11D-206: 869

.1:-

Enhanced..iOrk 32tojeCtart!r:Tke--Snikported WOrt4Pproach- fOr ,,iiiiittv;WOrk- ,IMperience: ,fonth :Salo irledge _ . 43.

kinifOlier-,DeaoasitiatiOniteseatch York-e1 . . 'SPOWS: AGENCY idainietration-- (Do;.)., -.witaiiingt-04-149:--Off*Ce OfrYouth PrOgraas.

nay-.80

pOCOWENT AIESWEE

Cl '049 978

.

.NOTE 1149p:, Sole -tables: -will,.:not -reproduce. troll due to

snail print. For .related, docusents see -node 'Of Ct 029 _ PEON

968. . Alikti,ABI.E, rilOs Superintendent 7 Of. DocuMentj, U.S., GOterament Printing

'

OffiCei -WaShington, 0d,.20402. (Stock No. 1_

. 019;..014.1=001)1=,W, $134--0)-...

tin§ PRICE . lirol/ptik ,xii:.ii..po-ata4e- , -DESCRIPTORS . -Adolescents;: ikdnits: *COst-'1fZeCtitenemaL

itelingneicy_t: igtoeiiOnatrattOa pi-Ograaa--ilipropout - Prograliail'DiOPoikta;-.:EM-plOyaentIprogritilsi-_ Federal -PrOgraia; tino r. ity -'dronps; iProgral:.-tifectiienes s;

_Uneap10faent.;Work EmperienCe. Prograas;-*Youth

..tailopient 20ENTIFIERS -*SuPported.Wsirk -PrOgrais; Youth Eaployaent and Deiwonstration- prOjects- Act

-1EStitiCT

Woltime: -one-; the- products of the knowledge

-develOPaent effort-AMpleagated- tinder. the *indite of -the- -rOtith

:EaployMent-and ,DemonetratiOittirdieCtsi Act_ of 1977. The -repOrt_fOcnses on the -young, ichoox.4kopout:-_POrtion only of the- supported- cork eaperimenti. -whiOk-iilito_inalnded:Offeadersi -gm-addicts,_ and welfare The Oki, of -a4pOrted -ti:ti11404s' of -teoge with-.Well-e5tablAshed_gmplOyient aitticuitiek to -obtain and .keep,, a

regular -100.;. to ,rediOe welfare dependence;.` drug

nag; and,--dr-iiiittal -0-etween Apt4 1975 and July 19,14i-lpie- of

the' deiOnetration ai`teer.';Atlantt_c_:Hartfotd-,- .Jersey v**-y, itUPhilidelpiiiv,-;pititiCiPatedilt: *hi/ iaiiptiorted. Work

enrolled,' 14,2,4 :,anelPloyet 20yea#=.014-, 440

. school

dropents feriAg--a-randtalt Melected a Upset- of the. .e##011004

'..a,:iisukkortitire.;:iiifirOnIent.-fOr -up, to 12 or :111-illOnthei and

:astiataiste- riding Other -eittiloymenf-te- their program, _eligibilitt -.ended: -Datt-iieregathered- lot. i!<ttiths; for ,861- youtbse,:altbough only

153; youths: rho =.enrolled:. J.* 'the sasple PriOr to. April -1E16 co*Preie4

an° inter Yew =at 36 aonths thits, 4-9.44eviteri inpects of supported- work. Ara_ uncertain: The qiiinfietal:.:donciiiiiioas; frog- this itilay-ar#1. that -the availability. .of work-., jobs had .shOrtiun, iapavts on, cOnso-gnentlf-r-OkdePendenOe- .assistance -# but

that:tie prograe. dogs liat--appea*-ii):404:14tigated:toi long -run

-eagotaeat 'these: laathir: "rnrthapicitei the -tiiija,Ot_. had no

yoot-40-1-:40#:..:04-cii.ikeir-014,rtigipiiticiii in Cries,

'Therefore, SOpported--wOrt. -40e0, not 'appear- to be Well-suited. to

'the.: empioilat ,prObleiwr of !wing dropouts; and the net .

.iaost.,',of the piOgitiCla.4i,gli-ti' ,

.
..

c.

YOUTH KNOWLEDGE .DiliELOPKENtREPORT

a.

.4

I 1.

O YI

4

ENHANCES 'WORK` PROJECTS--

_THE SUPPORTED -WORK APPROACRFOR;,YOUTH

VP

y. MANk/WER:DOIONSTRATION

RESEARCH-- CORPORATION

O

For 4414 the Superintendent of,Dounielatii.y.134o.yeTnment Printlag °lice

. 'Washington.-,D:C. 2044f

114,
0

v.

;OVERVIEW,:.

_ - t; . '.folith-work- ertOtee in . .the,,0411c, and .nonprofit sectors ,offert a

.potentials

tett. oi.iti4i4t froni. the labor of oartiCipantS:. The

-0-404-1-.0440.14,000.04§,'Allr 00101 t and the

emphasis: °on_- output vs.. _WOW learni4;,-,the ,dejree ;-e-r supervision. ona6;11.56:1014ne-,,, ..angt7the-tyki.7of

,which are: nvdonei.

"Second;. where° workP ..experience= etejt on youtk:ifrokrIOW...fncane--

families μwho 1_19414;U 1-S income ransfer, Ofect ;as.-Well: as equalization-Of4e0Toknent probabili ies. BnOloynlent.-.

problems :and° flow family 000*** McikirgorrelAteif;-:,* the match is not

exact.. 'The .sii7.-1440- Vie, :income: :itandoilk: ifore keit that

participants on -the: }average =min 4iiye key

al sO. -neektS be -excluded:. The .more.

_.;disadvantaged: the !partiCifiants,- thei:inOre that .:the..*ages.paid

-ano Ano;,:pgre_,w.01_ be_Lao.-Andlrecti:lwanie__

trahifer the::Wage;..4iicr-, '.tne :OrticitiantSi

-would have :been ,kithefrtsle,iiite016.Y.0- I0071#1,0t.ine,neCeinpl'Oyme4t,-inipatt.. Jii4a)ne-tranSfets:-Ainked,---tO,. :#0,;:tite*OablY, ,PrO4441- tof-dii*t 'cash:

_ 0040iit ;Eciyaliiafitkr, .iernocoolt. ctiaoces

ilAtti014rtV, :where" discrimination` other OiNctoil -46f0§ .catO

. . L there inOrogr411 froM work:

experience. brie -itteo4-,:4-,:that job-:. serve *inufiAW in -,Whicn

ndrinat'jiii*ir-ition:0-ccuns, -undo- favorable keeps., ouo_

constructively ,oc.cnotecu 400,,nois, tfiek,avoct cttoccations *Oa. :might, -wed* subsequent ,09:#60-111: the ?labor ,may ,.teach, 'the:\

work= anit with tve. result that. tortieiiiants, got

'job. herding_ And, .-joh7 .Seekihg: The workplace-°. -strUCtured-as , eni0OOnient 'Where :tiehaii3O;00ifiCatfon, ,o.CcOrS refleCted-_, in

increased ,seffeSteenv*, .dependability' and the like, 46*--,:extieilence.

pragrams scan Jbe ,mechanism 40* disadvantaged youths whk ,,are

***WY :excluded -byi :because '0,4404ound: 'characteristics Can

,orOite., they- are ,1:160endahle, can actiot,* a- resume

credentials. work ,r1i3i'--.011#Ailte training in w,k-f4h, ta*O- - 'sp.eajfid-.Aill The: work .00000 *St ,be closely.

1 hiked tit-educatriOn training,-and thOS used as. an inducement. for

ijar.00,04.1* -and, completion other activities.' :Finally,. the- job-m#Y-

. stiNcrtai.ecr as the,:ffr,Sf-first; --,a0ident- if ied= career ladder, krovi ding

aCCes -Whi Ch. WOO 0 dtherWi Se. unlikely.

, :work experience- may have .a- *O. of OsWpr9granLieffects..

4100-i0:11 :tied tt401010A9W4-0:0*-qtAr tracks .into career

access''to

. 'Wage,;more st* e or .uOwardly. ,Noul4

be the: oiltconie. If tnei:wok-04etilence-loionooies.;benaliintondificatton,.or.

'00s1-0fwor* eAlOutqm, 'Opp: fOri* :0401000s W9414,,ke*AVIY compete

niOrr).effectively, . 11v Ike., labor market .0e.4*,.b941d,:be:'0 ArnO4ct, onlabor

:00,0yrnehk Chances :and' .PPrPOPIt 'scrne, reduction in
undesirable 'training, -and :education are. the focus,

youth ,might tie .more cOmplete Schcibl and advanced

tral0114-..". If the jobs ',are ne'rely Aging little 000 would -occur fdr

MoSt,,partictpant§ 41,000h feW enter-adql.thood- -with criminal

--retords,..iirl:illegititilate- children, to the: Otent these-are related to job,

leSSne§§.. . ."

There is infinite- variation- :possible -,elements of work ex-

--Terieri-de--pnegram§..,:and, .,hence-,th-Ahe,--,jrcjentia-lbenefftsT--- Tnere are --a4o.

-te-a-cleOfft, :productive work- -Settings. _are those

.employing: youth._ who:. haVe the: ,fewest-prOnlenis- the beSt

'workers. suohsettings;_ easiest' -SttifCtdre tin_ kagft and

plaCenent into,,perManelt ,carer fie placed -On

,basic training: `behavior ,.rhOctifidatiiik-0: 'there .will- be ..feW

expected;, in7Prograin. Change-S. the--.InCOMe-transfer-and-.emplOyMent

eqUalliaion. impaCIS limited,,-to- the "extent. ,Oartiapants. 'n'Iye- nigh.

-Prababil i tit& -Of-Oriding-, work 0!t- 'their -Theti.74 al's_O less- 'impart. to

the: extent :reSourcet..are iseik for Opervi si on or. Or non-41 abor inptitt which

make.. the _work.filore-produCti,Ve. At the other- exttimel:the .jobs= might place ttipch:,-notfe- on learning._ They -would be

tai§eted too-yOuth WithTSevere problems and. would haVe a high transfer

effect. The in-prograM', .thangeS Might be extensive but the easurable

,post=prograth, outcomes Slight; at least fin the _near IOC. 'Clearly, yootn work- 'experience is. 'not,-4---statidardized,

The- appropriate-= design. depends on :a nuMber of variables; such as whether, the , Work, summer only, _im,sChooT, or year-repund for outzof-schOol' youths,

whether it, is- 'di reCted tol,_ teenagers or young .adults, and thelevel of needS

of,:participantt. .UnfortuhatelY, there has been very- little pr.-ogress in

determining, the tradeOfft between the various loalt or the ,most appropriate

designs for different circumstances.

The supported -Work demonstration, represent§ the most ri- gorous exper-imertt 'to-date -with the.' Work-experienCe..aPproaCh. In 1$ sites around the

'Country, word' experiente.F.prOjeCtSwere Iniplenierited- and carefUlly -studied-.

Per.S.0§. -enrolled in :supportecrWOrk were .asligned, to crews -comprised of

'individuals like- themselves,- usually .10'-or leSs, with a, supervisor to serve

as a, foreman and, . counselor: Graduated retponsibl Ay and stress' : wasp

employed.-in work tasks;=:along interaCtion-to-hel P youth

Cope,-With problethS and adj4tthents. The employment -OpPOrtuhities lasted .up

to .one year in Mot ,caSei..- The- work-. -Varied: from construction to light

Manufacturing-, spanning most of the tasks' .usually .addressed by public and

nonprofit sector 'wOrk..esperience.-. Revenues fr-on, theSale of goods and

'services produeech:by the work crews were used to offset the costs. There

a- :heavy ethPhisit: on- management under these projects and careful

There were four target groups among the 10;000 ,partitipants in

StipPort-ed, work: welfare recipients, ex-addicts,, ex- offenders and youth-.

The youth group- was tb,drcip=_OUts ,age 17 :through 20, with 1- of every

2 required to ',have a record of :delinquency or crime. There , was no income

targeting. :bit: the -nature Of the ,projects- ,had*..-thii same effect. Thus,

suPported work are representative -of .better run :Projects fcir outof=school-- yOuth,, ,Per.4..W)0051: the ,Youth. ,ConiMunity ',Coniervation and

--IriiprOvement -Projects- instituted- ander-YEDPA. The -impacts- of -supported -work " .

.
were -darefUlly- researChed,, and. is therefOre suggeStiye .4 _the, effeC,- 3,tioleSS-Otyouth,-A4Ork.,experielice.

^4 It i 1-00ftOnt.,,,:hOreVei","- -to 7.stres.S.,soMe-:Of" thb:41.fferencet between,

_ Stappeited,--wCirk And-otber-yotit --*Orki-eXpe.rience7.9-r-q-graMS., luOpOrted, work

-serve --a_Soinewhat. .61 der,....and::MoreIriqueritlit maieLaiidLiiii.nority_ctieht groupth-AnT Y.C.P5---or_r:

, .. SYEP;,- t4.1@ rtio.ipanttl-are-,more- -disadvantaged a t' measured by

-arrests and education -but less so When:MeaStred2 'by receipt of .cash As-

:stStanCe - _

. .

;Supported- CE-TA`. ,T1 -.Youth.

Percent. -.__';Work-_ .:YCC-10- Work_ ExperiiinCe-- -SYEP

t ale `84" :74 61- .' 'k , -unao,,a-jor.:.20,f :84 98 '- 87 -. 9.51

_Mifforitk -; -, "''',94-" -,c,55, '49'' -,.69:.

..:alillil-'SilliboI . ".-

-_ 7:1-00bOt' '2-- 'Is!:- -47 ---45------ 6

Criminal RecOrd, .57 '6 3 _3-

'Cash= Assistance

--Iteci_Ol'ents,- #. 26,. 31- 35.. .39

.,

_ _

_,emplas71.1 on -,;-ClOse superVsion i and careful management, - supported: work spendS- relatively less on -participant wages 04-salajeiet.. amounted. to only 47- percent of costs, compared to 78

:percent -under YCCIP in fiscal -4979, and 84' perCent under SYEP In fiscal-'

1978. . 4 Finally., 'supported: work is, --a -stable program. *Under YCCIP:,- there is

enormous turnover :projects.. :frOm year to `_year., And' the: program itself

only ',began fiscal Contrast, supported, work hai,'9Oerated since

1975- .1n.. some :Sites-.. and the eval'ilation..1S based. on -coStt.-whfcii , . exclude

start -up. ex Re rites .",SoppOted work is certainly more stable than SYEP which

implemented anew- each, slimmer.

Keeping injnind-t4se_ differendes, supported- work is suggestive of the.

impacts- of at least one foriii.--of work experience for a .youth target group

very Much_ .needing hel P..

The impacts of- supported work fqr youth can be summarized as follows:

o .output. - It is ,estimated -that' the most likely alternative

supplier-Could, have ,prOvided 'the -same Output as the "supported work. projects_for a .price:e0a1 to ',percent, of .the -wages and fringes-pluS

direct. project -costs._ :or ,45 .perOnt' of total SUpported work costs... i.--,--------,.---- .- o IncOme, 1:transfer-- Youth par9cipants receiVedanaverage---of

$6,304' per, :years. ;in: wages and fringe,:banefits. Subtracting the

estimated; value, of'outpUt per.,Work.:hoUr net of project costs ("i.e., thes...valoe added -by iyouthy.laborl, roughly- No fifths or $2,1500- was

incOme, transfer.-. !This represented roughly a ,fifth of the total

program' costa ! tj ; l'., ,,:_., -,...., ....._
, .,- 7---`%". . ,.---- . ..,

r?. o ,Employment slightly above the minimum and the

participants were =those :who : would.' be otherWite, jobless, i e only

little over a third ; . group =-worked in the 'irst. six

months 4fter.:Wtibitantk enrolled. In Other words,. the employment

impact coul4 bb.t.,,be-intreated:.thudh,,:by-better targeting or lower wages:

fner:=6,4044.Ana.0.0,.044.rt-i-c..--lpant---vioes--fo:Htota-l-lprogram -co

could, 77however, intree0A the net effect . Almost all program

'ho(irs were :toot in° '..havef been shortened- and

supplemented-by-inistiPendediffraini4g-or---couitsellitg:

,.. _ n 7 o -In-Program -:86fiefftS---,. The ,nioS.t._ otiViOli§In7program benefit is

increased tOiii9n fst 9 nvillths7.:efter enrollment, the

averageearnings of ekeriiiiiAtals-was $336, per-nienth-,0iipared to '$4.26%

per month for tante-Of:7 ;The -ea rnfno------tort;150 pants ibtlUd e_SOine

indirect .ificOMe. tranSfer3,-,bUt,iither, sources of direct income r transfer _ were -0) so available for ;participants and widely uSedilii:Confrol The e men s s or

pirticipañts -.compared to $.,110, for controls During tis -9-- Otorith..

period,: the percentage of zyoUths. with- any arrests was .slightly =higher

,f0-f-experinientali= thatiTaitrol17.-1 i . ,126-:8; ]aftev '. adjusting for

differences -: 'The percent with robbery arrests was slightly -rless - 3t1 =e

vs 3 4 The :percent incarcerated was less, 8.9 Vs.- 11r6 and so were,.

the weeks of intarOeration _1.04 vs. 1.62. -In other words., there were

-some slight ,reductions in criminal= activity or at least in4 in- , tarCeratiOn- for such activity The percent reporting drug 'abate other

that ,marijUana or 61001 was Tower .; 11.37vs. 14'.2=percerit but the

,percent using marijuana c and alcohol was higher, 56.9 vs 62.9 :percent

for any ,use of bla'rijitiaria, and 8.1 vs 5 5 percent for daily use of

atOdhol. The iinliectsl'*.deielopment of World-of-work skills were not

directly, 'Measured; -'However, 53, -percent of participants left as a

-result of firing,. incarceration, or resignation, -because of dissatisfaction with'the-;;Otti, :which cold' not suggest gains .unless these

accrue from "such, negatiVe-but-Oonies:. . o _Post-Program- Impacts Supported work does -not, -apparently have,

si.gnificant, transitional .effects. Only 26. parCent of ybuth trainees

left for .a. job. -the19.,thrOugh 36 months -after entry, When. only, a minuscule .portion of participants .rernained in :Sup**. -work, the

40-rage earnings per month Of,,pat,4ticipabts was $282 compared to $291

Canti'Ols. even : though the -hours of average work per month were

,sriotiyhignei.,for-Tpaftitipayits-z,77..7 Vs. 3:4:2: It would appear that

partiCiPatiOn, 'rsOppiirted work may positively impact on .work

'prOpensttieS,:-.,b0t that ,,Weges, youtkl..whO have been ',continuously in

'theregular -labor : market' Increase wit accumulatedr.:seniority --and7

adVantement to hiqher paying jobs This is suggested by the fact that

the experimental!,don,tror,,,,differential widens :,over the fie:1st-program.

POrioth. in 'favor of 'experiMerital-s- when assessing : employment rates and

average :hoUrs, ,worked,- even, though the -average earnings per _month,

The immediate, -post-program period

results in highet4 crime and :ir'resti-rsates:-foripartic-ipantt:relatlye to

'Controls, theri-.-there. appears t to be a reversal in the 19-27 month

---P.Oriod-.-----iti-,itenils7rOfdrti47-70nd--alcoholuseT-th'ereareminOr_. di f;-

,ferentials in favor. of -Control-S. in the post-.program period.

i.v .
The tenefit-cost AethedelOgyiney be useeto analyie these impacts and

to :determine whether the supported investment is worthwhile to

society._ Under the .hiesf'i.e0ohahle;:,40ititiOns,, the costs- exceed benefits net -Present Value -of :yea4.1h-other Words, society gets eSS-. -leek in terms or outPut; 'ca ne and; drug abuse -redue Lions; increased

-tax-_ ;payments redUCed2; -program ad_Mintstrati ye costs, and .Other. benefits than it-payS2 'Out, ,,biieC-t_trintfer .payments. are 029 less during _.the- 14,thenthperi &Land- , although TricTiredt. tranSferS ,(Wages-paid- ,in Pi-rOdUctilittY) UnqUestiOnably exceed this amount Significantly. TraiiSfers are not counted as a social

benefit, nor is there any differentiationTbetween- transfers tied to work

part Of ."wages): and theSk,paidHregardlesS _of ,prOUCtivity: During

the 3:ttleelq.c1 'program: :04,rtiCiPaTtiO.O, indoine/bf participants was roughly $14-844"h ig he r thin, '04_ estfniated!,trahsferti-direct and

:Deoenciino;'1'oti the value one Mi ght aStoCte -1,--4t-PP*7-1-e7-to-colistiOrtiTelVeTidi tures- justifietb--It; that 'Under any reasonable assumptions the social', 'benefits supported work for _youth exceed the So.c41.ceSts-by22a-zsUbStantial-Margin. if at 'al 1 . The impliCations- for _wortk ,.experience as a piegram- approach depend on

comparison of stipported' Work .With :Other types of work programs, and must be

considered in light of the .disadvantaged -population served by supported

-Work-; No current work eVPrierice prO6rafP has, as yet, been as rigorously

evaluated as *ported. Work. There are, hOwever, some conceptual comparisons in assessing 'benefits and .,iMpactS:

o Output - Value of output studies conducted using the same.

methodology.: as the supported work evaluation suggest that supported work is almos ty,pical- in its putout per hour worked, but Las a 1.dwer output per doller.:of -prograM -cost because- of the extenSike administrative -cptts.. EO- instance, a :study of the 1979' sumMer, program

estimated return of --$2.08- .in- .production for every hour of partitipation:i Given expenditures for training., administration and the ._ like, it is estimated, between 55 and 60 percent of the cost of-MEP is, returned in social production;, this compares with 45 percent under supported work. YACC returns close to, itsiktost and other local CETA

work _programs 'have._*_outp4 in excess of 'SYEP., In othef words; it is definitely ,possible.. to mount less ambitious administrative arrange- ments and to get more output per dollar of total cost.

o- Income _Transfer .7. Again _because of the high. overhead, the income

transfer effect.,IS, SYEp,in 1978-paid. out 84 Percent of cost' in wages and Wailes; `MI? Paid out' 78 percent; where in: supported' work thee income support components represented only' 47 percent. -Further, since :these .other programs were income. _targeted, they probably reache& a- poOrer. population (although not necessarily one

with greater empleythent ProbleMS);

.o In-Program ,Benefits - There is not comparable evidence on

in-program _effeets .iof _other .programs; but it is certainly poss'ible to

increase irenriChTnentr Or-toconsciouslytighten_er_koSeri the

individual perfermance'requirements.
TOSt4pOgOity-.'tignefitS/ Supported 40,11c, did' not put. emphasis on

PlieeMent...and :the- se:i.tVict_ .'deilve**.iiiere relatively isolated fr*,.

i.;:rne.74O-einent ,i4-40' into, -untubSidized jobs- tor.

same. as: SUP0_0704WOrIci;1490,''.61.413:0.4.te;..111,14.il.00-:work :projects such -as,

,-

'Verith fiv.iCO*Uhiik_IMpireVeMent ,haVe, been, able, to get youth into:'

relatively - better pay,,ing ,jobs, ,_in`= other _rwOrdt,,, it it. OAT

,POtt4P0.0"17.4* -6014,0:YS,Pt ,benefits. .exceed or can: 'exceed those reatizik

Supported : ,WOrk deals Wtth youtir,',WhO 'have: 's eV ere probl Os . 14 results,

may -have- been 011: fPrOtf.,141:P)::*I:e4,d4akianOded. ObenteTe: On the other-

'hand; -:it-..may '410) -'-it,.00`11411t. 'the; '-',!Wr.,ft.,MediCine1.1 for such a ;group. The,. . :supported, --voirk- ,,d,lletiteli, :most. :nearly 1)- ril telt, ,that. ih- Joh ,Chrps. The'

---7----15-en-Frt.ts:7'6d.--Trotts, een. eva ua e y muc e_same________

methodology, --,With: .-a---findinC. itriat4 ,substantially, --exceed. _cOstt:.

'Perha0'-'01t1t-of .2 -thit tyPe;:behefit..MoSt from :being' -'leeitoved 6-Tow-their-

,!lvironm-efti :and' being providedi,witlf.ed'ucatien afid-traiiitidritlier thinjust

work. 'i . l'

: . 4

..- .Ahother- ;option - ttto .jhcreate- the human resource developMent

c.omPOpentS as well as jthejransition-,.serViCes :provided by .supported Work.

The. .,s4Ported-;,WOrk demOnstration, hat- :been, extended With YEW funding, to - test 'the, :i'elatiVe, effedtivehett-Of such eOrichkeintS: 4Further-, the,* will

be,klOrog. :range, f011OW40:,.Of-,yOuth,paiticipaht's and. cOhtrolt 'freh the- first ,

:phase: 'of-sUPported ,work in .order to determine whether the, Upward trend in'

-eniplOyment: for expetiiijental't -relative to controls in the -post-prograM

period -Continues. Or -'4.etei'l,O*et,,, and whether the former participants cat*.

up to the..earnirigt; ,of. chntrott_at .a result of sustained Tabor force ., partieTpatibti.- -

. ;There Are; also two.. the*.o'retical, issues whiCh will require, pore

investigation. First;._ both "displadement" and "vacuum'; efficts: occur'',

i .e.,,, some of the .publicly 'fuhdecijObt .414splate thhte otherwise fdrided and

workers who would till: theMi,,: ile',the net -jhbs Createdreduce competition .:

Oid:-.1nCrea ,e1:111519Y11)0.nt iPrOhab:itittet..forfhon-partidighWi The "'extra -jobs

created' sUPP#.ted *wdrk 'Ort..OnlY.: "I,)ad, little! impact, one cOntr.O3,.sw but

OeStima he,-,job, *pans1'oh- effort would, .ii least .equal the *4foregohe

- eartithgt, pahticiahtt,Itit.,,wOhld- at most equal, !the full, age' ,bill . In

other- iter s ,: the eMplOyMeht, chances of .all ,nen-paftiCi pants moul dti hcrease,,

as the: cOmPetitigh_fosr-,OartidtPahti,',deellhed., ,This. impact-- .wouldd be offtit

.t.O77the-ta-:exteht..-the: :TO.O.sr;represihtei:1--. substitution for -otherwise funded

employment. 'Ther,Way.stipp.Orted:Woric, .wAs,; okra*. outside regular. employment

structures- .and: ,Witlt. the ..hai'dOtt ,Coile participahtt Would. suggest that. the

!ate- ',Of .4!*0titUtTOli;-w43,'..0b#4141411:)% beloW, that of publit. service

01PloyMent 'as. feghlarly,:operated::under ,UTA,. but that the .vacuum effect was

small.... }3,Oth effe,4ts.need.th,-.-tie. studied,

,, Both_

41, , f1 ,- s ' ' 'r J ',', .0 , -.

g . ,A second-ISthe 1 i--that ,;f transition probabilities. The baseline for

measuring, post- program *OW 040' SUppofted' work was the dtbaratiii

experience of ,ope-riOntals.:andiOontrOis. Without_ Os i stince, a :portion f

:..., _______YoUth will be expected : :t0 ."get, ."jobs- in :any time -.period,. Alternatively, a

-- ------4e1Thrioir-OTT nciiretiplOyMeht-lietWeehl---jObt-.Can ,be_justified by the job'seartli

.. , , -

i.

0
theory -or explained. by ,a youth_ preference for intermittancy .in labor force*"

:participation. If participants ,were- compared to.. a simulated, comparison.-

,group _utilizing the posjtimtransi.tion.probabil iesof the control group

since the beginnfrig_poinit,_1..e...,,,pariicipariti- itho_ut--jobt-eftn-Ataving

supported-work were assumed to have the same_ employment chances as contras

-Whcy.'were all initially without jobs, the re itive benefits in the post-

_program...period- would-appeargreater-and----the-participants-'.would- probably'

-- -substantially-exceed-the- simulated. -compariS h group. In other wordt,--if\a A' merely keeps :a youth occupied, when t is job, is over he or she wil l\,\.

likely be worse_off_relative to argroup,whi h had been in the regular labor \. force-for some time, birt 'better off than i the,.joblhad not been available., \

'Given the volatile nature- ef Alin.- 1 cir. 'fOrde pareltipation and the

unemployment frequency associated- with 'transition, a comparison 'group selected- at the point, of exit might be /preferable to one selected at the? ntranoe,----7Inpos-t7programcompari-sonsuptief-statethe--

impacts=of- work experience ;program "s..

ThiS -report---on.supported7-.wor --includes detailed. assessment of

impacts and a benefit-cost -analysis. It.-foouSes on the youth -portion- only of the supported work experiment,. wOch--also.included offenders, ex-addicts and welfare recipients. There weie- significant differences in impacts for

th4se different clienteles arid-, the full reports from the Manpower

Demonstration Resource poration should be reviewed to,pihpoint these

differences. -reports include the Second Annual Report on the

National_Suppb-rted-Work Demonstration end Summary and Findings of the 5Efotiaf Supported Work Demonstration.

This volume one of the products of the "knowledge .development" effort implemented under the mandate of the Youth Employment and Demon- stritionARyojects Act of 1977. The knowledge development effort consists

of huhdreds of separate research, evaluation -and -dethonstration activities . which will resul t 1; in !. 1 i teral ly thoimands of written products. The

activities have been structured from the outset so that each is selfstanding but also interrelate& With a- -host .of other activities. The

framework, presented in 'A Knowledge Development Plan for the Youth Ernploymept and Demonstration Projects- Act of 1977, '-A Knowledge _.Development

Plan for the Youth initiatives Fiscal 1979 and :Com led the Youth A enda:

A Man for Knowledge Development, Dissemination an pp cat on for Fisca

-1980-. . ,. .

Information is available or will b9 Gorging available' from these

_ __various knowledge development efforts to help' resolve an -almost limitless array of issues. However, policy and practical application will usually

require ntegration and synthesis from a wide:range of 'products. A Major,

. shortcoming, of past research, .evaltiatiqn, and. demonstration activities has

. been;th failure.to 7crganize and. disseminate the products adequately' to assure t e full' exploitation of the findings. The maghttlide and structure of the uth knowledge development ,effOrputs a protium on structured

. analysis and wide dissemination:' . As part of ,its knowledge. development mandate, therefore; the'Office of 4I - Youth Programs- of .the-;Department of Labor will -organize, publish and Ai ssiminate the written products of all major research, evaluation ands de*Stration activities suppor4,ed directly by or mounted in conjunction

1
h

4

.

. with OYP -knowledge development efforts. Some of .the same products. may also

published'anddiskeminate&-throughr--Other--channels-; -hut=theY )41j-1 I --be

-included_ in_ Vie structured '41ries. of Youth Knowled e Develo ent Re orts tin -ordef-- to facilitate access and* ictegra on.

1 The. Youth.-Knowledse_Develosmient Reports, of which this ?,is' One, are

di vidi3d. into twel broad categories:

1. Knowled e Develo ent Framework:. The products in ,this categoryi'

are concerne wit t e-structure 'o -.nowledge develoRment,acti:vities, the

assessment methodologies which ,are employed, the. medgurement ,instruments and their validation, the translation of knowledge into polddyi and the

strategy' for dissemination of- findings. 1

2-;--- Research 7on-Youth- Employnvnt- and Employability .Develooment: The

products in this category represent' analyses, of -existing' data, pretenption of findings from few data sources; special studies of dimensions of youth

labor market .problems, and-Policy issue assegsments.

71

3. Program Evaluations:: 'The' -products in this category include

impact, process and benefit-cost evatuations of. yOuth programs including

the Sum w.r- Youth Employment Program, Job 'Corps; the %Young Adult

ConservAion Corps, Youth BnployMent and Training Programs', Youth Community

Conservation and Improvement Projects, And the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit:

: 4. - Service. and Participant Mix: 'The evaluations. and demonstrations

summarized in this category concern- the matching of different types of

youth wi,,th different 'service combinations. This involves experiments with

- work vs. work plus- remediation vs. straight remediation as treatment

options. It also includes attempts to mix, dis.advantaged and more affluent-'

participants, as well as youth with older workers.

.. . 4

5. Education and. training Approaches: The products in-this category present the' findings Of structured experiments to test the impact and

'effectiveness of various eduCatiOn and vocational training- approaches

including specific educa %ion. methodologies for.' the disadvantaged, alternative education approaches and advanded Career tilinin§. ' - -. 1'. 6. Pr- Employment and Transition Services: The products In this.

. category present the findings of structured- experiments to test the .impact

and .effectivenesS -of school-to-work transition activities, vocationalc ,exploration,-job-search assistance and ',other efforts to better prepare

\Ljoititi?Jor labor market-success.

'1.7- ,-'''',..2 -..:7,..3- ..- ,_. . . ":"7. -, Yifutn Work. Experience: The products in this category address the organization of work act-II/Wes, their output, productive roles for youth,

1 and the. impaott. of various employment approaches.

I -13'. Implementation-Aisiies-::.--:This-_:---category, includes. dross-atting . ..,

. analyses of the ',practical lessons concerning "how-to-do-iit." Issues such

as learning curves;: replication processes and programmatic "batting

,averages" will bk. addressed under this category, as well As the comparative

advantagei of alternative deliVery agents. :,

. , 0.
t

q

C

a . 9. Design and .Organizational Alternatives: 'The products in this

category represent assessments of demonstrations of alternative progragi aad

odelivery arrangethents such as*.consolidatiop, .year-roun preparation for

'summer programs,,. the use of incentives, and multi-year tracking. of

individuals. 2'.

!. 10. Special teeds Groups: .Thl products in this' category. present . findings°on'the speciarproblems of and the Programmatic adaptations needed

for significant segments including minorities, young mothers, troubled

youth, Indochinese refugees, and the handicapped.

11. -Innovative Approaches: The prodtiCts in this category -present the.

findings of those tctiyitiei designed to explore new approaches.' The

subjects covered .include the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot:Projects,

private sector initiathes, the national- youth 4erviee upeilment, and

ener4i.initiitives jr weathecrization, low-head k9droelectric. dam testoration, windpoWep, and the like: , .

.4

. 12. f Institutional Linkages:. The products in this category include

studies of institutional arrangementOnd linkAges aT., well as assessments

of demonstration, activities to encourage. such :linkages with education,

-volunteer-groups, drug abuse, and other youth serving agencies.

In- each or theseknowledge development categories, there will be a

range of disdrete demonstration, research and evaluation-activities focused

on different policy, program and analytical.issues: .In.turh, each discrete

.-knowledge development project may have a series of written products

addressed,_ to different' dimensions ,of the issue:' For instance, all

experimental demonstration projects have both process,.and impact evaluations, frequently undertaken' by different.gvalation, agents% 'Fipdings

will be -publithed As they-become avtilable sd that there will usuallibe.a

scries of reports at. evidence accumulates. TO organize tOese products,

4 each ,publication -is crassified in one of the twelve broad knowledge

development categories,..'described in terms of the more specific issue,.

activity cluster of Attivities to. which it is addressed with an

identifier of the ptoduct,and what it'represents relative to other products

. in the demonStrations.°._Hence, the multiple, products under a 'knowledge

development' activity are closely interrelated and the activites in each

broad cluster have significant interconnections. r

.' This wilunivAhoyld be assessed in conjUnction.with other studies of

work projects ii the "youth work experience" category, (particularly

Enhanced Work Pro ect --The Interim Findings From The Ventures In Community

Improvement Demonstra ion. ,Because of the similarity of clientgroups and

evaluation designs, The Lasting Impacts of Job Corps Participation also

proVides'useful Counterpoint.,. °

p

Robert l'ggart

Administrator

Office: of YodthPrograms

/I
coNTENtS

; .

\ Page-

'OVERVIEW '

THE IMPACTS 'OF SUPPORTED';'W ONIOUNG S0400t. DRQPOUTS 1

, . -. , (,... .....,

. .. :.. . I Youth Unemployment ..and Supported 'Work-

,

, II': The- Evaluation :Design and the Supported.liork .

1 programt,linder.SOdy .. _ 23

--; 14 I ., ,Employment .Rel;atOil. Impacts 59.

IV., Ilic:OMei.,:ln-Kind;Tranfer:s,_and RelafedAutcomes , 107 ., .."

.,,,. ,.. V. JthliaCt:S:,.041-0,44USe: ' 119 ' -

: VI. -:ImPaCtS.!Okriinitial :Behavior 135.

. ., ._-_ VII;. -0Oncl.UfOnt, . 1 51 e :.,--_,, .APPeridiXrt*SUPpletrientary Tables ,..*'-- A 159

AppendiX;B:.:, 'ics,sessitig-.the Impact of Interview'Nonresponse

orLEvaTtiatioiviRe#11ts' `, -1' . 191

.... D. ApPeniliX:T.,Tht Iffeets ortength of-Time Spent in

-Sypoort,ed:Work on Program Impacts . . 219

References - 227 .

-., :THE. SUPPORTED-WORK EVALUATION: FINAL BE_NEFIT--.COST AN

: ALYSIS- 2 37 ..?

, . , )-' `

, I The;Supported Wor...Demonstration -and its Evaluation . , . -- 239

-II: Ctits anClialue o In-Program Output . . : 255

_.-

.. ,I LI . Benefits, . .;:-- ., . 291

.. IV: Oveiall"ReSults for the Youth target Group --:, 335 -.. . ' 7 V. . Comparison to: Other .Benefit-Cost Studies of ... .,-

EMOOMent and TinIng Programs , 345 fVI. Conclusions , 377 . Referencet, 386 _,. , 4

.

4

r

r'
.

.te

0.

4

0."

1.

THE IMPACTS OF.,,SUPFTORTED WORK ON

YOUNDoSCHOOL DROPOUTS

I.7

Rebecca Maynard.

I.

Mathematica poliey- Research, Inc.

;

-

.?f

-
SUMMARY:

t1114,49.4i -P4PO-Fte4:***___It **9.- 9.0*- 'Of -15e,opic.3414;th

well -41nil-OY084`-,--AiffXOtiXt4S; to 0444- and keep, *.re4utk-thiS4a3or. gOal, ..dther. impOrtant ObjeCtiVes

include. reduction 44'-.210h:*:#114

clr 'A!F Ire In-order: tc? ',4e-13i-O4.414!.4

success, a 5-yearLLdemon_stration-and: research effort. 140= -14itiOlit:akOn

"he _four target4roUpk-ttiat.iiiitided,ihe ,de_ mon*t*etion

Ai.e,1404:11:*hP.-h4iffii,b0hled,#414:1,0*** 1*10e#3 -14:14_e_ A-c0' to

"With-iboi3.04.4::Ohiiiii.enf(0150i foir:*nbetanti4:-

,r 5 periOds?-of_ been in _drug. treatment

= ,:ograms; ex-offenders, who cave 'recently released t,rois-,PriSOm

-Or,:_j*i.i.V.a4d:;Yoint4; 'School :droPOUtS, many of whom haVe keeo*ds of

delinquency:.

_ rAport ,foCUSes-'On. .the_effeCt.s. of Supported Work for.

yOung- SchdOi drOpoutS. .97$' and Of.

the demonstration sites =- Atlanta,, Hartford, Jersey-City, ,NeW, lork, andl5hiiidelphiteni-oiled- in the Supported Work irialvation -simple

1,244. unenipldyed,Ii=- to :20=year4olds- yhd Thad_ -,not .completed =high,

-Offeringea -randomly: selected SUbSet the enrollees,

menials) employment in_.0".:-sUPportive'!_enVironment for up to 12' or 18

months, depending on assistance in-findin4-Other-emplOyment as theik-,pkograM--eligibilitY-:period neared its- end:_ While

interview data :One-ring ,at firS,t 8 -months f011dviing

enrollMent. are- aVii/ible-:for:801-,Yolith,- .only -1,5,3- youth who enrolled

in the ,sample 1976 completed a 36=tionth interview.

Thus, conclusions-concerning ;-longer -term impacts of Supported Work

are subject- tO.,corisiderabke

. The general conclusions from this study are that the -avail- 2t4lity of= a SuppOrted:-.Work job had short-run impacts on-.emPioyMent and-',/ Consequently, on 4440400 oA public assistance, -but 'that the

:program .does nottaPPearit6-**-'0it- itf-Centril objective of gating 000:0-**.:14#4):ileps this dieadvintagedi-Segment

of the youth ,population ".i-rniiheiiiiire, there 'Cs:little indication

_ gi7.4t sni6POitted',wOrk or ialpaCts: on, Youths

drug use dr-their- -p4170:04644.4.4 4.1), key raseirOh...:findings

..on- .which these,:conalue4ne -are'sbiSid. are sUmmirized in 'Table I.

1.1/', C

. Employment Arid,"Farnings.. The 1irge, employment gains

of-::experimentmliRditrizw:;t24:-:firSt,,few month*, after

enroll.Ment-::dec/ined,Sh**-pty conizols increased

their "*.ii4-4417j0P'Ou**A4, le Et:.their subriOrt*CiTX974,013*.,(See. Figure 1) By

the start df. .deCond.--yeir, When less thin 20

perCent still the
1

1

I 'isiiiitigi.With Some tsploymemt

f*miA4:1"7.= 9

Minths:16 ,'1.3' ° Moninirl9..17

4°41108 .'.36' ..,

4

. 4 'AvoiaMiAliiii Muted Per Month

-.31644$,1:4.4*;

, Nonth110 =:18 Modthe01.:27

lkmithi,i28,36 \ -Agarngiiiiiiiigi par Month . ±182-athiA.:". 9 saiiiiiiiici-r ut Amithi49=1.-27- Moath08.!,-36.

,imiiiriCamd'iiimiic.laiistance

_ ......, ..._, ..-. AiMingi:Iiii0Onehli:InCome

MaitMM:.1:44"ISMegithii 41- ,"; le . :monthi.19 -4.22 "***2" 16-. '

,:- --- . . aver Monthly Welfare Income . _ . plun.fooStemplonuses

Months-1 - 9

Months 10 f 18

Months 19 - 27

. Ninth` 28 - 36 Gingtse

Sircentage WOO deed Any Drug

',that than Marijuana or '4-cobol

Montni

Months'10 - 18

Montle 19 - 27 Moaths.28 - 36

, 4 ,Percent4gewho Used

Mealtime

."Monthe 1 - 9.

Months 10 18 Ninths 19 27 i4 Menthe 28 -:36 Percentage Who Used

Albohol Gaily

Jionthi.1 - 9

A Months 10 - 18

MOnthi 19 - 27 Months 2S 4 36 Indicators of Criminal activities iercithMgM Arrested

3lOaths-1 - 9

. Months 10 - 18

- Months 19 - 27

- Monthi 28 - 36 Z.MOnthi 1 - 18

-months 1 -

.1?044-

myl!Flroans SAML:'

.04:4

-Group

AZOntrat riepiimeital-

'croup Control Mean Oiffixential

err

97.6 :53.3 A4.344

68.0 60.2 7.141 61.5 61:0 . 0.5 74.0 65.9 8.1

/20.4

. 39.7 60.7** 69.9

68 .8 58.2 68.2

11.74,44 . p.4 :88.6 81.4 4 7.2

'

. .$338.68 $125.48 $213.2041

- 229.63 33.35*

'" -263.92 1541:::: 0,44

10194 536.33 -34.i9

,

. . .

_ ,S391.05

287:39

330,67_ - / $176.04 .

. 311.68 5215.010

' 21.95

26.99. :03.47 408.0t -54.54

.

.........)

$ 3I.59 $ 40.37 $ -8.79,*

32.32 48.44 -16.12,, 46.50 54.12 i, -7.62 44.22 54.79 -10.57 -

11.3 14.2 -2.9

10.3 10.2 0.3 11.0 10.6 0.4

16.8' 11.0 ' 5.8

56.9, 52.4 4.5 52.8 . 51.2 1.6 57;9 57.6 0.3 64.2 , 64.1 0.1

8.1 . 5.5 2.6

'1.2 9.3; 1.9 10.6 9.9 0.7

7.3 8.9 -1.6

17.1 16.8 00.3

16.8 15.2 1.6 10.8 14.0 -3.2

10.3 16.7 6.4

26.7 27.0 . -0.3 30.5 39.3 -8.8+ AviragedoMber o3 Athesti

Months 1 - 9 0.26

konths'10 - 11 .. 0.21

Months 19 - 27 0.11 Month028 - 36 0.27

0:20 0.18

0.16

0,18

-046

0.03 -0.05 0.09 -

00off:- Thew- data arivregression adjusted. Tlis Maximum sample sits for results during' months 1 to 18 is 861,,

.that-results during months 19 to 27 is 513,,and that for results during months 21 to 36 in153.

4.11 figurth'portain to the :thcal sample.

I. SignifiCant at the 1044thentlerel. two-tailld

1Pstatiatithlly'significant at the.5 percent *el. two - tailed test.

' 1 6'
t.

' ..;

C

tc, ; .HOURS'S-WOPER. :'/10 "

AOUTEUSAMPLE:

6 1r

1,11311t_ I 140

per

.. ' 100 --

"

r 4 40' 77'

... 20

=A*

0

\

. -caiseiolig= ,54ip0irte4'sitork -ioda

.."

0

.

t-,

3 5.4H. 21. 2427 30, ;3

1.10#11* After ,40,14000 tm the Sample

4 .4 0; s MOTE from #9 ;;9e#i*Am04.:,0,m;54-1.4.4fs#,Mr4440 significantly

only during Otel***:';*-tii44013 0#:64**.

, ^,?.?.(;Ci :cc s

c,

tec 0

. J

SS . ..,,,._,......- 5---",5

4'
Lire - appearing

:progranti_ where

overall" =

. :044,4*,,§0,

Iurtliesidore

Ranting`: th

euployed e

40,

,444-1i4o*,'Ot;:****10;4.-#4.,

,no ,difference, in. -the

it4e,

e!,:bbierifationarand,

:404044

:* *441. Perhaps the,

ese, employment

iis'.°and; controls= - e: pattern' 0f:- :employ

0*-001,01..#4,-74,iiierdent

4

rit;,during`. each- 9- month

,4!_age, rates:

aVeii44.44.4*tvieith43,41.-Ai4M-1,be#,,,hou;: k , ,

,crawswameharate...-,ya :*44.41?'.0.4e110;* 4.:,4#4 4*4.1,1S-4,;,Sif0:94:F§**

04*1#9:4't-41§4,41q,:t41§#4-:, vilio*-.0:044Y4*,0'

d5s*Iti*i*tts 44' : ;.-0*''' employment --#0.SS, ands- ;levels - --- for ;*!:.4*;04490**4-0,00' e'A:em9r'-' Strati004hO,,taCe4,:t*pOOriat 1:abOrMarket::0004itions

-those ,in*ei;r***,,-,'#artfOr4',- :=1,45v ?,14440444,4, ::44:14' dose '*.440410444F- t44114741#46, '40**7,- iffie$

4114#4s -404#44iriiiiStS,b00,-:0*45,10,04.4.44.4.4446S4

_an,i*,-So are: OnjY,,:sUggaStiiia:Of',a, ratargati24 :Strategy

to .focus ,the:0Ogra*'On> a -steaSt-of''yOuth:ieho, 0,u,14

44447 tO =benefit: ;from ,S4borte4-'itork.

Experimental°youth;:d d,stay in Supported, Work- 1On/sr

thaii controls ataired',, n '`riOniirOgraai',46hfa . _MO44

versus fOrskOnprOgraia 30#Y.

longer titipire,:i*itUpborteCt[Trorli jOhe bash

found to: result `in improvements an ,9t4ex,-a4merodons. . of eMOloyMerii=related'.-9,4#20M0*, such as - employment rat40plOYMentA;e1M40(***0 rate: ,SimilarlY, *,1

=lead ::to: sub- , StantialIy-AiffireneecOkAohs: *along-botheicperimeritas and- coin ',*='-tbi..x4s.,t,

quarters= ,of nOnprOgramo jOhs:- were in: manufacturing,

'retail tracia , they Were

mainly iii CI:erkoal,

occupations. Y.:

. . Total IndOina;,,and 4,741;faire,Dependeilce.- Not SuipriginOly, ,

th*-003okioniesi4te:i: -Supported

*46#:r0*:'1.*Iefj.4,,0*..i4##iP'axit.s: A .0,40iita.1444.1

140:e.#1**.ia44#,43 :_4:,444,4)1**'S9$

However; --4,-eiiivii#i*i:: 44. -,-1.eft!--teir.,Oupi)Orteci:,2-Wcirk

04%, **,S41 --#4i I#'01!ts''once. S_**'Sig404'*s that

. over #rOS'4S-'4!":iO4,41*4:i:000 044: 4144#0-. '1.344.4e 0:fli0tyf*dr -4-iiv.04n#04,:ti4f*t.q;sii*044.Wooth

4°
4nd' controls ,increased- ,in absolute

-0101#101*-:-0***.**3-40**0,

lied t's.ii4ske.4 *4:0. r, j; , tit) iiSeho c4,i,tt benefit

'levels; rase, 'ficiweVer, theaexperi-

-sWi*Si T00410- 'cPri0iPeritlyn

;O(5,:'§'**-'16,0*;:10AW*46*',1*-Ot c90#'01:s

;A' partia; eliptanatiOn,,ffOr:thie:',PersiStent reduCtion

in benefit; 4004 -4".60-01Yekt*****,..40 , *heik

higher. average" ;unemployment,:compensation benefits= -

during Uringthe-10214MOnth-petiodlafter enroftMent.

Thus,

, . . . while: artibipatit*";therieellies benefited,.

Supported`. Work, there-.was lift] a 'compensating reduction; 'from

transfer!;prOgraina:- eg-' the

deniOnStritt.On',-,-PartidiPantS.-experienced -ificonie-444s.

*#0ai'ili§443#4.14,,:thel*A.00g4ey',w4e. Supported

*004 4c4014d4Ok'Wilit****&:Eci4:4 P.t,01:00hsfits of-iesi-that0306#4,4n:increaie in OneMployipent Conteneatidk bone fit:6i z'o k *Oat.

Drug_ Use: tUPported Work had no overall -impact on

the-prevalence of -drug use During each follow-up

period-;,'between- 10-and 11' percent of both experimental and control youth. Used 'ome drug other than Marijuana, or -alcoho14.:5i1 -to percent used marijuana; and 4tO

11 percent.Ute&alCohOl every dayor nearly every day. Furthermore,. thereis no strong "eliidende. to suggest

that., the, Prograni. had. significantly different impacts' for individuals 'With particular characteristics, nor

is there :a consistent relationship between experimentals' alid-d-oiffrai drug. tied and their employment status.

Criminal Activities. On average the Supported Work

, emplOyment'oppOrtunity. had'. no significant impact on

criminal bahaliid.rlainbng; sample yOuthr either 'during

,the when eXperiMentaiS were in .their prdgram

jobs or subSeqUentlY. DOring each of the first two

:91:mont.h Period's; about :17 perCent of both experimentals and contrOIs repOrte&"haying.'been arrested and, among

those, arrested;` the average number. of.,IsrreSts was

.between 1.2 and 1.5. Between 15 and., 20, percent of '' these arrests Wara;fOr.rObbery.' During the 19- to

274iOnth! period,, lower perdentageOf experimentals

thari,.dontrOls- rePOrte&'the occurrence . of an arrest

t20 .versus. 14.'percent)7 a result' which, while not _statistically -eignitipank; -is-related-to- consistentlymore4avorabld-responitis kto-Sppported -Work among

those eariiest.eziredlieee-iiho were followed for at

least 27 Months- HOwever, by the

28- to 36-4nonth after enrollment, there' appears

5,1 9
,

, 4 to be no ftirther favoable impact of ,..Supported Work

that,,PrOeiraza-

<ei:iecivAxvcr

among identifiable subgioups of youth. As .with'the.

employment results,. there ar. hints that if the

14.1.0-4024#0.04e:40,0:140in:,#.4**-,014*;4):40:44* *0004-*E**41*.0, 0:******* ang those-who were

younger. RowevCr, among other youth subgroups, the

0014***1,0.4;-"#,4**0104.*3' eXhibited

, ... tra,:'.thiLynittle,,OiniitOrted*Ork, _....._......_ .;:nOt.ear,-..,..,, 1%11411,.,

*40=-1*e* i..6:***Ilit:40:',.0,*.f.'11*..:: pouts :

.., ,,,-1**50.-1.

i,'-00.;

0.,'. 1, 9-01-0064

'10-4e344c4i'*§41StfOr' p p. AsLalconsequenpe of

_,- .. ..

... ilici,,f46,,F.Pgra.;:i?"444c*#,c,,,,.....-:-,-:IP2414, , 0O11*1-, 0 004P44-, ed-..*Okic for -, 'it*.f.i,`-P*4.,h.l.:0,-.,- 4-41',4:400*-AtatIOPOti-APaiit.44,*.ic-beiefis,0,-#4'40es h

0'`,1,;.uliii0A141:t.icrii*.,aji4.-'444%-a#.0-'-'004.04#'-t-O'Sici44... j' ,1.4.?..*#t4;;,.: )i','401

aver.age..,OrappAitY.$ikapf ,:iler-ita,r444410:1014in.,-. Thus in assessing whether

or not ,Siiii3P0.*..te4".*9,0c;=40.1*,'04**40g;'0.01` federally sponsored 'programs '-

'*iteiti.0044-to.,44,-With--yOuth,eatpioinaent problems, it is important to

mei4h this net subsidy ,oOst iigaintit the social Ohjeptive. of aohieving':

.. . .. , relatiVely 'aiOdeit ahOrtf,terni, eniploliniant and inccr gains

)

1,0

.0

41* ,2o

.6

iti\\

cr.Z

sr_

:

I. 4

I
.ciiiPt0 1. S. _,YOUTH. UNEMPIAYMENT ,AND wSUPPORTED WORK , 1,"'

:Among cert.-14 subgroups in our -society,, emPiOYment ,problems are

-,particillarly.iprevalent and persistent. The sOlircen OD theSe problems

are, varied', but.,Major ,faCtore-inClUde ;lack of .eXperience.anct training,

,p9Oritorktibits, ineuffidient motivation, and diecriminatiOnbyAMployere.

_ _ ReCdgisilzing the serious consequences. of theie employment problems, both

-

,.- -to.:--the individuals, , . themselves: _ .. ,.,... and: to society, a consortium -Federal:

,4_. ..,.., , 4 .. , --i

, . . , , agencies, -with--the-pipartaiintr-Of-L-Labor-as--the,--lead=agency, undertook a . M?Ilj 0#' ilemonatration -and- eireliiatiOn of Supported Work prograiak. These

. ;programs - provide Work -experience` for a, year or so, Under, conditions of

',gradually increasing performance standar4si close and suppOrtiversuPeririsiOn, and-Peer group support.-The four target groups that were

444. -fodue, of this deitioMti4tiOh; include Long -term recipients pf AFDC;

addicts,

N. (IX-Offenders:, and young 'aChOol, dropouts. ,""*\

The evaluation Tzomponent of .the demonstration was. designed to

thet,

ex-

'measure the, ecOnomic and social impacts of SUpported Work.- _To facilitate

_ 4 this 'reilearch ohjectivei.:ih io of the .demonstration sites,, eligible

aPPliCante"tO.SlipPorte&Fork 'Were randomly ,assigned to either an

e ,,., "experimental=' 4rOl.ip.244'Offered. a SUPported Work job ,or to a control

4 0

, '.Ne .

.. group:

.

. ',Sample members- were then ,gichecin.lod to be _ ......... then,. . interviewed;At enroll.-

. 0. - _idefitl.and- at..subee4uent'',9Montly-intervale for ,;up to b.#4. yea :s:

....,, .. .. ,

4

o . The ,inaini COliceril' of report-is ,to assess *lie extent to-which

SuPporta4'Work is an effective program, for mitigating the ,chronic

a
eMPloyMent.prOblemifaced,by-ydOiai' pirticularlY school, dropouts and

thoSe,froM.,ethnic minority groups who face- the most severe problems.:1/

IA' recent -,years

- `federally funded eMployment-Alited programs

%. . have terY0.0ver 7 million youtki Pq*Year, yet high unemployment rates

haye persisted., While- the immediate and longer-run consequenr s of this high.

UnemOlOyMent:rate.amOng,youth., particularly minority youth and school drop:-

ate.uncertaizf, it has been suggested that in the Obit run,

uneMplOyMantmaTincreaSe-the.1401ihOOd'of involvement incriMe

(singell, i967;.'MOoneY,j.979'; Funke, 1978;, Elliot and Knowles, 1978)

and,the.use- Of drUgi,(01bOnneli et al., 157.6), ande,that in the Ionger-run

(

it may tend to,perpetuate employment problems, (Osterman, 1978; Adams and,

Mangum, 1978; and &Prete, 1978). This chaptgr discusses the sourdes of

youth-unemployment! publicpolicy appraches.to alleviating he problem,

evidence of the effectiveness of these various employment-related

programs serving yOutli, and the role of Supported Work in the nation's

youth -anent policy.

A. SOURCES OF'YOUTil UNEMPLOYMENT

As can be°seen in Figure I.1, the unemplOyment rate among youth

rose substantially between'1966 and 1977, since Which.time there hasbeen 'some decline coincident with an overall improvement if the employ-

. .ment situation. A number of factors are commonly cited ascontributing

. . V /he unemployment rate8ng black youth has

twice as large,_as ttlst for white youth, and that among,

is between 55 percent' (forck youh) and, 78 percent

higher than among:schOolgfiduates (U:S.Vepartment.of

BUreau of Laboettatistia, 1978) ,

22'

'bein more- than

school dropouts

(for white youth)

Labdr 1978b and
**,;4' .

3,0

P40474.49f1`

Unemployed: , ,

2420

.

.S , .

. 40340 IN ii4116NAi.'ONESP44031# RATES

e

.01#0,4O4POthee

'16-, to 19-Y4:4'744.1s

Mite 16- to 19-Yuar-Olds

1970

1 I I 1975

I'

, I-, i

1979

4 '

.S;

.

S.

SOURCE: 'Employment-and Training Report of the President, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of labor, 1978,

and NEWS,.WasbIngtbn, D.C.: 'U.S. Department'of Labor (various issues).

,

'W 23-

. - xt\

4.
.,. .

. . .

. . 1 to the ,persistOnce of these high rates. Oneis thewlOw skill levels and

1. I. -lack. of experience of pony df these youth which, together-with the rising

miamum wages, may result in an unwillingness among employeritoshire

4 .%. ;:,7outh when adults-are available fOr work (Barton and Fraser, 1978).

f

, AnOtheidause.may simply beiicriahition on the part of employeis

. 0" .. cm*

---- - ( Diamond-and-Bedrosian, .1970).. Yet -her , factor influending this

. ,

. growth in unemployment is. the increase in both fhb youth. population

.

. 0

- -, and'its'civilian labor -force part..cipation rate at a time when the

participation rate among women, in particular, was alsO increasing. 'ror

example, between 1964.and.1977 the total labor force increased by .26

percent (from 77 to 97 million persons); two-thirds of this totalincrease

was youths. age,16 to 19 and adult.females, who together had vOnstituted

4

only 40 perceptok the labor fOrce in 1967. These 20 million new

entrantslinto the labor force were faded with an increase tf only 16

P million jobs and, for a variety f reasons noted previously, youth

haire.been relatively less successful than.other

for those jobs.

Exacerbating t his general rise in youth unemployment has been

an/ increase in the duration of, unemployment spells: In 1966,,only

11 percent of the unemployed 16-1io 19-year-olds were unemployed for

as iOng,as 15' weeks; by 1977( this figure had risen to 15,percent.

- Since mucp of the youth unemployn;ent appears to be.due to zoyements .

groups intompet ing

in and out' of the labor fords, overall unemployment rates maybe affected

considerably with only small shifts in the duration of unemployment spells.1/

i

Clark and Summers (18.7.8) provide evidence of a substantial

porton of,youth unemployment. i being related to the'high rate of' movement .

. n and out of the.-labor force. 7

.
, 4 Mt' the

;

: ' . ,

..t. ..... it couple of .-Years, there htiebeen- some 7general .Z.A.% ---: ..i

. .- ff

- imprbVemen. in1:,the eConOmy- which;together with the increased federal

4 .... - 'I, spendin¢, for -Youth-employment lirograme, .has fed to some inipravemelit ". ' , e, - .

. 1 , 4 r; . in the-"lciiith_ elkilOYment "situation:' iinemploymeht.dr4Ped from a high Oti, -, A s

. .220 peraent- in 1975tto16:_Peraent during the first half of 1979. HoweVerlt,

disproportionate `share- -of the-siiii in employment was among white ':4 )

.y. yoUth_who-.hill completed high' school.

. -:

.

a

'') .-T"' 'XS P014911 'MANS, 'TO, REDUCE' YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT 0 -I.

. ,,,...,, 7.n responie to the Peilistently high unemployment rates. among -.

, ..... -. y6lIth there has been a continual- expaiMion of programs desi,goiaci :,.. _.. - to

.,,. . . :. .., ._ improve, :theft employient. opportunities.

. SUch program:1 have tended to

4

focus an increasing educational attainment, improving job skills, and

prd vi 444ork ,r

, The first, such Lisrogrami were instituted under 'the.Manpower

DevelSpment and Training Act,:.::(MFiA) asiendments of71963, which emphasikk

job training andretraining programs.-- These were

the Neighborhood Youth Corps (NYC) and :lob Corps,

followed' closelY by

which :mire es;tablished

under the 1964 iconomic;Oppdrettulity Act. . The NYC provided work

., '..7N-....-'''''-'-5..":- . -'4; -- . .5 I, ' .,-

.- -., . - i ',experience' to both in-school and out -of- school youth from low-income

, ... ,

, . . .. far:..liee; while Jpb 'Orps. was a more comprehensive residential program

Which' provided remedial education, skills training, work exiierie?ice, : . counselling, and. health' caie:y These three programs together served an ii.

.0

. See Tables' A-5 and '8-8 in, The .Eniloyment and Training keport :Of thi_President, bepaitnient of -Labor,- WasftingtOn,'',p.d,-, 19713, and.. recent *issues of- NEWS:- The Employment Situation, U.S. Department of Labor; maabingtonk

:44: See 'Le.Vitan and dolupitoxi- (1975) for a description of the Job COoll;i:prog 'a

;
of '500,000 yoiith '44344 061' to- 197,3=,- yet the total

4**'0 004?1;044,Sili00-#4404* 4se.-Arld:',t444,41.41140e

unemployed reiaairied -fairiY,adtabie:

- , _ JiLeXeCOgnitiOn:of the 4,4t that the, and the-to .....4

,1 1- 4'' _ > ; ''. '-, , -ieduCe-UheiplOYMent-Varie&-WidelkaMon4 segments of-the-UheiOloyed

.:, tOpulatiOn.ara:among laborMarket-_,areas, the CoSiorehensiVe*Oloyment

and,Trainih4 Act 10ETA) was enaCte4 *1973 to permit much irtatar local

autonomy for'e0Ploymedt,Poliak-debitionTmaking. -Tbid ict,proVided

,.:f4hdi#g-fora,hurnbeel5f-PrO4rAMA.to serve'Unemployed.iouth the

EMplOyabiiity Development PrOgraim (CETA, Title 1); Pliblid Service

Employment (CETA, Titie4 fi`and VI); Selective Segments Program (CETA,

Title III), as well as the Job Corps (CETA, Title IV).11 -By 1977,

these CETA-!sponsored programi4 together with other federally funded

programs, such as WIN (the Work Incentive program) and the HEWslaonsored

J -,vocational rehabilitation programs, served 2.7 million youth.

More recently; ad Congress has greatly expanded employment

services for youth thrOugh the'Youth Employment and Demonstration

Project Act (YEDPA) of 1977. 1977: A,major directive of YEDPA, which provided

. jobto nearly 400,000 youth in fiscal year 1978, is to improve our

7 .. knowledge of-the causes and potential -cures of the employinent problems , .-

: .

. of both in-school sOd.out-Of.=School youth. The knowledge develcipmeni

plan for YEDPA includesboth-asscsaMents of miring CETA programs,

! -

. ,subb as Job Corps and-the Sumper'youtbEmployment Program (EYEP); and

demonstrations in the areas of public -.and private-sector Job development,

- 4

.1 1/ 1 7-$ TheseCETA titles refer to those prior to,the October 1978

reauthorizatian.i

l
'Wage. subsidies -and Wage ahers,- anitgrograns aimed. at various special

4.10mmits. of the -unemployed youthrtthose.stiil enrolled in school,

delinquentS,Aeanawajsi- and SCh001-dippoUti.

C. ,CONCLUSIONS-TROMEALUATIONS OF OTHER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS i : - In large these various approaches to alleviating

r 7-.;i _yOnth--.14neMpioyMmntproblemthaiie been motivated by an emerging literature

- that-prOvideS'theoretiCaL:andOpiric41,sUppoit for-hypotheses concerning . . t40-generaiCaUseS-.-and-donSegOdneSofnnerniaidyment. -A brief review ofthis literature provides uSeful.background information foi subsequent

. . discussions :of the goals and expected effects of. Supported Work programs

The first major category of literature discusses Amployment

as afUnction of factors either inherent in or being attributed,to the

ID individual. According to human-capital theory, education, training,

and labor-market experience constitute the important determinants of

employment opportunities and labor supply. wage'rateone can

'earn and, hence, one's supply of labor increases with the level of

huMan capital. And high unemployment among youth, particularly young

School dropolits, is thus eXplainedas due totinadequatehuman capital.

. . - . , - .. . See The.Employment and Training Report of the President- U.S.

q Department of Labor, Washington, rix:, 1979, and~A Knowledge Development

Plan-forYouth,tnitiatiVeS'Fisdai 1970," U.S. Department of-Labbr,

Washington, D.C., December 1978, for descriptions of these research

and developmentPrOjeCts.

. ,

' i .a/

., . -.. Becker (1962) provides the foundation for much of this

literature. Others Making significant-contributions include Ben',

Porath- i1967).4 Blii,der-and'Weiss 11976), Mincer (1974), and Sewell and

Hauser (-1974); . . .
- _-

This #4#0SP04.0.34,W*-11;413-g1449 the low-income population,

lasibeen-chillenged -however :- Adbordingte one altetnatiVe-theoky - -the

, . - . . ,duaLlabor=markettheorp-,high 'unemployment is due to sorimination in

,a J..' the labor ,market- rather than -a-aack of ,basiSkiiiS (Doeringer and Piore,

1971; Gordon, 1912; , Hammexilesh, 1971) , with youth and those of limited .

. education .thought to be among the groups distriMinatecl-againitet

another view of the'workingsOf the labor market is that education-and

_ -tiatziing are used as scre-:ening,, mechanisms to determine to whom joOP.Ofiera

. wrill be made and at what wage, rates (Thurow, 1972); once again, youth _ .... _

. . will. have -fewer credentials than older members of the labor forc and

, so can be expected tvexperience relatively high unemployment rates.

Still other literature points to such _institutional constraints as

minimum-wage legislition as important in determining employment by

. J restricting dema for example, .Gramlich, 1976; Ragan, 1977; King,

'.4:x..-"--".17. 1974) .

A'second category of literature discusses theoretical arguments

and empirical evidence in support of the view that unethployment is

attributable to differences. in 'labor-supply decisions themselves:

Indi4riduals weigh the monetary gains from working against the costs,

which include both the value they place on alternative uses of their

time and work-related expenses., A number of factors may. affect the net

monetary gains from working, including various tax rates (partj.cularly

the income talc and the implicit welfare tax rates), 'expenses for such

items as child care and transportation, and foregone home production

activitiesnone of which is expected to be particularly butdensome

foi youth-as compared with other subgroups in-the P:dation. However,

29 14
'eo4e'llaiie2argUeci_i_ that YOUth:P*e*;relatilie1Y- high value on leisure

:4*0%):4::P*Fqq.44404144040000i10090 tIle4:P4#11t4 for

4 for. According- to thia argutent, sippgrt *1-020";-,h00

ttie *oi#4.ftio4:144-4-4413::sk=:!forCe. en and:.exit .ratea for -youth are

bebaUSe-.-they tend _tb -be- ..,than -other grOupS, to work Steadily

at preyei/ingi.wage rates 01terinan, Levitan. and Belous,. W7).

aimed: at eouTc44. unemployment : among special segments

of the oh ih,vii4c.h, yooti:12. .a..te. _highly represented or among, yOUth

Spedi4cally .have- beeri- 4* varied as the theories concerning its causes.

They include Job Opportunities in the Business Sector (JOBS) , Opportunities

Industrialization Centers (DIC), the Concentrated Employment Program (CEP),

Job Corps, the Neighborhood Youth Corps, (NYC), various programs ponsored

Under CETA legislation (including the new YEDPA programs), and numerous

smal-1 demonStration (or experimental) programs aimed at special subgroups

of youth -- particularly. delinquents. While there is a sizable literature

. describing many of these programs, most programs, unfortunately, have

a. 1/ - not been carefully ekialuated.-.1 Furthermore, the methodologies employed

, in the various analyses that have been conducted often differsufficiently

that crosi-program comparison* have no meaning. Despite_ these short=

comings, a brief summary, of the-nOure. and impact of some of these

alternative strategies May provide some insights as to the likely effects

of Supported. Work for youth.

The JOBS:program was designed to overcome employer prejudices

and discrimination in the hiring of disadvantaged persons, among whom

11.

Those,. Programs funded OEmployment Demonstration

, uic ee -1.rojeCts Act ,(Yiti4):'of: ere too to have been subjected. to more

than a descriptive ranalyses, -4.$4, though.. more 'thorough, analyses are planned.

4- -- - 1-
'V(

e

r ...., -. -0410010ii*4-. 11,01#4,40.%0716#0k,13..le#0,4: ?.40,4,' 04,-00 ';*.. te'el. 411, a

_ ' : ..,-.-.., ,.- -, ',..--,..,..,2, ....-._ -,,,,,,--. ..,,,....: ,;...,,'''.:;::::''::. ,...,---_,:i:,,:,'...;-:'....--',? 'v ... .. , ..- . .. + 41-04*4,4**404444t'4A14,04.40.04044444.5t4e,Pit.Ok**:*Nir'

.-. . , . - ,. ..:-_,-,.; - ,-,,,-- -- ,;. ,:- :- :- ; . -'-',°. -:.?-f,,;:_ ,,,-:-; ':-...--., 7 -- -:: ,,,-- :indeed have reduced prejudice among eittPloyera. :(dreenleigh -Associates,

, , , , ,--, -.-. ,- 016.),, );,,i:;t:'11451,9417- '44*"Ei-aiii impacts 4.-#.:e*t4°-$44 except among

:-01S,Cle'WriiiiitiiAFirbee 1971) . . ,, ,

, In contrast to JOBS, ..ihe, (3IO:!'prograR as orie#1:14lAow:4,;Itthe

., . ,_ , ..

, ,boyi,4641,10g,jo"410.45T.

have been hised-primarilf-

,I, for youth. ,i;v:14uai.i.Oil*Hiii;.. .4e,-9-,,ft,:. -isilii.20h .. - ,:' ''',, 7::'.-,-

on 'inprograii ,- data for :program participants . '- --_--=7.'

only, are inadequate to assess 0e:15;bgt**0;' - . The OP Wai -des44*..-Pi.iie4.P,icAth-covercOiektioloyer

l!****41-Y'hy-'iiirdvi,,c449 youth with some employment ,3044hP14410.4 subsequent

job-Search assistance. One of the most goiSPrehdaive. *Oil:nations Of, - , .

, , (Kir:Jchner Asaociatee, 1900., 'which relies on acomp_ar ison of',participants'

behaVicir before g4ia. after:--part;igipation in CEP Suggests -thitt .the rora

' -,1'1,:, . tc .. ,

- . led. to ,post-program erviOwient*,and' wage 'gains. Other enialuatons have

. - 4 -0 0 . 1 ' .j ,. 0 ArtiVed at more negatiVe conclusions, however, perhaps bOCause ei

lanthodological cliff:Oranges, crdst-program differences, Or bgth.2-7

- .. '`,-C.-,_ -:':: - 4;:: ,.. .

',4" . '.',. . ' t: '. r-,---

- . - , , ,..i.- .,-: , ,. -' , '

. -, : ..7 ----',,, ,,1) -* -1' -. : . ' ` . 11 4_ ' rry et,,ai,-.7(1797,0,','idleagrine-:the.Weafcnessea'Of these and -.i.- :-.'-,..

',. -ilem#4,,.other ;evaluatiCha:Of' this pi'6,,;2;i. 44.94 tO:o;iii on .somewhat'

different Pqr9:1#04',L6 '0*4044v.',41.ce401Y .1=..-.,* P00075:444,'-':#4,/e at

difEerent ,Iir394-0.4'110074it4.14.-**444ii. inconsistent conclusions.

, ,

, , , 'FO'fcle Sae, Barrt '(-1974), Olyikpus-'Re04.0h '94113oratigh

(101), Scott ,(1909),,' Lawrence, '11970,, Peterson ,(196,0-,=`*r444151tson and

Young -0468y., . - for example, 4-sintalter 119*, discusses the potential*

1:1_;944t.4''411;-4,..44:1!)?-04e.:04.-,40,0#1p4.04(?-nk"--in evaluating* the

effects of mànpowe programs 1on earnings gains.

.

' 3I--16'

_ . .,*;.' .,: """--. .,

"
2

7 . .S ',',41.' , . . , , , '

' , :1:- ''''

.

.s i t -7, ',' . , ....e.` . . . r '"'" - ;,'''1, -,,,,

' '' II .- ' - ,. ,,, - , '- ^. .

.....

rik

-:

,, ?Theearly 'N.1,1O, lircgra#Snseri*:haiiii,edc,.e.fiperiende,.arid- $4.4.0.-

.31itiWiiiti'llikle:"hiid little. 6verall:,64tect-in-sub'sequent :employment of

,,,1,--'..'.:' .-!..,*:.,,,- ,!:' .,,,;: -, \: ,- . ,.,-, ,,, -: , , .,,, , , -140i4044644i040.400:40.p..#1.*4,4i:.,r 1974,- In :179i

. '. iO4iiv,'Niaat:4k4'0f102.44.--:Fii4:e7,7.F!0:4-4-9# skill development ..,

neSion-i'w.dorkA edonOmic impact of therestuct'ure progiam he not . Job. Corps has Abeen the locus of 'numerous evaluations. Since

its inception '044, this P#0(#4i*hFls'..toPLIed on providing training,

=",,. ,.7S

.

. V S",7, "?: ` i

' .'- 7..,' ""-C3c 1

.^, _ edifaition,:and, COier,14#4..,:. of ''S..-UP.itive' 'asSiStanae, in residential `-:-',.' - :

,,

;_ . ..- ..

, , 1

a . ..., .

'?,...',, , centers ! #1. l'9ilt-4,1.f#0.*:;;0./i-#.0.04, families and

"

with a ,'ba.Ok9;0.4jA:,ahaiac- :-: -teri*ed,.*'"'Ou.i.Ural. dePriii,rat.ion0=tYOuth who, in terms of background

,,

, 'characteristics, are very similar to those youth enrolling in 'Supported

,.'Work. Evaluations duringi:JOb:,'COrPs.''tirst few ,yeas of operation provided.

mixed evidence of the progàmss ecoiomic impacts However, more

;cadent studies employing' carefulliielected comparison.igroups and more

rigorous evaluation techniques have shown that, in contrast to other

employment and training programs for youth,. the Job Corps program, operating

. 1 . . 4 this-. Mid- to .1-ate seventies e*ei, seem:to f " . 4 . , s

- . 'have had favorable economic

. _. . , f Al -

. 4 .

',:t,:-,; f : and noneconomic impacts on :Partiaipants. Among the most noteworthy

",;-.,,-,,`' ., . .A . .. . , , Bitc".-±.1tr.15-4-4s (D'allar et 1979) .

- . On average, seven months "after leaving the, sikajraia,., , ,

, . former .CorPsikeinbers

'6000 4Z*4 Ai* jjaOw:a:;:;100:iiitt jai34:04. youth were more likely ,;t0-

14-*440e4444.4*e_:(0*Ork44,24,ercant), earned higher average

income s per month), .Less dependent.cin welfare

For example, Harris and 'Associates (1967), Cain

(l96), an&Engliman ''.(1971)"-

_ -
' -- S. eT ;

.7!

7,_,...;,,,-.:1-,.....4-.....:..,........ , .

....,... : ,..., ,,,,...

, . ,

. ` , . _ .?.,. :-. 4:444-#44% '*;"*.u#1,P#*.l:ii lower pcehtage of cop e*ers than

*!!'.1.Pf.r1449.1i.044.W*e'.*-#,4e4" iiP,*- 4144.1:;04 time !001=9*104.8;,*442..

.

r

,

in the Job -ddipst,lifograih and subsequently. intidti

skills, nutii.tion and health habits ,40404-114ti#4:.h4340.4#:*.r.-re

teetS = t'AssOdiat 1.97 )-._

1 O-ohifent,- on the ewpreIiflthary

results there are of '003#a-*k* of the more rcent federally ponsored

prat-ft-ilia. =aOmbit-yOUth,,uhoiapiokiiaat ihati.air the ,YoUtittiitifoinieht and

Train3.ng Program, the $1-004-*.#44P4ok0.0t t.r:94**% 't-11#;.*4141g,1?kc,114t

Conservat3.on Corps, the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Prbects, the,..

, .

. *Ob.* ,COanauhitY c.#1S.0#1:744i§P, and *P F,Oe.meilt,ro:SO:t s and numerous

. 'fitiideetitidet Of' ". . *Sad on this :e:41.4ehol, frOnt.PreliioUs. research, we are certain

. . .. jit only one-thihgthst yOUth hhelopiOeht AhaS:rithherbi4S,-OafiS41-that

- reqüitea variety of. t:teathientS. 'One. of the biggest johi-,Of fhtUreeltsi.uatiohreseatOK will be to identify which Polidy or PrOgrais_pre-

), s'OriptiOnS successfully address the employment 'needs of Which- group

yout1 h-7: t

d.

D. SDITDR#P7WORiC §.Y4.44, IWPAP4c11-T0-7.W. C74PUTRI.

Sind*. 1;915,. eight of the nátona1 stipporte4 -tgotk-aopoiOration

programs 44 beCn, prOviding a ápéàiál temporary

: 71

,. 2 A number of other employment-related P demoriStrStioh-4tOgranS.f0tc youth .have focused primarily on outcomes not 01444'; 47,-.40:04ent; al.10,ito, '- are not t.setiqiili4sr.- relevant .:to:'. this AS' Oftisiiih. '.1..o. .ogi.iiiipi4i, a.. B]..,

et ,a)::.. (141.,7). 44',d.arie..(400...icit.-s. description of 'demonstration,0,0,,,i,

04*d, mainly ,a...# -delinquent youth Ti740 Skidii.$ -0#.0414; -9iir':',1*Ssi1410Sa, , :1 9.041c4i.1490i'' 090#**4.- 4*(404 -440*qta;. .cilYe,iiiiiic100. OW - and , 00.4is4: 130:4444.,,

-However, -'0114r-4*-4-,--86***,',PitiO*10,043c4 limitations i80g4.04 from saili4.,

,samples : -c:;',..1:#4,00.04atiii)4:11000#4:6A-4**94s,'
. ungLschOol_droPoUts,with,lon t 'din abpi g- oymen"t-problems.1/

% !! 41140411tY-0***ta for thi114s..WPoqe4 Work target group are

striz4 in Table l._-Through a set-of support structures, this

program aims 'to prepare 04e young people for transition to employment

1.4,tba-,-te4Ular::):46*Ifigriiiii after a maximum of 12 to

".

' - tipa oã in --a Suppoited Work job. A supportive work environment

.olugh-:WOrk eeeignm- entain crews of peers and -*ough-.

close supervision by individuals who both understand the. work histories

Ocv.13.4rePriai:424i0k4#OUhcls'og.-theiX,_ crew members and will enfOrCe, gradually

increeSed.liandards.:Of -,attendanCa and ierforinanae. ,Supported _Work job*-

.reqUire, loWs-S1.4114 iinil...they:-Pay? relatively low wages. .However, there is

ren:OpPOrtUnity. -for. indi?iduall 'to, increase their program_ earn.ings

through bonuses and promotions' ' for good performance and regular attendance

'ipon in :51 a prOgraim may mitigate a number of the

faCtOrs..thCuOt'.'to, be related to the unusually high unemployment among

this segment of the you population. First, it roVides Jul. opportunity

for participants ,' to del.tei.OT, 4004 .work habits:, Se . .nd, it permits;th_". em

#014.4114.0 a i40.0.C11.4*9.*Y. W44111014 4:009%1!! 01019Yera' willih4POs

7;

'

t4.:hire thetax: Third, iii "Cal -initencesks_e_youth=.3411-acquire

4,0' '-:. --..- ..,.-','-- ..-- .. ..

....:. -SPeciO.O7-Work-skills-throUgh,..theki .j00 .experience. Fourth, Supported

, s, ... _ . , . . .. -Work -include" jóbreadinall-traihirig..and. job-placement CoMponents- designed ...

' to fao4aitats he transition egular- elploymimt: Other important

.

- -*sly programs £r. located in Hartford, Jersey City, -Massachusetts, New York City, Philadelphia, West Virginia (five -counties

in the northwest region of the State).., -andloiv-du=7,ac and,'Winnebago counties, tytiti1#44.410#11111*!14re.,40104/t"FIC100r4MS Bergen County, Atlantic _ 24ilyaukeit, end the. Weiltern

41441604-WiS,FOnlin '0,sve,:-beiini *lima* youth.

19,
t° OilnAlIGEt qRouP'

-SigTORTED-RR

FlAcint ImP;olment

EinI4orelA HifttOrY

,School- Status

iNittar-y7of,-Contact with"

law"Entorcemen Agency

-

yeara

94rentiy unempiyed:

40 ;hours. worked: during,-the,,last foUr- weeiCe

.No.,More than:-three- Montha.; in: One,

job la, 'jOk,of 20 Or ,,M9re,-hOura weeks

-iluring, last iii.ii,MOnths;

No:.pireiiOuf:',.PartiCiPation .in ,either

the-eValnatiOn

0401 'groun

No high -SChool or high-School equbialehay

diploma

No ,enrollinent in. school during last ilk

Month!

-A-recordrof-delinquency (for it liait 50 percent of the_Yeuth enrolled) r`

. -

'SOURCE: :-Summar ,of. the:«SeColid'-Annual RePort.lon_theAational-SUPported.

Work Desionstration, :New' .7°06 -,Nanpower Demonstration Aeiearch Corporation,-978.'

NOTE: At the ;prOgramks:Clistretions. youth may- be. termed ineligible if

they live,:in a, reaidenCe.:or were referred by a, source that

requited, them to be employed.

I
int the:SuPpOrted- Work exPelience,mak,:be. reduced: welfare "

,- -

inVopirenaiui in. Orinte,, and lower rates drug. use

thaiwo44oitherwiSce be eXPectecia tirOgraM, e#ecte the last two

areas _Could, :leo4mprovess,c144urer-emploYMent-7-oppOrt 24 '.

TO:id4:abs the 'onit,yoUth=Oriented :Progrart for 'cykri.6.h there is.

,convi.nOing- evidence of favorable ,p,OltprOgraiiimpacts is, AO Corps:

_ which a lis tizgUl4(from the variety of other _program* .1oted

!' .. its -residential clitarict,eri its:More comprehensive provision education,

g, a,nd employetens*,eXperience,, and its client .population' (Which

: ,

ten ,-?tsi.s;b41 more 4,isadvenialfid). (Insofar as Supported -Work ,serves

4" a disadvau tagad_ciient_population- and-providel -some-special .

ef- suppoktive -ftratturss.-Atividdition to work experience, there is some / reason tot:4XpeOt that it may improve t14 employment situation of par-

-.

ticikating youth`., Roweiiii, in its emphasis on work experience, Supported

. Work is more similar tonAhe variety of programs for which there is more

liiited evidence of favorable post-program impacts.

