# Presentation: 047243

## Teaching Self-Sufficiency:30-Month Impacts of a Home Visitation and Life Skills Education Program for Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients  Findings from the Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation

**Andrew Burwick**
**Alicia Meckstroth**
**Quinn Moore**
**Andrew McGuirk**
**ACF Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference**
**June 4, 2007**

## Overview

**Overview**

**Background on the Rural WtW Evaluation and Building Nebraska Families **
**Research methods**
**Review of 18-month findings**
**Summary of 30-month impacts, focusing on very hard to employ subgroup**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Rural WtW Evaluation:Purpose and Background 

**Rural WtW Evaluation:****Purpose and Background **

**Build knowledge base about programs designed to address challenges in rural areas**
**Evaluate programs using random assignment****	**
**-  Nebraska – home visitation & life skills education**
**-  Illinois – employment-focused case management**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Nebraska Policy Context

**Nebraska Policy Context**

**Supportive, work-oriented TANF program **
**Targeted education and training**
**Two-year time limit**
**Various services available in target areas**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Building Nebraska Families (BNF)

**Building Nebraska Families (BNF)**

**TANF recipients with barriers to work**
**University extension and state welfare agency**
**Masters’ level educators with very small caseloads**
**11 service areas throughout Nebraska**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Building Nebraska Families (BNF)

**Building Nebraska Families (BNF)**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

**Individualized Life Skills Education Through Home Visits**

**Mentoring and Informal Counseling**

**Service Coordination & Advocacy Support**

- _Personal Improvement_: goal setting, problem-solving, character development, coping skills, relationship-building, communication skills
- _Family Life_: child development, parenting, family management
- _Practical Life Skills_: money and time management, healthy home, nutrition

## Research Questions

**Research Questions**

**Program implementation and costs?**
**Effects on employment, earnings, welfare dependence, and well-being?**
**Implications and lessons?**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Evaluation Methods

**Evaluation Methods**

**Experimental design (358 Ts, 242 Cs)**
**Follow-up telephone surveys at 18 and 30 months****(87 percent and 83 percent completion rates)**
**Administrative records**
**Program service use and participation data**
**Site visits and focus groups**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Subgroup Analysis:“More Disadvantaged”

**Met 2 or more of these criteria at baseline:**
**	****-  Lack of high school credential**
**	****-  Health condition (self or HH member)**
**	****-  Transportation barrier (no driver’s license or  **
**       ****regular access to vehicle)**
**	****-  No earnings in prior year**
**	****-  Received TANF/AFDC for 2+ years in lifetime**
**43 percent were more disadvantaged**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Well-Implemented Program

**Services delivered successfully**
**Intensive services**
**	****-****	****Participation over 8 months**
**	****-   ****	****22 contacts**
**	****-****	****25 hours **
**Program group members more likely to receive skill-building services and mentoring**
**Relatively expensive per participant**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Key Impact Findings at 18 Months 

**Key Impact Findings at 18 Months **

**For the full sample: **
**Small impacts on employment and earnings at end of 18-month follow-up**
**Little impact on TANF receipt**
**No effect on total income or poverty**
**Program group more likely to have multiple hardships**
**For more disadvantaged clients:**
**Strong impacts on employment and earnings at end of 18-month follow-up **
**Substantial drop in TANF receipt **

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Limited Evidence that BNFImproved Employment Status

- SOURCE: 	Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 18-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
- NOTE:	The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
- */**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.

**Limited Evidence that BNF****Improved Employment Status**

**Percentage Employed**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

- *

- *

- **

- **

**Program Group**

**Control Group**

## Very Little Evidence that BNF Improved Earnings

- SOURCE: 	Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 18-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
- NOTE:	The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
- */**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.

**Very Little Evidence that BNF ****Improved Earnings**

**Average Earnings**

**Program Group**

**Control Group**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

- **

- **

- *

- **

## BNF Improved Employment                      for the More Disadvantaged Group

- SOURCE: 	Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 18-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
- NOTE:	The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
- */**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.

**BNF Improved Employment                      for the More Disadvantaged Group**

- **

- *

**Percentage Employed**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

- *

- **

- *

**Program Group**

**Control Group**

## BNF Substantially Increased Earnings    for the More Disadvantaged Group 

- SOURCE: 	Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 18-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
- NOTE:	The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
- */**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.

**BNF Substantially Increased Earnings    for the More Disadvantaged Group **

- ***

- **

**Average Earnings**

- **

- *

- **

**NOT FOR CITATION**

- **

- **

- **

- **

**Program** **Group**

**Control** **Group**

## Program Group Members Held Better Jobs

**NOT FOR CITATION**

**Percentage**

- SOURCE: 	Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 18-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
- NOTE:	The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.  The sample for these variables includes working and nonworking members.
- */**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.

## BNF Reduced Welfare Receipt

**NOT FOR CITATION**

- SOURCE: Administrative records data from the State of Nebraska, compiled by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
- NOTE:The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
- */**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.

**Percentage Receiving TANF**** **

**Control** **Group**

**Program** **Group**

- **

- **

- *

- ***

- ***

- **

- **

- **

- ***

- ***

- ***

## BNF Increased Household Income

**NOT FOR CITATION**

**Total Household Income at 30-Month Follow-up**

**Living in Poverty at 30-Month Follow-up**

**Percentage**

**2004 dollars**

- SOURCE: 	Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 18-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
- NOTE:	The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
- */**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.

## Fewer Health-Related Hardships, More Household Hardships

**NOT FOR CITATION**

**Overall health fair or poor**

**Self-reported depression or mental health issue**

**Spousal or partner abuse**

**Had utility turned off**

**Ever had serious housing problem**

**Often or sometimes not enough money to buy food**

**Percentage**

- SOURCE: 	Rural Welfare-to-Work Evaluation's 18-Month Follow-up Survey of BNF sample members.
- NOTE:	The estimates were adjusted using multivariate regression methods and the data were weighted to account for survey nonresponse andto equalize the size of the program and control groups.
- */**/***Significantly different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 level, two-tailed test.

## What Might Explain BNF’s Impacts on Employment and Earnings?

**Services complement existing employment-related assistance**
**Home visits allow for individualized support—especially valuable to more disadvantaged**
**Well-developed life skills curriculum**
**Highly-qualified, professional staff**
**Low caseloads**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Questions and Implications

**What consideration should be given to BNF’s cost?**
**What additional supports might be needed for clients who become employed?**
**How might BNF operate within context of new work and participation requirements?**
**Could the BNF program model transfer to other environments?**

**NOT FOR CITATION**

## Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration Evaluation

**For more information:**
**Mathematica Policy Research**
**	****Alicia Meckstroth, (609) 275-2338, ****almeckstroth@mathematica-mpr.com**
**	****Previous evaluation reports available at ****www.mathematica-mpr.com**
**U.S. DHHS, ACF**
**	****Michael Dubinsky, (202) 401-3442, ****midubinsky@acf.hhs.gov**
**	****Karl Koerper, (202) 401-4535, ****kkoerper@acf.hhs.gov**
**University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension**
**	****Marilyn Fox, (308) 385-5088, ****mfox@unlnotes.unl.edu**
**	****(BNF curriculum)**