[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
[ Go to Contents ]
Table 5 presents the characteristics of cyclers, short-term recipients, long-term recipients, and the full sample measured at their time of sample intake. Of particular interest are sample members' pre-intake histories of employment and welfare receipt.(24) The table shows that the recipient groups differ in several ways. For example, the average age of cyclers at sample intake is 28 years — slightly more than two years younger than the average age of short-term and long-term recipients. The distribution of ages among each outcome group reveals that cyclers are more likely to be younger than 25 years old and less likely to be older than 35 years of age, compared with short-term and long-term recipients. On average, cyclers also tended to start having children about a year to a year and a half earlier in their lives, compared with short-term and long-term recipients. Moreover, 53 percent of cyclers were between the ages of 13 and 18 at the birth of their first child, a far higher percentage than short-term recipients (40 percent) and higher as well than long-term recipients (46 percent). Finally, cyclers had the highest percentage of families with very young children — under two years of age — as well as the highest percentage whose youngest child was under the age of six. All but the last of these differences among the three groups are statistically significant, as indicated by the stars in the last column. (25)
In terms of welfare usage, cyclers appear to lie between short-term recipients and long-term recipients. For instance, 58 percent of cyclers were ongoing recipients at their time of sample intake, compared with 49 percent for short-term recipients and 73 percent for long-term recipients. Cyclers averaged slightly more than 13 months of welfare receipt in the two years prior to sample intake. This lies between the average of 11 months for short-term recipients and 16 months for long-term recipients, indicating that cyclers tend to stay on welfare longer than short-term recipients. This pattern also holds for food stamps receipt, indicating that cyclers may be more disadvantaged than short-term recipients, but less disadvantaged than long-term recipients.
Cyclers' background characteristics suggest compelling reasons for their subsequent pattern of welfare receipt. Prior research suggests that young, single parents with young children often have a hard time holding steady employment. In fact, more than two-thirds of cyclers worked for at least one quarter during the two years prior to sample intake, although cyclers averaged fewer than 3 quarters of employment. (Cyclers with employment histories worked during four out of the eight quarters before sample intake — not shown. This average was slightly below the mean for short-term recipients with work histories and exceeded the mean for long-term recipients.) Such individuals may have difficulties sustaining employment given their family responsibilities, such as childcare.
| Characteristic | Cyclers | Short-Term Recipients | Long-Term Recipients | Full Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female (%) | 96.8 | 94.2 | 96.8 | 95.6 ** |
| Age (%) | ||||
| 18-24 | 41.6 | 28.3 | 31.9 | 31.0 ** |
| 25-34 | 41.7 | 42.6 | 41.2 | 41.9 ** |
| 35-44 | 14.7 | 23.7 | 21.7 | 22.0 ** |
| 45 or older | 2.0 | 5.5 | 5.2 | 5.1 ** |
| Average age (years) | 27.8 | 30.7 | 30.1 | 30.2 ** |
| Ethnicity (%) | ||||
| White | 43.9 | 48.5 | 38.5 | 43.6 ** |
| Black | 50.4 | 41.2 | 51.0 | 46.4 ** |
| Hispanic | 4.5 | 8.5 | 8.8 | 8.3 ** |
| Other | 1.2 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.7 ** |
| Number of children (%) | ||||
| 1 | 43.0 | 50.9 | 35.2 | 43.2 ** |
| 2 | 32.3 | 28.2 | 29.7 | 29.3 ** |
| 3 | 16.0 | 13.8 | 18.9 | 16.3 ** |
| 4 or more | 8.6 | 7.1 | 16.2 | 11.3 ** |
| Average number of children | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 2.0 ** |
| Age of youngest child (%) | ||||
| 2 or under | 54.7 | 42.8 | 52.9 | 48.4 ** |
| 3 to 5 | 20.9 | 21.2 | 19.5 | 20.4 ** |
| 6 to 12 | 20.2 | 24.2 | 22.2 | 23.0 ** |
| 13 to 18 | 4.2 | 11.7 | 5.3 | 8.2 ** |
| Average age at birth of oldest child | 20.6 | 22.2 | 21.7 | 21.9 ** |
| Had a child as a teenager (%) | 52.8 | 40.2 | 45.9 | 43.8 ** |
| Welfare status (%) | ||||
| New recipient | 41.7 | 50.7 | 27.4 | 39.5 ** |
| Ongoing recipient | 58.3 | 49.3 | 72.6 | 60.5 ** |
| Average number of months of welfare receipt during two years prior to month of sample intake | 13.4 | 10.9 | 16.4 | 13.6 ** |
| Average number of months of food stamp receipt during two years prior to month of sample intake | 16.0 | 13.0 | 17.7 | 15.4 ** |
| Any earnings in two years prior to quarter of sample intake (%) | 67.7 | 61.6 | 46.9 | 55.5 ** |
| Average number of quarters of employment in two years prior to quarter of sample intake | 2.7 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 2.2 ** |
| Sample size | 10,393 | 62,388 | 88,226 | 161,007 |
| Sources: MDRC calculations from
state and county administrative records and Background Information Forms.
