|
Postemployment Services Demonstration
General Information
View a brief abstract of this project.
View a complete, printer-friendly profile of this project.
| Evaluator(s) |
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
|
| Investigator(s) |
Anu Rangarajan
(Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.)
Nancye Campbell
(US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families)
|
| Sponsor(s) |
Illinois Department of Human Services
US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
|
| Funder(s) |
Illinois Department of Human Services
US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
|
| Subcontractor(s) |
Not applicable
|
| |
| Domain |
Income Security/TANF
|
| Status |
Completed (final report released)
|
| Duration |
Apr 1994 - Apr 1999
|
| Type |
Research and/or Program Evaluation
|
| Goal |
To test ways of promoting job retention for newly employed welfare recipients and to look at the job retention barriers these individuals face and the effectiveness of services (primarily case management) in reducing these barriers.
|
| Program/Policy Description |
Postemployment Services Demonstration uses a case management approach to help newly employed welfare recipients keep jobs, and find new jobs quickly if they lose them. Through extended case management, the programs provide four key services: counseling and support; job search assistance; help for resolving benefit issues; and temporary support services payments.
|
| Notes |
No notes reported.
|
| |
| Last Updated |
08/04/99
|
| Type of Summary |
Reviewed
|
| External Reviewer(s) |
Stuart Kerachsky
(Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.)
|
| Contact(s) |
Anu Rangarajan (arangarajan@mathematica-mpr.com)
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 2393
(T) (609)-936-2765
(F) not reported
|
| Publications Department |
Jacqueline Allen (jallen@mathematica-mpr.com)
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 2393
(T) (609)-275-2350
(F) (609)-799-0005
|
Populations Studied
| Target Population |
Recipients/participants/clients
Low-income households
|
| Subgroups Analyzed |
None
|
| Sample Size and Unit |
Nearly 5,000 welfare recipients who had just found work, enrolled over a 12-to-18 month period.
Random assignment of approximately 40% to program group (with access to PESD services) and the remaining 60% to a control group (with access to regular JOBS services).
|
Sites Studied
Chicago, Illinois
Portland, Oregon
Riverside, California
San Antonio, Texas
Program Components, Policies, and Activities Evaluated
Employment activities
- Job search
- Job placement
- Job development
Financial incentives
- Coverage for work-related expenses
- Tax reduction/rebate (e.g. Earned Income Tax Credit)
- Financial Incentives - misc.
Social/Support services
- Child care
- Transitional child care
- Transitional health benefits
- Case management
- Employment support for job retention
- Counseling
Administration/Implementation
- Development of new welfare policies
- Administration/Implementation - misc.
| Variation in program components across sites? |
Yes
|
| Notes on program components |
Employment activities:Same as JOBS activities, as stipulated by the Family Support Act of 1988. Social/Support Services: Child care provided for AFDC recipients and recipients who leave AFDC through earnings disregards, direct services, provider contracts, vouchers, cash payments, or earnings disregards. Eligible recipients are entitled to 12 months of transitional care. Transitional Medicaid provided for 12 months for eligible recipients who leave AFDC for employment. Extended case management is a key component of PESD at all sites. Case managers can serve clients for up to 2 years to help them stay employed or become re-employed, regardless of AFDC status (six months in Riverside). Case management includes ongoing monitoring, support, counseling, and advice; mediating with agencies to resolve eligibility for financial benefits; helping find jobs; and providing financial support to cover temporary expenses. All programs allowed for increases in the amounts of payments that can be made to cover expenses associated with employment, job search, and emergencies that could affect employment. In all sites, case managers were given greater latitude in determining what kinds of expenses could be paid for participants.
|
Outcomes Assessed
Benefit termination
- Due to employment
- Benefit Termination-misc.
Employment
- Job attainment
- Job retention
- Job promotion
- Number of hours worked for wages
Income security
- Earnings
- Food stamps receipt
- Welfare receipt
Attitudes towards work, welfare, and program
- Attitudes towards work, welfare, and program - misc.