E. ORGANIZATION OP THE REPORT

iite_=-

:this report_estimatel the economic and-social -consequenbewfor

youth participating in five Supported Work programs. In addition-to

'tZ) aiinsiderini overall impacts, it addresses the issue of whether the program

Might be more efficient -if targeted toward another group- or subgroup

of youth or whether such a program .shouldbe implemented under only

1 About' 87 percent of Job Corps enrollees 'have not completed high

school!, 70.pm:cent are ,froar minority ethnic.: groups, 33 peicent ate from families receiving public ailistance, an4 i0 Percent of the-males have been con ' Victod a, offense (U.S. Department Of Labor, February 19784., - YEL -c.
-

.- -;!;:eitain.:economip:anClahor-Imarket conditiOne. - Ati**-00. j3;r614044 7hacligroitte informatiOn'

#0.4tthelte*041*ii:PrO4rOalieingletUdied;-and:discUtisee4sspes

Jr104iti4t-0 the ;e$04r4g404/PotheeeS,:ed'dreSeed'es4-the. analytic, technic/1;0

-employed' #the-e4einati:Oni. chepter4*.t,d4pUeSee-em014m4rit-related

- cputOMes:,Of:SuppOrtedlip051-:wh4Ch;a0-the.pristry focus of` the study,

. -chipteretTthOUgh:V7*'preient fiodingS,Ilated',reSpectiVeli, to

incom sourcesjand.Jn4incittreiteferien.4-UtieendAnVolVepent

crAmin-; ;tq0Nities.

4

,,,

--rk

1 Three-_COmOtiniOnreportik,p4sent the results of evaluation of

SUPPortedWork'i effe0t0,4r,lon4=tettereapients of AFDC, ex-;addicts, and

ex- offenders. Another report preset*: 04.11-binii4tdost analysis.
11_

EvIttu.ATIONT DESIQd >tAND=

I 1 ,.

.SUPPORTED; wORK sTUDY

. The,,krimary task ... .. .COMPonent-uof' the tuPPorted: . i.

.

,; Work; -(.4,104f.;r:4.1011.2ik=0 Whether. participation in Supported

- 'J

WO#k- favorably ,affiatt etiplOystint 'behavior: Irt. order,

- t? i4ext:Ta'fioF9ge#y. the. 'findings: reported 4in subsequent, chapters

-Of- th: i" Al report;. it 4.* ini-POrt):int to'- 'understand: the .basic :featitres f-. '.

- -'. :t.,- the evaluation ,desfgn (including :the resulting data base' and -Sample

. Ohirac---.teriaticiY -an- d ti? be fiuitiliar With tharaCteriatics. of the .._. ,,...... . _ .. . . , ,Par : '

, 4 ,

tioular. Supported: Work -:programs. under _study. 'After addressing' these

. ti ~issues, key, research :1413ot:hese* 'are described, the potential impact

Of -.31641440r market conditions' on these. hypothesized, outcomes is

considered, and, finally, ,the. analytic approaches .tsed :141 theejudy

4 '

. outlined..:._ P Q.... #

i :

. TI EVALUitION,,DE9IGN

are

Detortnitiing the.-impact of Supported Work invOlveS knowing

what, 4:he._behavior_ of .pitrticipants .woixid-lave been had they not

-pate& 44 Supported' Work. his etOitt:.:pratiouti emplOyMent and

tra"iningf*Ogra$,, 01404.44r4P9cikiri004#hek:)- i'1049!:-9071tir

gro4 of hon04-40ipanti who have characteristics similar to participants

or by comparing tire behti vior'Of sampie.-mtmbers' before and' after pa.Aici-= ... , , .. -. ' -- 4 . Pating..44 the,P#OgraM. BOtk-Methodi.'Og!'ailisesSing ,program. impacts have

.

- .. - 3SXiPtli. -149rt.90449. -90").'-41b, overcoie, only by randomly

'V.6r 05.F,P' te s 16., '(1976.) -;Ooliatein (1974),

lGiractisky anft= 'Mahar ,11977)`: ,

.1

. ,
00

, sample over time in each site.

seleCtst01.6ontp61,:grOpp. 4hile.pot-witbOttH#sk and limitations, an

N

i*pariMaintal design was,AdoPted.ior the.natiOnal.Supported-Work

AlloPWFatic;hLiil40-4:15044ihift:#*eief4gers.ttrefiti4te! with

-a kKown degree;of'itetieti41 confidence the imOact'Ot the SUpported

a Work program. . - .6 v.'

. .

. . ',

l:. ,Semede,taroilient.ind.Dati Collection .

......, - . -15911cAntefor.160th-terget-group slots in five, of the

., .. . - ....4 Hartford,

,..... -demonstration -eitesrAtlantaiH JerseT.City,-WeW York, aid

.., , . . . t . . . . -PhiladelPhiar=Were rendOmly assigned to either an experimental or a

a

; ciontroi.group.y Members of the experimental group were offered a

Supported Work job for up to 12 or 18 months, depending on the site;

.

a lembersoethe control group were not. The first youth subjected to

random assignment applie'd is the Jersey City program in April 1975.

'Random assignment then continued through July 1977, by Whibh time'570

youth, had;beenenrolled in the experimen tal group and 6,82 assigned to . 'the control ijouli.2/ Table II.l'indicates the enrollment in the'youth

, 1/ In all 'sites except .Artford, 50 percent of ;the applicants

were assigned to the experimental groupand 50, percent lto the control

group. .in orderto-InCreasethe research sac beyOnd that whiCh

Would be-generatedibY 00-!50Ateignment given funded program slots,

Ap'pervint of the HArtfOrd aPPliCants were assigned ioithe experimental.group and 66.:percent-were aseigned-toithe control group. - Jackson et al. (1979Y describe the random-abignment process in

detail.

2/ In-general, randoth asaignMent resulted in,a,sample of

experimentals and.controlewith similar Cbaracteristic0 (see Table

A.1).,,mowever,-StatieticallyaignifiCant-differences 4n .age and in

criminal .his;tories-Niere. ObSarVect; thus highlighting the importance in

the lipabt analyeii of statistically controlling for such differences..
4;

iarolliint Period ..

.-54eOlnd Qikter

Third Quarter-,

,yourth ;Nit!**

1476:First Quitter

Saioad:(lusiter'.

Third Quarter.

QUarter

1977

. First Quarters,

SeCcind-QuarterSiSiteTotil

Peitent of Oierall

Total

Yi:1- g*Lutire,',7*.71-410,'cauNDO-

:YOUDI SAN= _ a

_Atlanta New York Philadelphia Number- Percent-

'

22

46,

38

41.D.

.4 31 X,

109

114'

146

129

".

3.4 23

10

- '2625

.

'

. .

VII4D *ft

0 vow 43

8848

,

, 347

16

.9 2;5

7

lc

71

, 57 AI 122

156 236 .

316 215

t

.1:1 4.6

5.7

4.6

9:8

12.5 19.0

25.4

17.3

1d6

4. 8.5

.

. , .616

, 49.5

, .

' 243

' 19.5

. ,

.

179

14.4

100.

. 8.0

'

' "1.244' --- 100.0

,

;' ; NOTE:- faille figures are only'for youth:wbo.Ompletei an enrollaint (baseline) interview. This

includis,all but 8 of,thdle-.sPb3atied-to-randose assignment.` ", t

. . a/ /'%,,

.

. . Thastfigure _include 40 July 4441,44 . ' .

°
A

r

A _ dm. *4'1 Fis:^iit.='- '--- *-4001441*4104-ColA;(4:#60,01;we;e ,.

, , i .,-,-- .. '": -,

-.. sc1,174454.91:11 4.2*-1:iiivi.441.4;;;00014,CY:Siearch.(20#) taff;_

---a.',t4likSizqe. Oir:044 '4101940444.-:f9*-04:90t4'W04,' 'ta--ciete*LiAit-'thOik-

`-,-.' -...:7-- -...' -:-.:,:,, ',---:Vil-2,':',.Z '.... '''" -.:' -.,',,,,,, ",_ It demographic 014W*cie43,#4.014 r4944 -010.41W1,'"143i#irk 'welfare dependence,

_ \ , ,- . .1 , : ,._ , i...._ *N use, and i4400'lipe*ie014 ... . -Th eyeT *-tie 441 scheduled

.

tO-14,reint#rVileWed,c9-:and',18:40nthi:later to collect post-enroliMent'

.-, +

_ 44'oir.itea*sUckas,40ploAint',,',welfare-dePendence,-drng-use,,and .

criminal activities. BadnEss all 44410-W4T was terminated in March

" 1979,-..-only-51-percent of thi;*001e -(those enrolledl:priorto

1977). Were ischlidule4tobeyinterviewed again 27 months after -their

12 'enrollment, and: 16--percent (those enrolled prior to April 1976) -were!

1/

scheduled to be interviewed both 27 and 36, months after .their . . , Because .Of theditferential length of follow-up among sample

-.

members, analysis ofimiacts-gor the various post-program periods

have been based on different subgroups of enrollees:' -analYsis of

. outcomes during the first 18 months following enrollment have been based

, 3 on those who completed an enrollment, a 9-month and an 18-month interviewra/

. '11 Most interviews were face-to-face and conducted either in,MOR,

site offices (62 percent)-or in the' field (24 percent). However, a gem

were conducted in priOns and over the telephone, In, which Case questions

about criminal activities andlcurrent.drug use were not asked. For more

detail on intervieWind4roceduret and",results, see.JaCkson et al. (1979).

, This sampling strategy was undertaken to maximize statistical

power of the analysis, within a fixed budget (see Ruth et al:, 1980, or! ,

MDRC, 1980, for kUither discuOion Cf.-tie sample design).

3 Separate :samples for the 1-,.to 9- and 10- to 18-month periodil

would have been slightly larger than that used. However, offsetting the

-dvantages of larger samples were addalcomplications of comparing

results acroestime for somewhat different samples and higher computation

costs.

r "4 26 1
:analysis ,of impactsforithe 3.,9. to 27=iliOnthperiod is based on data for

thOSevhocontpleted arienioilmentinterView.plus a 27-month interview,

regardless of whether or not therdompletedthe assigned 9- and 18-

thonth'interviews; and the analysis:of-28- to 36;-month outcomes reli-es

on data for those who completed an enrollment and a 36-month interview.

While interview response rates were higher than initially anticipated,

between 20 and 30 percent -of those-scheduled-to receive'the various

, follow-up interviews failed to complete them, thus resulting in the

analysis sample sizes reported .in- Table 11.2.1(

An important implication of the sample design is that the

samples for analysis of various-pbst-eniollment.aperiods are distinguished

from one another by the date an individual enrolled in the program:

only the earliest enrolleed received the longer-term f2llow-up interviews.

Thus,-to the extent that the individuals' characteristicsi-local

labor market conditions, and program characteristics varied across

lot these enrollment periods, the estimates of longer-term results based

on these particular subsamples may not be representative of those that

1/ Analysis samples for the 19- to 27- and 28- to 36-month outcome

measures Caere defined' in this, manner in order.to maximize the number of

Utable observations,.as sample-sizei for the later folloixe-.up periods

. were marginal. Analysis, of, selected outcome measures (for example, some

crime'recidivism measures) do require" hat Sample members will have

completed all scheduled interviews. Thquedeviutions,in the sample

definition'ate noted where they Occur.

3/ Table A.3 presents data on the number of various types of

interviews that were assigned and completed. Brown .(1979)shas conducted

an analysis of the-impact of'interview nonresponse on-the ivaluation

results presented in this report, and concludes that the comparisons

based on the completed inferviews generally yield unbiammd.eatimates of

the true effects -for the full,sample of youth enrolled in the research

Sample (see Appendix B).

27

42

,
- - - - - - . . BY -REFERENCE-----PERIODOVTEE.OUTCOME-'. MEASURE

., . Months 1 18 ,'MOlithd IT 27 Months 28' '' 36' , . :....: Number Percent

/, Number Percent.l .,' , . .. : -_......- ._-,._ . Number. . Percent"1.-'

4/,_

%Eite.,

-

< -,- Atlantav, -- 83 9.6 ...16 -2.9

lialtetOrd. -, % 384 I 44.6 232 45-._ 2. Jersey 4.73.t1'. . J4,9.;- : 22.1 .- iircr 33-.'i New'y..Miic, _` 135 ,.. 1.-*1%- 18 -, -3,5'

%-ihiliAdiOhie '.67,' .1:.8-: 16. i5.2

= :Latest-,1d1.1oWiUto

'InteirvieWbi

s 0 0.0

20 13.1

85 55.6

o 0.0

48 - 31.4

-)4r00-il 4427-- -.31;2 n.a. ha.

- -n.-a. lua.,

, .. ilimonthi . .. . 298. - 344 368 71.7 n:it- n.a. 36.060ths 11-1 14.1 145 28.3 153 100.0

- - Total 861 100.0 513 100.0' 151 loo.q

NOTE: Actual sampie'Sizes:veried somewhat by outcome measure (see4Appendix

A.2), but generally 4410E190 to 99 perdeht of the cases in these

totals. Most of tIls, evaluation results are based on Multivariate

analysis that controls for Preiprollment characteristics of experimental and control #04.P..0000i,ti. Therefore, all ina4Sis samples

inclUde only indiViclOall,who- completed: the-. enrollment (baseline)

interiiew. Analysis of Outcomes during the first 18 Months after

enrollment has- been IDA#444544,:ohl individuals who,- tn addition to

the enrollment intervie*4.0400lated both the 9; and 18-month followup interviews (referred- to hereafter as the 18-month analysis sample) . Q

-Analysis of oUtO0m40-,d0riaCOOnthi. and '100401f .26!--16 are based

on individuals who '96001.44-d'*14-27- and 36-month interviews,

respectively, regardless T- of *hit. other follow-up interviews they

completed. They are referred to hereafter- as the 27-month analysis

Savle and the 36-nth ihalysit sample.

/ These are percentages of the total youth sample in the appropriate

reference period.

12/ These- figured refer to' the latest completed interview. A few

Sample members were .scheduled to- receive subsequent interviews but

failed- to them. Also, recall that soma- individuals in the samples

for analysis- of 19- to 27-- and 28- to 36-month outcomes did not complete

a preyiously scheduled follow-up interview. Thus, row totals vary, 7, ,

n.a. means not applicablal:.

43
.

. :pc:stirred for .Because of this tact, _dare, has

been taken iubsiqUeritly to assess: the extent tp'whicir'thel lubairaplesfoliowed-jfor varying, periods of ti0e.differ in .either their preenrollment

chaxa9teristiOs or in their post-enrollment behavior.

Anotheconaern with the detirstrtiOil data is, the quality of

information, obtainedthroup face -to -face interviews. As part of the

aval4ation-ort, comparisons were made betWeen interyiew and official.

records. dita on earnings- ,,Weifare:reCe4t, and' arrests. The general

conclusion .from these comOarisoni is. that the-quality of the interview

data is quite-good. Specific. qualifications of the findings that are

warranted, based on the results of these validation efforts, are 'noted

,and justified in the subsequent chapters.

2. Characteristics of the Supported Work Youth Sample

As. seen from the data in Table 11.3, the characteristics of the

youth sample are similar to those specified in the eligibility criteria

"(see Table I.1 in Chapter I). About 60 percent were youngerthan

over one-third had completed fewer than 10 years of school, over one-

-. fifth had never held a regular job, and of those who had held such a

job, they-had not had one for an average of nearly 11 months'. In

addition, 57 percent reported having been arrested and 38 percent reported a conviction.

These youth also exhibited other characteristics which identify

them as being among those who are particularly likely to have limited

employment opportunities. Probably the most noteworthy of these pertains

to race;00ver 90 percent of the sample were from minority ethnic groups,

among whom the national unemployment rate is about double the overall.

29

41a
r

, ....-4....

--,- . 4:- -!:!,,;': '.t,'',:-.--, -. ",;;;...,,,,,,,

...- . , ': ---,... ;;', ..:4-,,..,

, ', . :',,"....,,,,, ....., th 4

t

41xiitukt;,5**70PI;s77104q

,-:

...- yoiriiisaie

7;4::-- tt i':.

i ."" . ` '.''..,,,,, ,v

. . * T. <,-,.4 ,' aL',, *.Li_ 'lf-e, . ."' ,` .4;trl':,':

, - :Post-emrollmentp- Tmat4irollmint .4dat4 ollimat. ., Characteristic !nroU..s Period Piod

c'Iv,ir,v.04.9iii-- .-, - -',,;. ,'-,r ,- -_,,- -_ _, ,- :,,,^.-;W-; -- = 2-;IiiiAiheil.;ili'", :

, ,

. '28=4,', , -, 47!,. '';6-:#,.. iP'',.`

--'- 2 .:nik :',' -; '-- '' :- -,-;ii:m- ' '''-'-)i:g.:- . 4:27:i ---ii.t .... '.,-- ?;: ''',' - v. .4. ',iv, , -. ". - : ,i41: .' ' ,,.' .24'.';i' :25:7 ': '30:4-

: ..

'Pvar.:19- ..,t10 'F;', 43=9' -15..6 - 4,2::7 : iii.

rum***0***'*4'44±4Y ;(0)i",

:,.... 4.. ! (18 n. (18 3) (10) . ,

' ...' (iiii. `, ',..-

.., .._ :Male 'O..* 894.., *4:4-

434--

.7

i

Ra50#NInicitY:v

whiti:-.7401iii*iie .188:h59-

-15':6 °.

'5:9 -----

Dliat,'iidaTiti- *lie c %

. . . . . ,iiiirittiiia , 72.6 ' " 78.5

. :taire,di:,SChOc4.-.Cdleted

'.Less(thah-t, 15.4

,d0 -

'11 dr more

(Overage years of

Completed)

Years Since Last ---- - Enrolled in School

Leis thin-1 34.7 36.2

1-2 26.4 26.8

thin, than 2 37.0

iteition-Leff,School

Expalied 15.2

PrOPid04,

ItiSt to; ail or in

trouble 4ith 13.5

'Wamted:i job 28.2

Didn'-t like school 11.1

Other - UnderWent,Job Training

in Put Year 13.4, 14.1

4'(A4'M-rage-number' of weeks) ?2.4)

27

35.2

25.6

.,

(9.6)

15.1

24.3

35.4

25.2

(9.7)

15.2

14.3

29.0

10.7

30.8

(2.3)

sliY.7 .L..

-, t,o : ' 2. .4. ",,,.. . o --'' ''.:;--

.14.6 12.-1

9.4. , 7.i ..,

,.. 76;0

. 16.4 18:3

.22.6 '22.9 , 34.7' , 30.1

.26.3 28.8

?

... (9.6) (9.7)

.34.0

30.2

35.8

15.8

.17.7

29.2

7.4

29.8

13.6- , .(2.3)

a

- 24.3

35.0

11.1

22.2

35.3

3.3

2E.1

17.7,

(3.2) '
trl-Tn;'

--to-18.;HOhtli.-'19=-to,27-Month1.1.1.1" 1Post=enrollmsat-posranrollmsnr,_

Characters tic` 'Enro/liiiil4iiihs40ej;411i.iig4li

oibs; ' i f iiii0 1

. .4'- .6. i3- 24: ' HOre:*an.24

.. lio regular Jo

. (Averigi;months.:since

. =lilt; re94111'1W, -for

ithOse,Shn hid a. job)

Currini4auiiiiteius

: 'Supporting dependents

Welfare 'Status During

Honth- - . Received welfare '12/

Received AFDC

,Reciiled general

assistance 2

e ,,-. ....,,

.2

0r.,

.

...6

- - 13:4

..- .

-..,.,.-,., 2z12.5 17.9 . - .1.15:1 14:0 20.6

, 5:7 5.4

23.4. 21.9 k

.

. (10.9) USW°

4:0' 3.7 64.9 69.6' 10.4 10.4

13:4 12.5 4.5 '5.1g

5.3 4.7

(Averag0 emSunc.of . ?filters received) (20.33) (20:60)

------- Received-Food iUmps------23-2 25 3

(AVersge bonus value of:

food stamps received) (18.28) (20.231 (15.41)

...- Lived in public housing, 26.1 28.4 26.5

Has Hedicaid'cardW '14.4 14,.2 12.0

18-' tb-36MonthzFoit=anioilmint

Period-- .

24.5

... -. - 28.8

113.5 13.6

18.1 14.4

w...21.2.. .i Y 19.7 3.3 3.0 '22.4 20.5.. (104) - (9.31_

: 5.9 76.0

11.9

3.2

(18.82)

20

Housing Status

Renting 75.6 75.0

(Average S.monthly rent)(132.89) (131.81)

(Average number of

rooms per person) (1.3) (1.2)

Drug Use and Drug Treatment

-Ever-used marijuana 60.6

(Average number 1; , menthe., if.usedgo.,A0.5)

Ever-used any drug - other than marijuana 24.1 Ever Usedhesroin 7.7

(Average number gf

months, if usedgf) 1(31.0)

Used alcohol daily 6.0

Ever been in drug

treatment 4.1 3:5.

60.2

(37.2)

70.5

(131.62)

(16.26)

(8.64)

15.79.9

60.9

(125.71)

- (1.2) (n.a.)

(35.1) 22.6 29.6 41.1 7:8 12.2 16.3 (30.6)

..5.8

, 31

(35.2) ' .7.1

(45.1) 8.3
..

ere to i

.39ftth,11 'Nan .119110

.10.1 --PoiR-Sarollment Pciat.ienrollmen lost4isrollment" . - -Per od

-, priiiiill4ffennen i-. , , ., : ..gier,-,,arrien'ind -, , '.:574:5 n ..-W2,

- .. (a*Cilichifr:ot; -

:4*iiits) 4 4):,

. 37 .7 4f' . . -**4504.40 (")'

. t4400464, _ 7--- --Leinz.thial.1 year -- .01i ira

-4:5 lkaa4.."years 7.0, ..,,s_

-... Never t.,1-' : 4 6E3' N 12 4

ProbatiOnfoiliar014-Stitui

', euri;144.-**614°4 25.0 24.0 *04,4t*Gq.--ioaria 4.6 4.3

54.1

15.0 *40.4

6.4' 56 , 13:0 24.6

61.5 49.3

.. 27.6 .26.1 5.0 -- 4.6 ,

;1,0.ablty,-; #.11,10.4 641 s4 153

. -- e -. , -- t . . , -, .',. ' ' . - . . . ., 6076i iniaMcothirwise,intlicitid, all data referto the fill samplaii.e., sire values

.ire,included). 'Parentheses -axe used to 'indicate Value. .that SAVILiniglitrAMMISII" -----111.111444tATAXErtAlr1481111 conducted by HPR staff..

'.,

. .

, 4!. Only twG'simple itembrs are from "other" ethnic groups. . . . _ 2/ Welfaxe.incluans APDC( 0eneral-Assitance, Supplemental Security income, other

welfare, and-welfare income:tOr.which.respondents wire unable to identify th. source.

2/ This .information as Obtained 'fro, the first follow-up interview but refers to

the time of enrollment.

W

..., . - . This includes only those who used drugs a few times a month or sore often

. .

F.

lot

47

32 .
average. PrY944.. 1:01.444-404c*044**d0:4 t04.30PW440iii.S41ad

beeroUt-;0E,SChool :fOrnore-Phan444X,Ihinthey enrolled in the

:ProlFanu'ancl,29.-.Ferdont-Of th40,00Orted,haiting:beenexPelled,ór, having

left school, -peCause,,(4' 0.040.0 with the police. these:Youth

- "N ,/, ) yaxe,m11*40',04414,00#4riludepandenpatlurtherporeo; nearly tWO4hirds

mere liVing,with',their-,parents: ASnotod,OreviduSly, these latter

hairaOtitrisPatare-70tecCtated with relatively low' levels of

attaChseent. to ,theIehoilCierCe:7-7--.--

lit'ese..characteristics-4ettrite,hot only a group of youth who

lave:serious -labor - market disadvantages in relationship to the general

.population of young people, butalso a more disadvantaged group

thanIthe typical youth enrolled in .CETA:programs, which are also

V

targeted-primarilY at disadvintaged groups. For example, a much higher

proportibn of the Supported WOri sample are member, of black and other

:minority ethnic groups (91 versus 52 perdent for CETA); virtually none

of the Supported Work sample as compared with 67 percent of CETA enrollees

had completed high school; furthermore, the SupportediWork sample consists

of school dropouts, while a sizable portion of the CETA participants

are still enrolled in school; finally, only 2 percent oeNTAyouth

are reported to hairs a criminal record as.compared with 57 perdent of

the Supported Work sample. Thr employment impact of the relatively

more disadvantaged status of the Supported Work sample as comperid with

11 The CETA dataireferenced.here Apt from WESTAT (1979), . Table4-4 and 5-2. tt should be -noted that increasing, emphasis has

recently been.placed on targeting CETA,Eunds toward the most severely

disadvantaged. As-4,reSUlt ofihis change in fOcUs, the characteristics

a,avikyonthmaybecoie-mord like:the-Supported Work,ierget group in the

future, (See-U.S. Department-of Labor, 1979)..
OETA enrollee is evidenced.by the' fact that they were

employed only 19 percent ,of year-prioito-enr011ingin the

- - - - demonstration,. while YRDPA youth `(whose characteristics are similar. to

i.11yOUth4EkrparticipentsY were,emPloyed Outing 37 percent of the

weeks- that theirwitte- not enrO114d in School (WESTAT; 1979)4

The Supported Work samplei4then, is-certain ly7agrou0of-youth

who are not expected tocompete successfully in the regular labor market

. .

.- -

.. Without some special assistance. in the next section,.we-describethe

4 .

, ... , r t e natUri3Of the experiende and employment assistance provided to these

,.. .

i 4 1,t youth through Sdpported-Work-progralii.

B. THE SUPPORTED WORK P

Supported Work is:defined as a structured, transitional employMent

experioncedesigned to help those with well -established employment

difficulties gain the experience and dovelop tile work habits necessary

for successful partiCipation in the workforce: The three features of

Supported Work which, in combination-, distingaish ;..; from other employment

and training programs are as follows:

Peer group support

Graduated stress

Close supervision

While the demonstration planners -,and the prOgram operators share the

basic conviction that these elements are criticalto the successful

, For a more detailed description of the Supported Work programs,

see !CRC (1978) or MDRC (1980).

34

,-/
.,. _ ....

. .. ., sliparatiOn,Of.SuptiortidWork4ettio*Pantl for transition into

. ..

, . - .

... __ unsubsidized_emploYmentc:thers-.iano_consenSus_asjr,_the most _effective

. strategy for. their:i0Olementition. Partly as a resultof philosophical

differincii-Among-prOgrim4irectorsand partly dui to local job developtalent opportunities and constraints, there is considerable variation in

thilmOilientatio* of key .programatic components. Table,II.4 summarizes sciewsof the key features of the five Supported Work programs from which

the youth Sample. wes.drawn.

I.' Genets]. Chiricte4Stiae.

Id deigning the ;rational Supported Work dennstration, a number

of program characteristics were standardized* and the variation in otheis

was ;limited, in .::t:dtr t' assure the Implementation of the Supported .Work

model. The main slr'3,:xity ammg the ,five programs in which the youth

experimental group were cIffered eiploymont is that they are all pribarily

work-experience Programs, offering limited-term employment at relatively

low wage rates to groups of disadvantaged workers.11: All programs

implement the concepts of cloSesupervision. graduated stress, and peeigroup support,.and none provides significant ameellnts of ancillary services.

The.size'of the programs, the target groups they sic-I.re, their .-.)Jb mix,

and their implementation of the, special Supported. Work Zvatures vary

considerably, however.

On average, those youth who were employed during the year

prior to their enrollment. in Supported Work earned an hourly- wage of

$2.68, which is between 0 and 17 "percent.:higher than the Starting

program-wages. This is consistent with the demonstratiOn's-goals

of setting program Wages slightly below market opportunity wages for

'target-group memberS.

35
4414440Ary,4976::: ;

_ :" 49

441... ??A------

-tirkdfteu. - ItsAddists,

'101,41teaders- - 110.0tiedre,

sa4lieheliss-

" . -00srlerget-Iceues:Isrved

=s.43Sfisders.- terimmg440WiletsfillinU

.:kg'Tetb-,(evopJums%1174). . Peir-mit40:11litribitimt

,,'priest Ilayi-bylmobstryvagortisiters..:1,3.39,. 6:0 AD:8

-1:11z -,121491118188199'fillikaititiSii .0:0

:0.0 =APPir,-.6ivie44-. -34-2 Otkir AwsiMiS) -42:4

38;4' Si. 5'

14:4

15.4, 1.6 44.0

7.4

(41:4) . Cow Site

Aviirqi' crew its.

- (2s tiqe'. - crew- week) ,

.!eriodiOertermencchoori

?remittal beetle Tercntsc,of-youth supervised

Orimarily-4y4uppsitid Work . .4ertsstiqsof.supseviseei,with

iisssporience training,

,tArget'qrsups srfed by

lupportsd.Werk=

Neximul Allowsk/CTim

Ittipperidd Work

TireAttos termini's

. ploritia-AehOregromi:jobs

Percst4C-ot,p1scesents with

devellArkkhyluOtertidlfork

jobs

-"

(87:0) 550er,Wilk Si pie

(a $25'par 'terS2S 6 percent of

gross wigs

wok

20.6 -.25.4 11.1 0.0 6:144 222:1' 34.5 2.6, '54.2- 1.0_ 0.0' ?0.0: 15.1 0.0 -0:0 7.0 2.3 1.0

0.1' 0:0 ' co

24.4 -$4.1 17.7

6.7 Ns 41.4.- 7.2

($4.5)- A.s.) (50.3) $4 pee week liper wok Skper work

' -t0-560 -per- --to425 per_ ti 320 per

S weeks 6 weeks ssatk

,S,percent of Moms, ,Mons gross-wimp -,,i. 4., 8.2 79.0 13.0 $7.7

73:0 10.3 13.6 A.A. . 10.S 12'mreihs .18,months ''12 months 16 seethe

16.3 26.4

55.7

trogriaiClisorly,Weige..84ti latry-lowilnas of,limusry 1577 32.30

147s,perssaisqs sLthe isArkqt- . 67.4- 4,11..0*tY'Vflw .

, Peiermetage-01:youthi! fiid,iime

_Devoted tii-JAmeillerYASsnyiesi,r'

25.7 62.7 44.6 82.50 82:64 83.3. 60.4 5:4 r

0.1 5.5

18 mouths

15.2 16.4 3.1 26.4 32.34 52.44 67.4 66./ 0

. . . -80100! Thi,ditA orS4romAD9C11474) Awl'fiss !arinu.Supportal Work Kti special reports. On1,4otharvial

nora!lhig4ortain;to'all'targot Imago marclloy the sitit!. program.

. . , $

NMI -yolisioiChirWiel-nesid, dies oppiy'-to..thilprogrses-durieg their:oeioad cootrAci-7issr. This time °Avers the4sriod-whis.akius;$34sroeat:of tyouth.includal4 the analitia sa.pl.:weri narking at War

'Soiporiod Mirk:1414: Numbly 11,parcinchakconpltat their participation in Supportdllork.Viivr to the,surt off_thicoeitrest periO4.rabd roughly 21.poraint participated' in the 'program for's:coral months

ig.W't12,J400'00441-.Plft04*

'i/leireAtigie,will,iet-41Weyi total _100 iiimirie leduitrios for sees projocs day. ar'unknion. Agriculture

referslorimAri1Y,,te:leedicspieg.. - - _. . I .

. 4(This: dice:for sew York -are PeromAtig distiibutione of ill.proiiet days rather than just those ,... )?ks4 by 10411- ''' ", , - - S '1"801listsi:ii-ii. 1104) deieribs: the animation of -markii opportunity wimps for the Supported work 14!0 .

.- .- ? . -30

C
, The-Aixiintia-i4.044411104,,piciiisioit,which-aqrc4447'

. _ parcent-of reseere.hi latiple-t-were con iderably andhat.

, =substantially :less..exPansien?.61---prOgri* slots sdUriq Under

.. -; istUdythen.the,othir-thraa'sitei. .Bit Junin 1977, these'twO-Opgrams

averigildodlr-90'0 100 t004)0 slots, while the other programs each 1 . Aihad:134,644n. 2,06 arta 300 si.ots.

t Pt :None.oftblse'progrims-Aerved youth exclusively:, A: Atianti

and NewYerk:prograiwiAled,a-majority of theiejob.slas (61, and' . .74 -percent, respectively) with AFDC women. Jersey- City di-jotad SO.-

. percent of itZ''slets to-eXoffendersoex-addietwand ex- alcoholics,,

and.Philadelphia filled 6'Percent of its jobsvith ex- addicts, and

I .. a is 4 ex- offenders. Only in the Hartford program were YOuth.the predosiniuMt7

target group during this time period (4'i*ercent of the -Hartford jobs

. 1 were.held by AFDC women and ex-offenders).

% . : 1 A large share of the youths' employment in these ff,e sits .).V

, . 2. ! 4' %. comprised. jobs in the atirvicus industry -- primarily repair (including

. ; ,

".

. ,-. . ; auto, repair in Atlanta. and Hartford), building. maintenancei. and - - .. ' J . .. , miscellaneous business servicts. Such jobs tre particularly pre4int

. Among the Atlanta muldciew,YOet programs, which, served onik:ArDC !f/aan

in addition-to yduthe Both .the Jersey City and Philadelpi4vprograms'

employid,a conaiderable-portion of-their youth-ineonstruetion-jebs/

such ,as painting, building rehebilitation, and cleaning aallieeliat"'"

-.4 4/.4 unoccupied -hauling. The Hartford, program ofZired the qr

of jobs, with about ha)f of their wofherkbeing employ

industry, but with sizable numbers working in perks. meA naiica, building

variety

e service -

S--

eienitruction and rehabilitationvand fUrniture

1 3

repair.

4
er

,s,

g

ft drelvoi Su rtedIWOrk

The manner in-which these'liVe-Programs have implemented the

.conCOptS,of pitor-10w support wa*.muCh more consistent across sites

.

t ,than tneir-iMpliMentatiod,ofgtaduated-stiess,ana close, supervision.

, -

... . peer - group. support ii designed to-permit target=group members

:" to iMprovetheir Work habit and skills in an environment-where they

haArthe,support of others who have similar disadvantages and anxieties

. , abo4their ji0os, \This, concept has been implemented in all sites through

, a commitment to crew work -- groups of Supported Workers (not necessarily

from a single, target 'group) working together. However, the average

crew Size varied from 3.1,in Atlanta (where ).3 percent of the workers,

msinly'AFDC women, were not assignedFto crew work) tq 7.4 in Hartford

o (whore 22percent of the crews included morethan 10 persons).1/

Furthermore, the stability of crews varied among sites, particularly

in'respqnse to the' length of work contracts: in sites such as (Philadelphia, which tended to rely oshort-term work contracts, trews Were

frequently dismantled and workers teassigned to other crews.

The conceptyf graduated stress is.predicated on the belief

that the tazget-grodp members served by Supported Work could not at

the time of their enrollment meet the performance standards of the

A .s regular labor market;-that they needed an oppOrtunityttorIdually'

increase their skills and improve their work habits. Thus, an important

goal of the Supported Work programs was to develop jobs whereby initial

ts 1/ The consensus imoiiggrogram operators is that the optimal . crew size is between 4 and, 7 persons (1WRC, 1974), although evidence

from a statistical process analysis does not support this belief

(Hollister et al., 1979).

A 38 5i
.

so. t, perfOrianc,01.44nOil?-#1Adiiiduais%Were modest, ,put where they - 4

- - iikmalsAfbeincriaied gradually oVer'timountil they reiemble&thOse the

- participant could. expect to .40. in--nelwrogram

. , One :of the,M#in'approiches to implementing .graduated Areal

.- ,- . . :,'. , theivbeen thiqUgh ordering the job tasks sequentially- -that iS,-by,moving

. t,

n V :'(% r * X -workers intAiiiidyeisively more demanding work assignients. Another

,

. .. ..hip.s-invoiVesl'the'UseofjperidiMance ratings such as thoie nsed'in,

- 'promotion -and bonus-iiiird24ecisions: The Jersey-City-program, in

.partidular, takes use of theAdb-staging approaoht4the Hartford program

placiiOconsiderabie emphasiii7 on supervisor bviLatIons of a worker's

4

performance in the.determination og promotions. All Rrograms have

usedinactivationsi to some extent( as a means of'perMatting participants

to-attend to personal 'problems, such as those related:to health, di;ag

..- and. alcohol abuse, and arrests an&convictioris.1/ Finally, 'Both the

,.. Hartford and Jirsey eity'prc4rams have transition' bonus

, 1 whereby individuals who are successful (either on their own or with the

-

, ._.. 9 program's assistancerin finding a nonprogram jobwhich they,hold for

4 a specified period of time*(304ayi in Hartford and 60 days in Jersey

-City) receive a bonus, the size of which varies with the length of'time:

the individual has spent in Supported Work.

The third f tune of Supported Work is clo7,sppervision.

, This supervision,is designed primarily:to transforand develop technical 4/

"- skills and positivework habits and attjtfides. To a leaser extent,

1 Programs may, unier the demonstration's guidelines, permit

participants up to three months of inactive time in addition to their

=Wine Of 12 or.18 monthiof active participation in Supported Work.

,

. .39

?

IP`
, supervisors are also expected to:provicip personal and job counselling- - to participants. In all but Atlanta, most workers are supervised by

< Supported Work program staff who have been hired largely because of their,

. - technical expertise -and teaching skills.1( Among, the Atlanta work

projects,)a high'percentage of the participants worked in jobs not under

the direct supervision of the Supported Work program and, thus, were

supervised primarily°bY the host agency, with a Supported WoXk program

supervisor maintaining - liaison with the nonprogram supervisor. .While

more compatible with thp job-development outcomes in-Atlanta, where many

program jobs were single placements in public agenCies, this method of

supervision generally was not expected to be as effective as direct

supervision by the Supported WOrk programs themselves, except under

carefully selected situations.

C. HYPOTHESESCONCERNIN,G PROGRAM IMPACTS

A number of primary hypotheses concerning participant outcomes

underlie the basic Supported Work concept and the chosen target

populations. In addition, the theoretical and evaluative literature

cited previously suggests other hypotheses that pertain to ootential

program impacts arid to differential impacts among subgroups of the

youth target population. The primary hypotheses can .1:3e stated briefly

asfollows:

Both during and after participation in Supported

Work,,eXPerimentals will have more stable employ- .ment work more hours, and earn more-than their controlup counterparts.

1/ Some programs which did not enroll youth sought supervisors

who, in addition to technical', expertise, had experience working with the

target-group members they were, to supekvise (Z'DRC, 1978).

, 40

55
-Bx0eriatentals will be less likely than.controls to

redeivii*lidesaiitance lienefitsant, among those

experiMent.ls who.00atinue.to.receivi benefits, the

iVerage.benefit level will be Imss than they would have

received had they not participated in Supported Work.

Experimentals will be less likely than controls to

is drugs.

t

Experimental. will be less likely than controls to

engage in criminal behavior.

In addition,. Supported Work could have a nutbez af other

important effects, such as influencing participatimin-education

and training programs, hoasehold-composition, and health-care utilization,

The rationale for the emOloymentrelated hypotheses has been

discussed previously in the context of the design and goals of the

Supported Work programs. The hypothesized reductions in dependence

on public assistance are a corollary to the employment hypotheses.

Both sociological and econc4mio4heories of the causes of drug

abuse suggest that an employment opportunity sul as that offered by

Supported Work may affect the prevalence of drug use. Sociological

theories emphasize the importance of peer-group attitudes toward drug

use versus otter forms of behavior, such as working. Employment in

Supported Work may be expected to alter the peer-group environment in

such a way as to decrease the relative desirability of drug use visa-vis other activities, especially through the intensive and supportive

supervision. Economic theories, in contrast, are concerned with the

costs and desirability of drug use as compared with alternative forms

of consumption and uses of time, and the hypothesized program impacts

based on these theories are ambiguous. On the one hand, the Supported

Work program tends to increase the opportunity cost of engaging in

41
'time-intensive .activities4uCh as drug use and, therefore, it would

be expected to reduce the prevalence of use./ On the other hand,

. total income is expected to increase aMong participants .in Supported

Work, thereby permitting increased purchase of drugs by those who

derive Pleaiure from thn.

, . The hypotheses suggesting that successful integration of

youth into thelebor force might be expected to reduce their likelihood

Of participating in criminal activities are--also.befed-on:bOth.sod4:

logical and edonomid:theOries.3/ Among the sociological. theories is

one which claims that illegal behavior results from the disparity

between the goals established and valued by society (primarily material

or financial) and the means available to achieve these goals. Supported

Work may increase the legitimate means for achieving these goals,

thereby reducing delinquency and criminal behavior. A second :dodel

combines a labeling perspective with self-concept theories. An individual

may have previously experienced contacts with agents of social control

who have applied to him or her the label of "criminal" or "delinquent,"

with the result that the individual's self-image will align itself to

this public image and lead to deviant or criminal behavior. Howevcr,

once one becomes employed, his or her occupation often takes the role

of "master status," submerging these other roles. A third perspective

Chien et al. (1964) indicate, however, that drug use may

not be time-intensive in the sense that it reduces productive work

time, except in cases of novice users or extreme addiction. . See Piliavin and Gartner (1979) for a more detailed discussioa of these theories of criminal behavior and their relationship

to employment.,

4257
s=s4000*4at---eriiinaii behir4Or results. fromassociationvith,peers

_ , ......_ 40,40finellaW-yi0lations.as acceptable'behavior: Thus, Supported

. . rkancl,p 'Iv pries of` employment will tend to reduce .... .criminal behavior

bliinOr*O4q,dontaOtSandinteractions among others who are no't oriented

. , 'toward4*linq0ent O'criMinal life- Style.

Tn contrast to these sociological theories, the economic theories

of criminal behaidor are basedOri,a rational-choice model of human

. behairior:_,According.to these theories, participation in illegal

activities results from the individual's Aubjeotive valuaiiOn of the

,costs (e.g.,,the probability of arrest,. conviction, and incarceration)

-4. - and the gains (e.g.,'financial benefits) of crime as comOired with the

costs and rewards of alternative uses of time (e.g., leisure and

legitimate employment). Improving one's employment opportunities

would tend to

to employment

crime. .

reduce the desirability of criminal activity relative

by increasing the opportunity costs of engaging in

In addition to the primary hypotheses noted above, Supported

Work may be expected to affect participants in a number of other

important ways. First, it may influence youth's decisions to participate in education and training programs. On the one hand, experiiehtals,

as compared with controls, might &aid:: to invest more heavily in

e4Ucation and training, either during or subsequent to their participation in Supported Work, to supplement their program work experience.

On the other hand, by increasing employment opportunities for experimentals,

For example, see Ehrlich (1973), Sjoquist (1973), Reynolds

(1971), and-Danzinger and Wheeler (1975).

43
**POrtectWork may leadyoUthsto_-Obtain444. formal education and

'training' than they,-btherWise

Tineliyi:StippC*tedliorkMak-affeCt-the geneal.qualitof life

9' of,p4rticipantS and2tor** articipants. This could ocaUr_either, as

a resUlt of increased consumption Cfmedicii,care (5Ubeidi40, OfemplOyer,

, inpurance policies or not) or as adirect result of the more productive

and stable life - styles of these-individUils,Asrevidence&* Changes

in hopkehold. composition .aWhOping,coninmOtion, for exiiple.,

Any of thi.eiboVe.PrOOram-ii0aCtsu but particularlY:the primary-

,,1

impacts;ntay be,eXpeoted to vary-With the nature of An.indiVidual's

Supported, Work experience, with changes in loaileconOMic and labor-

:- market conditions, and with the characteristics of-the individual-youth

whb participated in the program. Each of the five Supported Work programsin this sample may have different impacts on participants as a result

of variations'in the programs' characteristics, the labor market in

which the progiams operated4 or the characteris tics of the youth they

A'

served. The analysis estimates the differentiilimpacts both across.

sites and among individuals of different ages,, sex, race/ethnicity,

levels of educational attainment, welfare dependence, household come

position and living arrangements, prior work and job:-training experiencei,

prior drug-use histories,, and criminal histories. However,.since

most of :he variations in local labor markets are across as opposed

to within sites, only more casual inferences of the sensitivity of

program impacts to local labor-market conditions can be supported by

. the data.

Results of the impacts of other employment and training programs

for youth provide mixed evidence as to-whether the above 'hypothesized

.44 59
_

L,

,

S.

:144!.1.1i:-4-14000;4t,4*4 44440*,14Y-ke realized: ,Theed.pther.programs. ,-,... . ,

. 10p.roiliadliMited ,:eUCCIa's:i4,100.F40yo,#44' in the program--the averae

s ay- ,programe7an4,Job -COrpshas, a Veragedabout

.. .....i....;, .

-i4k4040C4400404.:0Oat,!iirOgraM:iMpiictS havel,een:smalt, at best

,

. It it:poss431e2"that Oupported:Workcan achieve more favorable .results

. . ibel0a4selof4teePecial-emPhaeieOn,peer=group support, close supervision, - .

,, -,! . -''.! . O , *14:,-graduated atieSS,-andl:bei4USii.Ct its targeting on those y.910,, who

...: .,,'; , . , ... ,_ . ,... _ _ _'. -. - - .. - : - -.:',:-'-- - ,.., iaihave%the motteeVeraeM040ent-,prObiems. .,.

. Bowever, the iMp6rtance

, .

. . of-th*****Cial quiii4es,4:04:136#teillWork may b, particularly

. senaitiVe-to the-prevailing iabor-market conaitions:-. during periods :

-og relatively high unemployment rates,

employer preferences. for adult workers

the.effects of factors such as

and limited job experience may

be most severe and, thus, the work experience an' credentials provided

,f,

, " . . by Supported Work may be particUlarly beneficial. Alternatively, it

may be that a-much stronger treatment than work experience .will be

necessary' to substantially affect one's employability. during such times.

Because of our inability to directly estimate the importanJe of local

labor-market conditions on the program's impacts, we view it as

essential to provide the reader with a general description of- the labor-

' market cohditions and alternative employment opportunities available

during the period of this-study.

D. LOCAL LABOR MARXET CONDITIONS

Two factors related to the local labor-market conditions that

prevailed during the period when individuals participated in Supported

See MDRC (1978) and Mallar et al. (1979), respectively.

4

-a

..
41Ork:;inci,lubsecituatlY-whea they ,wire: nOriprOttiam lobs may be

- OXPected?tO have influenced- the effects of ,supporte41MOrk.. The first

40v4i11014.94;0i0sif4.901,,111*1,0Ll,'Varied:tSiote site to site and

:also, showed: quite ,444g.ielt rates of iiaprOV4imint over tim'e: As can

be iseen:frOaligUre,li.14 the. average .unemployment 'rate' dUrini the

demonstration ,period Wer4,144hest in Jersey,- :Oity (12A0 percent)'. and

lieWYprk.AP:3"Percanti.and.loweSt in Atlanta,(5:4-percentY and :Hartford

Whi1e'ihrOu4h*e.1976 and 1976 and in 1978, Os'axo.

UnemOloymentrates:tended to fluctuate with little in.thq way,of,an

overall trendtconditiOns did improve substantially in'ail sites airingthe first three quarters of 1977; particularly in Herat:T:1 and Jersey'

City, where the rates fell from-about 9 to 5 perdent and from about 15

to 11-percent, respectively.-4

2/

The second factor which may influence Supported Wsrk's impaCt,

pertains to the existence of alternative programs and-services. CETA-

, sponsored programs, have provided-themajority of the employmentopportunities for those youths unable to find unsubsidized employment. These

4

1/ Variation in marketwage,rate could also influence the'imiact

of Supported Work. HoWever, initial variation in progra0 wages relative

to area reference Wages were. of large, nor did they chaAgermuch over

time:. Controls' waglviates during the first nine mohthsfolioWinienrollment in the demonstration averaged between 10 (in Philadelphia)

and 35 (in Atlanta and 'Hartford) percent higher than entry-level program

wage rites, and there is no consistent pattern in these relative'wage

rates over time.

1 As can be seen in Figure I.1,..the youth unemployment-rate,

while substantially higher than. the overall rate, tendi tp exhibit the

same, pattern of, fluctuations over time. Thui, we expect the inter-site

comparison baseclon,overall rates to be indiCativd of the pattern that

64:would' observe among youth.

46
TREND-IN AREA - UNEMPLOYMENT RATES DURING-THE PERIOD OF THE SUPPORTED --WORK DEMONSTRATION

.,

.... - Percentage

Unemployed 14

l 12

e

"1977

1

O

Jersey City

New York 'City

'Philadelphia

Atlanta . Hartford

k

t 1 -1 1.fr

1978 1979

SOURCE: Various issues of- Employment and Earnings, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor and

NEWS, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Lahr

O
prograie served about 1.6 million youth in fiscal year 1975, and by

1978 ttly wertIserving,2.4.million youth per yea -:'(see Table 11.5).

Obitof this increase has,resulted-from expansion of existing youth

program! and the creation of newonds under the Youth Employment

DeisOisstrition Projects Act (YEllasA). However, insect new program jobs/

haysnOt been distfibutedin proportion to either the youth population

or the Unemployed youth in'thp various sites. As can be seen from Table

x1.4, New YOrkfend Philadelphia have experienced the smallest increase

in youth employment opportunities relative to their youth poOilation,

and Jersey City has experienced the greatest.lt, The expansions in"

Atlanta and Hartford are also moderately high, especially inight of

their relatively low unemployment rates. As a consequence of theie

mgrams, which wereNaimed primarily at disadvantaged youth, employment

opportunities for the Supported Work target population might be expected

to be relatively-more favorable in Jersey City, Atlanta, and Hartford

than in the other site43/' As previously noted, these differential

opportunities could potentially influence the impact of Supported work.

Other programs that have differentially affected Supported

I

Work participants in the various sites and thus warrant mention are the

However, the unemployment rate in Jersey City was nearly

twice the national average throughout most of the period under study.

2/ As will be seen in the subsequent chapter, the controls in .

Atlanta and Jersey City did tend to work more than average, particularly

during' the later time periods when these CETA,fuuded programs would have

been in operation. However, for,most of the follow-up period, there is

no clear evidsnce that youths in these sites were especially likely to

be employed, in the -CETA programs, themselves.

48

AL,

r
o

*-'460111

. WOMEN Or .PARTICIPANTS-'IN 'ClITI

IPINGEk-TH40-22 4

IThOhatfid0

Fiscal Year

1975 "1976. 1977,. 1978

X. 'Emplayability De'velopm'ent -/ 695 982 732 650

II. ) PSE-Structurall/ 4 5,6 t 72 44

in. SUU'er Youth! . 716 821 907, 994

. YEliPAI2P n.a. n.a.4 n.a. 1 ^/

IV. Job Corpsw , 51 46 66 70

. I. PSE-CountercycliCale 34 109 120 218

,.VIII. YACCii -n.a. n.a (n,a. 27 ..

377

TOTAL imo 2,014 1,897 2,380

/Source is Table F-7 of the Employment and Training Report of

the Preiidents U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., 1976 through 1979.

12/These data are from Employment and Training Administration,

OAK Transmittal Number9-79, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.,

April 25, 1979., /hey also inclre an estimated 30,000 participants in

YIEPP.

c/Fiscal 1975 and-1976 estimates are based on data-on number

of.job Cor0A;Alots and average-U*4,a stay in Job Corps presented in . Job Corp "s' -in:Brief, 1U.S"..Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., 1978. That

"for 1178"ibase&on:thelaCts that there were 35,000 slots in the third

Department of Libor;Alayihingto .C4, -1979)*, and that-that -verage length

Oluirtie00111 ( Ale art .of the President, U.S.

4of:piriicipatiOn 0.-About%*ix4On i *liar et al., 1979) : The figure

for...fiiCilyear-1971t Chapter 3, Table" 5 of Employment and

TraininvRepori,of-the.iiiiident7-Uz.S.-Depaftment of Labor, Washington,e

. Yhese data are from Employment and Training Administration, OAM,

Transmittal Number 9-79F-U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.,

Apri1,25, 1979.

n.a-= not applicable.

.
144:

Al**40444#-Prl 0Y060=

1404;0;00440040i otOrAtiO

**-0014100h#00***004105- 1*********: (7iciP)

01014.1; Y. 4.978Y

4

s.

., Sumber'orlirdeiraia Slot "-ACPercentegel

"*'-'` sit7iiii 'Youth

Number PoeditiOnh

January,-

March-

--Xpri/,

._ 4uni%

--' July-

:SepteMber

, ' Atlanta 317 519 ..3744 1,423 2.1

, NiitiinA 0 420 393 630 0 2.9

Jeriey-City . 1,224 434 89 . ,857 6.2

is New York .0 1,648' , 0 1,903 0.2

Philadelphia 543 ,..1,103 940 2,041 1.0*

Total U.S. 116,536 172,047 93,794 289,211 1.1

P SOURCE: Youth Office, RAS OPRS Report 3, pepartmentof Labor,

iishingtop, D.C., 1978.

NOTE: During Fiscal Year 1978, 93 percent of the enrollees in youth programs

were enrolled iii the Youth Employment and Ttaining Prograds'(YETP) 9r

the Young Adu;r Conservation and Community Improvement Program PZCCIP).

These and the only programs for.which site -ppecific data were available.

14.slots are estimated as participants "on board" at the end of the

quarter.

- Youth. population estimates are based on 1970 Csnsus data for the

various cities, adjuiiiid"to reflect statewide trends in the youth population

between 1970,and 1977.

50

66
.9

0

'` . Ilhemployment CoipensationMC),yroireksithe State Unemployment Insurance

andIpecial Unemploymevt Assistande (SUA) prOgtams. During the initial

44'10.01-of-the Supported- Work deMonatrition,'Peogram utPloPient was

I. apedifidelly eiclude&-fromunemployment compensation coverage Aso that

'imveriientald.would not face a strong work disincentive as a resat

of` benefits upon termination from the pxo4rami.' However, tvio-events

altered thiseinitial-design. One was the'inclusion in the national

demonstretion of,t.he ongoing NewYork,Supported Work program,whiCh,

underitate law, partidipated in the state UCeprogram.' The other was , - . enactment of the SUA program in 1974 to provide unemployment Compensation'

benefits to individuals who were employed in jobs not covered; y the

state UC program, but who otherwise met the :state program's eligibility,

criteria. The Supported Work programs varied in their resionie to

.

!

. this event. The Hartford and Philadelphia programs actively attempted

.. i .

1 to preient their former participants from gaining eligibility {for SUA

. . benefits, while a sizable parcentageof youthin Jersey City,...and to

a lesser extent in Atlanta, did receive benefits upon program

1'

tirmination.=( Because the SUA program was temporary :(all claims

e were terminated on July 1, 1978)'and because a national Supported

9, Work program would undoubtedly have a uniform policy vis-a-vis par-.

tici4tion in state UC programs, the estimated impacts of Supported

1

. Work based on the current sample are not generalizable to future

*experience. The short-term impacts of the New York,rJersey City, and

Atlanta programs are almost certainly underestimates of the effects*

, Receipt among the youth sample was not as prevalent ea among

the:AFDC and ex-addict samples, hoWever.

51

7
A

r

. . - 'that would have occurred in the,abienCe of UC receipt. ..N0Iiisver., the

.

.

,,- ;... ,- longer -rum impacts are:less.:certainu Dn thdon; hand, the availability

,... , ..,

, .. .0.- 'of ,UC may promote longer average periods of job search that lead to

l

better, higher-paying jobs; on the'other hand, the job. skills and

,

4 credentials gained throUgh SupportedWork may decay during this extended'

period of job Search:

. . Together, the variation across and within sites in unemployment

. 0

. . . rates, alternative youth egtployment programs, and UC receipt may

s - . , influence the effectiveness 8f Supported Work. Although no formal

. -$.

; to, statistical evaluation of these potential'influences is possible,

A . f% , Subsevaht discusaionsbf findings.(particularly with respect to site

. ) .

.

. .

.. effects) do consider their relationship to prevailing labor-market

conittions.

E. ANALYTIC APPROACH

Most of the,formal evaluation of Supported Work impacts on

icipants has been conducted using mult4ile regression analysis.

Since-random assignment tothe experimeritalandcontrol groups was

stictly.adhered to,2(cOmparison of experibiental and control group

means Should provide unbiaied'estimateeof'program effects.2/

7 Y.

. Disc;;ASions of the various analytic techniques. and statistical

tests" described here can be found in Hanushek and Jackson (1477) and

other econometric text books. -. ,

' - v ) 2/ For evidence of the success of the randbm as4gnment procedAre,

see Jackson et al. (1978)

. k Y.By "unbiased'', we mean that-, on average, the estimate neither . overstates nos undekstates the true effec.' k

. . s

t

52 68

:
41

However, ;egression analysis has two advantages. First, to the extent

_ . ,,that measurable factors exogenous to the prOgram treatment itself

influence the outcome measures, regression analysis permits us to obtain

- estimates of program effects that have a higher degree of precision

-than those obtained through a.iimple comparison

> of means approach)."

Second, regression analysis permits us to investigate easily whether

, program effects vary significantly among subgroups of the sample or

'among ,youth enrolled in different sites.

The most.general odel'to estimate overall program effects

can be depicted as follows:

O Site

Individual Characteristics

at Enrollment

demographiCsemployment history.

drug-use history

criminal history

I Supported Work Status

_(experimental or control)

I-

[

-Program Outcome Measures

o /In-program and 'Post - program)

employment

education and training

income and in-kind assistance

drug use

criminal activities

other

Formally, the

% impact of program participation is-estimated through

regression models of the form:

Y = a0 + alX1 + a2X2 + . . . a X

M

+ bS + u

A where Y is the observed outcome measure; X

m

(m = 1, . . . , M) is a

set of variables indicating the Supported Work site and the characteristics

^

1/

the precision of the estimates is a measure of the likelihood

that true program effects will not go undetected.

53

-60
of the individual; S is a binary variable indicating whether the individual

was assigned to the experimental group; and u is a random error term. The

symb61 am measures the impact of Km on Y; and b is a measure if the overall

impact of the program whose statistical significance level is measured by a

t-test. (Appendix Table A.4a identifies the control variables used in the

analysis and their means and standard deviations, and Table A.4b presents

estimated coefficients on these control variables from selected regression

.equations used in the analysis.)

The extension of this .basic model to estimate effects for subgroups

of the sample is quite straightforward. The types of models estimated can

be expressed formally as:

Y=a0+alX1+a2X2+. . . +a

M

X

M

+ b0S + b

1

SX

1

. . . + b X

K

+ u

where 4k (k = 1; . . K) is a subset of Xm. In this model, the program

effect for a particular subgroup is measured by a linear combination of

the b's; for example, if X is a set of binary variables to designate-all

bilt one of tne Supported Work sites, then b0 is the program effect for the

omitted site and b

0

+ b

k

is the program effect at site k. The statistical

significance of the various subgroup effects can be measured by an F-test,

as can tests of whether program effects vary among the subgroups (i.e.,

b

1

= b

2 = . . . = bk = 0).1/

1/ In subsequent tables, statistical significance of experimentalcontrol differences both for total.samples and for sample subgroups are

denoted by asterisks.' Statistically significant differences in the

magnitude of program impacts among subgroups *(that is, whether the hypotheses

that the program impacts are similar for. all subgroups can be rejected)

are denoted by the pound symbol (ii).

54

7
. , . .. I

... -,-,,':,,,;

- 4--.;; We should pint thatthese!eimple.linear-rd4ression models

-;-;; may not yield estimates of prograi effettawithAesirable statistical

.properties in casesiwhere the outcome Measure is truncated (for example,, ..--- .._-, hours wrked) or in cases where it is dichotomous (for example,emproyed 4 -. ...2- -- or not).. Maximum likelihood techniques have .been developed to account

for these properties of the outcome measures, but are prohibitively,

costly fnr routine use in a prOject the magnitude of this one. Thus,

since the standard regression techniques have repeatedly been shown to

yield quite accurate estimates in most applications, we' have tended to

rely on this procedure and to. selectively reestimate a number c: the

results using the maximum likelihood techniques probitifor dichotomous

outcomes) and tobit (for bounded outcome measures) to test whether the

basic conclusions are sensitive to this analytic constraint,- It is

also important to not that the results or some noncentral outcome

measures are based on simple comparisons.of mear.,,since the cost =. ofgenerating these estimates of prbgram impacts is substantially lower

(

that the cost of regression estimates, yfit, because of the experimental

design, they are still unbiased. We have noted throughout the report

both the results of maxim= 2.ikelihoodtreestimates of the program .

impacts and those places where simple compariSons of means-have been

used.

Regardless of the analytic technique employed (linear regression',

maximum likelihood, or comparison of means), the aiscussion subsequent chapters focuses on experimental/tontrol-group differences in

the various outcome measures. Since these differences are based on

estimates of sample means, which are subject.to sampling variability,

-55- 1 -7-
Cr

Arli.Must consider the likelihood.that'the estimated difference between

exPerimmAals and-Controls it dUe to a true program effedt as opposed

to the randOm sampling variability:The statistical concepts which

relate to this likelihood are the confidence interval around and the

statistical significance of the estimated differentials)." In this

x. report, we have adopted the standard procedures of indicating those

'estimated prograi effects which are significant at the 5 percent level

c\ . 6on atwo-tailed test--which means that there is less than a 2.5 percent

P. chance that there was no program effect given the estimated differential.

We also designate estimates of program effect's that are significant

at the 10 perdent level, meaning taat there. is less than a 5 percent

.- ,schance that the true effect is zero:

While we have adopted these standards'for denoting "significant

effects" in this-reporti there are two counterbalancing considerations

'which we also consider in interpreting the results. The first is the

small probability, that a difference as large as that which is significant

would have been. observed if.the-true effect were in fact zero. This

,means that one must expect the occurrence of occasional significant

, The confidence Interval, which is uniquely defined at

various levels.(the most,common being the 95 percent level), is the . range of vales which has a 95 percent probability of containing the

true' value. That is, if repeated samples were drawn, and estimates

and confidence intervals constructed for each, 95 percent of these

intervals would contain the true value of the impact. If. both ends

of the confidence interval are greater or less than zero,,an experimentalcontrol differential is referred to as statistically significant (at e. the designated confidence level). For example, if we observe a

differential whose 95 percent confidence interval is between $100and

$400 per month, there is only a .05 probability that the true differential is less tnan $100 or greater than $400.

5-6. 72
differentials, even in thiShfendeof-ieei.-prograe-effects. The

iedond'is that failure to observe siqnifiCent experimental- control

differences does'not,necessarily Mean-they-do not exist. It'may simply

mean there is so much sampling variability relatille tothe true'effect,

that we cannot accurately estimatelthe 'Sze of the tine effects.17

In light of these considerations, in addition to adopting the standard

criteria for denoting statistical si4niticanCe,lwe have exercized

some judgment in deciding which results or patterns of results are

. , particularly worth noting in the disCussion and interpretation of

the findings,

11 Increasing the sample size, of course, reduces sampling

variability and, consequently, the likelihood that such,true effects

will go undetected.. This concept of the likelihood that true effects

will, in fact, be recognized as such in the analysis is commonly

referred to as "statistical power."

.YY,Bt another consideration in interpreting the results is ' - that, in scull: cases, estimated program effects may meet the criteria

of statistical significanCe but may be so small in magnitude that

they aie of lttle policy relevance or, in other cases, results which

do not meat standard criteria of statistical significance may be

solaarge that apolicymaker may want to act on the basis of the

findings.

4r

. 3. 7 87

O

ti

:

YY
imPOYI4Ett***b.p0Ads

n,this.cheOteriA4tia ii4AlUmbeiyotieinei-relited to the 1 ,, '..sucCese,ofUpportek*ork-aeLe'S*we,Of.44gating-the employment probleths

ipe4ire*Oehtege&Y014-A*1.1'40.01ite- 140:'0e041-60e41281-0ePf the

4'040-ie-thet:$*047ted**Os2,nOteUcbeSaful in improving employment

.0r0Spep441044:04:elegMentbfrthe yOUth,OOPUlstiOn; but V. may one way sOt'te4u9434 providing -employment for them in the

'0:49.4rvh .tht*:, the `icia40;,9-thi0,*4)**: is not on?-t'to-'04021t the

evidence on which these conclusions are based: but also, provide some

additional insight into the nature and.the causes of and potential bures

for the extraordinarily high unemployment rates among this segment of the

youth-population.

We begin by describing, briefly, the employment experiences of

the control group members following iheirenrollment in the deMonstration,

in order to gain some general Sen:4 as to the nature of the employment

Problems faced by that'pait of the yoUth population 'to which Supported

Work is directed. Subsequently, we desbribe the Supported Work experi

ences of thi youth in the experimental group and their assessments -a

these experiences. PI the sections detailing our results on the effects

--of Supported Wqrk we discuss the following:

I 4,

The short- and long-run impacts of this-program

experience an overall employment rates,semployment

levels, earnings, and wage rates

The extent to which program impacts vary across

sites or. among different. subgroups of youth

59
,post!1M6OCZte&WOrk.IMployaletCharaCter.

44'0--'00',***'.**Pi'4111*St**.ii-:**ra/f#Proveil*.l.t**OiAiiiliP00*6!OP***0,ve to cant ols

tliat.aiiy :riot;shave x"shown;'up. `in gains

_ . , The.i.**t:Oi:44PPOitkONOri on labor-market status

ands job=search

The effeCtsOf_SUpiitte&Work on youth's acquisition

of'fotmal education-and training

In the final section, we summarize the findinge and present some suggestions

for future program strategies that might further our knowledge of the

probleiS, if not provide actual solutions.

A. 61PlOYMENT EXPERIENCES -OF.CONTROL GROUP MEMBERS'

As noted in Chapter IT; over 20 percent of the Supported Work youth

sample had never held a regular job prior to enrolling in the demonstration,

and only about one-fifth of them had held a job within the three months

preceding their enrollment.. However, as seen in Figure III.1, both the

incidence of employment and the average nmiber of hours worked per mon6

tended to increase steadily throughout the follow-up period.1 During the

first three months, 29 percent of the control youth were employed some of

the time. For the total group, the average time worked was 31 hours per

month (109 hours per month anong those who worked). By the start of the

third year after enrollment, however, half of the youth control group were

employed. The average time' worked' was 70 hours per month (138 hours per

't.

"This This upward trend in.employment among the youth sample is far

sharper than that for the other Supported Work target groups. By the end

of the study period, yo011 controls were working 20 to 40 hours more per

month thaA their count( is in the other samples.

60,
fFIGURE Ina

A. TREND IN PERCENTAGE OT ooNtRor,4:E,41.4YED. (YOUTH' SAMELE)

, -

Nircentage

Employed

*scs ao

30

20

1 I

I .1

.3 6 *, 12 13 11 21 24 27

.Months After Enrollment

1 t I

30 33 36

B. TREND IN AVERAGE HOURS WORKED PER MONTH BY CONTROLS (YOUTH SAMPLE)

Hours

per

Month

4

1.8 23. 24 30 33- 36

Months After Enrollment

NOE: _These figures were plotted from data presented in Tables 111.3

and iIi.4irespectivsly.

61 76

.
wonth among those employed) .11 This upward trend is due to three factors.

One is the natural phenoienon by which spa* of those'youth (all of whom

were by definition unemployed athe:start'of the period) gained employwent through a process termed "regression to the mean." A second'factoi.

is that these youth were getting older, and'youth employment rates

generally rise sharply with age:-

2

The third factor is the general

improvement in the).abor market, particularly during 1977. 0-

Pew characteristics distinguish those with more post-lenrollment

employment experience from those with less. During the first 18 mon

after enrollment, controls in Jersey City and Atlanta, tended to wo k

significantly more than controls in the other sites; perhaps a a result

of the relatively higher ratio of CETA jObs to the youth populat'on in

,those sites)/ Calendar time also tended to'be an important Bete nant

of controls' employment, with the later enrollees working significantly

more than the earlier ones. In terms of personal characteristics, however,

only sex and prior work expevienc-4 seemed to be important. Males worked

significantly more than females, and employment was positively and

.1/Eighty-three percent ofthe youth controls held -some job during

the post-enrollment period, broken down as follows: 78 percent of those

with 18 months' of follow-up data; 83 percent of those with 27 months; and

93'percent of those with 36 months of follow-up data.

3/,For example, in 1978 the national unemployment rate was 19 percent

among i.6- and 17-year-olds, 14 percent,among 18- and 19-year-olds, and 10

percent among those age 20-24 (Table Ap-20, The Employment and Training

Report of the President, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., 1973).

2/Between 7 and 10 percent of the jersey City controls reported

holding CETA jobs, and up to 30 percent repOrted holding public-sector jobs

during each 9-month follow-up period. The comparable figures for Atlanta

are lower but still substantially above the average for the other si,ter.

62
.

A

'significantly related to prior work experience.Y In part, this limited

ability to distinguish among those who are more versus less likely to be

'employed is rela0ed tO.the fact that these youth tend tooxhibit consider--

it

able instability in their employment. Those who were employed during the

follow-up period hold two jobs, on average, and the average spell of

employment was just over five months.

B. THE SUPPORTED WORK EXPERIENCE OF EXPERIMENTALS

The design of the Supported Work program is predicated on the

belief that the.principal. factors contributing to the employment problems of

the target populations are.poor work habits) and a lack-of basic job skills.

On this assumption, an,opportunity to work in a supportive environment with

gradually increased standards Of performance would permit the development

of good work habits while simultaneously building up basic employmedt

credentials. From the outset it was recognized that there would be

considerable_ variance in both the time it would take a target-group member

to acquire work skills commensurate with general market standards and the

amount of work experience that employers Would view as convincing evidence

of job readiness. Furthermore, there was a strong cemmitment to the

concept that Supported Work is a transitional program. Thus, in au

effort to balance the objectives of permitting sufficient program experience to acquire the intended program benefits and of ensuring that the

programs not take on the' character of sheltered workshops, the maximum

Surprisingly, the estimated increase in employment witivage was

relatively small and not statistically significant. The regression results

from which these conclusions are drawn are presented in Appendix Table A.5.

63 t,0
allowable time one could participate in Supported Work was limited to 12

Months in.Atlanta and Jersey City and 18 months in Hartford, New York,

and Philadelphia.'"

On average, the youth stayed in Supported Work considerably

shorter periods of time than allowed under program guidelines. As seen

in Table III.1, 29 percent of the youth stayed three months or less,2/

and only 25,percent stayed as long as 12 months. 'The average length`-vf

participation was 6.7 months. However, there was considerable variation

across sites, with those in Philadelphia staying less than foUr months.,

0 and, those in Jersey City and New York staying an average of just over

-\)

eight months. There was also considerable variation in the length of

stay ia the mg-am among the different analysis samples. Most notably;

'those earliest enrollees for whom we have 36 months of follow-up data

(the.36-Month sample) stayed nearly ca month longer than average. This

a. longer aVerage.st,k is due largely to the fact .that over half of this

sample is from Jersey City, where experimentals stayed in the program the

longest; but it is also due, in part, to the more relaxed termination

policies of prugrams during the early period of their operation when their

job-placement procedures were still in the formative stages.

1/This program time Could be extended over a period of betwesn

15 and 21 calendar months, respectively; if individuals had accumulated

inactive time not due_ to punitive suspension. Furthermore, all individuals

who enrolled prioeto.January 1, 1976 were permitted to participate in the

program for up to 15 months, on the belief that programs had not yet

developed strong job-placement services.

2/Fewer than 3 percent of the experimentals failed ever to appear

for their Supported-Work jobs.

64 ,P9
414TH 9F.- PAAncugzaw-lx suropto WORE

14iir

A, PirCantaie DiiifibitIOP-by Sit.

-Jersey New ;,. At "a Ai t York. Philadil hi Sites

Still iniorograi at

`End: oTMonth

.4

0

3' ' 6

0 9' 12

. IS18 (Average NuMber of , ?loathe in Program) if

74.5

57.4

4:6

23.4 2.1

0.0

(6.7)

/-

70.f

. 44,1

31.S

'16.3 1.8 0.0

(5.9)

0- - 46.9

. 62.4

46.3

36.2

11.7.

0.01

.(8.2)

-64.4

. 49.3

36.5

37.0

31.5

24.1

48.0)

43.8

18.8

11.1 9.4

9.6

8.3

(3.7)

71.0

49.4

6.1

24:8

0.0

.4.6

(6.7)

II Percentage Distribution by Amount of FollOW-No Data-

.'1A Months 27 Months 36 Months Total Sample

. . Still in rrogram at

End of Month

3 3 70.5 71.2 72.6 71.0

6 46.7 30 .4 56.5 49.4

9 32.0 39:2 41.5 36.1 ^ 12 26.7 18.6 32.3 24.8.

15 11.4 5.0 16.1 10.0

18 8.1 .0.9 1.8 4.6

(Average Numbor ofa,

Months in Program) (6.8) (6.3) (7.6) (6.7). NOTE: Saiples are defined as specified in Table 11.2, except that the 27-

and 36-month samples must have completed all previously scheduled

interviews.

,The average fength\of stay differs from the month of the first . Supported Work termination for two reasons some individuals do not begin

their Supported Work job immediately upon enrolling in the deconstration

sample, and some re-enroll aftsi a period of inactivation.

- 

65

' e
While the overall average length of stay compares favorably with

the average amount of time vent by youthin either J& Corps or?CETX

employment and with the average length of. time wnirol youth stayed fn.

their jobs (5 to 6 months); there is still some queition.as to Why these

' jouth:etayed in the program such a !short time in -relationship to the

progiam's policies of permitting 12 to 18 months of participation)" Had

'these youth acquired the job ,skill., necessary to find non-program employ0

ment in a significantly

,Could they not meet the

shorter period than anticipatea would

, performance standards imposed even by

c Work progiab? Or did they simply not %ant to wo k? As cart he seen froni

the data in Tible IIIe2, each of these factors robably contributed tothe

overall result. Eighteen percent of the,youth.left prior td exhausting

their allotted time in order to take another Jot) or to enroll in an

be required?

fP the Supported

eduCation or job-training program, 43 percent left for reasons related to

their job pdrformince -Ouch as low productivity, failure to show up on

time, `conflicts with the 'boss or crew), and. 31 percent reported more neutral

. 'reasons for havirt left (Such as low pay and health, and childrcare or

trarsportatiop proble s). 2/ Less.than 3 percent of the sample reported

having left the program because they did not want to work.

Length of stay does not vary with the program's policies on

1.1 maximum allowable time in the program: among those in sites with a,

12-month policy (Atlanta and Jersey City), youth stayed in the program an

.average of 7.7 months as compared with the overall average of 6.7 months.

"These figures on types of terminatpns, whiCh were generated from

interview data, show a lower percentage 406oth positive and negative

terminations-and a higher percentage of neural terminations than those . reportdd in the Supported Work demonstration's Management Information System

(MDBC, 1978-agd MD8C, 19G0). Explanations for these discrepancies include ,

differences in the tip periods and samples covered, as well as unavoidable

differences in the actiiik;Aefinition of categorieS. Furthermore, the MIS

data are nased.upon program opetators' classifications ofereasons as opposed

to i those of. participants, and two groups May haie different Interpreta-

,tions of the reasons for a departure. . , ^ 66
L REASONS FOR=LEAWNO SUPPORTED RORK

YOUTH EXpER.fiENTAL-;sANPIE

. °Percenta DistribUtion b Site

. Jersey New Total

Atlanta Hattford. Cit York Philadel hia S le

Rickets ed Allowable

Time in Programl/ , 22.9 0.0 25.0 8.9 0.0 8.5

To Take Another Job

or Enroll in School

or.Job Training .- 14..3.. 19.7 . 16.7 12.5 38:5 18.0

POor-Perfoimancell/ 24.6' 4S.8.. '31.3 51.8 53.8 42.9

Other 2/ .34.3 34.5 27.1. 26.8. 7.7 30.6

...- O

B. Percentage Distributioh by Amount of Follow-Up Data

, 18 Months' 27 Months

Exhausted Allowable

Time in ProgrataAl . 8.4 5.5

I- To Take Another Job

or Enroll in. SchoOl

of Job Training . 15.7 19.1

Poor Performance 12../

. 42.,6 45.5.

Other 33.1 30.0

'36.Months Total Sample

27:

33.3

27.8

8.5

18.0

42.9

30.6 -

NOTE: Fordefinition of samples,;see Table I/I.1.

"This includes individuals not leaving Supported Work to take another

job, to enroll in school or job training, .or because of poor performance, but

who either spent'the maximum nfther of months in the program or exceeded the

maximum calendar time for participation. .\)

2/1 . This categCry includes those terminated because cf conflicts with

the boss or crew members, use ofdrugs,or alccholv illegal activities or

incarceration, absenteeismI poor punctua],ity, or low prodnctivity.

1This include' reasons such as low pay and health, and child-care or

transportation problems.

682
The likelihood of terminating for positive reasons:was significantly

related to having enrolled in the demonstration early, having more than 9

years of education, and not having a criminal history. The only factors

significantly- related,to terminating for negative reasons were being in the

New York site and haviiig had -limited or no prior work experience.'"

Participants' assessments of Supported Work indicate that a majority.

,of them (62 percent) felt that Supported Work, did not prepare them to obtain

a regular job. _This sentiment could partially account for the high rate

of early 'terminations from the program. However, in general, efforts to

identify factors related to length of stay in the program led to the cenclu

sion that those who stayed in Supportci Work for varying lengths of time

left for quite differen reasons. Those who enrolled during periods of

relatively favorable labor-market conditions, and males, tended to h-ve

more employment opportunities and to stay in the program for shorter

periods of time than otherwise similar youth enrolling during periods of

worse labor-market conditions and than females, re. pectively. But controlling gor other factors, we also observed that youth with the least education,

job training,Gand prior work experience tended to be relatively short-term

stayers despite their more limited alternative' employment opportunities.2

1/These findings are based on polytomous logit analysis of termination types (see Appendix Table A.7).

? /Three-fourths of those who did feel' Supported Work helped them

said that it helped thenf by teaching job skills and trades. More detail

on participants' attitudes toward the program is presented in Appendix

Tables A.8a and A.8b.

2/The regression estimates from which these conclusions are drawl

are presented in Appendix Table A.6. . 4 9
Still another question that arises is whether those 9,percent who

exhausted their maximum allowable time in the program would have benefited

from a slightly longer periapd of employment in Supported Work. There is

no indication that there would be any long-term benefits from lengthening

"" the program eligibility period. First, we observed no relationship between

the length, of time youth stayed in Supported Work and their subczequent

employment gains.---1/ Furthermore, the post-program employment experiences

ofAhose who exhausted their allowable time in the program were more

favorable than those of youth who left the program for other, "neutral"

reasons and only slightly less favorable than those of individuals terminated for positive reasons.?/

Subsequent sections consider in detail the actual impact of this .

Supported Work experience on employment- related, outcomes. In the context

of these discussions, other aspeOts of the Supported Work-experience, such

as job-placement assistance, are discussed.

C. OVERALL EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS

' Offering youth an opportunity to participate in Supported Work did

have short-run benefits in terms df employment rates, employment levels,

1/Appendix C describes the 'formal analysis undertaken to ascertain

whether c not program impaqts were affected,by e length of time an

indiOdua: stayed in Supported Work.

For example, 40 percent of those who left Supported Work after

$,.

, exhausting their allowable program time found other employment,within one

month, compared with only 25 percent of,those who left for other, neutral

reasons. Over the PeriodofNobservation=, 80percent of the "mandatory

t.rminees," compared with 190 percent of the positive terdnees,"entered

regular employment, although the mandatory terminee spent an average of

two months longer in. job search than did the positive terthinees (see

.Apperidix Table A.9).

,

-7
ost

1 and earnings.1/ However, the results of this evaluation suggest that those

impacts were due entirely to employpentin Supported Work._ Upon leaving

'their SupOorted.Work jobs, experimental group members were about as equally

likely as conttols,to-find non-program jobs. The two groups averaged about

.

4 N e the same number of hours' ofmork per month and earned similar amounts in

these. jobs.

The general trend in outcomes can be seen from Figure IIx.2, which , shows the average hours worked per month by experimentals as contra ted

with controls: The large employment gains during the first few months

declined sharply a;experimentals left Supported Work; .and ihe start of

the, second y6ar, when less than 20 percent of the exierimentals were still

in the program, there was essentially no difference in the overall employ-

. went levels of experimentals and controls.

This trend is the result of changes in both employment rates and

hours worked by those who were erployed. Aeseen in Table 111.3, during

the first three months after enrolling in the Supported Work demonstration,

almost.allof the experimental group (97 percent), as compared with only

29 percent of the*control`group, reported.having some employment. Ninety-,

three percent of the experimental group d Supported Work jobell and

!"Earnings Earnings data from Supported Work interviews were compared with

those maintained by the Social Security Administration, primarily '.4o assess

the potential usefulness of Social Secur4y data for a long-term follow-up of

'the sample (see Masters, 1979). The results of this compftzison show 25 to

45 percent higher earnings reported in interviews, at least partly at a

. result of some employment not being covered by Social Security. However,

estimates of experimental-contrordifferences were similar for/thectwo

data sources.

,-/As already mentioned, lesis telan'3. percent failed ever to show up

for:their Supported Work job, However,,, the Follow -up inieririews'didonot

record data on periods, of employment shorte: than half a month, which is

what accounts forothe-higiler rate of those With no record,of,a Supported

Work job.

70

85
t

r-1

FIGURE XIX.2

TEND IN HOURS'-.WORKED PER MONTH

YOUTH.SAMPpE / 7

0

per . Month

20

0

-Contrctls \ Supported Work sot=s

' \

- .%

400/0 maw

110

3 6 9 1.2 13 1$ 2.1. 24 27' 30 33- ,, 36

. Months Aftezy.nro/iment

-

NOTES .1:tete plotted' in this figure are.xeported in Table 111.4.

Enperimental-control 'differen6ais are.sig.ificant °ply for months 1-12,

, . . 1

. No experimenta1s Should have bet in Supported Work" beyond_the-21st month.

That some reportSugOorted Work hours during' months 22-27 may be attributable'

. to either data errors. or. to occaiional failure' on the part of program

operators tb,..terminate individuals "giomptly upon expiration a their

eligibilitrpetriod.

- .

- yy
TABLE :11;4 , PEROEHTA4: *PLOiED

YOUTH SAMPLE

. Experimental Control ,* Eicperimintalf

Group . - `Group Control

Mean Mean 'differential

..

. 7., -3

- 6

a-

- 12

- 15

. 16-- IS

19 - 21

22 - 24

25'- 27

28 - 30

31 - 33

34 - 26

$

Percentage Of .,

Experimentals with:=v

Any Supported Only-Supported

WOeic Job work'dbbs

96.5 28.7 67.8** 93.0 84..7

81.8 38.9 42.916 67:6 61.8

68.2 40.8 27.4** 49.9 44.3

54.8 36.0 18.8** 32.3 28.8

51.0 46:7 4.3 19.8 15.3

45.1 47.2 -2.1 S./ 5.5

45.2 42.4 1.7 , 1.7

47.0 49'.1 -2.1 1.2 1.2

51.3 51.0 '0.3 0.8 0.4

51.0 48.5 2.5 .'0.0 0.0

59.5 54.7 4.8 0.0 0.0

57.5 4919 7.5 0.50

c 1111=11

NOT: Except where notadk all*data are regression-adfusted. 'Control

used in tne regressions' are listed in Appendix Table k.4. The

. samples used are defined -in Table 11.2.