Notes: The samples were weighted equally by site. F-tests were used to assess differences across the main comparison groups. "**" indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level or smaller. Additional F-tests were applied to differences between cyclers and short-term recipients and between cyclers and long-term recipients. For each comparision, differences on all measures were statistically significant at the 0.05 level or smaller, except: Cyclers and short-term recipients: (1) New recipient; (2) Ongoing recipient; (3) Average number of months of welfare receipt during two years prior to month of sample intake; and (4) Average number of months of food stamp receipt during two years prior to month of sample intake. Cyclers and long-term recipients: (1) Ages 25-34; and (2) Age of youngest child, 3 to 5 years. |
||||
[ Go to Contents ]
| Characteristic or Environmental Condition | Odds Ratios and Statistical Significance | |
|---|---|---|
| For Becoming a Cycler Versus Becoming a Short-Term Recipient | For Becoming a Cycler Versus Becoming a Long-Term Recipient | |
| Ongoing recipient at sample intake | 0.962 | 0.853 ** |
| Total months of welfare receipt during two years prior to sample intake | 1.014 ** | 0.991 ** |
| Average monthly welfare grant during year prior to sample intake | 0.946 ** | 0.945 ** |
| Total months of food stamp receipt during two years prior to sample intake | 1.027 ** | 0.996 ** |
| Youngest child is less than 6 years old | 1.285 ** | 1.009 |
| Had a child as a teenager | 1.026 | 1.293 ** |
| Number of children | 1.173 ** | 0.881 ** |
| Female | 1.218 ** | 0.801 ** |
| Age 18 to 24 years | 3.320 ** | 1.961 ** |
| Age 25 to 34 | 2.028 ** | 1.902 ** |
| Age 35 to 44 years | 1.469 ** | 1.366 ** |
| Black | 1.642 ** | 0.901 ** |
| Hispanic(a) | 1.059 | 0.954 |
| Other(b) | 0.807 ** | 0.960 |
| No high school diploma or GED(c) | 1.375 ** | 0.848 ** |
| Missing high school diploma or GED variable | 1.134 | 1.276 ** |
| Total employment in county or region during month of sample intake (in 10,000's) | 1.088 ** | 1.186 ** |
| Total earnings during year prior to sample intake (in $1,000's) | 0.998 | 1.032 ** |
| Average unemployment rate during year 1 | 0.970 | 0.935 ** |
| Percentage change in unemployment rate from month of sample intake to month 48 | 1.001 | 1.001 |
| Welfare caseload in year 1 (in 10,000's) | 1.069 | 0.974 |
| Percentage change in welfare caseload from year 1 to year 4 | 1.012 | 1.010 |
| Total employment in county or region during month of sample intake | 0.990 ** | 0.983 ** |
| Percentage change in number employed from month of sample intake to month 48 | 1.001 | 1.004 |
| In the Connecticut Jobs First study | 2.008 | 0.101 ** |
| In the Vermont WRP study | 5.948 | 0.124 ** |
| In the UC-Cleveland study | 1.626 ** | 0.725 ** |
| In the UC-Philadelphia study | 1.048 | 0.196 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 2, 1994 | 0.936 | 0.702 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 3, 1994 | 1.052 | 1.249 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 4, 1994 | 0.989 | 1.120 |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 1, 1995 | 1.180 | 1.326 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 2, 1995 | 1.071 | 1.113 |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 3, 1995 | 1.058 | 1.188 |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 4, 1995 | 1.009 | 1.268 |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 1, 1996 | 1.114 | 1.531 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 2, 1996 | 1.115 | 1.436 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 3, 1996 | 1.482 ** | 2.376 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 4, 1996 | 1.051 | 1.458 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 1, 1997 | 1.543 | 1.686 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 2, 1997 | 1.680 ** | 1.985 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 3, 1997 | 2.191 ** | 2.689 ** |
| Randomly assigned in quarter 4, 1997 | 2.293 ** | 2.783 ** |
| Sources: MDRC calculations from
state and county administrative records and Background Information Forms.
Notes: The full sample includes 10,393 cyclers, 62,388 short-term recipients, and 88,226 long-term recipients. Effects were estimated with logistic regression with "Cycler" as the dependent variable. Separate regressions were run for samples of cyclers and short-term recipients and for samples of cyclers and long-term recipients. The samples were equally weighted by site. "**" indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level or smaller. (a): Estimation of the effect is unreliable because fewer than 5 sample members in Florida FTP and Vermont WRP are cyclers and Hispanic. (b): Estimation of the effect is unreliable because fewer than 10 sample members in Connecticut Jobs First, Florida FTP, and Vermont WRP are cyclers and belong to the "other" ethnicity category. (c): Calculations are for sample members in Connecticut Jobs First, Florida FTP, and Vermont WRP evaluations only. |
||
Key Terms and Sample Definitions Used in This ReportPRWORA. The 1996 federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which re-placed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a flexible, state-directed block grant pro-gram, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); set lifetime limits on eligibility to receive TANF payments; and created financial incentives for states to run mandatory work-focused welfare-to-work pro-grams. Evaluation Sites. Connecticut Jobs First, Florida FTP, and Vermont WRP. In these localities, MDRC con-ducted an experimental study of a welfare reform initiative, based on random assignment of sample mem-bers to program and control groups. Urban Change Sites. Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) and Philadelphia (Philadelphia County). These locali-ties are included in MDRC's ongoing Project on Devolution and Urban Change, a non-experimental analy-sis of the effects of PRWORA on welfare caseloads and recipient behavior in four major urban centers. Welfare Payment. An AFDC or TANF payment. Sample Intake Period. For evaluation sites, the months during which sample members were randomly as-signed to a program or control group. For Urban Change sites, a designated range of months, during which each sample member's first welfare payment was recorded. Month of Sample Intake. Varies by sample member. For evaluation sites, a sample member's month of random assignment. For Urban Change sites, a sample member's first month of welfare receipt during the sample intake period. Welfare Spell. A series of months of welfare payments-consecutive, or with interruptions that lasted for only one month. A new welfare spell was recorded when a sample member began receiving welfare after at least two consecutive months with no payments. First Welfare Spell. The welfare spell that included the month of sample intake, or which began one or two months later. Individuals with no welfare payments or whose first welfare spell began during a later month were excluded from the sample for this report. Observation Period. A four-year (48 month) period that began with each sample member's month of sam-ple intake, during which her welfare spells and other outcomes were recorded. The observation period in-cludes different calendar months for each sample member. Fifth-Year Follow-Up Period. Months 49 through 60, following each sample member's month of sample intake. Data on welfare receipt and other outcomes were available for most, but not all, sample members during these months. Cyclers. Sample members with three or more welfare spells during the (four-year) observation period. Short-Term Recipients. Sample members with one or two welfare spells and a total of 1 to 24 months of welfare receipt during the (four-year) observation period. Long-Term Recipients. Sample members with one or two welfare spells and a total of 25 to 48 months of welfare receipt during the (four-year) observation period. Ongoing Recipients. Sample members whose first welfare spell began at least four months prior to their month of sample intake. New Recipients. Sample members whose first welfare spell began no earlier than three months prior to their month of sample intake. |
We conducted a multivariate analysis of the probability of becoming a cycler to better understand the factors that affect cycling. Table 6 presents the results from this analysis. The first column of the table provides the odds ratios of the likelihood that a recipient becomes a cycler within the four-year observation period as opposed to becoming a short-term recipient.(26) To interpret the odds rations, note that ratios greater than 1 indicate a positive effect on cycling, and ratios less than one indicate a negative effect. For example, the 1.014 in column one indicates that each additional month of welfare receipt during the two years prior to sample intake increases the likelihood that a respondent will be a cycler as opposed to a short-term recipient by 1.4 percent. In contrast, the 0.946 coefficient in column one indicates that as the average monthly welfare grant increases by one dollar, the likelihood that a respondent will be a cycler as opposed to a short-term recipient decreases by 5.4 percent. Several other variables are significant in predicting the likelihood of cycling. In addition to prior welfare receipt, the number of children, being female, and the lack of a high-school diploma or GED(27) are all positively related to a recipient cycling on and off of welfare during the observation period — as opposed to becoming a short-term recipient. In addition, younger recipients are significantly more likely to become cyclers than recipients older than age 45 at sample intake and black recipients are more likely to become cyclers than their white, non-Hispanic counterparts.
