-friendly profile of this project.
Evaluator(s) Abt Associates, Inc.
Investigator(s) William Hamilton (Abt Associates, Inc.)
Nancy Burstein (Abt Associates, Inc.)
Sponsor(s) New York State Department of Social Services
Funder(s) New York State Department of Social Services
Subcontractor(s) Not applicable
 
Domain Income Security/TANF
Status Completed (final report released)
Duration Apr 1989 - Dec 1996
Type Research and/or Program Evaluation
Goal To evaluate the components of the New York Child Assistance Program (CAP).
Program/Policy Description NY CAP is a voluntary program that uses work and child support incentives to motivate AFDC recipients (families with a custodial parent and at least one child covered by court order for child support from non-custodial parent) to take steps towards financial self-sufficiency.
Notes No notes reported.
 
Last Updated 09/08/97
Type of Summary Reviewed
External Reviewer(s) Chris Hamilton (Abt Associates, Inc.)
Contact(s) Chris Hamilton (not reported)
Abt Associates, Inc.
55 Wheeler Street
(T) not reported
(F) not reported
Publications Department Abt Publications (not reported)
Abt Associates, Inc.
4808 Montgomery Lane
(T) not reported
(F) not reported

Populations Studied

Target Population Recipients/participants/clients
Subgroups Analyzed Single parent families
Sample Size and Unit 4,287 welfare recipients (single parent families and "potentially CAP eligible cases"). CAP eligible families have a custodial parent and at least one child covered by court order for child support from non-custodial parent.

Random assignment in each county to control group (subject to normal AFDC rules and procedures) and treatment group (opportunity to participate in CAP if qualified and interested).

Size of control and treatment groups not reported.

Treatment group includes not only CAP participants, but also a large number of people who could not or did not want to participate in CAP.

Approximately 16% of treatment families participated in CAP at some time.

Sites Studied

Monroe County (Rochester), New York
Niagara County (Niagara Falls), New York
Suffolk County (Long Island), New York

Program Components, Policies, and Activities Evaluated

Financial incentives

  • Earnings disregards
  • Increased asset limit
  • Lower benefit reduction rate
  • Direct payment of rent to recipient (not landlord)
  • Financial Incentives - misc.

Program requirements

  • Child support order

Child support

  • Support paid directly to parent

Food stamps

  • Cash out

Social/Support services

  • Child care
  • Transitional child care
  • Case management

Administration/Implementation

  • Changes in welfare office environment/culture

Financial disincentives/Sanctions

  • Lower basic benefit level
Variation in program components across sites? Yes
Notes on program components Child support: A benefit formula is tied to the number of children with child support orders.

Financial disincentives/sanctions: Participants receive a lower basic benefit level. Financial incentives: A "low tax rate" on earnings (called a "work incentive"). CAP benefits are reduced by only 10 cents for each dollar earned for the first several hundred dollars of earnings in a month, and by 67 cents for each dollar above that level.

Food stamps: Food stamps benefits are provided to participants as cash.

Program operations/implementation:CAP office is separate from the welfare office and has more "professional" environment.

Program requirements: A child support order is required of all participants. Social/Support services: Child care advances are received as a separate allowance outside of the monthly benefit calculation. Case managers encourage recipients to obtain jobs and support orders necessary for CAP participation, in addition to helping recipients progress towards self-sufficiency. Transitional Medicaid available for up to 12 months after closed case due to increased income.

Outcomes Assessed

Employment

  • Job attainment
  • Job retention

Family and relationship outcomes

  • Births/pregnancies
  • Family formation and stability/Living arrangements

Income security

  • Child support payments
  • Earnings
  • Food stamps receipt
  • Medicaid receipt
  • Welfare receipt

Service utilization

  • Service utilization - misc.

Program implementation

  • Program Implementation - misc.

Financial costs and benefits/cost-effectiveness

  • Financial costs and benefits/cost-effectiveness - misc.

Child Outcomes

  • Child social/emotional/behavioral outcomes

Types of Studies

Type Impact Study (Controlled Experiment)
Aim To measure CAP's average effect for the entire single-parent AFDC caseload by comparing the entire treatment group -including those who never participated in CAP- with the entire control group.
 