1/These data are not regiession-adjilstee- 'No experimentals should have

been in Supported Work.beyond !oath 21. That some reported program participation

J11aterliontha reflects either data errors & failure by program operators to

terminate individuals 0:SChedUle.,

*Statistically sig4ificant at: the 10 percent levil.

**StatistiCally significant at the S perdent level:

4

I

c

72

ti,
50. Percent, of those with no program job were employed -- reflecting, perhaps,'-

sometself-selection among those not choosing to enter Supported Work or to

I. -1 *terminate early. During monttis 4 tc, 82 percent of the',.experimentals

were' aploied: nearly a.third of them were no longer participating in .

. ... .

. . . - SuppOried'WOrk:, but abOut 40 percent, of these former participants held

. .. non-OppOrted Work jobs. Durihg this same period, the percentage of

controls who had someemployment ?creased and the resulting differential

.. . . . .

. . laeMployment rates between the-two groups was 43 percentage ?Ants.

This trend of a.igh rate of, departure from Supported Work con-

, *timed through the next two quartera,'with successively lower percentages

of experimentals finding non-program jobs upon leaving Supported Work and'

the 'percentages of controls who were employed staying sonably constant

(36 to 41 percent). Over Months 13 to 27, however, overall employment

rates were betweemexperimentals and controls, ranging between 42

9

and 51 percent to the various time periods. This similarity in rates is

/ due, in part, to a rise in the control group's employment of about 10

percentage points during the, first quarter of this second yRar, but also

to some oontiniled decline in experimentals' employment through the 21st

month.

do

Virtually all experitentals had left Supported Work by the 22nd

month Ater enrollment, however, and there was, thereafter, ? slight

upturn in their employment. rate: by the end of the third year after . enxolllient in the de ,-v stration, 58 percent of the experimentais and

'71

50 percent of the controls reported some employment.A/

: i/It should be noted that this apercentage-point differential is

based on few-observatinns (153) and is not significantly different from . P e zero. 73.88
4,t7,144

't-Ael.iie have seen from Figure 111.2, the pattern of results for

JO totaliipUrs employed (botivtupportedWork and non-Supported Mork jobs)

1.1 -parallels those for,employment rates. As indicated,bythe data in

Table-III:4, the Main source,of the decrease in the experimental-control

differential;over'the Year following enrollment ii the sharp decline'in

SupporiedWork e01)1Oyment, from an average of 131 hours per month during

, the initial quarter to 46,hours'per month during the fourth quarter.

Only. about one-fcaLrth of this decrease in program hours was offset by the

tt. '71v

riselwexperimentalk:: non-program esployment. -Furthermore, controls

.. . indrigied thei;auployme4 by. 6Y. percent over this same period, from 31.

-, .,

. -.. to 50 hours per month. lebus, 75 percent of the decline in the experimental4 control differential., hours worked during ti. s first year' due to-a

., 1

reduction in the employment of experimentals, and the remaining 25 percent

is attributable to a rise in ale employment of controls.

In the 12- to 15-month period after enrollment, nearly 60 percent

of those who had stayed in the program for as long as 12 months left,

4 largely because they had exhausted their allowable time in Supported Work;

and the imediate poetprogram employmenttexperiences of this group tended

to be less favorelle than the average for controls.: Consequently, the

experimental-cOhtfol differential in hours worked,droppod essentially to

zero. showed any evidence of employment

It was 'not until the 28- to 36-month period' that experimentals' , 0

gains relative to'controls. Evan then,

,

'"' 1.4

. Appendix Table A.].0 'presents

of hours worked and earnings per month

enrollment. . ..

S. (

It distribution of the average number

during each §-month period following

9

274 80
TaBL;;.ITI.4

HOURS woRi0j# MONTH

yotti,siuitez

4.

'0,_. Supported Work HoUrs 1#04Mental Control Experimental- 'As Percentage. of

. 0kOup Gioup - pUitrol , 'Total ilAtours of , Months_ ..:Mein Mean Diffeicniial NUmber- E

.

. 1'3 .143A 314 112.1**

4 - 6 120.1.-- , 43.9-

. 76.2**

"

7. - 9 97.1. 44.8 52.3**

10-- 12 79:4 . _50.2 29.2**

13 - 15 67.2 62.2 5.0

16 118 60.4 . 61.3 -0.9'

r 19 - 21 64.4 ,63.6 0.8

22 -1'24 69.6 70.0. -0.4 . . -25 - 27 69.1 70,4 -3.3

28 - 30 87.2 83.0' 4.2

31 - 33 491,8 ' 82.2 t0.6

34 - 36 83.3 75.6 7.S

131.1 ,91.5

96.2 .80.1

70.5 72.0

46.2

21.4 31.9

8.8 14.6

2.4' 3.8

2.0 2.9

0.6 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

3, 0.0 0.0

NOTE; ,See note to Table 111.3.

Overagexperimental-control differentials an.. control-group means may

verrinmewhat frowthe-avetages reported in Tables 111.6, 111.7, and

11Z.8 due to slight differences in i-mples.

01/

These data are nett regression- adjusted. to experimental$ should have

been in SupOrted Work beyond month 21. That some reportecprcgram participation

'in later_ months. reflectS either data errors or failure by program operators"to

terminate indiVidualwon sdhedule.

*Statistically-signifidant at the 10 percent level.

**Stadotically significant at the 5 percent leVel.

6 7 ^775-

o.

4
a

. however, the differentials,observed were neither large nor significanqy.

differeu-c from zero:1/

F. ,

.

, i The results for earnings (gross) are presented in Table Z11.6. \-

---,"Pl For the first 18 months following enrollment, these results parallel those .,,-,-q for employment rates and hours worked' However, over the 19- to 36-month 4; period, there was a shift in relative wage rates from experimentals earning

somewhat .more per hour than 'controls to their earning substantially less

($3.93 versus $4.37) in the last quarter of thee-third year./ The result

of this shift is that, while point-eatimates of hours and employment-raue. ; differentials are positive (though nbt significant) in the later-periods,

those for earnings are negative but, again, not siqnilicantly'different

from zerb. , A While the overall results indicate quite clearly that Supported

Work has not significantly influenced post-program employment of youth,

the pattern of results observed for the different outcome measures does

raise, a number of questions. The two main questions are whether the

1/TObit.escimates of experimental-:control aifferentialS.were quite '.. similar to those,reported ia Table 1r1.4; they indicate that in, each time

period, roughly half of the differential in hours worked is due to differ-

),ences- in employment rates and the.other'half to differences, among those .;. . emPloyed, in hours worket: (see Appendix Table A.11).

2/ , .k, rf all earnings data.are'inflated cr deflated to equivalent

dollars as of the fourth quarter of 1976, experimental-control differehces

are slightly smaller. On average, the absolute value 'of the differential 4 will be abut 10.percent smaller durinc,the first nine months, 5 percent

small;i7-dttingthejecOnd, 18.percent smaller during the tfiird,.and 11

percent smaller over the fourth. Estimates are that 10. to 15 percent (.4* ' 2! gross earpi.-.gs were paid in'state and local income taxes and-an Social

Secdrity

0 1

, .

,,

' ;

\.., _.

. / '

.

. . These waae rates are calculated by dividing the average earnings .... per month .(Table iii,sy by the_ayerage number-of hours worked per month ..,,. (Table 111.4). For the.reader's convenience, thesd wage-rate calculations

are 'presente d'ih Appendix Table A.12. - 4
,_COLLAR EARNINGS PER moNtm (GROSS)

YOUT: SAMPLE :

, Months.;

E#00i=imental

',G,FOuP

Alien-

/

.4

7

10

, ,, .! 3

-"6

= 9 ' - 12

''.,-' , , 389.52.

340.76

.284.46

1557.'24 .

V Supported Work.Earnin

Control- EXperitental- 415'1'.*rdel#441*?0.f.Y'

Group. ;,;.1;:kqp; Control

_. , .itcji.44.'*kb100'0,E.

---' Meth Differential Dollars-' eriMintili

. 138:24

161,5I,'

,.,- - -1.4,-4 40-7,9m,;..4446':-:

16 - le' ' '11,:78: i '.' 213 Clo'4 '19 =2 246422 > '220.85

22 '7:24 270.77 256.01

25

- ... =-27.: : 265.98 268.65

28 - 30. 300.95 . 323.53'

31 - 33 323.60 347.73

34 - 36 -187.13 331.59

20.11** 353.90 90.9

.200.25**

,a 266.80 78.3

-. .,146,.16** 197.20 69.3:

90341;k 134.10 52.5

763 63.33 28.9

-4.26 211.23, 13.5

25.37 9.33 3.8

14.76 7.75 -2:9

. -2.07 1.63 0.6

- -22.58 0.00 0.0

-24.13 0.00

-44.46 0.00 0.0

NOTE': ',See note to Table:Th.3.

Overall experimental-control differentials and control group means may vary

somewhat from the averages rep6tted in TableIII.6 due to slight differences

in the samples.

These data are not regreffssion -adjuXted. No expdimentals should bave.been

in SUpported Work beyond montb021.. That some reported. program participation in

later months reflects eitheedata errors or occasional fai-14re by program operators

'to terminate ixidividualsOh schedule.

, d

*Statis;ically,significiiht at the 10 percent level. > , **StatiAtically significant at the. 5 percent level.

0

77-

1
t

,o;

,

results estimated' for, months 9 to

. 27 and 28 to 36 are generalizable, to

those that could be expected,forothe full sample, and whether the pr8gram's

impact Was significantly affected by the fact that some experimentals

'received unemployment compensation'uPon leavin4 Supported Work. We con-

. sider these below, as well as other issues that might explain the pattern

of results.

1. deneralizability of Later Period aesults to Full Youth Sample

As can be seen from Figure 111.3, program Impacts differ substantially among those groups with "various amounts of follow-up data)"

suggesting that the longer-term results estimatedfrom the subsample who

were assigned ai0.completed a 36-month interview may not be generalizable

to the entire demonstration youth sample.?/ Two factors are particularly

relevant to thii conclusion. One

3/

City in the 36-month s ample - and the other is the differential in employ -6

is the overrepresentation of Jersey

ment patterns among controls' in 'the various subgroups. I

11.

.1/For computational ease, subgroup were defined according to the

amount 9f available data rather than the types of interviews scheduled to

be completed. The slight differen9es, iii sample definitions have been found

not to affectthe conclusions. 4As;noted in Chapter II, 35 percent of the

youth sample wads folloWed-for 27 Months and 14 percent was' followed for

36 months. The'remairider-of the sample ampleted only an 18-month linterview.'

2/To'ensure that changes in results over program time are due only

to changes in experimentals' and controlsbehaVior and po4to changes in

sample composition, results plotted in Figure 111.3 pertain.jonly to thode

individUals Icic whom continuous data throughout the follow -up. period are

available.

,

. . Jersey City efiroliees,constitute°5' perderit of the subsample

60 with 36' monthi of Rata but less thah 20 percent of the total youth 'sample.

, N\

, 78.

9.

4

4.
2

Hours

Per

Month

GURE III .3

. TREND IN HOURS WORKED PER MONTH B SUBSAMPLES WITH VARYING AMOUNTS OF FOLLOW -Up DATA

150

100

50

36

27

18

.

36, -*" ,/

2,7- %

18

./ ,/

/ /

.. ow. 1

,

9 12 15 18 21 24 2.7 30

Months After Enrollment

e.,

33

I NOTE: These data are not regression-adjusted. Pigmies used to plot the graph are presented in Appendix

'Table A.13: --,

e \

Experimentan 18 = 18 Months of Follow-up Data

Controls ,--.0 27 = 27..Moriths-pf FolOw-up Data

36 = 36 Months of Folf.6W-,-up Data

KEY: I

t
A

Over the 107 to 18-mtipth period, differentials tended to be cSubstantially larger for those with 36*months of follow-up data than for those

whose last interiliew. was 18 or 27. months after .enrollment, largely as a

.m0 retUlt of differentials in the employment levels of controls. However, by

the 19- to 27-month period, a more complicated pattern of results emerged. . , For example, the positive 16-hour differential observed'for the.

36-month cohort inonths 16 to 18 disappeared as controls (primarily among

4 .2> the.iersey City -sample) increased by 89 per6ent their average hour' of . pl.?" work, while experimentals increased their employment at a more modest rate.

The sharp Upturn in, results between months 25 t6 27 and 28' to 30 for this

36-smonth sample-is attributable to an extraordiharily large increase in

V

experimentals' sb'Ployment relative to'cohtrols' (30 versus 4 hours pet

month) , again a

4 rehd due primarily to changes in behavior of. the Jersey

City sample.1/ In contrast, experimental-controt differentials for the

subgroup with 27 months of'follow-up data becaMe increasingly positive

i. over the 19- te: 27-month period, as experimentals' employment increased

j'j Ar

, faster,than controls' and than that of experimentals in the 36-month sub-

.

,

.

. . grout). The lower employment' among controls .and higher emp loyment,ambhg

(experimentals in the 27-month subgrouo'relative.to 'those in the 36-month .

cl- . f.

,, . . 1 ...: . , . p . group is entirely to a lower:representation of the Jersey City sample, - 1 0. .4 orts, - in the,27 -month cohort. Abstracting from this cordaune.ing,influence of

4

, - the Arsey City Sample, the general pattern, found for other Sun orted,

4. . . 1/Controlling for. site, controls' employment in months 1 to 27 .

is over among the 36-month Cohort and experientalzcontrol.diff rentials

, are arger!: The,peculiaritits, of the Jersey City 36-month subs le are

like y to be due in'part to extraordinarily high UC receipt amon Axperi-.

mentals in this grollp relative to controls and relatiye t4.,'exper mentals

in the /7-month!dohort (see Figure III.4) . 1
a

Work target groups, of more favorable experimefital-control differentials

" being obserd among those groups where controls work relatively little is.

observed for the youth sample, as can be seen in Figdre 111.4.

A more comprehensive view-of the nature and extent of subgroup

1 differences in outcomes can be seen from Table 111.6. As noted previously,

'those controls with 36 months of follow-up data tended to work and earn

. substantially less during the 107 to 18 month period than did controls

followed for shorter periods of time. However, these data indicate that

controls in the 36 -month spb'groiip worked at jobs paying .higher than average

hourly wage rates ($3.74 per hour versus $3.42 to $3.56 per hour for-those

with 18 and 27 months of data), while experimentals in the 36-month group

worked at substantially lower wage rates than did experimentals with less

follow -upmAata. Thus, earnings gains in months 10-to 18. are small relativp.

to the hours ains for thisssubgroup.

Between months 10 b5 18 and 19 to 27, among those for whom data

for both periods are available, the observed sizable increase in the

average-employne:tt among control group members (from 51 to 68 hours), and the

. small change in the average employment among experimentals (from 66 to

' -

- 68 hours per month) I / was accompanied by a.ghift in the. types of employment

of the, two groups of workers over time. Experimental group members tended

to shift from Supported Work to non-Supported Work jobs, and those in the

36-month sample working-in non7program jobs earned substantially higher

average hourly wage rates in the 19- to 27-month period than did those

2/These. figures are the weighted average of the hours worked by

those in the 27- and 36-Month subgroups (e.g., .72 times the value for

the 27-month subgroup plus .28 tines that for the 36-month group).

81
'FIGURE 111.4

fc-,

t - a TREND IN. ifOURS WORKED PER MONTH BY SUBSAMPLES WITH VARYING AMOUNTS OF FOLLOW-UP DATA' : -3

......_). : . . .- .

, * *';:.(ATLANTA, HARTF)RD,

. . NEWYOR, AND PHILADELPHIA SAIIPLES) i): . ._ . .-,

.

t".

6, 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36

Months After Enrollment

NOTE: These data are not egression-adjusted.

Experimentals 18 = 18 Months of Follow-up Data

Controls 27 = 27 Months of Follow-up Data

36 = 36 Months of Fonow-up Data
TillrAir:

initirsineflidis;_Horiiis-,ifeibuirtsamownt, EARNINGS PER MONTH.; :Noun T-11AGE;'BT

_ 21rri5e1roi1oW,OP DATE

. , .

(

. -10 - 18. , ,Nonthi 19_- 27 Months 28 -- 36--:,--_

--Experime tal- Control Experimental- 3 Control Experimental- -Control:-7-

- .. .Control Gioup. Control -,, Group , Control_ -Group.:

Differential Nees- Differential', ' . Mean Differential 'Mean --,

. . iercentageimployed

-*:771-i-WeittWlit--follow=iip ----m." n.a- n.a. n.a.

-.27 monthii of-follow -up'. 3.7 61.0 -0.8 63.0 n.a. n.,,

36 months of -f011ow-ug - 20.0" 19 6 3.3

:. , 56.0 8.1 -65:9

. 5--

a

IANaraoellonis Per Month

a .1°"ti-a tfollow

-up

: 18

months "o f' fl aup

36 months of foilewi-up

Average Earnings Per Month (Dollars)

'-18,montlis of follow -up 15.89 224:17 IP-ca- n.a. n.a. n.a:

. 427 months of follow-up 33.99 196.86 19.76 255.29 n.a. 6.a. 36 months of f011ow-up 97.07** . 99.24 -0.56 231:27 -34,34 a 336.33

8.41 65.6 n.a. 5.d/ 60.8 -0.4 40.7** 26.5 2.1

'

. .

,*

n.a. ft .

.21 . n.a. 71.7 n.a. n.a. 59.4 7.2 81.4

,

Average Hourly'VageRate (Dollars)!"-

/ 18 smiths of follow-lul -0.17 3.42 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 27 mOnthiof follow-up 0.27 3.24 0.30 3.5t n.a. n.a. 36 months of followtup -0.83 3.74 -0.14 3.89 -0.7; n 4.13 _

lo

- MOTE: See note to Table 111.3. Together, these samples include the same observations used to generate data reported in Tables 111.3

111.5. This total sample has been partitioned accu:ding to the most recent interview assigned and completed. Continuous data

was not required for ioclusj.owra a subsasple, whilp this requirement was imposed for the samples used to plot Figure 111.2.

Among those with data fo months 30-18, 51 percent have 18 months of follow -up only, 34 percent have 27 months, and 15 pereAnt

Wave 36 months; Among t e with data for months 19-27, 28 percent also hive data for 36 months.

ti

. . Wage rates have been computed by dividing average monthly, earnings by average monthly houri. Thus. no significance-levels

are indicated.

-**Statistically significant 'A the 5 percent. level.

99

*ea
s. working in non-program jobs during the preceding period ($3.83'versus

. $3.11 Per houi), while those with only 27 months of.4ta earned roughly

. . . . the same wage rates during-botKperiods ($3.80 versus ,.$3.86 per hour) .1/

t. :-

. . f Thls. the decrease in earnings diffezntials relative 'to hours differenA." :

i.

. tials betwedn experimentals and controls durilig this period was subitan-

-

._ ,k., . ..

.

.

. .

..., - , . .

. tia114 largq forthd 36- than for the 27--M-driar-subsample

:

. : As ndted earlier, among the .36-month sample, the upward trend in

.. .

f _ ,

1

7 $ '

. ,It kemploym*en t among both eXPerimentals and controls between the'19- to 27- and the

.. .... . , 28- to.3.4-month periods was duelargely to the beha.vior-of Jersey C y sample ,

members

. .- embers a1 was stronger among experimenta1s than among controls: experimentals

I? increased the airerage number of hoursihey WOrked per month from 61 to

-.

. 89 between these two periOds, yhileontrols increased their employment

. -- ,.. from 59 to 81 hours per month. Haw0er, concurrent with this increase,

.. -

.

' . .... \

. in experimentals' employment; Heir average hourly wage fell by 34 cents\

'

... "

per hour, while the smaller ilncrease in employment among controls was \

vl. \

accompanied blf,a.6 perceriiincrease In hourly wage rates. .,Th net result

of these .shifts,ii the observed negative earnings differential between

experimentals and coAtrols.

Based on the co -rikone'of the behavior of this sample with that

-..

. , oktile samples followed 'or shorter periods, we have little reason to

-expect that ,a similar pattern of the employment results would necessarily

have been observed for the full sample.. In fact, it seems-unlikely_that

the ifiversefre1Ationship-betweenemployment.and earnings differences would

be .exhibited by the -full sample .

These wage rate figures are based on special' calculations, and

cannot be computed from dataresenCed elsewhere in this report.
. -The_Impact on EMplOyMent of Unemployment Compensation

0 . Alt1;gh the initial intenfiofi ofthe supported Work design was

.

,....., not to 4ave individuals become eligible for Unemployment compensation (UC)

.. - . On the-basis-of their SUpported Work employment, a sizable portion of

both the Jersey City and New York experimentals did receive benefits won

.1/. leaying For-theftql-smnp-le-7--therrr-there %gab d 64 yoaart

-difference in the percentage of experimentals and controls who received

tic the 10- to 18-month period and a 3.5 point difference during the

'16 to 27 -month period.?/ However:, the differentials were particularly

'large among te. 36 -month samPle. 'This raises two questions, one.bein, the

A extent to which this alternative income source reduced immediate post-

. program employment among' experimentals, and the.other being whether the

*;:

pattern of emplgyment and earnings differences forthe damples'with various.

4

ti amounts of follow -up data is due, in part, to the differential impact of UC.

Secause a kelatively.small percentage of the total youth sample

received UC benefits, their impact on overall program results has been

estimated to be negligible: Furthermore, even among those with 36 months

of follow -up -data, for whom the experimental-control differential in receipt

rates was much larger (16 and 13 percentage points in!the-,10- to 18- and

1/

As previously noted, those in the Jersey City ;,ample would have

qualified.under the SUA program, while the New York program participated

ih the state UC program. _ s

' These differentials are considerably smaller than those estimated

eithei. the AFDC or the ex-addict samples, but larger thah.for the

ex- offender. _ . -'For. example, we have estimated` that in the absence of any UC.

prggraithe totalhourd differential.during:months 10 to 18 and 10 to 27

*u.Whav*:been-only about 145 hours greater than those reported in
6(

.10- ;to o27-month periods, respectively).,. the: estimated impact on emploiiment

reSiAlts, is reiatively.small,i/ and does not change the: general conclusions

7 , regarding the generalizability,of the 28- to 36 -month reeUlts to the full

.e"

t,--Importancer-Arf-.-.Fabito-S-e-aterftniployment

. , t - Ae iI,.CETA employment pOtentfallY could.

, e . 4 t ( P , . one .Ok the main alternatiNtes to Supported ,Work for this yOuth*groUp. Thus,

attempts were made to desese the extent to which the.availability of such

,prOtirams- contributed .to chi observed employment differentials between

,eiperimentals and controls.

Overall, relatively few (between 1 and 8 percent) in either the.

experimental or,00ntrol group reported employment in CETA or WIN jobs.

duringany nine-month-period, and Experimental- control differentials in

. . the prevalence of, such jobs were low (-2 to +2 perc4ritage points) .?/ Yet,

the differential in earnings from CtTA and WIN jobs during the 28= to 36-

month period is sizable and accounts for the. large negative earnings differ-

, ential: controls earned an average of 34 dollars per month more than' did

-a-differential that_is_equal to that in

earnings from jobs identifiedby sample members as being CETA or WIN jobs.3/

Furthermore, to the extent that youth failed to distinguish between CETA

/". 1/For example, the hours differential during the 10- to 18-month

period might be as- much as 3 hours larger than estimated.'

' See.Appendix Table A.14.

ENONo attempt was made in the interviews to distinguish, between

CETA and WIN jobs. For the youth sample, however, most jobs will have

been funded under CETA.

k
-.

jobs'ind.other government jobs, the above figures understate the importance

o e

. !1.1- Of dubsidized,empioyment, since the differential. between experimentals' and

coritrels' earnings frot all governMent jobs, including CETA and WIN,'iS

over 80.dollars per month.1/-- Thus,- differential access to CETA, WIN, and other government lobs

by those -experimentals apd c9ntrols .with7360morow-up data is - .. ' related to the'lack of significant lon§er-term employment impacts of

Supported Work. However, this pattern-of CETA, WIN, and government employ-

,. .ment-is peculiar td this sample subgroup and post-enrollment time period.21

4 . 4. Other Potential ExPlanations for the Observed Pattern of Redults

tt seems Clear that the results estimated for months- 2$ to 36 on -

1 :

the basis of the 36 -month ,sample are probably not representative of program

effects one would expect to have observed if the full sample had been

followed for that long. Furthermore, the unplanned availability of UC

benefits to former Supported Work participants has hot significantly

affected.tibe program's impacts. While differential access to public

employment by experimentals and controls is related to the observed pattern

of results, the reason for this relationship is not clear. In an effort to

determa e whether-we-could-at least draw_some2conclusions as to the,

expected shift in the estimates of long-term impacts if the full sample

had been observed, we considered several ottier. issues. Oneof the more

See Appendix Table A.14. As'noted later in discudsions of sitespecific results, these differentials 'in CETA, WIN, and other public- sector

employment between experimentils and controls are due to relatively high

rates of- .employment-in-and-earnngs-froR7such employment among control

group members in Hartford and Jeriey Cite. As noted in Table 11.6, CETA

jobs targeted at youth were relatively mbre prevalent in these two sites

than hey were in other sites.-

2/See Appendix Table A.15.
51

1

0 'obvious ones'was whether the pattern of results across the diffekent.

e subsamples reflected the "changing. site composition of the sample (see'

cat. Table 11.2). However, adjusting for the varying site compositions of .the

samples explained little of these differences. Other possible explana -'

tionslar whidh we could identify, no empirical.support concern extreme.

values of the employment- outcome measures and differential nonresponse to

. "

inteAriews.--1/

Another potential ibUrce of these differences is en(interaction between_the _sites and local labor-market conditions. Howevep,

efforts to disentangle the libor-market and site influences have been

'Plagued by a combination of the *Mall sample sizes_a;4_the small- variation_

in labor-market conditions across time relative to the variatiqn across

sites.?/

_while we cannot fully explain why these subgroups of the youth

sample behave differently, it is apparent that the long -termi:fallow-up

results rpor ted here may not be indicative ofthe overall results that

Would have been aloserved'for the full sample. Furthermore, because of

. the peculiar pattern of outcome measures across the different analysis

samples and 'across different follow -up .periods, it is not even-possible

1/

-- We found no extreme values for either hours or earningsi(e.g.$

earnings in excess of $7 per hour and hours in excess of x70 per week)

(see Table - Brown .(1979) and Appendix provide evidence to sdggest that

interview nonresponSe''hiS not resulted in.biased estimates- of program

impacts.

2/We We should,remind the reader that the results discussed above

are regression-adjusted, so differences across analysii samples should

not be due to variations in the measured characteristics of the dir:erent

groups. (See Tabie17.4.)

. 104
to infer the nature of-ihe:xpected shift in results that would have

1occurred from'months 19 to 2 to months 28 to 36 if all sample youth

had been interviewed at these later periods.--

1/ In drawing policy conclusioni, therefore, little weight should be given to the results for the

28- to 36=Month

t period.

D. DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS OU

The, overall sample results discussed in the lireceding section

provide no evidence to suggest that Sorted Work is successful in its

. . goal of iMproving,youth's long7term employment experiences. We may be

.e

able to gain some insights as to possible reasons for. this by considering

the extent to which program impacts vary across sample subgroups.?/

1. Oiffexential Impacts Across Sites 4. Table 111.7 presents estimated program impacts on houis worked

.0 for each of the fide Supported Work sites enrolling youth. Difrerentialb in impacts during the first nine months, when all experimental group

. 1/Given that experimental-control differentials appear tq be

strongly related ontrol behavior rather than experimental, an unsubstantiated jud iS, that the full sample would exhibit smaller employment-

:,rate and hours rential0 and more ,positive earnings differentials than-

. those estimatedfalk the'.small subsample who completed a 36-month interview.

(The estimated program impacts for other target groups also suggest-that

- Supported Work may have sustained impacts only ;ig individuals for whom

or during periods when alternative employment opportunities are extrerdely

. . 2/Sample sizes for the various subgroups scan be determined by . , multiplyins the-proportion af:the-sapiPle in each subgroup by the overalls

sample. Size.rtlieseproportion-s.and sample sizes are presented in Appendix

Table A.4a. I P

'3/Site impacts were also estimated using tobit, with Iiililar

I , results, except that the 28- to-36-month diffeXential for the Philadelphia-

-sahpie_j.i:i significant at the10 perdent,level: (Tobit' estimates are , io preiented in Appendix Table A.I6:)

.

.

.

A-71,
At

4

:

0

0.

0

TULE 111.7 HOURS moo PEA MONTH. Y SITE

YOUTH SAMPLE

.

. , __-__,MOtabs'l - 9' -_ . Months l0 , lit Montbs.19 - 27 -----°` Months 26 36

Control' -;.Experimental- Control.

(irate 'Control, < Orpup Mean . Differential kWan -- . ExpeFineotal-. Contiol Diffireatial

Control

Group, Mean

Eilierinental-. 'Control DifferentialControl Group Mean

, Experimental=

Contiol

Differential

All-Youtva li

Site, . Atlanta

__Hartford;

Jel-sey-City New York ' Philadelphia

i

r P4.3*h,\

. I 77.1hh , - --8712"" 94.6""

61, 5"" 46.9"4

39.7

90.1

35.1 45.1 39.9

31.1

r

11.7""

. 5.5 11.0

-0.2

22.5"

30.7"

58.2

. . 79,2

49.7

73.1, 61.,8

30.8

'.

11.6b/ -15.5-

3.9

. -11.2, 21.2-

14.3

68.2

o __, ______7___ 7.2. 111'74 b/ 127.9- n.a.bi - n.a.b, i2.5 9:6 -' 111.1-' 85.& -10.5 10A.7

32.6'- n.a. .n.a. 45.3 35.9 44.6

. .

iirrSt Set rote to Table iit.i. semples sizes (Or various sut3noups can",be calculated by 'multiplying the proportion of the sample In the subgroup by the

total sample size. These 'figures are pc/minted in hpgendix Table n.4.

.

. . . -

/ .'± . "'Theme overall sample results were estimlt ed from an equation that did not include variables interacting experimental status with site. Thus, 'the subgroUp results may not...wiight rp to eiactly'tbe overall sample results.

k/Ttose data are bdsod on ioople sizesof 20 or less.

. . lexperlInst-OOntrot differentials vary significantly among the sites. (section U.S describes the test procedure.)

"Statistically significant at pi: 10 percent level.

i !Statistically significant at the- 5.percont level. 4

n.a. not _applicable

a

O

gr.

Tr. 44

10

"
e4

.

-' -members--were eligible- to hold program- jobs, are-due almost entirely to , . .. ... I

r.- i . , variation in the average length- of tune experimentali spent in Supported

Work: in Jersey City,; where ,the average length of stay was 8,.2 monthd,

. experithentals'worked 95 hours pbre per month than controls; in Philadelphia,

wnere experimentals stayed in the program only.-3-.7-Wfi-thSiwgverage-,-

experimentals worked only 47 hours)more per month than controls.

. . In .the subsequent time periods, assuccess of experikentalsj.n

nonTproqramlobs became

-estimated differentials

q idoreasingly

across sites-looks difkifent, The point,

...:, t

. estimates of the experimental-control differerices are always negative

o

_

more relevant, the pattern of .

0

. ,

. (thou4h not significantly.different from zero) loethe Jersey City sample,

. .. t i.

,' and they are alway4 positive for the Hartford, New York, and Philadelphia

a - samples. However, only the 12 -,. 23-, and 31-hour differentials estimated

for the the HZ t r or d, Nei./ York, and Philad elphia samples,.reepectively, in

r1/

the 10- to 18-month period are statistically significant :- Unlike *the Ng

first 9-month period, the differential impacts ,in these later periods were a : attributable primarily lo

. .among... controls . For e

the high variance across sites in employment r le, in each time period, controls in Jersey City

... ' . .. ... worked 25 percent, more than the average for all oontrdrs, !bile those in

, Philadelphia worked bly 53 to 66 percent as many hours per month as the

1

average for all controls.

N

Experimentild' hours also tended to be relatively

high_in Jersey City and Atliata and relatively low in the other'three sites,

4

0

r . .'

If

N' 1/Furthermore, the average of the experimental-control afferential

- for the Hartford, New York, and Philadelphia-sites was significant, only for,

months 1 to 9 and 10 to 18. The estimated program effect Was .significantlfr

different between those snrolled in Hartford, New York,, - and Philadelphia,

and those enrolled in Jersey City or Atlanta only in months 1 to 9:

O 0

91' 0

u

A Ma
6

.01"likataszow

. s - - bUt the range was considerably smaller 'than obServed among the various

. control growls.

Thus, as in the case of-the differential impactS among samples

with different amounts of fOl o 7up data, we observe that a.more favorable

pattern of es

r

ldtherwise had xtremely limited e n&opportunitieSi as evidenced. by

ted the controls' behavior-. What is not appareiitAe this pattern of resultsis the cause"of the reXatively low employment among controls n New York,

prograM-T. .acts wasobserved among .szrs-Fivkuth who

Philadelphia, and.Hartfora. '. ©n; -the one hand, -the previously-noted trends

in"area unemployment rates (see Figure IL.1) are not consistent with this

pattern.of employment among c ntrolsin the Various sites. The allocation

of LW employment opportunities for youth (see Table 11.6), onthd other

hand, does suggest a relatively lower rate of public-employment opportunities

for' control youths in New, York and :Philadelphia as compared with those in

other sites. While The controls' reports of CETA employment-indicate that

employment in CETA jobs, per se'contributed relatively little-to the c'oss-

.site variation in their employment, 17 to 36 percent of the controls in

Atlanta and Jersey City reported having jobs iii the public sector.--

1/

Also,

as noted previously, differential access Eo CETA and other public-sector

employment by experimentals and-controls'who were interviewed 36 months

after enrollment is related to' the pattern,of results observed for the 28=

to 36-month period, particularly those results pertaining to earnings.

Other factors that may affect the net impact of Supported Work 'in

the various sites by influencing employment among experimentals are the

1/Appendix Tab1es'A.17 and A:18 eisplay the percentage ofexperimentals and controls with CETA or WIN jobs and thepercentage with CETA,

WIN, or other government .jobs.

92
-SuppOrted Work prpgrais themselves and.thereceipt of unemployment compensation. AS noted in Chapter II, these five Supported Work programs vary

along so many dimensions that it was. not possible tq assess the impact of

- various program characteristics on subsequent employment experiences of

experimental; or on program impacts:

1/. Estimates of the effect

unemployment compensation programs suggest that these programs', at MOStei-,

had the effect of resulting in negative observed differentials between

experiment:11s' and controls' hours when the differential would otherwise

have been expected to be. zero among_ the Jersey City.sanple), and

%

. of dampening the positiverafferentials observed for the New York sample.?"

2. Differential Impacts Among Subgroups of the Youth Sample

Table 111.8 presents estimates of program impacts on hours worked

foz various subgroups,ident.Ified by demographic and background characteristics, in order to determine whether focusing-the program on a somewhat

diffesent group of youth than that represented by this evaluation sample

A would be appropriatee In general, there is no evidence from this subgroup

1/Hollister et al. (1979) summarize the results of an analysis--

based-on the 13 Supported Work progiams initially included in the national

demonstrationof the effects ofrogram, project, andgupervisor characteristics on various outcome measures. They f.nd some evidence -that the type

of work projetc, the type of supervision,' d the extent dOupportive

services are related to program impact. -,Howeirer, as,the authors point out,

these findings may bitsubject to set on bias.

-0 tits We considered whether the length of time a site had been operating

affected the program's impact, but found.no significant relationship. In

addition, we considired the possibility that the Manpower Demonstration

Research Corporation (MDRC), which manages the demonstration, could identify

operational strengths in various Programs that, correlated with the impacts

cn-youth, but determined that such strengths were not evident.

Supporting data are presented in Appendix Table A.19.

93

.,,;k"
TABLE 111.8

HOURS WORKLD PER 11011711, BY DelOGRAPHIC AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

YOUTI1 SAINTE

e'

Months 1 - 9 Nahths 10 - 18 Moths 19 - 27 Months 28

Experimental- Control Experimental- Control Experimental- Control ExperimentalControl Group Control Group Control Group -Control Diffeiential Mean Differential Min Differential Mean Differential .

- 36Control-,

Grwip Mean All *AO/ 80.7*4 39.7 11.11* 58.2 0.6 68.2 7.2 81.44

Yeati of:Age

1. Na4tr-19 82,7** 38.4 13.3AA 57.9 5.5 60.9 11.5 77.0 19 or older 76.9AA 41.7 8.7 58.0 -5.8 78.2 -4.4 95.7 Sex 1 r Hale Female 76.7"

103.4"

42.3 24.0

12.6** 4.0

59.7 46.9 , 1.9 , -8.2

72.2 34.0

1,7 52.0., 87.4a/ 47.7-

Race/Ltd-laity

I White, mat Hispanic

Black. mat Hispanic

90.2" 38.8 54.1AA 51.5 -32.1 109.5 50.01 87.01

Hispanic

80.5** 37.9 8.7 54.9 2.9 61.3 3.5_, so.s., 75.6AA 49.6 8.9 75.9 10.6 77.1 -14.61' 111.3=' UD Years of EAMcatiom a 4u or less wo

78.7** 38.3 6.1 S1.4 -18.6 64.8 43.1 55.3 9 or more 80.7" 40.0 12.41A 59.1 4.7 68.7 -3.9 91,7 1 . b/ Time Since Last Enrolled in School-

.

. Less thammme year . 71.7** 44.5 20.41* 57.8 4.2 61.5 -1.5 93.3 . Owl. two years 8$1.8** 36.0 10.4 61.4 -9.1 78.6 52.8* 50.7 More than two years 85.2** 37.6 2.8 56.3 5.4 65.8 -11.1 89.1 Swop Left School-

. a

Jail,

Expelled 78.1" 36.5 -1.4 57.9 -16.9 73.4 -6.621 67.0/ or in /ramble with police 76.61* 33.4 9.3 54.5 21.5 42.9 15.9 93.6

' want l 4 jab 84.1AA 45.0 18.01* 63.0 15.6 74.7 -8.2 97.2 OtM r - e1.94 39.5 11.9 56.3 -13.3 73.0 28.0 59.8

Lreing Situation at Baselinct2/ I 1 I With parents) 85.7" 36.1 11.2" 53.2 -8.9 72.4 17.5 70.0 Not with parents ' 70.91a 48.2 11.3 70.0 25.01* 57.5 -22.3 117.7

v 1'2
Jae

iii1Ut111.8-(costiimed)

4,

. .11onihs 28 - 16 ___.___,_ _____ Oxparinental- Control

.Control ,Group- Diftei-eitilal , Akan

. . , . . _ 0 13.6 44.0

,7,30-! 14.5

37.2

-6:4 '91.0

"5.8 A11.8

-13.4 !V. 138.12/

49.3 19.6_ -13.1 101.4 31.7t, ss.es/

,20.4 69.8

14.2 '75.8 8.0 81.9

Weeks of 'Job Training in Year Prior torEntollment

Less than 8'; 8 or sore

A "11')

Prior Orug Use

Used drugs other than narijnena

'Did not use any drug other than

1114rijUM14 Prior Arrest:II/

0 79.0** 42.9

4 85.0** 38.6 9 79.2** 38.9

73.3** 82,5**

I 78.1**

99.1**

47,4

37.4

15.5 47.6 104A 61.1 17.81A

8.1 3.9 61.0

57.6 58.0

-, 0

-Months,1 --,9 - Months 10-- IS . Months 19 - 27

-- ...laperimental, _Control iimperimental- Control., ,Exixtlnental- Control

; ' Control Group .Control Group Centiel. Grown , - -Difierenttal _ Mean Dlifk-rintlil Mean Oillariniial Mean . . `e...

*. -..apant -- 75.7* 1 4.20 . 44 64.6 -0.5 46,0- 0n

_ Tuo:paranis 91.3** 37.8 22.8" -50.5 1.8 66.6

10411er ' 76.9,401

. 43.9 9.7 48.0 2.2 94:0

:.. s WelfareAtidlood_Stanp.Mecelpt in

-Month trIoi to SurolhaWrpt % ' . 4

. -Sp..' 85.7" 37.,11). 18.3* 59.1 -11.1 616" 77.6** .- 40.4 7.9 57.3 6.0 70.9

-.. . o ,Dependents . I

,Mosta 82.3" 47 9.4* 59.7 ..73.-1 " 11.3

One or sore. 63.6*Al .49.1

. 29.4* 42.1 42.3* 33.3

. e

Months 1n Longest Job

0- .. 73.1** 38.9 0.6 56.7 -19.1 77.6

e 1 -.12 81.9** 40.3 15.7** 56.7 10.4 62,3 More than

-23.6

12 . 88.3** 37.1 5.4 72.8 90.5

LID tn. Weeks Worked ii Year -

Prior to Ensoi nent4/

0' 80.5** 36.4 15.8" 51.5 .., 0.2 61.6

5' 80.4" : 38.2 13.5** 54.9 0.5 64.8

10. 80.4" 40.0 11.1** '58.4 ' '0.8 68.0

39.6 9.6* 59.1, -0.4 . 41.0 26.6* 48.4 . 10.7 16.3 57.6

72.5 -5.0 . 10.8

9.6

.-"

.;

68.8 67.2

81.8

57.2 58.0

I 18.2 -78.9* 75.0

147.1 10.8 84.0

- 12.8

6.7 4.0

88.5 87.0

91.8
%71181..E'illIDACOntiuued)' - . tu;ati,sI -*9 mouths 10 - la Months 19 - 27 M . MOnths 28'- 36

'Experimental- Control Experimental- Control, Experimental-. Control Experimental- 'Control.

Control, Group Control , Group Control Otoup ,foutrol -Group 'Differential . Kean !Inferential Mean Differential Mean Diffetential Mean Montty Since ,IncerCeration

12 or ,l'esi Neyeicinaiircerated

More llian "12' 0

nurtit 'See iinte to table Ill.l. NTTM se yeault thusiduiroop t-pulta may

11 84:3*#

62.6A*

. .94.5* 32:0'

.13.7*4

4.9

-1.9

. 60.4

43.8

62.3.

8 12:4

12.2 -26.l*

. 62.9

41.3' .48:6

,

. 15.1: '93.2 .18.9 43.9 -20.2- 103;91

ere estimated from an equation that include'd only the standned mnttol variables and an experimental-status variable. Mum..

Calways weight ttp to these overall sample values.

. These subgroup PAM Meta tiStiMaLa in separate regressions welch did not simultaneously control foryotential differences ammigthose with ."\,

-Odiaik-idWractecistimm.

415

Welfare inclades AVM:, General Assistance, other welfare. and welfare income for which tespondeuts could,not Identify the source.

those estImates.ot sta)groOPeiiMeiTeand MMani are baSEd on a linear-(or piecewise linear) spncification et the sample characteristic.

evalitatedat the.specifiad

,These data are based .In sample sizes of 20, less.

1Experimental-control diffurentials.vary significantly simnel these subgroups. (Section 11.E descrihes the test proondnre.)

'Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

"Statistically significant at the 5 percent level.
'analysis that Supported Work will mitigate the employment problems of any

kubSet.of the youth population. The results are no more than suggestive

that a program of this type Ely be more Succesvful if targeted at younger

youths,_those raised in intact families, those who have one or more

dependents to support, those who have little or no recant' ork experience,

and those who have used drugs (other than marijuana or arcohol). Each of

. these, subgroups is characterizeeby relatively low employment among control

group =Wooers, as were the sits where more positive experimental-control

I

differentials were observed. The point estimates of experimental-Control

differentials for these various subgroups tendjto be consistently positive

and Arger than for the overall sample; but they are infrequently significantly .different from zero, eept for months 1 to 18.1/ Furthermore,

the variance across subgroups in the point estimates of program impacts . is suffiqiently large.that, generally, we could not conclude that the

point estimates are significantly different from each other. . E. myEANs OF NON-PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT

It is possible that while not affecting the more obvious measures

of success -:-employment iratesi hours work: 3, and earningsSupported Work

might favorably inf nce,the pattern of yduths' employment or the nature

-, . jobs. rthermore, an examination-of-the mon-program employment

experiences of experimentals and controls Might shed some light on' the

reasons why the program hid so little impact along these Main dimensions.

1/,We considered the possibility that individuals who had more than

one of: the characteristics might constitute an appropriate target group for

a Supported Work program. While we found no evidencd to suggest that . significant' program effects would be observed for ,these sukosamples, they

sample sizes for this analysis were generally very small.'

. .

(Kt) .1,
-Tabke 111.9 presents various..data describing the non-program

employment experiences of experimental and control group members for whom

various "amounts of follow-4R data are available. In oonsideking these , data, it isoimportant to remember that experimental group members spent an

1 4 average- of !Six to Seven months in their first spell of Supported .ork (13

percent returned to the. program one or more times after initial termination):

,Therefore, the data compare the emPioyient experiences experimentals and

. % 4 'control's over different lengths.of time: for those with 13 months of

follow-up data, the refekence Peribd for experimentals averaged only 11

months as tompared with 18 months for controls; similarly, for the 27-manth

and 36-month follow-up samples, tlie reference peribds for experimentals

averaged 21 and 28 mont hs, respectively. As a.result of thebe differeA,

reference periods for experimentals and controls, there will be a tendency

for^experimentals experiences_to look slightly less favorable than

oontrolsi, particularlYlahong the sample for whom only 18 months of

, . follow-up data were'imailable.

Indeed, what we observe is that the non-program employment experi-

. ,ences of the two groups are quite similar. For all three'samples, A

'slightly lower iercentage of experimentals than controls had some non-

, * . program job (mainly reflecting their shorter reference petiod)., and

iiPer1Mkr'gs Wbrkedionly-d-slightIy-higher-percentage of the available

0

weeks than, did contrOls.1/.Anong both experimentals and controls, twothirds to three-quarters of theijobs were in the manilfacturingg retail

. For experimentais, their available' weeks are considered to be

those since their first Supported Work termination, and for controls, they

include the full follow-up period. 4.
,TAKE

NON -SUPPORTED-110111t. aseLontawr EXPERIENCE

YOUTH SAMPLE

. Sample.With 18 Ikeiths of

Follow-up Data

Experimentals 'Controls Sample*th 27 !baths

Follow -up Data

Ezperimentals Controls

r.

. -

Sample.wity-36.Hanihs,Of .

Fo1164-40_eati,___

EaPerimentalc- -Controls.

---;Nonth_CF,Itat-Suppoited _ s, 6.4 __I 2:a. 7-.2 'percentaialtiitb-Non 7SupPerted Work_ Employment 65.8 78.4

_ 74.8

. _ 82.8 f 90.3 OLThoieilithllon-SUOPorted*Woik Employment.

:PaiCintige,who-'found.foh,through-

- *opported7Work "i, 15.3 n.a. 10.6 ' n.a. 5.4 Empleyment.,Seivice, 3.1 8.3, 8.7 13.1 7.1 Percentage with rollover jobsk! 3.8 n.a". 2.9', 1.8 per-entage,With-OSTA or WIN jobs 942 8.8 11.5 13t7 16.1 Percentage with CITA, WIN, or-governient jobs. 23.7 23.2 26.0 29.8 33.9' Hours worked per week° 18.8 15.4 17.4 14.7 16:1 Hoars worked per week when'workedq 39.3 38.4 38.8. 38.8 35.8 Q, Wage per hour (dollars)41 , - VD . 3.44 3.40. .3.76 3.41 3.43 Length of first continuous spell of employment (months) 3.9 5.0 6.0 5.6 5.8

-Percent, in their first job at end of follow-up period_ 32.3 26.5 i5.0 13.8 19.k Number of spells of employment 1.4 115 1;7 1.9 2,2

:Percentage of available weeks, employed . . t 48.3 38.9 43.9 36.8 42.9

n.a.

21-.8 n.a.

lo.4" 50.9

14.6 39.3

3.59

4.7

5.5

.2.6 '38.1

POW: These data are not 'regression-adjusted. Samples used include only those observations for Whom continuous data for

time (18, 27; or 315-Months) were available., Data pertain to the full period ,covered'by the interview dati. - . . a/ J

s, - Thirteen percent of, the sample left the program more t an once. On mierage, individuals were in Supported Work

10t :of their first termination. The overall average length of stay tboa months.

_ °A participant, Kith a rollover job is one who has the sale job as during Supported

.._ , Work participation, bud whose . . sul,S.eidized by SuppoitedWork nor does'tbe Supported Work program provide supervision.

'

.. - c/- For.experikentals, the'average hours worked per week were calculated for the period since 'leaving Stipported Work.

*ihclude non- Supported -Work hours during the period of program participation:.

41/ '

- -.These, wage rates are calculated as the average, for all individuals who had jobs, of their-total

the'ind1cated length of

6.3 months at the time

wage is no longer

not

of hours worked.

They do earnings divided by,the.nnmber

e 120

AA.

..
:

. trade, and service industries, and, they were mginly in. clerical, service,

$

. _

. /

and.miScellaneous'occupations.--

.

--- ." --A-surprisingly-small-percenta n geess than "20) of the "sample

reported that-the Supported Work program or the employment service had

. .

, helpedthem find their jobs, endless than 3 percent of.the experimental

. . N

non- program jobs were a continuation of their Supported Work jobs ug.th a

*. I- shi to aite'rnative,kunding and supervision (i.e. ;rollover jobs)'. The

1T=entagelpf experimental youth who reported that the Supported Workprovam

- had,helped them finda non - program job, increased over time, from 3 percent of

those enrolled in, to 7percent of those enrolled in 1977. Also, youth . .

, ''. t c in Hartford and Atlanta were much more likely to reporpprogram assistance

...,- , (9 and Osercent,:respectively) than those in the other sites (less thap

.

1 S perceritin JerseV.City and New York and none in Philadelphia).

- CETA jobs were much less prevalent among both groups. than we had

anticipated they might be, and there was little difference in the preva-

, lence of such jobs between experimentals and controls who were employed.

Between 9 and 16 percent of the diff4rent subsamples reported such jobs.

However; two.factors are noteworthy: the first is that the average incomell

from CETA employment increased over calendar time,?" and the second is that

CETA euployment tended to be more-prevalent gong the Jersey City controls.

than among controls in other site or than among experiitentals in this site.

4 (These facts may partially expla in the relatively high employment among

controls in the 28- to 36-month period, which on average is 3 months later

't See Appendix Tables A.20. and-A.21.

A Po examplee for the full sample, CETA earnings during- 1976`' . 2

and tearly. 1977 averaged about S5 per month; during late 1977 the average

wa$12) per month; and dUring late 1978 it was about $17 per month.
.

sp

,

.

. . . .

. 4 '. Ian ,the calendar' trinie",covered 'by the 19- to 27-month results, and which

-- -----.1 . . . . - .

. includes a `sample of which 56 percent afe from - jersey City.)

v -4. , . , In terms of other aspects, of ihe' non-program jobs, there are no'

,

I,

4 . Among thole who were employed, t,e average hours

.._ . ..

. , yor)ced, per.week when'enployed was 36 to 39, suggesting that nearly all

. noteworthy differences.

worked' at* full-eine jobs . Experidentals .%4Orked slIghtl):sore hours per . -

. month than controls; but for the full youth sai4: .e, the average hours

worked n non-prograM

both,

-groups (11 to 15)

1-,

. - . mentals and-controls by 5 t61.0 percent in either direction. Among the

ample, experimentlis exhibited a tendency toward more stable

jobs per "available" month was about the Same for

Average hourly wage rates varied between experi-

.

emplor ni--the aVerage length of their first non-program job being 6

months, as compared with 5 months for contrat--(not accounting for the fact

, s.,. that a .higher -percentage of this group 'than of controls were still in that

7 . ,, , . A

*:,'. i. a 4 ,

' . Xirst job at the time of their final. interview--20 versus 6 percent) .1/

As .wefnoted in the discussion of experimentals' Supported Work

...4

g, experiences, youth tended ..to stay in Supported Work longer than they

'''',.o 11

k stayed in other typei,,of jobs (617 months, as compared with 5 to 6 months

1 for non-program jobs)'.?" ,t_

A. Yet, neither. for Supported Work jobs nor for

O

1'

.

. Of those- youth-slrho left their non-program jobs, 30 to 40 percent expressed dissatisflcgon with the job.7. Half of rthe experimentals

and 36_percent of the controls reported having let due to 'lack of work.

Ten percent of the el,:perimentels and 6-percent of the controls lef'

abetter opportunity (se& Appendix Table A.22).

2/While the data id Table 111.9 indicate that an av erage spell of

employment among controls lasted ,between 4.7 and 5.6 months, recall that

some contrqs were still in their. first job at the end of the periodcovered by*the interview data.

/

101 122

c

(
non-program jobs has longer tenure been found to result in improvements in

other dimensions of employment- related outcome's such as employment rates

O or levels.

F. IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND JOB SEARCH.

In addition to:directly altering ,employment opPoxtunkti,us-for

yodth, it was expected that SUpported Work might increase youths' participation in the labor force and alter the extent and nature of their job- -

search activity_ However, except for the first nine months following

enrollment, when a 'significantly higher percentage of experimentals than

'controls were employed in Supported Work and so not actively engaged in

job seLrch,.there was little difference in either the.labor-force' status

or job-search activity of the two groups.. After month 9, between half'

and three-quartets of these youth were in the labor force during a givep

month, and about half'qf those in the labor force were employed. Those , locking for work spent an Average of about eight hours per week in search

activities,, which included an average of five to six contacts with

employers. 1/ Less than half the youth looking for work reported checking

with the state employment service-and only a few 43-to 14 percent) checked

with the CETA office. Most efforts appeared to have involved less formal

search methods such-qs contacting friends, looking in'the newspaper, and

\

checking with employers directly.

We do observe a consistent pattern of higher reservation wage

'rate.; among experimentals, which are between.$5 and $15 per week (4 to

. . 1/The above &te refer-to-job-search activity during the four

weeks preceding .each follow-up interview (see Appendix Table.A.23).

. , 2/ --,The_resekvaticidniage rate is the lowegt wage for which the

4ividual is willincito WOrle., ,, 102 123
l+percent) higher than among cont.:As:1/ It is possible, then, that this

higher reservation wage among experimentals has led to the discouraging

-a results with respect to job-search efforts, which resulted in both lower

employment rates and reduced labov-forCe participation than would other-

, wise-have been expi otest_liawaveriwe have_not_undertakema.formak-test of

this notioll..1/

This lackof program impact on job search suggests that there will

not be employment effects in later time periods than covered-by our data

which are attributable to program-induced changes in job-search activity.

G. IMPACTS ON EDUCATION AND TRAINING

s

Limited education and formal training are often cited as one of

the main reasons for the employment problems of yOuth. While the Supported

Work program itself emphasizes the provision of work experience rather than

-formal training, there are reasons to expect that it might nonetheless"

affect the education and training decisions of participants and former

participants. On the one hand,. Supported Work might increase participation

1"This pattern of differentials between experimentalsf and controls'

reservation wage.rates doesnot appear to be related to differentials-in

unemployment compensation receipt (see Table IV.la and Appendix Table A.23).

2/ --Employed controli consistently had higher average reservation

wage rates than'experimentals and than the unemployed or nonparticipants

in the labor force. This suggests that more experimentals'probably could

have loundiwork than did so, but at lower wage rates than the, average com-

-mended by those who had found employment.

While the differences were not statistically significant, a

substantially higher percentage of experimentals than controls reportod

that they had not'undertaken any formal job" search during the 10---to 18-

month period (14 versus 10 percent) and the 19- to 27-mOnth period (16

versus. 10 percent) because they felt that they would not be able to find

work.
a.

:A(

in such programs,by altering attitudes towards,, providing information

abait4.or providing an income source to support investments in human

capital. Onethe other hand,,the program may tend to limit such invest-

.. ments by directly increasing employment opportunities, particularly in

the short-run, and consequently the opportunity costs of such investments.

p. As canibe seen from liable III.10, Supported Worktendedto reduce

.slightly alternative investments in human capital during the first 18

months following enrollment (particularly while experimental group members

were participating in Supported Work), but, not thereafter. However,

education and training by both groups-was quite limited throughout the

follow -up period: 6 to 16 percent were enrolled illeducation Programs

4

af ,(mainly high school) during any 9-month period, and less than 10 percent

were in formal training programs (a third of less of which were sponsored

by CETA)

H. CONCLUSIONS

The weight of the evidence suggests that Supported Work is not an

effective means of, mitigating the employment problems faced by youth.

5 =- Youth stayed in Supported Work jobs for considerably shorter periods of

time than permitted under program regulations, yet less than 20 percent

of',them left to take another job. Over 40 percent left, indeed, for

negative reasons. At some time subsequent to leaving Supported Work:most

of the youth in the experimental group did find non.-program employment:

About 30 percent did so within the first month after leaving, and two-thirds

had done so within one year of leaving. However, what we 'also observe is

that many of these 'youth would hava.been similarly successful in finding

104' 125

a
' ; .

. TABLE 10 - ,

-. -

. ,

, '.'.^^, -: ,5

'',"

o k -PAOICipATIOW-IM.EDOPATIONLAND.TRANING PROGRAMS

1TH OU '.SidIPLE

-.:

-;,.- -.;

:

:4

-- -, honthi;

. , .,,.., .

_ _ - ._.; Experimental- . -Control Experimental- -Control Experimental- 'Control Diperimental -.1Controi ,I -Control Group Control Group Control drogp conikiL Jlrogpf:-

Differential Mean Differential Mean Differential Mean Diifekeiiiial,...--- . ,ileast.-Y *6544i011.1.104F,04-

Of-thOie,Ptiiiieipating-',.

i4i0eW1#ge in.bigh'ichOol program

\

,- Wrientiga:Participating

;;-.- 4 . , , --1!,..:ra410,1usber-Ofwfski

,Peipttagm 'in vibeitiOaal,prograMt/

Percentage-in College,prOgram

Peieesitage "in other program

receiving

degree-'

. 41 1 : Trai.mig Programs

Percentage participating

Percenigge diploma or

Average number of weeks

Of lhose_participating. egrcentage

* iu programm,sponsored bysupported Work

eETA or WIN

a Percentage receiving certificate/- ,-1.0

-1.- 9._ ,- MOnths 10 - is Months'19 - 21 ,

e,...,

. ... s . ,

1.4 68.9 -10.8 .

i 75.7 10.0 60.0 0.0 'I.:

50.0 d

-3.5 15.8 0.9 10.1 1.7 9.0. ,, -1.3** 2.9 :0.1 ' 1.8 -0.1 .1.8 -Q.8

....7-.-- 15.6 8.1 S 10.8 1.7 13.3 ,, 0.0 s., ,1.9 -8.9 -5.4 13.5 -21.7 . 26.7 16.7 " 33.3

1.5 6.7 8.1 0.0 10.0 O..0 -16.7 16.7 i 0.1 1.2 -0.6 2.0 1.4 0.8

-3.7** 7.2 -4.0** 9.6 -0.2 -0.6** 1.1 -0.7* 1.6 -0.2. 1.3 -0.0 . :070 1

. ',

333 ** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0

Jail or prison -6.7 , 130 -17.7* 26.8

-13.3 26.7 2.2 34.1 21.4 : 21.4 -33.3 33.3

other -13:3 60.0 15%5 39.0 -7.1 42.9 33.3 -A 33.3

2.5 -4.3** 5.8 0.7 2.2

5.7 -0.5

-2.6 . 2.6

-2.6 "2,6

1 NOTL: See note to Table 111.3. Unless otherwise noted, data pertain to the fdll sample.

'Mese data are not regression-adjusted.'

Wrheuo figures may include those for vocational high echool

isLatisLically significant at thu 10 percent level.

**Statistically significant at the 5 percent level.

programs. 127
4

n ezipibittiien had they not participated in Supported Work, as evidenced by

.the,AMplOyMent.rateeloi'the-A#4ntrOl group; these rates, while much lower

'tbon_thAAVcrage yOUth.,,lire.higher. than: for other Sported Work

-tailet7groups :044-thAn-WermAkxpettettfor thi3 itbqrOu0 ofyouth.on whom

, Sii0ported,Work_focuted, TheAnsiyiis-of'differentiai impacts across sites

Eici:Subg,#1Ps of YOUth-AhowivtOneietA4t Ithough generally not significant)

44,ttarn,!of relatiyely-More fatOreble7,4prOgram effects among those youth

:whotcOntrol:OroUp coUnterpartikeAhibit unusually /owlet/els of employ-

.

,

4'-Hartford't And Philadelphia.;, and those who are younger, have one Or more

0S0t;, the earliestAtnr011eeSin the demonstration; those in tiew-YOrk,

dependents', were raised by two parents, and have little or no recent

employeentexperiende and some history of drugs. However, the results

provide no... strong evidence to **gest that simply redirecting Supported

Work to focus on this subset'of:youth would substantially alter the conclusions

. concerning its sucCesS in its primary .objective of improving youth's

longntimemployment prospeatA.

The program clearly es have, short-term benefits in terms of

increasing the employment opportinitieelfor this segment of the population.

.

,: However, in judging whether these immediate benefits can justify the

, v f continuatkin of Supported,Work=programs for youth, one must give careful

consideratiOn to its cost-effeCtiVeheSs in relation to alternative , prograits.

'See-Kemper, Thornton,- 'and

of the costs of Swported:Work, the

shiPbetweeh the costa ,apCbenefits

I

long (1980) for a detailed discussion

value of its benefits, and the relationof Supported Work and those of alternative
CHAPTER .IV

INCOME; IN -KIND TRANSFERS, 'ttELATED.,OUTCOgES

ti

1:*P" rationale "for' public expenditures an employment' and

ttaining,;progaMir yoiath that they will increase the economic . staitu: sand ndependence of the participants; both while they -are

enrolledn the program and subSeguintly. During - the, month prior

enrollment lit Supported;. Work, 'tiie,,touth--,sample exhibited a very,

lbw, level of income- (about '0.00), 15 percent of ,which. came from

public;. InsthischaPter; we consider the short- and

longer -run impadts-of SUppakted Work on the total income received

by ,participants and"thesbUkCes.df this income. In addition tO.

being?Concerned with'overelleconomic status, we are interested

in theektent to which individuals become relatively more dependent

on (*things and less ;so on -transfer income and'variou5,formoof

. in -kind assistance, and the extent to which program- induced changes

in earnings and Othei sourCes,04 income might lead to significant

changes in 'Other areas, suchas household. composition; expendituret

. for-hatising,, and medical-care' utilization.

Al ,Dtiring' each 9-Month. period,: 3 to 17 percent of the

. . and' .. experiMental, and' OantrOl ,Y04* 'reported receiving, some ;Money through

4404 4040.4,!, '0,441v444:*!.4 3,1444: 4#511i! :HOWAVek , because

t4,',444-,.-4*'0i:cilitti4§001141,,adpurk0,0YI?e00.1se- the 'differentials

between,eXPeriMehtale,and-controle ,tenclto be small, and (because . 1iiy *4q40-9t,ineoill** 0004-1h relation to Ingo* from,other

SOUicie ilei* i4p,O -0,*0i94; we- )141-0. 40t. included illegal activities

among the sources of .income,- considered -thi-s. chapter.

V
In the,next section we.-discuss the effect of Supported Work

on receiW Ciriritoisa from each OE fiVe different sources: earnings,

. . unemployment compensation,-welfare, food stamp bonuses, and other

.. Tragrams- or ',p,erSonS.-ft

,.Subspquently, we Consider ohanges in receipt

c,-

I. ;. of in-,kind..ilfsnerits. These ''verion4 sources of income and in-kind

, . benefits are depicted' in` Figure 111.1. The third section discusles ' results- fpr a- variety of outcomes related to economic ,well- being.

With the exception of the first ;line imonths after enrollment,

when, as a result of their Supported Work jobs, experimentals had

substantially higher earnings than'Controls, prOgrain impacts on

both total income and its sources were modest and generally not

significantly different, from zero. As seen from-Tabie iV.1, during

the first 18 months following enrollment, experimentals were more

,

likely than controls to be.employed (mainly in Supported, Work jobs)

-:r and their resulting higher. ,earnings led to signifidant reductions

*t

-V Since 65 perCent of the, sample yoUth lived with their-

, parents t-the. time of. enrollment in the demonstration, we might expect the. ycliithf-s- indome gains to particularly influerice the

. trans* indoa-received by other. household -.members. --,The only

eviaende'we,=haire of such. an-effeat; hOweVer, is a- reported sixt_teduction,.# th e percentage- of- experimentals, relative to

coritrolS; who-=reported that other household members received any

..form - of c '40Siitance-dUr*ng- the first 9' idnthsi following

enrollment: This result does,not pertist into subsequent periods;

'furthermore, it May bp-co-ni94ndo With trends over tingLin the

numbers: of Youth whci.-are,:livirig".with- their parents.
_ t

4 EIGURE IV.1

#

CATEGORIES ocOmz,At0147ximvantialTs_usED IN .THE AMILYSIS

2

1

'

Other

Welfare TOTAL

INCOME

V

30NUS VALUE OF

FOOD STAMPS

Alimony

& Child

Support

Other

fi

0

OTHER ZN-KIND ASS/STANC;

\

1!!/7--blio \ Child

Medicaid Nousing_14 Care /1 \ Subsidy
.4 .4 'if, %Nee.' `, .11c.,;iv t

. .

TABLE 14:4a

piticEmiiwkicpViNGTOCOOkTnitik Vik1o4t-taigtEs.

:,108TH SAMPLE

V,-

Moths 1 .B

-Experimental- Control

Cietret Group.

Diffeiential Mean' Eariisagc t4 46;i4*

-110earnedPiCali

t,'COM;penntiam -2.0_

Wafaia ,r.

Ottier=5

..

4/

if1. 4 r

, ..:

. It, -0.5

L., A'

. - _- ._ ,.. -liontbs 10 - 18, - . Months' 19 - 27r , 'ExperlieentA=----Control-- ----Experimentsl-,----Control

COntrol , _Group Control Group

- hiffirintial . Mean - --Differential` - Mean--

_ :Months- 28 - 36 xperimental--- -Control.-

pnti'pl` -GrOup'

Difietiantral . -Heti

52:5. 6.2* 62.7 0.0 62.6 8.7, 66.2'

/ 4.0 6.8k* ;.7 3.8* - :3.8 -5.6 ,6.8

17.0 -3.5 21.,4 -1.3 20.6 -11.4* 25.0

32.4 -3.7 30.5 -0.6 29.0 6:6 . 30.3 6.3 -1.1 5.1 0.4 0.7 .1.7

'

S44 2

TABLE IV.lb

INCOME RECEIVED PER NORTH FROM VARIOUS SOURCES

YOUTH SAMPLE

(dollars)

',F(Ssit sal - 9

.c.---ExPerimentil

Months 10 - 18 Months 19 - '27 Months 28 - 36 Control Experimental- Control Experimental- Control Experimental- .Control

;. -Control - % Group Control Group Control Group Control '4 Group

Differential Mean differential hean Differential Mean Differential Mean

,._ All Sources ' 215.01**

EaenIngsig , - 22b.73*t

Unearned Income

ti.employment Compensation -k.99,"/- Welfare v -6.66***1; Food Stamps 0.88

0e her=/ 0.94

176.04

123.95

. 5.63

22.85

17.52

5.65

21.95 265.44

30.71

11.16 ** -12.49k*

-3.63*

--1.34

26.99

205.25 19.30

4.71 33.00

15.44

6 81

-311.68 248.98

10.14** 5.80

-6.20 37.30

a -1,42 -16.82

5 91

-54:54

-41.53 -8.16

-15.75

' 5.18

- 5.33

408.01

342.58

10.25

36.01 18.78 0.58

NOTx; See note to Table 111.3. All data pertain to the full sample. not only to recipients.

-1/Earnings data reportedin this,chapter vary somewhat floe those reported in Chapter II1, becata8bf a alight difference in the samples used

oak) individuals who'have valid data.for all incoemsourCes listed in this tab?e were included in the anslysisroported hero.

1/iMeifare .includes APOC, 4A,`SSI, and other welfare income for ration respondents were minable to identify the source.

,other unearned income includes SOCIal Security, Pensions, alimony, child support, and job - training income.

*Siotietically significant at the 10-percentlevel.

Stotiitecally significant-at the 5 percent level. a

13(5
,

. . ...----- ---*--wetfairorrenefits21 and food-bonuses, averaging. about $12 1

_ _., . xr A. 1 ar'i6hihY -HO

. ., 0 ..' . POlicaisistanawberiefi0 waS'largelk _ offset by a significant $11 -

. ___ %

\ '

action in

per mont*,increase-in unemployment compensation (UC) among experimenyis

relative-to co rol;.21 Bymenthi 19 to 2 , the onlli.significant

.? differentialere in the percentages receiving and the average value - Of .UC benefits. however) these diffekences are relatively small

(4-vircah*

t eqmints and $10' per Month, respectively) and, ,as not "ad

previdUslY! they are concentrated, among the Jersey City sample. 4

'Duixikmonths 28 to36, the overall effects indicate a curious . pattern of increased employm5nt, decreased reliance on transfer

og' auras; and .an overall reduction in total income dde to lowerearnrngs) among experimentals relative to Controls. -However, the

only diffgrential that is statistically signifidant is the.11

4L

0 For a subset of.the'Supported Work AFDC sample, interview

data on welfare receipt were compared with welfare agency 'data. It

was found that interview dataunderatated by a small amount actual'

receipts and that the degrei of misreporting was strongly' related to

dhafigeS'in receipt.: For the AFDC sample, it was estimated that misreporting.-may hive led to as much as 'a. 12 pirdeneArror in the

results (Kerachsky-et al., 1979). However, bedause''og,youth's loWer'

receiPtrate and incidence' of changes-in receipt, the likely effect . of Misreporting for them . 4,

TS - .0n average, feMales received two to three times as much .

incomefrom welfare in& food-stamp-bonuses as did males and, consequently,

..program impadts tended:to be substantially higher for them since impacts'

were strongly -rilitefto.preenroliment-penefit levels. Among s!' number

of other sample-Subgroups for.whom Program impacts were estimated, there

was.no consistent pattern of differential effects.

2/_ This,UC differential occurred mainly among the Jersey city_

lample, in which, 40 percent orthe experimentals .versus 8 percent of

the controls- received benefits.

I Y

.
1.

percentage -point red*ction in receipt of any Welfare benefits.

O

.0

The trerids-in total intbide and iricadk SoUrraes of the entire

. .

. . aaple.are depicted. in- Figure :Except for the sharp increase'

u . liaexpefimentals' income during tbeirparticipatiOn inSupliorted Work,

. . *. experimental and control youth_experienced roughly similar increases

. . . in theit.total incomes over time (from about $120 per month prior to

enrollment to between,$350 and.$400:per month during the third year

. . following their program_ enrollment). Thist.trend is attributable almost'

.

. ' entirely to a general increase in employmenand earnings, Which; in

the:long rune does not appear to be significantly iaffe cted by SuppOrted

Work. In no instance during the'post-enrollment period did wegare

and food stamp bonuses,constitute as much as. 25 'percent of total

rincome 'and, by months 28 to. 3§A..only about 15 percent of all income

8. RECEIPT OF IN-KIND ASSISTANCE

In' addition to 'transfer income, 19 to

. 6 youth had piedicaidcards and 25 to 30 percent

housing assistance during each of the 9-month

1... . 1/ , ' There was some slight variance'in dependence on transfer

income across sites. Overall, ,youth in New York were less likely than

average to. receive benefits (and, consequently, program impacts on

benefits were/16Wer), and those in Hartford were 'slightly more likely

than avera e to receive benefits (and, consequently, pf gram impacts on

vels were larger than average). Perhaps because welfare ands constituted such a small percentage of total income, we.

ed no relationship between the sites whdre welfare and-where .employment

ts tended.to iie relatively more Ovorable. , ., v.r

. w 2/

, . , Data on in-kind assistance are presented-in Appendix Table'g.24.

21 percent of the sample

received some form of

follow-up periods)"

- 112
Pae.rage. Dollar$ Per !bath

[4.11;ems1.1 C*.trola Nestlias

YOUTH SAYELE

I 400

300

.

.7.

200

100

, . C

.tapartartala Golo0.18 Laporumatalto Petrels roisimungs CettroL#

*\.,A

Ilossits 19.27 maths 21.36 NOTE: Dada from which.tas figure *.is drawn are presented in Sable 1111b.

\

Orliet Unearned Sources

'Tood\Stamp Sonia

Welfaie

. Oreemployment Compensation

Non-Supported Work Earnings

:Supported Uork Tannings

. .

.936 , nr

I r
Wfille,prograw-induced incbme:changes might be etxpected'toaiter eligibility

: .

_ °' . f for.both types of benefit's, the only significant findings with respect to'

o Medicaid benefits were56- and 9 -point reductions in the percentage of

experimenta*relativi to controls who had a Medicaid card during the first.

'and second ,9 - month periods after- enrollment, respectively. There is some

indicatiOn that cara'holdership xemained.lower amo g experimentals than

controls in liter periods As well, but tIfe estimated experimental-control

..'differentials were hot statistically significant. There is, however, no

0 indicstiOn.that thiSloss in benefits led to any. reduction in public

expenditures' for subsidized care, as both experimentals and controls

.

. - reported roughly equal numbers of subsidized doctor visits ind'subsidized

days Of hospitsl'care.- care 1/

Throughout the period of observation, a smaller. percentage of

experimentals than controls lived in public housing, and those experimentals

in public housin4 tended to pay slightly' higher rents than did their noncroi

.group countezparts. However, the experimental-control differentials were

generally small (5-to 7 percentage points, or $2 to .:$19)- and statistically

significant only durifig the first 9-month period following enrollment.

C. OTHER RELATED OUTCOME* MEASURES

To the extent that Supported Work is successful in its primary

goal of enabling school dropouts, many of whom have some record of criminal.

activity, to become active members of the workiorCe and to increase their

economic status, we might also expect to see changes in areas such as

1/.Furthermore, the loss of medical-assistance benefits did noC result

in differential consumption of medical care between experimentals and/controls.

114 137
4

household -composition, expenditures for housing, and medical-care utilizer

Of participants and;formerparticipants. Other social programs, such

ai-the negative income tax (NIT) experiments. and Job Corps, have.shown sole

evidence of impacts in these areas)'

With respect to housing consumption, the one consistent finding is

that a higher percentage of experimentals than controls were renting non- , subsidized units (41 versus 54 to 57 percent). However, these differences

. were siatistf6lly Significant only for the first 9-month period. -Experimental, and controls living in these nonsubsidized dwellings paid similar

rents of about $145 per month. As noted previously, there was some tendency

for fewer experimental. than controls to live in public hbusing, but the

differentials were not large (5 to 7 percentage points) and were statistically significant only during the first 9 months following enrollment.

During the 19- to 36-month period, experimentals lived in significantly

larger dwelling units than did controls, but the npmber of -rooms per person

in the household was' iiiilar for experimentals and controls in all time

4

periods.-''

Residential mobility, the incidence of home improvements, and

crime victimization were !dialer between experimental. and controls

throughout the period of observation. Similarly, Supported Work does no

seem to have had much effect on the household composition of the youth

1/Knudsen et al. (1077) and Hannan (1977) discuss marital-stability

findings; Wooldridge (1977)i, Avrin (1978), and Ohls (1979) disci-ass housing

ampactri and Kerachsky (197/) discusses health-care consumption results

from the NIT experiments. Abt AssoAates (1979) discuss the related impacts

of the J9J, Corps program. 1 liCn average, this sample lived in dwallings with an *average of

1.3 tr.', 1.5 rooms per person; which is well above national standards for

overcrowding (Hei/hrun, 1973).

'115 1 3 S

4
sample. -Household size ranged from four to five persons)" including an

average -of only 0.2 to 0.4 dependents.V Between 5 and 9 percent of the

sample'members reported being married in any 9-month period, but again

there' was no significant differential between experimentals and controls.

Finally,. Supported Work had no significant _effect' on the use of

health cars by this,sample. The sample averaged roughly one doctor visit

and one dayin the hospital in each 9-month period.-2/ There seemed to be

no relatiohship between health-careutilization and eligibility for Medicaid. Among thi subsample of workers, both experimentals and controls lost

an average of one day's work per month due to illness' over

months.

D.- CONCLUSION

entire 36

A Supported Work program for youth will have short -term benefits

to participants in terms of substantially higher standards of living while

they are in the program. For example; among, those youth not living with

1/During'the last 9-month period (months 28 to 36) the average

experimental household size was five, while the control average was four,

a statistically significant difference.

2/Over time, household size tended to decrease, largely as a

result of youth moving out of their parents' homes: while about 70 percent

lived with their parents at enrollment, only 56 percent did so two years

later.

3/Roughiy '30 percent of the sample reported having seen a doctor

and 10 percent reported having been hospitalized during each 9-month

period. ,There was very little in the way of consistent experimentalcontrol patterns in the reasons for seeking health care, except that in

the first 18-month period significantly more experimentals than controls

said.they had visited the doctor as a consequence of job-related injuries.

116
parents, the percentage with incomes below the poverty level was 35

*lints lower among the experimentals than the controls. SUch changes'in

incomeare-accompanied by some small benefits to taxpayers in the form of

rOdudedtsnsfer payments. However, after Youth have left Supported Work,

the impacts on both personal incomes and publir subsidies . will, be small, _ at best. Oyer.the'first two years follawing,enrollment in Supported Work,

the net income' gain per participant was'almost $2,300, about $1,900 of

which they received during the first 9 months. The net reduction

assistance benefits '(welfare and food stamps) totaled less than

while unemployment compensation benefits (mainly from the Special Unemployment Assistance program) increased by about $130. Impacts on other forms

of transfers were similarly small. We are_left with little reason to

expect a Supported Work program for youth to affect substantially either

the overall economic welfare of this segment of the population or its

demands on our public-assistance programs. Furthermore, there is little

evidence of any significant changes in the various other outcomes considered,

such as household composition, housing quality, and medical-.care utilization.

2.jThese estimated effects'are 4'to 5 ilerrent smaller if expresSyd

in constant third-quarter 1976 dollars.

3'
-

" . - `

. .

' -t 7-

. , .

V . , HAPTERV . .

. 4

'CB -DRUG SE"

, - -.ri 1" ''

, , ' '.4. ' '' . "- . _, ..i.he-:neational--inorease in drug use which began in the 1960s A.'-...,' ..r. ,... .... , ....,...

.f.. continued lintO ',the, ,mid,?-L9:70.44__Ort3:CliLa..r1.y_.ah?ohg_youthCpuPont, 1978)

It Was,eSlt..*tect that, in 1977, 70 Perce:ntof'.1.11 those age 18-25 were

using 'alcohol, 36Percent_tariiUana, .ancl alit 4 percent drugs such as

,--.--

. ,,, heroin,, Other opiates, cocaine, amPhetamines,. and stimulants (Abelson et

. . , youth in urban areas, those who are -un enc.CoYe-047-and-- those Who_ have lower

al.,, 1977),., Further, ditg ,uee 'has-, generally

______2_,_______

....-. ;.

. 4 you 0 ... , ..-

levels of education (O'Connell et al., 1976) --characteristics that also

describe the Supported Work youth sample. The concern over these rising

trends stems,_ in part, from recognition that drug use May exacerbate

youth's employment problems and that it may lead to increased participation

in crime (O'Donnell et al., 1976.; Trice and Roman, 1972; Voss, 1976;

Jessor, 1976) . However,Ohere are' also other causes for this concern,

including the impact of drug use on health status and productivity, anti

the social costs: incurred for treatment and prevention.

As noted in .Chapter II, both sociological, and economic theories

of the causes of drug abuse suggest that Supported Work may affect the

,

,-- prevalence of. drug use. But the direction of the effect is not clear,

particularly .in view of the fact that, contrary to expectations , the youth* .

in the Supported Work sample Ad not have an unusually high prevalence of

drug use prior to their enrollment it SuppOrted Work (see. Table V.1)*.11

The one exception is their somewhat higher than average use of-heroin.

, 1/All three sets of data on lifetime use are based on personal

interview responses. Thus, there is little ,reason :to expect that there

'irfts dift*kintial,misreporting:

119 144
77q11.'i?'4

. - 4itti2'E.'14tP.GlIBE'-ol.:_-.YOUTN, ENROLLED- IN SUPPORTED WORK

0 _ "4EREUE4iTioNiL SANOtES'

-43:60hol

*rift**

COCeine,

Other Opiates

Amphetamines

Barbiturates , PSYChedg,lics

.4/These data were obtaine,d from ,enrollMent interviews and apply

alnYouth in the SupPOrted Wokk.research7sample. (Jackson et al.,,

1W70). I

:ieroantaite .-RepOrtinTrEver-Having- ,Used -Drug

uPPOrted.,Wd;k 'NatiOnar'Sesple' of '-National-Sample of_

'7Z61

. 95

52

84

60

14 16 .19

4

.' 2 : 33 14

26 21

23 18

10 30 . 20

12/These data are based on 1.n- person interviews with' a sample of

20t.yeiti,i.,OIds,,,con"chiCtedin 1974 and 1975 as part of a study of non- 46edical. USe of PsYChoe:CtiVe drugs by young men in the United States. The -Overall sample ,for the study was a multi-staged stratified random

sample_- (See: O'Donnell

These- data are based, on interviews with a national sample of

:25=1,,e4/7"'94.-ds, 96nducteci, in 1977 as part of-Na.nationwide

'survey of Personsage.-12 and older living in householdS in. the contiguous.

'United.-States "(see ./kbel:Sbn et al. , "1977)

.142

1??:
Below,- we examine, the evidence concerning Supported Work's effect

on 4idg use in the youth group. Since use et alcohol and marijuana is

particularly prevalent among youth in this sample and since heroin and

cocaine, use are thought, to have serious social consequences,1/

these are

the four drugs we have 'Chosen to .focus on. In addition, we have con3 *4eregl two -summary measures of drug use: a measure of whether the

individual used any drug other than Marijuana or alcohol, and an index

that'Weights the use of various drugs according to an estimate of th%

marginal impact of the use o'f each on the nuxtber of arrests, one is likely to

incur:3/ In all instances, the outcome measures are based on self-reports

of any use (or daily use) of the drug during the previous nine"months.4-11

A. OVERALL PROGRAM IMPACTS 2

As shown by the results presented in Table. V.2, Supported Work

has had no overall effect on the prevalence of drug use., During each

1 1/,Analyses based on the- ex-addict and ex-offender Supported Work

samples indicate a strong positive correlation between both heroin and

cocaine use and the nuniber.of_tives one is arrested (Dickinson,, 980).

2/

Less than 1 peicent of the youth reported having used opiates

other than heroin,, or amphetamines, barbiturates, or psychedelics during

eachof-the 9-Month follow -up periods.

2/Dickinson (1980) describes the development of this drug-use

index.

4/

The quality of self-reported data on drug use is, -of course,

qUestionable. While there is evidence that such reports will understate

the, use rates (O'Donnell et al., 1976), tbereis little reason to expect

differential, underreporting by:experimentals and controls. Equal proportional underrOporting by experimentals and controls still poses two

potential analytic problems, however., One is that the absolute value of

any ptogram effect will be'biased toward zero, and the other is that

tests of the statistical significance oresiimated differentials will

tend to be conservative.