The second column of Table 6 shows the multivariate results for the probability of a recipient becoming a cycler as opposed to becoming a long-term recipient within the four-year observation period.(28) The factors that affect the likelihood of cycling versus short-term recipiency are the same factors that affect the likelihood of cycling versus long-term receipt. That is, many of the variables in the second column are statistically significant, although the implication differs. For example, the number of months of welfare receipt during the two years prior to sample intake is a negative predictor of cycling versus long-term receipt. Specifically, the likelihood of cycling decreases by about 1 percent for each additional month of welfare receipt. This is in contrast to the findings reported above, in which the likelihood of cycling increased about 1.4 percent for each additional month of welfare receipt when the likelihood of cycling was compared with short-term welfare receipt. Similarly, as the number of children increases, a respondent is less likely to be a cycler and more likely to be a long-term recipient.
The differences in the predictors of cycling are interesting and noteworthy. Being on welfare during sample intake is a predictor of cycling as compared with long-term recipiency, but this factor does not matter in determining the likelihood of cycling versus becoming a short-term recipient. In other words, past welfare receipt is a better predictor of whether a recipient is likely to cycle versus become a persistent user of welfare, but is not particularly helpful in distinguishing a potential cycler from a short-term recipient. Also, the results suggest that having a child less than 6 years old increases the likelihood of cycling versus short-term recipiency (by 28.5 percent), but the presence of such a young child does not affect the likelihood of cycling versus long-term recipiency. This indicates that there may be different barriers that affect cyclers and short-term recipients.
[ Go to Contents ]
The characteristics presented in Table 5 represented the pre-sample intake period. Table 7 shows welfare receipt and employment patterns during the four-year observation period. Based on the results of Table 5, which revealed that cyclers have characteristics that lie between those of long- term and short-term recipients, we would expect cyclers to fare somewhat better in terms of employment and welfare receipt than long-term recipients, but perhaps not quite as well as short-term recipients. Table 7 confirms this. The table shows that cyclers, on average, received 27 months of cash assistance within the four-year observation period, compared with 12 months for short-term recipients and 40 months for long-term recipients. The distribution of months of welfare receipt reveals that the largest percentage of cyclers (39 percent) had between 25 and 36 months of cash assistance receipt. In contrast, most short-term recipients (53 percent) received welfare for 12 months or less; and a large majority of long-term recipients remained on assistance for more than 36 months — or three-quarters of the observation period.
The analysis of spell lengths also confirms the placement of cyclers between short-term and long-term recipients. The average length of the first spell for cyclers and short-term recipients was nearly identical (at 11 months each, respectively), while the first spell for long-term recipients lasted considerably longer (36 months).
Notably, nearly all sample members found employment at some point during the observation period; and employment levels were high among all three groups. On average, cyclers experienced greater success in the labor market than long-term recipients, but did not fare as well as short-term recipients. For example, over 90 percent of cyclers worked for pay during the four-year observation period, compared with 76 percent of long-term recipients and 82 percent for short-term recipients.(29)
Over four years, both cyclers and short-term recipients averaged between 8 and 9 quarters of employment. These averages may also be expressed as average quarterly employment rates. These indicators show that both cyclers and short-term recipients worked for pay during a little over half of the four-year (or 16-quarter) observation period.(30) The typical long-term recipient was employed during only 5.5 quarters, or about one-third of the quarters in the observation period.
| Outcome | Cyclers | Short-Term Recipients | Long-term Recipients | Full Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Welfare receipt | ||||
| Average total months of welfare receipt | 26.9 | 12.3 | 39.6 ** | 25.8 |
| Months of welfare receipt (%) | ||||
| 1-12 | 7.5 | 52.5 | 0.0 ** | 25.2 |
| 13-24 | 34.3 | 47.5 | 0.0 ** | 25.0 |
| 25-36 | 39.1 | 0.0 | 38.3 ** | 20.5 |
| 37-48 | 19.1 | 0.0 | 61.7 ** | 29.3 |
| Average number of welfare spells | 3.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 ** | 1.4 |
| Number of welfare spells (%) | ||||
| 1 | n/a | 76.8 | 71.8 ** | 68.1 |
| 2 | n/a | 23.2 | 28.2 ** | 23.5 |
| 3 or more | 100.0 | n/a | n/a | 8.5 |
| Average number of months of welfare receipt per spell | ||||
| Spell 1 | 11.0 | 10.8 | 35.6 ** | 22.0 |
| Spell 2(a) | 7.8 | 6.5 | 14.2 ** | 9.9 |
| Spell 3 | 6.8 | n/a | n/a | 6.8 |
| Received welfare (%) | ||||
| During last month of year 2 | 49.5 | 8.3 | 92.6 ** | 49.6 |
| During last month of year 4 | 39.6 | 2.7 | 46.1 ** | 25.3 |
| Average monthly welfare receipt (%) | 54.6 | 25.4 | 81.6 ** | 53.1 |
| Total welfare payments ($) | 9,323 | 4,667 | 16,755 ** | 10,487 |
| Employment | ||||
| Ever employed (%) | 91.1 | 81.6 | 76.0 ** | 79.9 |
| Average quarterly employment (%) | 54.5 | 52.0 | 34.2 ** | 44.2 |
| Average total quarters of employment | 8.7 | 8.3 | 5.5 ** | 7.1 |
| Quarters of employment (%) | ||||
| 0 | 8.9 | 18.4 | 24.0 ** | 20.1 |
| 1 to 4 | 15.2 | 16.3 | 25.2 ** | 20.2 |
| 5 to 8 | 21.9 | 12.0 | 23.3 ** | 17.9 |
| 9 to 12 | 25.7 | 17.8 | 15.2 ** | 17.3 |
| 13 to 16 | 28.3 | 35.5 | 12.3 ** | 24.5 |
| Total earnings ($) | 16,885 | 24,974 | 10,022 ** | 17,577 |
| If ever employed: | ||||
| Average quarterly employment (%) | 59.8 | 63.7 | 44.9 ** | 55.3 |
| Total earnings ($) | 18,537 | 30,619 | 13,180 ** | 22,003 |
| Average earnings per quarter employed ($) | 1,938 | 3,002 | 1,833 | 2,486 |
| Percentage of quarters in employment and welfare status (%) | ||||
| Employed and did not receive welfare | 20.2 | 37.9 | 8.6 ** | 23.3 |
| Employed and received welfare | 34.2 | 14.1 | 25.5 ** | 20.9 |
| Not employed and received welfare | 33.5 | 16.3 | 60.1 ** | 37.4 |
| Not employed and did not receive welfare | 12.0 | 31.7 | 5.8 ** | 18.4 |
| Food stamp receipt | ||||
| Average total months of food stamp receipt | 33.9 | 19.2 | 40.7 ** | 30.1 |
| Months of food stamp receipt (%) | ||||
| 0-12 | 2.6 | 38.0 | 2.5 ** | 19.1 |
| 13-24 | 17.7 | 32.4 | 2.3 ** | 17.7 |
| 25-36 | 33.2 | 15.0 | 20.3 ** | 18.9 |
| 37-48 | 46.6 | 14.5 | 74.9 ** | 44.3 |
| Average monthly food stamp receipt (%) | 70.6 | 40.0 | 84.8 ** | 62.7 |
| Total food stamp payments ($) | 8,036 | 4,140 | 10,381 ** | 7,271 |
| Total measured income ($)(b) | 34,244 | 33,781 | 37,157 ** | 35,336 |
| Sample size | 10,393 | 62,388 | 88,226 | 161,007 |
| Sources: MDRC calculations from