Service utilization
- Service utilization - misc.
Program implementation
- Program Implementation - misc.
Financial costs and benefits/cost-effectiveness
- Financial costs and benefits/cost-effectiveness - misc.
Caseload Dynamics
- Caseload dynamics - misc.
- Recidivism
Types of Studies
| Type |
Implementation/Process Study
|
| Aim |
To document the demonstration intervention and provide guidelines for replication.
|
| |
| Type |
Impact Study (Controlled Experiment)
|
| Aim |
To analyze program impacts on employment and welfare receipt.
|
| |
| Type |
Cost-Benefit Study
|
| Aim |
To examine the cost effectiveness of PESD and the fiscal implications of implementing policies modeled after PESD.
|
| |
| Type |
Descriptive/Analytical Study
|
| Aim |
To analyze the experiences of newly employed welfare recipients and barriers they face in sustaining employment and achieving long term self-sufficiency.
|
| |
Data Sources
| Source |
Interview
|
| Title |
Executive interviews
|
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection |
Senior officials of demonstration agencies, case managers and their supervisors.
3-5 individuals in each site sampled. Data collected in fall 1994 and spring 1995.
|
| Sites |
All sites.
|
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes |
N/A
|
| Additional Execution Notes |
Conducted during site visits.
|
| |
| Source |
Focus Group
|
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection |
15 focus groups, each typically involving 8 to 10 welfare recipients. Conducted during site visits, in fall 1994 and spring 1995.
|
| Sites |
All sites.
|
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes |
N/A
|
| Additional Execution Notes |
Includes clients with both intensive and intermittent contact with case managers, as well as those with varying durations of employment following program enrollment.
|
| |
| Source |
Field Research
|
| Title |
Case conferences to review participants histories in detail
|
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection |
Case managers for 12 welfare recipients in each site. Conducted during second round of site visits, in spring 1995.
|
| Sites |
All sites.
|
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes |
N/A
|
| Additional Execution Notes |
Cases selected to include a mix of clients with varying levels of contact with PESD staff and varying durations of employment following program enrollment.
|
| |
| Source |
Administrative data
|
| Title |
Automated case tracking systems, in which staff member record contacts with clients, duration of contacts, problems discussed, and services delivered
|
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection |
Data of services provided to all program group members over the life of the demonstration.
|
| Sites |
All sites.
|
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes |
N/A
|
| Additional Execution Notes |
No notes reported.
|
| |
| Source |
Administrative data
|
| Title |
AFDC, Food Stamp, Medicaid files, state employment departments employer wage reports
|
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection |
Data for all program and control group members (over 4,500 clients). Data collected over the period beginning about one year before intake and ending about two years after intake.
|
| Sites |
All sites.
|
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes |
N/A
|
| Additional Execution Notes |
No notes reported.
|
| |
| Source |
Survey
|
| Title |
Follow-up survey
|
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection |
1,236 welfare recipients.
Random sample of program and control group members who enrolled in the programs between July 1994 and August 1995.
Conducted approximately one year after random assignment.
|
| Sites |
All sites.
|
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes |
Reported response rate: 70%.
|
| Additional Execution Notes |
Surveys asked respondents to recall their employment, earnings, and other relevant information. Telephone survey conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
|
| |
| Source |
Survey
|
| Title |
Employer Survey
|
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection |
24 employers (varying in size and type) that commonly provide entry level jobs to welfare recipients in the four sites.
