Additional Resources on Child/Family Policy

Selected Summary Findings in Brief

From Welfare Reform and Children: A Synthesis of Impacts in Five States: The Project on State-Level Child Outcomes
(USDHHS, January 2004)

• The authors saw little evidence that these welfare-reform programs resulted in widespread harm or benefit to young school-age children (those between the ages of 5 and 12 at the time of the study). Overall, impacts for these children were relatively few in number (given the number of measures examined) and small in size. The five welfare-reform programs were more likely to have statistically significant impacts on targeted outcomes for adults—employment, earnings, welfare receipt, and income—than on other outcomes for adults, on children’s functioning.
• Positive impacts on children’s functioning appear to be related to increases in family income. The welfare reform programs in the two states with the most consistent positive impacts on focal children--Connecticut and Minnesota--also increased family income. Florida’s program increased family income more modestly, but had neutral, rather than positive, impacts on children.
• Consistent with the increases in employment noted across the studies, the programs increased children’s participation in child care, and in some cases, increased their participation in formal settings such as center-based care and before- and after-school programs.
• Most of the programs showed only a few impacts (given the number of measures examined) on aspects of family life such as stability or turbulence, parenting, the home environment, and the parent’s psychological well-being.
• In two of the states--Florida and Minnesota--the programs had the most favorable impacts on young school-age children in more disadvantaged families--such as those with a longer history of welfare receipt or less work experience. Conversely, for young school-age children in families least at risk of long-term welfare dependency, those impacts that did occur were negative. In the three other states (Connecticut, Indiana, and Iowa), there was little difference in the pattern of impacts on young school-age children by level of family disadvantage.
• Where there were impacts on adolescents’ school performance (for whom a more limited number of measures were collected), they were primarily negative.
• Apart from any program impacts, the children in these families are experiencing multiple stressors, including high levels of economic disadvantage, parental depressive symptoms, and domestic violence. The average levels of well-being among the focal children themselves, where different from those for national samples of children (such as in health and behavioral problems), tended to look worse.

New Hope Child Outcomes Study

Five-Year Child Outcomes Findings: (June 2003)

• Parents in the New Hope group worked more and earned more than did parents in the control group.
• Although the effects diminished after Year 3, when the program ended, they did persist for some parents.
  
• Although New Hope had few effects on levels of material and financial hardship, it did increase parents’ instrumental and coping skills.
  
• Although New Hope had few effects on parenting, it did increase children’s time in formal center-based child care and after-school programs.
  
• At the end of both Year 2 and Year 5, children in the New Hope group performed better than control group children on several measures of academic achievement, and their parents reported that the children got higher grades in reading and literacy skills.
  

From How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Children: A Synthesis of Research (MDRC January 2001)

• Indicator studies (NSAF): parental employment has resulted in: no change in participation in extracurricular activities; no increase in TV watching; an increase in teen employment; small decrease in behavioral and emotional problems; no increase in school engagement; little change in smoking or drinking.
• Impact studies (Synthesis of MDRC research): 3 program components: mandatory employment (NEWWS, Jobs First), earnings supplements (MFIP, SSP, New Hope), and time limits (Florida). Mandatory employment findings: parents increased work and decreased welfare but no real change in income. Few effects on children. Earnings supplement findings: parents increased work and increased assistance receipt. Children had small but significant increases in school achievement. Programs cost more. Time limit findings: Parents had initial increase in work but effects diminished over time. Decrease in welfare only at time of time limit. No effect on income or evidence of extreme hardship. No effect on children. Conclusions: Too little information on adolescents; kids benefit most if there is an increase in both employment and income.
• Intervening mechanisms: Better educated moms are correlated with better cognitive functioning of child; larger effects than previously reported (Child Trends).
• Inferential studies: depression and literacy as barriers to employment using NEWWS and JOBS observational study; 25% women on welfare found to have depression and low literacy; high literacy buffers effects of depressive symptoms on child behavioral outcomes.

NEWWS Child Outcomes Study (MDRC)

• The results for mothers in the Child Outcomes Study indicate that these six JOBS programs generally affected key economic outcomes as intended, especially in the short-run.
• By the two-year point, all six programs had substantially increased mothers' participation in activities designed to promote employment
  
• The three employment-focused programs generally did not alter, or even decreased, the likelihood of obtaining a high school diploma, GED, or trade certificate.
  
• Some, but not all, employment-focused programs increased employment over the five-year period, and one education-focused program did.
  
• All three education-focused programs increased degree receipt by the two-year point, though only two of these programs had long-term impacts on mothers' educational attainment.
  
• Impacts on welfare receipt varied over time and across programs.
  
• Only Riverside's programs increased total earnings, both early on and averaged over the entire follow-up period.
  
• Impacts on income and poverty were even more limited, and sometimes unfavorable.