state and county administrative records. Notes: The samples were equally weighted by site. F-tests were used to assess differences across the main comparison groups. "**" indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level or smaller. "n/a" indicates "not applicable." By definition, cyclers are the only group with three or more welfare spells. (a): Calculations are for sample members with a second welfare spell. (b): This measure represents the sum of before-tax UI earnings, TANF, and food stamps. It excludes Earned Income Tax Credits, earnings from other adults in the family, and other unearned income (e.g., child support and Supplemental Security Income benefits). |
||||
Less positively, cyclers experienced less stable employment, than short-term recipients. About 28 percent of cyclers worked for pay during 13 or more quarters, or 75 percent of the 4-year (16-quarter) observation period. In contrast, more than 35 percent of short-term recipients worked for 13 or more quarters. Furthermore, among sample members who worked for pay during the observation period, short-term recipients worked a larger percentage of quarters compared with cyclers — 63.7 percent versus 59.8 percent. (See the average quarterly employment rate for "ever employed.") As expected, a very small minority, 12.3 percent, of long-term recipients experienced stable employment, defined as working for 13 or more quarters, during the observation period.
On average, cyclers earned considerably less during the observation period than short-term recipients. The typical cycler earned a total of $16,885 over four years, over $8,000, or 33 percent, below the total for short-term recipients. Averages for each group include $0s for sample members with no recorded earnings after sample intake.
It is somewhat surprising that cyclers earned so much less than short-term recipients during the observation period, because a larger proportion of cyclers ever worked for pay: 91.1 percent versus 81.6 percent. Short-term recipients' greater employment stability and higher earnings on the job explain the disparity in total earnings. These findings are illustrated by comparing employment and earnings outcomes for each group, when only employed sample members are considered. First, as noted above, short-term recipients remained employed during a larger portion of the observation period than cyclers: 63.7 percent of quarters versus 59.8 percent. Second, short-term recipients earned, on average, $3,002 during each quarter of employment, more than $1,000 (or 55 percent) above the average for cyclers. This difference in average quarterly earnings suggests that short-term recipients worked at better jobs — with more hours of work and higher pay — compared with cyclers. This issue is addressed more directly in Section IV.D., which reports findings on job characteristics for the three groups, based on survey responses.
Once again, long-term recipients experienced the least success among the three groups. The typical long-term recipient earned a total of $10,022 during the four-year observation period, less than half of the average for short-term recipients and nearly $7,000 less than the mean for cyclers. Among the three groups, long-term recipients who worked for pay remained employed for the smallest percentage of quarters (44.9), but earned about the same per quarter of employment ($1,833). It should be noted, however, that cyclers did not fare much better than long-term recipients in this last measure, averaging only about 6 percent more in earnings per quarter employed. This finding underscores the difficulty that many cyclers may have encountered in advancing to well-paying jobs.
The last panel of indicators in the Employment section shows the percentage of quarters in the observation period in which sample members spent in one of the four welfare and employment statuses: (1) employment and no receipt of welfare benefits; (2) employment and receipt of welfare benefits; (3) no employment and receipt of welfare benefits; and (4) no recorded income from either employment or welfare. The first of these statuses may be viewed as the most self-sufficient. Although many welfare programs presently encourage recipients to combine work and welfare through such policies as expanded earned income disregards, quarters with both earnings and welfare benefits represent a more ambiguous status. While they may occur because the sample member received earnings and welfare simultaneously, a quarter with earnings and welfare could indicate a transition from welfare to employment, or less positive, a loss of employment and return to welfare. Quarters of welfare receipt and no employment represent the least beneficial outcome.
Finally, receipt of no measured income from earnings or welfare represents a particularly difficult status to interpret. Individuals in this status may have left welfare without employment and lived without a reliable source of income. However, this status may not indicate a lack of funds flowing into the household. For example, sample members in this status could actually be working out of state or in a job that is not reported to their state's unemployment insurance system. Alternatively, they could have exited welfare without employment because of marriage to or cohabitation with a person whose income was sufficient to support the family.
The percentages presented in this panel of Table 7 may be considered in two ways. First, one can directly compare the three groups' results for each status. Second, one can focus only on the portion of the observation period in which group members were employed — that measure is displayed as the average quarterly employment rate within the Employment section. For this second comparison, one would ask: In what proportion of their quarters of employment did sample members rely solely on earnings? In what proportion of their employed quarters did they combine work and welfare?
Cyclers' patterns of work and welfare indicate somewhat greater self-sufficiency than long-term recipients but considerably less than short-term recipients. Cyclers averaged relatively few quarters in the most self-sufficient status, employment without welfare. For cyclers, these quarters account for about one-fifth of the observation period and about 37 percent of the quarters in which they worked. (The latter percentage is calculated by dividing cyclers' percentage of quarters in which they were employed and received welfare benefits, 20.2 percent, by their average quarterly employment rate, 54.5 percent.) Long-term recipients worked without welfare for even less of the observation period, 8.6 percent and 25 percent of the quarters in which they worked for pay. Short-term recipients, on the other hand, typically received no welfare benefits during quarters in which they worked. On average, they spent about 38 percent of the observation period employed and without welfare, as well as more than 70 percent of their quarters of employment.
Cyclers also differed from short-term and long-term recipients in the extent to which they combined work and welfare. Cyclers received both earnings and welfare benefits during 34 percent of the quarters in the observation period and in more than 60 percent of the quarters in which they worked. These averages are much higher compared with both short-term and long-term recipients. Long-term recipients combined employment and welfare in 25.5 percent of the quarters, and short-term recipients combined work and welfare far less frequently, in only 14.1 percent of quarters in the observation period.