Data collection schedule not reported.
|
| Sites |
All sites.
|
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes |
N/A
|
| Additional Execution Notes |
Telephone interviews by Mathematica staff.
|
| |
Findings Available
Interim Implementation Findings
Interim Impact Findings
Final Impact Findings
Findings
|
04/16/97:
Postemployment Services Demonstration: Testing Ways to Keep Welfare Recipients Employed
|
|
Interim Impact Findings:
"A large minority of those who found jobs had trouble maintaining stable employment" (p.1). "Many clients found jobs with low pay, poor benefits, and little room for growth" (p.1). "Most jobs required only modest skills, leading to poor job attachment. Consequently, it was easy for employees to be fired or quit" (p.1). "Several factors made the welfare-to-work transition difficult… including child care, transportation, new pressures to budget money and understand workplace requirements, limited personal resources and meager support from family and friends" (p.2).
|
| |
|
10/01/95:
Postemployment Services Demonstration: Providing Services to Promote Job Retention (Preliminary Implementation Findings)
|
|
Interim Implementation Findings: "Six key findings have emerged from the implementation experience of the four PESD sites: 1.) In order to detect and address employment- related problems, case managers need to establish rapid contact with clients and maintain ongoing communication; 2.)The most valued intervention is the personal attention of case managers; 3.) Case managers must be creative and flexible to gain clients trust; 4.) Child care funding and availability must be accessible to clients; 5.) Effective communication within the bureaucracy is important; and 6.) Promoting reemployment requires balancing persuasion and pressure" (pp. 10-11). "Establishing contact with [newly employed AFDC recipients] was especially important because the concept of post-employment services was new in all four sites, and case managers were the only source of information about what PESD had to offer. "Four factors affected the continuity of clients employment: 1.) The financial and non-financial costs associated with the transition from welfare to work; 2.) The performance, cultural, and emotional demands of the workplace; 3.) The challenge of dealing with negative reactions from family and friends; and 4.) The difficulties of finding another job" (p.xiv). "Methods for dealing with clients employment-related problems can be grouped into four broad activities: 1.) Counseling, advice, and moral support; 2.) Help paying expenses; 3.) Help accessing benefits; and 4.) Reemployment services, including job search and development" (p.xv).
|
| |
|
04/22/99:
Postemployment Services Demonstration: The Struggle to Sustain Employment: The Effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration (Final Report)
|
|
Final Impact Findings:
Extensive outreach and rapid follow up enabled program case managers to reach most clients and establish prompt communication.
Service needs of clients vary, but PESD programs did not effectively target clients with different needs for different types or levels of services.
Overall levels of employment among sample members (in both the program and control groups) were fairly high in all four sites. Welfare receipt among sample members varied across the sites and reflected the high level of generosity of the welfare programs in each site.
Overall, the programs had little effect on increasing earnings, reducing welfare, or promoting the move toward self-sufficiency. Many control group members were able to maintain high levels of employment, partly due to strong economic conditions and partly because programs enrolled less disadvantaged individuals into the demonstration. Obtaining program impacts under such conditions can be difficult.
The program context and services available to control group members influenced the magnitude of estimated program impacts.
|
| |
Recommendations
|
Postemployment Services Demonstration: Testing Ways to Keep Welfare Recipients Employed (04/16/97)
|
"States have to start thinking critically about giving [welfare recipients] easy access to supports that help them hold onto jobs... States could to close... gaps in the system by: -Making welfare recipients more aware of transitional benefits assistance -Simplifying the paperwork process or eligibility rules so access to these benefits is easier -Providing job search assistance to those who lose jobs, before they wind up back on welfare" (p. 2)."Extended case management is a promising way to support job retention. PESD shows that it is feasible to provide case management services to newly employed welfare recipients. However not all clients need or use these services, and the challenge is to identify those who will benefit from them" (p.2).
|
| |
|
Postemployment Services Demonstration: The Struggle to Sustain Employment: The Effectiveness of the Postemployment Services Demonstration (Final Report) (04/22/99)
|
|
Programs should attempt to tailor services to meet client needs and target clients appropriately for different types of job retention services.
Simplifying service delivery mechanisms can enable program staff to focus more on service coordination and on meeting other needs of clients.
Programs should form closer links with employers, so that case managers or other staff can help resolve at least some work-related issues.
Programs considering adding job retention assistance to their current set of services should carefully assess what services their programs currently provide and make changes to fill gaps in their current system
|
| |
Existing Publications
|