.41
ra

TABLE V.2

PERCENTAGE REPORTING usE OP Cams, SY TYPE'OP DRUG

YOUTH SAMPLE

Months 9 _ _ Months Months 19---27--. Menths,48---

ExperimentalControl'

Differential

Control

Group

Mean

ExperimentalControl

' Differential

Control

Group Mean

Experimental- Control

Control Group

Differential Mean

Experimental-

. Control- Differential

Control'

Gronp4,

Meanier

, :, ' , -Any Ortig:(Other than

sarijuame-or alcohol) -2.9 14.2 0.3 10.2 0.4 10.S 5.8 11-.0 MlerOin 4#Y use 0.4 3.6 -0.7 2.4 0.6 1.2 . 0.9 1,0

1 : cOcitine Any use -1.1 8.2 4 -1.2 8.2 -1.0 8.4 5., 9.7 MWrijnam4

Any use 4.5 52.4 ° 1.6 51.2 0.3 57.6 '' 0.1 64.1 Daily use n.a. 0.0 22.4 '5.4 21.1 -0.3 29.4 Alcohol I

Dilly use 2.6* 5.5 1.9 9,3 0.7 9.9 -1.6 8.9

of'ilrug UsW) (-0.5) (9.2) (-1.3) (8.91 (0:0) (6.3) (2.9) N01U: S40 note to Table 111.3. _-

Daily use of heroin, cocaine,, and any use of, other opiates, amphetamines, barbiturates, and psychedelics, was reported by less than 1

percent of the youth sample and'so data for these categories are not included in this table.

a/:1:his index weights the, use of each drug by its association with arrests. See Dickinson, - (1980) for a description of the

a.ethodology usedto develop the index and for the actual weights used.

*Statlitically significant at the,10 percent level.

* *Statistically significant at the'5'percent level.

u.a. = not.available
9-month follow-up period, 10 to 17 percent of the youth Used some drug

other than marijuana; 1 to 4 percent used beroln; 7 to 15 percent used

cocaine; Sl to 64 percent used marijuana; and 6 to 11 perdent used alcohol

on a daily basis. The only statistically significant difference in reported

---usit-between-experimentals-ind_ctontrols was estimated for daily alcohol use

during. the first nine months after enrollment, when 8 percent Of the

experimentals compared with 6 percent of controls reported such use.1/

In subsequent periods, however, 'the percentages for the two groups were

About equal (varying between 7 and.il percent).

'While litUa dVerall program impact on d;usupe_was.obsered, it

was_possible that SuppOkted Work had altered the relationship Lotween drug

4 use and employment. licer, 16 sash in Table V.3, experimental-control

differentials in drug us,, werally were not significantly different from

zero for either those who were employed or those who were not employed.2/

A sizable- portion of experimentals and controls in both employment statuses

(7 to 20 percent) reported having used drugs ether than marijuana or

alcohol.

B. DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS AMONG SITES AND ACROSS SUBGROUPS OF YOUTH

Despite the lack of overall program impacts, it is possible that

Supported Work programs at some of the sites did affect drug use significantly; either because of the nature of the program experiend s, thonselves

2/When'estimated using probit analysis, this estimated differential,

while aboUt the same magnitude, was not statistically significant, however.

2/The one exception is that keignificantly lower percentage of

experimentals,than controls who were employed reported using drugs during

months 1 to 9. HoWever, this is related to;very high use rates by employed

controls relative to unemployed controls. Generally similar r.sults to

thede for use of any drtigs were also observed for alcohol use.

1.23149
Eiployment Status

Not Employed

Employed

c

4.

TABLE V.3

PERCENTAGE-REPORTING-USE-OF-ANY- DRUG; tilliER TIM MARIJUANA OR-ALCCUOL.

AY CURRENT EMPthYMEHT STATUS

. YOUTH SAMPLE

Months 1 - 9 Months 10 - 18 Months 19 - 27 Months 28 Experimental- Control Experimental- Control Experimental- Contpl Experimental- Control Group Control Croy Control Group Control Differential Mean Di fferential Mean Differential Mean Differential . 2.5

-6.9**

(15.0)

10.1

18.1

(53.9)

-2.0

1.3

(8.5)

11.3

9.8

(59.9)

-1.9 8.6 12.0

-3.5

(75)

,

1.3

(1.0)

12.1

(60.8) (Percentage Esployedilli

- 36

Control

Group

Mean

9.0

16.0

(66.2)

NOTE: For definitions of the samples used, see Table 11.2. Thee° data are apt regression adjusted. V ,p. /04

-a/These data may differ somewhat from those reported in ';:hapter III because of the slight differences in the samples used and because those data are not regression-adjusted.

*Statistically significant at the 10 percent level. *Statistically significant et 'the 5 percent level.

4
. . .,.;

. . or because of the peer-group structures.,

. In particular, a priori one might .

4

expect there to be an increase in drug use among youth in programs where

.-- -,

. the -,peer group includes ex-addicts and ex- offenders and a decreaie among

yodth in programs enrolling.only AFDC women intaddition to youth. Sai

1 larli, one might expect relatively, more favorableimpapts among those sites

With the most supportive supervisors. e

Table V.4.41iresents estimatesfor each of.the five sites of program

impacts on thet use of'some drug other than marijuana or alcohol, use of mari-

_./ Juana, and,daily use of alcohol, during each of the first three 9-mohth

2 periods)- There are few sig4ficant,expxximehtal/control-group differ-

.

ences. In only one case where there is asignificaht.difference is the . sign of the estiMatedImpiceconniqtent overtime; among the gartford

o sample,, a higher percentage of experimentals than controls reported using

alcohol daily, and the 6 percentage-point differential in the first 9-mohth

period is statistically significant. In four other cases.the.pattern of

17 _- results abross:tive is consistent, although n e of the point estimates of'

the impacts is significantly different from zero. These cases are the

estimated reduction in use of any drugs among the Jersey City experimentals,

the reduction in marijuana use among Philadelphia experimentals, and

, "the increases in the use,of marijuana among experimentalsrelative to

controls in the HartfIrd and Jersey City samples.21 These resulti aXt not

.ljtor two reasons; subgroup results were not estimated for the 28-

to 36-month period:. The first is that the sample size is.very small, and

the. second is that the preenrollmen't drug=use experiences of the 36-month

sample ace not at all representative of the grOUp as a whole, as evidenced

by the data in Table 1/.3.

-Any use of drpgs is relatively high among Jersey City controls

, and use of marijuana is relatively prevalent among Philadelphia controls

at compared with controls in other sites. .Howeier, there is no consistent

pattern of the control grout means associated with ther.higher rata' of

marijuana use among experimentals.

125

Ind +) _

o
TULE V.4

a.

. PIARMITAJGE REPORTING USE OF VARIOUS DRUGS RT SITE .

. - TWIN SAMPLE

O

r.

Monihs'l -A , Months 10 18 "" M4kths 19 -127

Experimental- Control Experimental- Control Experimental Control

Control -- Group Control Group Control Group ' Differential Mean Differential Mean Differential Mean

. . % A. Any Drug (othei; than Marijuana or.:41cOhol)

- . All Youth -2.9 14.2. Site. ''' Atlanta -'7.6 18.0

.,'Hartford - 0.5 f 11.7. Idersey'Cify - 6.5 17.3 ' New York .4 14.6 Philadephia - 9.6 13.2

. . 8. Marijuana

All Youth 4.5 52.4

Site . Atlanta 1 1.4 4,57.3

Hartford 7.,6 ' #6.1 %,

Jersey City 8.2 53.5 New York - 4.1 54.9 6 Philadephia -20.7 70.2

C. Daily Use of Alcohol

All Youth 2.6* 5.5 Site

Atlanta - -.3.3 10.8 Hartford 5.7** 8.4

a/ 'Jersey.City - 3.8- 0.3 New York ir-... 8.4**- 3.5 Philadephia . - 0.61/ 0.5

0.3 -

- 0.5

- /.5 8 - 6.5

12:9*

1.6 11.9

- 1.5 3.2

- 4.1

- 4.7

1.9

' 2.0 0.5.

2.9

2.4

6.3

10.2

8.1

7.0

18.7 15.6 .

1 ai - 4.1-

. 51.2

....,) e 43.8

43.6

62.5

'43.9. S4.2

9.3

7.3 7.6

15.4

10.4

1.6

.

.

.

'

.

t

0.4

1.4-'

i:6'_

- 5.1--b/

,0.9- 5.9

0.3

. bi -42.9*-' .1

2.4b/ 24.7-

- 7.3

0.7 -15.2-

b/

5.1 46b,

-16.5-/

-14.3**

-

.

10.6

6.3 7.5

18.1 14.6

3.5

.57.6. 82.1

55.3 57.5 48.9

;151.7

9.9

17.4 4.2

13.0 21.0

16.2

.

14

NOTE: ;ee note to Table III.3. , s . ,:," ft Samivii.eizes for the-various sites can be computed bymultiplying tit: proportion of the sample

in the site blithe total. sample size. (These figures are presented in Appendix Table A.4.) , -: i;\ i'qt There were too few 'observations to pirmit meaningful disaggregation of the 28- to 36-month s. r 1.-'

.. sample. ' 'N-r---,,..- a/- Negative point estimates. of experimental or control group means arise because; as discussed in .''... 7'

ptei ;I, linear regression analysis rather than probit analysis was used. es- .

/

. v

-.

, Sample size is 20 or less.ft. b

..\i

v-'

. Experimental-control differentials Airy significant1y among t?: sites.

the test procedures used.)

*Statistically significant at the 10 perro6nt level

**Statistitally significant. at the 5 percent level.

126

(Section II.E describes
S. _ .

. ve I e /

,'

.. consistent with a priori notions of expected site differentials in program

-. . impacts.--namely, that drug use might increase among experimentals relative

, to controls in sites enrolling ex-addicts and/or ex-offenders.

Program impacts on driig use might also be expected to vary among

youth with different demographic and background characteristics, in which

case knowledge of such impacts could be. useful in deciding on program

targeting strategies. Tables V.5, V.6, and V.7 display estimated program

impacts, for a number of different subgroup of the youth sample, on use

of any drug, use of marijuana, and daily use of alcohol;

Overall, no pattern identifies a particular giowk for whom Supported

,Work will reduce the prevalence of drug use. There are few significant

experimental-control differences in use of any drugs other than marijuana

e or alcohol, and in only .a few cases are the estimated differences for a

subgroup both of consistent sign in the three periods and significant in

at Ledit one. In all'three periods, it is estimated that white experimentals, those with some brief period of prior work, and those whose best

. . friend does not lig-enirugs are less likely than their control group counterparts to have used drugs. However, in most cases, the estimated differentials are extremely small (less than 1 percentage point).

For marijuana use, the estimates of impacts far the various subgroups tend to be reasonably consistent in sign across time and the

m7..ialtudes of the estimated impacts, furthermore, are often reasonably large.

'Thc pattern of tesultS 'suggests that Supported Work may be more likely

to lead to increased use of marijuana among those who, as-compared to

othej giros 9f youth, are Spanish, have fewer than niae years of education,

are not receiving welfare at enrollment, and live in neighborhoods with

127

151
y . 5 PERCENTAGE REPORTING USE OF ANY DRUG, $ BY DEMOGRAPHIC AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

-YOUT11 SAMPLE

. Jill Youth

Years of Age

Under 19

19 or older

Sex

- Male

Female

Rate /Ethnicity

White, not Hispanic

Black, not Hispanic

Hispanic

Years of Education

8 or less

9 or more

Welfare and Food

Stamp Receipt in

lMonth Priorjo

4=EnrollmentEf

None

Some Dependents

None One or more

-;Nonths in Longest Job

0

1 - 12 More than 12

Months 1 - 9 - Months 10 = 18 Months 19 - 27 ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control

Group Mean

ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control

Group

Mean ExperimentalControl

Differential

Cdntrol - Group

Mean

-2.9 14.2 0.3 . 10.2 0.4 10.6

-1.6 13.5, -1.8 11.2 -2.1 13.0

-4.5 15.1 3.7 8.7 3.5 7.2

-1.7 13.9 -1.0 11.4 2.8 9.5

-9.5 15.6 9.7k 2.11 -21.4*A 19.4 -0.5 19.7 -7.8 15.1 -20.6" a-

/ 27.2

-3.4 14.4 0 7 9.9 0.5 9.4

-0.5 10.7 -2.3 9.8 11.7 6.7

-21 9.9 4.8 5.6 (1,1 6.9

-2.8 14;9 -0,.3 11.0 0.2 11.3

-1.9 15., 0.8 10.2 10.7 -4.4 12.3 -0.3 10.1 2.7 10.5 4.2 13.9 0.8 10.0 0.2 10.'9 1:1 16.6 -3.0 12.1 4.8 7.8

1.8 . 44.6 3.0 7.4 2.2 8.4

-5.4" 14.6 -0.4 11.0 -0.5 12.2

- '7.7 9.2 0:6 11.5 0.9 3.9

I ;' 7

Li #s

.40 4
Months 1 - 9 Months 10 - 18 Months 19 - 27

Experimental- ',- Control Experimental- Control Experimental- Control

, 'Control Group Control Group Control Group

Differential Mean Differential Mean Differential Mean

liceks Noticed In Year Pt for to Enrollment E/

0 0.3 10.3 -0.3 10.9 -0.8 9.9

5 -1.3 12.3 0.1 10.5 -0.3 10.5

10 -2.9 14.3 0.5 10.1 0.2 11.0

J

Paior.;Drug Use

Used drilgs.other than

marijuana -3.1 32.4 -4.9 22.8 -5.4 24.1 Did not use any drug

other than marijuana -2.6 8.7 7.0 6.7 2.6 4.9

Addicts in Neighborhood -1-V 4 Few or none -0.5 11.6 -0.8 9.7 0.6 8.2

Many -8.3** 19.0 1.9 10.7 -0.7 _ 15.7 8.7si FriencIV 0 Does not use drugs - and is not involved

in crime -5.6** 14.1 -1.0 9.0 :0.6 10.5 Uses drugs or is involved in crime 8.5* 13.5 4.7 14.3 3.1 11.1 Prior Arrests

0 -4.2 14.6 -0.7 10.8 4.2 9

8.7 4

-1.6 13.7 1.3 9.6 -2.2 12.6

9 . 1.4 15.7 4.9 11.6 -1.4 10.6 Months Since Incarceration

Never incarcerated -0.7 11.8 -2.5 9.3 -1.4 11.1 12 or less -4.3 21.7 7.4 13.4 3.0 11.6 More than 12 -13.4* 17.2 8.b 10.9 2.8 8.2

4 : See note to Table V.4. There ware too few observations in the 28- to 36-month sample to permit disaggregation into subgroups.

A Li/Negative point estimates of experimental or control group means arise because, as discussed in Chapter II, linear regression analysis

lather than probit analysis was used.

WHelfare includes AFDC, General Assistance, and other welfare or welfare income for which respondent could not identify the source.

41411.se estimates of subgroup effects and means are based on a linear specification of the sample characteristic, 'evaluated at

the specified points.

g(These rusulti were obtained from a regression that did not include the full set of variables interacting status with background

characteristics.

1Experimental-control differentials vary significantly among the subgroups. (8ection II.E describes the Lest procedure used.)

'statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

"Statistically significant at the 5 percent level.
[1-

1

t`T

?a$4 v.s

,DEMOOSApRICAMM:RACK(DOUND CHARACTERISTICS

YOUTH SAMPLE

N

Months 1 - 9 Months 10 - 18 Months 19 - 27 Experimental-f-- Control

Control Group

,Differential Mean

ExperimentalContiol

Differential

ControlAk

0r041) Mean

Experimental-,

-Control

Differential

Control

Grow,

Mean,

All Youth, . 4.5 52.4 51.2 0.3. 57.6 . ,Tiara of Age

-Under 19 6.0 51.8 0.3 53.2 "4.8 59.9 19 or older 53.3 4.4 48.2 -6.1- o 54.4-

'SS'-Male 6.0 52.9 3.6 52.0 3.2 58.4 tamale -2.4 49.7 -7.3 46.3 -24.2* 51.4

IEthàcity

.Mite, no Hispanic -8.8 62.2 -22.3 74.5 -33.5** -71.0 not Hispanic 2.9 56.4 1.3 527- 61.2 Hispanic

of Education

17.4** 31.3 13.1 37.0' 39.0** :0.3 8 or less 16.4* 34.3 10.2 38.9 15.4 46.2 9 or more 2.8 55.4 0.6 53.1 -2.7 59.9

*lfare and 'Food

;'Siimp Receipt in

,piontli Prior to

piollment

9.1* 50.4 3.2 52.0 5.2 55.3 ,Some -3.2 56.0 -0.3 49.7 -10.1 62.3

:,Dependents None 5.8 52.1 3.9 50.8 2.0 56.6 line or more -4.4 54.8 -13.6 54.8 -17.9 68.2

77-Months in Longest Job -5.9 56.8 -6.1 52.8 -7.7 59.1 .1* 53.0 4.5 52.5 -0.2 59.4 More than 12 18.7 30.6 5.9 32.7 29.2 38.1 D
(continued)

;. " ',;" "

-.; .114.0s'Werked.In Year :Prior te-turollmentil/

6

- 5 - to

Prior Drug Use

-Used;drugs other than

marijuane

. Danot,uso any drug

other than marijuana

Addicts in Meighborhood2/

Pew or none Many

lteeA. Friend/ , -Does not use drugs

and is not involved

in Crime

Uses drugs or is invalved in crime

Prior Arrests12/

0

4

9 'Months Since Incarceration

Never incarcerated

12 or less

More than 12

5.5

Alonthst -'9

EXperieental-, Control

Cóntrol Group..

Differential' Mean -

, 6.9

-5.7

4.5

11.5 3.0

3.9

5.6,

2.1

16.0*

5.9. 3.9

8.0

5.0 4.9

2.6

52.e

56.6 52.3

Months 10 r 18 k Experimental- Control

CoetiO1. Group

Differential Mian

Menthe 19 - 27

6.9

4.2

65.8 2.6

49.0 1.8 52.0

53.3

53.0 49.8

48.5

59.0 60.7

51.6

51.3

60.1

-2.9

10.5

3.3

-7.4

8.4

-3.2

7.6

4.1

-7.2

-3.4

48.5

50.0

51.5

60.4

48.9

54.0

45.5

48.1 66.3

43.5

58.2

59.7 49.5

59.8

50.7

Experimental- ,Control *04

"Differential' Mean

I 2.4

1.4 "0.3

3.9

-1.2 -7.9

15.51A

' 4.9

-13.7

13.4

-7.1 -8.8

-9.4

15.7

16.1

0

58.6

58.1 57.6

62.0

55.6

59.9

53.5

54.7 6f.6

56.4

58.2 59.9

59.6 /52.0

56.5

.-.-.-

NOTE: See note to Table V.4.

There were too few observations in the 28- to 36-month sample to permit disaggregation into subgroups.

2/Welfare includes AFDC, Gehtiral Assistance, and other welfare or welfare Income for which respondents could not identify the source.

'base estimates of subgroup effects and means are based on a linear specification of the sample characteristic, evaluate ktat the

speipified points.

-C/Itiese results were obtained from a regression that did not include the full set of variables interacting status with background,

characteristics. . 'Experimental -contiol differentials vary significantly among the subgroups. (Section II.E describes the test procedure used.)

*Statistically significant, at the 10 percent level.

**Statistically significant at the 5 percent level.
:.T.k111.81/.7

OiRCENTANtREPOETING.DAILY *skim? ALCOHOL,

ItY.DEHOGRAPHIC AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS YOUTH SAMPLE

Months 1 9 Months 10 - 18 Months 19 - 27 ExperimentalCoptroX

Differential

Control

Group

Mean

ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control

Group

Mean

ExperimentalControl . DifferentialControl

Gtoup

Mean

-1111 Youth . 2.6* 5.5 1.9 9.3 0.7 9.9-

',Eltarsiz of Age * Ender 19 3.7* 5.4 2.1 9.3 -2.9 11.9 19 or older 1.5 5.7 OA* 9.2 6.3 7.0

:41111Hale

male

2.6 6.3 1.6 i 8 0.3 10.7. ' 3.7 '0.3 2.7 0.0 5.1 2.9

Oacalithnicity

White, not Hispanic 6.7 1.8 6.5 10.0 . .8 6.7 Slack, not Hispanic L.9 6.3 2.9 9.7 0.9 11.6 Hispanic

iYeais of Education

8 or leis

0.8

1.6 5.9

-5.4

11.9**

7.1 3.4

5.9 10.1

2.8

9 or wore 3.6

3.0* 5.4 0.0 .10.3 -1.0 11.1

*Harm-and Food

;,Steep Receipt in

liOnth Prior to

,Earollwent h/ None 5.0** 4.5 3.5 ..6,8 0.4 8.2 Some -1.4 .7.3 -1.4 13.7 1.7 13.7

:Dependents

None 2.5 5.6 1.7 9.6 1.7 , 9.7 .!.,One or more 5.i 5.0 2.9 6.4 -7.9 11.9

Months in Longest Job

3.4 5.8 3.5 9.0 -4.5 13.8 1 - 12 3.2* 4.9 1.5 9.1 3.4 8.5 More than 12 -2.9 10.0 *-1.0 11.6 -5.5 10.0
,Table V.7- (continued) -- 4 'Months 1 - 9. Months 10 -- 18 14Ons I hi 19 - 27 Experimental- Control Experimental= Control Experiaintal- ,Control

Control Gioup Control Group ,Control Group

Differential Mean Differential . Mean Diffsrentidl Mean.

_ Weeks Marked 10 Tsar

Prior to Inrollment2/

4.2* 4.6 1.8 10.2

3.4* 5.0 1.8 9.7

10 2.7* 4.6 1.8 . 9.2

Prior-Drug Use

. Used drugs other than

Marijuana 1.2 6.5 . =1.8 16.9 Did net use any drug

other than asrijuana 3.2* 5.2 2.9 7.0

Addicts in Neighborhood

.Few or none 2.7 5.1 0.8 10.1

Many 2.1 6.4 , 4.5 6.8

lest Friend . . Doss 'not use drugs

and is not involved

.4 in crime 3.4* '4.5 2.4 8.6 GO Uses drugs or is involved in crime ' Prior Arrmits1/

-1.0 9.4 , 0.0 12.3

Ann 0

1.7 4.7 0.2 9.5 4

3.6 6.1 3.2 9.1 9 . 5.9 6.1 1.2 8.8

-- Months Since Incarceration

Never incarcer ted 2.1 5.8 1.6 8.8

12 or less 9.8" 4.4 6.7 7.5 More than 12 -3.4 5.7 -4.1 15.3

0.1 8.1

0.41 8.5

p.s 8.9%

2.5

0.1

-3.6

8.7*

15.0

7.7 10.5

8.7

-0.5 8.7 4.2 13.4 2.9

-1.3

8.4*

-0.5

ft 3.0 2.2

5.1 11.5 7.5

9.9

13.6 6.3

Ming: Sea note to Table V.4.

' There were too few observations in the 28- to 36-month sample to peradt disaggregation into subgroups.

11-/Negative point estimates of experiMental or control group moans arise becaude, as discussed in Chapter II, linear regression analysis

rather than probit analysis was used.

Welfare includes AFDC, General Assistance, and other welfare or welfare income for which respondents could not identify the source.

0/These estimates of subgroup effects and mane are based on a linear specification of the sample characteristic, evaluated at,the

specified points.

SYThese results were ub'ained from a regression that did not Include the full set of variables interacting statue with badcgroted

tharacteristics.

1Expetimental- cuntiol differentials vary significantly among the subgroups. (Section ILE describes the test procedure esed.l

*Statistically significant at tie 10 percent level.

"Statistically significant at the 5 percent level.

1G0
4

any addicts. There is also some-indication that female and white partici- "

ianti may reduce 'their marijuana use more than their control group counterparti. However, as with the results -for use of drugs in general, the weight

of the evidence is that there is no significant impact for any subgroup.

The subgroup results for daily alcohol use are more mixed than

those for marijuana use, but they also tend to suggest that if,ihe program

had any impact it was to increase slightly the prevalence of alcohol useamong the groups with similar characteristics as those wrong whsm marijuana

use increased.

C. CONCLUSIONS

The conclusion one must thaw from this analysis is that Suppoqed

Work had no signif Ant effecton the drug use of youth participants. The

.evidence-that overall-null results may be due to offsetting positive . results for some groups and 'negative impacts for other is weake at best.

Finally, a comparison of drus use and alcohol use between experimentals: and controls who were not employed and between experimentals and

controls who were employed revealed no consistent pattern of differences.

At least among youth similar to those enrolled in Supported Work, then,

drug use seems to be independent of employment status, perhaps because,

as discussed in Chapter II, the income effect of employment offsets its

sociological effects.

161.

134
CHAPTER VI

IMPACTS ON CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

" .

As noted in Chagier II, both sociological and economic theories

of criminal behavior suggest that successful integration of,youth into

the labor force might be expecte 'to reduce their likelihood of particiin criminal activities. Inds chapter, we use a nUmber of

-. indicators of criminal behavior to ,.investigate tie extent and nature of

any impacts of Supported Work on illegal activities of young school

11

dropouts, about 40 percentof whom have previously been convicted of a

44 ,criminal Offense. The various, indicators we discuss include self-

#. , . . . reported data on arrests, convictions, and incarcerations.

Self-reports of crime commissions and income from illegal

activities:wore collecteerW however, they are of questionable quality.

For this reason and because some previous validation work in conjunction ,'

with this demonstration and other studies has been undertaken to assess- 0 the quality of self-reported arrest data, we have opted to rely on

, reports of criminal justice experiences.a/

1/Between 3 and 17 percent of the sample youth reported engaging

in illegal activities (mainly theft and selling drugs); during'each 9-month

period.

/

, -tFor example, a comparison of self-reported arrest data with official

recoras data for a sample of 774 ex- addicts and ex-offenderi enrolled in the

Supported Work demonstration has shown that individuals reported only,54 per4ent of the arrests they. incurred, but that experimental and control group

members underreported by a similar percentage (Sailors eat al", 1979). while

these results may or may not be generalizable to the youth sample, the. general

implication is that estimates of program-induced changes in-arrests are

expected to be understated and, in the case of binbmial outcome measures, tha

test of statistical significance will be conservative.

Piliavin'and Gartner (1980) proliide a more data&lad :;ustification

for the outcome` measures focused on in the Supported Work evaluation studies.

135

162
In some respects, the best measure of rogram impacts is ,the.

. percentage arrested, as this is a clear indication of program failure,

in that arrests are highly zortelated with crime commassion. 1/ However, the otheri can provide useful information as to the seriousness

and consequences of the offenses for which 'individuals were arrested. For

.example, we have included data on robbery arrests because of .their high

social costs2/ and because there is reason.to expect Supported Work to

have its greatest impacton econorgically motivated crimes such.as robbery.

There was also special interest in program effects on drug-related arrest-4,.

bedause of the hypothesis that Supported Woik might reduce drug use and

bircause suctrarrests ate likely to stem froi economic transactions.

o Although subject to distortion because of delays in the criminal justice

system's processing of arrests, the convictions and incarceration dita

provide yet other indications of the criminal involvement by ekperimental'

and control youth.3/

. ,

1/Of course, arrests do not .ndicate guilt. Studies have related

. the incidence oi arrests co that of crime commissions, thus providing a

"necessary link for the companion benefit-cost analysis.-,

2/See Kemper et al. (1980) for a discussion of the social, participant,

and nonparticipant costs and benefits associated with various types of.arrests.

ctlberean (1978) discusses the great public concern with robbery.

3/It isalso possible that the Supported Work progrttms may inter-, ,

vene in the judicial process and thereby affect the disposition of

experimentils' arrest charges.

136 163
..t

. V

, 1 1 .

A. OVERALL PROGRAM IMPACTS ..

r

) On average, the Supported Work employment opportunity has.--

5

. had a significant impact on criminal bebavior'among sample youth, either.

during the period when individuals were working in their program jobs , 4

or subsequently.

. Results During 9-Month Periods Following Enrollment

a As seen in Table VI.l, during each of the first two 9-month,,

periodS following enrollment in Supported Work, about.16 percent

fo of both. the experimentals and controls reported haling been arrostedtand,

among those arrested, the average number of arrests.per sample member

) was between 1.2 and 1.5. Between 15 and10 Percent of the arrests were

for robbery, and less than 10 percent were for drug-related offenses. yA

sizable pOrtion of the arrests did lead to conviction and to incarceration.

However, there again is no significant difference between'experimentals

and controls.

' The results for months 19 to 27-show a somewhat more favorable

pattern, in that a lower percentage of experimentalithaq,controls reported

0 having been arrested in months 19 to 27 (11 versus 14 percent), a lower

percentage were convicted (4 versus 7 percent), and the experimentals

. . 1

. . spent an average of 30 percent less time in jail than did controls (2.6

versus 3.7 weeks). Bowfwer, none of these effects is statistically

significant.

2

raj ,While the results still are not statistically signifidanti the

.pattern for months 28-to 36 is generally not favorable:. A higher per4

centage of experimentals than controls were arrested (23 versus 17 percent)

and incarcerated (20 versus 17 percent), While slightly lOWer percentages,

137
4

ft

TABLE V1.1

maunnts, BY TYPE Or DPFENSE, CONVICTIONS, AND INCARCERATION :

YOUTH SAMPLE

Months 1 - 9 Months 10 18 Months 19 - 27 Months 28 - 36 ! ExperimentalControl

,.. Differential

Control

Group

Mean

_Experimental-

- 'Codtrol . Differential

Control

Group

J Mean

Expe:.isentalz. Control

. Control Group

Differential Mean

ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control,

Group

Mean 1 e ; k Percentage with any Arrest 0.3 16.8 1.6 15.2 -3.2 13.6 .' 6.4 16.7

Nusiber of Arrests 0.06° '0.20 .0.03 0.18 -0.05 0.16 0.09* 0.18

percentage with Robbery ArrestsY-0.3 3.4 0.6 2.6 ' -1.0 3.1 , 2.2 2.3

Number of Robbery Arrests 2/ -0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 -0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02' Percentage with Drug-related1/ 1.0 0.9 -0.5 -.2 0.8 0.4 1.6

Arrests percentage Convicted 1.2 9.1 0.0 8.3 -2.3 6.7 -1.8 9.8

Pi'rcentage Incarcerated -2.7 11.6 2.0 12.6 3.8 15.5 2:5 17.2 Number of Weeks Incarcerated -0.58 162 2.37 -1.06 366 -1.12 3.67

ANT: See note to Table 111.3. All data pertain to the full sample.

Robbery arras s are defined as those for which robbery was the most serious charge. only Murder and felonious assault are considered

to be more serious than robbery.

!..)/ Drug-related 'arrests are defined as those for which narcotics-law' violation is the most serious charge. More serious charges include

murder, felonious assault, robbery, burglary, larceny, motor-vehicle theft and other property crimes, and other crimes against'persons.

Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

*Statistically significant at the 5 percent level.

,

ti

a
were convicted (8 versus.10 percent) .1/

When we looked at experiment:1=-control differentials separately for

those employed and not employed, we observed no consistent pattern of

effects'. For example, during months 1 to 9, reductions in the percentage

arrested were observed only among those experiMentals not employed. Diming

the 10- to 18-month period, reArctions were not observed for experimentals

in'either subgroup, but in months 19 to 27, significant seductions were

observed for employed experimentals,..while increases were observed among

those-experimentals'who were not employed:-2/ In particular, the lack of

any relationship between employment and arrest rates during the first

9 months when experimental group members participated. in Supported Work

suggests that for this sample, the lack of employment opportunities may

not be a principal factor in criminal behavior.

2. Cumulative Results During the 18 and 27 Months Following Earollment2/

Cumulative measures of criminal activities ever the follow-up

period provide a slightly different view of program impacts. .In

particular, small impacts'during the 9-month intervals might compound

1/

Recall that the sample size for these later period results

'is sufficiently small that sampling error in 1estimates of program effects

is large. For example, the 6 percentage - point difference in arrest rates

is due to a difference of only four arrests for the total sample (16

versus 12).

See Appendix Table A.25.

. Only 79 persons had continuous-data for the 36 months' follbwing

enrollment. Thus, results for months.1 to 36 were not estimated.

139
to result in significant long-run effects.

As seen in Table VI.2, restlts for the first 18 months foliaing

.. _ - .. , enrollment indicate that Supported Work had no 'effect on criminal activities,

'which, is consistent with the findings for each of the two 9-Month pexiods

. . (Table VIA).- However, over .the full 27-month.perioa'following enrollment,

there is evidence of positive program impacts, suggesting that small dif

,ferences had been accumulating ovelthethree 9-month periods. During

this full period, only 30 percent of the experimenals, as compared with

39, percent of the controls, reported havi een arrested sinde.enroll-

.

. went in the demonstration sample, and a large share oethis reductiOn

(35 percent) is due to a reduction in eNerimentals' arrests for jobbery.,

While not a statistically significant differende, a lower percentage

of experimentals than controls were convicted during this period. 20

versus 24 percent), and a significantly lower percentage of experimentals

than controls were incarcerated (18 versus 28 percent).

3. Impacts for Subgroups with vary lag Amounts of Follow-Up Data

One of the first questions that arises when comparing the results

in Tables VI..1 and VI.2 is whether the favorable results for the 1- to 27-

1. month period are due in part to differences in program response among

those with varying amounts of follow-up data. In order to address this

issue,, results iv: the probability of an arrest'were estimated for sub--

groups of the samples defined by the length of the interview follow-up

period.

ej

140
a

-

TABLE VI.2

CUMILATIVe NitiCTIONS; AND INCARCENAWON

Ykarn1 SAMPLE

Months 1.- Ill

ExperimeistalControl

-Differential

Control

Group

Mean

a .tfonths 1 - 27/ -

Experimental,- Coptrol

Control Group

Differential Mean

Percentage 4ith any Arrest

Number of Arrests

c -0.3

0.07

27.0

0.38- -0.8*

0.01

44. 39.3

0.62

Percentage with Robbery Arrests

. 0.4 . 6.1. -3.1 13.6 Number of.Robbery Arrests' ' 0.00 0.07 -0.03 0.15

OF Percentage pith Drug-related

ArrestslY 2.1 0.9 4.9

Percentage Convicted 0.5 16:0 -4.0 . 23.6

Percentage Incarcerated -0.6 18.3 -10.2AA 28.0 Number of Weeks Incarcerated -0.7 4.1. -4.8AA 10.2

NOTE:eSee Mato to.Table 111.3. Results for the 1- to lb-menth Period are not presented because of thu limited sample size (79).

a/The sample for this period includes people' who completed baseline, 9-month, 18-month, and 27-month interviews. Therefore,

the experimental and control-group values implied by these data are not consistent with those reported for the individual 9-month

periods (see Table V1.1).

.

.... 1.)/

. Robbery arrests are defined as thus() for which robbery was LLe most serious charge.' Only murder

considered-to buramorts serious than robbery.'

, and felonious assault arc

2/ Drug-roLied arrests are defined as th6su for which narcotics-law violation is the most serious charge.

include murder, felonious assault, robbery, burglary, larceny, motor-vehicle theft .....1 other property cfimes, and

*Statistically sitnificant at the 10 percent-level.

**Statiscileally sigoificant.ut the S percent level.

1.69

More serious charges

'Wier crimes against persons.

JLA r

e
As seen from Table VI.3, among-those with only 18 months of follow-up

data, a higher percentage of experimentals.than controls were arrested in

both 9-month periods, as well as over the full 18-month period.' However,

4 in most time periods, results for those with 27 or 36 months of follow-up

data indicate reductions in arrest rates among experimentals relative to

controls that accumulate over time to result _in differences of' 8 to 11

percentage points over the 1- to 27-month period. Lack of statistical

significance of these 8 and 11 percentagr-point differences appears to be

due to small sample sizes, since the overall estimate of the program effect

is significant (Table VZ.2). Unfortunately, data for the 1- to 36-month

period are available for too few sample members (79) to permit calculation

of reliable estimates of cumulative effects over this period: But evidence

from,.the 28- to 36-month data suggest that the favorable pattern of cumulative results 'for the 27- and 36-month subsamples may not persist in later

7-

DIFFERENTIAL -I1VACTS. ACROSS SITES

IBIpacts might be expected to vary across sites becausecof differ=

ences in criminal histories of sample members, program characteristics,

or local labor-mar

, ket oonditions, as well as various unmeasured differences

in characteristics of program enrollees. 'As seen in Table VI:4, experi-'

mental-control differences are consistently positive for the New York sample,

and most often positive for the Jersey City and Philadelphia samples.

2/

1/ is unlikely, but possiLtel that cumulative results would differ

in sign' from those for the individual periods.

2/Tobit estimates of the numblIr of arrests incurred during the

various time periods (se, Nruendix Table A.26) yield results that are

-similar to .those report Table YI.4.

Zs.
0

A. Mitia-Muuth Purlud reauttm

- 16 Mauths 1 - 9 uths 10 - 10 Mouths 19 - 27 Mouth* 10

Control Expuriftunt&I- Contrut Espurinentml- Coutrui Itspoi iwuntal- Cunt Cuntsol Giuup Cautral Utu14) Wilt MI Gimp Cuutiul Gems.

Oliteruntial Haan ditturantial 0044 Dittuieutlal Mums Oittusuntrat Mca0

1$ mouths di tolluw-up

27 mouths of tallow-up

16 Nrth, of tulluw-uP

3.2 -2.6

-4.1

13.4 22.6

13.0

3.0

4.7 -12.04

12.4

, 16.9

25.il

0.4. -3.7

-5.4

0.4. 16.0 7.

U.A. 0.A. 6.4

lied. 0.4.

16.7

b. Curutativu Results

Monthm 1 - Id Months II - 27

kspurirmutal- Control Frporirontal- Control CUutrul Group Cohtaul Gruup

Ilitia111101 Uitiatentiot Man

10 months ut tolluw-up 1.41 22.2 0... n.a. 27 rintIui Lit tolluw-up -1.9 12.4 -U.I 4).4 K. *oaths ut tuIluw-up -13.4 32.4 -10.9 32.4

-

_d

/Mali Tu9etioow, these atiiiiiarplop IncluAi the saw ludividuaIs as watts includud In thu sarptu usud to gasairatu the data piosentud in Tahho VI.I. ll.is lutal saispIu ham 6uuu paitItionu4 accuriiilig LO the rust sucuut scisudotod intuiviuw uorplated. fhimptu raiders usud for the 19- to 2/- mud 20- tu 16-ftuuth

uutmeas nuud fair havw immiluted all pruviouaty muleidulod Isitusviuws, whit* thou* usud to ustiratu thu result* uvet the 17-mobtft putlod, ut OlJUIMU.

curpletud all pioviusuily suhedulod luterviuwu.

Aram thouu with dila for months 1 to 10, 3o purouut cumplutud 4 27-eunth intervia *aid 11 puicent corpletud a 3G-south fulutwuwa arum) thou., with

data fur months 19 to 2/, 20 parcrut torplutud a 16-runth intutiiiuwi and ammo thuse with data fur the 1- to 27 -month wriod, 2i purcont curplutud

u 36-mouth iniutviaw. siquifiaut mt thu 10 percrut luvul.

ft.*. roans out awaitabIu. 172 173
9

TABLE VI. 4 PERCENTAGE ARRESTED, BY SITE

YOUTH SAMPLE

Months 10 - 18 Months 1 - 18 Months 19 - 27 Months 1 - 27 ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control

Group

Mean

'ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control

Group

Mean

Experimental- Control

Control Group

Differential Mean

ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control

Group

Mean

All Youth 1.6 15.2 -0.3 270 -3.2 14.0 -8.8** 39%3

Site

Atlanta -1.4 9.9 0.0 15.0 1.5 1/ 1.6 -26.52/ 33.5

Hartford 1.0 7.0 1.0 21.3 -6.6 19.0 -6.8 -43.4

Jsrft4 City 3.2 12.2 -4.6 25.8 . -4.1 -10.7 35.8

New York 7.3 25.9 3.4 3.0 29.04=1 -142:0312/ 15.9 21.7 Philadelphia -10.5 21.9 -7.9 31.5 -1.d 12.8 -15.2 42.7.

NOTE; 2/These data are based on a sample of fewer than 20 persons.

This negative estimate for the control-group mean arose because linear

*Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

174

regression as opposed !o probit. analysis was used (see Chapter,10.

f-P.
Thus, much of the differential impact among subgroups with varying amounts

of follow-up data is related'to the site composition of the sample: nearly

half of those with 27 or more months of data are from Jeksey City and

Philadelphia and less than 4 percent are from New .York, while only 11

percent of those with 18 months of data are'from Jersey City and Philadelphia,.but 27 percent are from New York. Since the pattern of impacts on

arrests is different from the employment and total- income results (estimates

of program impacts on employment and income are positive for Philadelphia

and negative for Jersey City), it appears that employment and improved

economic status per se were not the mechanisms through which these favorable

c. impacts among selected sites occurred.

C. DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS ACROSS SUBGROUPS OF YOUTH

1

There is little evidence to suggest that program impacts on theincidence of criminal activities, as indicated by the percentages arrested

in each 9-month followrup period, vary systematically across subroups

of youth with various demographic and backgroUnd characteristics (see

Table VI.5). However, the program impacts or the percentages with any

arrest over longer periods of time (i.e., any initiation of or recidivism

to a delinquent or criminal life-style) suggest that the program is most

effective in reducing-involvement in crime among those who, in the

absence of some form of intervention, exhibit a greater tendency toward'

.such behavior: those who aie younger, who are male, who have nine or

more years of education, and Who have previously worked in some job' but

who have little recent employment experienge- (see Table VI.6).

1/

1/Subgroup results, are not presented for months 28 to 36 and 1 to 36,

since the expected numbe': of persons arrested among those samples is about 25

in each. (There are 146persons with valid data for the 28- to 36 -monthperiod and 79 with data for the full 1- to 36 -month -period.)

145 17c
5

TARGX V1.5

PxotliNTAGE WIT0 ANi'MOWST, MY LiEtOGNAPHIC

AND UACKGROUNO CMAJACTER/aTiCS

YOUTHISANFLE

Months 1 - 9 Months 10 - 18 S Months 19 - 27

ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control

Grow

Me ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control

Group , Mean

ExPerimental7Contro3 Lifierential

Control

Group Mean

'411 Yeuth 4 , Veers of Age0.3 16.8 1.6

i 15.2 -3.2 14.0 Under 19 -2.4 19.8 b.6 15.2 i 4.11 16.8 19 or older 4.7 ' 12.6 3.7 15.3 '1.1 9.3

.. 9 . t Lax

Mole . -0.2 18.7 1.6 13.8 -3.7 15.0

Female 4.7 5.8 3.S i( 23.8 -0.1 2.2

Dace /Ethnicity . White, not Hispanic 8.9 7.2 -11:2 21.3 -12.3 23.6

Slack, not Hispanic -0.7 18.3 2.6 15.4

. -0.4 12.0 Hispanic 3.2 13.4 '4.7 12.5 -13.2 15.8 VIEWS of Education

8 or less 11.5 9.8 19.3** 6.8 141 10.2 9 or more -1.4 18.0 16.7 74.2, 18.1 Otelfate and Food

Stamp Receipt in

iMath Prior to

pirollmentY.

Hate -2.0 19.7 .1** 13.5 0.9 12.4 Lome 5.7 11.0 -8.8* 18.9 -13.7** 16.7 hpendents

None 0.2 16.5 0.9 4 15.7 -4.7 13.8 One or more a.0 20.0 '9.3 11.8 11.4 12.1 4,Nonths in Longest Job

0

1 - 12

,,JA 9.6*

-1.6

16.1 17.0

9.8*

-1.6

14.5 16.6

-1.1 -3.7 16.7 12.8

More than 12 -9.2 17.7 8.5 , 5.9 -6.5. 11.5

J
a

Table VI.5 (Continued)

Months 1 - 9

Experimental- Control

Control Group

Differential Mean

Months 10 - 18

Experimental- Control

Control Group

Differential Mean

. Months 19 - 27 ' Experimental- Control

-Control Group

Differential Mean Weeks Worked'In Yeas

Prior to Enrollment !U

05,

10 Prior Drug Use

Uied drugs other than

marijuana

Dici not ;Ise any drug

other than marijuana

Prior Arrests ti

04

9 .,Months Since Incarceration * $

,Never incarcerated -4.5 18.1 0.1 12 or less .21.6 11.8 . 1.0

'lore than 12 17.1 12.4 23.9' Parofe or

Enrollment

Not on parole or

v probation

On parole or probation

.0.8

'0.6 0.5

4 f -4.5. 1.9 -0.2 . A5-1 0.0

1.2 18.5 3.6

3.0 22.8 8.1

i.2

-4.2

14.2

15.7

17.2

22.2

14.9 22.4

0.6

2.2

44.4

16:5.

"15.8

15.1

13.9

16.5

19.7 13.8 21.0

20.6

0.5 15.1 5.8 15.6

.74.3

-3.8. ' -3.3

-1.1 -4.1 /.9

15.4 14.6

li.7

17.4 ` -5.5 15.4

15.4 '1.2 14/.7 -2.4 13.0

11.4

14.6

18.7 -2.2 -11.8

1.8

13.7 20.3

5.0

-6 4* 15.1 10.6

NuTE: See note to Table 111.7. Results for the 28- to 36-month period are not presented because of the lim' id sample size (146) and the grail

number of sample members arrested during the period (29).

a/

Welfare includes AFDC, General Assistance, and other welfare or welfare income for which respondents could not identify the source.

b

-Tiles: estimates of subgro'p effects and means are based on a Inea- specification of tne sample characteristic, evaluated at the sp. cified

points.

(Experimental - control differentials within this subgrouping for this time period differ significantly from one another. (This test

procedure is discussed In Section me.)

*Statistically significant at the 10 portent level,.

**Statistically significant at the 5 percent level'.

.1:7(1 3 J

179.
2.0 4 TABLE VI.6

CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE WITH ANY ARREST, BY DEMOGRAPHIC AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

YOUTH SAMPLE

Months 1 18 Months 1 -

0 ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control

Grdup

Mean

ExperimentalControl

Differential , Control

Group. Hean All Youth -0.3 27.0 -a.8* 39.31 Years of p Under 19 -4.9 30.5 -16.4** 44.4 19 or older 6.9 21.9 2.2. 29.6

. Sex

Male -0.9 29.6 -10.5** 41,1

Female 4.9 11.5 8.2 13.6

' -

Race/Ethnicity

White, not Hispanic 0.4 ' 23.6 6.8 27.3 Black, not Hispanic -0.8 28.0 -9.6 39.2 Hispanic 3.4 23.1 -7.9 36.1 YeArs of Education * 8 or less 15.2* 14.5 20.2 20.6 9 or mo:e . -2.6 ' 28.0 -13.3** 41.0

,Welfare and Food Stamp

Receipt in Monti: Prior

to EnrblimentlY

. -None + 1.6 27.1 - -2.8 37.8

' Some -3.4 26.7 -21.7* 38.1

. .

Dependents ,

4 None -0.1 26.8 -7.8 37.6 One or more =0.1 28.8 -11.4 40..5 Months in Longest Job I 0 13.3** . 23 1 18.2 30.0

1 - 12 -4.1 -15.7** 40 7

More .than 12 -4.3 '4.7 -21.2 . 3/.0

1 u
-

TABLE VI.6 (Continued)

Months 1 - 18 . , Months 1 - 27-

a/ ExperimentalControl

Differential

Control

Group Mean

ExperimentalControl

.Differential

Control

Group Mean

Weeks Worked in'Year Prior to

Enrollment2/

. 0

. -0.5 25.5 -13.7** 38.5

5 -0:2 26.3 -10.8** 38.2

10 0.0 27.1 _8.9** 37.8

. Prior 04g1Use

Used drugsother than

6

marijuana -7.7 35.3 -10.4 46.0 Did not use any drug other

than marijuana '2.0 A. 24.6 -7.3 34.6

Prior Arrests E/

0

25.6 -13.6** 37.9

4

1. 28.3 -4.6 37.9

9 Months Since Incarceration

549

11% 31.6 6.8 37.8

Never incarcerated -3.6 26.3 -9.4 36.4 12 or less 6.8 30.3 -23.2 58.5 ndre than 12 26.4** 28.5 22.7 58.8 Parole or Probation at

Enrollment

Not on parole or probation .0.0 24.1 -8.3 33.7 On parole or probation 35.2 -7.6 48.6

HMI.: See swae to Table 111.3. Results for the 1- to 36-month Period are not presented because of the limited sample size 09)-

a/ . the sample for this period includd's people who completed bagel-Inc, 9-month, 18- month,: and 27-month intervAws.

. . . fain .includes AFDC, Cenetal Assistance, and 'other villare of welfare income for which respondents could not identify the source.

L! These estimates of subironp effects and means are based on a Ungar specification.of the sample ch7Lnristic, evaluatc8 at the specified points.

Experimental-control liffintials within this suliwouping for this time period differ signs an&1 Iron One'anpther.

r Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

o, Statistically significant at the 5.percent level.
- D. CONCLUSIONS

Th,ere is some evidence that among those individuals who enrolled

. . . . , , in the Supported Work programs.prior tO 1977 (and so were followed-for

..- , 'at least 27 months,after their enrollment), the: program did tend to

reduce their

, likelihood of participating -in criminal activities, as

evidenced by the lower incidence of arrists among experimentals relative

to controls. The. subgroups of yobth for whom the crime results exhibit

a pattern consistent with that for the employment results are those age

17 or 18 at enrollment and those who enrolled in Lhe Program earlier

, (and so were followed for a longer period of time). However, the sites,

where the relatively'more favorable employment results were observed

. are not the same set as those where there is some indication that the

programss may have:reduced criminal activities, suggesting that the

0 i mechanism throti4h which crime-related impacts might occur may relate

more to the-sociological theories than to the g&pnomi:-7 theories discussed

-in Chapter II.- Thus, the lack of apparent program impacts for the later

enrollees may be attributable to changes in the character ofthe Supported

Work programwovertime--Ibr example, to their considerably larger average

size. However, as previously noted, this- apparent reduction in program

-impacts over time is at least partly attributable to the differential

.imPacts among sites.

a 1$

\ 150

.
/

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

4

The goal of Supported Work is to.mitigate a number' of factors

thought to be related to the unusually high unemployment' among that

segment of the youth poibulation thit iaap the target of the Supported

Work demonstration--school dropouts with limited or no prior work

"IN experience and often with a history of iha)ivement in'crime. The

evidence from

Supported .11ork

411%

th4'Natj.onal-tupportedyfork DemOh ration suggests that

can be expected to have short-run impacts on emploimerit

And,coniequehtly, on dependen+ on public assistance`. However, it does

not appear td be successful in its central objeotivr of improvir.g

long -term employment prospects, for disadvantaged youth.

44 ; Tho'se youth who met the Supported Work eligibillty criteria

and applied to the program are among those who characteristically

have the most serious employment Problems.11 About 60 percent of the

sample are younger than 19, over One-third completed fewer than 10

years of schooling, and, over one-fifth have never had a regular job.

. -,'Of those who have held a regular job, their most recent job had ended,

on average, mote than 11 months ago. In addition, 57 percent reported

having been arrested, and 38 percent reported- having been convicted.

Other characteritics which identify the youth as being particularly

, 1/ror example, see Feldstein and Ellwood (1979) for a desciiptiOn

of the -employmnt'problems of youth with various, characteristics. . 9

.

' 0

,

. 15:1 18
likely to have limited employment opportunities are that 91 percent are, , from black sand other ethnic minority groups (among whom the national

unemployment rate is. about double the overall unemployment. rate for

youtn), and about two-thirds of the group hadbeen out of school for

more than a year when theytenrolled in the program. Thirty percent of

them reported having been expelled from school or left school becaute

of problems with the police. Few of these youth were married and

supporting dependents, and nearly tyo-thirds were living with their,

parents at the time of'enrollment.

Based on the post-enrollment employment experiences of the

youth control group, however, we observed that the employment prospects

for these youth who applied to and were enrolled in the demonstration

were somewhat more favorable than their background characteristics

would lead one to expect and better than those of the ocher Supported

Work target .oups (see Figure VII.1). By the start t.f the third year

'after enrollment, half of the youth were employed and they worked an

average of '30 hours per month. Eighty-three percent of the controls

reported some employment during the follow-up period of 18 to 36 months.

This general upward trend in employment is attributable to three factors:

anormal tendency forsome youth who, because of program eligibility

requirements,'Were unemployed at enrollment to become employed, the

a aging of these youth and improvements in local employment opportunities,

due to both improving local labor-market conditions and an increase in

CET4 appropriations targeted for youth jobs.

Employment experiences of youth controls were considerably

more favorable among those enrolled later in calender time, among those

ii

9 185

152 'OW
FIGURE VII.1

TREND IN HOURS WORKED BY CONTROL GROUP MEMBERS

1r

1.2 15 18 21 .24 27 30 33 Months After Enrollment in Supported Work SaMple

113

V.

Youth

Ex-Offenders

Ex- Addicts

361
A

iwJersey City and Atlanta as compared with those in, other sites, among

males as compared with females, and among those with more as opposed

4

to less prior work experience. Other\characteristics,,including age,

showed only weak relationships with employment.

-Those youtkapplicants who werArandomly assigned to tha

experimental group, and were thus offered a Suppoiced Work job, stayed in

these jobs only E.7 mrenths, on average, even though under program

guidelines they were permitted to.stay much longer. Only 9 percent left

after having exhausted the allowabletime`in the program; yet, only 18

`, .: percent,left to taieanotherjob.

During the period when experimentals were employed in Supported

Work, their hours of work and earnings, of course, exceeded those of

controls by a significapt amount. Consequently, their dependence on

welfare decreased at the same Lime that their economic status improved.

Although nearly 40 percent of the experimental youth reported "

that Supported Work had helped prepard,them for unsubsidized employment,

largely by teaching job skills, the'post-program employment experience of

experimentals do not reflect such increases in employment skills: by

the start of the second year/When less than 20 percent of the experi-

/-

mentals were still in the program, there was essential-y no difference

in the overall' employment level of the two groups. While differentials

in employment rates did reappear during the latest follow-up period,

4 o , they, are, neither large nor statistically signifit-int. Furthermore, the

estimated earnings differential during this same period is negative,

implying_that employed experimentals earned substantially lower wage

rates than did employed controls.

187

.154 9
r.

perhaps the most noteworthy factor concerning these employment'

results-is that both experimentals and 'controls exhibited a reasonably

favorable pattern of employment: during months 19 to 36, between 61 and 74

percent of the sample reported employment during each 9-month period:and

those with some employment worked the equivalent of about too .-thirds tipe

at wage rates, averaging between $3.41 and $4.13 per hour.

In comparison with other Supported Work target groups, youth

experimentals had employment rates during the 19- to 36-month period

that averaged 9 to 25 percent higher and they worked between 12 and 25

percent more hour, (thoUgh at substantially lover average wage ratJs).

. . .Thus, that this group exhibited less employment gain vis-a-vis their

control counterparts than other target groups app'ars to be due 'to

their having a less chronic -problem at the time of their enrollment,

as evidenced by the previously noted More favorable employment experiences

of their control group relative to those of other target groups. This

conclusion is further capported by the observation that those youth . for whom relcively more favorable (though generally not significant)

patterns of effects were estimated are those whose control group counterparts

had low employment rates and levels--for example, the earliest enrollees

in the demonstration who faced the podrest labor-market conditions) those

in New York, Harpford, and Philadelphia, and those who were younger

than average.

evidence that

Howev4i, the findings o this study provide little

retargeting the program on

would substantially alter the program's impacts. , .Experimental youth did stay in Supported longer than

,1% 0

a different subset of youth

,t

controls, over the sem-I-period spayed in nonprogram jobs ;6.7 months

155 18S

. ,c)
at,

versus 5.6 months for.nonprogram jobs). However, longer tenure in

Supported Work jobs his not been found to result in improvements in

other dimensions of employment-related outcomes, such as employment

rates; employment levels, or wage rates. Similarly, the Supported

Work .experience did not lead to substantially-different types of jobs:.

among both experimentals and controls, two-thirds to three - quarters of

their nonprogram jobs were in the manufacturing, retail trade, and seI-

. . vice industries, and they were mainly in clerical, service and misCellane(?)bs'occupations.

Among the reasons for public concern with the high rates of youth

unemployment is the belief- that unemployment contributes to drug abuse

and criminal behavior among young people. Yet, this study 'provides no

support for such beliefs. Even during the first nine months after

/

enrolling in the demo.:stration when experimentals had been cffered a

-program job, tile extent of drug use and involvement in crime were similar

between experimentals and controls: roughly 13 percent reported using

drugs (other than marijuana or alcohol) and 17 percent were' kted.

As a consequence of thee limited program impacts, tie estimates

of the net social costsdof Supported Work for youth are high: costs are

estimated-to exceed benefits by an average ofabout $1,465 per participant.

) Thus, a decis.on J as to whether or not Supported Work has a place among

federally sponsokel youth employment programs is a matter of judgment as

to the reliability of this estimate of the required;net sUbsidy.and the

unii2asured social value of ach.eving relatively modest short-term employ-

. ment and ircome gains.

- b In arriving at such judgments about Supported Work, it'is important

I
..

0

1 to recognize the limitatibns of the deMonstration's findings. The most

. , T, serious limitation is, of course, the paUcity.of observations on which

* .

. - to base'estimates of long-term impacts,' skim'eyer; another failing is

x.

.:- . 4Athat die research did nqi explore. fully the "causes" qf the program's

\ -

. . . ' . apparent lack of.success,in improving longer -term empitykertt prospects

1

A

. , for the target population. While the :current data bade would support

'\ , - ai more thOrough analysis of the .causes of :youth unemployment and of ,

4,

I e

, . 'ported Work's limited 'achievements, the reaiability of the estimates

.°

.

. of lodger -term impacts could be improved only through further follow-up

of the trample.

(

4.

O 157.

' ,

.4 0

,

'9

J.

ti
c.

1

APPENDIX A

SLTPPLEMENTARY -TABLES

g

: °

A L

a

1.1 159 191

d
.4.

TABLE A.1

CHARACTERISTICS-0F EMPERTMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUP MEMBERS AT ENROLLMENT

YOUTH SAMPLE Y Experimental- P Experimental Control

--Characteristic Group Mean Differential.

Age in Years 18.22 -0.04"

Pro-portion Male 0:88 0.01 Proportion Black 0.74 0.03

Nu Ober of Dependszits 0.18 0.04

itiabek of.Yeari of Formal Education ,, 9.62 -0.06.

Number of,Weeks i4orked Last 12 Months .9.45 -0:09

'Average-Wr,ge for These Uployed Last 12 Months 2.63 -0.17

tklearned Income Last 4 Weeks ,1 .56.14 -2.43

Proportion Receiving Welfare 0.13 -43:01

Number of Arrests .1.99 -0.67"

'Number of-Convictions - 0.52 ,,-0.23

_ Proportion Ever flied crzugss/ 0.23 -0.02

Proportion Ever Used Heroin 0.07 -0.01

a

NOTE: These data pertain to the total youth le andare taken from Jackson et al. (1378).

Tiede 3-3.

-This This includes only ihctivichsals t.to have used drugs other than marijuan and alcohol.

Significant at the .05 level on a two-tailed test.

a

10 0
44

TABLE" A:2

SAMPLE SIZES- ;MGR OF VARIOUS OUTCOME MEASURES -IN VARIOUS Tis-FERwp6

. _ Months-CoVera_bY_OutCoMeastire

Outaoie MeaSureS. 1;-18 19-27 . 147

EMployment 849 508 _153

Income- Sources" and walfEie Dependence 643 460 " 149 n.a. Use of Drugs (other than Marijuana) 852 507 151

Use of Marijuana,.Enroliment'in Drug Treatment,

Drug Use Among Sample Subgroups 739 497 -: 151 n.a.

an

na Daily Use of Marijuana, Index of Drug Use 733 488 143 n.a. Indicators of Criminal Activities 809 507 146 .379

a/ Total Potential Sample 861 513. 153 419

1=736!

n.a. -

79

.0"121

a /This includes 411 individuals who completed the required interviews: the potential,sample for1- to 18-month outcOMbs includes all who completed an enrollment, a 9-month, and an 140-Month in r- deli; that for19- to 27-month outcomes includeS all who completed.an enrollment and 27 -month inter?- ' - view; that for iojiths 28 to 36 includes all who completed an enrollment'and a 36-month interview; those -k, for Months l.'to 27 and 1 to 36 include all who completed all scheduled interviews up to the 19- to 27,

and the-28- to 36-month interview, respectively.

n.a. means not applicable.

193 4:1
."-. ' _

o

.

TABLE"..A.3

110BERSOF tOT#RVIE48;..AStIG4i

- OOMPLEiED

InterVie4

-.

is 1.,

Nulber

letedl/ Terceptage-. ietect.

- *1401-4ileri 1252 1;44. 99."4'

1252- 1001' 80.0

207040- , 1252 924- 71.es

1 . 506 764,

155 .14. 7.

ithE: Zeit data ere frozi 0'aCkson et .al. (1979) , Tablet II.1 and

.A. 4-.

-VThese- fgures include three persons who completed a .subititute enrollment interview at the time of a subsequently scheduled- follow-up

interview. They do not include individuals who completed. substitute

-

- Only those enrolled prior to January 1977 were assigned 'a"

271.nionth Lpteriw.

:Only thode

16-month interview.

4.

enrolled prior to April 1916 were assi4ned-a

I

-1'
MEANS: OR CONTROLAVAR IAiLii,t5En'ik.REGROSIONS

Standard Dedi'ations' of Continuous Varianles ire- in' Parenttiese's)

Sample _ 0 ,,14.18:,MOnth, --49,27-11pnth- -281.4 Month,

. , ,.-, .. - ,.01ii010ii ' OntCoMes, .04tcoiei'

*iii0e4Mei41-_,OUP, 4);478 6.4ii 0.497- .i

AmiiiiiE=.6 E. rid_leiv-up: Ditamt

,- ,27:litn,ini,, Ot488. .. .... 14*00' -.0:147 0.283 .....-!4Preiiired-by AiliareT6rd4---

':-. -ireiteient'.Ordiiiinel jUstiFe ,

'. . ,'I,,genCY'65-4004,46,progreM- 0.065 0.099 0.085 :

.',4,4" -..:Ailinii. 0.093 0.026 -0.0

, 0:40.i4- . 0:446 0.453 0.131

.jeieli,44.ty_ _ 0.225' 10.333 4.555

410:york, --, 0.159 .0.035-- -- -0.0 - 4hilidelphia 0-.077 0.154 . 0.314

--,Hontii0OrograarOperitidn-,

1340'

> is, 0.342

-,Aria,finempiOymen;Aite Dnring

4'ollay,-UtrPitia041

Complies-with Formal Program

Criteria 0.732

Age 19 or older 0.403

Hale. 0.862

0.332

7.490' (2.684)

,o;

kace/SEhnicity

,White, non-Hispanic.

-Hispanic 0.060 . 0.155

'More, than 8 Years of School' 0.848

lime7Since-Last-Enrolled-in--

Schoollr 1.Year 0.367

1 -2 ,Years 0.267 -Reason Left School-a/

Repelled 0.155 Trouble with Law 0.145

Winied a Job 0:287 Number of Pirsons in Household 4.923

,Anickpendents

Raised byll

One Parent

TWO Parents CUrrentlY Living with Parents-a/

Any Food Stamp's or Welfaie

Last:Month

total income Last MonthS/ , 4Cnings,Last Honth

Any AMount

;2.563)

0.102.. 0.564

0.347 0.701

0.343 120.15

(132.74)

0:572, .67.24.

(98:44)

0.o.Nbr""ji.

0.0

o.o -

7.372 8.9140. (2.981) (2.28/./

. 0419

0.414

0.892

0.599

0.430

0.941

01092 0.0.71 0.147 0.121

0.835 0.817

'0.340 0.464

0:301 0.244

0.159 0.111

0.177 0.222 0.288 .0.353 5.059 -4.979 -

,2.587) i2.671) 0.086 0.058,

0.529 0.444

.Q,400 0.477

0.717 , 0.760 0.304 0.255

122.37 127.95

(140.87) (129.13) 0:605 0.648

74.00, -87.25

(104.04)= 4105.80)

1.-04
(CONTINUED

mums,or-coNTFOOOdiaiwvii0 IN "REGRESSIONS

itandard'Deviatianiot-Continuous Variables are .in'iirentheses

,SalPle

AinemPiOiXO^p-ICOMpensation

List, Month- Amount welfaie last Months/

Any

AmoOdi

1 -18 Month '19-27 ,Month

. butcomil Outcomes /

28-35 Month

Outcomes i28 0.035 0 0.034

.08 _6.37 8.87

) (3 .60) (37.20) (50.22)

.0.131 , 01122 0.114 . 22.30 19.83 16.48

(67.34)

,F004-Stamps last HonthE/

Any ' 0.252

Bonus, Value 20.04

(38.0)

Otfiii'Llearned Income List Month/

' jot 0.041 amount " 5.49

re-:6 Worked in Prior Year

.... Length,of,Longeit Job Ever

(31.35)

4.359- (11.684)

. 12:month.er less , 0.696

HOriApin42.ionths 0.075

3'.or Hore4eks of Job Training

Orior 7enrrl - 0.109

-Used'AnyAeugs (Other than 0

. . Marijuana) A.233

Usid'COCiine5J 0.129

Dsed.Alcohol Dailyc/ 0.058

teit-Friend Does Not Use Drug,

and is Not-Involved in Crime- 0.814

Many Addacts,in,Neighborhoodli .0.323 Ever Arrested 9.542

.NOmber of Arrests 2.250

(5.305)

%, Time since.incarcerated

'lt,months or less 0:174

H6ie-than12 months 0.112

OiFieiole_or Probationt/ 0.27!

KaiimisM,Nniber of Cases-in

,Regression 861 NOTE: lleinsof thewvariibles will vary slightly,from one set of regressions to another pecause

of slightly lnalyses:of various outcome:measures. The may also

,Vary frOi those-presented ii,Table 11.311m-cause the above means-were Obtained from actual

analysii saiges,ai 6000sedtn potential samples'based on interview completioni.

4/These variables -were included only in reg4ssions,to estimate subgroup effects for

(64.02) (49.63) .

. .0.205 0:149

15.46 7.81

(36.15) (18.26) .* J.049 . 0.065

' 6.71

(36.83) 0 7.54'

(40.13)

10.172 12:654

(12.362) (14.013)

. .0.687 0.687

. 0.076- 0.099

0.107 0.139

, 0.300 0.411 0.150' 0.187- 0.072 0.077 0.753. 0.715 0.352 0.340 0.638 0.641 2.868 3.000

(5.024) (5425)

0.191 0.204

0.199 0.103

0.321 0.316

-513 153 411

individO41X.WitO the various attributes.

1:/-area OnamplOYment ratewaS ultimately excluded froi regressions because of its high

correlation With the-site.Oiriables. The 1 -18 month value pertains to months 10 -18.' The

value'lcifiiiinths 1=9 is 8.62 ,percent.

. ,These Variables were included only in regressions where the dependent variabl was the

post-enrollment value of the same,

di, --this-variable'wet included'oay tnemploiment-related regressions.'

ei. z.thii variable was included only in regressions where indicators of drtig use and criminal

..,/----.salTieswern,Lthe dependent variables.

_ '165
$

4 Control. Variable.

! "--'' Amount.:,ofToIlOw-up Data

tT,Months,-^ '- ",MonthsAtilsita

. HirtfOrd

JerselC-ty

itew:nrk

'Philadelphia

Mont)444:OProgram Operation

13-18 -

> 18 Compliil with Formal Program

Eligibility Criteria

Age 14 or 01dei

-.TABLE'A:4b

. ESTIMATED-CotikICIENTS'.0,HCOHTAbi'VARIABLES

USED-IWSELECTED: REDRESSION_Ag4tiqut _ _ _

Race /Ethnicity

Whiti,Non-Hispanic

Hiipinic

Sore 'iban 8 'Years of School

Nuriber:Of 'Parsons in Household

Any.Depondenti

. -

AnyFoOd Stamps or Welfare r_ast

MOnth- :/8.96 **

bei:endeht Variable*,

. Hours;aployed?

Per

(Motthe.-19-rtO *:27)1

Used Any Drugs

(Months 19 to 27) -

n.a.

AnY.Arreat;,,,,.

(Months 3.9 to 27_37-.

-n.a.- n.a. 42.11 - =0.11 -0.09 -23.36** -0.11 0.01

n.a. n.a. n.a. -53.07*f -0.03 -0.04

-40.53,0! -0.15 0.06' 14.8.7*

-'" '19.40 '1.06 14.03**

43.50 **

33.20 **

17.18 * 15.18*

0.28

-18.52

'Weeks Worked in Prior. Year 0.72 ** iOngth.of Longest Job Ever

12 Months or Lass

Mori-Than 12 Months

8'or More Weeks-of Job Training

Prior ear

Used Any Dipga (Other Thairi. Marijuana)

Ever Arrested

Number ofiAirests

-Tilt* Since Incarcerated

12 Months or Less

More Than 12 Months

On ParOletOr Probation

COnstant

Number of Cases

:'::is aquation also

(i.e itatUs*Atlanta, . reported in Table 111.7.

1 -This tquition also

(i.e., itatus*Atlanta,. . reported in Table V.3..

-2.42

9.67

)0;03

-014)

0:04

t "i -0.02

-chop*

-0.10 .

-0.06 .

-0.07**

-0.01 0.13*:

0.09* 0.04

0.01 0.00

0.05 0.0s.

-0.00 -o.ol

0.00 0.05 0.02 -0.03 -0.00 -0.00 0.02 , -0.07* -0.06 -0.07

-0.93

-4.48 -15.64* .,

-0.32

16.42 , 24.26 508

0.14

n.a. 0.1v**n.a. 0.02

0.03 . 0.02 -0.00 0.00

-0.06

n. a. '0.00 -0.02 0.19

507

0.09

507 0.03' included five binary variables :ndicating experimental status .nd site

st'atyi*Philadelphii). Program effects estimated from this equatiodare

included five binary-variables indicating experimental status and site

status*Philadelphia). Program effects estimated from this equation are.

s' 2( This equation included two binary variables indicating experimental status and amount of

follow-up dati (i.e., status*27 months and status*36 months). Program effects estimated from this

eitaation,are reported VI.1. n.a.msans not applicable

*'Statistically 33.qt:3-agent at the lo .?erceni level.,two-flailed test.

** Statistically significant at the 5 percent level tiro tailed test.
TABLE,A:5-

. ISST/MATEDREDRESSIOWCOEFFICLENTS:OWVARLABLES

USEDLTOlfRED/CrtgERSr,YOkitid.i8YY:CONTROLS

-(0iitted-Viiiibiii in-Abitenthesei)°

Est. imated, Viiiible. ---Coe fi ien t -:-!---t-ratid -Significance Level Al

ifaitfOrd

-(JefiecYCity)

Ne4'4Ork,

tefare July 1976)

.Enrolled -July- December 1976-

Enrolled 1977

(Age- k!17)

Age .19s

Age 20

(Feeele)

Hispanic

(31aCkriiid Other).

.. .1 --Lt* - - 0.36 - 72 -11112: -3.66 0 -9.77 - '41 -2':45 1 -12.81 -3.b6 0 6.20 2.19 g 3 7.82 2.54 1. 1.34 0.48 63 2.54 0.81 . 42

.2:45 Q.69 49

7.14. , 2.18 3 -1.28 -0.29 78

4.27 1.46 ' 14

P .

. -1.83 -0.76 ^'45

'2.14 0.77 '44 . 2.93 1.13 .26

1.39 - 0.,52 60

-2.11 -, -0.94 . 35

-3.41 -1.38 . 17 -2.60 -1.21 23

-2.07 -0.58 57

- . -2.73 -1.06 29

1.76 0.69 49

5.57 1.74 8 0.86 0.28 78

-1:56 . t -0.65 52 . -0.65 ; -0.22 82

-1.96 - 0.78 44* -0.83 -0.33 74

.20.02 3.52._ _o

22.16

0.06

,. 446

,.

v

-((16 ieMis of SChool)

, :,10Teire ofSchoill

4. :----.,, .i.Olears'of School - . .0.°Teai,Since.School

1-2,Yeais_-fiince School'

(>'2'Teite Since School)

'Expelled FrOm, School or Left

. "Because of- Tioxible With Law_

(tefi'School for Other Reasobs)

Lives -with Parents

(DoisAlot Live with'Parents).

.11414sed,by Two Parents

(Not raised by Two Parents)

iariie:andior Has-Dependents

(Notiiiiried and No Dependents)

,Receiving Welfare 'ore:

-Ioecl'Itimfr.: (Not-ReCeiVing.Welfare) _ -(No-120Viotim Regular Job) . 4.150gestetiulai Job Lasted

,..:6-:Nonths: LoOgeit* Regularjob Lasted , 6*Xonihs. r

1- =(N -44.Traiming,in Pasleor)

SOme Jobliiining in Past Tear

iNever-Xsed Anv,Drugs).

:Used:Only. Narijstena . Died-biUgs:OtheC,than

. . Marijuana

OeiorlArreited)

One',or Note-Arrests

(Noi.on4arole-or Probation) "

-Oh.jaible'or PrObation

Cohitani

Average Number of --Weeks

Worked-. R

2-f.1?ebei of 'Observations

.

6

0

.4
'T4LtA.c?- . 46piiiiE6****dOttii6iEigs'.oN

.69giuktpi0o0x0,10100niliORK JOBS,

(6mittee4rieblii

. ,.. ------Istilieted-:-- . , -Variible .6ieffiCieni .,_ 1-ritie Significance Level (%)

At1;inta .- 2.7,7-, -8.53 60 HirifOrd,_ -6'3'0 -2.11 4 ,(jel=iekCity)-

NO, tork,- 1137 0.34 73

,Ohilidelphfa -19.82 -4.59 . 0 (Enrellid',:Befoie Ju1y 1970

,Bnrella:JtiiiDecember 1976 -542 -7.1.77 8- - Enkilla -1977 . -

-5.48 =1.7r , I 9 (4-1:< i71

'Age ,18 1:06 -0.75 46 Age 19 -0.88 -0.28 78 Age > 20 ,=1.31 V.;8-.33- 74 Male -5.82 -1.71 9 :(Female)

. . White . -1.99 -0.43-

:kii0enic ' ,2.28 0.73 . 46 (Black and Other)

,( <_10,Yeers,-ef-UhOol)

10-Years of, School .5.94 2.44 2 > 14:Cteari Of School 3.58 1.22 22

.

,.- < 1 Year Since School -0.16 -0.06 Z

95 1-2 Yeats Since School 2113 0.78 43

o . (>-2'Yeari-Sinee,Scheol) ,- - Expelled `From Schook.drLeft

BalCauie of Trouble,With Law -3.37 (Left.Schobl-for Other Reasons)

Lives with Pirents,

+r-(Does not Live. with Parents)

Raised by Two Parents'

(Not.reised by Two Parents)

't4 t

t 0.84

4.16

0.39

1.93

4V Marrid'andror Has Dependents - -5.50 -1.56 12 (Not .Married and No Dependents)

2.70 1.13 30 Receiving Welfare or Food

StiMps

(Not. Receiving Welfare)

(No. Previous Regular Job)

Longest Regulkr. Lasted

<.6 Months . Longest Re ob.t.asted > 6 Months -

(No jOb Train q in4Patit Yeir)

Some Job Training in Pait Year

ANever_Used-Any_Drugs,_

Used.OnlyMarijuana . Used Drugs Other than ,- Marijuana --- (Never Aralted

_.....-- A3ne,or More Arrests

(Not on Paroleor Probation)

On. Parole or Probation

Conitant

05.01 4.17 8.40

1.95

1.33

2.91

1.14 0:53

1 -0.96.

60

34 1.10 0.39 69 )3.13 5.99

I v. Averigi Number of Weeks

Worked 29.31 0.11

) 44Mber ofbbiervations, 404

)68.: . 2.G0
"iiiiir,-.i. ,. ESTIMATES r oi...leutCINAL IMPACTS OF 774104:CHARACTRIST/CS- OeviS2 LIICELTC000 OF -TERMINATING

suPpoRTEO*05 00#060TREAioks

Atlanta. HirifOrd.

Philadelphia 1

-(Ehrollediefore,July 1976)

Enrolled Juli-December 1976

Enrolled 1977.

(Age 17) Age-18

-Age-19

Age la 20.

t Male.

. (Female) 0

white

Hiipinic

(Sladk..and-Ocher)

(< 10 Years-of School)

10'Ye4e'ofSchool

>'16 Yeari Of'S6hool

C.

< 1 Yee4Since School

1-2 YearsSince School

(> 2'--Years.iince,School)

Expeliirom-Sdhool or Left Because of

'Trouble With Law

(Lift School for Ottier Reasons).,,

Lives With-iaxints

(Does Not UV* with Parente)

Raised by Nolarentst . (Not-Raiesed by Two Parents)

.31erried and/or Hai Dependents ; - .. ---- (Mit Married and, No 9ependentsr

Receiving Welfare or Food Stamps

(Not-Riceiving Welfare)

. (No -Previous Regular Job)

..... i. LOngait ReguliepJob Lasted 046 Months

ongest - ,Regular Job Lait0-,i6 Months

(No Job'iraining.in'Past Year)

Sole Job Training. in PestYear

. (Never died-Any 'Drugs). ,1

Used only'MarijUana

Used DrUgslOther-than-Maxijuana

(Never Arrested)

One. or Mori Arrests 1, .. '(Not on Parole or"Probation)

. On:Parole or Probation Constant

POrdIntagO of'SamOle

.._ _ ......, .....--.-L__,:_,Reaion...fdr.,..Tereinatiom__ ,..

C

To-TaW,Another-Job

or, Ehroli.-1m,School Poor a/ or Job.Treinin ,performance.- Other

0.03

0.04

-0.06 0.27

-0.18** -0.06 -0.2! -0.17* -0.13' 0.31

-0.01 '0.11 -0.10 -0.00 " 0.13 -0.13

-0.15 0.11 0.05

0.05 , -0.01

0.01 -0.00 0.01

0.01 0.0 0.66 .

f 0 0.14** -0.14 ' 0.00

0.10 A0.04 -0.13

0.04 d %.10.1.1* -0.07

-0.04 -0:08 0.42

-0.15** 0.16 0.08 -0.09

0.01 =0.02

'.' -0.01 -0.01 0:02 -0.01 . -0.10 0.11

0 0.05 -0.04 0.01

L

. 0.12 -0.24* 0.12

0.03 -0.12 0:10 -.

. 0.06 s -0.04

-G.02 .0.14 0.02 0.08 -0.11

,. _

10.02 -0.01 -0.03

-0.20 0524 *-9.04

0..04 0.09

0.23

-0.13

0.29+ - '-0.22

-0.50

-0.01

:0.02 0.02

-0.03

-0.12

44.36 16.47

- -, NOTE: Samples used are defined in Table-III.1. Tbesocesiimates of marginalimpactliare based on

polytomotie logit analysis which predicted accurately reasons for termination ogos percent

of the sample. . . ._,... . 4(This category includes 'those who terminater"bocause of conflicts with the boss or crew members,

' use of drugs or alcohol, illegal activities or incarceration, absenteeism. poor .punctualitv. or Low

- 4 prildOCIVItlf. ' . t. ,, ' C.0 , %!statieticaliy significent_at snip 10'percent level.- ow

4*Stetistidelly--signifitani,ift,the 54ercent level. . TO. 01:

4 Lj

.9

4.
na

TABU A.S3a

4 4 PERCENTAGE' .OF iXPiRIMENTALS REPORTING ''VAFOUS. ASSESSMENTS, OF 8. UPParr8D. WORK

t

, - YOUTH-SAMPLE.

4

V.

ti

l , _,--- SupPOrtedAlork .Pripared Hiii/Her t4 Obtain_RegUiar Job

Prepared i /He r i'y Teaching:- -

-1

gob skills, trade: -.- \

. Better work habitilnd attitudgs

.

-Other .. ... ---7,---

, .. Most.ImportantResult from Working in Supported Work is

,

. . _

-.-, .. -----___. -Learning-jobs skills, trade

. De'veloping -better. Work: habits and att4tudei

. stie, Haviri a Steady job andincome.

Developing self- confidence; self-ebteem

Staying, out of trouble ,'alnd/or._ off drugs

Other things

Nothing

There Were Things He/She Did Not Like About Supported Work

How-Program-was runes

Low payer

Other complaintst/

..:,-M6nths,111--Supported'Work

Less than 3* !' to :12 more Total

, 23.5, 38 7. 55..3 38:2-

0 ::621.5. 80.0 ' - .

. 31.3 40.6 .

12.5 , 4' 10.1 *'

17.2

20.3

9:4

3.3

12.5

4.5 :

66.. 7 19.0

21.4

73 4:

42.1 49:0;-

10.1 7.9 .9.

16.7 17.1 , 175

5.6 9.2 ' 7.1,

2.0 0.0 1.6

' 22.7 -21.4 19.8

36.9 23 t7 35.5

49.6 : 38.1 31.6 37.1

s: 30.1 4.2 . 25.0'

26.9 173. - 45.8 , 24.8

46.2 57.5 54.2 54.6

Number in Sam' le

t.

.114

. 374 83 571

P 2/Figures include only those

'Multiple responses were permitted.

b/Figures Figures include only those

Multiple respoves were permitted.

who said Suppoiied Work prepared them to obtain a reigula job.

4* 0 who said there were things they did not. like about Supported Work.

202
.4

TABLE A.8b

- ..

PERCENTAGE OFEXPERIMENTALS REPORTING VARIOUS REASONS WRY SUPPORTED WORK DIFFERED FROM OTHER JOBS

YOUTH SAMPLE

Noriths in Supported Work Job Less' than 3. 3 to,12 12 -or more 'Tota3.

Job Skills and'Attitucies

Lieriv,riew-skills or trade . 16.2 25.2 li:i 22.4

-DiVeloP-bitter Woric.-attitudei 0.0 2.3. 0.0 1.3

DiViloO.Melfaonlidence 0.0 1.4 0-0 0.9

Typi Oi4Ork

iinjOiable. work 8.1 2.1 4.2

, 3.5

Lisslirijiyable-work . 0.0' 0.7 - '0.0 0.4

0ifiMiiint:iiind of work 40.5 35.0 27.1- 34.2

, 5.4 4.2 " 10.4 5.7

Harder "work 8.1 2.1 4.2 3.5

PrograM/S4eiirisor Noie'ihteriiist in individual 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.4

14-ire'Swekiision 2i7 6.3 4.2 5.,3

Leis -SUpeivisicin 2.7 0.0 0.0 '0.4-

Mori isnisnt supervision 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.8

-PrOgipol rtiir-poorly 10.8 8.4 4.2 7.9

-- itzi bitter 0.0 1.4 2.1 1.3

Program. run differently 0.0 5.6 6.3 4.8

. Likedthoise ruaranglprogram 0.7 2.1 0.9

Did- not like -those ruining program , 5.4 x 4.9 3.1 4.4

Fellow Workers

Likes follow workirs 2.7 0:0 '2.1 0.9

Does not like fellow workers 2.7 2.1 4.2 2.6

Wagis 'and yOrkitng Conditions

-- Sigh ,tiage- rates '..., 0.0 0.0 0.0 , '',0.0

Low Wigi rites -, 2.7 2.8 6:3

'3.5

-44Oxiir benefits: 0.0 O:.7 2.1 I.a ' 'Seit..Mr"binefits 5.4 0.7 2.1 1.7

POotei working conditions 0.0 1.4 0.0 -I. 0.9

Longer hours' 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4

Other 5.4 0.7 2.1 2.2

(SupportediWork Not Diffejent) (40.3) (26.7) (32.3-) (33.5)

)(umber in Sorsa le 37 143 -48 228

NOTE: Of:'the exparimentals, 3 percent were no-shows and 6 percent were not in the proaraa 30 lays. Multiple responses were allowed. Figures incluOe only those Wilt) said that Supported Work; differed from other jobs.-

,2a4

: 171
'11.1031.0 0c01141,AGE-wiTutpovi-ppordmm JOB, - Bt REASON fOR LEAVING SUPPORTED WORK AND AMOUNT OF POST=SUPPOklgb.WORK FOLLOW -UP ,04TA

0 I

(For Those-With Job, Average Number-of Months to Oirst-Post-program Job .in Paientheses)

iteasOn for'Leaving

, SOpported Work

Amount of Post-Supported Work Follow-Dp_Data

< 6 months 7 to 12 months -13-to 18 -mOntlis > 18-months

Exhausted:Allowaplp 55.6

(0.6)

. 60.0.