The remaining portion of the observation period consisted of quarters in which sample members experienced the most dependent status, jobless and receiving welfare benefits, and quarters in which they were in the more ambiguous status of receiving no income from earnings or welfare. As expected, long-term recipients spent the largest portion of the observation period on assistance and with no employment (60.1 percent) and short-term recipients recorded the smallest percentage (16.3 percent). The average for cyclers fell somewhere in between (33.5 percent). Short-term recipients were, by far, the group most likely to receive neither earnings nor welfare benefits (31.7 percent).
Table 7 also shows that cyclers remained more dependent on food stamps than short-term recipients. For example, cyclers averaged 34 months of foods stamps receipt, compared with just 19 months of receipt for short-term recipients. In fact, the receipt of food stamps among cyclers is closer to that among long-term recipients, who received 41 months of food stamps benefits on average. Furthermore, slightly less than half of all cyclers received food stamps over three-fourths or more of the observation period, that is, for 37 to 48 months. In contrast, the greatest proportion of short-term recipients (38 percent) received food stamps for 12 months or less.
Finally, Table 7 presents the averages for the three groups in total measured income from individual earnings, welfare, and food stamps during the observation period.(31) Note that earnings from other family members are not included, nor are Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) that can supplement personal earnings. The totals for the three groups are fairly similar — with cyclers receiving about 1 percent more in measured personal income than short-term recipients and about 9 percent less than long-term recipients. The primary difference is in sources of their income. As discussed above, short-term recipients received most of their income from employment (74 percent, not shown), compared with about one-half for cyclers and a little more than one-quarter of their measured income for long-term recipients. The similarity of income levels among the three groups underscores the difficulty that many members of each group experienced in finding jobs that paid more than welfare and food stamps.
In summary, cyclers tended to have short spells of welfare receipt, similar to short-term recipients, but they are more attached to the welfare system, similar to long-term recipients. Most cyclers worked for 9 or more quarters, the majority of the observation period, similar to short-term recipients. However, their level of earnings more closely resembled that of long-term recipients. Cyclers also were more likely than short- and long-term recipients to combine work and welfare. The difference between cyclers and short-term recipients appears to be that cyclers keep returning to welfare, somehow unable to sustain their families with employment alone as do short-term recipients.
As discussed in Section A, cyclers, short-term, and long-term recipients differ in several background characteristics, such as age, number of children, and prior work history. Previous research on welfare populations has shown that these characteristics often affect individuals' patterns of employment and welfare receipt after sample intake.(32) For example, long-term recipients had the highest proportion of sample members with no prior work history; therefore, we would expect that this group would show the lowest incidence of employment among the three groups after sample intake. One way to address this issue is by calculating adjusted means — that is, means and proportions in outcome measures that control for differences in background characteristics among the groups being compared. Table 8 displays the adjusted means (and differences) for cyclers, short-term recipients, and long-term recipients for the outcome measures shown in Table 7. Adjusted means were calculated with OLS regression, controlling for the same characteristics as displayed in Table 6 and weighting equally by site. (See Appendix for details of the calculations.)
When comparing adjusted means for cyclers, short-term recipients and long-term recipients, one asks whether employment and welfare outcomes for these groups would still be different if the background characteristics were taken into account. If differences in outcomes persist, one can, with greater confidence, assert that cyclers, short-term recipients, and long-term recipients experienced different levels of success in finding and keeping jobs and in attaining self-sufficiency.
| Outcome | Cyclers | Short-Term Recipients | Difference | Cyclers | Long-term Recipients | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Welfare receipt | ||||||
| Average total months of welfare receipt | 27.3 | 13.2 | 14.1** | 27.3 | 38.6 | -11.3 ** |
| Months of welfare receipt (%) | ||||||
| 1-12 | 6.9 | 50.8 | -43.9 ** | 6.9 | n/a | n/a |
| 13-24 | 34.8 | 48.7 | -13.9 ** | 34.8 | n/a | n/a |
| 25-36 | 37.1 | n/a | n/a | 37.1 | 41.4 | -4.3 ** |
| 37-48 | 21.2 | n/a | n/a | 21.2 | 58.1 | -36.8 ** |
| Average number of welfare spells | 3.2 | 1.2 | 2.0 ** | 3.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 ** |
| Average number of months of welfare receipt per spell | ||||||
| Spell 1 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 0.0 | 11.8 | 34.5 | -22.7 ** |
| Spell 2(a) | 7.6 | 6.5 | 1.2 ** | 7.6 | 13.8 | -6.2 ** |
| Spell 3 | 6.8 | n/a | n/a | 6.8 | n/a | n/a |
| Received welfare (%) | ||||||
| During last month of year 2 | 49.7 | 8.8 | 40.9 ** | 49.7 | 92.1 | -42.3 ** |
| During last month of year 4 | 41.9 | 5.9 | 36.1 ** | 41.9 | 42.3 | -0.4 ** |
| Average monthly welfare receipt (%) | 55.8 | 27.2 | 28.6 ** | 55.8 | 79.4 | -23.6 ** |
| Total welfare payments ($) | 10,274 | 5,531 | 4,742 ** | 10,274 | 15677 | -5,404 ** |
| Employment | ||||||
| Ever employed (%) | 86.0 | 79.7 | 6.3 ** | 86.0 | 78.9 | 7.1 ** |
| Average quarterly employment (%) | 50.4 | 50.0 | 0.4 | 50.4 | 37.0 | 13.4 |
| Average total quarters of employment | 8.1 | 8.0 | 0.1 | 8.1 | 5.9 | 2.1 ** |
| Quarters of employment (%) | ||||||
| 0 | 14.0 | 20.3 | -6.3 ** | 14.0 | 21.1 | -7.1 ** |
| 1 to 4 | 15.5 | 16.9 | -1.3 ** | 15.5 | 24.5 | -9.0 ** |
| 5 to 8 | 20.6 | 11.7 | 8.9 ** | 20.6 | 23.9 | -3.3 ** |
| 9 to 12 | 24.4 | 17.5 | 6.9 ** | 24.4 | 15.8 | 8.6 ** |
| 13 to 16 | 25.5 | 33.7 | -8.2 ** | 25.5 | 14.7 | 10.8 ** |
| Total earnings ($) | 16,489 | 23,781 | -7,293 ** | 16,489 | 11,335 | 5,153 ** |
| If ever employed: | ||||||
| Average quarterly employment (%) | 59.3 | 62.7 | -3.5 ** | 59.3 | 46.9 | 12.4 |
| Total earnings ($) | 19,902 | 29,763 | -9,862 ** | 19,902 | 14,334 | 5,568 ** |
| Average earnings per quarter employed ($) | 2,099 | 2,965 | -866 ** | 2,099 | 1,911 | 188 ** |