Type Implementation/Process Study
Aim To describe actual implementation, identify differences across locations, and identify divergence from plan.
 
Type Cost-Benefit Study
Aim To compare total program expenditures with total cost reductions and tax revenue changes. To measure net change in family income.
 

Data Sources

Source Survey
Title Self-administered Background Information Form (BIF)
Sample Characteristics/Data Collection 4,287 welfare recipients due for re-certification and who agreed to participate in the study.
Random sample of 2,144 program group and 2,143 control group members.
Collected at baseline, 4/89 - 3/90.
Sites All sites.
Response Rate/Attrition Notes Reported response rate: 100%
Additional Execution Notes Survey administered with worker supervision.
 
Source Administrative data
Title SDSS (public assistance receipt and child support status) data files
Sample Characteristics/Data Collection 4,287 welfare recipients.
Random sample of 2,144 program group and 2,143 control group members.
Collected for first 60 months after sample entry.
Sites All sites.
Response Rate/Attrition Notes N/A
Additional Execution Notes Multiple records per household.
 
Source Administrative data
Title Tax and finance data files
Sample Characteristics/Data Collection 4,287 welfare recipients.
Random sample of 2,144 program group and 2,143 control group members.
Data collected and analyzed for each sample member’s reported earnings for each calendar quarter in the third through fifth years after sample entry.
Sites All sites.
Response Rate/Attrition Notes N/A
Additional Execution Notes Multiple records per household.
 
Source Survey
Title In-person and telephone survey
Sample Characteristics/Data Collection 4,287 welfare recipients.
Random sample of 2,144 program group and 2,143 control group members .
Collected 1,2, and 5 years after clients enter sample.
Sites All sites.
Response Rate/Attrition Notes Reported response rate: 90% after first year.
87% after second year.
83% after fifth year.
Additional Execution Notes No notes reported.
 

Findings Available

Final Implementation Findings
Final Impact Findings
Final Cost-benefit Findings

Findings

12/01/96: New York State Child Assistance Program: Five-Year Impacts, Costs, and Benefits
Final Cost-Benefit Findings: "Savings [totaled] $2,603 per household over the 5 years. To achieve the savings, the government invested $237 per household in additional administrative costs for cash assistance programs over 5 years. In other words, the government realized over $10 in savings for every $1 invested" (iv). "The total government savings from Fiscal Year 1990 through Fiscal Year 1995 in these three counties amounted to about $50 million" (vi). "20% more earnings or $2613 on average over 5 years [for treatment group members]" (v). "4% reduction in Public Assistance payments" (vii). "4% more child support orders" (x). "7% increase in administrative costs for cash assistance" (xi). Final Impact Findings: "Over the course of the five years, 16% of the families the treatment group participated in CAP at some time...
-Most people who participated in CAP took sizable steps to do so.
-The requirement for child support orders clearly limited participation.
-CAP reached most subgroups quite evenly" (xiii). Final Implementation Findings: "Results varied across counties... [according to] implementation strategy, administrative effectiveness, and local conditions" (xiv).
 

Recommendations

New York State Child Assistance Program: Five-Year Impacts, Costs, and Benefits (12/01/96)
"Although the analysis does not allow us to determine the separate effects of various CAP features, four seem likely to have contributed strongly and are worthy of consideration in other welfare reform efforts:
-CAP’s favorable earnings disregard;
- The entry threshold that led AFDC recipients to achieve a substantial level of earnings before transferring to CAP;
-The use of individualized case management to encourage AFDC recipients to take action to qualify for CAP, and to encourage CAP recipients to move toward independence; and
-The ‘non-welfare’ image, which reinforced the attractiveness of CAP vs. AFDC and served as a reminder of the goal of independence from welfare...The requirement for child support orders is more debatable" (xvi).
 

Existing Publications

12/01/96 New York State Child Assistance Program: Five-Year Impacts, Costs, and Benefits Abt
12/01/96 New York State Child Assistance Program: Selected Analyses of Families' Experiences with CAP Abt
02/01/98 New York State Child Assistance Program (NY CAP) Evaluation: Using Incentives in Welfare Reform: The New York State Child Assistance Program Abt

215 W. 125th Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10027 646.284.9600     info@nccp.org
This Page Copyright © 2002 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, for its National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP). All Rights Reserved.