(0.3)

33.3

(2.0)

86.7

(1.1)

..._

100.0

(0.0)

160.0

(0.2)

75.0

(3.4)

47.1

(2.6) 4

100.0

91.3:

(0.5)

. - 64.7

(5.2)

62.5 73.3

(3.9)

100.0

(7:5)

94.7

c3.5)

69.2

(6.5) :

(7.5)

fJ

Time in Ptograra.A

_TO Take Another Job

or Job Training

Poor Performance-

/

Other c/

stbtalSample

80.0-

(3.7).

.96.6

(1.6)

.67.5-

(5.4)

65.5

'11(3%8)

ti The amount of post-Supported Work follow-up data is the number of months between the time the

samplemember left the Supported Work job and the date of the latest month of continuous

follow-up data.

2/This includes individuals not leaving Supported Work to take another job, 'to enroll in school

or job training, or because of poor performance, but who either spent the maximum number of months in

the program or exceeded the maximum calendar time for participation.

This category includes those terminated because of conflicts with the boss or crew members;

use of Crugs oralcohol, illegal activities or incarceration, absenteeism, poor punctuality, or low

productivity,

SiThis includes reasons such as low pay and health, childcare, or transportation problems. 1
4

7./

4

*

_ 'PERCENTAGE -.DISTIaqq,11014491,,SANPLE,111-.AVERAGE,?.NUiMIElliOP 'HOURS ROWED AND-AVERAGE aaatimii.;kaa-mottra

SAMPLE

--. ' . . - Months -1 -9 _ __ . .. !Months 10 -18 ' Months:_19=27: _

Ex (3ekimentals-: . :Controls . Emperimentals': Controls Erperimentali Controls--

. - -Hours Necked per Month O .2.0 47.0

' 31.6 40.1 38.2 39.2

i-,43 10.0 '17.8 11:2 - 16.6 12.4 10,1

44 -86 17,3 ' 15.4 17:8 .13.7 11.6 P.1

87429 -18:0 11.6 13.1 11.4 8.3 13.8- 110-172 27.6 di .5 11.1 7.2 14.1' 7.8

113=216. ,24.1 3.3 10.5 6 1 12.4 13.)

:

217 -259 0.7 0.2 0.7 1.t1 1:7 1.1 > iaa.. -0.2 0.2 0.0 1.2 1.9

(Average hours) (120.5)- (39.6) (70.6) (5t.7) (68.9) (68.5)

Earnings per Month

(dollars)

0 . '2.0 47.2 31.7 -40.1 1-99 9.3 16.1 8.3 13.5

.30.2 38.9

1 7.4

100 -199 13.9 13.4 '14.4 11.7 8.3 10.4 200-299 13.0 9.2 10.7 9.2 5.8 6.7

360-399 16-.9 5.8 9.3 5.6 15.8 10.0

400-499 32:3 0 3.4 -.9.5 6.7 - 9.5 7.4

500-599 9-.8 3.8 , 7.8 5.2 5.4 5.9

600-699 1.2 0.4 -1,- 5.4 )-- 3.4 . 9:1 5.9' 700-799 0.7 0.2 1.5 1.6 3.7 1.5 800-899 1.0 : O.0 0.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 > 900 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.6 3.3 4.1 (Average dollars) (340.08) (124.39) (232.32) (193.76) (263.33) (249.64,

Number in Sample 409 447 410 446 241 270 .

.-, liedth.s-_-iiiL.36 . - . txperimentile - "_Controls=

'

- 26.3, 431,q 41.1 , '711

"fia: 10:4., 1:3.1 :114 . :5,..4:. I5;6.-, -, 22:4- ,,19-:6 ..

s O.U. '' f-1...- 1=.3'

... :- (875). .032:5)-'

. -

26.3

7.9 33.8 5.2

15.8 5.2

...., 5.3 6.5. 7.9 5.2 . 9.2 10.4 10.5 11.7

7.9 5.2

0.0 7.8 5.3 5.2

3.9 3.9

(301.50) (336.76)

76 77.

NOTE: Samples used are defined in Table 11.2. These data Are not regression-adjusted. Columns may not sum to 100131 to rounding.,

207
_Overall: Differential

"4#4400Aii.014044i.

of eaplopinerit

:Ching!,;-in,..hours-.Fcirked.

;among,:eaployed'

'doitO,NOTS\AVENFERIMENTRI.t,CONTROL. 'DIFFERENTIAL

:;4104.1.00.4070:-PikI.Oftg

Dollars

9 fkonttis. lb :.;;-114," " Percent "-Percent-.

of

Lot.o

Months 'Months

',Percent

Ocr;O:

6.79 55.79 r:p. '54. 5o,

5.--38 '44.21 6491 - 4669,

"5:.;41,

.6.23

:NOTE: The .dedemposition.,o1:-the;oVeref..1. differential. was estimated. ime a ,,tobit equation. in which :the

' differeiii!il; (T) :can -1?*. expressed' as:

. -- NPrE(')''''afE(*) XdFc" aft'

' N . 4 where: X is a,---Vactor.-ei- control Variables ; 'S, is a vector -of,metiMated coefficients;

F(9.-,:kinOtic,iiie .CUmaitiVe...poriMal,-distribution evaluated. at ,,X; I:0J denotes

pivhehiiitiyi'eiineitiv:funation evaluated' at. k; c is the' standard error-of the

eguationi ,and-.E.,and: c-. denote experimentals' and conttols' valuta , respectively. .. , . . et*

The two eel-01116u; respectively, raanbe`expressed.as:

. E(TE.)* [F.t.C*1 --EX)]

.and

See

a.(Y)*Fc(,)

McDonald and Moffitt (forthcoming) ,fora discussion of this decomposition procedure.
-

-. ,,a; Experimental. group: Mean,

7' , _ ;Control _:drMap- Mean

,

'1..21

= 4 . /3'''09;

.., , !,,,t3:40

2:0'3 :4 ,5..;;E -,

,.. ' 409'

''' -3;4 545. 3:1'26

.- . 3626 3.39

#48' 3.46 3.50

,.. i"

4194421."" 3.82 3..ao

,

. 22.4,4; 5'.89 3..89 , -., .. 25442,7" 3.852( 3786:

26-90 3.45 3 ;45

3.39

3.49

34-'36 3.45 3.45

=

4.23

4.37

. . - - %

- NOTE:`' These- wage #atee are caloiated by dividing the evei-ale monthly

earnings qf-S,F0):0 4- :(ir0:q.e iix:.$) by theie,,eveilije monthly

:nOUt.a.-. '(,Table, ;It?: 0., Noo 44riikiaantia, 'testa were computed.

.... --(NO 44414:,413:41.4**944 1104 i#xf. during this

tints period' and -3pp0 ,0,:zion-

,§401),#tec::4iOrie 'retee.ere:-not-ei/ual 1:e due

.*4ator-,00.:r114.1!6s or to an occasional

on, sch94414. / _
. ,

41. :13 , , ".;

AVERA :,404#R-.601o.un8 iWyrst. lakionk niipeit4rs or -.491.634;44, OAT*,

,

. , , . , .- 4.- e. . -,f

, iii 'tidiiii.4.4'Cixita....--. - , .. _ 27 Months or

i..,

.' . -

., _ ,

r. a,

,. _

,

-er--m1 -a----.'

36, i ,

,, ..it"

Months Ejcpintal= ",...rr.iisn,..il- c

4f tC Control iteiiira Control knallnt rlsetals ceitroliDiffrintiil Mqperimentale Controls Differential-. Epa tals-Costrels.Differentia:r

1-3 136 45 69 110 249.13 329__-115.18 15141 39:16 1146t

.

., .- ,,-.

1-.E.- ... 117.f36.

. 45 81 11.49 12127,2 ---2----19:68

....-- 81.84' ' 125'. al 45 -.:? . 49::0, ,,.:::' -"',,

. . ...---.- 7-9 94 51.25. -92:_--76 }----- 101.05 '37. or 64-.03' '98:00" . ;-,i: 60_ 55-40 :,

,-, 0=0 81 . t. 4 66. 04-------- 21.45 0 .74:06 40.44 33.62 '82.66 :1.1' . ,S7499

-..s-5-':*;:z,"1

. . .-----------

. 13=15 72.2, 4 66.43, '5.84 61.50 63.20, -,1.70' 72.0 44.17 e. - 48.,4i;

i -16= ul:-------'- 72.80 66.45 6.35 53.66 65.51 -11.85._ ' 52.11 34.92 17.19

.-

'n 63.05 63.55

. ? ..

A

19:-21

22-24

.a.

n.a. , , ,

- n.a.

n.a.

'n.a.

n.a.

70.24 65.95

'41.50

4.29 69.88

57:43' 66:02

71.98

-4.54-

4.1i)

*-CT%

25-27 n.a. . n.e. : n.a. 72.19 65.75 6.44 66.96 81.96 -15..oa-

.:.86.05 11.35

. ,. .28-30 n.a. n.ii. ; . n.a,. n.a.'"* n.e. n.e. 97.40

, U -., 31-33 n.a. IV a 97.63 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. ri.a. 90.02 7.61

34-36 11. 4 n.a. . n.e. n 4 __.,_, n.a. n.a. 89.23 81.74

- . 7.49

.

. . . a. HMer in

Sample 436 298

. 1 N0'IS Sales are defined-b/ the length of post-enrollment period for which coutinfous data are available. These data are not

regreasionl-adjusted. Thus, results differ sosewhat 'from those reported elsewhere i in the -report. Noignificance tests

were computed. e ...* 4e. means not applicable

II

*4.

121.

'
11111.801-.-

. *TA., WIN; 7AN0q3:10840,1181.ip 8ke7ti)8 kileyaikirr

ItpuTtl,AtIP14,

,_ , . Y ,, iliiii ilia 1-9. kinths'10-18- .. iiialthiA4-27' ..5 . ....,,Atintlis.,26---i-,,, - Experimental =... Contiol Experimental- Control Experimse:ntal"lContrcit" "F.sperisee, elks1F-""",Control-..

,eshiriIl -Group Control ' Group ContrOl, Group Cisiiii-01(' : Group

... Iiiiiiiitist.ial .. !leak , -Oifierential Moan biffiiiesiti:li Mean-.... .. .; Iii fferential, :-. -Wean... tt -1>dibeiit.aijelitepOrtitig Any

CkTA Oi.witt :Jot;

. . -2.4' " 3.7 0.1 4.1 1.5 4.9, -1.2. 4:4-

7 . Pt verage ..11Osithli=.Earnings. fr..* -4.23 7.57 3:30 .8.56 3.71 1'5 .63 -,-33'.4,6 55.76 :CiTk.Oi'WIN Job (dollar..) , t ,Percentage 8eportifigAny e 8.4 3.6 14.0.' 1.1 11.9 , 'NI -ff.7 21.1

s. . ' "Gevernment-Job' q

I

Average Monthly Earnings

from All Government Jobb= -9.06 17.36 -0.01 ts 30.25 12.49 39.54 -82.85 120.03

t (dollars)

NOW: These data are nut rogression-adjusted. No tests of statistical significance were computed. Jobs were categorized according to

sample members' resp.mses to questions about whether specific jobs were part of special coploysent prog. ow like et:TA or WIN and

whether they were fo. stIteor local governments.

,

. Ill'Itiese figures incitide IETA and WIN jobs.

I

'.

ti

=NI

*A'

I
y'ta1LL . 11.15.

. ,

. ii1EINVa'S'ariNLTi_EAJPIXNDS---TTAL-..,E=UDENG,,c*Ti AND RN; LlitINGS..

'ADN.EiCLUDING.41.4 sECr6p(pAiniiarf-Ai-Amuler oi-torami UP 04Th E 16440Y

N.

:t

" -

-

-14-Months-of..Dikta. - - Moutha of aitiExperieental-. Control Experittantm).- -Control, Isperisantal, "Control

,Control Grote Control 'Gros* . -,Control Gin*:

-Enrollaint . Oiffeientii,/- Main -0iffsiientfal Man` -. Differentiar `Naha

16-18

19-27

28 -36

16 -13

19-27

28-36

' A.. Total imra.tngs

.

'13.24 '233.3a, .1:34 20748:

. ,

..." .. ,

'A.A.,. n.a. 22.34 244:44

n.a.' n. e. n.a. -

.

..

9.04

Mi.

81 Earnings Net of crrA and WIN Eariings;

224.39 -7.78

18.09

n.a.

194.5V.

225.61,

n.a.

C. Earnings Net of All Public Sectorarnings

3.79

n.a.

194.98. n:a. .

' -5.45

-3.24

n.a.

157.83

204.67

n.a.

1 ,

7 .26.74 . 124,4i

' . -41.26 246.40

=22.84 331.84

16.79 128.16

-34.77 271.98

. . 15.08 287.52

18.37 99.37

- 23.26 239.42

73.94 207.87

1.

. . . NOTE: Nappies are defined _by length of post-enrollment period for which 4iontimkius data are available

and tlwe data are hot' regression-adjusted. Thus. results differ sosiewhat,froa those reported! elsewhere in the rioport:t. See Table 4.14 for definitions of employseCt sectors.. No signifieanci

tests Igor: coaputed. ..

, n.a. moans not available.
Total'.Samp e , Sjt e

- Atlanta' Hartford

Jersey-City

niS'York.

Nu..bcr in Sample .

1

0

4

T09 IT-- *pi* 0010i199 ;glean:9

*Clnt 49e15

. Months.' -.9' - t

experimental- "'caning- , ,Control.- -Gm*

-biffeiettial. I Mesh

issmo*. 35.43

82.23**

93.07 **

. 95.30**

62.59**

53.48**

28.95:'

° .41.78

39.82

,r27.07

.. Months 10 - 111 Uperimental- Control

Control 91*P40 Differential.' - .lean .

/

-11onths,-19-= 27-

',111periFenlal- :-Contriol contOt ,Group

Oiffeieatiii Mean

12.1 7*k

. . §.24

li.44*`---

-1.22.

20.69*

32.13**

55.15 2.00. .46 .

.. 73.05 -18.03-

a/ 119.i4&

47.34 4.13 , : ,. 55.07 \

.73.06 o - 11.44x'

a.

, 82.41

/ a/

4 12.53-. 29.03-

11 e 17.97. ., 38.49 '

A

'0

46OittbSi8

Imperimehtair

Diffeiential

i1.51

Control'

9.64'

Him

. 99.21

; n.2. . 34:57

859 857 , 56? .153.

HOT2

'a.

See note to Table 111.7.

'Sasp111.ez.s-le size 12 . a822.022 20.

1.

*...:tatistically significant at the 10 percent level.

:Aspistically significant at the 5 percent level.

. -

. 216

a

t

0

S

t. 217

0
4.tiants,.

'Hartford

. Jursey. City

lit 4-,Tiork-

.'

'Pi.j.ladelphiai

T.tal

: =

-1;ABIZ A47:

"P-EiteiiiTAGE-HAiiING ciTA0E--WIN JOBS.

t

BY SITE

:Months- 1, .. 4, . ifoutlis-id - 18 .mOuthi:19 ;- :Nonifis48,1. Exp'erIiasntml- COntOi i--

.Differential

-Control

- ,GrOup

. :Mean

. Experimental= -' Control

'control Group L: Differential 'Mean,

Coatrol

Differential

Control

GroupMeal

'Control S Differential

-C9ntr°1

-- Gup

- Wan- , . ,.?482

_ -0;26 . 6.71:

-2.36

-2.05

-2.39.

- 6.82

0.76

769

s.r4.55

3.65

:: 3.89

0.34w - -3.77-

1.00 , 2.93

0.12

:2.63

3.61

680

3.23

2.63

4.08

..a/

4.26

0.72

,0.60

1.51

, -

.

0 ,0

363

9.41_

14.29k"

0.00

4.81

'-a 1129t 7:-

-545

-.1.22

1000

:

IMeie,datt are based on simple Subgroup means. Ho test statistics were crimputed.

4/Sitple -size is less than 20.'

n.a. = not- applicable.

A,

C.

C

- ,:;

2 1.

_
, . z, `-?-"" _

"Cd

Aoianti -11.irtiord .14sey.C"ity. -th:w York Philadelphia

T..tn1

PiklICIIIITAGE-"HAVING'CETk 'WIN OTHER -GOVEINMEND JOBS, =IIT'SITE

. -

YOUy11:-SAMPLE,

44-erJa10.56

Moritisst4 . -Nsperimental- Control'

_Control, -5.23 6.91

-10.89.

-1.17 -4.68

INian

3.57

15.89

15:71 6.67

843

ilonds 10,- 18_

AEJperinental Control

Control Ge0411 Differential Mean

12.69 18.42 -2.23

-17.88

-4.86

2.43

9,49

25.96

16.13 2.70

-3.58 13.97

111.TE: These data are based on simple subgroup means. No test statistics were computed.

a/- Sample size is less than 20.

n a. = not applicable.

220

-pqaeriaseistal="- .rot Groupi

Differential

3.54

r 0.07

a .28.57/-

75.41

1.14

--

21-.18 28:50/.

5.41 11.94

- -

'30Pfriment0F.7.7:,c1?IsPrA!):- Control -Group Diffeintial

na

-2091 3000

-11.72:

:";; 35:

221
#0ik:*40.4006*0 ,

IPT'AMONG .XPEEIMENTALS

.143nths-10- 18

Observe4C

Ivitaiiihsi 19=27:

'1Oheerveck; No

ticAll Yquth

Atlanta.

Hartford

City

New York Philadelphia

. t . /1:9 12.0

r.0'.2 4.3

22,...5 22.7

'30.7 30.7

11.2

3-.97

214

/44,3:

3.

NOTE: For sampl definitions, see Table: Very foiweSperistencelS

received. unempiOymertt conVenSatiOn, during the fiist._ nine Menthe after 'enrolling in the -demonstration and during; the29- to

month_ periOd after enrollment -. 'Therefore, no idinsted, figures are ,presented -fat either ,oil theee title veriodii.- The estimates

assuming no UC receipt, are,,basea' on -{a coggpariion of _hour* worked,

by ,esperiinenxals receive UC and by ,controls, since we found no evidence that there- was any eignificant-benavioral difference between the dIc ,tecititents and _nonrecii4erits, ,based on

either their 1- to 9- or their 28- to 36.4nonth. eitloynient.

. Significance levels'for.`thi4bove differentials were not calculated.

rtJ

!PI+;- -t

2 r
NI

rrr

-""

,,,,;>

v' - - "ir ,

.PCIüTAGE 0!&1`41:404ON OF "fij)A.0.1041s,L'Oi .E.1i0Trh0i1:Piiqchae.,,ioa

iourc'tP Lk'

... ,Samp e with 18 Months of -Sawle,withr`27-Monthi;:of (SaMpla*p,Wisth:, 36 Months of . . , : . ,,TO-1-low- ;Data, .. , . ..:-?erolliiii=lip.- 'Darn,

Eiveriaantal."' -.. ;Control 'E3cparimantal, '' -.Control -Experimentak"-;-Controk 4 -,-' --' - '

Group . , . , ,dreisis.... ..... =.Grouii,, . S.'.,...- _ 4 Group . . ....- , ..; ...* Group,. ,....,...,....1..-.,:drouilk-,,,

4411Caltbrei

. ,

sbitietilOm.

-,ManufaCturing

1 - Trinapdvtation

JiliOle ele-Trade

! :"Matai Trade

'Finance, .Inauranoe, and leal,Eatate

Servicei .

(percent withiHon-Program ieploymeni)

Number in Sample

O. 0

, 00 00 -

:"' ^ "-:--`..,, ..j-z 31E9 25.0 '26.4 26.6-s .264".

4

.... 10.0 " 8.5 11.0 4:4 . .13.3

.0.9 1.8 4.4 1.8 0.0 .41...

29.9 24.4 17.6 ,?7.4 . 20.0 -1'4,.--3:

. , . 1.8

_ 3.1 3.3 6.2 2:2-

-234* , 24.4 26.4 23.0 - 28.9 16.3

d

(65.8) (78.4) ( 74.8)

3."' (82.8) (90. 3) (93.2)

4. 110 164 91 113 45 49

NOTE; Samples are definisd as noted in Table 111,9. The data are not reyreision-adjusled.

223

- -224,
7

1 I

-L -" t:figri"Cul fishing,

L =Lcforooeifaing:-

4 Structural Wot .

itiscel-laneOus-°

.

. *41* #` , 1

. , PRIcEttrAce- -, Disrui4410,..9r. 09coi,-Tipoo, 01,4pijoir,otmoipou94,..06

, '

-

iOrtistry, or Related

(Percent with Non-Prograst Employment)

timber 'in 'sample

( .

.4

- lhl8Noèithà -Of

siwntal

22.0

.3.4

0.0

8.5

10.2

9.3

27.1

4.7,

19.2

25.8-

2.3

IA 4.1

8.7

4.7

14.5

'16.3

(65.8) (78.4)

efulipie%tath',17:416nii)a , , Ewa t /4. "Coátrol

614 . 2.0 0.8' -i6.5 29;0

L3,.0 4.2

1.0 1.7

10.0

7.0 5.9

15.0 10.1

23.0 21.9"

(74.8) (82.8)

c - 118 172 100 119

'22--a:

Sasples are defined as Looted in Table 111.9. The data aril-not

1,1

regression adjusted.

=

, , 5.9

1-,i)

7.6-

31.4 35.9i

(90.3) (93.2)

/

/ 51 53
TABLE A-22-

G FIRST NON-Sii poiimb-4ORK JOB FOR VARIOUS REASONS

.'190tiOitiOtt

Controla

...14INA *4.4.: 04: 44:10#1i4tY

Job.: Characteristcs(1''i;,pay,

dick pHiike,tYPC17q0c)

;

.f.-) . - tOblemi-,' Obtaining' Chi]: re .

Pefs`s`C;1

'Boor 'Perfototiance;

Lack oi :Work 11 Did Not Want to Work:"

39:0

11.9,

n.a.

2.5

5 .3'

50 . 4

.8.1

6.2

30.6

13.9.

n'a

2.6

1.3

35.6

1.5

Other z 147.6 11.6

4Number in'Sampla 267 . - 271

, v

. s NDTE: The ,sample include, all sample youth who completed at least an

..nxcllmedt, a 9-molfith, and an 18-montn interview And who, had held

; at least one non-program job which 'they. left duzing the follow -up

period.

1

185.22'7
-4

1.b8O11FORCOfiTi5410,Ji*SgilIC00111kbb

'41*-4574OUM;OgE1*.W11101.gCryglIMg iER1005 S

%e--=r

0

. .

I

'11 -5, .6,

', '

gmperimentalCOntiel.

0fiferintiik

iPoiCeneY

, -In Aatior,,,Enirce. 9-.42it*` '40640

,-,lkMnaplOyed

Hot 14404 fOcP

...kui.,-tearChiCtiVity

PerCiniagOOCking

. :Piiit7helPot

. Stite-eMOlOylint

CETA.

'Cemistaniky*Orgainization

lifVatiAagenty

.Other

.aWuragendiber of contacts

, doura per.veek spent looking

fur work

R.,servmtien-wag0

(dollars per week)

Among ihese.eiployed

aiong=ihdicunemployed

Abaubg,those not in the

labor fOrce

. . , - .. . - .Months 10 := la . gaparimeatal-- -Control Control GiOuP:I. .Differeiit.ial- -, flfein. ',Control.

9roup.

_man

'7E66

"28.'17** 42.44. =28:17** 57.56

28.34

for Work

,

0.52

2.56 3;88

egency

57.43

0.87

28.02'

4.35. 3.90

1.29 87.83

0.05 2.45 z1.44** 4.46

14.90** 107.81 15.98** 111.24

9.57**. 104.20 '

11.48 109:73

=336

1.53 -1.53

3.36

-0.32 t1.04

-5276 -0.70

-0.57

-1.01

3.15

-0.23

0.30

5.02* 5.05

6.11 3.47

4A5

.t2.80

47.20

23.6k

51.10

0.00

34,93

3,.83 6.22

6;22

88.52

2:82

3.76

124.91 129.25

119.84

.124.87

. 'lianas -19 Emperinentakz ",Controk, giperimantal-i'

Control; , Group , Control Group : °Min

=4.44

2.52. -2.52

4.44

i5.75

56.65

-63,35.

2425

5:25,.

, , ..46';'75.;- 4Z;56.. 400.0D,

53:2 - 5.92. -47.93 %54.1....... A2:65',

o:oo- &ilia, ' coo

. -4.35 -.4828

:- 353

47;13 " .=14:95, . '5.11 -43.74**. . 1S:79, . -2.18 8.40 7-- 4184. . 26!10 2.67 6.03- l';' .0.42 ,3.-.45; 3.15 8.7.071 ..' -4.39' 86.21 7 , -0.65 2X1t4. -0:16 , 2;09'

. -0.45 3.65. -1.24 10.99**

-1.51

14.65** 13).42

144.65

120.17

26.55** 123.50

10.42

12.13

a/ 10.04

138,44=

.146,60.

. 131.46 =

NC4b.; These data are based on dilake subgroup means. samples used are defined in Table 11.2.

WTbarr. wtre no control-group members among the unemployed.

"-Sfati*tically sig nificant at the '10,kicint

.A'stutjstjcally significant-at-the 5':Pereent , . 4
A:

ti

-114111:4A.4±1;

,rifiCEitiA4CREtiuttiiac-iti4;tio-AsszstiRc*

YOUTH stitirLeO r,

'

inhliclindaingv

.Months.). --9.

Experimental -:.' Control

. Creep

Dit &rent taf - Mein 1,

.5'. LP" 22:0

-5 817 32.6

0.9

Months 1 - 9

CO . 311.xper imental- Control

Control Group

5ifft-rential Kean

limber of Months with

"Medicaid Card 1.5

Number of SUbsiditad Doctor

visits ,/ '0.6

thener of-Subsidized . :Ilyspitak pays -0.2

0 0

/

Moithly Public Noising 1 1:eist (dollars)W I. 93 109.64

`-l(actIlly Rent Subsidy dollars) - 1,04

n.

. _Menthe ,16_- Is _, _

,Experiaentalc Control

, ,Contrhi GroupDifferential Mean

-8.51,A , :24;7 -4:3-

-5.1 ,* 30.9' --.4,1

. , 0.4 1.4 '- -1.5 8 M

tadtkii-19-=-2'u,

Experimental ',Control'

,Controk- Group"

.''Olfferentiik ' - Mean

" .1,

. 4

- TABLE A.246

AMOUNT OF IN -LINO ASSISTANCE RECEIVED

. 0 . YOUTH SAMPLE

22:2

30.7

2.5' .

7 - Experiagta31- Central,

:Control Group, . .. ;Oaa

Months 10 - 18

Experimental- 4" Control

Control Group

Diffarential Mean'

1).4

0.1

60.2.

5.48

0.31

1.6

0.5

0.4

118.02

1.66

,Months 19 - 27 . pperia6Atal- Control

Control, Group aidaratitial Haan

-0.3

0.1

0.2

2.15

-1.18

1.7

0.2

, 0.6

120.31

2.92

Month* 28- 36

lisporiae Control -Group

ntal- 'Control

Differential - Mean

-0.6

-0.1

0.0

18.52- 101,38

4;70 5:70

1.7.

0.2

NO1 ds The earwigs used are.d.eimo in Table il.2. Thes e data are sispla subgroup means; except'thoserpertaining to subsidised

hospital stays, i.hich ale regression-adjusted. All figures pertain to the full easpls, not only to recipients.

sent insIlsicly is definud as rant 'paid.directly to the landlord by the welfare agency.

lallivose figures apply only to 'public housing residents.,

stuatisticallywignificant at the JO percent le;" 6.1Siatiatically significant at the S portent lave:"

II

doctor

°23I

. ,

visits and
r

..

--"-'

.

0444:loyeci

ESplOked 4

(fc'entage -lhaplOyed)iti

rrt-11,`

TA A25

t. 4/iIeVaiENT4SOPY0014*

.,Y(XAMF1-4**

so` ' , . ' - - , -

- . , 1,- mait6 10 -.18 19 27

' -A-.,,,-4

.

. .

months 9,.7... .Mlonths - _ -MonthS-2.8 -7-36.

Experimental- ": Control °Experimental- Control Experimental- Control Experimental-'- Contro.l. Mean

Gr9UP Control' Conti-61- siiii,' Control Group , COntrol-` ,OLfferenilal Mean DifTerential Differential 'lean Differential , --Mainl.

..,0 l'

i-7.4

.. 19.9- 4.0 19.1 3.8 10.4 -WO 43.0,

,

0 .. N -0.0 - 17.0 -0.4 .. 14.0 -8.3** 17.2 . 17.4** 4.0

(45.0)*** (53.6)- (8.5)** (59.9) (1.0) (60.8) (7.5)- (66.2)

. ' . NOTE. For definitions of the simples-used, see Table 11.2. These data ars not regression-adjusted.

4 ,

....

. . . 1 . 00 1/These,data may differ somewhat from those reported in Chapter III because of the slight diffepnces in the samples used and

:°- because these data are not regression-adjusted.

. e

*statistical:1y significant at the 10 percent level.

**Statistically significant at the 5 percent level.

f

ev

1 e

. = -
- YOUTH SAN'!"

_or

AUESTS"

Months 1 - 18

/-Notbil - 27

Smperimental- Control

',Control, Group

Differential Mean

Experimental-_ Control

Control

Diffiieniial Nein

As1 Youth .0148 .3170 -.2012 .5608

"-- Site

Atlanta -.0249 .1630 .5155- Hertford .0733 .3423 .0198 .6684 ,. Jersey City

New Tack-

-.1151

.1427

.3301 .3527 -.2508*

.5620!/'

5199a/

.1469- ' Philadelphia -.0538 3165 -.1745 .1422 Maher in Sample 09 379

Mean Number of Arrests .434 .660 mars; Samples Used are defined in Table 11.2.

a/Tho uasuiel, size is 1..es than 20. ,Thus, these point estimates'of experimental-control differentials tend to be quite unreliable.

'Statistically significant ut the 10 percent level.

o'Ststistically significant at the 5 percent level.

234' 235 4--
k

.$

.4)P.101);x "9

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF

-INTERVIEW NONRESPONSE, ON

i- EVALUATION RESULTS

By Randall Brown*

ma4.: .0e4 This appendix is excerpted frorl a project report li,Assessinktha;Affects

of Interview Nonresponse,on:Eitimates of the Impact og Supportlidyork,"

Princaton, New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1914,

1. I

191-,

.

.--- I. .

6 . ,Tt Ttt
14);. .. 4000.05Y4 analysis` ; *14.04.04 of

tits, Supported Work,:program,. .01. -sihgla!!ecitiiiiiOri ,aruiiii,11,,reqreOion , ,.._ . , ,. . -, ---..-- ,..,............. , ,. ,, ..

. , . il,..,.1h.the:sithOlesibaaar.outtilmettitJritireitlsUch,as earnings,

0*004,44,10 Orug.400 arsTagralaWon_PerSO41,charatteriatits and

bn.4,41,mmyVariable:*41,4i:tbc-One,fOr::00ariOantals,and Ser6-for. controls.

e Coefficient on the .xperiäsntal status variable reflects the difference

6tween.,004rimentala,ind controls,- while the-other explanatory_ Variables

aato4ht,for differences in the othercharacteristics, so that the' comparison

of:.experiOntal.ind.control-grollpi4vforgraups,v4th,SimilarcoMpoSition:

Altirniti'Vd.4046iiidationwinCludi betWeen the

experiMental-control dummy and Personal charaCteristics, in thebelieg

/ brocram's impactmay,dipend upon the socioeconomic characteristics

oi: the participant. Interactions of the experimental status variables

; with location or length of site operation may also be included in the model

as explanatory variables. The general regression model can be written as

Y a 4. c, (1)

where Y is. the. outcome variable, X is .,a matrix' containing demographic and

.socioeconomic characteristics as well as program variables, c is a distur-

, bande term, end s is a vector of unknown parameters to be estimated.

TistialatIon of 3 is .usually accomplished by the use of ordinary

least-squares (OLS) regression methods, where the OLS estimatocan be

written/as:

3 * (XX)-1 X Y.

Substituting (1) into. (2) We have

3 (XIX)',1

493

(2)

0:
A

it* aTeamPIeld.which:nd aYstematic'effect.itoieratting:to limit the

., **pl. available' for ..anal-yell tnata it', 'an, uncensored lenple--the

eilieCtect,value, of ile.kiesfrOilion,coeffi6tent is

E (ilx) a 4- (ex)- x (elx). (4) 0 Thus, 11,1s an unbiased estimator of 8-if E (elX) * Os that is, if the

conditional mean ofthe distUrbanCe' term it. equal'tozero. This - condition is usually assumed to be satisfied for a.p0parly'specified

Tor a censored sample,- however, we havethe idditiOnal condi- , tioning factor.tif.theeamplesselection.rule. Hence,

E (31X and selection rule) * H + (X'X) -1 X E .(5)

(c 1X 4nd:selection rule)

If'the conditional expectation of the disturbance term_fails to equal

'zero, the coefficients will, be biased. Thus, attention must focus on

the reglationahip between the sample selection rule and the distUrbance

term C.

The censoring mechanism in the case under consideration here is

failure to obtain a scheduled follow-up interview .(for any reason) for

an individual: One way to view this Mechanism is to imagine that each

individuai has an index of response likelihood, R*. Individuals with

value's, of R* exceeding zero will be locatable and will be able and will-

'ing to co mplete the interview. Those with values of R* below zero Will

not complete interviews. Furthermore,assume that it is possible to

identify some characteristics that affect the likelihood of response,

194

23
SUCh-4S-whetherthe,indiVidua1hae indved,:whether he orsheilincarceated,

and` ea Variettof:otheepersonai traits. This model-can be described as

R* + n,

40 O (6)

where Z is a vector of personal traits affecting responsiveness, 6 is

the Coefficient vector, and n is a distur#ance term.' Of course, R*

is notobserved directly; we only know whither or not an interv4w was

comPletedr

a

1 for R* > 0, (i.e., n > - 26)

{

0 r R* c 0, (i.e., n < - 26)

when R= 1 for respondents And R = 0 for non-responders.

(7)

From equation (5) it can be seen that in order to obtain

unbiased coefficients we requireE ((x, fl > - 26) . 0. (8)

If e has zero mean and e and n aremean independent,-

2/ this condition

is satisfied (for nonstOschastic Z). However, if the probabilityiof

-nonresponse'is affected by Y (and therefore by c), c and n are not

independent, the expected value in equation (8) is not zero, and the

regression estimates of the coefficients in equation (1) will be biased.

2/

1/-.The-vector Z may contain many of the same variables as X contains.

?Mean or conditi=C41 independence implies that E = 'a somewhat stronger req0irement than zero correlation, unless C and n are

assumed to have a bivariate nor*lai distribution.

-'As no by Peck-(1973) and others, ig the probability of nonresponse,is related only to the regressors (X's) or is random, no nonresponse

bias- results 195

130
'thie cOrrelationbetWeen,E And.,TimaY'reedltin tkrAliffarent

ways. contains only nonsiochastic variables, and` there exists an

'-dnMeisdred variable (e.g., motivation or attitude) that affectsboth

outcomes,' and the probability of responie, them E and 6 will be

correlated. 'However, correlation:Of the disturbance terms of the

estimating equations will result even if the disturbance terms in the

structural equations are independent if'current outcomes affect the

probability of responding to requests for. interviews. In this case'

the structural response model can be written as

p = x6i + z*62 +.yd3 'n*,

. -.(9)

where Z* contains exogenous variables not included in X, and n*-is a disturbance term possibly umcorrelated with C.--1/ Substituting equation

(1) ih (9) to obtain an equation that can be easily estimated we have, . R* = X6

1

+ Z*6

2 + + e)t5

3

+ n* (10)

X -(61 -+ 863) + z*62 + _(n* + e63) ,

R* = Z6 + n, (11)

,-, (

where Z = (X,Z*), 6 .. 6. + $63. , and n = (n* + Es.y.

6

2

Clearly, the disturbande term in the estimating equation (11), which

has the same form as equation (6), is correlated with s, even ". the

disturbance terms n* and E are independent.a(

-.Some of the elements of 6

1

will be zero if there are variables

in X which affect outcomes but not response.

2/-t The only difference between the two behavioral specifications

that affects estimation of the model of probability of response is that

equatIons (9)-(11) result in tne Lnclus3.on of all exogenous viriaoles from

the outcome equation (1), including ones not considered to have direct

impact on the likelihood of resporiSe. Only variablesdirettly,effecting

reepons are included in the vector labeled Z under the first specification, (6).

196

1
, 6 _.. .

, Figure 8.1 provides an intuitive explanation of the problem.

.

, -.

.

.

. For a. given vector Z, individuals with- large negative values of n are

... ; more likely, to be nonresponders. If n and e are positively correlated,

the nonresponders are more likely to be those with'large negative

deviations (0 from the true 'regression line, AB--that is, those

corresponding to the circled points in the diagram. Performing

.

. , . . . regression analysis on-the restricted sample would produce a4 estimated

regression line like-CD. Comparison of-CD with the true regression

line AB 'demonstrates the potential for bias in cstiitcd coefficients

arising from nonresponse,

6 Recent developments ia econometric methodology suggest ways of

handling the problem of nontesponse bias when data on the variables affecting

the probability of rcy,pnst (Z) are observed. Heckman (1976) shows that

Statistical models chars_ :trized by limit(sa dependent variables, sample

selection rules, or truncation point 4 have a commonetrUcture, and

.suggests a simple method of estimating these models thet we employ in

this analysis.

. . 4,Heckman's paper deali with the estimation of models like those

specified in,equations (1), (6), and (7). In an earlier paper (Heckman,

_1974)., he showed that maximum likelihood-methods- could Je employed to

consistently and efficiently estimate the parameters of th-s model.

However, the Likelihood method was found to he suite expeneivo. '"he

more recent paper (Heckman, 1976) shows that consistent estimates can

be obtained in.a much less costly manner by treating the problem

as an "omitted variable" problem. Using.our nonresponse model to
" --

'041#1rikiEP EFFECT OF siiiit4':NOOttPoilsz ON ESTIMATES

-True RegZession Lime

g (Y=i8)

Regression .line.LL

estimatedusilig,

data'on.responderi

only

x

Note: Circled observations are those omitted from the evaluation

sample because of nonrefsponse.

198'

242

ve.
,tbiscan,be:seen as follows i

96J140144Pn

(12)

Tgking Opectations, giten-thaithe sample available is iimit'ukd

rrh014.4hg. visPa* ?:0), iVes.

. .,

,. .1..1

r f 4 E (Y )R; >(3). - X + El- (C v.a >4) .

. i i -... i

111 i 1

(13)

. ..f..0: . - -, If los assume that e and rl, the disturbance term in equation ,(6)41

,-''' .. . .

.

6... f011ow.a:bivariate normal,distributiOn,,then it can be sho*n.ii that.

-fs

* E IR > 0) .1 .12

Xi,

. ( )

22

(14)

where 12 is the covariance between e and n, a 22 is the variancee of n, .and

f (Z d/a h) 22 , .

4 (15)'

- The denominator of Xi is they probability that Ri > 0 (i:e., the pkobatIlity,".' . , *

1./..,

, 7

its' .* that the individual responds .to the interview), while, the numerator of X.

, - 1

, k ,'

is the standard normal density. function, evaluats.Lat the point ?I57'72211;A

. .t

tieSs,

Substituting, equation .(14)' in equation (13) we have

4

. f r

g) 9 ... , E (Y IR > 0) * X il +.(712 (10 '-'s.'...'

i i i -

X.

( &22Y ) °'

. r i .>

Estimation of equation (12) on the sample of respondentel4illk"'' . nose take .into account the fihal term in equation (16). Thin, ias

that, arises from use of thiv"censored" sample%exists solely

1/

- Sea Johnson andKotz (1972.1-0.4p. 1f2--

./1

\,

199 "

1 4 T

1, 0

.`

.t`t- 1

Use

*::.
,

,:.-ha:ConditiOnellmsanotr4.4omitted from the regression. The bias

that results; irost. use -0-.resPonaenti.Only fdata may then is interpreted

, 411,-*isi-4.1ti* nimilliPsOlication4rrOr. This interpretation

r= , , S

J 4 suggests 4*U-solution: ,provide an instrument for the missing ..

,

.

. . ,; . .

. iri0440* (Xi) 4fiteitiMate'aqUation :(16). Heckman;, proposes just%

, .

. , . this. solution to,,thi geniral'pro blem-ofleleCtiOn biiiv. His .approach . ,

. ., ., . ',.' (apOlied:toour: 40004 suOgeats*,that if data om.the,Variiblet (i).

. -.._ the likelihoOd,orrespi;nse are avaifsble, A..-k approXimetion . to Ar cats 104 obtained' by estimating a Probit model of reoPoriee, such ;

. am that implied by equations (6) and (7) acid then using the estimated

°coefficients to form X for each obserVation. Equation (16) can then

be readily estioated. by ordinary least squares regression.. Althciugh

th,vequation still must be -fit only on data from respondents, any bias

A --=---thatthis-might_impart to the coefficients, 8, is corrected for by

_ Jrnclusion' of the Xi tern,i/ cif, the asatimptions of-the model hold and

Al

X is reliably estimated.

I.

For-this study, we are interested only in bias in the coefficient

measuring experimental Impact. Adding A to the estimating equation will

change our estimate of Supported Work's impact only to"the-extentltnat

i -\ '-f r 1 . . A is correlated with, status. Rados, wq.shall be particularly concerned

,with those cases in which experimental status affects tie probability

.of response. t,. 2/The estimates of 8 ara unbiased only,aiymptotically, since.

an estimate of X must Osibstituted for the,unobservedtrue value

in the regressial;

' a 200
,a W

-.i/

. In the next section, a model to explain response"te Supported.

Work ipterv*ews.is deVeloped,And,the!iesults from this estimation-are

. "

usee'in the final section to implement Nedman'sapproach to cornet

for .selection bias. "`

. -

ro MobEL OF TEE P4OBABILITY-OP RESPONSE TO SCHED6LED INTERVIEWS

The probability th-at"anAt'lelividual will res ndis mistimed to

e_

. dependupoiv hisor her demogiaphic Cheracterieti , patt and present

. behiviore and experience with the enrollmentin . L'view. 'While this.

. - includes many of the same variables that art. rtant control variables.

- in the outcome regressiOns, equationi (9)-(11) suggostthat all-vaAables.

- %

. . affecting outcomes should,be included in the

/

response model, even if they

arm felt to have no direct impact on reepoise .In

addition, I number of variablies that are /assumed 7 have no impact on

outcomes but that are felt to affect the probabi lity of response are"-

included in the model. Examplesof euch.variables are the number of

eaves made during the twoliears prior to enrollment. (since th.)se moving'

axe. often the hardest tolocaie); some variables describing personal

living arrangements; expected earnings if employed; whether the indivi-.

. . dual applied to Supported Work because of some agency pressure to find

, . .' a job; some indicators of the nature of the interviewing process itself, 1

.0. , sucees'the length and location of the baseline interview; and the

individual's degree, of cooperativeness in completing the enrolloint

4

linierview (as reported by the inte rviewer) . BeCause the data on these determinants of response are collected

201 2

4 5
y i,.; 1 , 1.'

4 4 e

- -

from the enrollment interview, the ,parameters of the model of response

to the follow-up interviews can be estimated". From equations (6) and

(7J, assuming n has standard normal distribution, we have

(Ri = 1) = P-(R > P (z.6 4;i n > o)

P

zits

xp (-ni/2) dni._

Forming the likelihood function for. the sample gives

L = n (P (Ri = 1)1 R

(1 -P (R.

Estates for eiparameters of this probit model., (S, are those-Values

that maximiie , and are readily obtained from a probit computer program.

Sample sizes used for-this analysis and for the subsequent

regressions estimate the impact of nonresponse on the evaluation

result re shown in Table 3.1 for each time period c.nd target group.

The number of observations available for the 36-month analysis is quite

small and therefore may be of limited value, but for other time periods

sample sizes are generally adequate.

Response equations were estimated for each time period. The

,- res4lts, presented in Table B.2, show that sex, race, liying arrangements,

and length of longest job were important determinants of nonresponse for

tht. early interviews and the 27-month interview. Females (who made up

,1

10 to 13 percent of the sample) were more likely thaft males to respond.

202 216

4
.

. - TABLE 8.1 ,

'Nita/a-SIZES' bSED IN ESTIMATING

5J.,

RESPONSE 'MODEL AND IN REGRESSION ANALYSIS

J -;! (Response Rates in Parentheses)

S.

-Nonresponse Model .

Nonrespondents

Outcome ,Regressionsb/

Months

1-9

Monthi

10-18

Months

19-27

Months

23-39

a/

709

1,080

750

330

-687

(69) 602

430

172

390

(71) 131

130

28

90

(79)

NOTES: The numbers of respondents differ from the sample sizes used in

the regression moderbecause of observations with missingsdata

on the specific dependent variables examined. Although these

observations are also lost to analysis and thus could be consi-

'dieted nonresponders,-it itumlikely that the same model applies

to both interview nonresponse and item nonresponse. Because

missing data items could result from several causes (including

coding errors) and because the number of respondents with

missing values for the desired dependent variables is general:y

small, itcllibtiresponse is ignored here.

The response rates presented here differ slightly from those

given in Table *3 because observations with missing values

on necessary-baieline explanatory variables were excluded

from this analysis.

3'

. "Individuals were classified as responders in the 1-9-month ' and 10-18-month analyses only if they completed both interviews. Hence,

the sample sizes given in' the column headed "Months 10-10" apply here

as well. - These sample ,sizes differ from those in the main body of this

report because observations with missing data on needed baseline variables were excluded from this analysis, but not from the main aLalysis.

203 24 7

,

,
r

tiar,table

re! Ii*Acy or-On!"34KF11.4,04:121tiaTics AND

rittootwi vArpiiii. Ow or mums: TO' ill rou.kw=ur-iirristnewsTallow -gp Interview 9- and 18-Month 27 -Month 36-Month

-VARLAIALk$ AiS0-46D-EN-06142066--- 6.13***

..

3.47, -7.25 ANALYSIS AFOUSSIOMS *Mbar otsporimintal group

Site2/

Atlinta 1.61 -11.59 n.a. Haryord -4.69 -11.04 -35.47

jorsioy City

. . 30,1Ork 10.53 -32.51** n.a. Philadelphia -2.80 4.36 -9.34' EdUCition

. (Liss than 9 years)

! 9 years -3.23 2.71 9.84

Age

(Under 19)

' > 19 .20 -4.03 15.64**

Mal* -8.72* -18.71** 20.91*

Race . (31ackand other)

White -26.42*** -18.03 *** -29.32***

Hispinic \

-944** -5.23 -15.64* Household size .32 .87 3.60**

%, Any welfare prior year 3.39 .53 13.03 Any dependents 6.77 1.10 -31.58**- Technically eligible for own target gro4 -3.63 -5.13 -12.91*

Length of site operation

(Under 12 months) 12-18 months 4.60 -6.93 n.a. Over 18 months -1.65 1.89 n.a. Longest job ever

(Mons) 1 year or lass 6.94* -8.94* -8.62 Over 1 year 8.10 -9.35 -17.82 Weeks worked last year -.05 .27 -.10 Area unemployment rate

i 1.77, .21 -4 21

Time since last incarceration.

.::ever incarcerated)

12 months ago or less -4.80 -7.31 1.41 More than.L2 months ago -4.27 3.97 25.80.

Had any arrest last year .43 10.32** -3.36 Humber of arrests (ever) -.06 .14 -1.66**

Ever use any drug '(except marijuana or alcohol)

vARLASLES NOT USED /N OUTCOME

-2.92 5.96 15.59.

ANALYSIS EMISSIONS

'wider= fInstitutioni

own Home 27.85*w 27.14** -6.24 Other's home 16.53* 19.27 n.a. Mont 14.32* 17.57 -.44

'204
, , 7.,4i7

:

,

i3L i.2',(61rro)

.

sb ..

9 --and -18Month -27 -Month 36-Month , . IliseilweintirVisy in, S4 office' . 4.27 _ 0o., of mOvS* in last 2 years. .05 2.13 '1.36'

iiixpecied wage per we ($100) ,

.85 ;SO_ r10.71**

litissured to find job .77, 2.62 -13.44

LiVa- in-Paw/LC housing 7.15** .10 -5.18 -

Live with parents A , , 12.33*** 12.48** -18.25

t

_ Langth-of,interview (minutes) -.05' -.07 -.23 Respondent cooperative - 7.11 S.22 -8.70

,

Immomem NOTES: The effect 'of a change in a continuous veriable Z, on the probability of response is

where 5 is the coefficient'on Z, in equation (11) (the probit model) and f(Z5) is the Itandard

normal density funCtido,.eviluated-at the point 24. This empresSion aleo serves, in est

cases, as a very good approximation to the effect o4a change in -a die-crime (dummy) variable

on the probability of response. Kende, this is the method used to compute the marginal impacts

preeinted here. Thi density-function f(26) is evaluated usintthe mean values -for all the

variables in Z. All of these-partial impacts are expressed in terse of percentage points

(100*6 f(ZS)).

For continuous variables (those marked with in the left-hand margin), a change of one unit

is predicted to lead to a change in the probability of responding equal to the value given,

all other factors being equal. For discrete- variables (those not marked with e), there may

be two or more possible valuis. Race, for ekample,'has three possible values (black,

Hispanic, or white)4 while "live with parents has only two possible values (yes-or no).

For variables with only two possible values, the 'value given in the table is the-difference

in the probability of response for those who do and do not exhibit the given trait. For

variables with three or more outcomes. the value given is the amouitt by which the predicted

probability of response for individuals with the specified characteristics exceeds the ex- pected response probability for those with the characteristics given in parentheses.

a/- Jersey City is the excluded site.

4

Estimate of coefficient corresponding to this variable is statistically significant at the

10 percent level (two-tailed test).

**Estimate of coefficient corresponding to this variable is statistically significant at the

S percent level (two-tailed teet)..

***Estimate7of coefficient corresponding to this variable is statistically significant at the

1 percent level (two-tailed test).

Zniticates.variable is coupinuous. All othercaxe discrete.

n.&. means rot applicable.
Amongcsthnic groups,there were substantial and signif4cant differences

in the probabilities of response,, with whites being the least likely to

xesPond, followed by Hispanics '21d

pexentS were alio Ouqh,boie li) ,e.f y

4 __-.interViews than those who did not.

then, blacks. Youth living with their.

to respond to the and 21-MOn*

Also, those living in institutions

Wksre less, likely tarespond than those living elsewhere,-and renters

tended to be somewhat less likely to respond' than those living in theirown homes.

The findings for length

, of longest j6b were perverse. Those who

had, held a job for up to one year were more likely to respond to the 9-

and 18-month interviews than those who had,never had lea job, bUt, Were

; significantly less likely than nonworkers to respond to thS27-month

interview.

A few other variables were foUnd to be statistically significant

ideteittina.nts for either the early or the 27-month interviews - -but not

both - -including whether lived in public housing, whether arrested, and

experimental status. This latter finding is the most significant for

this, analysis. The results indicate that experimentals were significantly (9 percentage points) more likely to respond to the 9- and 18-

month interviews than controls. This factor suggests that we should

be particularly concerned about potential nonresponse bias in results

for, the 10 -.to la-month period.

--Results-for-the 16rmonth sample were quite different than for the

. '9-, 18-, and 27-month samples, due primarily to the small sample size

(N*131). The relationship between race and probability of response

foUnd for the earlier interviews was also apparent ,for the 36-month intryviews, but this was the only common finding. ,Seceral variables had

206 250
etatiatiCe4Y'Significent coefficients in the response equ4tion, but ist

many cases the direCtiOn of the estimated relationship was countering/ , tuitiVe. TUxihermOri,' a X2tes't:Of the hypothesis that all the coefficiente,wereiqUal to zero could not be rejected at the one'percent level

(although thit hypothiais was rejected a the five percent.level). 'Thus,

the,resUltsfOr the 36-month sample should be viewed with considerable

III. THE EiFECT,OF NONRESPONSE ON ESTIMATED PROGRAM IMPACTS

With the estimates of the-parameters of the-nonresponse model,

we can construct the estimate of that part of the disturbance term in

equation (12) thit is correlated witk.the regressors Z. As explained

c; previously, this procedure yields a new variable, A, which can then be

inCluded'as an additional regress6r in the estimation of equation (12).

Under the assumptions of thiCprocedure,-this regression produces

C asymp'ootically unbiased estimates of the effect of experimental status

(and control variables) on the outcome variable (Y) of interest, despite

the fact_that_only__data on responders is used in the regression.

Oomparisora of these results with the estimates obtained with A excluded

provides' evidence of whether or not analysis of data on responders

leads to unbiased inferences about the impact of Supported Wotk.1/

1/

- As pointed out previously, the reliability of this evidence

depends upon the validity of the assumptions involved in the model.

Furthermore, although discrepancies between the alternative estimates

suggest that there is likely to be nonresponse bias, a correspondence

of the two sets of estimates may indicate only that the model of nonresponse is not cod enough to ::ermit istootion of :oias.
-AlttOUgh UnadjuetedietimateeolprograM.effects are presented in the

maint4bOdy of this report, we repeated the calculations on the-sample

InelYzedllere_in order to ensure that any differences between the

adjusted and unadjiistecte*timatet-dt program impact_result iromthe

.idIuStment alone rather thanto differences inthesemplei .

Although ,,many different outcome variablei_are examin I in the

final;reports on theeffects of Supported Work, onlyeaUbset of the

-. more important outcomes haS.beemeeledted for examination here.. These

are hours worked; earnings, whether participants were arrested; and

Whether drugs were used for each of the, four nine-month periods.3/

Estimates of the impact of Supported Work on each of these outcomes; both with and without correction for possible nonresponse bias,

are contained in Table 3.3, in.general, the alternative sets of estimates are very similar. Estimates that were statistically insignificant

prior to adjustment for potential bias remained insignifidant, while

'The The methodology employed treats as nonresponders only those who

did not submit to an interview. However, observations were also made

unavailable for analysis when respondents failed to answer Specific key

questions. For a number of reasons, including the fact that only a small

number of observations was involved, we ignored this type of hopresponse.

Also).. observations with insufficient datioon personal characteristics were

excluded from the analysis. These were often respondents who had received

early versions of the enrollment interview.

?'It should be pointed out that each of these variables is either

a binary variable (such as whether arrested) or a limited dependent variable (hours worked). Hence, ordinary least squares regression is not the

most appropriate method of analysis. However, for cost reasons it.is.the

primary methodology used throughout the analysis of the effects of Sqpported

Work. Since the purpose of this Appendix is to determine whether the results of, these analyses suffer from nonresponse bias, we employ the same

estimation techniques. It should also be noted that comparison of the

least squares results to those obtained from more appropriate techniques

such as probit and tobit showed very little difference.

248 252
, , .. ,, ' . x ,..

_

, ; ,, , .3 A.AOSEON4gifkAirdittNiNTWF9NTI!?!.-Dir0*00i1ALS

-' '': -siticimiyriatAems,

-- --iiatip-rssiiAtta04iitisitflOcAOimslidtisclirm, ..

,..,

4.1

.. -1. ..

,' 'Mlonibs,1-51. _ 3!iiiiiiinsi-iiiasiire . . 'Unadjusked:_Adjusted

',,OU,4arked4risriaooth,. . 8 .11f*' 45.36i*!

Alarpinsis per month (dollars) _ 21'? 69k' 226.54***, , 04411iiy-ci. arreat-ii1001 1.40 .24

e 7 Y r:4obabiiity of drug-use (xlOd) ,-1.86 -1.45

..

, ..........._ . . c

.."-

MonthiA.0-48

... Months 19-27

Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted

. 43.21** i5.88**4 6.61 8.77

28.19 .211.36 21.94 31.32

2.24 .45 -3.41 -3.90 1

..48 -.41, .48 .82

_II ,- - Mouthi,28,36-

Unadjusted- Adjusted--.

. -18.72 -iAts - .1

,. -166./0** -124%85*

1.53, . -2.82 -4.53 -3.39 ,

,,, . '1

s These estimates of, prOgram impact differ9somewhat from those contained in the final reports on She evaluation of

'SuppOrted Mork because sample sizes are smaller here. .111e sample sizes result from limiting the nonreqpmse analysis

to' those individuals for whom all necessary pre-enrollment variables. are available.

significance levels indicated for experimental effects after adjustment for nonresponse may not be strictly accurate

because the estimated standard errors used for these significance tests, obtained from the regresbion program, are biased

if the covariance oi, defined tn equation (14) is not equal to zero. However, in practice, the true t,Ist statistics are

usually very close to_the ones reported by the regression program. Hence, the significance levels giv.n here are indica-.

tiVe of the actual significance levels.

Statiaticallysignificant at the 10 percent level (two-tailed test).

**StatistiCally significant at the 5 percent level (two-tailed test).

***Statistically significant at the 1 percent level (two-tailed test).

r, n.a. means not applicable.

2 7.)
4

.

those' that were 'significant exhibited almoet-nO change in size.; The two

.eXCeptionsto-this-were forl:Ou#:Worked:during the 10-7.t0 18=month and

the-28 - -to 364month-periods. Prior to adjustment for bias, the estimated

experimental effect for the earlier period was 13.2 hours'per month.

After adjustment for potential bias, this coefficient increased to 15.9,

an increase of 20.percent. This finding is consistent with the-results

, froi the probit models: of nOnreSponse in which we found thavtistatus had

a significant 'impact on response rates.17

For the 28= to 36=month period, the adjusted and unadjusted results

differ more widely: the estimate of the earnings impact decreased by

34 percent from $167 per month to $125 per month. Because the 28- to36-

month sample size is so'small (90 observations), this result is likely

to be a statistical anomaly not worthy of much attention.

In general, statistically significant differences did not change

after correcting for nonresponse, nor did the general order of magnitudes

of estimates of program impacts. Thus, these findings suggest that nonresponse bias does not seem to be a prevailing problem for the analysis,

1/An intuitile explanation for this finding for youth hours,

months 10 to 18, is as follows. The regression coefficient on A in the

"adjusted" equation for youth hours was positive and significant. From

equation (16), we seerthat this coefficient is an estimate of a12/( (122)1/2.

Hence, the covariance of the disturbance terms in the hours and

response equations is positive. This suggests that those with higher

hours worKed are more likely to be responders, other things being equal,

and those working less are likely to be nonresponders. From the nonresponse model results, we know that in the youth group, controls were

'1" significantly, less likely to respond to the 9- and 18-month interviews

than were experimentals. -Thus, the observations excluded from the analysis

because of nonresponse were more likely to be nonworking controls.

Inclusion of such observations would increase the estimated experimentalcontrol difference. This is precisely what the methodology employed does.

210 254
A.

I o- '

Ot

0 'at^lSaii.When ths.sffscts of status are modeled in the simple way used

iwitni4..It is also iMportint to determine,. however, whether estimates

. - of 04pOrted Work's impact -are biased-when such-estimates are allowed

to v..y with charadteristids of the program. One finding that occurs , regularly is that program impacts differ by site. Hence, we also

. - exatinod estimates' of prograM impact obtitineefrom:a model thit takes

this intO account forevidence of nopresponie 1/

The results contained in Tables 3.4 to 3.7 show little evidence

of Substantial nonresponse bias for the l0- to 18 -month and 19- to 27-month

periods. Estimates of program effect on hours and earnings for the

, various sites change somewhat after adjustment. However, most of these

0. estimates are small'andstatistidally insignificant, both before and

. after adjustment. Of. those that are significant, the largest change

is for Hartford (months10-18),, where the estimated experimental effect

increases from 14 to 18 hours per month (an increase of 33 percent).

We find no evidence of bias for the other outcome measures,

however, for any time period. The sample 'sizes for the 28- to 36-month

period are so small that meaningful inferences about program impact

for the various sites cannot be drawn. Hence, the issue of bias for

this period is moot.

1 /Estimates were also obtained for models in which estimates of

program impact were allowed to vary with the length of site operation.

Since, no evidence w&s fdund to suggest that this program characteristic

had a systematic effect on program, impact, these results are'not

presented here.

0

;211255

.
1 I 'i TAMS E1.4

. ' liqks,yome `PER MOM,

NEGRESSION;ESTIHATEWEEPERIDERTAL-CORYROL DIFFERENTIALS,

UNADJOPTED ANDiADJUSTED-FOR NOP:SPONSE BIAS

I ,10tffil SAMPLE

Domtbs 1-9

Site , Atlanta. 82.23*** 84.43***,

Hartford '89.70** 93.63*** Jersey City 97.67*** ,98.17***

New York 62.10*** 63.74**** Philadelphia 35.08* 36.16**

Mouths 10-18

5

Doitha 19-27 "Ronths_28f.36

TritarairerIfilphiria . DnaOlusted,..--Asjusted`

. A0, 37 1/.18 -45.82 -38.3t, n.e. n. . 11.480 10.37** , 8.32 10.05. -41..27 2.5 . 5.30 5.91 5.06 q,03 -24.31 -17.66

22.83' 24.17* 18.14 19.82 , n.i. 13.20 12.69 7.98 8.04 9.12

Note: These estimates of program impact differ sofewhat from those contained in the final reports on the evaluation of Supported Work

because sample Dikes are smaller here. The sample sizes result from limiting the nonrehponse analysis to those individnals for whom

all necessary pre-enrollment. Variables are availaMe.

The signifies 4 levellt indicated for experimental effects after adjustment for nouresponse may 'not be strictly accurate because the

estimated st, aril errors used for these significance Lests, obtained from' the regression program, are biased if the covariance 012

defined in equati.in (IA) is not equal to zero. 'llowevir, in practice the true test staListicsare usually veryclose to ihe ones

?rekirled by }he tegrehlion program. Hence the, significance levels.given here are indicative of the actual significance levels.

*Statistically signifi.:ani at the 10 percent level (two-talled-testk

**Statistically signitieant at the 5 percent level (two-tailed test). - **^Statistically.signiticaut At the 1.percent level (two - tailed Lest).

,n.o. means not applicable.

t
,

- o , '4

TABLE 8.5

. . 1101.1.61t-LONINGI,PNN MOM,

NEUNESSION'EST111ATED EXPeN1MERTAL-MRTNOL DIVEEMENT1ALS,

. liNmAiutrEU ANWADJUSTED-FON 8088E51'04Sb: 81AS._

-. Yams smeil .

S. - : . Meths 1 -Meths 10-18 Knuth* 19-27. ' libialos 211-3/ . .* Unadjusted Ihjusteil. Albaliated .Aillusta .1loaciliosted- Adjusted UhadlistelAdjusal

Site

Atlanta

liartfefd Jersey,City

New-York

Philadelphia

-

- . 178.71'44 1118084"s -4.77 -3.78 -293.75 -236.69 a.a. 0.4.

233.79:4", 248.42.. 39.79 41.41 5100 58.16 -222.20 -51.59 , 154.56,1" 254.174m4 s .59 - 08 -10.37. 1.59/ A -194.41"" -168.524

195.90'44 201.27*** 59.79 60.26 32.73 39.47 n.a. . d.e:

75.78 79.79 -11.50 -1).66 - 28.79 ' 29.02 -66.07 %. -63.650'

;!ite these eiiiiates ui program impact differ somewhat from those contained in the final reports on the evaluation of Supported Work

because samplerslies are mailer bore. The sample sizes result (rod lheiting.the ciinresponse'snalysis-to those 'individuals tel whom

ill necessary pie-enrollment variables are avai)able..

1N4 The significance levels. Andicated for experimental effects after adjustment for nonresponse may not'be strictly accurate because the

estimated standard 'errors used for these significance tests, obtained from the regression program, are biased if the covariance n12

to defined in equatihn (14) is not'equal to-zero. Motiever, is practice the true test statistics are usually very close to the dues.'

reported by the regression program. hence the significauce levels given here are indicative of the actual significance levels. *Statistically significant at the 10 percent level (two-tailed test).

**Statistically significont at the S percent level (two-tailed test).

***Statistically significant at the 1 percent level test). u.s. means not applicable.

t .

.
ar

a

. 4

TABLE: 0.6

'PROBABILITY OF BEING ARkESTED (X100),

.REGRESS10N ESTIMATED EXPEKIHENTAL-CONTROL DiFFERENTIALS,

UNADJUSTED *1W ADJUSTED FOR NONRESPCNSE BIAS

e YOUTII -SAHP LE

Months 1-9 Houths 10-111 Months 19-27

Unadjusted Adjusted

7.58

.01 -6.18

4.23

1.71

Unadjusted

.. 3.06

1.95_ 3.71 6.18

-11.86

-Adjusted.

e 1.26 - .99

1.32 5.32 -li:53

Unadjusted d djiiididA

er 5.76 4.05

-6.36 -6.76

-2.52 -3.21

26.68 26.29

-2.95 -2.96

Site

Atlanta

Hartford

Jersey City

New York

Philadelphia

.

4

8.67

1.66 -5.88

4.84 2.16

Months 28-36

Unadjusted -Adjusted

n.a. n.a.

.91 -18.73

71.26' -1.72

n.a. n.a. 2.55 2,.27 f - Nol!: These estimates of program impact differ .somewhat from those contained in the final reports on the evaluation of Supported vork

because sample sizes are smaller here. The sample sizes result from limiting the noaresponse analyst*. to those individuals for whom

all necessary pre-enrollment variables are available.

The significance levels indicated for experimental effects after adjustment for aonresponse may not be strictly accurate because the

r..) estimated standard errors used for these significance tests, obtained from the regression program, are biased if the covariance a"

defined in equation (14) is not equal to zero. However, in practice the true test statistics are usually very close to the ones

reported by the regression program. Hence the significance levels given here are indicative of the act4a1 significance levels.

260

*Statistically sIgnifieaut at the 10 percent level (two-tailed test).

'AAt'atistically significant at the 5 percent level (two-611rd test).

**Stutistically signiWant at the 1 percent level (two-tailed test).

H .a. weans not applicable

261
S

g TABLE 0.7

PROVABILITY ()}.USING DRUGS,

REGRESSION ESTIMATED EXPERIWITAL-CONTROL DIFFERENTIALS, UNADJUSTR AND ADJUSTED FOR NONRESPONSE BIAS

YOUTH SAMPLE

Months 1-9 Months 10r18 Months 19-27A Months 211-36' Unadjusted_ Adjusted

. Unadjusted Ad usted Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted

Site

Atlanta -5.25 -4.78 1.90 1.83 .30 1.00 n.a, n.a. Hartford -1.13 - .42 . 1.94 t.74 2.40 2.56 -24.83 -24.07

Jersey. City -5.17 ,. - -5.05 -MB' -8.828 -6.50 -6.23- -4.19 -1.07 New York 2.93 3.19 -4.49 -4.56 - .28 - .13 n.a. n.a. Philadelphia. -6.27 -6.07 20.49 '20.506e ' 11.39 11.40 1.26. 1.27

hole: These. estimates of program impact differ somewhat from those contained in the finallt reports on the evaluation ,of Supported Work

because samiee sires are smaller here. The sample sizes result frost limit ig the nonresponse analysis to those individuals for whom

all necessary prezenallmenl variables are available.

The significance: levels indicated for experimental effects after adjustment for noncesponse may not be strictly accuraC because the

.r estimated standard errors used for these significance tests, obtained from the regression program, are biased if the covariance 012

defined in equati.in (14) is not equal to .zero. However, in practice the true test statistics are usually very close to the ones

reported by the r4gresgion program. Hence the significance levels given here are indicative of the actual significance levels. *StatistiCally signiliant at the 10 iercedl level (two-tailed test).

**Statistically significant at lbe5 percent level (two-tailed test). - '1-1,tStatistkeally signiliAnt at the t petceel.level (two-tailed test).

D.J. swans not applicoLle.'

/

C

. - 26'

-
o.

a

CONCLUSION°

.In this Appendix;-we'haVe investigated whether nonresponse td,

follow-up-interv4we led to ilia:led estinsies of the impact of Supported

Work. Using dentigraphic-and.background data obtained fromta baseline

interview administered to viriublly-all eligible applicants to the program, we estimated a

each individual. We

a new variable that,

model to predict the probability of response for

then used the parameters of this Model to construct

when included in the regression equation of interest,

accounts fortthe fact that data only on the responders are available for

analysiS. Under reasonable assumptions, estimates of Supported Work's

impact obtained fromthe standard regression model with this additional

variable included will be free (asymptotically) of any nonresponse_bias

that may have been present in the-unaltered regiession model.

To determine Supported Work's impact on a select set of outcomes,

both the tandard regression equation and the augmented equation were

estimat elfor each outcome. Comparing the alternative sets of estimates,

we found little evidence of nonresponse bias. When simple models provid-

.- ing an overall estimate of Supported Work's impact were used, only

estimates for one outcome (hours woi)sed) showed any evidence of bias,

and this eiiidence.did,not suggest any change in conclusions about the

existence or general.magnitu/de of progrdm effects. When a more flexible

model was uoed, which allowed estimates of program impact to vary by site,

only little indication of potential bias observed. Thus,,we are led

to.,gonclude that nonresponse bias is not a major problem, but

bility:of some bias should be acknowledged.

216 264.-

ti the possi-
Although the- conclusions aboye are'clearly indicated from the

.

. . . results obtained, they are valid only if the assumptions on which the

methodology is baSed hold. The key assumptions of this methodology,

:developed by Heckman (1176), are:

That the.disturbr ice terms in the regiession and response

equations are distributed as bivariate normalsThat a reliable mo,del of the response equation is speci- I fied and estimated'

. A method for testing the normality assumption-is not readily available,

since estimates of the residuals in the response equation cannot be

obtained. However, if we can do a good job of predicting res?onse,

then we have more confidence in our conclusions about whether 'response

bias is a problem.- Clearly, if we add a variable which is just random

noise to the model, we would expect ilittle change in the original

coefficients, including the one or. status.

Another aspect of doing a "good" job of predicting the piCbability of response is to identify and include variables that affect the

response decision but do not 'affect the outcome of interest. The

presence of such, variables will lessen the likelihood that multicolli-

. A nearity between the constructed variable (A) and the standard regressors'

(including experimental' status) will confound the results.

Judging fromix2 tests for the sets of coefficients and standard

"t tests" for individual coefficients, we were able to satisfy both of

these criteria. Furthermore, in every case, at least one of the variables

that were included in the response equation but not in the outcome equation

was found to be a statistically significant determinant of response. Thus,

21? 6,5
,,.--

i-,,'-"--------- .

,r.-,

we have reason to believe that the model does yield reasonable predictions,

of the probability of response and does not introduce a high degree of . collimearity into the regression model. Without actual data for the

missing observations, we cannot be certain of the accuracy of our claim

that nonresponse bias is minimal. However, our results do not appear to . suffer from problems that we know could lead to erroneous conclusions

about the presence of nonreiponse bias.

a

\

218

2 1-?JLi

40.

A key difference among Supported Work participants that could have

a major impact on the effectiveness of the program is the length of time

spent in Supported Work. Since individuals mho dropped out of Supported

Work shortly after entering might not receive the beneficial effects

hypothesized to accrue to participants, analysis was undertaken of the

effect of length of stay (LOS) in Supported Work on estimates of program

In order to allow the estimate of experimenta,k impact to vary

with length of time spent in the program, an intuitive approach would

be to regress outcomes of interest, such as, earnings, hours worked, number

of arrests and drug usage, on demographic characteristics of sample members

and on LOS. The experimental impact then could be measured as aLOS,

where a is the regression estimate of the coefficient on LOS.

Unfortunately, this intuitive approach to the problem may lead

to erroneous conclusions. If individuals leaving the program early also

tend to be the individuals with the poorest post-program performance, controlling for measured differences in personal characteristics, then the

estimated coefficient on LOS will pick up not only the effects of Supported

Work tenure on post-program outcomes, but also the effects of any unmeasured

characteristics which affect both LOS and performance. For example, if

the more motivated individuals tend to stay longer in Supported Work,

and if they also tend to have higher post-program earnings, regression

estimates will indicate a significant, positive impact (a2) of LOS on

earnings. This result will occur even if LOS, per se, has no effect

whatsoever on post-program outcomes.

Statistically, the problem lies in the fact that LOS represents

221 268

O
a behavioral decision by participantf much like labor supply, and

as such may be co=eliated with the regression errorpterm, which includes

the effects of all unmeasured variables (such as motivation) on the de-

. pendent variable. In this case, least squares regression produces biased

coefficient estimates. This problem is referred to in the econometrics

literature as "selectivity bias:"

SinceLOS is an endogenous regressor, an instrumental variable

estimator is required to produce estimates which are asymptotically unbiased. 'A model was developed to explain LOS for experimentals, as a

function of their personal characteristics. This model was then estimated

and the results were used to obtain the predicted values for LOS. The

outcome regressions included the vector of predicted values of LOS as the

instrument for LOS for experimentals and zer values foAcontrols.

The model used to predict Los for experimentals was a Tobit model.

since LOS is a bounded variable. Furthermore, since it was felt that

Supported-Work would have no impact on outcomes for those remaining in the

program only a short time, all partibipants remaining in the program for

less.than 2.months were considered to have an effective LOS of zero.

The results of the estimation of the LOS model are presented in

Table C.1. They suggest that the Philadelphia site has a.much lower average

length of stay than tie other sites, after controlling for participant

characteristics. Females, youth with 10 or more years of schooling, youth

raised by two parents, and those who had held some job or training prior

to enrolling in Supported Work were also likely to remain in the program

longer.-

1/

!"These results are ycry similar to the ordinary least squares estimates of. weeks worked in Supported Work jobs, presented in Table A.6.

222

260
variable . Atianti

Hartford,

(Jei*,gitio)

Philadelphia

mt4E cii

. . ESTIMATED *xi cosincitiiii:mop!,m7T4t. IMPACTS

`0.1.'ilARIA3: LES' USED'','To),OltiDiCT,%.*THS, . EX-POISENTA" '01* 1111'' %16RK (Omittedvariables'inoarentheses)-

ketimeted

co4fficiont

-.92

-1.43

.11 (Enrolled 8efOro'July 1976)

Enrolled July-December 1976 -.65 Ehr011ed 1977 ' -1.13

(Age < 17)

Age La -1.16

31e 19

1 -.82

Agei.I 20 -.94 Mali -1.69.

(Female)

White . -.64 Hispanic .72 (Black and Other) . 1< 10 Years of SChbol) .

4 10 Years of School 1.65 1.28 2.28 > 10 Years of School 1.38 '1.08 .1.56 I

Estimated

a Effect on *ASR/ t-ratio

-.71 -1.11

.08

' -4.80

-.74

1.57

.09 -3.93

-.51 -.74

-.88 '

. -1.19

-.90 -1.43

-.64 -.89

-.74, -.81

-1.31 -1.76

-.50 -.47 ' .56 .81

< 1 Year Since School .15 " .12 .19

4.. 1-2 Years Since School .61 .48 .78 (> 2 Years Since School) ,- o Expelled FroRt School or Left

raezause of Trouhke With Law -.99 -...77 -1.37

(Left School for *cm Rqosons)

*r""s \ , 4 Lives with Parenti .

1 4 .20 .15 .28 (Does not Live with Parents)

Raised by Two Parents 4 :83 1.68

(Not Raised by T%-4o Parents)

Married and/or Has Dependents . .-1.49 -1.16 -1.45 (Not Married and No Depyicr,ts)

Receiving Welfare or Food Stamos .81 .63 ' 1.04 (Not Receiving Welfare)

(No Previo4pegular Job)

Longest Regular Job Lasted < 6 Months 1.79 1.30 2.39 Longest Regular Job Lasted > 6 Months 1.31 1.02 . 1.42

a

c (No Job Training in Past Year)

Some Job Training in Past Year 1.87 1.45 2.18 --"Arcreutil,ny :rags)

.:red :nly Maajdana .39 .39 :..Z4 Used Drugs Other than Marijuina----____ .93 .72 .1.08

c (Never Arrested) One or More Arrests -.78 --------;. 61 . -1.04 (Not on Parole or Probation)

On Parole or Probation .51 - .40 .60 Constant '' 6.71 5.22 4.06

a /The cffect of the -h variable on expecte.. LOS is computed as EINS/4) wnere i is

'the eatip3:ed -.oh,: 7f:efficient ln the th 71riahle.. lnd ? Ire the +stAaced1::ef."-ftrand standard error, respectpely, and Ftxa/a) is the normal distribution funCtion, evaluited at the

mean value of the variables.

223

270

.S
.We. then use these ,estimates' to construct: the instrument for LOS,

and compute an instrumental variable estimator for the parameters on the'

_ e

outcome equation. Table C:2 contains the instrumental variable esti-

.mates of the effect of length of stay in Supported Work on hOurs worked

and earnings in the 16- to 18-month period, and on hours worked,,earnings,

whether arrested and whether used drugs for the ].9- to 27-month period.

also presented for comparison are ordinary least stares regression estimates of the effect oflOS, which as noted above, are iikelyto suffer

from selectivity bias.

The results-for the early period tend to confirm this suspicion.

e . s The least squares estimates of a (in the column? headed OLS) suggest that

LOS in Supported Wokk had a.substantial and statistically significant

impact onfhours and earningwof participants. The coefficients imply

that for each additional month spend in Supported Work, youth would work

(on average) 2 additional hours per month and.earn an additional 7

dollars: Thus, these estimates suggest that youth remaining in Supported

Work for 6 months (roughly, the average LOS for youth) worked 12.7 more

hours and earned 42 more dollars per month in the 16- to 18 -month

than cOmparable control group members.

The instrumental variable estimates which account for selectivity

bias are contained in the coluMns headed "IV." These estimates suggest

that there is virtually no effect of LOS on outcomes in this 16- to 18-month

period. Implicitly, this finding suggesti,that the estimated large effects'

effects of LOS on outcomes is due solely to differences in unobserved characteristics, such as motivation.

For the/19- to 27-month period, even the least squares esti tes

0 indicate, that there is no effect of Supported Work for any length of

224

, e
TABLE. C.i

ESTIMATES OF TAB EFFECTSAOF AN AdaTiONAL MONTH

IN SUPPORTED tcRIC

(t-statistics-in parentheses)

Outcome . Measure .

Months 16 -18- Months 19-27

a/

OLS OLS1(

.Average .hours

WOrked/cOn,th.

Average earnings/

month

liobability of

arrest

.Probability used

drug;

2.11***

(3.7).

7.01***

(3.3)

n. a. n.a.

-.06

( -.08)

.03

(.01) n.a.

n.a.

=,;i1

-1.92

-1, =4052

-.0035

(-1.4)

-.63

-..62)

-1.97

.( -.46)

-.0050

-.0015

(-.35)

0- Number-in S

So 856 413

.

NOTSe,These sample sizes and thus experimental- control differences differ

slightly from those in'the text since only observations.with data

on all of the dependent variables-are used:

-1/OLS-refer's to estimates obtainea by ordinary least squares

regression.

12/IV refers to estimates obtained by the instrumental...mad-able

method.

***Statistically significant at the .01 level, two tailed test.

n.a. means not applicable.

. .

225

272
ett,. 2,20 7

-444,21

4

ark?

1414

.srtet._i_

i

-4t464:1

A4t

, V

4 4 ,

-.21,41012t

4.149,,itt.e.t.

.4.1

4

226

.4

fl

C44t.

44
REFERENCES

Abelson, e,,Fishburn, P:.,and-Cisin, I. National Survey big Drug

Abuse: 1977, A Nationwide Studyi.Youthe Young Adults, and Older

People, Volume 1, Rockv311e,' Maryland: National Inititute on Drug

Abuse; 1977.

'ABT Associates. "The Noneconomic Impacts of the Job Corps." In

Assessments of the Job'Corps-Performance and Impacts. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of .Labor,- 1979.

Adams, A. and Mangum,G. (with'W. Stevenson, S. Sininger, and S.

Mangum). The Lingering Crisis of Youth Unemployment., Kalamazoo,

Michigan: W.E. Upjohn Institute for EmPlbyment Research, 1878.

. ' :Andersoni:84,,and'Youngu AnEvaluation..of the doortunities

Industrialization Center, inc." Philadelphia: The Wharton School,

Unit:ersity,ok Pennsylvania, 1968,

'Ashenfelter, O. "Estimating' the Effects ot Training Programs on

Earnings with Longitudinal Data." Presented at the Conference on

Evaluating Manpower Training Programs, Princeton University, May

6-7, 1976.

Avrin, M. :"The IMpact of Income Maintenance on the Utilization of

Subsidized Housing." Menlo Park, California: Stanford Research

Institute, 1978.

N.;)Barry, F.. "The Roxbury Opportunities Industrializatic Center --

An Economic Case Study of Selfr -Selp Job Training in the Ghetto."

Unpublished masters thesis, Cornell University, 1973.

Barton, D. and Fraser, B. (Center for Education and WOrk, Washington,

D.C.) "Between No Worlds: Youth Transitionlfrom School-to Work.

Executive Summary." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce,

4 P8-286-841, 1978.

Barton, P. and Fgaser, 8. (Center for Education and Work,

Washington, D.C.) "Between Two Worlds: Youth Transition .!2=om',

School to Work, Volume III, New Research and Measurement."

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce;-PB-286-844,.1978.

Bedkex, G: "Investment. in Human Capital: A Theoretical,Analysis."

Journal of Political Economy, Volume 70, Number.5, Part 2, October

1962, pp 9-49.

-,BenPorath, Y. "The Production of Human Capital and the Life Cycle

of Earnings." Journal of Political Economy, Volume 75, Number 4,

August 1967, pp. 352-365..

227

2.7 4

F
` Blew,C., McGillis, D., and Bryant, G. An Exemplary Project: Project

New Pride, Denver, Colorado. Washington, D.C.: Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration, July 1977.

Blinder, A.and Weiss, Y. "Human Capital and Labor Supply: A

Synthesis." "Journal of Political Economy, Volume 84, Number 3,

June 1976, pp 449-472.

, Borus, M. et al. "A Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Neighborhood Youth

Corps." The Journal of Human Resources, Volume 5, Spring-1970,

pp. 139-150.

Brown, R. "Assessing the, Effects of Interview Non-Response on Estimates of the Impact of Supported Work." Princeton, New Jersey:

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1979.,

Bureau of Labor Statistics, NEWS, Washington, D.C.: U.S.. Department

of Labor, March 9, 1978.