| Percentage of quarters in employment and welfare status (%) | ||||||
| Employed and did not receive welfare | 18.3 | 36.8 | -18.5 ** | 18.3 | 10.1 | 8.2 |
| Employed and received welfare | 32.0 | 13.2 | 18.9 ** | 32.0 | 26.9 | 5.1 ** |
| Not employed and received welfare | 36.4 | 18.8 | 17.6 ** | 36.4 | 56.9 | -20.5 ** |
| Not employed and did not receive welfare | 13.2 | 31.2 | -18.0 ** | 13.2 | 6.0 | 7.2 ** |
| Food stamp receipt | ||||||
| Average total months of food stamp receipt | 33.9 | 20.5 | 13.3 ** | 33.9 | 39.3 | -5.4 ** |
| Months of food stamp receipt (%) | ||||||
| 0-12 | 3.4 | 35.3 | -31.9 ** | 3.4 | 5.1 | -1.6 ** |
| 13-24 | 17.7 | 32.3 | -14.6 ** | 17.7 | 2.5 | 15.2 ** |
| 25-36 | 32.0 | 13.9 | 18.1 ** | 32.0 | 21.8 | 10.2 ** |
| 37-48 | 46.9 | 18.5 | 28.4 ** | 46.9 | 70.7 | -23.7 ** |
| Average monthly food stamp receipt (%) | 70.6 | 42.8 | 27.8 ** | 70.6 | 81.8 | -11.3 ** |
| Total food stamp payments ($) | 8,005 | 4,743 | 3,262 ** | 8,005 | 9,760 | -1,755 ** |
| Total measured income ($)(b) | 34,767 | 34,056 | 711 ** | 34,767 | 36,773 | -2,006 ** |
| Sample size | 10,393 | 62,388 | 10,393 | 88,226 | ||
| Sources: MDRC calculations from
state and county administrative records. Notes: Estimates are regression-adjusted using ordinary least squares, controlling for sample member characteristics and environmental conditions. The samples were equally weighted by site. Results from logistic regressions performed on binary outcomes were consistent with the above results. "**" indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level or smaller. "n/a" indicates "not applicable." By definition, cyclers are the only group with three or more welfare spells. See Table 6 for characteristics and conditions used as controls. (a): Calculations are for sample members with a second welfare spell. (b): This measure represents the sum of before-tax UI earnings, TANF, and food stamps. It excludes Earned Income Tax Credits, earnings from other adults in the family, and other unearned income (e.g., child support and Supplemental Security Income benefits). |
||||||
Column 3 and column 6 of Table 8 present the differences between cyclers and short-term- and long-term recipients, respectively, after adjusting for the sample member characteristics presented in Table 6. The results confirm the patterns from Table 7 discussed above. For example, even when we control for differences in sample members' background characteristics, cyclers still averaged twice the number of months of welfare receipt over four years than short-term recipients and nearly 30 percent fewer months of welfare receipt than long-term recipients. The employment patterns for the three groups also resemble those seen in Table 7. Despite their higher incidence of employment, cyclers earned on average nearly $7,300 less over four years than short-term recipients, but about $5,100 more than long-term recipients. In addition, rather than falling between short- and long-term recipients, cyclers continued to have the highest percentage of quarters with both employment and welfare receipt compared with both groups of recipients. Cyclers were also much less likely than short-term recipients to be working and receiving no welfare benefits. Finally, long-term recipients continued to receive the highest (and short-term recipients the lowest) combined income from personal earnings, welfare, and food stamps.(33) However, the range in income among the three groups was smaller (about $2,700 or $675 per year) when differences in sample members' background characteristics were controlled for.
Overall, Table 8 shows that, after controlling for a number of factors that predict cycling, there remain significant differences between cyclers and short-term recipients. Cyclers have more work exposure and stronger attachment to the welfare system, but lower earnings and less employment stability. On the other hand, cyclers continued to show greater success in the labor market and less dependency on welfare than long-term recipients.
[ Go to Contents ]
Survey responses provide additional information on labor market outcomes for cyclers, short-term recipients, and long-term recipients. (34) Table 9 presents outcomes on employment. Among respondents, cyclers experienced less stable employment and worked at lower quality jobs compared with short-term recipients. They fared only somewhat better in the labor market than long-term recipients. These results are consistent with findings calculated from administrative records for the full sample.
| Outcome | Cyclers | Short-Term Recipients | Long-term Recipients | Full Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ever employed (%) | 93.0 | 90.7 | 86.1 ** | 88.3 |
| No longer employed at interview | 39.3 | 19.2 | 38.8 ** | 31.9 |
| Employed at interview | 53.8 | 71.5 | 47.4 ** | 56.5 |
| Employed part-time at interview | 8.2 | 12.2 | 13.6 ** | 12.6 |
| Employed full-time at interview | 44.5 | 58.0 | 31.5 ** | 42.1 |
| Employed with medical coverage at interview | ||||
| Offered | 22.9 | 40.2 | 18.3 ** | 26.5 |
| Enrolled | 11.4 | 26.6 | 8.2 ** | 15.0 |
| Average hourly wage, if employed at interview ($) | 7.53 | 8.24 | 7.38 ** | 7.78 |
| Sample size | 348 | 1,550 | 2,387 | 4,285 |
| Sources: MDRC calculations from
survey responses. Notes: Sample members were interviewed between 36 and 60 months after sample intake. The samples were equally weighted by site. F-tests were used to assess differences across the main comparison groups. "**" indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level or smaller. |
||||
As shown in Table 9, nearly all respondents in each group reported working for pay during at least part of the observation period. However, cyclers were twice as likely as short-term recipients to be jobless at the time of their interview (39.3 percent versus 19.2 percent). In fact, cyclers' rate of job loss more closely resembled the level for long-term recipients (38.8 percent). Similarly, compared with short-term recipients, a smaller percentage of cyclers worked at jobs that provided full-time employment - that is, for thirty or more hours per week — at the time of their interview. Cyclers also reported a lower incidence of working at jobs that offered medical coverage, about 17 percentage points below the level of 40.2 percent for short-term recipients. A similar difference was found on rates of enrollment in employer-provided medical plans.(35) Levels of coverage for cyclers exceeded the rates for long-term recipients, but by less than 5 percentage points. Finally, among respondents who were working at the time of their interview, cyclers averaged about $0.71 less per hour of work, compared with short-term recipients, and earned only slightly more per hour than long-term recipients.
