Child Outcomes Survey: Enhanced survey developed to obtain information about FTP's impacts on children. Target measures include child care, education, health and safety, and social and emotional adjustment.

“Although FTP encountered some start-up delays, even early FTP enrollees experienced a much different welfare system than did members of the AFDC group.”

Interim Impact Findings:

“Few FTP group members have reached the time limit. However, almost everyone who has reached that point has had his or her benefits canceled.”

“During the first two years of the follow-up period, FTP’s main effect was to increase the percentage of people combining work and welfare. The program also raised family income while reducing the amount of cash assistance and Food Stamps people received.”

“FTP began to significantly reduce the rate of welfare receipt just after the second year of follow-up, when small numbers of FTP group members began to reach the time limit.”

On average, FTP has both increased participants’ total income and reduced their reliance on public assistance. In Year 3 of the study period, FTP group members had an average of $449 (7 percent) more combined income from cash assistance, Food Stamps, and earnings than did members of the AFDC group. On average, FTP group members received $301 (35 percent) less in cash assistance and $112 (9 percent) less in Food Stamps, but these reductions in public assistance were more than offset by a substantial $862 (22 percent) increase in average earnings.

FTP has produced different results for different subsets of the welfare population. For example, among those who had both a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED) certificate and recent work experience when they entered the program, FTP group members had $939 (13 percent) more combined income from public assistance and earnings in Year 3 than their AFDC group counterparts; the income gain was driven by a substantial $1,249 (21 percent) increase in average earnings. In contrast, FTP generated no increase in earnings for those who entered the program with neither a high school diploma/GED nor recent work experience — a group facing serious barriers to employment. In fact, FTP group members in this subgroup had less income than their AFDC group counterparts throughout much of the follow-up period.

Only a small proportion of FTP participants have reached the time limit, but almost all of those who reached that point have had their benefits entirely canceled. As of June 1998, only 223 (11 percent) of the 1,960 FTP group members who could have reached their time limit had done so. Most of the others had left welfare and still had months remaining on their clocks. A smaller number received either 24 or 36 months of benefits, but some of the months did not count, usually because the participant had been granted a medical exemption. Of the 223 participants who reached the limit, 210 (94 percent) had their welfare grant entirely canceled at that point. Four were granted brief extensions, and the children’s portion of the grant was retained in nine cases because it was determined that full cancellation would put the children at risk of foster care placement. A little under half of the participants who reached the time limit were working and earning at least as much as a standard welfare grant at that point.

On average, over the four-year study period, FTP increased employment and earnings, reduced welfare receipt, and modestly increased participants’ income.

The pattern of results changed over time: At the end of the follow-up period, the FTP group was less likely to be receiving welfare, but no more likely to be working, and the two groups had the same average income.

At the end of the four-year period, there were few differences between the groups on most measures of economic well-being, although, on a few indicators, the FTP group’s living conditions appeared to be slightly better.

The increases in employment, earnings, and income were concentrated among less disadvantaged participants.

On average, FTP had few effects for young children, but it had a couple of negative impacts on school outcomes for adolescents.

Surprisingly, FTP had some negative effects on children in the least disadvantaged families — the subgroup with the largest earnings impacts.

Only about one-sixth of FTP participants reached the time limit; most of these families struggled financially after losing their benefits, but did not appear to be worse off than many other families who left welfare for other reasons.

Final Cost-Benefit Findings:

FTP’s focus on intensive case management and services was expensive, and the welfare savings generated by the program were not large enough to offset the substantial upfront costs.

“But caution is in order. First, FTP’s results were not uniformly positive. It appears that a group of families lost income as a result of FTP, and the program generated negative effects for some groups of children. In addition, the follow-up was too short to allow final conclusions to be drawn about the families whose benefits were canceled at the time limit: Their complex coping strategies may or may not be sustainable over the long term, particularly if the labor market weakens. Finally, while there is little evidence that FTP made a large number of families much worse off, the program also has not yielded the dramatic positive impacts that were anticipated by some proponents of time limits during the national welfare reform debate.

“Second, it is critical to consider the unique circumstances under which FTP operated: far from any large city, in a healthy economic climate, with ample resources for staff and services. Moreover, some recipients facing very serious barriers to employment (for example, health problems) were exempted from the time limit, and those who were cut off lost relatively little money (because Florida’s welfare grant levels are low). These circumstances may have left little room for FTP to achieve large positive effects (because most of the AFDC group left welfare without the program), but they also reduced the chances that the program would cause serious harm to vulnerable families.”