Based on Connolly and Acker and Morgen Chpts. In Piven et al.
And chpt. in Brookings “Welfare Reform and Beyond” volume

Connolly:  Research Design and Methodology

Used Current Population Survey data

Stresses need for longitudinal analysis – i.e., following same subjects overtime

She has invented a method for doing this synthetically (contact her for paper/details at University of Northern Colorado)

RD:  compares welfare recipients (AFDC and TANF) with all non-recipient families and all single-woman headed families

Why?
 

Findings
Compared to all non-recipients:
Statistically significant NEGATIVE effects on earnings with work requirements in 1993-94 and 1993-95 period

Statistically significant NEGATIVE effects on income with the composite variable (work related activities) over all three periods

Only statistically significant POSITIVE effect:  for work incentives, on earnings, 1994-5

Compared to all single-woman headed households:
Work requirements had statistically significant NEGATIVE effects on earnings in all three periods;

Also finds NEGATIVE effects on income by any work-related waivers in all three periods.

Suggests that earnings increase mainly for two-parent families or for single-male headed households

WHY?
 

 
See Acker and Morgen chpt., p. 247, Table 15.5
Their research sample
Oregonians who left or were diverted from TANF and from Food Stamps program during first quarter of 1998

Followed them for 7 consecutive quarters (two years in total)

Oregon’s welfare rolls decreased by 45% between 1996 and 1999

Earnings for men vs. women
Men 1st year:    $1,325;   2nd Year:  $1,348

Women 1st year:  $  939   2nd Year:  $   966
 

Other findings:
Even though many employed, earnings very low
About half below the poverty line, those above also still very poor

Barriers to finding employment:
 1) low pay and irregular hours;
 2) childcare problems;
 3) healthcare problems (self or family member)
 4) lack of skills, education, or job experience

Table 15.8 – note that problems didn’t go away for those employed either

Table 15.9 and 15.10
Only about 20%-25% had “good jobs” (at $1200 or $1500 level) after 2 years

Table 15.11 – the best cure for poverty:  education

Table 15.12 – compare educational attainment by poverty level

Note (in Table 15.13 that only 4% of TANF leavers acquired more education while 9% of TANF diverted did)
 
Brooking report – Morris and Duncan chpt.
Effects on children

School achievement – pres-school and elementary school aged kids
Best results from programs with the most generous “earnings supplements” as incentives to make work more financially rewarding or by allowing recipients to keep higher levels of benefits when the went to work

School achievement of children went up in families enrolled in programs with earnings supplements

While only one (of 6 studied) mandatory employment programs improved children’s performance; nor did time-limit programs

Why did school achievement improve?
Found mothers in the earnings supplement groups were more likely to enroll kids in formal child care programs, after-school programs or extra-curricular activities

Thus, structured programs outside of the home may be one pathway (75)

Effects on parenting behavior (e.g. warmth, control, cognitive stimulation)
limited

Little impact on mother’s mental health (still had problems with depression, stress)

Impact on the very young (0-2) “no impacts found”  (What impacts were sought? How measured??)
yet caution only one data source considered

Impact on adolescents – Negative (76)
School achievement – went down
School behavioral problems, smoking, drinking, and rates of school suspension – went up (significantly)