[ Go to Contents ]
Table 10 shows data on respondents' living arrangements and material conditions, calculated from survey responses. On average, cyclers had less access to support (financial and otherwise) from other adults and lived under more tenuous circumstances compared with short-term recipients. These findings may help explain why the members of this group return to welfare. About one-fifth of cyclers reported that they were living with a spouse or partner at the time of their interview, compared with one-third of short-term recipients. Cyclers' lower marriage rate (of 9.3 percent, compared with 20.1 percent for short-term recipients) accounts for nearly all of this difference. Cyclers were similarly less likely than short-term recipients to be living with another wage earner at the time of their interview. Finally, a higher percentage of cyclers reported that they gave birth to or adopted another child after sample intake. Most likely, the birth of a child caused disruptions to the employment situation of cyclers and increased their need for financial support, compared with short-term recipients.
Results for cyclers on these measures of household membership and support more closely resembled those for long-term recipients. As with cyclers, about one-fifth of long-term recipients were married or cohabiting at the time of their interview, although, compared with cyclers, a somewhat lower percentage of long-term recipients reported living with another wage-earner (19.1 percent versus 22.6 percent). On the other hand, a slightly smaller percentage of long-term recipients (28 percent) reported that they had given birth to or adopted another child since sample intake — about three percentage points below the level for cyclers.
The next panel of Table 10 presents patterns of medical coverage. All TANF recipients are eligible for medical coverage under Medicaid. However, many TANF leavers do not replace their publicly-funded coverage with coverage from employers or other private providers. Results for cyclers, short-term recipients, and long-term recipients were consistent with these findings. Long-term recipients reported the highest rates of coverage from any source (86.0 percent) among the three groups, followed by cyclers (78.3 percent) and short-term recipients (69.2 percent). Not surprisingly, given their higher incidence of welfare receipt, cyclers and, especially, long-term recipients reported much higher rates of coverage from Medicaid and other publicly-funded plans, compared with short-term recipients, and much lower rates of coverage from employers and private plans.
| Outcome(%) | Cyclers | Short-Term Recipients | Long-term Recipients | Full Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Household membership | ||||
| Lives with spouse or partner | 19.9 | 33.3 | 18.7 ** | 24.0 |
| Lives with spouse | 9.3 | 20.1 | 6.9 ** | 11.8 |
| Lives with partner | 10.9 | 13.5 | 11.9 | 12.4 |
| Gave birth to or adopted a child since sample intake | 31.1 | 18.8 | 28.2 ** | 25.1 |
| At least one other household member employed | 22.6 | 34.8 | 19.1 ** | 25.0 |
| Medical coverage for respondent | ||||
| Any coverage | 78.3 | 69.2 | 86.0 ** | 79.4 |
| Medicaid or other publicly-funded coverage | 64.2 | 37.1 | 73.8 ** | 59.9 |
| Employer- or other privately-funded coverage | 19.8 | 36.0 | 15.1 ** | 22.9 |
| Material hardship | ||||
| Experienced at least one material hardship | 68.0 | 55.3 | 78.7 ** | 69.6 |
| Experienced three or more material hardships | 18.4 | 18.1 | 28.4 ** | 23.9 |
| Food insecurity | ||||
| Experienced food insecurity | 30.8 | 21.2 | 35.3 ** | 29.9 |
| Experienced food insecurity with hunger | 15.7 | 15.5 | 14.9 | 15.2 |
| Sample size | 348 | 1,550 | 2,387 | 4,285 |
| Sources: MDRC calculations from
survey responses. Notes: Sample members were interviewed between 36 and 60 months after sample intake. The samples were equally weighted by site. F-tests were used to assess differences across the main comparison groups. "**" indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level or smaller. Material hardships include (1) could not pay full amount of rent or mortgage; (2) evicted for non-payment of rent or mortgage; (3) could not pay full amount of utility bills; (4) had electricity or gas turned off; (5) had telephone disconnected; (6) had unmet medical needs; and (7) had unment dental needs. Respondents in Vermont WRP were not asked about material hardships and were not included in the calculations of these measures. Levels of food insecurity are measured from responses to a subset of the questions in the Household Food Security Scale that is administered by the Census Bureau in the Current Population Survey. |
||||
As shown in the second to last panel of Table 10, a majority of respondents in all three groups reported that they experienced at least one material hardship after sample intake. As noted above, cyclers, as a group, had less partner support and more births and interruptions to work than short-term recipients. Perhaps related to these issues, cyclers also reported a higher incidence of experiencing at least one material hardship after sample intake compared with short-term recipients (68 percent versus 55.3 percent). By a similar margin, a higher percentage of cyclers than short-term recipients reported experiencing food insecurity (Table 10, bottom panel). However, these differences did not extend to more extreme forms of hardship and food insecurity. Cyclers and short-term recipients showed no significant difference in either experiencing three or more material hardships or in food insecurity with hunger.
Results for cyclers were more positive than for long-term recipients. The proportion of long-term recipients who reported experiencing at least one material hardship exceeded that rate for cyclers by about 11 percentage points. A similar difference was found for the incidence of experiencing three or more hardships. Long-term recipients were also more likely than cyclers, by 4.5 percentage points, to have experienced food insecurity.
[ Go to Contents ]
As noted in the Introduction, cyclers may eventually attain stable employment without welfare, similar to welfare leavers who did not cycle. To explore this view further, we compare employment and welfare outcomes of cyclers, short-term recipients, and long-term recipients in the five-year follow-up sample during the year following the observation period.
Table 11 presents adjusted means of employment and welfare outcomes for the fifth year after sample intake. These calculations were performed for the five-year follow-up sample.(36) As with the findings in Table 8, the comparisons of employment and welfare outcomes control for differences among the three groups in background characteristics (displayed in Table 6,) that could affect sample members' patterns of work and welfare after sample intake.