Cain, G. "Benefit/Cost Estimates for Job Corps." Institute for

Research on Poverty, University %,f Wisconsin, 1968.

Chien, I., Gerard, D., and Lee, R. The Road to R: Narcotics,

Delinquency and Social.Policy. °NdW York: Basic Books, 1964.

Clark, K. and-Sumiers, L. "The Dynamics ofYouth Unemployment."

Cambridge, Massachusetts: The National Bureau of Economic Research,

Working Paper No. 274, August 1978.

Clarke, S. "Juvenile Offender programs and Delinquency Prevention.".

Crime and Delinquency Literature, September 1974, pp.-377-379.

Danzinger, S., and Wheeler. "The Economics of Crime: Punishment or

Redistribution." Review of Social Economy, Volume 33, October 1975,

pp. 113-131.

Dickinson, K. "Social Cost Indexes of Drug Use." Madison, Wis- . consin: Institute for Research on Pdterty. 'Discussion Paper,

forthcoming 1980.

Diamond,' D. and Bedrosian, H. "Industry Hiring Requirements and

the . -rloyment of- Disadvantaged Groups." New York: New York.

Unive city School of Commerce, 1970. c DiPrete, T. "Unemployment Over the Life Cycle: Probability Models

of Turnover." Washington, D.C.:. .U.S. Department of Commerce,

1,B-287953, 1978.

Doeringer, P. and Piore, M. Internal Labor Markets and Manpower

Analysis. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1971.

2=- ' 228 '7
#

G

DuPont, R. "The Drug Abuse Scene: Past, Present, and Future."

Presented at National Drug Abuse Conference, 1978, Seattle,

Washington, April 5, 1978. . . Erlich, I.1"Participation in Illegitimate Activitie." Journal

of Political Economy, Volume 81, gy/June 1973, pp. 521-565.

Elliot, 'D. and Knowles, B. "So6ial Development and Employment:

.An Evaluation of the Oakland Work Experience Program." In.

Conference Report on Youth Unemployment: ItsMeasurements and

Meaning. Washington, D.C.: U.S._Department of Labor, 1978.

Engiaman, R. "An Economic Analysis of the Job Corps." Unpublished

-MD. dissertation, Berkeley, California: University of

: California, 1971.

Farber, IL "Highlights-- Annuaj. Follow -up: 1968, JOEM ContraCi.

and Non-Contract Programs." RepOrt prepared for Office of Policy,

Evaluation and Research, Manpower Administration, U.S. Department

-'of Labor, 1971.

C

Funke, C. "UnemploYment Ind Crime: A Socioeconomic Approach."

:In Crime and Employment Issues, Washington, D.C.: American

University Law School, Institute 'for Advanced:Studie_ in Justice,."

2978. . Gay, R. and Borus, M. "Validating Performapcndicators for t

Employment and training Programs." Journal of Human Resources

Volume XV No.. I, Winter1980, op. 29-48 / - Goldstein, J. 41The Effectiveness of Manpower Training Programs:

A Review of Research on Impacts on the Poor." In Studies in

Public Welfare, No. 3, Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy, Joint

EconomiC Committee, U.S. Congress, Novembei 20, 1974.

Gordon, D. Theories of Poverty and Under - employment. Lexington,

Massachx-Setts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1972 t Gramlich, E. "Impact of Minimum Wages, Employment and Family

Incomes." Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, Volume, 2, 1976,

pp 409-461.

Greenleigh AssoCiater, Inc. "The Job Opportunities in the Business

'Sector Program- -An EValuation of Impacts in Ten Standafd Metropolitan

Statistical Areas." Report prepared for Office of Policy, /

,Evaluation and Research, Manpower Administration, ".S. Department

of Labor 1970.

Hammermesh, D. Economic Aspects of Manpower Training Programs.

Lexington. Massachusetts: Heath Lexington. Books, 1971.

. . 229

276 ,
, .

Hannan, M., Tuma, N., and Groeneveld, L. "Income and Marital Events: ' of Sociology, MAY 1977. . Evidence fi-om an Income Maintenance Experiment." American Journal'--

Hanushek, E. and Jackson,: J. Statistical Methods for Social

Scientists. New York: Academia.press,).977.

/

Heckman, J. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models or

Truncation, Sample SelectiOni. and Limited Dependent Variables

and a 'Simple Estimator for Such Models."). Annals Of Economid

and Social Measurement, Volume 5, Fall 1976; pp. 475-492:(

Heckman, J. "Shadow Price, Market Wages and Labor Supply."

Econometrica, Volume 421-"July 1974, pp. 674-694.

Heflbrun, j,,qrban Economics and. Public Policy. New fork;

St. Is -ttess, 1973.

Hollis r, R. et al. "Guidelines for Setting Wages in Supported. Work:"

MPR Aking Paper Number C-3. Princeton, New Jersey: Mdthematica

'Policy Research, Inc., 1.974.

Hollister, R., Kemper P.; and Wooldridge, . "Linking Process

and Impact Analysis: The Case of Supported Work." In qualitative . and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research, edited by C.

Reichardt. Sage Publications, Inc., forthcoming.

Jackson, R., Kueter, D., and Pannell, R.

Field' Results in the Evaluation of the

Demonstration: .Princeton, New Jersey:

Research Inc.,July 1979.

and

National Work

Mathematica Policy

Jacks'n R. et al. "T1-e Slipported Work Demonstration's Research

Sample: Characteristics at Enrollment." Princeton, New Jersey:

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc:, October 1978.

Jencks, C. Inequality. New York: Basic BOc.Is, Inc., 1972.

Jessor, R: "Predicting the Time of Onset of Marijuana Use:

A Development Study.of,High School Youth."' Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vkume 44, 1976,

pp. 125-134.

Johnson,'N. Distrib Statistics':.

Continuous Multikrariate Distributions. New York: Wily and

Sons, 1972. 0" Kemper, P. 3t al. "Tie tdppOrted Work Evaluation: Final

Benefit-Cost Analysis." New York4 MDRC,forthcoming 1980.

27.'4! 23O

a
4 Kerachskyv 4. "Uealth and Medical CareUtilizationi A Second Approach." $ ' In TheNew 3er4eyIncOme Maintenance Experiment. NQJ vork: Academic

Piess, 1977. .. - 7 ' Kerachsky, S. and Mallar, C., "Design of an Evaluation of the Job Corps:"

Princeton,. New Jersey: MetheMatica Policy Research, Inc., 1977.

jarachsky, S. et al. "The Quality of Self7Reported.Data on AFDC Payments."

Princeton, New Jersey: 'Mathematica Policy Researdh, Inc., 1979; , King., A. "Minimum Wages and the Secondary Labor Market." Southern Journal

of Economics, Volume 41, October 1974, pp. 215-219.

Kirschner Associates, Inc. "Evaluation of Five Concentrated Employment

Programs insRegions I and II.: New York: Kirschner Atsociates, Inc.,

1969. -

Knudsen, J., Scott, R. and Schore,' A. "Household Composition."

. In The New Jersey Income Maintenance Experiment. New York: Academic

Pre.:s, 1977.-

Lawrence, M. "Training the Hard-Core in an Urban Labor Market -- - The Case of the Bedford-Stuyvetant.Opportunities Industrialization

Center." Philadelphia: TheWharton School, University of

Pennsylvania, 1970.

Levitan, S. and Belous, R. "Reduced Worktime: An Alternative to High

Unemployment." In Job Creation: What Works? edited by R. Taggert.

Salt Lake ;City: Olympus Publishing Company, 1977.

Levitan; S. and Johnston, B. The Job Corps: A Social Experiment That

Works. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.

Louis Harris and Associates. "A Continuing Study of Job Corps Terminations:

Wave IIInitial Interview with Termination from August 15, 1966 to

December 15, 1966." Hearings on the Economic Opportunities Amendments

of 1967. Part I. 90th Congress; 1st Session. .Committee on Educatioh

and Labor, Washington, D.C;, 1967.

. . McDonald,.:J. and Moffitt, R. ''Uses of Tobit 'Analysis." Review of 4

Economic Statistics '(forthcoming).

Mahoney, J-7 "Youth Unemployment and Other Issues Affecting Violence

Levels." In CYime and Employment Issues.° Washington, D.C.: Institute

for Advanced Studies in Justice, 1978.

Mailer, C. et al. "Evaluation of the Economic Impact of theJob

Program." In 'Assessments'of the Job Corps Performance and Impacts.

Washingtoh; D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 1979.

. , . . . . Masters, S. "Using Social.Security Data Help Estimate Earnings Effects

of Supported Work." Madison, Wisconsin: InstItUte for Research on

- ° Poverty, 1918.
MDRC. Second Annual Report

Demonstration. New York,

,Corporation, April 1978.

-AMC., Summary and Findings

'bemonstration. Cambridge

'Company, 1980.

on the National

N.1.: Manpower

of the National

, Massachusetts:

SuppOrted-Work

Demonstration Research

Suploorted WorkBallinger Publfshing

. . Minbr, J. Schooling, Experiences, and.Earnings. New YOrk:

Columbia UniverSity Press, National Bureau of Economic Reseakch,

1974.

(!igOonnell,J.,Voss, H.; Clayton, R., .Slatiri, G., and Room, R.

Youn Men and Dru s--A NationwieleSurve . Rockville, Maryland:-

Institute on Drug Abuse, 1976.

Jamest- "The Zffedts of the Seattle and Denver Income

Maintenance Programs on the Housing Consumption of Participating

Households." Draft. -Princeton, New Jersey: Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc., 1979.

-Olympus ReseirchCorpozation. "The.Total Impact of Manpower

Programs' A Five-City Case Study." Volumes I and II. Report

piepared for Office of Policy, Evaluation and Research, Manpower

.Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 1971.

Osterman, P. "Youth, Work and thiemployment." Challenge, May/

June 1978,22. 65-69.

Peek, J. VThe Problem of Attrition." In The New Jersey- _ Pennsylvaria Graduated Work Incentive Experiment Final Report,

edited 'by H. Watts and A. Rees. Madison', Wisdonsin c Institute

for Researcli. on 'Poverty, University of'Wisconsin, 1973.

Perry, C. et al. Thepapact.of Government Manpower Programs.

Philadelphia: The Industrial Research Unit, The Wharton ' Sdhool, University of Pennsylvania, 1975..

Peterson, R. ''An Evaluation of the Seattle OpportIlities

Industrialization Center." Seattle, Washington:, -Graduate

School of Business Aimitisration, University of Washington,

1968. . .. Piliavin, I... and Gartner', R. "Assumptions and Achievements of

ManpoWer Programs fur Offenders: Implications for supported

Work." Madisc., Wisconsin: Institute for Research'on'Poverty

Discussj.on Papt. Number 541-97, June 1979. . . Piliavin, I. and Gartner, R. "Supported-Work: ,.pacts forExOffendere." Nevi York; N.Y.:. Manpower Demonstration Res4erch

Corporation, forthdoming 1980..

Ragah, J.. "Minimum Wages'al the Youth Labor Market." RevieW of

Econbmic Statistics, Volum .L/X, May 1917; pp. 129-136.

232

el
Reynolds, M. "Crime sror Profit: The Ecohomics of Theft:"

Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation,- University of Wisconsin, 1971.

Ribich, T. Investing in Education to Reduce Poverty. Washington,

C.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1969.

Ruth:, H. et al. "Issues of Program Design and Sampling Strategy

fdethe National Supported Work Demonstration.," Princeton,

New Jersey: Mathimatict Polity-Research, Inc., 1980.

Schore, J., Maynard/ P: and Piliavin, I. "The Accuracy of

Self-Reported Arrest l ta." Princeton, New Jersey:

Maihematica Policy Rase ch, Inc., April 1979.

Scott, D. "An Evaluation of the Washington Institute for Employment

Training--The Opportunities Industrialization Center of Washington,

1D.C.1! Philadelphia:. The Wharton Schdol, University of. Pennsylvania,

1969.

SeWell, W. and Hayser, R. Education, Occupation and Earnings:

AcAievement in The Early Career. Madison, Wisconsin:

Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 1974.

Silverman, C. Criminal Violence -- Criminal Justice: Criminals,

Police Courts, and Prisons in America. New York: Random

P

House, 1978'.

Singell, L. "An Examination of the Empirical Relationship

Between Unemployment and Juvenile Delinquency."

American. Journal of Economics and Sociology/ Volume 26, 1967,

pp. 377-386:

Sjoquist, D. "Property Crime and Economic Behavior: Some

Empirical ReSulta." American Economic Revisw, Volume 73,

June 1973, pp. 439-446.

Stromsdorfer, E.

'Report in Youth

Washington, D.C.

"Control Group Selection." In Conference

Unemployment: Its Measurement and Meanings.

: U.S. Department of Labor,.1578.

Thurow,,L. "Education and Economic Equality." Public Interest,

Stoiume'20, Summer 1972, pp. 61-81.

Trice, H.' and Romaa,.P.* Spirits and Demons at Work: Alcohol

and OtherDrugs on the Sob.: Ithaca, New.York: New York

State Sthool of Industrial and,Labor Relations, 1872.,

U.S. Department OLabor. kssessments of theJob Cores Performance.

and Impacts, Volume 1. -Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Labor, February 1979:
'C

U.S. Department of Labor. Conference on Youth UnemplOyment: Its

Measurement and Meaning. Washington, D.C:: U.S. Department

of Labor, October 1978:

U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Report of the

President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DepartMent of Labor, 1978.

U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and

. Trainingteport 9f the

PrIsident. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 1979,

U.S. Department of Labor. A Knowledge Development Plan for Youth

Initiatives. Washington,. D.C.': U.S. DepartMent of Labor,'

December 1978.

Voss) H. "Young ken, Drugs, and prime." In Drug Use-and Crime.,

Washington, D.C.: National Technical Information Services, 1976,

pp. 351-368.

Westatv Inc. "Continuous Longitudinal Manpower Survey, Special

Report Number 1." RockVille, Maryland: Westat, Inc., March

1979-(draft).

Winter, E. '"The Businessman's Rolein Closing the Gap.Between

Education and the Job." In The Transition from School to Work.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1968.

Wooldridge, J. "Housing Consumption." In The New Jersey'Income

Maintenance '4*periment. New York: Academic Press, 197;'.

281.

234
MANFOWER.DEIONSTRATION-RESEARCH

CORPORATION PUBLICATIWS.ON

SUPPORTED WORK.

UBLISHED REPORTS

Ball, Joseph. IMPLEMENTING SUPPORTED WORK: JOB CREATION STRATEGIES

DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THE NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION, 1977. (Out of

print)

Kolan, Nuran, AFL-CIO Appalachian Council. THE WEST VIRGINIA SUPPORTED

WORK PROGRAM: A CASE STUDY, 1979.

Manpower Desionstration Research Corporation. FIRST ANNUAL REPORT ON THE

NATIONAL SUPPORTED WORK DEMONSTRATION, 1976. (Out of print)

Eanpowei Demonstration Research Corporation. SUMMARY OF THE FIRST ANNUAL

, REPORT ON THE NATIONAL SUPPORTED WORK DEMONSTRATION, 1976.

Manpower Demonstiation Research Corporation. SECOND ANNUAL REPORT ON THE

NATIONA1, SUPPORTED WORK DEMONSTRATION, 1978.

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. SUMMARY OF THE, SECOND

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE NATIONAL SUPPORTED WORK DEMONSTRATION, 1978.

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. SUMMARY OF THE OPERLTATING

EXPERIENCE AND STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF THE THIRD YEAR OF THE

NATIONAL SUPPORTED WORK DEMONSTRATION, 1979.

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. The Final Report. SUMMARY

AND FINDINGS, OF THE NATIONAL SUPPORTED WORK DEMONSTRATION, 1980.

(Summary 'version of Findings. and Recommendatflos also available.)

t

Masters, Stanley H. ANALYSIS OF NINE-MONTH INTERVIEWS

KORK:-RESULTS OF AN EARLY SAMPLE, 1977..

Maynard, Rebecca A. ANALYSIS OF NINE-MONTH INTERVIEWS

WORK: RESULTS OF AN EARLY AFDC SAMPLE, 1977.

FOR SUPPORTED

FOR SUPPORTED

Maynard, Rebecca A.; Brown, Randall; Schore, Jennifer. THE NATIONAL

SUPPORTED WORK DEMONSTRATION: EFFECTS DURING ,TRE FIRST 18 MONTHS

AFTER ENROLLMENT, 1979." . Shapiro, Harvey D. WAIVING THE RULES: WELFARE DIVERSION SUPPORTED

WORK, 1978.

Shapiro? Harvey D. PAYING THE BILLS: A REPORT ON THE ROLE OF LOCAL

GRANTS fN, FINANCING THE NATIONAL SUPPORTED WORK 'DEMONSTRATION,

.1979.

23S2"

--e
REPORTS IN PREPARATION

Dickinson, Katherine; Maynard, RebeCca A. THE

EX-ADDICTS.

Kemper, Peter; Ldng, David; Thorntod; Craig.

ATION: FINAL BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS.

IMPACT OF SUPORTED WORK ON

THE SUPPORTED WORK EVALUMasters, Stanley H.7 Maynard, Rebecca 4. THE IMPACT OF

LONG-TERM RECIPIENTS OF AFDCYBENEFITS.

Piliavin, Irving; -Gartner, Rosemary.' THE IMPACTS OF

EX- OFFENDERS. ,

ti 1,5! I - r

O

t

SUPPORTED WORK ON

SUPPORTED WORK ON

4

All published reports are available froi the Manpower Demonstration't

Rfsparcl Corporation, at 41 charge of $3.00 each to handle printing coats

and mailing.

c `.
0:-

1

O

-1"

O

\ '

THE SUPPORTED WORK. EVALUATION:

FINAL BENEFIT-COST ANAL'SSIS

Peter.Kemper

David. A. Long

Craig Thornton

Rob Hollister

Valerie Leac

Christine Whi tetSread

David Zimmeffmman

/

Matheifiatica Policy Research

4t -/ VI

. A

. . o
1.

} CHAPTER I

THE SUPPORTED WORK DEMONSTRATION AND ITS EVALUATION

The national Supported Work demonstration, conducted in 15 sites

across the country, is a speciallOork experience program designed help

groups with well-established employment difficulties to get and keel a regular job. Other important objectives of Suppbrted Work include

reductions' in-Welfare dependence, drug Ilse,.and criminal activity. The

fourtirgei groUps that provide the focus for, the demonstration are (1)

women who have been'receiving welfare payments under the Aid to Families

with Depehdent Children (AFDC) program for at least three years; (2) ex-1

addicts who have recently been in drug treatment prcgrams; (3), exoffenders who have recently been released from prison or jail; and (4)

young sbhool dropouts, m.ny of whom have records of delinquency.

In order to assess the effectiveness of Supported Work/ a major

evaluation component has been built, into the demonstration. The effects

of the Supported Work experience on thea5ecific target'giOups.are reported on elsewhere. This report assesses the overall effectiveness of

Supported WOrk,within the analytic framework of benefit -cost analysis.

4 .

, 1 A. THE DEMONSTRATION

Supported Work is specifically designed to be a temporary program.

It provides individuals with employment for a limited time, after which

they 44st leave, whether or not they haye found jobs sewhere. Support

is provided tough work assignments in crews.of peers, and also through

close supervision by technically qualified people who understand the work"

285
_ wit

it

* :

,1

, histories and personal backgroundi of their crew members. Gradually increasing

4 -.. . standards of attendance and peiforman'Oe are, enforced as they.

.

.

, prOgxamsgoceeds, until they ilasemble.those of. regular jobi. While in

' .. .

. A

the program participants earn relatively low wages, but are given.oppor-

' .

. q tunities to increase their earnings-throUgh bonuses and promotions ibr

. - .

. good performance and attendance. .., .4, -'

. .

.

. , The work done by.participants, most of it.relatively unskilled,

. . .. , ... . . 1 .

. is'varieds It, includes clerical assignments, housing rehabilitation,

. . .. ;

10 . building maintenance, day care, and .grounds maintenance, and is concen-

\. 0

. trated in the service and cdnstruction sectors. Goods and servicesaTe

, ",

f4 provided .for a variety'of customers, many of them in the publio and

0:

.'" private nonprofit sectors. most of the projects participants work

under the.closersupervision of Supported Work program staff; some,

however, are outside placements in which the'day-to =bay supervision is

provided by the host agendy., `x 4

.,

.

. , 1 . The Supported Work concept was first implemented by the Vera

Institute of Justice, which started the Wildcat program in New York in,

D 1972. The primary target groups in Wildca0t wereex-addicts and,ex- ,

. r : 4 ,

. offenders and, by

4 the middle df 1976, more than 4,000 had been eTpldyed

4in the program,. The early experience with Wildcat led diKectly to the

,

.., , '

5 , ,national demonstrationof Supported Work, designed.td test the concept

, . V . on a larger Scale,and with two additional target groups--AFDC recipients

, . and youths

'/ The-demonstratiOn is funded in part by grants.from the Ford

4 *'r Foundation and a consortium of federal agencies led, by the Department of

Labor, and in, P-art by raised ;funds. ,These platter funds come from

. 240 . !. 28.6
tar'

4.6

.

government sources (most often CETA prime sponsors and welfare diversion

F payMents), and from revenues generated-by the sale of program output. l//

B. RECENT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING POLICY, AN) THE DEVELOPMENT OF

, ,

. SUPPORTED WORK

O

Two Major developments in employment and training pOlicy during

4 % the last.20 years have influenced the design of both the Supported Work

,

1 ;)./- N

;,- program and its benefit-cost evaluation: (1) thg increased emphasis'On , . targeting prOgrams On the "diiadvantaged"--persons who face difficult

barrierp to employment in thee regular labor markets--end (2) the'groWing

reliance on work experience as an employability development mechanim

Both of these developikents-are reflected in-SupooAed Work, and they

e

provide a useful framework for understanding the program Crept and

4 the )evaluation.

a' ) a. Targetingiprogr4ms far 'the' D±sadvantaged

Direct government intervention in labor marktti'afterlkyrld

, ; , 42- first the for* of assistanc4 to clePressed

. areas of the country,

largely in, resp.olse to'the steady decline of the dominant industries in

,,, .,

i

. s-,- , JA

these areas,.' The Area Oedeveldpmint Act and the 'Public-Works Acceleration

f

. Act, both passed i ',the earli sixties, addressed the employment problems

, . , f

. ,. ofparticUiar areas rather than, particular groups in the population. -A

( a

6 .

6 *4 change in policy direction cane in 1962 with.the passage.o.. the Manpower'

., Development.and Training Act udy17) InitiaIly,,MDTA programs emphasized

.. 1

See Minpower,Demonstration R- --arch Corporation (MDRC, 1978) for

aadetailed deiCription'of'the operation of he demonstration: . 4

.

4
the. training and retraining of workers. whose skills were becoming obsolete

because or -t-e-qc and -e-donom3.c chalgS:

the mid- sixties the focus of the nation'sotraining and employment pgiicy again'safted, this time from workers with obsolete skills

to individuals-Who had little ono job skills. With the passage of the

Economic Opportunity Act in 1964, program approaches Were 'broadened to

include the use of work experience, placement assistance, and other

activities in addition to skills training, in order to'address the

employment problems of persons with few skills and limited prospects

for labor market success. During the same Period, MDTA also shifted its

emphasis frog 4retraining to initial skill development and remedial educes=

tion for persons with few labor market skills. By the late_sixties, the

nation's employment and tilining policy had been firmly committed to

targeting programs on the disadvantaged.

' Conk ary to some oredictionS, the transformation in 1973 of.

employment and training programs from the existing categorical,.national

- ...programs to a decentralized, decategorized set of programs under the

Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) did little to change

'this target emphasis. Federal ptagram regulations and local support for

targeted programs helped to maintain the emphasis on serving the.dis-.

; advantaged.

17 Only in a few specific cases--such as he,countercyclicl

1/Whle.the emphasis i on serving the disadvantaged is apparent - the legislation, the effectiveness of local programs in actually achieving thii legislative intent has been the subject of considerable debate.

Charges of "creaming"-=i.e., enrolling persons with few labor market

problems--have'been leveled'at CETA for years, and program data suggest

a mixed record in providing services to those who need them most. . National employment and training policy's commitment to the disadvantaged

. ,

ti 242 2.88

r
. 1-icservice-employment-iliirratives in .T1"-le VI--has-- this legislative

and policy - emphasis been suspended.

SUppoXiedyOrk clearly' embodies

in its lour target groups. Indeed, the

--/%.-

served amore disadvantaged population,

this - emphasis on the disadvantaged

Supported Work demonstration has

judging from the demographic

characteristics and labor market histu.ies of itsraxtidipahe

programs funded under CETA--whose eligibility criteria are less.re-

, itrictive than those of Sgpported Work. AFDC recipients and youth are

also` served by a variety of CETA programs, and AFDC recipients by the

*irk Incentive Training Program (WIN) as well. The two other Supported

Work target groups--ex-oftenders and ex- addicts- -are not served in -large

numbers under CETA, but are generally acknowledged to face some of the

most severe labor market probleM.; of any population groups.

This emphasis on the severely disadvantaged has influenced the

objectivesrof-Supported Work and Ance the design of the evaluation. In

addition to its central tbjective of improving the employment prospls

of its participants after they leave the program, Supported Work, as we

- have seen, seeks to reduce welfare dependence, criminal activity, and

drug use, and to raise the income of participants. Given these additional

objectives, the evaluation must also measure the, benefits of reduced

welfare dependence,criminal activity, and drug use and assess the

distributional effects of Supported Work (i.e., assess the benefits and

costs to the participants themselves to determine whether they are made

was clearly demonstrated through this history:

program - operators and prime sponsors haVe been

the targeting of t:heir. services.

243

throughout the, 70s

under pressure to improve

4
betpr7off)- ,This- evaluation -thus differs from benefit-cost analyses

of many earlier employment and training programs in which the ipsAse

iii post - program earnings was typically the only benefA,measured and in

_.., which disiributional effects were ignored: (A revie0 of benefit -cost

.

$ ., ..i.

, analyses, of other employment and training programe'is-dentained in _

. ,.. , ....-; . Chapter VIII.) -.

(.2 The Role of Work Experience

Although its importance has risen more slowly than the emphasis,

on the disadvantaged,,the emphasis on work experieitce as an employability

development strategy also began with the Employment Opportunity Act.

Advanced as a mechanism for providing youth with initial labor market

experience, work experience was initially implemented only in a few,

categorical programs such-as Neighborhood Youth-Corps, the New Career/

/`

Public SerVice Careers Program, and the Concentrated Employment Program.

Iii the early 1970s,the policy of providing subsidized jobs

received new support,as a strategy for,reducing countercycLical Unemplop-

, meet (in contrast with, the earlier emphasis on structural unemployment).-

The Emergency Employment Act; for instance, which authorized the largest

publif employment program since the depression, embodied this.concept.

Recently,4the funding for the countertyclical public service employment

has been substantially reduced.. The structural. component of public

service employmen, &Never, has been retained In Title IID of CETA.

Thus, work experience-continues-to-be considered an important weapon

in the attack on structural unemplOyMen

Theevolution of United States po cy was not the only influence

on the design of Supported Work; it also has Foots in Western European
experience.' 'Dutch, Swedish, and British programs - -Such as the Social

.v:: prplo5;Ment Program,.filduSifTR1 Workshops, and Sheltered Employment--

PrOiride government subsidized employment for persons with labor market

xwOblems. The-eligibility requirements for these programs are quite

broad. In addition 'to the mentally retarded, the eligible include

older jrorkers, young.peop10 in trouble, former prisoners, -alcoholics,

and even 'querulous perSonsv.orOssgrained fellows, intriguers "' cseubens,

197.0).- Typical of the prograMi*e.the Swedish "sheltered,workshops,"

.0 which havel)een: described as "a working environment without competition

froM other labour that_offers a_form of employment tha

tempo is adapted to the handicapped persons' capabili

D. 21)-

d

(OEDC-, 196

The demonstration, thuS,ehibits both similarities with and

differendes from both previous United-States and European experience.

Its 'emphasii on transitional jobs makes the demonstration,more similar

to other U.S. work experience programs than to Western European programs,

whiCh provide not only temporary but also permanent opportunities.-

2

In

its strategy of carefully structuring the work experience, how ever,

Supported Work more closely resembles the_Eurcnean prograths. In contrast

e

to most CETA job creation programs, in which the participant is. placed

"For a comprehensive-discussion of the Western European job

creation.programs for the hard-tO-employ, see Reubens,11976), particularly

Chapter,ZiC. For amore detailed deStription, as well as,a presentatiod7Of

the results of a,benetit-.benefit analysiS, of'one such program in Holland,

_See AdVeihan (1978).

WAn 'exception to the general emphasis on transitional programs

ih the U.S. is the set, of sheltered workshop programs, such es GoodWill

that. provide emPloyment or disabled and handicapped workers.

*410eri..these:p*ograms.e*eilsually erated outside the formal govern-

*ent,,emploYMent:andtrainingsyStem;

/ "45 2 91

z

9
- "' '-""" " ,-;-- :"'"

:t ,

a

--"11

with an outside organizati , Supported Work takes a more intensive

approach to woriexperience that utilizes close program supervision,

31

_

''' graduated stress,, and peer, group support.

1

. /

In implementing this approach,

.

. Supported Work often creates jobs, with supervision, equipment, and . . . . -' Mater144, and All aspects of' project operations under the direct control _ of program operators .-- SupportedzWorkjobS represent a much broader set

-

. of,attivities than CETA jobs: AotallY intludinq-more construction,

, .4.., manufacturing and keVenUe-prOducing projects. In this regard Sunported .., . .:

A Work is more similar to some of its Western European counterparts. Foil -.

,

._

. 1, example, the Dutch Social Employment. Program. has a variety of activities ... , . ...... .......4

, ,. including -revenue-producing industrial centers in various manufacturing . 3

.. activities (Haveman', 1978).

, This emphasis on carefully structtred work experience, especially

the use of direct bupervisionby Supported Work program staff, not only

distingui§heg it from earlier .program and many current CETA programs,

buti-t-also---impl-iestathat-the-benef-i-t-cost anal-y-sis-musttake _careful

---.

. . .:1 account of the inputs and outputs of the jobs created to proiride work-

.A.

;;!.. experience for participants. Such direct job responsibility raises the

._.............. .--, cost of Supported Work since the projects -require mairials, equipment, ,.

; cf, supertrision,.ankmanagethentfor their Operations. 'Atthe-same time, the. . . .

. is interesting in this regard that Supported Work places

restrictions on the use-ofsuPportitre-services-as supplements tothe______ . . work experience, limiting them to no more than 25 percent of enrollment

' time,

2/In,recent years-more interest has been shown in the "project" , -

. concept, in which several CETA participants work together on a. crew

-big Similar work. However, thiaapproathis still used relatively

CETA.

246, 29 el.
I

Work.experience projects produce output -while participants are enrolled,

and the value of this output must be measured and included as apotentially

iaiport=t,benefft. - Evaluations. of. earlier training programs, where the

-

.

. only substantijal benefit (from increased employability) accrued after ------ the program,' did notface.this meas.mtemeut-problemv-

. THE.:BEINEFIT.7..COST: ERAMEWOliK

The. benefit -cost analysis reported here 'values the benefits

attributable.

and compares

to:the program, both during and after program participation,

,.., , ,- . the Prograd'A benefits with its costs, Thi's comparison in-'

Yolves a large-and sometimes complex set-of calculations.

"- .values of a wide range of outcomes -- involving emplqyment rates, welfare

The relative

dependence,- criminal activity, and drug use--must be compared to the cost . . . ,. . ofa wide rage of resources used'in operating the.

. program.

. ..... , Such a

comparison requires not onlythlt the various colponentoutcomes and

costs be identified-and.measured, but also that they be given an

appropriate dollar value so that all the diyerse componentscan,be

comparedT

//,

The procedlire used to compare total benefits and costs involves

calculating the program's "net present value" - -that is, the difference

between benefits and costs Where all dollar values, have been adjusted

for inflation and converted to. present

1/ All components in this ---

calculation are expressed as benefits Or.costs per participant. The

1/Conversion to present values here meansthat all benefits and

costs for all periods after. the first have been discounted to the middle

ofthe first 9- month, analysis period at a 5 percent real (i.e., inflatic:try-adjusted) annual rate. Sle Chapter IV for additional details.

247
0 program can then be judged on the basisof its net present value per

participant. 4 Benefits and costs cart be viewed from a variety of perspectives.

o

Benefit-cost analyses typically take the "social"%persPective, which

. valUes-benefits or costs to society as a, whole)but ignores transfers

a:bong different groUps within society. . Such analyses speak to ihe- v.'

overal -1 economic efficiencir of theqarogram.

. .. The eocial perspective is, for this reason, the most important.

Other perspectives are also of.interest, however, depending,on the program

and itd.objectiVes: perspectives of particular regions, the budget of.

.* . . .. . 0 the funding organization, or-"taxpayers generally, xe"some of the ,.,)

,

. . . b tif .other perspectives sometimes' Used. Because of the importance of income

I redistribution to programs foe the disadvantaged,.this report also _.,

f

- °measures benefit's and costs from the perspective of participants-1/ and

'11 empdtticipants (often referred to as "taxpayers"). Net present value ..

' from the participant perspective indicates whether they were made better

off on average by Supported Work- -that is, whetherSupported Work redistributes income to its participants.

2 A

/

., ' If. Supported Work redistributes income to participants,it comes

. , from those nonparticipants who bear most of the burden of the taxes used

tp finance the program.? Participants and ilonparticipants together make

1/Theterm "participants".here is used to2refet to those given

the offer to participate in Supported Work whether or not they in fact

did so. Thus, "participant'perspective" is used instead of the technically

correct but stylistically awkward "experimental perspective." . Ali estimates

preSented beiow_,are for the experiAntal group

i as a whole, not just those

t* *

who, given the opportunitY).) also chooweto pprticipate.

1 Participants alio pay taxes so we have avoided the-more common

"taxpayee---in-refeiringto-this_gropp248- J 2( 1 4 , (
Up society. Thus, benefith and costs from the participant and nonpartici-'

pint perspectives must sy.im to the corresponding benefit or cost from'the

, erspectlye of society as a whole.. Table I.1 presents the accounting

. Irailiework fOr the- analysis. It lists the principal components of the

analysis .as benefits or costs based on prior expectations concerning

o

:Pwss."A .1 their ithpact from the ,social perspective (or, ,for thos& with no social

impact, from the nonparticipant. perspective). The second and third

columns show their expected impact from the other two perspectives.1/_

_ The putiOrpant and nonparticipant columns must, in any case, sum to the

O social column when the actua-estimates are made.

A. A program can only be evaluated relative to some alternative--

another program for the same target group, a set of other programs, Oi

no program. In this evaluation, Supported Work is compared to the set

of programs generally available to the target groups at the time of the

demonstration--CETA, WIN, AFDC, etc. 'Thus, the estimated benefits and

costs are not thoseaof Supported Work compared to no program, but those

of Supported Work compared to the array of conventional programs for

r*.- which the target groups are also eligible. Thus, the benefits of

Supported Work'could fall short of costs as measured in this report

because it is less effective than} the array of conventional programs

rather than because it is ineffective in gan absolute sense.

D. ESTIMATING BENEFITS AND COSTS

0 6

Data for the analysis come from a variety of sources,'which are

also indicated in Table I,1. .To measure Supported Work's effects, a -

1/For a more complete discussion of the accounting framework,

See-Thornton and Long "(forthcoming).

,

X
4

VS

TARLZ I.1 EXPECTED EPPECTS Ot UNZPIT-COST ANALYSIS CCMPONENTS, 3Y ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVE

Table, 0/20/79

No.s: 10/23/79

Data source 0

OrI

Senefits

. ft . I. .Producdk by Participknts

1.!alu'of inprogtp. output + . 0 + . S e'lorrased-post-program output * . + 0 LP

Preference. for work aver "welfare + * + a

. rx. InekeesidTak payinnts

A 0 +

+, 7, ',III. ReduceilDependancion Transfer Programs

. . Reduced transfer paymente o + ..I,1,11 Reduced administrative costs '+ 0 + I,P

IV. Redved Criminal Activity

.. . .e-Rieduced property damage and

Personal injury

' Reduced stolen property + Reduced justice system costs + 0 Reduced psichoiogicai costs, . + V. -Reduced Drug and Alcohol Use

Reduced treatment costs Psychological-binefiti *'

. VI. Radioed as. of Alternative Education,

Training, and employment Services

Reduced education and employment costs * 0 * I,P Reduced training allowances 0* 0 I.P.-

.s . . _. .

7

. 0

.4 I,?,S

+ :.P.S

O :,P,S U.

:,P

.1

VII. Other Benefits V

Cast,

Improved participant healthstatus

Incoie redistribution

yr z. 4*i

Pr.- acing Cost

Over cost

Project cost

Ix. Central Adainistrative Cost-

. 0

0

.00

-s U

A,S

=Is Participant Labor Cost

ALIA -piograi.earnings plus fringeir 0 . 4 I.S.A Foregone earnings IA:TM-rigs'

es . -'

' . 0 U

i IV. Increased'Nork Related Cost ' e

Child tare s -

.4 0:P i Othni , a \

.. u

I 44

I --.--------\V.7.1... NITEs The components have been listedlinder ',benefits" or "costs" according to whether they were expected

to lead to'bnfits or costs from the social perspectitle. The contrasts between the expected

effects from the *octal-perspective and those from the pavicipant and nonparticipant perepectives

are shown by indicating, for *eon component, whether the net impact is to 'b a net benefit (+), a "

net cost (-), or neither(0). . l(The codes used for dati iourci are: 5-special study, I-interview data, ,P -published datk.source.

. A-Supported'Work accounting system data, U.item not mearurea.
, .

;;

r

sample. of eligible applicants for Supported Work was randomly assigned

either to an "experimental* grOup.(in which case they were offered the

opportunity to get.a Supported Work job) or to a control group (in.which

case they were not): All those who went ;through this random assignment

- process were scheduled to be interviewed,. initially at <the time the

_ assignment took place anotsubsequently at 9-month intervals for up to

three years. The basic program effects (oUtcomes) are then measured as

..the, differences between average experimental and control group outcomes

as reflected by the de....,pollected in the periodic interviews. That the

.measured program effects are based on a controlled experiment with random

assignment to experimental and control groups is a very important feature

of this evaluation. As discussed in' Chapter VIII, most evaluations of

employment and training pr1ors have not used random assignment. This . omission introdUded potential biases to estimates of program effects.

r The Supported Work mitcomes,are valued in dollars by multiplying

each by an estimated dollar value per unit based on published government

data,- our own speciaNitudits, and published and unpublished research

. . v of others. In estimating these dollar values, we have attempted to

identify the markee value of the resources used or saved, and the outputs

produced by the progtash. We have tried to use this "resource cost"

approach consistently to-Nalue benefits'and costs,throughout theanalysis.

In the case of arrests, for example, an estimate of the average criminal

:justice system cost per arrest (derived from the national average data

and a published study of cost by type of arrest) ig'the value per unit,

which' is multiplied by the experimentalTcontrol differential in arrests

to estimate one potentially ±mportant benefit--criminal justice cost

11. 1 1 'I

251 29
1

.1, savings resultingfrom reduced Criminal activity. To value the in-program

A

outputs produced by Support'd Work projects, estimates were mide'ofthe . 4 prices that would be charged by alternative supp]iprs to provide the

equivalent outputs.

A number of potential program benefits and 'costs have not been

valued in the-analysis, because they are either unobservable, difficult

to value, or both. These include, fOb example peoples'. preferences for

work over welfare az& the potential benefit,of reduced tear brought about

by a reduction in crime. These unmeasured benefits and costs are ihdicated, however, and

... the effect

. of not measuring them is analyzed in a

. . qualitative way.

Even for the measured benefits and costs, a great many assumptions"

must be made. Each assumption affects the magnitude of the estimats, and P

while we have attempted to make the assumptions asrealistic as possible,

they should not. be regarded as precise accountings of social netpiesent

. . value. Because of this, we present both "benchmark"t estimates of

benefits and costs and alternative estimates that demonstrate the

sensitivity of-the results to key assumptions. By presenting these

40

-"Sensitivity tests," we hope to.reduce the likelihood-Of being misled by

a single number.' Indeed, it is not the singleresult of a benefit-cost

an lYsii,but the proteSs of establishing an accounting framework,

..

# Is A building, up the estimates of the component benefits and costs, and f testing the sensitivity of

one to arrive at a, summary judgment about the' program's effettiveness.

the results to key assumptions that enables

_

-1 t

. The analysis has beemlimitedto an evaluation of the overall

.

. , effectsiof the prograwtn each_of the target groups... It has <not

2P

- s 252 I

044

-

- -
addressed the differeaes in benefit-cost remits for different program

coMponents Within the demotistrationforlexample, whether certain types o

of project work are associates. With-higher net predent Value than others.

As such; the analysis'does not'speak to questions of prOqram replicabilityl

or improved design.

t.'.

A

I The analysis hcis alsa,been limited to an evaluation of Supported

q

. S

it Wis implemented in this demonstration. It has not directly

,

. ,. .. addressed, for exampre, -questions about the benefits and costs of- I

_ . Supported Work in a f41-employment economy, or about the benefits and

costs Of a drastically expanded national Supported Work program institu'

tionalized under CTA. Such extrapolation from the'SuPported Work evidence

. . to. unobserved environments or organizati4nal structuresewoiald be subject

,AA

to considerable rAcertainty. We have attempted, instead,.tobase.the

estimates directly on evidence generatedsby the demonstration. Although

start-up and evaluation research costs have been excluded

m

mark estimates;'benefit4land cOts are otherwise those.of the demonstration

wherever it was possibleeto base the .estimates on the demonstration's

experience. Where this Was not Possible, as for example in vojecting

benefits beyond the 2114tiod,when the sample was interviewed; we have

'o

attempted to make the basis for our estimates clear and to test the

sensitivity of the re.sults to alternative estimation assumptions-.

. . . . . The next six chapters are, devoted to filling in the estimates

ca d. for in the accounting framework in Table

1

III document and angle each of the individual

I.1. Chapters 1,1 and

4

componenCestipates*of

costs and benefits durinethe first 27 months after enrollment.. Chapters

kf fir. through VII present overall estimates of net present value, including

253, #

.

,
...:, projections of post-program benefits into the future,; for each of the

; ' . - - , -

, . four target groups. .The sensitivity'of the results. to vaiious assumptions -

neceseary, for the analysis, and the Implications of the unmeasured

- .

. -4 c . .. benefits and costs for the overall-results, are also-dii6desed in%these

.. ..- . -, .. chiptere. Chapter VIII attempts"to compare the Supported(Work results*1'

. .

......_ --....--.. 2- ....,....,..- with the benefit -cost results icir other employment and training programs.

. . Chapter is i- brief

. suinary and.concl,usion.

. _. - ) --,-. %This' report is one of a set of .three refited'repOrts on the

1 _ benefit-cost analysis. Two technical reports documeht the data sources

&- and methodology used in the benefit-cost analysis. The first (Thornton._.

and Long, 'forthcoming) documents the methodology and data sources used

to'valuthe effects of Supported Work, primarily the benefits discussed.

in Chapter III. The second (Kemper and Long, fothcoming) documents the

methodolOgy used to estimate costs and value of in-program output discussed in Ater II. Readirs interested in more detail on methodology

and data sources than the relatively brief discussions here should-consult

these technical reports.

r, U 0

, 254
CHAPTER II

. . COSTS AND VALUE OF4IN-yPOGRAM OUTPUT

- The costs of Supported Work hve.been divided, for .purposes of

-- -- analys s; into the'`foliowirig" mutually excluSiVe categories:'

Project cost is the-Gost of all inputs provided by Supported Work

=I-used directly in. the production of goods and service's on participants'

in-program jobs. Zhese inputk.in"Clude material's, supplies, transportation, eauipment, and supervision.

1 Overhead cost iibthe cost of office space, salaries of staff (other

than work project-superVisors) and other costs incurred in raising funds,

. creating jobs, recruiting and later placing participants, providing

supportive services, and generally, managing the program and its work

projects. Project and overhead cost are mutuaU.y exclusive and together

make up the program operating cost (other than participant labor) at the

site level.

.Central administrative cost is the.cost of funding Siipported Work

sites and gionitoring the program at the national level. In public....s

employMat FA training programs these functions are normally performed

by the federal govrnment; in. the case of Supported Work, they are done

by the Manpower Demonstration Research:Corporation (MDRC), which is

resnonsible for running the demonstration.

Participant labor cost is the in-program cost of participant labor

and:differs depending on the perspective taken. For nonparticipants,

it is the wages plus fringe benefits paid to participants by Supported

Work. Far society iS.. whole, however, the, real cost is the output
, participants would have Produced had they not enrolled in Supported Work.

Participant labor costs from both perspectives are estimated below.

Increased child'care'dost is incurred both during and aftet the

program because participants work More and hence some must bake alternative / a 3 arra;:ents fort the care of -their Children.

Unmeasured- costs _indlude"increased work-related costand foregone

. . leisure. These. are discussed but not measured in the analysis.

Value of in-program output, although not a cost, is. discussed in

4 - this chapter because of its close association with costs. It is the value

. of the output prOduced on the Supported Work jobs. while participants are

enrolled. '

-As doted in Chapter I, the estimates presented here ar9, to.the

extent possib.e, -for Supported Work as it was implemented in this demonstration.. This principle ensures that the benefits and costs can

appropriately be compared with each other. We departfrom this principle

in calculating our benchmark estimates only to the extent of excluding

evaluatiOn researchand:start-up costs.

Evaluation research coats have been excluded and the average-.

employment and training program research costs s tuted instead..

B use Supported-Work, is an experiment, its evaluation has been more eTignrous'and expensive than theaverage_for employment and,t-aining

prograprrkerarally. T6 include these atypical evaluation research costs

in the estimates would, in our judgment, give a misleadingly high eAimate

256 3,02
;71

. e OfthelcOstot.Supported,Work:1(

.

. .,

* ,. . Stakt-up,coststhoSe-additional costs incurred in starting any

:organization; as makes.iiiitakdOr learns, and grows to its planned size--

. \ . hafrebeen,ekcluded.froM the2bendhMark-ettimates on, the basis of a similar,

.... -, .: " . tbou0h.Semewhat:less clear-cut, argument. How start7up costs should be

iv..r. -.--. . ,

. . . .. ..treated-de ends-on the decision being made. To the extent that such

t...-.

t

. _ doetedo-noi,lenerateany additional benefits (other than getting the

Program'underway), theyfare-onlY of historical.,nterest insofar as the`

. _ present Supported Work Bites are concerned. They are irrelevant tocwhether the benefits of continuing Supported Work are likely to exceed

-..., . . the posts and, hender irrelevant to a decision to continue the demonstra-

,..,. . ,

. v.tion sites.

. .,- If higher costs. during earlier periods, howler, result in

f . a More.effectives*ogram-4or example, if =all initial scale and more

. , Il -.

. ,

. intensive'superviSion meant greater individuil attention for participants

....;,.._which, in-turn, increased their post- program employability- -then they are

, . not entirely start-up costs and should not be excluded when deciding

whether to continue Supported Work. If expanding the program by adding

'new sites were the issue,'then start-up costs (amoFtized over-the expected

_life of the sites) are relevant (although they might well be lower than

7 the start -up costs estimated for this demonstration). Although estimated

. 4

A the.evaluation research has affected the benefits or other

costs of- Supported. Work (for example, by improving feedback to-program

Operators)-, then-excluding them wuld'be inappropriate. We dd-not

believe, howevek,that the 'evaluation, research has greatly affected

the benefits, and costs of Supported Mork.during the evalilatIon period.
; '

r

studies of work projects..

r

. I ,

I/ ,it4#";40 costs- have been excluded from the benchmerkestiMates,

that:inCludeetartT.Updosts'Are included as a sensitivity test.

` .

, . 44- A estiMatee

.

PROJECT COST AND 'VALUE OF IN-PROGRAM OUTPUT

The °project-3 on Whkah-partiCipanti_WOrk-while ent011edsin, ' -ktitidited'ikiik vary widely 44 their .eupervision, and nonlabor input require-.

,

. -meats. At one extreme, the placement of a single Participant in a clerical

. , :

t 15deitidnan.an,outeide agehcrUnder.that agency's darto=dayeupei7viSiOn

requirlis relatively 'little supervisory and nonlabor project inputs by

. ., - , , -,*,1

Supported WOrk. At the other extreme, a gas station project run by , ''

.

. --:- ,.. - SUPPOrted Work requires substantial nonlabor inputs=-gasoline; the

.

/ station itself, parts, and equipmentand detailed "eupervision. Although . ,4

. . .c: the expectatioriis less strong for an employment and training program . ,

. . 'than for a private firm, one would expect a project's inputs (and hence,

- .... t

:.4 ..,, project cost) to be directly related to its output land hence the value

..G".

. .

, of that output). Indeed, one way of viewing the value of in-program

v.:. - , -,. icklitputie as an offset to cost rather than as4a separate benefit. So:

. . , ensure consistency between the value of output and project cost estimates, ... ,.. .

, the-data:,have been obtained from the same source - -a. sample of case

4 6

f

-What,;onstitutee start-up cost is, of course, a, natter of ...-1 judgment. It is technically difficult to distinguieh,from-the high

cost due to small scale inevitable early in a prOgrah0e-aevelopment.

,:.110diferi the-length-of-the startl-up ,Peiida-is not unambiguous. We

haVe-qenerailitried o xely-oh:third-Tyear data,(the-laet year avail-,

able). fOe,the cost eitiMatei;- thus implicitly assuming a two-year

... "start-up" period. "I - f 44

\

Q 4

- _ 6 ;,

.

4
I ,

. , 1

, . Placj.ig value on the OUtPqt produced by the Supported Work

V V ,p0j acts

4

tely inVolVeS)U4gMents 'about, society's willingness to pay

71

jkOr,..!the ,Oi*put--,ji.idginent4:lii. ,ake inherently 'Subjective and about which

- - . . -. -. _ . people, :L'. reaionably,,differ.. TO ,avid -puth .valiie judgments About

,

, . '

- ' ., , a ,, . . .. ,

. , , . 's, ,, .. v , . ,

, - 8040W* ;demandfor',tile,.p;O:j00t output, we have used as the bezithmatk,

. ,z4tAMate, the amount an:alternatiVe. iiipPiier would charge for ,output

equivalent to tiat,iiroduced*.ky. the Supported Work project. This

,PrOdeddre is consistent iiith 'the reiOUrCe. cost approach to valuing

- . :befiefita, and costs, which LS used throughout the analysis.

I

e-"alternative supplier's price" may not represent the amount

society c.iOuld, in fact, .be willing ti5 pay for the output. (The traditional

- example, of 'make-work where the alternative supplier's price and society's

. wiliingess to pay differ is the work crew that digs 'ditches only to fill

0

them up again. While an alternative supplier would certainly charge to

2/

perform the same work, society would not ordinarily value this activity.-4

Ai a. astiring value,, however, still has important advantages..

First, the alternative supplier's pkice is an easily defizied concept that

can be measured, objectively. Second, although the two are not conceptually

the saMe, there is a theoretiCal justification,for considering, the

. . \

74e utology used .here is that developed by Friedman (1977) ;

for a discussion ofNthe .theoretical framework, see also Kemper and MOss,

(1978)=i- and _Kftiode:and...'tbhg,(fOrthcOrilin4) . - - Society might lace a positive value On -having people work,

pn their 4aying .increased income from wages, or Other benefits of their

employment. These benefits are considered .separately bpw; "value of

output" here refers to the value attached to the goods and services per se e:r produced : 011 Supported ; Work 'projects.

.7*.

,
': 'e.''''' .t!';',..: -,-:';..... '', 4;-:'...'' ',7.--', -:',, r:,".1,:;"",;,,,--,:',., -`," <=`'`,.-:::X..,/,F .2-q::7,-.: v c.,; ,,,r.,,,,,,::: 71,,,rA.:, , ,,.,.:,-

.. _

.: . ' .,4

.

.....

-1,

,

, , . . I

... ,

', . . . t. alternatiVe supplier' Ilj s, price as an upper bOunct-estimate of the social -,, ,.4.

, .

.- .

-, ': --.benefif ,.df:'fhe output ,produced.' -.Finally, examination of the case

., ,

. . . #440: of prqeOta in light of this theoretical argument leads us to

-.. .dolidlUde. 'riat .016 benefit: to, society ,-).'4 from the increased output is

4

.A1 ,probably - not far-beloci-the: alternative supplier' s- price .2/

. . -, ,Although the alfernatiVe .Supplier's price is theoretically a ,

__ Wri fined tohdept, its Measurement is not always straightforward. The

-.0,.. .4. '''

. , MOO, orient methodology is fully documented in the technical report, and

the' details' of specific estimates are documented in reports on the

.,,

X X .N..... ' ..... .

, , This economic argument, vuadtk formally and in detail in . the

aSSOCIated.technibal report (Kemper and Long, forthcoming), caw.. be . summarized as follows -Two#ypes of output are distinguished:; Supported

.,, .-- .Work output that substitutes for output that would have been produced in - the absence of the .program and' the output that repreients-an'exPanSion of

odtP4, beyond that which would otherwise have been produced. The mechanisms

tilrOUgh which society -benefits are quite different for the two kinds of . output. .r . .

. %

. Society benefits from output' that substitutes because the resources. , : :-hai would have been used to produce the output in the absence of_.,Supported

.b Work are freed' t9 "prOduae:oUtput elsewhere, in the economy.. In-eimoothly

lUnOtioning economy, theSe.resOurdes can immediately move to their most

valuable lalternative ,use, '..and the value of this new output will be equal

to the alternative, Supplier ;s price. In an where. there are con-

,: strainte that inhibit the IsmoOtb,,MoveMent .of resources from one uae to

their most valuable ,alternative .use, the value, of the,. new output. . will be

100s,..thenthe.'alterriatiVe supplier ''s price., '''. In the -140,e):6t;:044ii40#.'cilik existing output, the benefit to

Society is determined by 'society's ' demand' for the new output'. As long

AS the alternative supplier's :rice. is less than the price -consumers are

14111/14, to pay for the output, ,.... output should continue to expand in the

.',

- . __ _. , ,.,_ . : . + + , : , ' . absence of :Supported,-mork:. -.,1,* fact that output, only expands when .. . ' SUlipOriedi.iOrk',,enferatbe market is :00a an indication. that the value of r-

.output. ,t0;i , O. iOt,i O less than #-#.0-4 teraiYe supplier's price ,-

:

.. ti

1

t- _. This ,conolusion,-,te,hasecl,op:. a-number. of assumptions,,11

most 'i.iripOtte,; of 'which is that resources , freed by 'Supported Work output

that substitutes ..oi -i.)6r*;:that' i.4buj.4 ,h*Ve

,.- - , , otherwise been done by regular . workers will.,*;:03.ok14 reettiplOyed,eISeigheie: ,

7
individualcise

- 1/ The alternative supplier's price was

iiietagt.iiiiipl.,iiiing-seVeral.'different techniques:

*4. ;Bids. When a contract was awarded,.to a Supported Work site through

titiVe_bidding, the next:highest 1pla (i.e., the lowest nonprOgram bid)

provided -a direct,estimite-of the alternative supplier's price.

leVenue.Mark=up: When Supported Work sold its outpUt in regular

- . _ ' -:markets, the revenue received' provided a basis for estimating the alternative.sUPPlier'sPriCe. 'The. ratio of the average price charged by other

: ;e e 6 . . firMs.inthe,,m4iket to Supported WOrk's 'prices was used to "mark-up" the

, ... . -, Supported Work revenue to obtain an estimate of the amount an alternative

Supplier Would charge for the same output.

endent estimates. Whire output was not actually sold,

'indirectAstimites ha made. One means of doing this was to have

independent estimators--professional estimators in the industry in which

the %Veils was done - -provide an estimate of what7An alternative supplier

woUld charge' to' produce the same output.

Production-standards. Another indirect method reli on published

estiAating guides available for many industries. These guides contain

estimatesOf the labor.and materials required'to perform various tasks--

. . such ati paintin4 1,000 square feet of wall or mowing 100

Yards,of lawn. By meaSuring,thetasks necessary for the

,

a square

job, determining

the.alternative supplier's wage. rate and unit materials costs,' and applyingthe'prodtction standards, estimates of the alternative supplier's

-1OriCe-were,cOnstructed:

.1;

4t;m1*.

"".

'These studies, are available on request from Valerie Leach
.e

Relative productivity. This method relied directly on an estimate

0 of the productivity ,of suppOrted workers relative to that of regular

s workers. The estimated. ratio was then multiplied by the hours worked by

the participant to estimate the hours that regular .corkers would take to

do the Samework.1/ This estimate of hours (vas then multiplied by the

('

, . regular workers' wage :rate (marked up for fringe benefits) tot estimate

the amount that woul have to be paid to alternative workers to pr9duce

-.-. the-same amount of o put. i , ,.,

a.

AathOugh conceptually simpler than. estimating the alternative

supplier's price, estimating projeCt cost (the-second, major task of the

Agt, case studies) is just as important since ezror in the measurement of

project cost can affect the dverall results as. much as error .in ther

measurement of value of output. The SupportedWori fiscal and manage-

. ,. ment information systems were designed so that project costs could be

. accounted for on an indiViUtial project basis; these accounting data then

-11 formed the bksis for the cosestimates.?, ,

$8 ' .3%

. 7-The relative productivity estimate is based variously on work

Measurements, comparison to previous'laborrequirements, or the, assessment . , of supervisori. . .. -3/ .: : , ,,,-.:, , - ."Participant.WOrk hours and wages were charged to projects on _ , .,,.. . +4

Weekly time sheetS, and -Other',PrOject costs mereroutinely assigned to- . iwiiVidual projects -by .the,program accountant-.' While the. fiscal data ', formed:',the baiis fOrestimating projecicost, adjiittments were often . re4U4,e0Or the PurpOies of this study to make Surpthat tw: Prindiples

Wire:foll6Wed., 411 correspoy the outiuts Valued.

'(For example, if a COnitruOtion'project:took three ancione-half weeks to

complete, the project oOsta.Oplild include the cost qi_Materialt,used

during the same three and oneHhilf,weeks,whether they were purchased

specially for the project, drawn frOM the site'e*kiating inventory, or

contributed. by the

way

(2) dosts must be. charged to projects in 1,0

-,-, such-4 y that if .ali projectss at a site were studied, the project cost

estimated for the projecti on a case-by-case, basis would-sum to the total

Ii. . .
0 ,Since the projects studied varied in 'size and inthe length of

time they were studied, the value of. output and project cost'eitimates

Were standardized by dividing by the number of participant hours worked

'

\ _

on the- projeCt.

1/

By estimating value of output and project Cost oz. a

per-houx basis, the resulisof the case studies -could be averaged and

. ultimately related'tobther benefits and costa,-

J.: , Because valueeof output and' project cost data are expensive to

collect,, detailed 'estimates vere only made for a relatively small sample

of prOjects, Initially,while the measurement.thethodolOgy developed by

. Friedman (1977) was adapted to Supported Work, projects were chosen for

case study judgmentally. As the methodoldgy was extended and refined,

we shifted -.to a random sampling of projects designed to be repreientative

e of total hours worked on projects by participants.-

3/

° The-resulting samp/e. Consisted of 58 observations (33 judgmeatal

and:25 random) of 44 different projects. (Ten projects were studied two

or more times, accounting for a total of 14 repeated observations.)

4 project cost,at the site. (This would not occur, for example; if the

site failed to charge the cost of vehicles shared by several projects

to.the individual project, accounts but instead charged theth to an "indirect" .cost account. In order to'satisfy this "adding up" piihciple

in the ca-2 studies, such costs -were allocated to projects.)

1/These hours inclUde only those hours actually 'worked on the

project; they do'not include vacation, sick leave,. holidays, time spent,

in ancillary 'services, or'other time not spent-working on tne project.

2/Measuring

Matter and it, too,

formed the basis of

fOr misreporting or

. . project hours was usually, but.not always, a simple

iasubject to measurement error. The MIS time sheets

the estimateq, but they sometimes had to be adjusted

differences 'in projec definition..

1 tThe sample selection procedures, the representativenest of

the,:taMple, and sampie*e.xclusiOns and reweighting are described in

detail in Kemper and Long (forthcoming).

$4,"=:263 :

're
Although the sample was concentrated in the se cond and third years of

pro gram operations, 11 observatiOnS were studied during the first year.

Qne would expect value of output to increase over time as sites gain

experienCe and iromeut start -up problems. ExaminAion.of results (not'

shown here) shows that thin hypothesized increase in value of output

(net of project cost) did indeed occur over time. Since start-up costs

ar4-eliminated from..the benchmark estimates, projects studied during the

. e first year of site.operatiOns/. were not included in the sample repOrted

on here.-

/

% In addition, one extreme outlier wasexoluded.from the

. . results reported here--which are, therefore, based on 46 observations.3/

This sample turned out not to be representative across sites.

Given substantial differences among the sites with respect to the type of

project undertaken, management style, ancil4pPof target groups that might

cause differences in value of output (net of project cost) across sites,

1/Some number ofnew projects;will b'e initiated each year even

in ongoitg programS. The argument being, made, is that projects studied

during the first year of site operations should, be excluded; projects . from later ye&r.s studied during thefirst year of a specific project '

shoUld not be"systematicallYexcluded from the sample.

/

. 2-.The full sample, analyzed ih Kemper and Long (forthcoming) to

which interested readersCan refer. In general, benchmark estimates have.

been based O.1third year costs. To do so for value of output and projeot

costs, hoWever, would reduce an already-small sample size even further,

'so uib have used the second and third year combined.

1(

.

. 'The-* excluded project, an effort by the San Francisco site to

de velop_i solar. panels inatlilation project, was Studied'while the prototype was being-installediMudh of the work being done by a hired con - 71 Stiltant. The project did not get beyond thisinitial prototype stage

'beford*it and the 6.22 ErancisOO.site were closed. It was, thus, an,

unusual Project which was-quiteiMall (accounting for about 0.4 pelcent

,of.'the,thourS at Sin.kranCiaco during the third ygar). The estimate for

this project iies;siX Standard deviations-below the sample mean.

,24 41.

. :
e we have reweighted the sample In computing averages td be representative

of the actual site sizes.

. ..2. Results

The resulting. estimates are presented in Table ILA.. he weighted

average alternative supplier's price was $4;58 per hour and the average project cost $.98 per hour. The difference *between the two- -which is

what affects the overall benefit -cost results-was $1.69 per hour.11

The alternativesupplie price per hour varied Considefably

across sites.- Some of this vari"tion is due simply to differences in the

'project inputs across sites.' Hartford, for example, had the highest

alternative supplier's price per hour but it also had the highest project

cost per hour; both were partly the 'result of the type of project undertaken

Hartford -- manufacturing, repair, and retail service projects requiring

. . extensive nonlabor inputs. Hartford's gasoline' station project is an.

extreme example, where the cost of the gasoline itself caused both the

project cost and the alternative supplier's price to bealgh.

Even when project cost is subtracted f the alternative

supplierls price to a count for these differences in inputs (see the righthand column of Table 11.1), substantial variation across sites remains'

apparent. Thd variance is,. tf course, even higher in the underlying data

on individual: projects. This high variance, in combination with the small

numWer of observations;, implies that there will be considerable uncertainty

surrounding estimates of the value of outpdt and project cost components

'-of the benefit-cost analysid.

'This should nob, be interpreted 'to mean that the projects, on

average, pay for theinselves. Overhead and participant labor costs are

excluded from 'this calculatiom

265
t.

.

'V*

4o s Rev.- Shell:- 10/23/7'9

1.

a

- a .TABLE .

. ESTIMATES OF ALTERNATIVE SUPPLIERS mg! AND PROJECT COST PER HOUR

4 ...

. 4 x a ; i : Altiinative : . A4,tekilative Supplier's . 10.

. Number of. Supplier's Project Prige'minus

Obser- Price per', Cost per Project'Cost . Site - vations Hour Hour per Hour

Atlanta

. 4

Chicago 4

Hartford 13

Jersey City .8

5 , Oakland 2

Philadelphia 7

San Francisco 3.

. 0 Weighted a/

Average- 46

*$2.:94 $.39 $ 2.55

_ 2.37 .77

.2 1.60

I

5.85 s.o5.08' .77

6.641

i. 4.72 1.92-

.

5.34 -

3.98 .

. 2.82

,.458 2.90- 1.69

3.80 .17

2.98

4.55

% 2.82

3.,03

2.36

-.57'

. 0.09 r

NOTE: For definitions, of terms and data source, see text.

This is the average across sites'weighted by, the proportion of

yeats of participant service at the dices during.6 third year of site

operations.

4

265 31?

ale

It
, .

t .

0

,'

The 'estimates-thus arrived at, expressed as they are per Project'

. 14.

. . ' '

. . 1 i. heir, cannot he used directly in the benetfit-cdst analysid or compared tot

*

t

,

. .

' .-

.. oKrerheadind central adiinidtritive cost estimates, which-.aie expressed

,.t...

. . ,

per year o'f participant service.- (A year of participant service is de- _

. .- .- 4 . : T. .4 . '-'

fined as aCalendar . year bf enrollment in Supported Work.) . .. The, hour- ... '. : ` , value -:of output and.project-cost estimaieS have, therefore, been converted

.. %

.. . . .440-per year 2f service basis -by Obltiplying by a. conversion ratio: the. "/ . ,average nueberof project hours-worked by participants per year of service.' .. e :, ''' t d .t

. , N , N... . . , - The Supported Wik ManagementlInfoemation-System'(VWS) contains

:- , -/

data on years pf participant service and hours worked on projects. Data

from the.third Yearof*Operation.for the eight:sites yielded an estimate

Of 1,31,4-,project hours 'per year of service. l/ Using this ratio, the .. 1 / 0 . .. benohmarkestimatei for value of in7progr4m output was $6,01$,. per year

. t.i

. ,

' 7 of particpant service and for project cost was $3,797%

In presenting the cost estimates and the methodology used to

, ob taifi them, we proceed component by component. As stressed in Chapter I,

. k . . the various components.of the benefit-cost framework are viewed as bene-

.

. .

, I fits or costs depending on the accounting perspective used. Supported

Work .n-program *age payments, for example, are a cost to the nonpattiCipans.wht finance them, but a benefit to the participants who receive

-P--

0

- The estimate of total project hours hai been Idjuste6,---hased on

special studies, .to eliminate hours worked on program-serving pnoje-7s

such.as.a janitorial project to clean the offiCes of the Supported Work

prOgram itself. suchprojectsdo not directly benefit society but dq so

indirectlY,by-reducidg overhead costs (Which reduction is accounted for

in the measurement of overhead cost). Consequently, to avoid imputing a

direct value of _output to these-projects, total. project hours were

adjusted 'downward by,the proportion of total hours that were worked on

program-serving projeots. See the. technical report for a fuller dismssiOn,.Of this ssue and the, estimation techniques.

,

_._267 313

N.
04'

P. them. It is important to keep the different perspectives in mind while

4 reading about specific costs.

Project cost-and value of in-program output are a cost and benefit, -

respectivelyy, to.botty nonpartidipants and-society-as-a-whole. In the case

of Supported Work, project cost is incurred, with minimal exceptions, by

the program itself and thus is part' f its budget outlays, paid largely

by nonparticipants through. federal taxes.

The value of output is an'offset to costs from the social and nonparticipant perspectives, but it is not necessarily an offset to Supported

Work budget outlays. Although customers were asked to pay for the output

they received from Supported Work, .thekoften.paid lesg than "the

alternative supplier's price.? The_amount paid for the output of the

projects user} to make the benchmark estimate, weighted the same uay, was

$3,298 per year of service - -a little over half the alternative supplier's

price. Thusenonliarticipants received the value of output through two

different routes. All taxpaying nonparticipants benefited from a.reduction'in the taxes required to fund Supported-'Work because of the

revenue it received for its projeCt output.: And Supported Work's

customers, also nonparticipants, benefited because they paid less than

the alternative supplier's priCe for the project output.

0

Payments for project output are an alternative estimate of value

of output. Customers have been shown by their payment to be willing to

The SuprDeted pork demonstration placed a great deal of

emphasi6 on. raising local funds, through both grants and service project

revenue so that sites were underpressure to raise as much revenue from

projects as possible. $ 2/A quarter of the projects in the benchmark samOe earned no

revenue at all.

260.
pay ;at leist that amount for the project output. These payments can thus

alower boUnd-omsocietyfis willingness to jay forargiect

oUtput.--, Supported Work revenue from the sale of project output will, . -therefore, be used' s an alternative estimate of the value of Output in

-the:sensiti

B. Oi.TERHEAD COST .- Although the organizations set up to run SuppOrted Work in each

of the 15 "sites were typically sponsored by an existing organization (for

example, the Urban League.1 Atlanta) and sometimes continued to be

closely` associated with it, they were usually separate organizational

ctures. -These organizations had to raise local matching funds,

Create jobi, recruit and later place participants, provide sup rtive

services, and ,generally manage the program and its work proj s. That

all of these functions had to be performed by separate organizations

serving a relatiely small number of ilarticipants2/ meant that substant.el

1 -There are two reasons, discussed:more fully in the technical.

report, why the amount paid may not be.a lower bound. First, customers

:may-make payments, ostensibly for-output, that are intended partly to

tisuppcirt the program generally.' -That is, they may be paying partly for

'other.benefits (inCothe rediStribution, reduced ,dripe, etc.). Their paymeat-could then exceed their willingness pay for the output per se.

SeCOnd;.dostopers' willingneid to.pay. maTnot represent society's

willingUesi tq pay. The customer is often the government and society's

willingness to pay must be tegisteredthrough an imperfect political

process, which coulg-overspLe'dociety's demand for the outpUt. In

! spite. Of-these cavSits, there_are many reasons to consider it a low

-estimater-and.We view it as such. . During the third year of operations,-the average number-of

.participants enrolled 'ranged from 29 in San Francidco (in the process

gf closing) -to 232 in jerey City, with an overall average of 119,
costs were incurred-in simply running the program,- These costs of running

Supported Work have been,Itnlied--bgether bete -under the single category *

. . . .

.

. .t' \_

1 "overhead." Specifically, overhead cost includes salaiies of staff _ .,

.

. . , (other than work project supervisors), office space, supplies, accounting

3./ services, and supportive services.-- Overhead here is thus more t-nha just

. , administrative cost (as is sometimes the case for other programs). Here :_- , overhead includes all slbvperating costs other than participant labor

,-

.

,-,- ....,JOrd.project costs. The Supported Work fiscal system accounts for these

= expenditure categories separately, and data provided from theie accounts

by MDRC were the source of the overhead cost estimates. To enableoomrbarison of overhead cost for programs of different sizes, they have been

put on a per year o4articipant service basis using MIS estimates of the

number and length of enrollments at each site.

4 Table 11.2 shows that there is considerable variation .in overhead

cost across the Supported Work sites. Particularly striking is the re-

-,:

ductiori in overhead cost over time, confirming expectations of both high

start-up costs and economies of scale. In line with ourtia ion to

exclude start-up costs, the average overhead costs for the eight sites

41. /In addition-to these management expenditures, ccsts were also 1

incurred for work-projects that seived the program itself-for exaMple,

.a- project providing janitorial Services for the SupportiOlkizkofficei.

The output produced by such Oiogr'araseviing projects ds an intermediate

input consuied'by the program itself. The litograraManaget thutieces a

choice between using regular staff to perform t4e:programs fUnctioms or

ring participants and thus reduoinglianagement expenditures (but also

reducing the, total value of output produced on ptojectSfOr outside.

customers).The-project'Cost-of-these-Trogram-serving-projects has

been:added-to the ManageFlentexpenditures to obtain-overhead cost:

Theiproject cost ,for progrsm-serying prOje#s wai,eatimated on the

basis of special, studies as described in the'technical report.
Riv.Shell: '10/24/7

'OVERHEAD COST PER YEAR OF pARTIC/PANT.SERVICE, BY YEAR. AND SITE

. . -Firit' tecciricF- . . Third' All

Sit-6%. 'Year ;Year _Year ' Years

A.441,1t4.

-, .

ChicagO_

-:Hartford'

: .

,.. . -Jersey-City

.:, Newark

Oakland

Philadelphia

San Francisco

All Sites.

3,501 .

6,413

3,827

4,801 31,186 . .2,946

7,735 4,860 2,799

7,128 ,4,480 3,239

1 ft

5,984 2,839, 3,363

9,022 4,0 2,257

. 5,255 2, 88 2,405 ,

6:956 3,587

7,257 . 6,404.

6,918

3,734.

3,9f3

4,49

3,539

3,778

2,991

4,241

6,671'

3,014 3,896-

'NOTE: Data are taken from the Supported Work fiscal system combined oper4' ating.,reports and tabulations of data from MIS status change reports.

The d011ar figure's in this and all subsequent tables have been

adjusted' for inflation to the foUrth quarter of 1976, using the GNP 4°'. - . . deflator. ej
S.

adUrin4,thethirdlyee,ir;, $3,014 er -r:ear,ofparticipant service, is used t

.4;**),,,OnchMark,eStiMite.: Since the three- year average was. $3,896, the

- _ implidit.'eStimate-of Startrup,00sts tpepverhead category) is $882:,

r year oipartiCipant service. . C. CENTRAL 'ADNINISTRA,TiVE'`COST;

addition to-the project and oyerhead cots.discussed abbe,

,aLiro#*th like OPpgr*-**kinCurs central administrative costs--the;

costa: of deVeiopingadMinistrative procedures, and of funding, auditing,

end loOnitoring the individual sites. As already'mentiOned, central

administrative costs are usually incurred by the federal government for

p0lic employment 'and training programs,; in the case of the SupPorted-

_....... . . Work demonstration, however, most of,these costs were incurrei by the

: , ' lianpower Demonstration Resea .... , COrpora!5ion. MDRC incurred' expenses . , .'. _ for.luanaging the, field operations,, maintaining the program's fiscal

system and;managemeni information system (MIS),'Ind.supporting the

- evaluation research.

Table"II.3 presentscentralodministrative costs for the first:

three years, broken down .,ca-teg9r4.es : . MDRC central..staff and

overhead;,aubcontracts for the payr011eAccoUntin4, and management inr

fortatign systems; and the subcontracts for the evaluation research. -. Separating the evaluation research cost from other costs, like most .,._ .functional di ggregations of costs, is not arsimple-matterand requires.

numerous assumptions. However, Uain9 _data_supplied.by,M06,..we have_made.. ,

. Such estiMates. iXcluded'from-ceritral ad4nistratiye cost are all of the

isd17.6110c9Iiir'act, that part of the MDRC operations cost devoted to , , , . .

.
.

Aâtüàpenditure

**r0,01.14,-',9isn,40AsE;

Fiscal/MIS ,guboiiikabi47r -

4eCh:.SUbCOnieats91:.

TABIE *14

*T.d4N*41..,'AP!Ii0:iO4#VO'OP0"*FkI4 O PARTICIPANT SERVICE

.-First Year,

1,539 598 ':.469 , 1,521 306 140 .408: 3,901 . 1,884 1,270

6,961 2,788 1,879

1,297

868

" .

#

Second Year Third Year

, 494

175

2,165 . 669 448

379

69

-'4-EicpendftukeSExcluding,Evaluation Research"

:Central: MDRC ,Operations.

-TiScal/MIS-SubC6fitracts

Rese40-Sabcontracts

-All Yeats

. c.

',.--- 676

-,7 4;976

227,

. 0 SOURCE: Actual expenditures from MDRC (1978a), Tables VII-1 and VII-4, for the first and second years; MDRC (1978b),

20, and'supplementary.ddtd supplied byMDRC's Fiscal and Budget Office;

a/

This category includes MDRC staff and over-head'expenses incurred in connection with Supported Work.

b/

Included, in this category are the cosi of subcontract 6 for the payroll, general ledger, and management

information systems.

2/This includes the costs of-the evaluation subcontracts.

0 d/For details of the methods used to estimate evaluation research, see Kemper and Long (forthcoming).

5

.o 320
evaluation-research, and:that:part of the,MIS subcontract devotr: to the

WorkProjectand,iabOrinput data required for the evaluation research.

. 4- An estimate of probable eiraluatiOn research cost of typical program,

.

, based on the average,- evaluation research expenditure for CETA programs--

that is, 6 percent of central administrative cost--has been used instead:

f

As can be seen int,the table, theevaluation research accounted for about

- 75 percent of total central administrative expenditures, leaving an

average over the threesyeara of $786 per year of service.

This, three-year'average still includes start-up cOsts which must

now be excluded. TableII.3 shows that cost fell rather sharply over time

largely, as a resultof increased scale, which.Supports the hypothesis that

start- up cost is important during the early implementation of Supported

Work. Even the third year involved some start -up due to new sites in

New Jersey and WiSconsin. Based on estimates supplied by MDRC of staff

salary costs by administrative function during the third year, we estimate

that $83 of the $448 third year cost was devoted to start -up activities,

yielding a benchmark estin& of central administrative cost of $365 per

year of service. Since, if start -up cost is included, the average for

all years was $786, the implicit estimate of start-up cost is ,$421, just

over half the total.

Thii benchmark estimate of central administratie cost has

required that assumptions be made about evaluation research, start-up,

_and special demoniitation costs. It isuseful, therefore, to compare-

,

, f these est tes with the central administrative costs of established

programs.-

1 One estimate of central administrative cost for an

See Kemper and Long (forthcoming) for the basis for these

estimate*. - 274 .321_

-
. established program can obtained' from the Departrant of Labor's " Employment and Training AdMinistration's cost of managing CETA programs.

An.Teit*Mateofihis:Cost for CETA pUblic service employment was $164 per

yearof'Seriiioa*n fiscal year 1977, lest than half.tbe Supported Work

, . benOhmazk-:estiMate. :Differences in program purposes, op4ations,. and

scale Make this eatiMate,a1Most certiAly on-the-low sidel especially

eindcMany-of the-central administrative functions are performed or

'per**, duplicated .',131r, :local prime sponsors.

A-,program more comparable to Supported Work is Job Corps. The

"ganeta4. administration". category of the Job Corps federal central,

administrative expenditures amounted to $623 per year of service in

fiscal year 1977, about 70 percent above the estimate for,Supported Work.

Job Corps:central management cost may be higher because Job Corps has

substantial physical property and provides extensive tesidential

services, which requires more central monitoring and control.

The extent of central monitoring and management is a potentially

important policy,choice, and the CETA and Job Corps, experiences suggest

.the range ofrcentral administrative cost obser4ed in established federal

,programs. The sensitivity of the overall Supported Work cost estimates

to these aiernative estimates of central administrative cost is tested

later in this chapter.

. D. PARTICIPANT LABOR COST

In addition to the program operating. and central administrative

costs discussed above,'Supported Work pays participants wages and fringe

benefits while they are enrolled. The outlays for wages were estimated

275 322
1

,c

. , ' 4 .. . , 1Dased,Onlinterviews with paitiCipents, and marked up by 12 percent (the

,), , 1;1; .

.

. ,

' ,_. ,. _-. -, -_ , , . .

. avex.P'PVIIP9Fue&Mork rate)VO include fringe benefits. . As the .numbers

:

. ii044161e. Z.4 show, in-pOgraR earnings plus. fringe benefits, per year of

1-...N, serir ".,Waie between-$6ijo0.and$7000. There is relatively little

.,':::-.NAI"'.11' -

...41 . .

' 44±34.4641?; a q r 0.4f 1.-.trtrigeest groups because participant wage rates varied

76

.

, . , - -,-.cisM '3./ only,; "a .paxrpw; range. . ._ .1.<

' -.,,-t .,_-','

. %- sinae artiaijoanta typically stay in Supported Work for less than

1-

participant are less than,the wages for a full year ofenroAlAint. .Table 11.4 shows that participant wages and

4" the anal- figure because they

"-addicts, ex-offenders, and youth were about half

stayed in Supported Work just over; half a'

,yeer on average (6:8,6.0, and 6.8 months, respectively, according to

participant interviews). Program wages per participant for AFDC were

higher because they stayed in Supported Work longer, 9.1 months on the

average.

Unlike program operating, costs, which are costs both to non-

, participants and to society, program outlays,for.participant wages are

rt: costs to nonparticipants but benefits to participants--and, therefore,

cancel out from society's perspective. The cost to society is, rather,

1/NOte 'that participant wages per year of servicecannot be

compared to annual Salaries, because participants do not .work full tune

due *lo .absenCes, inactivations, etc. Recall that a, year of.service

reptsienti.enrollMent tithe, regardless of paid time.)\

2-" / M .

. 7.-J3iy"deSiOn,'Wega.rates vary somewhat across sites (depending on

the:entry level' wage:fOr siO4.lar workers in the. city) and among partici-

*Tip within sites (depending on how long they were in Supported Work

"they

' .
TABLE

PARTICIPANT LABott.COT, BY TARGET GROUP

frirS40.1.: 10/24/79

.., I-..:::;1' s snn .. . ,e.... .1" -.`

(dollars)

AFDC. , lEx-raddicts . Exoffanders Youth

er.-Yearl Servide

inOrOgralta .earnings- plus

tringe.'benefite: 6; 473 6,770 7,274 6,304

;Fore0,04.- ear, plus o fringe:binef its 1,175 2,188 ,232 1,734

.Wet increase to.

..:

:participants

Per: Participant

5, 298 4,582 5,042 4f570

. ... _,.

Tw.prograimearnigns plus

fringe- benefits 4,856 3,777 3,589 3,551

Foregone-earnings plus

fringe benefits

let increase to

879 , 1,219 ... 1,100 974

, participants 3,9,77 2,558 L 2,489" 2,577

.

NOTE: earningplus fringe benefits per participant are the mean

SUpPOrted Work -earnings of the .experimental group, marked up by 12

perCent'for frin4e .benefits And disCounted to'the mid-point -of the

- first 9-Month period at a Percent annual rate. Foregone earnings

participant are.-the ,Mean earnings Of tlie control: group during

.eaCh 3 -month period, multiplied' by the -mean -proportion of the period

that expe4Mentals-were -enrolled in Supported work, summed over the

period and - marked -.up -by-154ereent_fcm_fringf benefits. _The per year

of service estimates were obtained by diViding undiscOunted figures

by the average length of stay (in years) .

n
ti

the foregone output that participants Would,have produced in the absence

program., The earnings plUsfringe benefits of the contrOl:group

is- -under customary, and we believereasonable, assumptions-14-1

appropriate' estimate of the valueof thiS foiegone output, to society.

Theseforegone earnings are estimated to correspond approkinately to

the period participants -spent enrolled in the "program.2/

'. The 'earnings of the control group demonstrate--that Supported:ork

has been unusually successful at targeting the program at disadvantaged,

0 The required assumptions are (1) Firms hire workers up to

the poi'lt where thq.value of the additional output they produce equals.,

,their'kage ratelplus fringe benefits. (2) Firms and organizations

accurately assess and respond to consumer'demand for their output. This

is'espeCialiy important outside the competitive sector3 of the economy

and in public service employment programs.' (See Chapter IV.) (3), There

are no indirect labor market effec* caused bir Supported Work. (This

issue is discussed further inChapter IV.) (4) Illegal income does not

representa cont4bution of national output.