| Outcome(%) | Cyclers | Short-Term Recipients | Difference | Cyclers | Long-term Recipients | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ever employed in year 5 | 65.9 | 59.5 | 6.4 ** | 65.9 | 60.6 | 5.3 ** |
| Employed during all four quarters of year 5 | 28.1 | 31.1 | -3.0 ** | 28.1 | 25.8 | 2.2 ** |
| If employed in year 5 | 42.9 | 52.3 | -9.3 ** | 42.9 | 42.2 | 0.7 |
| Employed in the last quarter of year 5 | 41.3 | 39.5 | 1.9 ** | 41.3 | 39.0 | 2.3 ** |
| If employed in year 5 | 63.2 | 66.7 | -3.6 ** | 63.2 | 63.7 | -0.6 |
| Received welfare in the last month of year 5 | 25.0 | 7.4 | 17.5 ** | 25.0 | 33.5 | -8.6 ** |
| Employment and welfare status in the last quarter of year 5 | ||||||
| Employed and did not receive welfare | 29.6 | 36.6 | -7.0 ** | 29.6 | 25.4 | 4.2 ** |
| Employed and received welfare | 11.8 | 2.9 | 8.9 ** | 11.8 | 13.6 | -1.9 ** |
| Not employed and received welfare | 18.9 | 5.0 | 13.9 ** | 18.9 | 23.7 | -4.7 ** |
| Not employed and did not receive welfare | 39.7 | 55.5 | -15.8 ** | 39.7 | 37.3 | 2.4 ** |
| Sample size | 9,195 | 53,237 | 9,195 | 83,719 | ||
| Sources: MDRC calculations from
state and county administrative records. Notes: Calculations were performed for sample members with five years of follow-up data. The samples were equally weighted by site. The Connecticut Jobs First sample lacked five years of follow-up data and was excluded from the calculations. Estimates are regression-adjusted using ordinary least squares, controlling for sample member characteristics and environmental conditions. Results from logistic regressions performed on binary outcomes were consistent with the above results. "**" indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level or smaller. |
||||||
The results in Table 11 point to several positive longer-term trends. First, employment levels for each group converged: Between 60 and 66 percent of members of the five-year follow-up sample worked for pay during year 5 and about 40 percent of each group were still employed during the last quarter of the year. In addition, the large majority of sample members — even long-term recipients — were no longer receiving welfare benefits at the end of year 5. Finally, each group demonstrated greater self-sufficiency during year 5 compared with the observation period. More specifically, it may be recalled that a larger percentage of cyclers who found employment during the observation period received earnings and welfare benefits during the same quarter than relied on earnings alone. This pattern was reversed by the end of year 5, when 29.6 percent of cyclers were employed without welfare, in contrast to only 11.8 percent who received both earnings and welfare benefits. A similar reversal occurred among long-term recipients.
Less positively, the table also shows that joblessness and unstable employment remained a problem for all three groups. About 35 to 41 percent of sample members never worked for pay during year 5. Furthermore, one-third or more of sample members ever employed during year 5 were no longer working during the last quarter.
Cyclers continued to show a higher incidence of employment than either short-term or long-term recipients in year 5. However, employment among cyclers was not as stable as that among short-term recipients. Specifically, 28.1 percent of cyclers were employed during all four quarters of year 5, compared with 31.1 percent of short-term recipients. This result continues to hold among those employed in year 5. Among employed sample members, the proportion of cyclers who worked for pay during all four quarters of year 5 (42.9 percent) was more than 9 percentage points below the level for short-term recipients. While cyclers had more stable employment compared with long-term recipients (cyclers are employed 2 percentage points more than long-term recipients during all four quarters), among those employed, there was no difference in employment stability in year 5.
Again, cyclers exhibited stronger attachment to the welfare system than short-term recipients, but less attachment than long-term recipients, as represented by the percentage that received TANF benefits in the last month of year 5. In this month, cyclers were 17.5 percentage points more likely than short-term recipients to be receiving cash assistance, but 8.6 percentage points less likely than long-term recipients.
As noted above, nearly 30 percent of cyclers worked for pay at the end of year 5 and did not receive welfare benefits. This average exceeded the level for long-term recipients by 4 percentage points but was 7 percentage points below the level for short-term recipients. Cyclers were also about four times more likely than short-term recipients to combine work and welfare (11.8 percent to 2.9 percent) — and did so only slightly less often than long-term recipients. In other words, fewer cyclers than short-term recipients were able to sustain themselves with employment alone.(37)
Thus, by the end of year 5, cyclers did not "catch up" to short-term recipients in key measures of employment stability and self-sufficiency, although they continued to fare better than long-term recipients.
In summary, cyclers were shown to be a group in the middle — less disadvantaged in the labor market than long-term recipients, but less able than short-term recipients to attain stable employment and work without welfare. Furthermore, cyclers were the most likely to be parents of toddlers and preschoolers and therefore had the greatest need for reliable child care while employed. However, compared with short-term recipients, cyclers had less access to financial and other support from a spouse or partner.
[ Go to Contents ]
(24) Appendix Table 1 presents the characteristics of sample members by site.
(25) In other words, the significance test measures that there is a difference between at least two of the groups, but does not indicate whether cyclers are significantly different from both short-term and long-term recipients. See NOTES in Table 5 for results of tests of differences between cyclers and short-term recipients and between cyclers and long-term recipients. A statistical test was not performed on differences in the percentage of families whose youngest child was aged less than six years.
(26) See Appendix Table 2A for the corresponding analysis by site.
(27) This finding pertains only to members of the three evaluation sites. Data on educational attainment were unavailable for the Cleveland and Philadelphia samples.
(28) See Appendix Table 2B for the corresponding analysis by site.
(29) Possibly, employment levels for short-term recipients were most subject to underreporting because of movement out of state.
(30) The average quarterly employment rate shows the percentage of quarters employed. The rate is calculated as total quarters employed divided by 16 (the number of quarters in the observation period), expressed as a percentage.
(31) See also Ver Ploeg, 2002, Table 13-15 and pp. 445-446; and Miller, 2002, Figure 1C and pp. 24, 27. Ver Ploeg found that long-term recipients averaged more than both short-term recipients and cyclers in income from personal earnings, welfare, and food stamps, measured with administrative data. Miller, using survey data on total household income (which includes earnings of other household members) found that welfare leavers in Connecticut Jobs First, Florida FTP, and Vermont WRP averaged higher incomes than longer-term stayers.
(32) See, for example, Hamilton et al., 2001, Appendix Tables F.1-F.3, pp. 392-395.
(33) Earnings from other family members are not included, nor are Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) that can supplement personal earnings.
(34) See Table 2 for information on intake dates and sample sizes for survey respondents. Responses were pooled and weighted equally by site. Within each site, the number of cyclers is relatively small. Therefore, simple means and percentages are shown in Table 9. These measures were not adjusted for differences in respondents' characteristics, nor for site differences in labor market and other environmental conditions.
(35) These differences are not solely the result of higher employment levels for short-term recipients at the time of interview. When only respondents who were working at interview are considered, about 56 percent of short-term recipients, 43 percent of cyclers, and 39 percent of long-term recipients reported working for an employer who offered medical coverage.
(36) Note that this subsample does not include the Connecticut Jobs First program. See Table 2 for the composition of the sample.
(37) It is also worth noting that short-term recipients had, by far, the highest percentage of sample members who did not work for pay and did not receive welfare. Prior research has shown that some people in this status are actually working out of state or in jobs not covered by the Unemployment Insurance system, whereas others are truly unemployed. Most likely, the group without employment or welfare benefits included sample members who were living with a spouse, partner, or other adult who was employed and providing financial support to the sample member and her children. However, others may have had no steady source of income and were living in extreme hardship.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy
(HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)