1/Participants leave Supported Work after varying periods of

enrollment so that ,thb "during- program" period differs from participant participant. Obtaining an estimate of what participants would hay&

earned while, enrolled,-in Supported -Work becomes difficult because.thos#

who leave-earlY.,may differ in,What they wqul4 haVe earned frOm those Who

Stair a long time. The average earnings. Of control group weights. the

earnings-of.earlir-andjate leavers equally and riay_nOt be a good estimate

offOregone,,earnings 'fOr-the during- program period, which should weight

late leavers more heavily.- Despitethete'complexities,,we have used the.

average earnings_..Of_contialil-t0=es#Mete4oregoneearnings: TS = - The SpecifidprocedOre'Used-wes to, estimate; for each 3-month . time periOd, the aVeragep*Oportion of that three months that experimintals were enriolledin Supported Work. The, proportion of the control

group eartingshus.arrived-at was then used as the estimate for"foregone:ear-04qt of participants.while enrolled. (The remainder of control

group earningsZwas_assuMectto_be.theamount that those esperimentils who

left the- program Would-have,earnedsnd was subtracted from their mon,.

SOpPorted-Work,earnings to obtain the estimate of the change in pdstprogram-earnings tor that time-period.) Any errors'in the_estimates of

foregone aerningS,resultifig from this procedure for months 1-18 will be

offset -by corresponding errors In.the estimation of post-Program earnings

gains. The-net present Value-estimates are-, therefore, unaffected by

this procedure.
. . . . . . workers: Foregone annudi earnings pllis fringe benefits ranged fromtabout

. . ,-- Y N 0

nogg for i4DC 'to 42,200 for.exraddicts and ex- offenders; With yoUth

e ($1,700) in between. These numbers show c1easly illat.the Supported Wor k

, %-.

participants woad, in.the absence of the Supported Work, have had earned ,

,, .. . incomes thAt are. low by any standard:',It is also interesting to note 'that

the. earnings-of the control grotp rose consistently over time,-a trend

, . that may be the result of improvement in he economy generally or of the

. 6 .

. : . ,. gradual-return to employment of the control, group (who were necessarily

unemployed, at assignr1nt by. virtue of the program eligibility criteria) ,

or both. Like in- program earnings, the forecone,earrengs per participant

a are lower than the annual estimates because of differences in length of

stay:

In-program wages are a:cost to the nonparticipants whoare taxed

to pay for them; _foregone output iva costs to society; and participants

gain the difference between their Supported Work earnings and what they

1

would have earned in its absence. As Table Ii.4 shows, participants . gain Substantially in earned income as a result of beinkj in Suppoited

4

6 4 Work. The difference betweeu the awl. - a.program earnings plus fringe

tenefits of participants and theii foregone earnings is substantial,

ranging from about $4,000 per piiitici.pantoforrAFDC tp about $27500'for"

the.other three groups. (Participantssre,'of course, not made better

by -the. full amount of this earned ihcome because they -lose -welfare

payments and pay taxes.) .

. E. UNMEASURED cotys 'AND INCREASED MILD CARE COSTS

.

,.

. , By limiting the estimate of th:Social coseof participant labor'

to the foregone output from ail work, the analysis ignores foregone

A

279326
;

. -' .. . . . , leieuxe and nonaarke production, such as child . care. and household work.

-,. , -, Fodusing on market outpUi is customary in benefit-cost A..analysis and, to

:. , ; , %

0 the eXtentthat the control group wants to work but cannot find jobs,

the value of the leisuretime may be guitejlow or even negative. One

particularly important output that' is'often not paid for is child care.

For'the ATtic target grouPthe increased cost Of-child care is potentially

large, sd"the increase'in this work-relited expense haS been measured.

The ,differential between experimenals and controls in child

. cars costs is'estimatea on the basis oflinterview and other data. The

cost to participants is their out -of4pocket costs less any reimbursements

fibm welfare agencies.'' The cobsts'of ",free" day care are borne entirely

by nonparticipants--as part of welfare program4.27

The increase in the cost ofohild care as a. result'of Supported

Work was relatively small. This. is no surp.riSing since (a) one eligi-

- bility criterion for the AFDC group was that all children bee, least six

years old (thus presumably in school much of the time).and (b) mast child

.cire was inexpensive "informal" care- -care in the homes of babysitters pr ti relatives--rather than "formal" care--care in organized centers. This

reliance on informil care reduced'the cost.' The difference in total day care

costs betWeen AFDC experimentals and controls during the entire 27 -month

-

11 ' Estimates were based on differentials between the-experimental

and control grodpsim the use of child care reported in participant

interviews. The psrtiCipant interview data, which are used to estimate

nearly all benefits, are described in Chapter III. . :

. . 2/ , These'estimates mere nat available directly from interview

data and had 4,- 'be.imputed as the numbers of months children were in.

formal .day care (frarinterviews) times the national ayerage cost of

formal day care (from published data), .less any payments by participants

for' formal day care (based oreinterViews). See Thornton 'and Long

(forthcoming) for details. . .. 280 '32

0,
S.

period when they wereinteryiewed was about $360, nearfy half of whit}

was borne by participan'ES The differential in chid care costs declined -

over:the period as a result of a decline in the differenCe in employment.

between tlie two groups, until it was only about $30.id the 19-to-27-month

period. A rough estimate of the child care cost differential corresponding,to the period when AFDC PartiCiPants were enrolled in Supported Work

These costs represent only the resource cost of increase child

care. They do not include, ossible developtental costs beciuSe the

children are not caredylfor by their own parents. While little is known

about the effects of nonparental child care on child development,'` this is

another potential cost of putting people, especially AFDC mothers, to work.

For the AFMgroup served by Supported7Work, these unmeasured Costs may

be relatively small because the ageof the children-ensures that child

, care will be limi.ted to the period-after school and vacations. If

Supported Work were expanded and extended to parents with younger

children, however, the cost of care of children by nonparents could

. become far more significant.

In addition to child care, participints face. increases in other

work-related expenses--such as increased transportation, clothing, and

teal costs. TheSeare.costs both to participants and to society. They

are.Probably small compared to other social costs, but they could be

large enough from participants' perspective to affect the work decisioh

Of (-me. Whatever the case, however, no attempt has been made to

'measure therti here.:

281

a
F: SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES

Like all components of

can be"vieWed from the social,

O

the analysis, as we. have stressed, costs

participant, and nonparticipant perspectives.

One additional perspective is sometimes of interest for costs - =that of

- Supported Work's own budget. Although it is a narrower perspectivethan

even the nonpartrdipant perspective, the Suppoited Work budget does

determine the direct government expenditures required to fund Supported

Work. That the same government incurs tn.direct costs (for example,

increased child care subsidies) and gains indirect benefits (for example,

reduced welfare payments) simply underscores the narrowness of this per--

spective and suggests. caution in interpreting the estimate from the

budget perspective. Nonetheless, the Supported Work budget is often

viewed as the price tag for the program. If for no other reason, it is

useful for comparison with the social cost estimates.

Most, but not all, of the costs to nonparticipants are part of

the Supported Work budget.. Projectell overhead, central administrative,3/

and program wage costs all appear in the Supported Work budget, but increased child care does not:-3/

Much in-program output, as noted above,

I

1/A small part of project cost does not appear in the Supported

WOrk_budget. Although this amount is mall enough to ignore for Supported

Work itself, it might not be. so small for other programs, so care should

be taken in making comparisons across programs.

?<Although central administrative costs appear in the Supported

Work budget in the case of thii demonstration, since it is run by MDRC

inatead of the federal government, they might nbt appear in its budget

-under an alternative organizational "structure. Again, care, is required

in comparing with other programs.

3/

--Agelin'under a different program design, child care might be

provided as.a supportive 4ervice and, hence, appear as a'program budget

outlay.

282 . 320

6
-is sold to customers to raise revenue, which becomes part of the local,

matching funds and partially offsets budget outlays. T1e, difference

between the estimated value of.output and the revenue received for the

output is a benefit to Supported Work's customers (who are also non-

. participants).

Table 11.5 summarizes the estimates of costs and value of output

per:yearof service, by perspective. Sepexate estimates of participant

- labor cost by.target group were possible becausi they were based on

individual interviews, data from which can be aggregated by target group.

(These estimates are shown in the table.) For the other components of

cost and for value of output, separate estimates, by target group are much

more difficult to make because the data are collected by projedt or

which have varying mixtures of target groups--rather than by individual.

Sample sizes, in fact, turned out to be inadequate for making reliable

estimates by target group (see Kemper and Long, forthcoming). Consequently, we have used the average for all target groups.

As the table shows, total Supported Work budget outleyk Jere

k

about $14,000 per year of service, about a quarter of which were offset

by revenue from the sale of project output. The net Supported Work budget

expenditures were,'tharefore, estimated to be about $10;000 to $11,000 per

year of service.

Net cost (that is, cost minus value of output) is substantially

lower from the social perspective because the foregone output of participants was below their program wages and because the\value of in-program

output was estimated to be above the revenue received for it. Gross

social cost averaged. ut $9,000 per year of service; about two-thirds

283.
' -;/; s' , .

1.1 TABLE 11.5

gt SUMMARY OF COSTS AND VALUE OF IN-PROGRAM OUTPUT PER YEAR OF SERVICE, BY ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVE

(d011liks)

Participant Labdr Cost

AFDC

Ex-addicts

Exroffenders

Youth

Value of In-Program Output

Social.

ISroject Cost 1/797

Overhead Cost 3,014

Central Administrative Ccst 365

1,175

2,188

2,232'

1,734

Increased Child Care Cost

(AFDC only) 271

Total Cost

AFDC 8,622

Ex-addicts ,9,364

Ex-offenders 9,480

Youth 8,910

-6,018

Cost less Value of Output

AFDC i,604s

Ex-addicts 3,346

- Ex-offenders 3,390

. Youth 2,892

child care is included in the total cost of the:AFDC:group only:

. Participant - Nonparticipant

Supported Work , Outside Supported

Budget Work Budget

0

0)

0

-5,298

-4,582

-5,042

-4,570

115

-5,183

-4,582

-5,042

-4,570

0

3,797

3,014

365

6,473

6,7 70

7,274

le

6,304

0

C 13,649

13,946 -- 14,450 4

48.0,.. -3,298 -2,720

0

0

0

156

:-5,1R3 10,351 -2,564

-4,582 . 10,648, ,, -2,720

-5,042 11,152 -2,720

'-4,570 10482 :4,720

.. 32\,,,

.,

:2./ 11. a

. . /Increased cost of .:_:-,

. . _
of'th41-'was:offset by the estimated value of output so that net social

. cost, per year of service was about $3,00b per year of service.

4. above4,,participants enjoy a substantial benefit (which appears as, a

As discussed

inigati*sdost in the participantcolUin of Table II.5) da a result of

their increased earned.incomes. Finally, some customers benefit dIrectiy

,finey:SUpportedWOrk to the extent that they pay less than the alternative

suppliees,price for project output. ti Theal:/erage cost,per,perticipant was again lower than the annual

cost because participants average less than one year of enrollment.

Table 32.6

$60500 for

Net of the

$1,600 and

.investment

shows that toe gross-tociarcost per participant was about

, the AFDC group and around $50001of the other three groups.'

estimatedvalue of output, social costs were thusbetween

$2,000 per participant. These costs can be viewed as an

made during the period'of enrollmedt to'earn other benefits

both duringand after the program.

G. SENSITIVITY-OF ESTIMATES TO ASSUMPTIONS

While we believe the benchmark estimates are reasonable, a number

of.ielpOrtant. assumptions had to be made in estimating them. Three areas

of uncertainty in particular-SuT:pinded the estimates: (1) the exclusidn

of start -up costs, (2) the estimates of value of output (and the closely

associated project costs), and (3) the estimates of central administrative

costs. In this section:, we show the-effect Of using some alternative

stimatesof these cost components on net cost.

All costs (except participant labor and child care costs)

value of output were estimated per year of service and then,multiplied

r by the average length of stay for each target group to obtain the per

285

.

np

lammuommaira
f"

COST AND VALUE dr IN-PROGAAM odriOtTralARTIgrin FROM SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE,

GROUP-

*1 Id011are)

AFDC Ex-addicts Ex- offender

.

. Youth,

, . PrOjeO.Cos

. -Oterheid.C./ost

Central /Administrative Cost --- Foregone Earnings Plus

Fringe Benefits i InCreased Child Care Cost

Total Cost

.Value of In-Program Output

CoSOess Value of Output

'2,145

2,260

270

'879

204

6,458

4,520

1,938

.

2,117.

1,681

201

1 %219

4 0

. 5,218

3,363

1,855

4

,..

, 1,872

1,487

178

1,100

0

,4,637

2,973

.1,664

, ;2,136

1,697

203

.974

P

. 5,,010

3,394

1,60

1 NOTEi Prbject, overhead, and central. dministrative cost,iand Value o f outm.lt were.cony.it44,:tramApe,r, ot-service,h4ses to a per participant

baSisrby 041tiply4g-thi:i11,06er-Of icnthes,paiticipants- were enrolled

_inc8UpOrted,WbrkdUringA*Ch 9=MOntb period by the per, ,month estimates' (thek.annUaleatis*teerdiVided" by 12) and discounting estimates

to themidPoini*,the:Iirsfperiad-4 5-percent annual rate. . PoregOne earningS:es4Maea-mere obtained from,Table'li.4. For AFDC

the-Ch11dber4vCosia-kiveS4Mate for the period of enrollment citetio.oiok* multiplying the estimate for each 9-month period by the

prOportion ot4me.*Oent-eproilia, summing ,and aiscOnnting.

286

334
*It -PartiCipant.ostimates Since the AFDC target group had the longest

length :otstay, their per-participant estimates will be most sensitive

to changing the estimates of cost and value of outPlt per year of service.

The other target groups had average lengths of stay roughly equal to each

f ,

other, so the sensitivity of results to changes in annual cost and value

of output, estimates will be similar across these three groups. Although

the discussion ,is limited to the social perspective, identical -tanges

will apply to the nonparticipant perspeCtiire as well. (The participant

perspective is unaffected by the changes considered here because

participants neither pay program Costs nor receive projeceoutput.)

Start-up costs. Estimated start-up costs have been excluded 'from

the benchmark estimates on the assumption that they are incurred as part

of the process of establishing an operating program and that the resources

V

used in this process do not have a major effect on program benefits.

Table 11.7 presents estimates of cost and value of output that are based

on averages for all three years and do, therefore, inclUde start-up costs.

The numbers in parentheses are thanges from the benchmark estimates--

that is, the implicit estimate of st Tup costs.

Value of in-program-output is,Ilightly lower when the start-up

period is included,' and costs are 'substantially higher. If start-up

costs are 'included' in all components, the total cost net of value of

output increases by 'about $1,700 per year of service. On a per participant basis, the AFDC net cost increases by about $1,200 and the other

1/The value of output and project cost estimates in Table 11.7

were based on the sample including the first year observations (but

excluding the outlier).

287
,-

TABLE 11.7

.14%26/79

'SOCIAL. COSTS AND'VALUE OF IN- PROGRAM OUTPUT WHEN START-UP COSTS ARE INCLUDED, BY TARGET GROUP

Cost

Per Year

of Service AFDC Ex-Addicts Ex-Offenders

Project Gast .4,113 ,( +316) 3,088( +243) 2,297(+180) 2,032( +160) 2,3190183i

rhead Cost 3,896 ( +882) 2,926( +666) 2,177( +496) 1,925(+438) 2,191( +500)

Ce tral Administrative Cpst 786 ( +421) 594( +296). 442(+241) 391(+213) 446( +243)

.".. ,Participant Labqx

v 1,799 ( 0)a/ 879( 0) 1,219( 0) 1,1 ('0( 0). 974(, 0)

tal Coit ' 10,594 (+1,619) , 7,691 (+1,205)1V 6,135(+917) 5,448(+811) 5,936( ±926)

Value of In-Program Output 5,966 ( -52) 4,475( -45) 3,329( -34) 2,944( -29) 3,360( -34)

Cost 'Less Value of OutpAt 4,628 (+1,567) 3,21r1(+1,312)- 2,8060951Y 2,504(+84).) 2,576(+959)

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses shOw the amount and direction of change from the benchmark estimates given in Tables

11.5 and 11.6 that results from the inclusion of start -up costs.

A/This is an average of all fotir target groups.

P/This includes $204 of increased child care cost, which was only measured for the AFDC group and is

unaffected by these assumptions.

- , 336

33
41t

Y.

-target groups by about $800. Thus, including start-up.costS'increases

the.estimates of net cost by just'over a third of the benchmark.

As, discussed above, the case for including alL start-up costs is

, not strong, but an argument can be made that start -up costs should be

amortized over the life of the Supported Work program and included for some

purposes.. If start-up costs incurred in the program's first three years

111, are amortized over 20 years at a 5 percent discount. rate, total program . costs increase by less than $100 per year of service--a small relative

increase.

Project cost and value of output. As,discussed above, the

estimates of value of in-program output and project costs were based

perforce on a rather small sample of case studies. Since there is quite

a lot of variance across.projects in the resuL:s, the estimates og vhlue

of in-program output are subject to a good deal of uncertainty.

Specifically, the estimates of value of output (net of project cost)

depend on the sample exclusions and reweightings used in calculatinr, the

sample average. In addition, the benchmark assumption that the value of

output to sopiety is equal' to the amount an alternative supplier would

charge to produce the same.output is a debatable one, although'it yields

a reasonable upper bound estimate. As noted.earlier, the revenue actually

paid to Supported Work for' project output is a reasonable lower bound

estimate of society's willingness to pay for the output. The sensitivity

of the benchmark estimates to each of these assumptions is discussed in

turn.-

If the estimates had been based on the. full sample Without re-

:. weighting, cost net of value of output per year.ofservide would have

289_034

0.
been $1,485 higheran increase of about half. While we believe the

,/ -7 exclusions and reweightings are reasonable, a different approaCh might

hAre been taken to. making a benchmark:estimatethat is, to reltsolely

9

. :

on.the random sample (including the outlier) on the grounds thit, although

small, it was deiign

. project hours worked.

- . ed to provide unbiased estimates for the uniArse of

Under

14

this approach, net cost timid have beiin $552

higher than the benchmark, an increase of about a fifth. Finally, if'

revenue hadbbeen used as the estimate.of value of output instead of the

alternative supplier's prici:-then`net cost would haye,-been $2,720 higher,

nearly double the benchmark estimates of net cost. The netcost estimates

are; thus, quite sensitive to the method, of estimatflg value of output

and project .cost.

Centrrl administrative costs. The estimate'of central administrative costs required assumptions about the magnitude of evalLatio

research cost and startup costs. If we-use the estimated federal central <r

P

administrative costs Of the Job Corps and CETA-PS5, programs, the overall

estimates of social and nonparticipant cost pert participant changes Iftir

little - -from about $100 to $200 in either direction. Thus results are

relatively insensitive to changes in the estimates of central administrative costs.

-. -

119 "1.

290

0

r' 41
$.

BENEFITS

oN

. In thebrevious chapter we have examined those elemints of the

accounting framework that directiy.concerirprogram onerlEion: program.

-Ciit.and then value of Ih-programoutput. In this chapter we consider the

:

retaining elements of the accounting framework -the benefits that arise as

I . lazticipants change their bebayiOr as a result of Supported W-rk. Six

tabiliioral categories aze'examined: (1) the increase in output prOduced

by participant's after they leave thesmograir;.(2) the corresponding

0 changes in tax payments; (3) corresponding changes in transfer program

utilization; (4) beilefits arising from reduced criminal activity among

participants; (5) benefits resulting from decreases in drug and alcohol

Use; and (6) net resource savings from decreases in the participants' use

of alternative education and employment programs dUring and possibly after

participation in SupportedWOrk. Each of these is discussed in-turn after

a brief description of the data base underlying the results.

A: DATA UNDERLYING THE BEwiciliAL EFFECRfS ESTIMATES

- All estimates ofthe4ffects of Supported Work are based on-data

collected in periodic interviews. with eXperimentals and controls. Every-

/ one. included in the sample analyzed in this report (and in the four target

)group,outcome reports) was given a baselineilinterview at the time of

enrollment.11 Forthemain sample ,this was followed by two follow-up

1/Hot everyorie in, the original sample received all the interviews

for which they were eligible. Those persons who missed baselinelinterviews were dropped from the analysis:

.
-/

1' ;Anteiyieirs,,one administered nine months after enrollment and'qne 18 _ months after enrollment. A subsample wa;*then administered one additional

1 .

. -interview 27 months after enrollment. A smaller subsample was administered'.

'

. yet

4 angther follow-up interview'36 months after enrollment. The sample.

sizes of these threegroups are given in Table III.1. Data from these

. three interview groups form the basis.of the evaluation. ..

'i _

x

.. , - As can be seen from Table IIZ.1, the sample sizes of those who

were followed for the full 36 months (the 36-month cohorts are small--

and for the AFDC grotip zero. 'Foi this reason, and also because the 36-

month cohort appears to'have behaved'somewhat differently from the other

cohorts throughout the analysis' period, the estimates derived for the

perioe .fter month 27 must be interpreted with care. The basic benefit.

results, therefore, are p*esented for months 1-27. The resuirs'for the

later period are discussed in the target group Chapters when the issue of

extrapolation to future periods is addressed. .

.

. Two otheXasic features of the methodology used 'in the benefitcost analysis should be mentioned turning.to the results. First,

effects are estimated as differences. in mean values between controls and

9

experimentals (or vice versa) for some benefits. The second common

. s

feature-is that in order to adjust for inflation over the period of the

o;&

- demonstration,.1974 to 1978e all values (as was true for the costs and

I

value of output) are expressed in terms of fourth quarter 1976 dollars--

the approximatemidpoint'of the evaluation.

B. INCREASED POST-PROGRAM OUTPUT

A maj.r objective of Supported Work is to increase the output

produced by participants after they leave the program. Such increases

, / 292 3 el ld

_

I
Months since

-enrollment

TABLE 111.1

Rev. Shell: 10/24/79

Il

NUMBER IN SAMPLE; BY TARGET GROUP AND TIME PERIOD:

/ ,Months 1=18-

Months 19-27W

Months 28-36-

,

.

AFDC Ex-addicts Exz-offenders

; Youth .Total

. 974 861 4,665

,' 616 885 1,011 513 3,025

0 311 292 153 756

NOTE: For sake-variables, missing data may-ca Se the,sample sizes tc be

slightly-smaller than shown.

- a/.*

The 18-month sample includes all who completed a baseline, a 9-,

an 18-month interview.

, 1-2/The 27-month

a 27 -moat

/The 36-month

a 36-month interview,

interviews.

sample includes all

whether or not they

sample includesall

whether or not the,

293

who completed a baseline and

completed 9- and 18-month interviews.

who completed a baseline and

completed the intervening

342

e.,
in the production of goOdi and services for the economy as a whole (i.e.,

increases in gross nationalproduct or GNP) are important potential

, benefits to society. They will also be seen. as benefits by-participants

'whip receive the increased wages correspondinci to the increased production,

In addition, increased employment is presumed to affect welfare dependence,

drug abuse, criminal activity, and the use of alternati4e education and

' txaining programs (effects that Will be valued separately in the following sections).

The increase in post-program output due to Supported Work is

the difference between what expeiimentals actually produce after leaving

4

the program and what they would have produced had they not enrolled in

Supported Work. This difference is estimated as the differende between

the average gross compensation of experimentals (i.e., their pretax wages

plus fringe benefits) and that of controls. This requires, first, that

the value Of output can be estimated from earnings. This assumption is

standard in microeconomic analyses of this kind, but will be examined

moreclosely in the chapters that report the target group results

(Chapters IV through VII). It requires, second, that the gross compensation of controls be a good estimate of what experimentals would have

earned in the absence of Supported Work. The design emphasis on random

assignment to the experimental and control groups allows us to make this

second assumption.

Table 111.2 presents the estimates of the net increase in postprogram earnings plus fringe benefits during the first 27 months following

enrollment for the four Supported Work target groups. During; months 19-27, `

when nearly all partipipants had left-Supported Work, the earnings increase

294
Shell: 10/24/79

TABLE 111.2

',INCREASED POST - PROGRAM EARNINGS PLUS FRINGE BENEFITS

(dollars)

Time Period Ex-addicts Ex-offenders Youth

. . Months 1-9 59 -132 129, 58

Months 10-18 -111- 80 -126

Months 19 -27 627 92 106 65

7 Total

(months 1-27) 1,087 -151 315 -3

NOTE::: The increase in post-program earnings is estimated by the mean

non- Supported -Work earnings of experimentals minus the mean earnings of controls, all marked up by 15 percent for fringe benefits.

For months when some experimentals are still enrolled in Supported

Work, mean earnings of controls were multiplied by the mean proportion of the period that participant were not enrolled in

Supported Work.

295

344
4

, . ..due to Supported WOrk'for the AFDC targetOroup was substantial--over

1 $600. For ex-addicts, ex-offenders, and youthi-fid?ever, earnings increases were quite small, indicating that Supported Work had little

effect on their post-iarograriCemployability as measured by-post-program

e arnin gs. 1/

C. INCREASED TAXES PAID BY PARTICIPANTS

.4 As r.larnings of experimentals.rise, so do the taxes they pay.

Participants see this as a cost; but nonparticipants, who are the major .%

° beneficiaries of the increased taxes, see them as a benefit. From the

perspective of society as a whole the benefits and costs to these groups

will cancel out, so tax' payments will not enter the social benefit-cost

calculations.-

Table 111.3 presents estimates of the increased-tax payments for

each of the four target groups. They include tax payments for federal

1/

Problems arise in attempting to estimate phanges in post-program

earnings for the time periods' when many participants are still in

Supported Work, stemming ,from the difficulties of making valid comparisons between a subgroup of experimentals (those who have left the program)

and the entire control group. This means that the estimates for` months.

1-18 are not as reliable as. those for the later period. The mirror ittlaice

of this problem was confronted in estimating foregone earningi fOr the

"in-program" period. As discussed In Chapter II, the Specific proceaure

used was to estimate, for each'3-month period, the.average proportion of

the three months that experimentals we_e enrolled in Supported Work. That

proportion of the control group earnings was used as the estimate for

foregone earnings cf participants. while enrolled. The remainder of

control group earnings Ilas assumed to be the amount that thoSe experimentals, who left the program would have earned; it was subtracted. from

their non-Supported-Work earnings to obtain the estimate of the change

in pojt- program earnings for that time,period.. Any errors in the estimates of post-program earnings gains resulting from this procedure for

months 1-18 will be offset by corresponding errors in the estimates of

foregone earnings. The net present value estimates are therefore unaffected by this procedure.

296 34
Shell: _16/24/79,

TA04 111.3'

INCREASED"TAX PAYMENTS PER PARTICIPANT

(dollars)

Time Period

Months 1-9

Months" 10-18 . Months.19-27

Total (Months 1-27) .

APDC ix-addicts Ex-offenders Youth'

343 233 408 265

139 27 . , 95 . 28

83 33 50 8

565 , 293 553 301

NOTE: These figures have been discounted to the midpoint of the first

9-month period at a 5 percent annual rate.

29734 6
V

.

t

. . and .state income iaxes,'socialsecurity payroll taxes, and tales and

-exOlie taxes: Taxes hal:me:been imputed on the basis of statutory tax

incidande (by state of r'é.4enc. where appropriate) and average con=

lb

suiption patterns'. They take into'account not only total income but also

household size, relevant :tax rates and regulations, and national data on

-a 2hOUsehold expenditures by income class.

The total increase in taxes paid by participants was substantially

larger for months 1-9 than for the later periods. This follows the pattern

of,participart inComes, which" were highest during the first period when

most participants in, the demonitration were earning program wages. In

later periQds income fell as participants let"- the demonstration, Taxes

paid by AFDC participants increased the most; we estimate that they paid

a total of $565 per participant-more than AFDC controls over the whole

27-month period. Ex-offeiiders had the second largest increase, $553 per

l'Articipant, white ex-addicts and youth had similar increases (around

$300). Most of these tax increases were due to increased payments for

the federal income tax and the social security payroll tax.

D. REDUCED USE OF TRANSFER PROGRAMS

The benefit-cost analysis divided the benefits from reduced use

of transfer programs by participants into two components: the reductions

in the dollar value of transfer payments to participants and the reduction in the administrative costs of transfer programs. Nine types of

transfer programs were assesse pse included five programs providing

direct cash-transfersAid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),

general assistance (GA), unemployment compensation, Social Security, and

298,
,

2444-mental Security Zncome (SST); three programs providing in-kind

-tranifera-4qed stamps, public housing, and Medicaid; and other welfare,/ , ,. CS4gOrk which includes' cash transfers from miscellaneous small programs

.gua-those cases where individuals reported receiving cash trisfers

(probablk from AFDC or general assistance) but were unable to s y'froin

'which -specific program the'payments came:

1. lteldUce&liadifer-Osyments

4 For participants, the net reduction in average transfer payments

represented one of the major costs of participating in Supported Mork;

In fact,,for the AFDC target group it was (on average) the largest cost,

even largeithan the foregone earnings. For the other target groups,

the reductions in transfers were smaller and represented less of a cost

to them. For nonparticipants, the reductions represented a benefitAn

the form of a. lower tax bill. From the social perspective, the gains and

losses brought about by-the change in transfers again cancel out. Thus,

as with taxes paid, the changes in transfers are relevant for evaluating

the distributional consequences of Supported Work but t its social

efficiency.

Self-reports of transfer payminia received by respondents .11

(obtained from the. interviews) were used to estimate the changes in

payments to participants from the cash transfer programs.. To estimate

changes in in-kind transfer programs, and changes in other household

members' use of cash welfare programs, howevei, it was necessary to use

imputation procedural. These imputation procedures invollred estimating

changes in program utilization obtained from the interviews. and valuing
-these changes using published data regarding average benefit amounts.1(

Where possible, account was taken of major household characteristics

atfecting program eligibility and payments levels.

.The,estimated reductions in the average transfer payments-'

1 received by participants are stioWn in Table 111:4. Aimentioned, they

indicatethat all target groups had an overall .reduction in transfer

payments. The differences in the magnitUde of these iuctionb reflect

the differences in the extent to which the various target groupsyere

eligible for and would have participated in the transfer programs The

AFDC group had the highest initial level of transfer use and, correspondingly, showed the largest reduction (over $2,600 per participant).

The other groups had lower initial levels of use and, therefore, the

reductions were smaller. The estimated reductions total transfer

payments per participant to the three non-AFDC groups were $530 for exaddicts, $219 for ex-offenders, and $474 for youth.

The largest paymeneteductions over the period involved the cash

transfer programs--AFDC, general assistance, and other welfare--although

'In the case of food stamps, an estimate of the total bonus value

(the difference between what the stamps were worth andwhat the household

paid for them) was medeon the basis of self-reports of the amount re-

- ceived. For those respondents who reported receiving food stamps but

could not specify the amount, an estimate was made based on data on months

receiving food stamps, household size, and income. For public hoUsing

the imputation was based on the difference between published estimates of

average market values of the Musing units and the actual rent paid by the

household: The value of the Medicaid transfer was computed using reported doctor visits and hospitalizations that were covered by Medicaid

and estimates of the national average costs of doctor.and hospital care.

To estimate other household members'_ receipt of cash transfers we used

estimates (based on, ihterview data) of the number of months other household members received payMents from each prograM: These estimates were , then multiplied by the average benefit levels of the various programs in

order to obtain estimates of the value of the change in transfers.

300

. 3 49

;
. She11.10/23/79

TABLE 111.4

CObi1R0L-EXPERIMENTAL DIFFERENTIALS IN TRANSFER PAYMENTS PER PARTICIPANT

FOR MONTHS 1-27, SY"TARGET GROUP

(dollars)

'AFDC Ex-addicts Ex-offenders Youth

V Ann - 2,072 274 102 , 129

0

General Assistance (GA)

SSI . Other' Welfare

.Unemployment

Compensation

Social Security

Medicaid

Food Stamps

Public Housing Subsidy

-AFDC to Other

nouSehold Members

GA to Other

Household Members

'Other Welfare to

Other Household

Members

Total (Months 1-27)

10 218 120 130

-30 , 23 -8 1

15 1 25 29

-280 -188 -47 -146

56 41 -3 : 4

301 127 -57 34

406 72 '51 31

24 -1 6 20

37 -69 22 213

3 28 19 -15

1 3 -11 45

2,615 530 22.9 474

. NOTE: These figures are discounted to the midpoint of the first 9-month

period at a 5 percent annual rate.

350

301.
CL

the APDC group also lost a substantial amount of Medicaid and food stamps.

Again, the reduCtions were greatest for the AFDC target group and smaller

for the other groups. It is interesting to note that'the reductions in

AFDC are very similar to reductions in general assistance payments for

all groups except AFDC, for whom effects on general assistance are minimal.

The effect of Supported Work on the receipt of AFDC and general assistance

by other household-ijelibers was mixed, with thelargest-effects-being for

AFDC payments to other household members for the youth group.

The remaining reductiOns were concentrated in the in-kind transfer

programs - -food Stamps, Medicaid, and public housing. Changes in receipt

of Social Security and SSI were small and varied in magnitude and sign.

The only major exception to the overall pattern of reduction in

transfers received was unemployment compensation, which increased for all

target groups. In months 1-9, experiMentals had lower average unemployment

compensation payments. However, their employment in Supported Work during

that period made some participants eligible for such compensation in latei

periods (regular Unemployment Insurance in New York and Special Unemployment Assistance in tile other sites) and caused average unemployment

compensation to rise in the later periods -for_all target groups.

2. Transfer Program Administrative Costs

While reductions in transfer payments do not enter the social

benefit-cost calculation, the associated changes in transfer program

administrative costs do. Any effect of Supported Work on resource use must

be included in the accounting from the social perspective, and any change

in the amount of resources needed to run the transfer programs is included

in this category.

302
4.

; i -

For each o the cash transfer ,programs and also for food, stamps,

the average change,Ln administrative colt per participant was computed

by multiplying the average change in the number of months paqicipants

received transfers by the average administrative cost per case month.

The data on transfer program use came from self-reports gathered in the

6interviews; while the average cost data were'obtained froit federal

t

government budget data.

tn the.case,of public housing, the same procedure, was followed

with ode exception. Estimates of average administrative costs were

obtained from a study of the housing assistance supply experiment (Lowry,

1978). This procedure was followed because it,was necessary to use,an

estimate of averac' administrative costs that included only'the costs of

providing the transfer, note the costs of managing the public housing

units (which are included in the value of the public housing transfers

presented in Table /11.4).

The administrative costs of Medicaid were measured using Medicaid

budget data to estimate the ratio of total administrative costs to total

benefit payments, which was then multiplied by the estimated Medicaid

transfers received by sample members.

The pattern of the estimated administrative cost savingsdue to

the reductions in transfer prOg-rim participation among supported workers

is shown in Table 1/1.5. The AFDC target -group'generated the largest

reduction in transfer program administrative cost ($137), followed by

-youth ($78), ex-addicts ($4', and ex-offenders ($41).

303352
alb

. . SHELL: 10/24/79

TABLE III S. CONTROL-EXPUIMENTAL DIFFERENTIALS ibMINSTRATIVECOSTS OF

TRANSFER PROGRAMS PER PARTICIPANT FOR MONTHS 1-27, BY TARGET GROUP - (dollars)

General Assistance (GA)

SS!

Other ,Welfare

Ex-addicts Ex-offenders fouth

23 11 12

0 29 16 16

0 2 -2 2

1 .4 . 5 5'

. -35, -17 -4 -14

1 1 0 0

-3 1

42 7 5 8

7 r , 10 ao

4. -8 3. 25

. 0 3 2 r2

0 0 -1 5

,.. -:... 137 47 41 78

Unempiayment---

_ Compensation

., Social Security

Medidaid 14

Food Stamps.

Public Housing Subsidy

AFDC to Other

Household Members

GA to Other

Household Members

Other .Welfare to

Other',Household

Members

) .

, .0 ) Total'(Months 1-27

fe

These figures are discounted to the midpoint of the first 9-month

. period-St-a-5-percent annual rate.

3 5 . dad--
E. REDUCED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

The methodology.used to value tht effect of Supported Work on'

_17

patiCipant criminal activity takes the' estimated reducUoLs in

. multiplies them by the'eStimated social value of such reductions. 1/ This

procedure is done for several different types of crime so that changes in

both the overall' level and the mix of criminal activity. can be assessed.

The estimates of crime reductions'are based'on estimates of the control-.

experimental differences in average number of arrests. The estimates pf'

'the social value of crime reduttions- are based on the value of the re- 4

, sources society saves when crimes are not committed -- spec ifically, the

resources saved from redu-ced costs of-the criminal justice system (police,

prosecution, courts, and corrections), reduced personal injury and property

damage, and reduced stolen property. Society's demand for crime reduction

(i.e., its willingness to pay) isnot directly measured by this procedure,

an issue discussed later in this section.

The resource savings from reduced personal injury, property

damage, and criminal justice system costs will be benefits to society and

to nonparticipants, but will not affect partcipants.2/ The reduced value

of stolen,property will also be a benefit to nonparticipants and society,

1 t

'This This procedure assumes that other criminals do not change their

behavior in response to the reduction ogrcrime among program participants

(they ao not "replace" participants in the criminal activities that

participants forego). That is, the reduction in criminal activity among

participants is assumed not to make it significantly more profitable.foi

other persons to enter into illegal activities and replace the, participants.

?Because some participants would be expected to be 'victims of

-Crime, some Of.the reduction in victims' losses should be counted,as a

benefit to-participants. This gain is, likely to be very small, however,

,because relative to total population-the_number of participants is small.

The entire savings is therefore treated, for analytical purposes, as a c. gain to,nonparticipants4

305

3:5

4

'
-.

. J

, , ' ..0, but less so to 'society to the extent that gains to nonparticipants are

1

. . . offset by lossesto the participants' who rio longer receive the stolen

; 1., ,- property. Thus, the social benefit will consist of the differiticebetween

t

thNnonparticipant benefit and, the cost to participants. This difference

O is due primailly to fencing costs, damage to the stolen property, and the e,

lass in value because stolen property does not carry a legal title.

1. Measuring Criminal Activity, . \ . -0 The first step in valuing the reductionin criminal activity is

, .. to measure that reduction.

1/ However, it is difficUlt to obtain accurate

measures of an individual s criminal activity because people engaged in

such'activiti have an incentive to hide their actions. To get around, this

problem we used self-reports of arrests as't.he basis of Our measure of

1 aiminal'activity.2( Arrests are typidally well-defined events, sothe

interview respondents should have a clear understanding of what they were

being asked to report. Also, of4cial records are kept of arrests so that

0 1/Critminal activity interview questiond were not asked of Menibeis

of the AFDC target group because of a prior assumption that there would

be negligible crime-related effects associated with the AFDC group.' As

a result, ofily the ex-addicts, ex-offenders, add youth target groups are

includedin the benefit-ottet crime analysis.

-1(One.a1t:znative proxy measure that was not used was convictions

for crimes. Third measure would reduce the problems associated with arrests

of individuils for crimes they did not commit. However, it'has other'

serious shortcomings. Because of plea.bargaining and problems with evidence,.the charge on which a-person is convicted may not reflect the

seriousness of the crime actually committed: More imaortan4ly, because

the evaluation's observation period is finite the use of judicial outcomes

(such as conviction) to measnre short-run changed in criminal activity

may fail to capture a prograd's effect on the more serious crimes because

' arrests for.these crimes often takesa long time to adjudicate fully.

Moreover, so long as the ratio ofcOnvictions.to arrests is not changed

by participation in Supported Work, 'both measures will.gile equally

good measures of crime benefits.

306 ',355
0

verifidation studies can be made, and their results used to adjust for

:mderreporting. Such averification study was conducted for a subsample

of experimentals and controls at the Hartford, Oakland, and San Francisco -1

sites (SChoret Maynard, Piliavin, 1979). Itfound evidence of substantial

underreporting,by experimentals and controls, but essentially.no sig ificant difference. in the extent of underreporting between the two groups.

The estimate of the ratio of officially recorded.arrests to self-reportdd

arrests derived from this studys'approximately 1.7: The estimate of

control- experimental arrest differentials is, therefore, multiplied by

tpis ratio so that the estimated benefit is based on corrected estimates

okthe arrest differentials."(

We also corrected for the fact that many crimes do not result, in

arrests. This was done by-using data from victimization studies ,. where

appropriate, to adjust the estimates of social cost per criminal,incident

to a per arrest`basis. The adjustment involves multiplying the per-

.. incident,estimates by the ratio of criminal incidents to arrests for each

of the eight arrest categories. The result will be an accurate estimate

of the effects of Supported Work on criminal activity as long as the -true

ratio of incidents to arrests is relatiVely constant and independent of

participation in Supported Work.

The interview data were aggregated into eight crime citegoriei--

murder and felonious assault, robbery, buiglary, larceny and motor vehicle

theft, drug law violations, other personal crimes, other miscellaneous

1/The effect of dropping the underreporting correction is examined

later ifi this section.
I

asi

crimes, and an unspecified category for those.caseswhere specific charges

were not obtained. This aggregation was done on the basis of the most

ser46us charge reported for.each arrest, estimated on the basis of resource

costs and measures of social concern regarding the charge (e.g.; the

a Sellimlolfgang (1974] index).*

The estimated arrest differentials (adjusted for underreporting)

are reported in Tables II1.8 through 111.8. The largett effects were

found for the ex- addict target .roue. Not only did this group appear to

reduce its overall level of criminal a1ivity (compared-to what it woul4

have been in the absence of Supported Work), but it also shifted away from

the more serious crimes, particularly robbery, burglary and drug law

violations. The changes in total arrests and in the mix of crimes were

,much smaller for the ex-offender and youth target groups, and not

statistically significant.--1/

As we will see, differences in these crime results explain much

of the difference in the final benefit -cost estimates of these three

target groups. The large reductions in arrests for ex-addicts generated

substantial h.znefits and lead us to conclude that the demonstration was

a success for this group. For youth theabsence of any real crime

benefits (in addition to the lack of post7program earnings effects)

results in a negative assessment of the progrdm for them. In the case

of ex-offenders, the absence of any clear-cut crime effects lies at the

t heart of the uncertainty regarding: Supported Work's effectiveness for-

, that group. a

1/See Piliavin and Gartner (1979) and Maynard (1979).

0 -

308 t...0
.

. .. ---' :.P_

,,,itv-1-2,--- :-', . -

. ,,

i;.. -- ; . Shell: 10/24/79 '?..

-9-, .7.:., ',',; ' "'-`,...!

(-:- 04 1

:1

--i S

W

. ..

.4 0 t'i

TABLE 111.6

.

., ,:J. CONTROL-EXPERIMENTAL DIFFERENTIALS IN ARRESTS PER PARTICIPANT, A

-, BY MOST SERIOUS CHARGE AND TIME PERIOD Li- EX-ADDICT SAMPLE 0 . . ,

, Months

1-9

Months

10-18

Months

19-27

Months

1-27

4 Murder and Felonious Assault -0.012 .0.022 -0.009 0.001

Robbery , 9.066 0.022 -0.008'. 0:680

Burglary . . 0.021

. 0.031 0.027 0.079

.

.- Larceny. and Motor VehiCle Theft -0.014 .-0.907 -0.020 -0.041

.. Drug Law Violations

. d.000 0.037. 0..043. 0.080

Other Personal Crimes -0.002 -0.002 0.000 -0.004

. Other Miscellaneouls Crimes .-0.047 0.016 0.024 -0.007

Unspecified Crimes- -0.009 -0.016 , 0.001 ' -0.024 . ! Total Arrests 0.003 0.103 0.058 0.164

a/

Arrests for which charges were not reported are classified as

unspecified.

G

47.

35S

309

0 ,4
TABLE 111.7

CONTROL-EXPERIMENTAL DIFFERENTIALS IN ARRESTS PER PARTICIPANT,

BY MOST SERIOUS CHARGE AND TIME PERIOD

EX-OFFENDER SAMPLE

Months

1-9

Months

10-18

Months

19 -27

Months'.

1-27

Murder and Felonious Assault

.. . -0.036 o.Oos 0.017 , -0.011

Robbery 0.001 0.013 '-0.019- -0.005

Burglary 0.014 -0.021 -0.026 -0.033

Larceny and Motor Vehicle Theft -0.010 -0.058 ' -0.034 -0.102

Drug Law Violati6ns -0.022 0.003 -0.008 -0.027

Other Personal Crimes 0.027 . -0.012 0.020 . 0.035

Other Miicellaneous Crimes . 0'.054. -0.020 -0.002 0.032

0 a/

Unspecified Crimes":- 0.024 0.025 -0.114 -0.065

Total Arrests 0.052 -0.062 -0.166 -0.176

a/

Arrests for which charges were not reportedare classified as

unsnecified.

. 31.0

r- es, ..$tj

a
TABLE TIT.8

SHELL: 10/25/79

CONTROL-EXPERIMENTAL DIFFERENTIALS IN_ ARRESTS PER PARTICIPANT,

BY MOST SERIOUS .CHARGE AND: TIME PERIOD

'YOUTH SAMPLE

1T9

Months

10-18

Months

19-27

Months

1-27

'Murder and Felonious Assault

. -0.001 0.001 170.024 -0.024 -

-Robbery . 0.018 :" 0.004 0.014 0.036

; Burglary 0.015 -0.003 0.002 0.014

LarOenv and Motor Vehicle Theft. -0.026 : --0.043 0.044 -0.025

g

, Drug Law Violations -0.021 0.005 '-0.015 -0.031

Other Personal Crimes -0.012 ,0.013 0.018 0.019

. . Other Miscellanebus 0.023 -0.015 0.027 0.035

Unspecified 'Crimes5

-0.055 0.009 , 0.025 -0.021

Totai rests -0.059 -0.029 0.091 0.003.

.a /Arrests for which charges were not .eported are classified as

unspecified.

Il

311 300
2. Valuing., Changes in Criminal Activity

. . Toestima the Value of changes in - criminal justice system costs,

.-, personal. injury an propertY damage, and stolen property, these differences,

'in mean number of arrests per participant were multiplied by estimates of

the cost per arrest for the different types of crime. The estimates of

cost per arrest are described in thii section and the estimated values of

the Supported Work crime, benefits are discussed in the following section.

Reduced criminal justice System costs. The largest measured

Component of the'resource savings from reduced crime is the savings to the

criminal justice system. The costs A apprehending, adjudicating,'and

incarcerating criminali are substantial, 'as is shown by the estimated

average coats per arrest shown in the first column of Table 111.9.1/

Therefore, even relatively small reductions in arrests can yield

substantial social benefits, especially for murder and felonious assault,

robbery, and burglary. Thus, reductions in arrests for serious crimes,

as was observed for ex-addicts, generate large benefits.

1/The,' costs-were derived frdm a study of justice system costs

in Baltimore, Maryland-(Lettre and Syntai71.376). This study broke down

total system costs by ^ajor subsystem -- police, detention, district court

(for preliminary hearings and misdemeanors), Supreme Court bench (appeals

and felonies), and correctionsr-as well as by crime type. Because the

study also included data on the number of people-arrested' for each crime

type, it was posiible to estimate average cysts per arrest for the different crime categories. The average cost of an unspacified"arrest was.

taken to be the weighted average cost for all arrests. While the Baltimore

data iirobably reflect the relative costs of the different arrest charges,

they may be inaccurate for nationwide studies because they were obtained

froma single jurisdiction. Therefore..., national cost estimates regarding

the average cost of an arrest were'used to'adjust all the Baltimore

figures. This adjustment also incorporated a factor to correct for

inflat.on between 1974 (the year of the Lettre and Syntax data) and the

fourth quarter of 1976.

4 312 36
F! TABLE 111.9

AVERAGE SOCIAL COST OF CRIME PER ARREST

(dollars)

(4

Drug Law

Violations

Murcler and Felonious

Assault

Robbery

Burglary

Larceny and Motor

Vehicle Theft

Other. Personal

e Other Miscellaneous

Crimes

Unspecified Crimes2/

O

Criminal Justice

S stem Costs

Personal Injury anda/

Property Damage Costs

Stolen Property,

Resource Costs

Total Cost

Per Arrest

4,338 7,782 0 12,120

12,087 569 479 13,135

5,895 2,317 8,479

2,618 408 1,268 . 4,294.

2,.590 0 0 2,590

756 94 0 850

919 0 0 91,9

2;048 171 348 2.567

a/-"The drug law violations and other miscellaneous crimes categories contain primarily "victimless" crimes. This

implies direct losses to victims are small; hence a value of zero is assumed.

b/Stolen property social costs, estimated only for property crimes, are estimated as a fraction (65 percent) of

the average value of property stolen per arrest.

2/The unspecified crimes category contains arrests for which no charge was recorded. Costs for this category'

are estimated as the weighted average of the costs Of the other crime categories.

362
Reduced personal injury and property damage. The second measured

component of the benefits from reduction in crime is the resource savings

from reductions in the amount of crime-related personal injury and property

damage. Using data from the National_Crimg-Panel-SUrVey program and other

sources, we were able to obtain estimates of (1) the average value of

property damage from criminal acts, (2) the average value of the medical

care needed by victims of personal crimes, (3) the average output lost

when victims lose time from work while they are recovering from personal

crimes, and (4) the average costs of the administration of insurance

needed to compensate victimsji

Cost estimates were again made for each crime type-so that changes

in both the level and composition of criminal activity could be-valued.

In addition, the cost estimates were adjusted to reflect the number of

incidents per arrest for each type of crime. _Thus, the value placed on

the different arrest types reflects the expected resource savings generated

by a reduction in one arrest of that type. These values are shown in

second column of Table 111.9.

Reduced stolen property. Estimates o

O

gage value of

property stolen per incident were made g- a methodology similar to that

used to obtain the personal in) d property damage estimates. They

reflect victims' self-re of the market value of goods stolen and not

recovered (as. with other crime victimization estimates, these were

taken from the tional Crime Survey data base). The per-incident values

1 e would like to thank Wesley G. Skogan for his help in obtaining and nterpreting the necessary estimates from the victimizationincide data gathered as part of the National Crime Panel program.
CV

":4

s't were adjusted to a per arrest basis by multiplying thl ratio of incidents

to arrests for each crime type. Thus, we were able to estimate the value

4 of the expected property loss per arrest for the property crimes--robbery,

lurglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft (with some allowance for the

presence of these types of crimes in the unspecified arrest category).

The expected loss estimates are shown in the first column of Table 111.10.

The distributional consequences generated by changes in the amount

of property stolen by participants are more complicated than those of

other crime-related effects. Nonparticipants view ,areduction in stolen

property as a benefit (because the goods are n/longer stolen from them),

while participants view it as a,cost (because they no longer receive the

stolen godds). However, the benefits to nonparticipants are unlikely to

equal the cost to participants. For example, if thieves try to convert

stolen goods into cash, they will be able to realize, on average, only

about 35 percent of the goods' value to the victims of theft (see Drug

Enforcement Admihistration, 1977). Furthermore, as we have already

mentioned, there may be a decline in the social value of the goods because

(1) the goods may be damaged; (2) the thief (and whoever else ultimately

receives the stolen property) does not have legal title to it; and (3)

resources (labor and materials) are used up in fencing and related

activities associated with selling stolen property. These factors imply

that the social cost of stolen property can be approximated by the

differences in the value of the"goods before and after they have been

stolen (i.e., the difference between their value to the nonparticipants

and to the participants). The distributional implications of the changes

in stolen property are shown in Table 111.10. The final column presents

315 3 6 5-
I

SHELL: 10/26/79

4

TABLE III . 10

VALUE OF STOLEN PROPERTY PER ARREST

(dollars)

Expected Value

of Property

Loss to Victim

Expected Value

of Property

to Criminal

Net Social

Loss . E' Robbery 738 2-59 479

Burglary 3,564 1,247 2,,317 , Larceny and Motor

Vehicle Theft 1,951 683 1,268

Unspecified Crime2/ 536 188 348

Ft ) a/ 'T .1

The unspedified crime category contains arrests for which no charge was

recorded. Costs for this category are estimated as the weighted average Of the

costs of the, other crime categories.
the net cost per-arrest to society while the middle columh presents the

cost per arrest to, the thief.

3. The Resulting Estimates

The estimated values -of-the crime-related changes generated by

Supported Work from ,the social perspective are presented in Tables III.11

through 111.13: 'As was mentioned, the large reductions in arrests for - ex-addicts translated into large social benefits. In particular, the

reductions in robbery and burglary arrests combined with the high costs of

these crimes lead to resource savings worth over 4,700 per participant

during months 1-27. For the other crime types there was a small social

'cost (resulting from ,slight increases in larceny). Thus, when all crime

types were considered we estimated that Supported Work induced crime'

, reductions,among ex-addidts that were worth $1,678 per participant

during months 1-27.

For ex-offenders, there was an estimated increase in the social

cost of crime of $1,C47 per participant daring the same period. This is

due to increases in the number of burglary and larceny arrests. Because

this result is not statistically significant, however, although unbiased,

it must be interpreted with caution.

For youth, the results mirror the fact that we found no program

effect oh the criminal behavior of this groUp. The estimated social

valueof the slight decrease in arrests during months 1-27 was about $100

per participant (the reductions in robbery and burglary being offset by

the increase in 'felonious assaults). Again, these results are not

statistically significant.

317

3 "

44t

It
TABLE III.11

PRESENT VALUE OF CRIME RELATED NET $30CIAL BENEFITS OF'SUPPORTED WORK, MONTHS 1-27

EX-ADDICT SAMPLE

(dollars)

Criminal J Atice

System Benefits

Murder and Felonious

a

Personal Injury

and Property a/ Stolen Property Total Discounted

Damagelenefits Benefitel Benefit

Total Benefits'

Assault. 4 7

sct

. 0 11,

Larceny and Motor

Burglary -

,

, 745 . 448 '41 176 665

38 1,047 Robbery 964

' Vehicle Theft . -103 -16 -50 -169

, Drug Law Violations 196

. ,. Y 0 . 0 196

Other Personal

,Crimes ! 3 0 0 -3

Other Miscellaneous

Crimes -9 0 cl-', -9

Unspecified Crimes , -48 -8 -60

1,449 72 156 1,678

NOTE: These figures arediscounted to the midpoint of the first 9 -month period at a 5 percent annual rate. .

. . a/ . -

. : The drug law,violations and other miscellaneous:brimes categories contain primarily "victimless",crimes.

This implies direct-losses to victimsare small; hencea value of zero is assumed.

b/

Stolen property social costs, estimated only fbr property crimes, ,, . are estimated as a fraction (65 percent)

of theaverage value of property stolen per arrest. . c/ , . ,

, The unspecified crimes category contains arrests for which no charge was recorded. Costs for this

category are estimated as the weighted avera6 of the costs of the other crime categories. .369
1 TABLE 111.12

PRESENT VALUE OF CRIME RELATED NET SOCIAL BENEFITS OF SUPPORTED WORK, MONTHS 1727

EX-OFFENDER SAMPLE

(dol...ars)

Personal Injury

Criminal Justice

System Benefits

and Property a/

Damage Benefits--

Stolen Property

Benefits!!!

Total Discounted

__Benefit

Murder andTelonious

,f Assault , -54 -97 0 -151

Robbeiy -. -50 -2 -2 -54

Burgl ary -179 -16 -70 -265

Larceny and Motor

'Vehicle Theft -255 -. -40 -124 -419

Driig.;Law ViOlations -69 . 0 0 ,-69

Other Personal

,2i- .Crimes . 26 3 0 29

`P Other - Miscellaneous

Crimes -g 130 0 0 30

_Unspecified Crimesc/

ti .-118

r

<, -10 -20 -148

Total Benefits -670 -162 -216 -1,047

NOTE: These figures are discounted to the midpoint of the first 9-month period at a ::. perCent annual rate.

aiThe drug law violations and other miscellaneous crimes categories contain primarily "victimless" crimes.

This implies direct losses to victims are small; hence a value of zero it assumed.

b/ Stolen property social costs, estimated only for property crimes, are estimated as a fraction (65 percent)

of the average value of property stolen per arrest. , c/The unspecified crimes category contains arrests for which no charge was recorded. Costs for tfiis

category are estimated as the weighted average of the costs of the other crime categories.

re 371:
: 10/25/79

TABLE 111.13

PRESENT VALUE OF CRIME RETATED.NET SOCIAL BENEFITS OF /SUPPORTED WORK, MONTHS 1-27

YOUTH SAMPLE

(dollars)

Personal Injury

I

,

to

'A-,.

Criminal Justice'

System Benefits

and Property

a/ Damage Benefits-

'Stolen Property

. Benfits±1

Total Discounted

Benefit

, Murdeand Felonious

Assault

Robbery

Burglary . Larceny and Motor

-Vehicle Theft

Drug Law Violations

Other Personal

Crimes

Other Miscellaneous

. e, Crimes

'c/ Unspecified Crimes-.. Total Benefits

.

.

le

1

4

,,. .

...

-97

421

82

-70

-78 - ._ 13

31

-47.

4.-- ) 256

'"

-174

20

7

-11

0

2

0

-4

-160,

'

'

.

0

17

32

-34

0

-0,

0

-8

7

-271

458

. 121

-115

.- -78

, 15

31

-59

. 10'2

.

. NOTE: These figures are iscbunted to the midpoint of telfirst 9-month period at a45 percent .annual rate.

a/

. - . _ . .)

.

. . .-

, . .

. The drug law violations and other miscellaneous crimes categories contain primarily "victimless crimes. This implies-direction losses to victims re

. small; hence avalue of . zero is assumed. .

. b/ ,A ) Stolen property social casts, estimat ..* only for property crimes, are,estimated .a, a fractibn. (65 percent) of the. average value of property stolea per arrest.

/

The unspecified crimes 720

c category contains arrests for which no charge was recorded. Costs or this 373. ,

.

.

. . category are estimated as the weighted average of the coats of the other crime categories.

A_____ .......

-..
_. . .1

. The benefits to nonparticipants are the same as thoSe for society

as a ighole, except" for the changes in stolen property, the distributional.

consequences of which are showpkin,lable 111.14. The nonparticipant perspective shows the total value of the change in stolen property per

participant, the participant. column reflects our assumption that participants would convert stolen property into cash at a 35 percent rate, and

the social column repeats the totals shown 'for stolen property'in

Tablas 11 through 111.13.

4. Society's'Willingness-to Pay for Reductions in Crime

Ideally, .by the same logic as was used in the value of output

. .../ t discussion, the value of crime reductions from the social perspective

' should be measured by the amount society would be willing to pay to bring

those reductions about rather than by the resource cost savings achie;.red

(which is the method we have used). Although emp;krical estimation of

social willingness to pay is not feasible, a brief discussion of how it

might be measured is useful in interpreting the resource cost savings

estimates actually used.

If political and economic processes functioned perfectly, the

f willingness to pay (i.e.; the demand) for crime reductions could be

measured by the social expenditures on crime reducing activities. This

is so because public and pr:vate decision makers would act so t. the

benefits to be gained from increments in crime reduction az-,tivities would

equalthe cost of generating those inciemants. Thus, for small changes

0 in crime, the system cost savings brought about by crime reductions would

measure both the resource savings from and the demand for the_crime

. "eductions. Since, in -this case, the system cost savings would equal

' O 321 NI "

. - .374
t . TABLE 111.14

BENEFITS PER-PARTICIPANT OF.REDUCED STOLEN PROPERTY..

MONTHS 1-27,. BY ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVE, BY TARGET GROUP

(dollars) 04 .

- Perspective

Social Participant Nonparticipant

Ex- Addicts 156 ' -84 240

Ex-Offenders . -216 116 -333

Youth *7 -4 11

NOTE: Values are discounted tcthe midpoint of tkfirst 9-month period at a 5

percent annual rate.

1.

0_

O

4
(1 willingness to pay, there would be no need for direct estimates of

person injury, property damage, stolen property, Or psychologica) cost

savings, because they would be captured in the revealed demand for crime

reduction.

The procedurd used here may; for thisreason, be double counting

some of the benefits of crime reductions because it includes values for

reductions in personal injury, property damage, and stolen property, in

addition to the change. in criminal justice system costs. Three consider-

. etions, howiver, suggest that this doviJie counting may be at least partially

offset by compensating biases. First, only part of the change in crime

prevention cats has been measured since nrivate.cri I Aventiou'activities

have been ignored. Second, equating willingness to pay with the marginal

coats of crime, prevention may not hold since the technology of 'crime pre-

?, vention is imperfectly understood: Third, the social demand for crime

reduction may be expressed only imperfectly, through the political and

economic processes.

Table 111.15 shows total crime- related benefits from the social

perspective as measured bytoial resource cost savings.(the benchmark

estimate) and as measured by criminal justice system cost savings alone.

For ex-addicts,'nonsystem costs were a relatively small part of total

benefits so there is not much difference between estimates. For exoffenders the'difference is'also modest, although bigger in percentage

terms. In the case of youth the'dikference is small but in the unexpected

? direction due to.high nonsystem costs associated with their slight estimated

increase in murder and felonious assault arrests. By eliminating these

.

, . _

t .. .

. 'costs, social benefits areainoreased by over $150.

. However, the magnitudes
Rev. 10/29/79

TABLE 111.15

SOCIAL BENEFIT PER PARTICIPANT OF REDUCED CRIME, MONTHS 1-27, BY TARGET GROUP

(dollars)

Ex-addicts Ex-offdnders Youth

a/ Benchmark Estimate 1,677 -1,048 103

Criminal Justice

System Costs Only . 1,449 -670 256

NOTE: Values are discounted to midpoint cf first 9 -month period at a 5 percent

annual rate.

a/This includes estimated benefits from net reductions in personal

injiLry and property damage and the social. component of stolen property cost

reductions.

ft'

324

7 $
of these difierences are small compared to the combined values of all

,benefits and costs. Therefore, using criminal justice system savings as

a proxy for social willingness to pay for crime-reductions would not

alterur general conclusions.

F. REDUCED ABUSE OF DRUGS AND ALCOHOL

In general, as is shown in detail in the target group reports,

Supported Work'did not have a Pronounced effect on experimentals' irug

and alcOhol abuse. There were no significant overall changes in drug

abuse. for ex-addicts or youth, a small reduction in drug abuse for exoffenders,,and,a mixture ofancreases and decreases in alcohol abuse over

time for all three of these target groups. (Early results showed'no

evidence of drug and alcohol abuse among the AFDC target group members,

so questions relating to these activities were dropped in later interviews.)

Although no effort was made to measure society's willingness to

pay for such changes as were dbserved,-

1/ we did valu. the direct benefit

of the resource costs.sa4rings Lora reductions in drug or alcohol treatment.

(Indirect benefits that might'have resulted are captured in other benefit

components such as increased earnings or decreased criminal activity.)

The estimated values of the Changes in drug and alcohol treatment

are summarized for each target 'group in Tab:e 111.16. The measured

effects of Supported Work on the use of treatment programs (cOntrolI 11/ Because the effectS of Supported Work on diug and alcohol abuse

were small and varied in "Agri, the ;unmeasured benefits coming from satisfying nonparticipant (and possibly even participant) preferences for

reductions in these abuses would, in= any case, be small.

s. °
TABLE 111.16

10/25/79

SOCIAL BENEFITS PER PARTICIPANT OF

REDUCED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT, MONTHS 1-27

(dollars)

Bentlits from Benefits from

Reduced Drug Riduced Alcohol

T:eatmen Treatment

iotal Disccunte

Social Benefit...4./

tx14.ddicts O. r

,1 ax- Offenders -47 53 6

Youth -25 -1 -26

NOTE: Values are discounted to the midpoint of the first 9-month period at

a 5 percent annual rate.

2/Detail may not sum to total because ef rounding

4.
° - "C

experimental differences in meah number of months in treatment) were

valued using the average costs of the'major.types of drug and alcohol

treatment programs--methadone maintenance, residential and nonresidential

drug-free treatment programs, inpatient and outpatient detoxification

programs, and inpatient, outpatient, and intermediate alcohol treatment

, -- programs.-1/ As can be seen, the estimated overall values of drug

treatment benefits during the 27 months after enrollment are negligible.

The net effects are a $6 per participant benefit from decreased treatment

costs for ex- offenders, but an increase in treatment costs of $3 per

, , . .. . participant for 2x-addicts and $26 per participant for youth.

It is important to note that benefits from reduced drug and alcohol

abuse treftment may not appear in the short run. Even if Supported Work

has the expected longrrun behavioral effect of encouraging participants

to reduce their_use of drugs, the short-run effect could be either ,a (1)

reduction in the heed for treatment, or (2) an increase in the desire for

treatment in order to reduce drug dependence., When tWis is considered

along with the weak effects Supported Work appears to have had on actual

abuse, it is not surprising that the treatment findings are small and

not consistently in one direction.

G. USE OF ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENTSERVICES

In the absente of Supported Work, at least some experimentals

\ . would have entered alternative education and training programs.. These

alternative programs generate a wide variety of benefits, and costs in

.. .s. 44 0

6 These cos arebased on#published data regarding drug

and alCqhol treatmeriN See Bjorklund et al. (1975) and Hertzman and

Montague (1977) for discussions of treatment costs.. ,

3i7 380

C`
"

much the same way as Supported Work. Their employment,, receipt of transfers,,'

4 and criminal activity might all have been affected. Thus, the benefit-cost

evaluation must be made in relation to the mix of alternative experiences

experimentals would have undergone in the absence of SuppOrted Work.

The evaluation design allows this comparison to be made by using , experithental-control differences in behavior. ,Corftrols, while being.

prohibited from entering Supported Mork, Were 'allowed' to enroll in

alternative programs. They therefore represent an alternative treatment

group rather thana,treatment-fiee control group; experimental-control

differences in behavior can, thus, be attributed to the effectiveness of

Supported Work as compared to the mix of alternatives experienced by the

control group.

Because the experimental-control differences used to measure

Supported Worirs effeCts already include benefits from alternative

education and .employment programs, it is important to include in the

analysis the costs associated with these benefits.

e Seven categories of education, training and employment pograms

were included. In each case, the differences in the mean number of weeks

experimentals (relative to controls') used each alternative program were

valued by multiplying them by, that program's average cost per Student

week. ,;r1 addition, differences in registrations with the U.S. Employment

Service were valued by the estimated d erence in mean number of employ-

. ment service registrations by the- average cost of registration. The

estimates of average cost of the different, programs described in more

detail in Thornton and Long (forthcoming) are: high school ($46 /week)',

..tocaZional school ($23/week), college and university education ($85week),

- 328 381
-0'

1

01

LInspecified schooling ($51/week),1( WIN training 1$74/week), CETA and

other training i$38/week),-i

2/ public service employment ($14/week), and

?..S. Employment Servine 43/registrationi. These 'estimateeexclude

allowances or wage paymehts to participants.

A Thwresulti are shown in Table As canbe seen, the effect

of Supported Work on experimentals' use of alternative education and

-employment,programs in months 1-27'was kimall,relative overall reduction

target groups.. None of the°differences in average number of weeks

enrolled in any of the specific programs considered here was greater than

two weeks. (AFDC experimentals did, however, spend slightly more time in

a school programs than controls, although the differences are not statistically significaht.) The estimated value of the resources'saiiid because

of these overall reductions ranged from ,$72'per participant for the eiaddictlitrget group to $136 peN participant for the ex-offender gropp.

This,is a'benefit from both the nonparticipant and 'the social perspectives.

We also estimated the experimental-control differences in training

allowances. (from programs other than Supported Wok). ? reduction in

payments is a cost toTarticipants, a, benefit to nonparticipants, and

does not therefore enter the Social benefit-cost calculations. The

estimated, presented in Table III.18,.indicate that experimentals in the

. .

, When respondents ,repOrted beihg in school, bht did not'report

the type, !t waS:categorized as 'unspecified schooling 'and the value

jaded was t.1;e average, of the costs of the other schooling types.

' '. 2/Si'

' --nce CETA funded'programs represent'the vast majority of

training programs available to the Supported Work target,giovp ,* all nonWIN training programs were treated together using the average c is of

CETA Title I programs.,

329

".382
. 10/25/i9

TABLE III.17 TABLE

. . -. BENEFIT PER PARTICIPANT OF REDUCED USE OF

ALTERNATIyE.EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS, MONTHS 1-27

. (dollars) -

Reduced 4Use of

Reduced Use of Training and Total Discounted

School Employment PrOgrams Value

C. AFDC

Ex-Addicts

jibc-Of fenders

fi?Youth

-27 161 133

48 23 72

75 62 136

I 26 87

40- ' 4

NOTE: Values aee discounted.to the midpoint of the first 9 -month period-at

a 5 perient annual rate.

- Details Details may not sum to totals because

't

. . of rounding.

,!...1.4k.

383

330

I

<%
10/-25/79

'TABLE 111.18

- BENEFIT PER PARTICIPANT OF- REDUCED TRAINING ALLOWANCES

FROM-ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS PAID TO EXPERIMENTALS, MONTHS 1-27

(dollars)

fr-

.Targei4FDC

- Ex-Addict.

Ex-Offenders

_Youth

Total Discounted

Vallit of Change

in Allowances . -10

13

32

-4

NOTE: Values are discounted to the midpoint of the first 9.-month period at

a 5 percent annual, rate.

33384.
AFDC and youth groups received more income from training allowances than

did controls, while-ex-addict and ex- offender expeiimentals received less.

However, all differences are small._

A caveat is necessary:with respect to the interpretation df.these--

results. If the evaluation period were long enough for all the possible

future effects of Supported Work and the alternative programs to be

reflected in the experimental- control differentials used to estimate-

-, those effects, our procedure would lead to unbiased results. Because the

evaiUation period is finite,-however, we cannot be sure there is no bias.

If, for example, the short evaluation period meant that controls

did not have time to complete the education and employment alternat 'es,

observed control earnings may understate the earnings to be expected

the future and lead the experimental-control differendes, thus, to -be

overstated. If,.in contrast,. Supported Work motivates participants to

obtain additional education and employment services they would not have

obtained if it had not existed, the finite nature of 'the observation

period will lead, by-analogous reasoning, to the long-run earnings of

experimentals being-understated and the effects of Supported Work on

earnings (i.e., the experimental-control difference), consequently ,

understated as well.

One way to avoid these biases in such a. short -run evaluation

would be to incorporate estimates of the returns to investmeqls in human

capital'into the evaluation)/ In this way the bigl-eit Value of any

-- future earnings gains associated with participation in alternative -

Such estimates for schooling are contained in Jacob Mincer

(1974) and Zvi Griliches (1978). ' 332s5
prC4raorie'dOuld-be figUred into -OUr.',OS-tiMate6 of the.,Euppdtted.Wokk , effict:OnsiOng..run-darnings. For- - several; reasons this method was not

adopted.' Ist, the inclusion of these estitates would lead%tOthe.

- - doUbie-counting of some earnings .gains,.Unlets-the.effeott,cf*ch human_

caPitai investments could be eliminated from our direct ileaiUe0.of earnInge based -on interviewdata. Second,-many of the studies that estimate

returns to education deal with populations that aremOt nearly as dis

advantaged = -as the !Up0Orted_4ork target. groups; therefore, their estimates,

may-bainappiopriatefOr this evaluation: Finally, it islet at -all clear

that the returns to completing_an education or training program can-be,

used to infer the returns to completing a portion of a program)" Even

- for those cases in which returns'to'a year o£ schooling have beeu estimated, these estimates are inappropriate for valuing the changes of a

few months of discontinuouseparticipation.

1/-(There is sub!slmntial evidence of a "diploma effect,",inwhich

the benefits_.from dovinleting a-program-are 'significantly higher than

those gained by almost aompleting the program.
. OVERALL -REsur.gs,_-Folt-rg YOUTH= TARGET -ckotni. - :

- . the case- of the 'AFDC and -eii=.-ddict target -groxike, the

benefits °of SuilpOrted-Itfork exaedectite costs:: during ,Mahthe.; .from- the

- 1794r4.-g"ArtiC4-1)4Pt ;perspective. 141-1.4et46 '±e":44 #-Or tl10 0010F,'"140

5roioe, ,fromO:hotk the. social -eoct',:pOfiPartici.pant.j3e'rerieotiveti

.befiefit;fel.X.,lhcirt: of" the costs- fOr the youth. group.; As 'Table IV.1

ShOWl, -0;4 is 'beC4.0/ejthe,,OnlY :benefit-to, Youth, came from 'their in prograM:

_earnings '0,.600, per :participant) Which, exceeded -their costs

fciregohe earnings, inerealed,'te.xes,, _and:reduced welfare Payments);,,by

about S1,i360:3" From the eacial : perspective- 'benefits were very small- and

were -tai,ontweisjbed by costs. .SoCial costs totaled $5,000 per participant,

t . _with, the only substantial benefit to offset it from the .social perspective

. being- in=;Pro4ram output valued at $3,400 per participant. Other. J2.enefits

- 4--/j

totaled' only abol# per .participant' relating' in -a 'negative net

present value frot the social perspective oeti,$1,371. From the perspective

of :nonparticipants, the eiftUaticre. was even wores, with benefits falling

short of CoSts by almokt ;1,206.

The pattern of bents and costs over ,,time. (Shown in Table ti .2)-

was similar to that for :the-Ai:6C arid ex,,,,rialdict target groups. Social

WA aaii,,be seen in Che-pter, Art of the reduction Iih,trithefer

.paini*hti in-pair-mote tO','Other :household MeMberS ,(Prea*na3,4y,' TarentS):: Thia treated; as- -a cost participants" although" it

techniCally a cost,--tic,.t4i4i-iieeo.r4.-0:.

Y.kotiths, also had .had a *Mali estimate in training, allot's,-

,and,_ liall-MeeSured, redUCtOits earnings' -end--.stolen

e
`.

4.

1 . -

q.A50*E0,100*-400-40511-#1-01TC:0487004:i0r47,:ai kt:001r174,4174f**71

" - ''...rxr.rE*Krm. . {. .. --- - -

:fr 2 , _ t . .. Aeciii-uir:ti4liiiiiiiittiii,-. , -

. --4.-' -

..' j.; 'cliiiiitOrodiii0 1.i`,?A#4..-04p4tii,

-

_ . .. A,. '. :..:',%':

.: .'" -- :,-.:::: A :

4`,:itaiiiiikfiitieFsetiiiii,siiiiaiii- 4,_;viiilieft;e:,ii4iotitia.tiettiitt: 3.39i- . 0- 3,394

.-.,

. plus iifrisicts -: - , - . - 0

- . .,

,-..:::, _

... :I.- 'uisitiasil Ti*.:KaY156ts'

. _ 0 ,363.' .301

. -i-':-:-

..-- _ . 4,: -

... - -iir,...9ianesi-704146ao9os,.:***Sfei:

- - .-_.,.. i..:A400ictiiiiiiii;ii:liene.: _ 0 .474 474 ,,,,,;,z4

-., .;_ 1

. 11,iichir..gigt4diiiikiiiiiiiivi' costs . 78 0 if

. . .., , ... P , n ! ,, n '' ' n,-, -',..1...`ri.

0- i.i4ii 44: .444.4i1"- Activity - : 1. ... _ .: ' 1 1----,...,

..,iliti434-4-ii,',Claiiiiiid-

:r. s is,944:-WiFi -160 0 ;160, ;>'I

,11

.ii'. Itictii*ari.stalisr4rojitrti: ^ 7 -4

'

.11

.,-;: - - = : a.:904t.e04iiiit."-,aiStsmt*lati! , -, -256 . 0 256- - ... _ . . _ _ . . . 0-.: i.ci:47Ciii-1.-F4-6/-Tins-ritaiirlt",-Costs -' t?6- e___ _--. ,r------7,-_-f"

__Jiik, lOdifeid.aio,OfliAliakiiiii**-idioiiiion,

**".44.."-141@-'*-41;?:14int

_ _

. -

. -

. _

.

,..

,. __. , , ... Y o. Reducedladucation-and,esployssnt_costs E17' 0 87,

... :.*.i.cfuaid,*aiitiisils, 0 A

k t

_ S ' . , .. *- 6 n. .,. , , ,',..., (.....7. -777' -,. - ..

IX _caiitkii ici:.tniiiii

4. PloliCt.'!tosii--

.0tiashiia-_'costs.

-2,136

-1,697

-

.i," , 0

.. 0 - : , 72;136

---- . -1..697

..,

..._ . -:. LIOarAmk 00Facidn_costs-

,, ...., , .

?..

_ siy. Costs . =203 -0 -203

iit..-?4-7.-teitunc iiiiiti.0.9sts_,.

.. .-"':,:',

_ .2,- -Ii-piciimaa urn ing.'s-jilua 'friniisi 0

. , s ig- 3::7::

-3,551

ragons riiiniigi.plui trisis -974 -974

- 0

t, 7, !.

.',.- - ,,,i , '-"Mt..7r *lint -'iitui ,(aiiiiiiii ,ii Lakii, Caiii)-- i .,1',.$77 ':''._:41 . 1.6,".3

_ . -, -

, - , . -3,17'7

_902.19i :Cisricisaii-haira',64042ratiiulisci and eitilsisterl vsitial-%entailid;aiiiirdirig, to a ,peig.4.4iiiiiierationi

:iioilt,:whietilai,ttiissioiild'zbis,biniiifitirpir, costs ;.:fiCas , the i, iaeial--,:iid% iotipast/.cipant,,,matascii4iiit:;,

'..Thii-riri-,:iiiiiiiiiiit'44c leil:etscl-Ais,"-iliii,iceeiu iiiiiii..frasitioric-prSishilil:in;Table::i..--;.Positilie

, values (bstillfii:S) "anilipitiiiiiii;-villua'-(epitsf f in :- this taililriprolsesit:.atttia".1-. auttiatili:tittist

. tiis.0*44444,44:007,cgyliv,ili'Tsiil:,;:1-..

-' 3
jtABL041.1,2

'10 '25/7

$

.

.

, dBENEFITS PERSPECTIVES, BY PIMP: PERIoitt:

YOUTH SAMPLE

A _ S.- . Months-

-,... . . - . -Bebiall.PerePediiVe. . ,gerie- . Benefits . .,.

-.. _:.*(ne..--Of.A.fiqDrograM,OUtptit

. . -.InbreaSednc,1404#*ed*ninas...pine fringe benefits

. ltedueedadMiniStrAti:ie-ceet-of:tr4fiefer programs _ Redtd ceriti7e.rf-crimtnerl-actttri. . . lteddbed-,doet-otaltethetEV6_6(166ailen and-tkainin4 programs . ., - . .. ...... ........, .0ed!iCed'IdrtigariOieohol.,trea*nt costs

.; A

'-P.rogram:opet..ting . . ant, central administrative costa/

- ;i.orecione earnings plus-fringecpenefits

(.3 -4, . .

. . , Net Present Value (Benef.its minus Costs)

Participant Persnectiveenefite

). ThIrprOgram:earnings p1Ue fringe benefits , Increased post-program e4rnings plus fringe benefits

Costs

f,'.oregene,-earninge pdpsfringe-benefits

*h0r4slid:t4k!payMents, ,,

. *educed trinefer,PAVMente.

BedUced:training ailewanees

---Reducedstolen-nropartyMet,fteSent Value ABenefits.minus Costs)

,Monthe, the.'

_ .

121:

- 18;

' 3's . . ;14, 65';

-17). s

-is :s'T-

. "4 =-16. s-

. ..- . -3,163

- 700 -265

,

-957 -619 190'

: . 2,770 754 56

58 -126 -65 ... ,...--.., . ,. -700

-265

- 329

-14

-265

-28

- -102 -51 r. -16 35,

30

1,526 248 .-:38: 1404: To facilitate,comParieonsbver time, benefits and costs have been discounted'. A positive number is a,

benefit; -4 ripq4*ili6 niiMber..ls a mist,

.4/Thiele the sum of reduced property' damage and ?ersohal injury, stolen property and /criminal justice eyeteM,Coete,

. , ,,. -Thiele the sum of project over ead and central administrative costs.

9 - 9 , 9 ,

h A 49;./4.,9 , , - 9 . , : 9 ' 41,g 9
benefits fell .most shOrt,Of; costs dUring_-riionths 1-9, a largely irizprOgram,

ipaiici.'and-theY. Con inued to li'll,,Short during months 10-18, primarily

ApeCaUse -eStimated. yaltie of int`PrograM output did not cover costs. Unlqss

, ..'there are SUhstahtial .tintheeSured.benefits. during. the in=program period--f

''

societyl_s_preferer:ce, to have youth workirio,--there could be--

Whethek Overall nei,PreSent. value is poSiti,Ve from society's perspeCtiVe

r

for youth_ depends on. future-jpenefits: From the ,participant.perspective,,

the, ,in- program -- period' - is Whe4i-ths4 net incomes increase., he most, largely

because of -Supported :t7io'rk earnings; participant benefits still excee

costs- in months 19-27, but .only by $38 per partioipant.

ti-ciiii. -the, ; nonparticipant -pertpective -(not_ shown)_, _41p. situation it,,

. !,- .

. t again, the-worst -during .Licri)nths 1-9, whet: .nonparticipant j5enefits fell

-: short of costs by abiiiit$2,500T-ifter- this--largely--±n-prograM _period,- _the_

. haTziparticipant results improved but were b4raly .positive by months 19-27.

Table I:V.3. showsthe .alternative base period- estimates for

-e . extrapol4tion of the youth, results. There is little evidence of benefits,.

-.

X x belOhd the 27th month. . The 36-morith cohort 'results show

. n-egative, benefits

. .. for .post-program earnings and (.;.ciz4hal activity during this period, although

both -could be the result of chance ,sampling variability. For this target

:sjroup, too,. -the 36 -month youth cohort, was small (the smallest of all target

groUpS) ObSerVations-7reducing the reliability of the

;month. in any case,- the estimates of program_ impacts in

thiSater period provide indication of long-tert benefits for youth:

hen,the -benchmark cohortadjustraeht is used, estimated social benefits '

in icanths 8-36 .are- 'close, to zero (-$15).

4."
v "s.

TABLE

MEASURED SOCIAL BENEFITS,-ALTERNATIVE BASE PERIOD ESTIMATES

YOoTH.8AMPLB

40/29/78

Benefit

/ Increased;_poSth-PrograM Earnings plus Fringe Benefits 65.

.- Reduced AAMihistrative Costs"of Transfer Programs 17

-Beauced.6Oii of Criminal Activity 165

_ ,Bedu-40*g Treatment coats - -18

.Reduced 8duCation and Empioyment.Costs ' -11

up b.

, 21

1-346

10

-169

0

38

La- '26 -34:

2

-466

'OA The results given-in the table for months 19-p are for the full 27-month saltple '(which incluilds the 27 -month

and-the 36,month...cob04A4-those for months 28-36 are for the 36-month cohort) the:.benChicark estinate

weighted average of (1) ,the. 19 -to -27 -month resuli-f6i-Eh4-27=Mbhth-Oobort-and--th-the-28-tbrj6montb'results . ;.for the 6-month cohort.

392 0

0
-

? t Table, IV.4 presents the 'benchmark

6 estimates from all three'

0

_perspectives. _Given that benefits after :ninth 27 are essentially zero,

, these results differ little from those based on data for the first 27

These conclUsions are also remarkably insensitive to alternative,

,assumptions._,This is apparent in 'Table IV.5,-whiCh presents hesensitivity

tests for the youth results. Only if participant labor from society's- I' .

1%s " perspective is 4ssumed to be free (i.e., the shortage labor market model),

___

. 2.0 . . * . does net.present value become positive from the social Otti

4 nonparticipant:

_ 1 perspectives; with minor exceptions, it is always positive from the'',

- participant perspective.1( . Thus, owe conclude that, based only on the measured benefits and

. costs, the results for youth are clear-cut. Benefits fell short_of costs

from the social and nonparticipant perspectives, participants were made

) - better-offT-but-only-as-a-reSult-of_their_S upported:WOrt earnings.

.\

How oneinterprets th7be results depends on highly unelasured

,

benefits are valued. One of the original hopes for Supported.Work was

that it would encourage youth participants to return to school: but

Maynard (1979) finds'no evidence that this hope was,realized. Neither -

410 was there any evidence of improved health states or 'reckuced drug use.

Supported Work did,'howeyer,put the youth participants to work

ing,viit44-prograi periOd, and judging from the large number of youth

. 14s forthe ABDOtarget,group, the few negative estimates f rom

the particiPSnt perspective arise; because & sizable estimated riaUction

id transfei4aYMentsdUting the .base period is extrapolated into the

future. It seems that such a reduction in transfer payments ( woUldpersiSt fir'into-the.futare, however, given the other. indications

of future behavior tethe.,part of this group.

-A

, 340 -----3:9 4 . .

- _
-

& iev. abells .10/26/73

. . sonasiix ESEDIATZ4 Ie:mar:Ts me costs PIER 4APSICakler. 3Y A&Tattr2:4 ssurscms

o YOUWSAMPLZ

' A (doLlarll 'T. . .. Mastitis.

ierepective.

S

Social participant ,Nonperticipeat

S.

... a

. .I. Output :Prociliceabfiaarticipants

. . 4,- Value of inlprogram,outgest ...),_...../3-51%. 3,334

. .

. --- -- - . Incromesdpost.prOgise earings.'' , .- , . .0 (

,y.._- .... :31,,,:friPlas, !SI(

0

. .Prefereaces:for'work over welfare'

21 / ... Al

...

. .------ ...,______ '

22.. lbercese0ax Payments - , 0 7341 161

,... . !Xi: Rodueedlepandonce-op TWoafer9rogrause , O. Redueid aniiiir ,paymeats

( 0. -1.361 1.361,

-3educiod stied& .co

... .cots ;24. C 223

. .

. . . . Ev. .deduced Criminal Activity,

-Reduced prcperty dmaage and N Y r personal injury ' ' -1.346 0 o -1:346 '; . Rechised stolen propepy '

), %

.1 404 -218 622 .RehACjustice sYstmecosiuv 45 3 0 , OS

I a/ ' aii 3a/

.RedUced,psycholoVical costs . Il

. V. Reduced,Orum ini:Alcohol Gee

, Reduced treatment costs .. k, .116i/ o 0a/ -116,/

Psychological benefits 7

,

.. Reduced qi. of Alternative Education.'

-==aihdm41. and Employment services ,

-. . . m. 4.. , _____E ./ Reduced education-And ascOliiiiiirdosts--- - ---v.100..- .. _ 0 100 Wiese:raining allowances, - 0 361

",

ym other sonsfitsr. : . PA tsproved iaiticipant,heago status

Incase redistribution 1

Costs

2. Program Operating Costs

Project costs

Overhead costs . 0

22. Central Administrative Colts

222. parta.tpant Laboi Costs

. a/ .a/

4.7

0-2,136 -1.637 . -203

con- program earnings flu* fringis 0' -proem* hrniags plus fringes . -3i1

r a/ Eor*goa4 leisure

- . :ncriiied Work Related .oats

:Oro

o, Other I

:`let trswint valuir(sanofits sisiulCosts)

.;1 -1.465

0

3 J1,136

-1.637

-203

3.551 -3.351 -474

a,

. . - 0a/

3 , 4

n

04, _331

492 ' -2.357 .. 'As "Alai.. the CCOponiati aii,listid according to their expected itatus as benefits or costs from the

sociallerstlective. Whether the data showed this to be netrbenefits or net costs or 'wither is indi- esud ht-It3-or P.)..raapeatiiymyt. -.twee abiefits;aod toets.were.not
! TABLE IV.5 '

's - ,. . .

. - NET PRESENT VALUE ESTIMATES, UNDER ALTERNATIVE,

-

. , ,,

. , ., . 3 SAMPLE

- 1,465

. 13enchniar k EstIlateS

g?cf-±Appla:tion. Assumption's - - _ . . Discount rate = 3 'percent

'Discount rate -=-1.p percent befietits _ beyond 27 months

Tirne Horizon, 146" bene;its-

;beYOhil: -36 Moilth,4.

Decay. Rté = -3 Percent=., !tape =19-27 month reSultS.

'BaSe = 36 month cohort-results

(without adjustmelit)

. ,i3gt-Plciymerit .Assuepti

Shift from surplus to shortage

Market

ShUiflinvyorkere- *bug jobs cg:ggri PSE wages valued at,. 5O percent

'Cost 'and 'Value of 'Output

AssuMptions

Valtie,of output eiluals.revenue. -Incluii.Ori of start-up Costs

:crime Assumptions

No prithe:i3enefits

59- percent of crime benefits ariMinal justice system Oasts only

'PeisPective

PartiCi'ant

892

Non exti-di

'-1,481 :( -16)- 768 ( -124) -2,249.

-;1,434 ( +31)- 1,114 ( +222)

- 1,37:7 ( +88) 1,800').( +908)

1,390 ( +75) 1,661 (---;-5-69)

-1,597 ( -132) -478 (-1,370) -141,9

-250 ( +34 45) 1,799- (' +907.)

-4,118 ( -2,653) -379 (-1,271), -3,739

17,999

-1,777

1,566

-

(+19,464)

( -312) 892

( -101) 892

892

- 2,999 ( -1,534)

- 2,425 ( -960)

(

(

-523

892 ( +0)- 892( +0)

+89) 1,109 ( +21-7)

+45) 1;001 ( 1

+942).1,109 +217)

+10tp-,

(

( , 4..30.0,?

C-1;382y

(+194464

-2,669. (

-2,458

-3,891 _(

-3,317 1 7964:

-2,485 (

-2,421 (

-1,633 +724);

NOTE. Numbers in parentheses shor the amount an direction of change from the apPiopkiate benchmark estimate given, to the top line of the table. frS5-

1,

I

342- . , 3" Jo

4,

.
, . _.,employment initiatives, th-t*.Seeme to something society

,

:

, desires to do. ,T.ndie74, ProWiding:,ir:OUtha-.with initial work experience,

. as mentioned Chapter I, has 104:-been an objective of -akalbihrnent.

.programs for youth. in addition, ,SUppOrtectifirk: has-redistributed a

. _ todeSt amount-of-income--t& the youth, another unmeasured benefit of

----7 - SuPpOrted- Work, although this -hae.b4n.accomplieiled at considerable cost.

The overall assessment of SrprOrted.,-WOrk for the youth target group, thus,

depends on how much, society, and particularly nonparticipants, are willing

. . , . - .

. .. . , . I .1

to pay- to .put youth td work and- "redistribute income from the rest-of

society to- them. If SuppOrted Work for youth is to be continued, the

absence of sUbstani4ial -benefits other than value of output suggests the

need to search for less costly jobs with higher value of output):?'

1/tlaynaxlf (1979) does find (admittedly weak) evidence that younger

members of this group (who in the absence -of Supported Work are most

likely to -be unemployed) Seemto do better, suggesting that it'map also

be desirable to attempt to target the program at younger applicants.

'
-.0A041-

CoMPARISOW,10 OTHER-BBNEFI1 -COStS*DIES_OFESBLOyMENT,AND TRAINING PROGRAMS,

Benefit-Cost analysis has been..al-vile-a to a nUMbef Of-aPlayment

and tri4niigi-Prograins over past twenty years. Tbi-t -Chapter attempts

to compare the .results of these studies with the results. presented for

Supportt: Work in this report. It must be stressed at the outset that

_ comparisons. among programs are difficult to make and, when made, susceptible to Misinerpretationbecaus4-of inevitable'differences among target

groups served, prevailing economic c,nditions, and analytical approaches

used the evaluations. Nay, Scanlon, and Wholey (1973) struggled

with such differences in an earlier comparison of benefit-cost results

f for employment and training programse- and 'concluded that "interpretations

and comparisons of benefit-costratios based on the numbers alone, without

regard to tie particular viewpoints and definitions behind each of the

numbers used, are almost certain to be misleading." Although these

difficulties make any strict comparison of Supported Work relative to

all other emploment and training prorams impossible, useful research

and policy implications can be drawn from anexamination of other benefitCost research.

After a general overview of major benefit-Cost analySeS undertaken

since 1190, evaluations of four programs serving target groups that are

1/Stromsdorfer,(1972) and "Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Job

Corps" (1979) also mention these difficulties in their comparisons of'

benefitcost-analYsis.

398

345
44=

-Similar to -those serVea:pi=*kioitecifili#15 Will be .examined in detail..

OVERVIEW :p.O.Etio0S-iitiE#tztoOrslkibis

Table V4 _psrOsentS-geseriptive.aata and xeSuits,of_the major

tehefit=cott:enalYees Of employment and-traininTprOgrama that'havd . been Conducted' since 1960. I6Oking-atthelast att7-of Columns- ofLTable

we-dan:see-thatthe-VatiationAnresults is qnitelstriking:,

The benefit7cOst ratios Presented range. from leS'S than zero to-over

wide variation in the Measured-costeffectivehesS of

different prOgrama. At can altobe seen from the table, the programs

e ;varied' widely in target groups served, urban/rural orientation, andMacroeconomic conditions. In addition, the methodblogical differences

from study to study are so important. in some cases that comparing the

bene'it-cost ratios of the studies is meaningless. These differences

are of three general types: (1) the quality of the outcote- measures

(comparison group and statistical methodology and sample size); (2) the

accounting framework (benefits and costs included and perspectives

taken); and (3) extrapolation (discouht rates, decay rate, and time

horizon). Each of these types of differences will be discussed, along

with the implications for comparisons among the studies.

. /

As- in the Supported Work evaluation, outcomes are typically

- . measured, by computing differences for variable's such as earnings between.

participants and a relevant comparison group. The ideal way to measure

these differences is to use double blind random assignment of individuals

399
R. .--... ,- 1: .

. .

",-",,'-'

... , ..

.. . 5 1.tiV..40/40.?4'

. ,

. .

, .... 'VAIAZATA:

. . , .. -,.-F(74.,RtioN..9i;aatiFfii,--.4iciire*oti*Or.-*i.4* ir:Ati:O-*trutia-pitocRiW.is 'DESCRIPTIVE 0/48.810 RESULTS

'

'

. s Time'. .

-,:::g,r6.4kAa

'

_ - Period . - fitialilioon-in. 'iiiiii.Oes 4..ii: ',_,,, ream of . -*Dalt -eimieAtaifiiw1 4sienthinies), . -.-- Tariiii:dionia, :Prisvided"... -.Stay . -graii"7. 7 77744i4iiiWiegaiiiii*F=VietUdiii.4i!zifi P' ciaihe ies

-,

12' iiiii.c.liedyirelokient- Ps"-ct -diasiiiiim. 1961 -62 Mist Virginia . "- - --kale - leiiisia,:. = -s. _-.0namploYed.and

litRir.iiidiiiiit-fi:-Oriili.-: 45!51(triiiiikliiie4- -- AkitireiOn % 5% discount 16.5.. --.3:'3." , -,14:1,

menVprogram ..eurkers41.17dpiesisi5i - rate' : (04,300) .(51,224),-- - A510;1361

, areas. Vain and -Stroli",-.. .

' 10t diiconnt -,10:5 2:9._

'1004. lits) . --..____

..

-,sate' :01,7323 159811- .-, 06: .95W .",'s,

....

..... '

, . , ......_,.

isi=sind state uilieW09yedai.4-,- . 36144i-rocs 1959 -63 West Virginia '.. , , Mile.' . _ ,lamils-r:4

golierament-ptegimi Iidiriiiploliec3 InattliStion . 4a- discount .. ' 15:6'-' '- '1q;()) .

, ..- =. ..._

...,,, -,workers 'in.dispritieed rate 1513.382) , ($5:7441-

..(irdmidorter,, , -

. 1968) ` 6iceisiOount -14.6.- -'' .rate , 1512;482) I 14;313/

:

. ...

, - . . -liouit of Training;

kiii and Manpdwor OPeaPlnyed and Classroom 1962-65 Michigan iti-ioo ia1--600 662-4 ,200 '"iiiii-v

920

Development ....!__...._.: and underemployed instruction

----L---:

;12.34, -,--o.o3 -o.-34::- '';-(1.-25.-

T'itaIning_74et Dora) , workers ($5.654) (57-912) 15-2;925).- '0'1016

... -

jilaidin and Oorus, . ,

. .

3972)

. i lasiumpt ions :of 10i ,,d i Mcount-- tiale ti iii"= ili;ieitiy, Ayr

, ilea of leant its: wife 'Usind.) .

. , . . -. ... .. 0 , s.

,

. . 1.15M 'ixiieiitic'ed members Claseroos 1962-63 Connecticut liii:116W per. year out of

In nor'.' for,ee,sur- instruction occupations -which use 73;34.,

'Chorus, 1964) teeing high MOO- . .01 1' training' '. k. ',.' ($20;ft6):,' ' Ploinent -, -

lit .flOw per year for first 103.8-.

. .

. *es. yeais, this Oa flow . 4529;6771',"

. .. . .. , - ,

. WM

. clientele,. ., Classroom 1965-66 North Carolina 'filitiiiitiliiial

.

instruction Trainingi OW 'Females Oil'Miliis s 4.',.1;fialeii,....-- mosily-bliek;',iiile, .

. ,(Sewell, 1971) beads of-families; CO?' . - 6;8 '.,' ,"--y.7 ,-" * , aurVfaim workeii, ($6;926)

.

(52;7811= .'(51',4661..

. . '

,

;

,ii undereeployx, o :

. .

, ' 5

.

. 1.

.

.

. f 4 0 0

..
Cr ablej ..,,(Ciiiii*iii`tiiii)

_,. , , ;fiele

:,i44411,,, Period

- %tiyitii.44454-.111: 'Services, of iaCUefF4 ?Pifiiiittiellei"F:. :80e,ftizi:piii-jtaix4-,. ", ,..,., . , _ Tai it Group . -- ,vii4iaoa' . Stud' ..:.stucli.,-

. . -,,iiiet,.iraiieni-Va hie ei,. Psi i ie inantoin Paien the seaf,,,.... ,.., ....., , . _-. . . '.1iiiigid;iOilieal-YOutir,, '' 'iii=1! Weill. .'4n11-eiiiikiiit- ',i4-,67,- ''.'ititio,n4ide- *.irsiri4ieli&A '!"--teriikidiaiin4akx& 4ileiii!:40.47-,: _____- '....,Oilfilitatioli,_____ __ _

. ..._ . _ ._ _:--- In=school- ---- ...andnuimemt-2

-- ,. 14nd;SuamerAprogrmas-

- :work-. exper illika.

c(Soliersand' - . .. ltinWadOiIdi' 1416)- 1:0207 ,4$462),

?renpectively` +for: the rhros.:aategor1ue listed:)'`_

iice.14t4440091- Skill - training, 3967 -Indiana 044n4 -eiders .'plaCOMent. _ _ _ _

;(Bolus; Brennan.- taiid'.

.164,eoFim- Disadviiitiied'AeilV ,iiisi"C"..iAilcat ion. 1966

414'4.66;1i 49iiii,116 ;:iii4h,;:school- egui- (4in, 1967) to..21-whO, arcout imilenCy, inatruation, :t...)

' - of .WOr.ii:ind"--,iiick.- . -P- skill training, OD Marketable . moritexptirie'n6e, skillii .,, _ Placement , .

Nationwide

sale,' :festal*

iiiregone:

*;4'..41 2.

(Results' are iiirLiNaie,4tti:-.19,Vieiiiii-orecluyitiAi:.i

:3:3%

Job

1978)

Same as above Same as above 1977 Natiiniwide

(Schillur; 3978)

.

- Am' recipients Job' search,

eduCation,,

training. , Sisbfdiiced

employment

1974-76 Nationwide

P._iin:ationiii .:Nage

, _ . ....;.43iiiiii.: . &Ina3% discount ,1".22'' : ,1'.45!. rate, °ipso) Ii1,614;

5% discount .79 :1%04, -rate ($-.740)_ =1018

_ . _ - Discoinit , . _, - Patel 31' 51 , , ,,,;, , ;104 '.', ". 7E15 ' 1:05 '.. '.Oils,

($757) (1251) . . - ($ 5e2).

(AssuMptIon of 14% benef it; titica'y, Fete ixii-:,9-e:ir.i±a*

'used.) . ,, \-.....i,-- . . ,.-.4v44.41.: _ . . Helen- :,"Vsl'galiiis5 1: discount

1,:: rate 1$(141) (-510.12e 6% discount '1.74 'k. 4:184'

-, rate , 561); '.1A,($104) (Assumption of 19% benefit, decay,rate.t c '7 ap. was' _,R.:w)_
(cont nited)-

144:OlOinnaM :tot"

(1.10-k

-Iiim114>,and

Ti4rirOisi -1979).

Wildcat

(Yr ithiman..

1978)

SeiWleic

Ta et Group .

- ,

i-iiir

rimilOd .,

.. , ...

.of IOCiiii-Lf .Ciiat'ikeient. xaitie;POC;Pii:tleiPintinfkre-nilienseei , . . - , -StUdy' . .., . Study . .. . _ , , _

_ ,s'inerititliiird.

_ - . 1971-74 - OterYlOncl L#insfers.

ilarilintd=Pia&isw1M hdFhi9hroabLlLty .. a -OOkaMi4ttlivijiheit

crime

with. _

iineieptoyment

- ^ 1972-74

employment

ex-addicts wit> Temporary

record pt employment

tineeitipiorliont

New York City

1972-74, New York 'City

YPETrliii4,14' -°

te, tie ; henk i tn.

deca their, 'b.neS1ta ; meaumed,..rcri'upper bound

estimates - I I cocint tat. negat1e future crime _ lieneffie n4;1 -

. ;stood

_ ! , _ and costs cOVee*rit.-4Car-rOilOWIng<'--

enrollment.)-

. . . -1.12 . 0(1131rionelf;etnsta.ncl) costa cover t ink 3--Veisis following

-....(41-;07(1)-- , .

. . .., - . x e ' National Supported

Nock ;Demonstration

APOC;

anc-aekIleta. , ax-offenders,

.,,. (tower. long. and youth . Thorntoii, 1979) rate for.AF0SC and 17% decay rate for pthei-groUPS,

Vutailuilendisackaattratiiii-11 ,

Temporary

employment

.s.a.addicti__.-- -of renders , it...---'-.- .,--7-----.70-1.

1975-7d Nationwide AMC

(10 elt.les) 2.17 `' .0404.5) . -

,.'71--'

',(4Sese.tler5p0tion of 51 discount IWO; -34 briterfit,decAY, .

frO 3
tq eXperbinental and .coh:trOl a& that the -measured differences

between %the wO groups are-Oontrolled-for and unbiased: estimates of

the impacts df the program Can be Obtained. When, Such a'frmal experi-.

. _ lienteldelignia not POSSible,aoOmpariS0h-group muSt'be'dhosen in a

- -may that MinikieS SoUrCeSiOf 'Potential bias. ,Any differences between

* _ the "two ,groups for whiCh,the Statistical estimation procedures do not

."

control may impart, biaSeS of unknown direction and magnitude to, the * Mea stired-effects*the itograM4

. Table V.Z. sUMMarizia.the methodologies used in these studies.

Of the analyses covered, only LIFE used double blind random assignees..:.

Three additional studies--the Supported Wdrk study and the two Wildcat

studies?- -used random assignment although the experimentals (Lid controls

knew to which group they belonged. The other analyses inthe table used

comparison groups of varying quality--some.used early dropouts, some use&

applicants.who did not enroll, and others used nonapplicants who were * similar fJ the participants. Of those studies that did not use random

assignment, all but twos- used statistical techniques (typically multivariate

regression) to control for any, differences between the treatment and,

1/

an a double blind experiment prograth operators do not know in

1 advanc to which treatmei. group a persdn. will be assigned, and experimentals

and-dontrols do not know to which group they themselves have been assigned.

When controls know:that they have been rejected from a program because it is

an experiment, and-experiMentals know they area participating in a program

that is being evaluated, the knowledge may affect their behavior in unknown

ay.4-__A-double blind experimental, design avoids these biases.

?'The data used for theWiidcat studies had an additional shortcoming:

those in thexperimental group who did not participate in Wildcat the were .not

interviewed. propping these experimentals iay hale introdUced additional

unknown biases.'

\-1

.3/ , -- See Cain And ,Stromsdorfer -(196A) .and Cain (1967).

350 405
#

#

p

ige;# . .1 0/ 29/4

TABLE -V i A COtiPA8180(1 oi=m0irivlogivirublEkor-po*mmehr,Amo TRAINING4ROGRMS, ilET110001#* ---

....---.. adiOarliOe'4[0i0

OLOAEAS". 'Netb&iniOgi - ,imtPle'iiii-

--FOiriajradualiis=-141:experimintil:

Uitmpaiatifiditti- 284.cemOirlion .

-Stroesdorter.

.1968)

nooapplicanta-

(unemployettper7

Mei),

In

AttAratid:stote. -goyertiment prograe iSirnnudorter.

1968) :

.

MP

sen4iirs-

- - IncreArd-earnings.

Discouht

.Costs `Rate: - -iregiii,costs, _ Foreg000 earnings- . payment, 101

0uraton,

of &teethe

to ig-65' -L" A .

Saes as above 4 879 total

332 experimental

AM and MM. Program partic4 'Pant ..- (Cardin and with thole who

1851iii71972)*-------applied-ond-----

accepted but

did not enroll

503 experimetital

201 comparison

Increased earnings

Increased earnings

Same as-above

Program costs

Foregone :limning. Administrative costs

4i to 244 55

61,

5% 10t

151, 5-10715

yoars

ROTA

(Dorus. 1964) No comparison

group used- - see comment

373 experimental Incroosedtearnings includin5 multiplier effect (as-

: suming a multi Of 2)

0

-, .

Program coits'exclud

fug transfers and use

of bindings

Administrative costs

5t

I

10 years

'to

#assum4',4.isio op

porrunity_cost'of

labor. .01aaliti- .averige total earnings.otbnietnho

usuli theft :troth= io4 multiplied t+Y;

thO prohabilityor

uaing-tha.trilning

-oftri,coeplition-Of

litdo_alternai# as- i0 the

flow out of thditio

oceliPat I' nv-st" the '16+2ir oinellt

Period., -

4.
Program

11 emelt. - 19711-

Cgalisfillom9roiep

. 'la lgado logy - _ isetple. Ii S

4

:

beenetito Costs

Pram paitigl= 762,stefixiiseestail Incroasod earnings

paste: OtmparM1 4112 otemeirition

_ "ieitb'oligible:per-

.inna 'who did' Mot J . . -

piia;66c oiirillbm

Puts oC amitias

. to.sie ti- W4jriting

icttpottalley sites

. *

Program oosts '6%

foregone earning, °ICS

AeLtimistrative costs 12%

p .

its .

45 NYC-- Ile - School

-aid &mei Poe-

_ grams

(Somers-and

Sitemesdorter. 1.79)

irogram.pirticiz. .476 total . pantirenspaied r with*titudeais 10110

iy, N

.requirimeuts.but-

,eild

pets' 0

NC:401104 earnings Program costs.

lot guns earnings

10% (17: '111,, sok. 21-simtt11f-m4

. T.el)te vitt.i)

.7.-

4

5 ; go

/itlik=routel-School

!Kosice:

(ierus Draken, and eosin, 1970)

"7-"7-

(.1

*1.3le .

_408

Peolrase partici-- 604 eiperiaentol., Incireamd earnings- Program cont.* pante cospareel 166 comparison In-progtaes output. VOE09011141 travelogs with eligible

applicants who 1/ mai mot ate.,

looted. 2) could not be entitled

of selection, or

3).did not show

up

4

... 10y 10 rears V. 'Volute or'in-pro4ptam

. output. 4iiii4s'ai00/010.154014 t or , . equal to plogroo in

:urges. -.foregoer

/tared kir either

. ------=-ras ' -bet-rcir

1 equal to. gram

native. 4

Job Corps

(Cain. 1967)

Progress participants compared

wills appl leant*

who veto selected

but did toot, participate

al 0

66$ experimental

S11 comparison

Increased earnings Program costs excitedins traneters

firegone mtrning Administrative costs.

3i

Ss

10%

t

to age GS Pljusteent made for rualtgioeth nig:ro- e .lepie It .11sixnerit

tate used I. equivalent to di 5% din-

'unt rate wills 21 ° 91.01;th. riffs a1 par-5

native memeucos of

cerningigellen mends-. --

pow Oben musnurol

educational gains

true program. second

compares wages to

thong of comparison

t group.
is

to

Program.,,, MMethodology _,t8OmPli-Slze _ Benefits

7791?7C1*Prf

,(rhointani-Long.

Wall:sr.-1978)

-Program.Partlei,..-..--24191,experhmental

pinte'rempared 1221-.COOpSrii.en wittiieeriOns

_ 'from'dropiout4iles - ,and,lOcal-Usiam--

.

COuts _ Discount. DurationRata _ _ -0

ploymeni service

files

Indreasedeacnings

inrprograe,,00tput

ReduCtionqn administrative

:conto,of,tsaasferg

Reduced - crime: Redinied use of alternative training programs

Program costs exclud- _ 3t 141,ideerair, -°,EStinatei-incorpar;

ing transfers ite,l-W-2%:-Pee44kar *oregano earnings iat for expected- real:growtfiiifi7Eif Administrative costs- - work life -wages.

fag.;-.61/

- (Schiller,

1978)-

"Pregrimi,PerticiPantmpaied.

Adth,nonpaitielpants)eligible- foFWIN.but not

,served.clue-to budget con- straints

- 3086 experimental Ihdreased earnings

3523 comparison

Employment services 3%

_Related supportive 6%

social services 0 let

19% 35% decay

per'year

:TE.snd 06E.,wagei

Were enunted'as:part'

Orlociiasiot -earn- -=in:Sobildired4aslr% tioneai.thiAbse oG

view. - . LIFE. *allar and

,Thornton.

1978b)

Random assign-

..ment toexperimental and con-'

trol groups

216 experimental

'216 control Reduced costs of aloe

Increosid earnings

.Reduced use of other programs

Reduced animist' s lee costs- of transfer programs

Wildcat

(Friedman,

1977)

4 CI

Same as above 148 experimental

160 control

1

Administrative costs .5% IS% 40 year* tower-bOand:eiti- with 15% -mates mere obtained

fadeout lissumdig:i -1St diior 40 years- eountliate, that with OS earnings and eelfadeout faie rates:decli6ed over%tlie nt41tate

pf-14% per-ivik-that

arrest-differentials

decroaSed-over time

and that the. tarn- .6 -legs differential

inelud:v1 501 dis- pIseeaent, Upper

liounclleatimiates as-

: stared 'at:5%cl iscount. rate, no displacesent, and no fadeout. admInistrative'cOsts were estimated posed

on those of unaiplOyment and public

assistance programs.

In-program outrlt

Increased post-program

earnings

Reduced costs of crime

Improved health

Program costs minus

transfers Foregone earnings Os 1 year

. 411
r-

-1978):

. - i*Pi.F1114.1--4.;fi74P° : **e!

-NeAt- con-, trol grOuPs, .

AlasOis:Sizes. ltIIntal

-107:0"er0'

_

..

_Icsafits

_ :ItathiCed-costsof- cruse ttI pisnts

ItiereaSaa taxa: of partici=

-Piais

. iistliSai-iiippurted Sawa. abovi

Work-paloSstrotiow

, , '(440-4ii I.1% +ad'

rntos, 1979).

t.351 is -adiictig

t-; 974

Ex-offenders:1479 a'-

Youths

_Is4rograsi_output:

Iocreased:Oost-pregrals sharp= Redoced;cOsts of crime 8e44Ced welfare -tise Costa

MedliCed drug triataist costs, -ReduCed-uie-oealisisstive

_le-sT.progiamstiogram castsdsirati 'tiaSiferaAdiJaistraillra-costs toCisiseA'Cost,Of childcare

5% .14S-locly,pek

34-*.F

,1'.ected ici'7"- 181C-1 ifs 4.941:Sq

4i2
,coMparce7E-,groups:,1007--We-TreTii-6-r-dWaTitiiat.reetitleiytv--.Wo St44*--Can-

:ono;N:00.t:414vo

to know-the .exact, relationship .between: -individual characteristiCe and

pograxn outcomes The outcomes measured will always, , be

3:44**) *000,*1:9;oktii#t;r

;:the cl*f! 0496F4.4;#:!qoop414.04

." group methodology among the

studies make it articularly dificult to compare the

, .different'.PrOgrams-., '`thbee- programs -which ised iaentical dedigna.

(e.g , 'iandoni..assignment) -, Were.ditimperect 'one would have sone confidence

.,*e;iile30b.Feci-iii0e;046:40;e*04.,00.1,14. were not aop, differencesa

in th outcome ; -, "

.measurement .Methodology. When ,comparisons are Made 1DetWeen,

de#41,10`, -40WeVer,,, one cannOt.-Separate the'true

-;differenOes in program - efiedtS;Atrom thobe due to comparison roüp biases

. ,

. r used . :to measure participant effects :. ,The 1st 'ger, the sailPfe, , for

Pl4..0.i94,44400e.):4- the 9-,X'445, the confidence that can be

, ,A esecOnd ,difference :studiee. is the sizov:of he Sample

placed in the' es

""0.0^%.

:ts

't10; ttli ette,gt.- 41'he;semple, sizes of the

4. :i3-04.014.0ed 44 'Pa131q-ci.#. 6,609 0414- two

had samplesof ovr 3,000 (Thornton, tong a24Jllar, 1978 and , -while),deterMining;..whether a sample eriongh.!" depends i=in

specific pvaluation obectires, â. study with the same objectives but

-r>, ' -.

"4' -,:r,"ir'.;--7.1

.

,,,. c.: ^ ,,,e,', *1.741-11#4.-949f Supported work has. .4;. ombiñed eample of .over

3-,060.t - Since the four target groups have been analyZed'Separete14. instead

of pooled together as I;i'.094...§.00-.%. #0 41'11*' sizes for ihe

. tz'f,

35.5";.'

. _
, ' ' ; will. va ,0904, ooestimates 0,-.:=4-.130#40:s

. effecti.,enes equite; large:-sample-:si;es and an 'adequate comparison gioup

_ -

,..

- - ¶e :rti4441iiiiii120"0-4i40. not the only . studies differ, nor i0, it the only factor which raa)ce0s 't46/0e;ipli*i0-#

of ,L5rOgiaMa difficult. The accounting framework--the :benefit* and costs

that are ,ohotherk' for ..measurement and the perspectives: which they are

:viewed--also -.aiTtera;amoriq-:Sitidiee

-

.. . "cre7ar-eicO-e-p-tiOil TSthe' :study- croni-',i3Y the Vera Institute of JuStie (Friedman, 1978) '1

.which presented results from the perspective of :nonParticipants. Other

tfo_s_t- .of th_e_AtudiaalwieLffrom!..the_sOcial_pei-pecti-*--:.°lie -

.

.

. . . , .

, . . .. - .. -

. ,..i:

,i044.01 -used ' a mixed pe-rspaOtiya.Cairvarid sttor04or,4tt (1968) and .'., .

. 41

',OtroM'SdOkAk' (1968)_, :Ear ,inStanoe', courite4- a reduction, in transfer payments.

... ,:-.:1 as a henefit-r. inir (1918), treats program wa4es and

- asa COsti even thOU:qii.--.the,:kestaindek of all three analyses used ,a -Social

.,TekspaOti*.`

4

:.7 '', _l-"r Iiis",:ii,Iin-appr' cipr.late. f'-or the social ' perspective, as we have ,noted,,

;I:ieOanae aliiiOUtih -tkahefer iiaYinent: ... ,,. ... , I ej , ,,,, a, ., . 4 , reductions are benefits :to. nonparticipants

t fir 0 Oti, i -04,0,:. 0, 0 s ;,' t 9: participants and thus should not ,apiiroOlataik. appear

;iiy=i44',4-044;.-.kdo--,_**4:

..
1WithrespeCt,4to differences in 'which,,,benoi kite, and cOStS-. are

. . . included, authors sometines disagree about which benefits or costs are

small enough to ignore, more Often,Certain ,benefita.arid-doitS, have not

'-.;?..0.*04410*,-44'P.041-10 the studies,' 1aced the resources or the Iata to

_

do so. Whatever the reasons, . the comparison -problem i further aggraVated. .. the' ,differences in benefits and costs ,considered. 1,f we -wanted to

caMPare,, Supported s., 4001 ,40, cos.O.tudy,,, for example,

it 'wotIld,...be, difficult to -knOW to treat those ; benefits, g: .reduced

tto,t, are **red for Supported Work but not for the Cain Job

, . Corps study 0ropPing:the,,additional SUpported,,Work;,benefit, recalculating

riet.iPresent value, and comparing the resuits-to that of Job corps would

, _ , r

j-iipt;',TiedetSarily give. a correct .ranking of the two programs because the

, i

. '11?!.41;1404- *03fits, might be higher for one program, thari, the :other:.

-2V-iimiiar problem arises. if we 'Want to compare evaluations done

. ... .,

' (from different _perspedtiVesfor, example, Supported Work -and (iris of the ..

S';

"perSPeCtive studies mentioned earlier ... If all the, information

exiated 414 -Were readily ,available, the: mixed perspective could be changed

- ;

..

, to i social perspective by dropping out transfers. While this is -conceptually . . -."

-

, easy to do however, it IS often practically impossible because 'transfers

. . ,.

, f = - .

- may -not-.be ,.iclomti.li.ed separately and isolated from -program costs.

-Another -a:Si:lat.:Of ,Methodology that varies across analyses

the.:proCedUre, Used -tO extrapolate benefits into the fixture. The discount

rate ieMplOyed- in the, etudieS-,karige. from 0' to 15 percent. Assumptions

4 regarding #1Y1.. 44640, of benefits- also vaiy Some studies aSst.* a time

. horizOn,of one year, ;Others 10 years, and Still others the remaining work

. life,-0144tiCiPantSiiie"-through.age'62 or 65). SOMe assume that

: 357:

.
benefitS,riiiintnfUlk-force thi's on

- re` O*4- 'oth4r4

t2iey decay, at 'rates 0;T:to,'3$-'ierdent pi'4Ee-re-h6es;

#'14*#4034****1400403*'h§:00t44,444344444.0*-4 Pro140 .. ,. .... for 4' COMOitilS66,:iindeiltOies-Often-004ht T444#4'44144 several 4jff4e4

4461100.404.i., 04ic.benefii=Post resuitd.Cinte. diiCUI4ted'

.

, 0:444 i.arePorted. . "Methodological differences; thenii'are-Pf'differenttyped, _. hot- differencesr., 444434 Ou''the cumPers44:ltY of results. Extra-

.Po_iatiOh.****Aphi,aie:,:eaSie0t `taj%O.tancliSize-i although the data

"I necessary fOesuch-4redaiOUlation,are not always Published. Differences

ip.ibdauuting-fiaewoikeiiiiiOre difficult to deal With: When . peiSPeCtiVeS are,iniked it ie often iMPoSaiblereconstruCt estimates

. from a consistent peripectiVe-hecauSe the necessary disaggregatiOn of

the component resuits_is,noi reported. 'When different benefitS and costs

are measured, there-is-often -no -waY-o-making-a-meaningful-comparison-of--

overall results. 'Finally,- differences in the comparison -group methodologyUsed are the hardest of all to deal with since there is no way. to standardize

: across-Studies, and the effects of biades from inadequate comparison groups or

different statistical estiniaticih,tediiii444 are unknown.

In spiie.of these problems, the SuOotted,WOrk results -will be

- compared inioiedetail-With four other studies=4the WIN-II evaluation,

the 1978:Job Corps studli, the study of LIFE, and the Vera Institute

,4/ Analysis Of WildCat. AlthOugh.these studies vary'in their: degree of

cOmpirabillifiwith Supported Work,-they share certain characteristics

which make comparison efforts more likento be fruitful: they are all

repent studies and they had target group': similar to those of Supported

?"'

r
yr: fl""'-',1,:"

. c3ç. 1Y siieak.1.04-, the --eAsO ,meeeured,eimiler benefits, and

costs . Two of 'Ole* (14*E.4c1,,t4i4O-it)1:

and control Corps) made an untiSuAl.

," :

, .

,

.effort to rind a comparison group similar to the -experimentsl group

and to control statistically for measured differences

.8. 4;0".#

The,WOrk, Incentive (WIN)prOgram, eStabltshed under the Social

:,

. SecdrityAdt_in 1968, provides employment, training, and supporting

eerVides to welfare redipients. (this is the WIN program as

- reformed .in 1972) supplies varying levels of service to recipiehtt,,

with some receiving minimal services, some receiving placement help or

, training Services, an Others receiving partially or fully subsidized

--;

. employment.

Schiller's (1978) evaluation of WIN-II differs from the Supported

. .

'Work evaluation in two important reipects. .First, it :relies on a comparison group rather than a randomly selected Control group to measure

,progra0 effects. As noted above,. this inevitably 'Creates some uncertainties

about,thczaasurement of WIN't effects. Second, the benefit-cost analysis

uses a mixed-perspective accounting framework in including participant

;

. _wages and allowances (instead of foregone earnings) in costs, and it

64'

does not include value of output of the subsidized employment components

'as a benefit. Because the necessary disaggreuations are not reported,

comparisons With Supported Work's social costs are not :possible, and

. _ comparison of overall net present value is clearly ppropriate. Nonetheless, a:limited comparison with the WIN-II evaluationmay'be useful.

ic6

A 359

<

.

A
U. 

,

ita0ortantOoMiiarison,iavith,pOitpp.grant earnings

WIN7II:rai0014oSt1Progra!4.garnings of feMales by

,2y, #1040*.::- 13(Y.00t/Year; §Chiller reportS tosUltS.for five`,different

i6e1S. of s'ef

And,SubS4d.tze

unt

*(*k-are, 94T.Ancti,

elporienCeTclassifi ai'IOYSearch).: The, annual net increases, in

, l!it4 9# fcir;'f#0.1441,ar*,,Vi40and-S23I. for`` supsid#ed employment and ,

:no,:serVicesi,job',Seiroh, edUcatiOn, training,

The= components most siMiiarto_SUpported,

StAclastifieda.S stibsidited_emPloymenti and work

leb- ercy,:iiespectlyelk, AltOugh differences in the length "Of

follqwruti,compariebnirtOWhethodoIogies, and estimation techniques-17

*r . v make drefit compaisoof the magnitudes of the earnings gains inappro-

? r.,.--4.. yrk. . . _ 4*-------,;.3. . pria e these resu lts WIN do serve to reinforce the conclusion from

the Suppotted Work evaluatign that job-creation prbgrams appear to be

able to raise the post-program earnings of female AFDC participants.

Earnings gains,

,df course, should not be judged without comparison

to costs: Dnfortunitely,.as noted above, the cost data reported by

Schiller (1918) are federal WIN budget outlays, not social 'costs. These

estimates cannot be compared with Supported' Work's costs because they

include participant wages and allowances instead of foregone earnings; they

4

include the cost of child care and supportive services provided by WIN;

they omitceniral administrativecosts; ana they omit some project and

overhead costs.

.

Unlike the estimates reported here for Supported Work, thesg

and other estimates reported for WIN7II do not'include fringe benefits.

-? /Work is in progress at Ketion which makes use of a longer

follow-up period and different estimatiOntechniques.

419
. -:wlildCat,.:SerVice.,COiaporation,,, as dieguesect, in _aliap ter. I, was the

first -SUPPorted-. Work,:i*PV.**`141- the Vr4iif47-'01i9.--an14:-P4:-.-s#114Us- file the

_national- Snitsported.,',,Wcirk, demonstration. A :benegii-.!cost;:etraluation---Cf the

- A .:Wildcat Orogra0.0v4Fing.he,fiSst-t..hree'yeatts.afiek enrollment wag made

. .

. . by Vera: (FriedMari, .100-, betWiien 074 and;, 1975. The program :Partid-i=

. ..... .

.

. .

, pants, included in the study were -:ex- addicts, though viilddatiater enrolled

- -', k "eit.i=Offenders-,an4,,, later Still,,,"-Wheri,, it !became .part of the-natiOna1,:.

- irOthe-,igid= AFDC recipients.

Vera's, .,(Oriedsian,, 1978) findings_ are presented in -Table 'v;,t-t.-3

.alongside -'the results' for .7the-:natiOnaI'dethonstration'sz ex- addict target

-grOnp atter '36. mOnthii: Vera (Friedman -,- 1978) limited its benefit=cost

analysis tO- the nonPartidiPant -Perspective. ,,- The -rieceesiwy-disaggregations

.

, .be

--.

. wete -reported,. -hOweVer, sO"thatbenefits and costs from- the participant

. ,

.

. . ric1=. 4ocia" 1. PerapeOtiVes..00-iie,4ieteriined: 7.

',.

. . 9othprograsie,elicit,/ a':PoSitiVe, net,Present social value Or

, -

t th#ee :,Year,s. 144.1e the -overall' .findings ate relatively more - . -

... r -,Theeresults:are-reparted.by, :Lucy Friedman- .(1979)-, Chapter 14.

_ .separate, -inelys14.-.cif-,WildCat- was done by FriedMan (1971)

-*4414: 01Y--iak:*4144447--'514*:-

aesUlteltfne.thiljtationai'demOnitration are --based on -Measured

the -tdonths. for the entire = sample and the-bench- . estimate fOr -months-,287;95;_"tienetits: were not extrapolated' beyond

-3-6,-sin60.44 ,

,

- The -nonpartiOipant henefit=COst, findinge are -presented by Lucy

`. Friedman, .(108i. in, ,Table 15.; 11:4 i,- the, needed earnings-'data are

rePorted,-in:Tablee- 9:4:
")? 'Table, V,.. . .

,. .4

titImAiiirOemioiriiiailoboors.pravv9miitiiyoiiiiiiiisiilioiruirt,isooviiiitoi!orntsiiiiiouto*, ?OW MICA! Aim int-osioic:rs 111:1111t 010oit...sourramio se*: 0611041:211WiT1011-

'

---:----7-----------7

',I1UnuiLta.(Juilars) ,

Cu

- -Wildcat Sergice rpdietion - Witical berm ttttt Lon

PeripectIro ".' " Petelkactiva.

Participant -,Olomokrtlolyailt = Sucist - ylartloiliwit,' ilumpafrrticipant

VO WI S431 .1n-Progiam tiutitut. 12.034 6, . i2,I134 3,363

1.5/6 1,516 :5

-1;0'4 1,092 t 0

IirJuulai Taanstsr I..kyle:44in -2:569 2.569 -

13

. .......

itednund Administritiva Custp at Transfers It/ ..' t/ 30 \ . ltudticud Criminal .1suiliLte Systims Coati 773 0 773 1,732

. , ,

4. ilink,C04 1,teSUCII'"11/11WV. 41$14 PrOlairty Damage . r of V . .t/ 299

, . Itude.sldStulen rantiniglY e 2/ it/ 100.

.1M:teas:i "it-Prutpam (input .jearnin9S1-

a4a..4.L.Tax ,,.Pc Mar trelt.Einis

Imiduced tutoi/d.zullui Tcuatamoit OM tu . d/ V 11/ 21

o

inedutod Use of Alteiliativlichs:atiom and ... taaeluveal4 Service* a/ . V a/ 79

. , o

Natii14.:414 Ts a In I isti Al luwortuva .. iti t./ a/ 0

..

,04,z,ti (dollars)

Program Operatir4 Costs!? -5.719 0 -5,719 -3,790

O 9,669 -9,669' 0 '

In-Yrtgram Ea i nips

fpregone Earnings -2.216 -2,216 0 -1,219

Cesilt41 A.Irrintata-Jtiva colts a/ , !If V -201

7--1i6:1-- '41r-7zcum -Value (001rettru-Mtnus-Costs) 7,iou---1._s ,32ILL__f-_-1.840--- 480

.0.. --5

-317

. -402

0 s'

0

0

.-97

- 0

0

-10

0

3.777

-1.219

0

1,727

a

4

3,, 30

...64;

31\

.1. 7

' 402 A

30 .. .., 1.144.

299

277

2179

10

-3.790

-1.777

0

-201

-1.247

.,1 .

4"e

I'..,

.

-.

.

a

-

.

,

,;1,

-j

. . .

. tint. The wildcat gamin.* ere the figures In Vgiadmm (1978) intlatekby,17.5 versant (the Gill. deflator) to reflect price(' iu

the fourth lludrtut of 1976, Ulu middlu saltier of the data outiVat tun period for the natio/mil sugPortetkieurk

Jemonsirattnn. Thu natiOnal Supported Work 4..shunstratio-n results are benchmark estimates ter the 36 months atter enrolir

meat Lu Make thtm nu comparable as pussibinznith thewl1chlat estimates. tartan may not wind total due to rounding.

/Hut igasured

,Program (+grating cost is Mu sum of project and overheadlcoiie.
.0drabA7t-,he-litent.7of ,4-theldifteren0 and_sthe_overall

, . _ , .

of , = .C9143414(:)* tnIkS tiatiOrtiuit differences iri-the restilts Cotatiaring

- _ :sdis: Of the IindingS -for . benefit AAd' .odeti .comPonints draws . -a,

. : Attention to some key_ differendee_betWeen...Wildcat. and -,the -national)

; -aarrarisra401.14_ as, well between 'Vera.' (FriedMan, 1978) evaluation tech-

.

_ e piques "t40'51 e k iibed-iii"this repOrt.

.. . First Wildcat:1v program costs per participant, are slightly

4

-higher thanIn_the-net,ional*demonstration, -Wildcat's costs per year of

.

- .service -are-Oyer 40 percent 1/ -Selferai poSeible reasons for

relatively loWer'operating costs can be iderktirie.d. tie of' the causes

. *. 0, . 0,

'is that WildCat had relatively ,fewer materials:intensive construction

,and retail, service work prijecItl.i.1 _Another likely 'explanat4on of

.

. r . ..

.. . . -. s 0.30 c a t ' s lower operating cotit is larger' program scale. The Wildcat

.. . program at the .,..i.me.of Verats (Friedman, 1978) study .had- aboilt three times as

many-VartiCip ents as-the--average-eite-in_the_..na_tional demonstration, Which

0 Wsitalct be expected to result in iovier operating cost per participant.3! +

:Second, Wildcat's estiMated Value of in-Piogram -titput is much

higher than the' benchmark esi4maie: national deMonstration. This

t

.

.-,The average length_ofjA ograte.stay by Wildcat participants was. .15-WeekS, c:spired to 29--Weeke.*ii the-7national._demonstrationi (Friedman, r - 1978; p. _113-.) -: ,

t. 4-

. . "' ,.. ! . , --3/- , 'Only. 3 percent,ofthe, project slots listed in Apiendix A to

'Friedman_ 4-1978) correspond. to -cohstruction projects other th\an painting; . - !?itone,0ce-_-.7aisodia4rd-44t.4-reta...i.1.0erVic4s.;

-

,

I economies in-;,.SUPported Work site veratiOnsare discussed

in' 1.,,i0e*.-i14` -';0444't (f4t-1106m144):!

363:
4 ...partlyreflectil,ifierences-ini.average length ofsstay. Even on a

..

: ., of

. year-:,of-serVice basis, hbwever, Wildcat's value ot ihrprogram output

, . .

. 08,185): is 36 percent higher 4an ,Supported Work's ($6,918).4 Wildcat's

. ,! - -h igher estimated- value of output alone. exceeds social. costs so that

. . b4riefit=coet results ire:positive without including any additional

4.!,4t4ts. ne. reason-for,the higher Valli" of output ig that more 'of -. - Wildoitparticipants!- enrollment timie.is spent working on projects! since

. ,

. . , Wildcat had leas absence-time and less program time in nonwork activities.

,7*..- I. .. FinallIT.although-eStiMatel of, the Value-of.outeui for Wildcat and

.. . the. -nationa demonStratlon- were generally goite'close forsimilar types

. . . . of work, Wildcat emphasized activities that turned out to'have higher

value of outpt (net of prOject cost) than those emphasized by Supported

Work: In addition, one,exception to.

T results was in an activity -- building

for both programs. The higher 9st

0.":

# 4

the generally similar value of output

.maintenance--that was important

ed value of output for building .

.

. 1 . , , maintenance projects Al the Vera (Friedmari,±978) study further increased

the Wildcat estimates re7ative to Supported Work.

. 4 Third, while the post7program earnings gain'of participana

. the national demonstration was estimated to be"small, Wildcat paiticipants, registered a substantial gain. There is some evidence; however, that the

post-program earnings of ex-addicts in the national demonstration may.

havW1improved,overtime in relation to the earnings of controls suggesting

that post-program earnings gains may continue beyond three years.

Post- program earhings.,gains for Wildcat, in contrast, decayed over the

three-year perlodir.-: li

1/-.see Friedman (1978), especially pp. 67-71, 78-88.

364 49s Ao. r'

4

."
, -. FOurtn, the-diOerenceA:ititp#xirmSli*ehings (due tO Wildcat's

f -, -, r - ... .- , .,_-- ... -.. . itongeraVerage length.of stay) and . ... ., . post-program earningt-are reflected in . . ,, .- . a . the resOtt-ToeintreaSed7tai-paYmenti7and-reduceltrinSfer-payMentd.-- 1 '-

-

,-, '' , ',..:, DePite certain measurement ditferencesi /

both Vera's, (Friedman, 1978)

....,

. -,evalUationandthe present study estimated that approximately 12 percent of

-, -,

. . .

,

. --:.;

.: 'thtatar exPerimental--i-controi,eitenings difference was paid in increased taxes.

The greater reduction in transfer- payme4s also mirrored the relative earnings

resatd-,--thailqii the increase in Unemployment compensition to-partidipants

'-', u ", . . in the hatitnial demonetrati, on-A transfer not measured in Vera's '(Friedman, - -. - ** I978) evalUation--also Was a' factor inthis difference. . . , Finally, the benefits of reduced criminal activity for.the

S.

4%.

national, demonstration are substantially reater than those for Wildcat.

This is dud to both observed behavioral differences and differences in

-the techniques used to value behavioral changes. While Wildcat initially

had a greater,effect.on participants in reducing overall arrests than did

-,q the national demonstration, the effect quickly decayed" Vera (Friedman,

1978) 'Valued the overall Wildcat arrest reduction, measured by interview

. data,,,only in:terms of criminal justice system costs)-" As described

- . . . Vera estimated only sales and4indome taxes; the national demonitration evaluation also included Social security taxes.: Sales tax payments.

were iMputed in .a. similar manner in the two studies, while income taxes were .,, estiMatedsomewhat differantfY. New York State and City sales and income ,::,, tax-rates for vera (Friedman, 1978). were higher than in sites iii the

.natiOnal demonstration.

. The arrestrate,was much lower for Wildcat experimentals than con- ; trol- during the first 12 months (.26 per participant year for experimentals,

-.58'fo.: controls), about the same during these4nd 12 months (.31; .32),

and higher duringiOnth# 25-.36' (.40, 127). FrieriOan (1978), p._80.

3/ Friedman (1978), pP. 111=-118.

424

365.

`;,i

4
in Chapter III, arrest reductions resulting from participation in the

nationaldemonstration, also :measured through interviews, were

da4a4gregated by criminal charge and adjusted for respondent underreporting.-

The value attached. to reductions. of arrests took into account personal

injOry4 property damage-, and stolen property as well as criminal justice

_ ."and.insurance system costs.'

; "--- The-comparison thus indicates that theeprimary diffe ence in

. resat-4: 4.arna fkam.,.differendes in net cost (cost less value of output)

apparently caused by differences in scale, time spent on output-produding

,activities, and work project mix. Both programs reduded arrests and

increased post- program earnings, although the effects decayed rapidly

for Wildcat but not for the national demonstration.

LIFE (Living Insurance for Ex-Offenders) was a controlled

experiment using random assignment conducted in Baltimore, Maryland,

. between 1972 and'1974. .It provided financial assistance to a sample

of males (randomly divided into experimental and control groups) who

had been recently released from state prison and who had a high prof

bability of recidivatin4.

1/

The program was designed to facilitate the

4 joi, search activities of these ex7inmatee and thereby ease their transi-

. tion.from prison into the labor market. Lin thus differs from Supported

,.." 1/A component of LIFE provided job placement services in addition

to or as an alternative to financial aid. However, this component did

not.appear to,have any measurable effect on participant outcomes (Mallar

. and Thornton, 1978a). Therefore, evaluations of LIFE have focused on

the financial aid component.

4 ° 366 0
',WOrk4n.tWO:-iMPO#i0 respect*: LIFEdid nOt,Provide training or work

exP,eriefiee, so that. its, scope is far more limited than that of

SkiptiOirork, andjti.target:group-differed from Supported Work's

ex-offendeis: ..

An evaluation fof LIFE was conducted by. Mailer and Thornton

(1978a-and 1978b) using procedures and assumptions similar to those

' used. in the Supported Work evaluation.rt estimated LIFE's social net

A ' present:value per participant to be between $400 and $4,000,,depending

on what aisumOtiohs were made regarding disPlaceient, discount rates,

; A 1/

and deday rates. ' 'The bulk of these benefits, derive from increased

output, with substantial reductions in burglary and larceny arrests

t.

also generating large benefits.

While the dati'from Supported 'Work do not allow a benchmark

net present value estimate to be made for ex-offenders, a few comparisons

can be made between the results for the first year in LIFE and the

.11 results from Supported Work for months 1-27T-Iirk-St, the reduction in

total afrests was much larger for LIFE.. The control-experimental

difference in average number of bu ' iry arrests in on year was 0.065 per

participant for LIFE while the simi result for Supported Work durin4

, months 1-27 wr:s -0.01b burglary arres...5 per participant per year. (i.e.,.

ock experimentals had more burglary arrest ' controls). Given the estimated

11'The ower bound estimate

rate, a 14 percent annual decay rate for ear

and that half of participant's earnings gain:

of nonparticipants. The upper bound assumed

no decay of earnings on welfare differential;

3674 2 6

Ypercent annual discount

/s and welfare differentials,

iflected the displacement

percent discount rate,

k 1,,no displacement.

o
" -

a

- -resource cost per arrest Of::bUrglariea, '$8-,74§,,, this implies a

. . substantial benefit for ;LIFEitotai burgi.ary benefits,:4 $569 per

participant for -LIFE one year--compared to an estimated net

annUaloott,of $131. per participant for Supported Work ex-offenders.

A COMparitOn, otother controi-e$perimental difierenCes for these group'

ofix4Offenders-shOWs: (ii LIFE reduced larceny and motor vehicle

theft arrests While therewas,an increase in these arrests for

Supported Work; (2) in bOth-programs there,were estimated increases

in-rObbery-arrests-but4hat-for-LIFE-wasLelightly-largerithan-th

indrease observed for Supported,Work; (-3-)--the post-program earnings

gain for LIFE was larger than that for Supported Work; and (4) changes

in the use of transfer programs were similar.

1/

Thus, the, benefits

for the first year after enrollment in LIFE appear to outweigh those

for the first.27 months 9f Supported Work.

On the cost, side, the two programs also differ substantially.

LIFE was a simple transfer program providing weekly cash payments for

up to 13 weeks. As a result, estimated social costs were quite small,

$125 per participant2/- -% In comparison, the work project orientation of

Supported Work led to greater costs, even when the value of output

1/

The LIFE evaluation was not able to estimate changes in all the

transfer programs considered in the Supported Work evaluation. Also, it did

not estimate the value of changes in use of alternative employment and,'

training programs or drug treatment programs. If these-items were added

to the LIFE evaluation, the results would not change substantially, since

the change in alternative program use was quite small and the LIFE experi-.

mentals and controls were screened to eliminate persons with histories of

drug or alcohol abuse:

a(Administrative cost data were not available, costs were estimated

on the basis of administrative costs incurred in public transfer programs.

427
Yr.

-roiecti was tracted 'as a-partial-offset'tb costs

PIPPorted Work was greate7 than that

*-04.r:,'"--,aj:.40`,01g.I#E-after.One year -Was

positive while ':that 6:3.110.t4tii.,kOr erofienders, over- the first 27

-0:5040 9- rted particiPants, howeVer, were

better-off financially in .Supported, Work because the transfers implicit

041:iPf4;t4414.6 '144464a44144:.t4e- ea#4-94- and Pqg'a* P417*#;

gains

_ . 0.444-4-cr,i4r. ,-41FE':ParilCipants.. Beyond tEis early period., comparison

4g. 2iedai4e- Of the uncertainty over the ,benefits

. -6. after ,month 27 for ex-offenders-'in' Supported

'Interpretation of results i0- also made difficult by the differences

between the types of ex -of.fende.ts -enrolled in the two pidgrams-particularly

LIFE'S emphasis -on repeat, theft offenders with high a priori probabilities

5 of rebidivating. Because of this orientation it is not clear that LIFE' s positiiye -ketults would persist if the program were applied, to a broader

ex-Offender population like that le:lib-lied in Supported Work. Further

- c evidence on this point comes from the evaluation of the !transitional Aid

-Rase Arab: Prbjebt (TARP) (RBSei, _Beck, ietiihatt, forthcoming)

. a ,program . ,

. , _ , ' , that. 44.4 apply some ,of -ibe-t#E_PrOgram teatures to a general_pbpulation .. - ...- . of'Peopie released troik :State prisons in Georgia and Texas. An evaluatie:0 of i'ARF, indicated 00 'Significant differences in criminality or earnings between akPeri*OntaliSnd:COntrOls4-;

It;can be bonclUded. that LIFE did accomplish two Of Supported

ti Work's -major goale--redUcing, criminal activity and increasing post- program

earningsat far,less costs It does no necessarily follow,. however;
:7-7`7.-

.

that :poliCidmii,ceri should favor it over Supported Work for a general, . population

01;

of 'ex-offenders ..- Increases future benefits for Skipported, "' 11/ `,, :

. .gOalinotably the transfer

of income through iiages paid for work-'could Make' Supported Work more

'tettrac .

Job Corps is .a federal 'training 'program: for ciiiaaVintaged.

V-04,h*.4$0*--0t4344,Alaci`10-'4,,§4-4n4 i'ilc*:01).0x404;1* thf'T.0!

.."P,PAP1440r under, T#14 IY'qf t11 -0000010P.04,11;i11140YROPt and

- T Tk 04404,* (.0#4)i,. It 0.4:iters, from Supported Work in at least

three important roo,,ots,. First, it is largely a residential 'Program.

Second, Fpart4.0.paps.,spens most .of their time in classroom education

and training, rather' than in work activities. third-, While Job ,Corps

provides a. Cash allowance to participants as well as support services,

it d00 ;:10# thei,Weges. , Results of an evaluation based on the firit ,six. months of postt, program, obServation-of Jo'b 'orpe by Thornton, Lang, and-,_ MaUar (1978), are

presented .elong, with the kesults.6"k the evaluation for

4 .Supported ,. Work's .yOUth target grtip. t

.. ta'Overall, the findings for ,Job COrpt

. . are decidedly more favorable from the nonparticipant and -Social perspectives than those for Supported Work. Job Corps participants produce

. , 3 a

. substantially more post-program output and shoW, a greater ,reduction

e,- . -:

in criminal activity. These major differences--along with relatively

, ,graaer reductions in. drug treetMeht,coets, the use of alternative services,.

F.
,iltaacifits; Idol lac:14

- , *04'

oliational'Oemolitrition arspaot vs!: -.

- stialpant. lOoMiirticiiiiit ;Social, iisiiiiipaii:- 'Nonparticipant

;Value of, In4rogral Output 170' - ;i1F""!ctrk9fi'4Faiirfa'0.**-- 04r140r, '1,239' 1i09

46ciiialtd,Tax;iiimenta*9artiCipants. --104 .. i!filei14141041i441#.4!' ', . 'i-D' -4011,

Ccid..Adminiiitraiii048iiaLITASSfsEs- 120; iii Ocad-CriainiCanstiel'iyitese Costs 1494

iiddeid ParsOnal-injai;ancri irOpartirOmmigi 274 0'

Radocidltolen7,PrOperty, ... - 397 -581

, .. 'Seduced -Drug /Alcohol Troitmont-cooti 175 ,0 ,Eithiced Usi of"Altainstiee,idiciiionand

CMP1011emt Simla. 391 0

4lidaced Training Allowances 0 -73

.... ,

1- q

-;Costs (dollarp) , 11......_ Prograi.Opararing Cosrls2A -2,749 0

in-Program Earnings ..- OS/ 1,384Et

'ioregone Earnings -87911/ -7261/

*,Central Administiativiioosts -1,359 0

Met-, rrrrr nt Value (Benefits Minus Costs; 251 39

-.sit- ..- 1,394 ,1,194- 0 '29 -it, 0

'10; 0 -..!i!1, 341

4.4:11. 0. -1,361 061

lio 320. 0 229 1,196 Sti All'

, . 853

274 -1,356 , 0 -1,356

- 968 .. 404 :218 622 175 -116 0

.-116

9.

. 391 100 0 . .100 73 0 = 205 -205

-2,749 . :4,833 0 -3,833

-1,i8451 0 3,551 -3,551

-1531(' -974 -974 0 -1,359 . -203 0 -203

212 -1,465 892 -2,357

1.

a mous TheJob Corps, results arit,tha benchmark figures-rn Tunnton,,iong, and Mallor (19711) The national Supported Work

demonstration reiulti Airs lacielmIkk;fsfimates. Oatail'amy, not equal total due to rounding.

( 1/SomeJohPorpswOrit projects, such as on-canto dormitory improveminta,idiiectly benefit gorpmsembers.

,

.

. . .2/Program operating Cost Ii the:sam-of project and overhead cost. for Job Corps, this also includes unbudgated program

Costi,eiiimetsd by ItointOn;:tOng,and Weller/i1970; .41 .

-

. Stitii includes:06ippiesberellowinCes plus the eitliated valui,of in-kind transfers to Job Corps, traineeirin the form

cf, Om, board; ind` midiCal eeri. -Colpimeabaki dO not;i:Oivi'4%-piOiaa.-wages.

A/Job-Corps estimates o .foregoneearningitaksAlito acodont 4 "ioisgOas" tax payments while in Job Corps. Post- program ncreasuirin:tee payaohts'414J6Cluded'as4--seaarera.bensfit:' :' .,

_ .
ea end- training eiloitimaeti-=iidedunt- for -the- overall differences. It 'also

.can 'be 'not'ed that, "in this ease, 'Supported -Work constitutes- the imaller

.. ,OgtAette:alocialinyest*entsi: the net-cost af.SUppOrted Work (program

.. ,. zesieninue V a lu e ,o f in vregraM:Out ut) is-1 eig th a n- the net cost of - . . Job cori31.

Despite their. higher, post ,104;01 e*plingst .coipsriobe# ,do

not,cogle,aut as Weil-frOMtbe petticiPantrporipectiye as participants

ih,:44009Fte4:WO#i This 4ciu#"to 4.7.harkactthat higher. Supperted'.

Work 'in-,prOgrani earnings- dominate -the perticiPant .pe;spective. caicula

tion.

Mannof.the differences, for-partiOularjbenefit'and cost components

Mirror specific program differences. First, the difference in the value.

of,in-prograMautput results almost entirely from thevfact that Job Corps

-participants spend most of their time in the claisro6.1/ Sepond,

supported worker wages, end-fringe.be9rfits exceed the cash allowances

and in -kind benefits provided to corpsmembers.by design. :Third, while

sinthe operating costs of the programs,are similar, a substantial part

of the Job Corps expenditures 'is devoted to residential services and

.. . ,classroom staff, while a largek.iiert of Supported Work's bUdget is devoted.

S -taTIHPUtS fot work projects. lnyarth, there is a highly positive'benefit

from reduced corpsmember criminal activity, while there is a slightly

negative benefit for Supported Work associated with criminal behavior on

1/

On average, CorOsmembers spend only 27 percent of their program

days'assig d to work activitiess,see Thornton, Long, and Mailer (1978),

p. 35, By omparison, 82 perCint of Supported Work hours are spent on

Work projic S; see. Kemper end'. Long (forthcoming).

372 , 4 az
she ;part of youth. The .Job Corps efect. dnA$1rticipart driinai, which

was 414-10.41Y.**Itant,41 :during the In=tircigkikm 'W*4 1,-'?ObsblY

7dOezin pait, to that- Pr 'Orem! a. structured, residential .chartoter, which

takes youths' whO out of: ,their :home' environment

.FinallY, it-Should be.noted.thati while theta .two evaluations

rare-s.thOdologicillY th40..w#e.tOxee nOtable-analyticai.dif-,

, . ferendes. Ilrste:the Supported Work eValuation:had an experimental

deaign,"while the job:CirpasiUdy, used adarefully choSencotiiion

,group-ot youths Second, the'SupPorted Work evaluation adjusted for

retpondent'Underreporting_of arrests; Since-this was not dOne in the

Job Ootpe-study, the effect of Job Corps on criminal behavior is probably

underatated. -.Third*, the joh,COrps.results are based on only one year of

,outcome measurement, and 'the benefit-cdst results are sensitive to the

assumptions. made in extrapolating the post-program .,,,ndings. An updated

'analysisetesed on additional follow -up -of corpsmembers. is scheduled

for publication later this year.

CONCLUSION`

The'overview of bonefit-cot enatiles presented at the outset'oi

4 -. this chapter enumerated the methodological inconsistencies that hamper ".

. ,.. . .

. .,. coMparisofts like theoneis attempted" in this chapter. The most,important,,

. .

. 4

. lesson from this overview is that comparison of "'bottom line" results--

, " that is, looking ,only at net present vexe estimates for various programs--

. can be highly misleading. The spedific'program comparisons made later in

. a 1/See.Thotnton, Long, and Mailer (1976), pp. 14 -15.

ft

373 432
the, chapter were cOnSeqUini4::liMited-to-:relativelysimilar

. . evaluationS-

`4, ,0rOgram**e rVi ng :siMilar:target groups, UPs. , a.n d were re focUSed o n fi- n,.ding.a.

l

for indiVidual,beriefii and components rather thanOVeralf-resulta.

,., At-the,:sithe,tiii3OOMPArisoni-ofhenekit-cost reiUlts.that.go

,beyandehe-bottoM-line!and',ekataine-the comporient-befiefits and. costs

can PrOVI.de,a 4:er-490-44-c1.0 of relative'mer#*'alid-drawbackri

-of .programs, .o'f' the- differencesr in levels and tyP,?.isof*ocial investinvents inVolvecr, of'the-aMOunts.of inCome'redistributicm associated with

progra, and of which 'Program effeets and'Costs axe 1.;Iportant.

For example, Job Corps' effect on participant crime is central- to the

. _ last of the.fO'-' .lompar,isons presehted. Highlightin that onebenefit--

discussing its n .-_.. :cement, comparing it to Supported, rk's effect on

criminal behavior, and identifying tle role of program differences indetermining the results7gives a valuable insight that would be lost in

a quick recital of overall results.

Although, important to arriving at poligkjudgmeots about the

effectiveness of alternative programs, the sta--.,z of much benefiX-cost

research. is such that theSe useful component-by7cmaponent comparisons

cannot be made. Questions about the credibility og M.lasured outcomes

because of the comparison-group methodology, differences in program

accounting systems and cost definitions - and poor documentation of

methodology and results often make.comparison,of speciac components

impossible. Even in those four cases where the program target groups

and evaluation methodologies were relatively similar, we encountered

difficulties in comparing the resultr once we began to elllve more deeply.

to 374
_ ,

t

The quality of benekitcOet.,,fiValua4ons ..generaily, thus, needs

ri, , _ to .;)* improved if -More useful' .comparisons : are to be Made.. The .evaluations,

Muet- also .be, extended to 'wider range, .of employment and -training programs.

/.,._._.- , .- The four ;Studies inallided in. 'the "icoMParr,facint- "here eVa.luated.-only a

.. . _ ,. ... I

. fraátion of' the-empIoyinent and training :prograraii for the tar;4eti,groUps

. 1- -- . sierVed-'6Y -sup4orted..ifori5. l'hiei is especially true ,for the ex-Oftender.

and -yOnth..targe.t. groups. The..primaryalternatiVe program for. the -AFDC

'target 'group. is 'W114, t.hoUgh.-there are other options such as 'the. -Work

.Equity Program (EP) demOnstration. There are:few employment and

. training options for e*-addiets, though several, drug treatment programs

;have training and placement components. There are, however, numerous

; -1 alternative program apProaOhe's for x-of fenders and youth '4,b 'addition

..-. . , . i

to LIFE and Job -Coqs... 'Those for ex-offenders include prison training

0

and prison work -programs; wórk reiease, post-release training, and , placement .services aad: .incOrwr supPort; and other work-experience programs

for ex-offenders. Youth eMploYment and training approaches, in addition

to gob Corps, include a. great y work experience and summer jobs programs

under "OETA: ! ' 1. Despite the limited number of comparisons made and the difficulties

encountered, the four specihd* dOxnparisOns we did make provide usefiil in-

. .4.

eights. .114ihoug4 some; qualifications, noted above must be attached: to

-'

the evaluation, the comparison to WIN-II, reinforces the conclusion drawn,

from Supported Work, that job program's can substantially raise pdat=programearnings of female AFDC recipients., The evaluations are too. different,

however, to determine whether one program' is' more effective- in any overall

375

-.
,eense-than the, other,.-

i74f0,-doilO*42-.6kto:4ildaatt,..althiidgh itehoweeemewhet.different.

r r Mi.eEfeOtk for ,t4i,ese two .applications of the -SUPported ,Work 1,OOncePt,-

- - cso04-0:41. oliere3:17-reeUlts. This suggests tillOguppOrted,

itokk-is an effective .employment -arid 'fraining.apPrbech fc;r ex- addicts. _

/.±#,,reeulte suggest thit- .a -efficient

poliOii option; for a -spediel-:,group -of ei-Offenders, ebtv%ole4

that it -would work af, extended- to. Supported-.Work ttajrget'grOup4 'Indeed,

. .

. -there-li° evidence that-other7prOgraMe-eimilar-.to LIFE-,, -bUt"-forr-a

. roader -targer_group, have not "achieved itslevel of 'success,-j../ and other 1'

employment and training programs for ex- offenders haVe had. mixed results ,.. at be.di43/ -41":;(44

.

' zt

. Finally, Job Corps- -to which the Supported Work results for . 4.

0

. youths are compared.--represents an unusual policy approach among employment -, -

. training 3/ 4 4 . '

Is and training programs: Its largest benefitreduCed crime---eppearso . . 0,-,...

4./

. , : ,. . ..., , . be partly, due to its residential nature, which is.not typical of employ- 4*-, '$, \

` merit and training programs. If the results of this preliminary'evaluatioh ,.,.

Of Job Corps are confirmed when the 'longer folloci-up data are aliailablil

. .

. .

. . it will then appear as an egfidieni alternative to Supported Work. As.

, . 4) no te d above, however, Job-Corpt is not representative of programs for youtlii1 i-1

,.. A., (cw

\, iiiia the narrowness of this comparison should thus be kept in miild.0 ' .

- , 1/See the Employment' and Training Report of the President *(q.,979ii;. pp. 199-200; Stershens and Sanders (1978) ,. and Smith, Martinez add ar r is on

':(1978) for discussion of the TransitiOnal Aid Research Project ). ./.. 4fa .- 'See Martinson (1951 for a review of the-literature

- ).

- Studies Of other ;programs servi ng youths haVe mixe findings. see;

,.- tor example, Srennan, and 'Frieen...4k97,0) an4plympgifdtif dh Corporation

(197):). 104 .' , 770,n)

I 3/

ri
c;p4kpixn: VZ

cor4usIgNs.

'a a . . 7 hiss; report - _ an assee!iment-of the

`bepefits1 and..Ctists:of the' national tUppOited .Work deMonstratiOn._ The purpoll, of this,concluding.chapter-li-to-trace.s6mt-Of-the-implicationi-of

the--reisu4S. for employment and :training policy 4nd for future evaluation

t. researCu.

AT-rricr-imPlacimioNs

.Two _sets of, policy conclusions can be drawn from the benefit -cost

P.

- evaluation of Supported Work. Overall judgments about the effectiveness

I

0

of,SAPported Work for each of the four target groups obviously'representl one important groilp of conclusions. Also important, however, are poliir

condluSions regarding individual benefit and cost components of the

analysis that ife key to the overall results.

Prograi Effectiveness

.The results .of the evaluatiOn clearly indicate that SuppOited Work

has been effective7rfromtleverspective of society a whole and the

-nonparticipants who bear, the-taxes, required to fund the program - -in pro-\

n

.

. vlding-serfices to AFDC repi'piatits and ex-addicts. ;;Tie- overall results

- are positive. for tiar44 grpaps, aixkonly,a.drastiealtering of

the beriChMark ait4Options4cipid,change the overall-conpludions:

. 4

* Thd-,comparison Of these' results to those of similar programs serving' - ,

. . similar target grail-pa reinforces this conclusion., Pieltiadmirie'results'ok A-,_

-. . an -O*9.44tiora of` -3N (thej.#imaarTE94.4cyoptIon0i:AFDp recipients) sup=

pOrt*,the OndlUsiOnthat subsidized employment ciiiA64-iii effective -policy

i -. i

;

.
:a\

.

. for increasing the -e0caoyability of AFDC.recipients. An evaluation of

(-4.

-

* Wildbat"An'earlier application-di the Supported Work concept in. the

-the' onliddimarible iiiogr*:for this target group, 'presents -additional

sZriden4-that,q0pOprted:Wkirk, is an-effective approach to the emplOymentand:

Crime-probiemS_-.64.4exmad4idXS!.11

The evaluation results for the :youth target group, .hoWeVer, are

..- uhaMbiguously:negative. While partiCiiiants'are'made-better off by SuPpOrted

. '14Ork,..the results .from 'society and'irobparticipant perspeCtives'are stronglY.

-1" fiegative-"-even under reasonable alternative assumptions. It is eSPecially

notable that Virtually no benefit wersobserved for youths. in the pdit-program

1 . . period. These findings'are in contrast-to the. available eridence for

-Job Corps;, a comparable program for a youth target group, which found

substantial reductions in crime, especially while entolled in this

_ . .

s:

- , '

.. , residential program, and suggestive evidence in ttr.iiMediate.post7program

period of an increase in post-pidgram earnings.

.0

.9

Finally, the-resuAsfrom the evaluation Of x-offenders are un- . clear.' The resultt for the first 27, months after enrollment are plainly

.negative --the least Iairoiable among all four target groups. However, there

some-evidence-based on a very small sampleof a reduction in arrests

. -

and an increase inearnings during'months-28-36, making it exreiely-diificult::' Cr a

- "::, -. to estimate future benefits. Theie future 6enefits, under sane assumptiins , '-; 1 --i-:. :-*a.......,..,:,, <N.;,- raise tot:el benefits aboVe costs. from the -stancipointi of so'Ciety and .. ,." P.A'1,...'t ''"..;% :. The findings in. the two;evaluitions did differ for indtlyidual,

inpelfAt and cost components. "For! example, Wildcat's.costWas lower and estimated value.of1A=progiam-putput higher (although this comparison should*

Mas44.CautiduelY.giVen that *palate ValUe.of-output eseimatei.were not Madetor Supported -WW-kj. The-overall results, however, Were highly favorable

. , tt. **. -437
.. , .. . . 1

, .

. nonparticipants. under other assumptions, however, they do not. While we

'V 4

.

. Cannot say what future telnefits will be, we can say that they would have

. to be very large for the overall 6c-offender resultt to be'as positive as

for the AFDC and ex- addict groups. -

These conclusions, as noted, are based on an evaluation'of Supported

1, ,Work from-the perspectives of society as a,whole and of nidnparticipants,

4

who pay the bulk of the taxes required to finance social programs, An

assessment of the benefits and costs from the pertpective of participants

.it also important; especially because SuppOrted Work.hat intended distributional effects. The.analysis showed that the demonstration has redistributed income to all groups except AFDC recipients, whose loss of

. , welfare when they work is quite large. For this group; Supported Work wages

and the increased,post-program earnings--both of which are taxed--replaced

much more substantial amount of income from AFDC, Medicaid, food stamps,

and other public transfer programs than was'the case for the othef

target groups.

For all groups except ex-offenders, the results from all perspectives are remarkably insensitive to changes in the underlying assumptions.' For the AFDC, 6c-addict, and youth target groups, the qualitative

conclusions are altered only when extreme, and we believe unrealistic,

assumptions are made regarding benefits and costs. For ex-offenders, as

we have noted, uncertainty about sensitivity of the magnitude of future

benefits, and indeid whether they exist at all, to assumptions with

vspr to, extrapoletion makes it impossible to draw any firm conclusion.

There are inevitably, as with all evaluations, further refinements that

could be made in the methodology. First, regression models controlling

379 4
for .individual differences and incorporating corrections for, interview

,noniespanie.could be used to obtain more precise estimates of piogram

effects. Althougfi such refinements would undoubtedly affect the magnitude

I of estimates, _however, they would aldost certainly not affect the overall

conclusions.

1/

A second potentially important methdologidal refinement

would .be a more complete modelling of the decay of pOst-program benefits

, over tiie-and the causes,of differences among Cohorts: Such models might

make poss\Lible precise estimates of future benefits in general and might

also help reduce somewhat the uncertainty surrounding future ex-offender

grime benefits and 'future welfare reduction,: for AFDC recipients. Finally,

analysis of the-statistical significance of the benefit-cost results,

similar to that done foi.ex-offender crime benefits, would be helpful.

in identifying areas of particular uncertainty. While'all fhese refine-

. _ ments would be of research interes'... and would enhance understanding of

the results, again they would probably-not change the overall qualithtive

conclusions drawn from the analysis.

2. Key Benefits and Costs

Four types of benefits and costs are especially important 'to the

overall findings. The first of these is increased post-program earnings.

Increased- post - program earnings are a key objective of Supported Work and

2/ other employment and training prOgrams. In addition, the nonparticipant

benefits of reduced .transfer's and increased taxes are a function of income

1/

Estimates based on such procedures are\presented in the outcome

tepbrts and do not differ substantially from the experimental-control mean

differences used in this analysis.

2/

Increased earnings also are the one benefit consistently measured

in employment and training piogram evaluations, and thus are an important

element in program 'valuations.

380 43J

.
and. hence'are closely associated with. earnings gains. The benchmark

estimates of post-program earnings differences varied dramatically across

the four target groups in Supported Work. Increased postlprogram earnings--

and consequently, reduced transfers and increased taxes -- dominated the

bendhmark results for the AFDC'target group. Howeller, post-program earnings,

differences. turned out to be less important for ex-addicts, uncertain for

ex-offenders, and negligible for youth. Given the impOrtant role of

post- .program earnings. in determining overall results and the uncertainty

. about earnings differences beyond the period of measurement, it would be

desirable to continue to monitor the earnings of the evaluation sample.-

1/

Another key benefit is reduced criminal activity. Reduced crime

Was the most important benefit for ex-addicts--so important in fact that

the overall results are negative if the reduced crime benefit is excluded,

but decidedly positive if crime benefits (nearly $4,200 per participant)

are included. The results for youths,n contrast, show no evidence of a

reduction in criminal activity, and the_evidence for ex-offenders is

ambiguous. Nonetheless, the crime reduction for ex-addicts, as well as

the evidence for Wildcat and Job Corps, igdicate that reduction in crime--

because it is so costly to society--can be an important behefit of social

programs, and suggest that 'employment and training programs may in some

cases be able to reduce the criminal,behavior of their participants.

Project'cost--the costs of supervision, materials, equipment, etc.

directly associated with operating the work projects on which participants

gain work experience--and the value of project output, which are closely

. related to each other, also represent important compobnents of the evaluation.

e lISOme furthersfollow-dp of the AFDC target gtoup is currently

planned, and all groups could be followed using social security records.

381
6.

Troject casts are the second largest component of costs, and project output . is consistently one of the largest social benefits-for all' our target

groups --only the benefits of post-program output of AFDC rebipients.and

reduced criminal activity for Ex-addicts overtake in-program output when

estiMated future benefits are added in. The substantial variation in how

well projects were ablp to produce output of relatively high value (net

of project cor.t) suggeits that there. may be potential for improving

the performance of the program by modifying work prOject selectidn and

operation.

Finally, overhead cost--the Cost of enrolling participants, creating

' jobs, providing supportive services, placing participants in,post-program

jobs, and managing the program--represents the largest component of costs

in the analysiS. Finding ways of reducing it, without-reducing-program

effectiveness in achieving its benefits, should be on the Supported Work

policy agenda.

B. IMPLICATIONS FOR EVALUATION RESEARCH

This analysis has implications not only for the-effectiveness of

Supported Work as an employment and training policy, but,also for various

aspects of evaluation research. Among the many things that cbuldbe said

about designing and carrying out benefit-cost analyses of-social programs, , the following seem to us to be especially important.

First, very careful consideration must be given to the fundamental

issues in measuring program outcomes: the comparison group methdology,

samples. -size, and length of follow-up. The concern here is not merely

with the quality of evaluation research in general, about which all

analysts must be genuinely concerned. As described in Chapter VIII,

382

t.,
co*parisnne4,;evaluation,reiulia:is-Made diffieuit when the evaluations

.divegge-from theidealS of double blind random assignment to experimental

and _control groups, adequate. saMple % size, and suificient "follow.;up.

Obviously, many factors must be weighed in designing prpgram evaluations,

including their costs, but the im6ortahce,of the quality of,the Measurement

of outcomes can hardly be Overstated:

t - .Senona, a well-thought-out, consistent Acapunting framework is

alSo invaluabletto_benetit-Cost evaluations, especial* those of complex

social-progrand with inultipTe objectives. Such /framework' should include

not only the benefit and cost components; but also their. impact from

different perspectives. This allows users of the research to identify - not only the large number of individual'benefiti.and costs Bui also the,

distributional effects of the program. _Equally important,it permits

them to weigh the relative importance of various program and evaluation

issues, and to assess interrelated prograM effects such as those of income,

taxes, and public transfers. This applies not simply to the presentation

of fin-diiigt-,but-to -the-conduct-of -the-evaluation--itself-.

t

Third, adequate attention from evaluators must be given to,

program costs. Frequently, expenditure: data are received from program

operators and used in an evaluation with much less thought than goes into

analyzing program outcomes (i.e.; potential benefits). As a result,

"cost" can mean many things. It can mean the gross cost of the program,

net cost (because certain expenses or the value of certain program outputs

are excluded), "taxpayer" cost, ongoing costs, accrued cost or obligated

cost. It is often limited tn-direct costs--that is, excluding unbudgeted

costs, overhead, and. ancillary costs--and sometimes refers only to administrative costs. There is an urgent need to standardize ,-ogram cost concepts

383

1,
atid: to identify what costs should:prOperly be measured-from a given economic

perspectiveSociety, partici-Pints. nonparticipants, or any other that may.

be important for a giVerieValuation:PurPoseY

Fourth, it is important _that social program evaluationsgo beyond

the traditional outcome measures changes in post-program and a.

. transfer program use. For example, the results for Supported Work

ex-addicts indicate the need to include the value of crime related benefits.

Because'of the high cost ciecriMe, even small changes in criminal ,activity

can generate benefits that may ontweigh.those,froM increasedearnings.

The Supported Work results also show the importance of valuing in-program

output. Net program costs would have been badly 6verstated if such an

effort had not been made. In thiS evaluation these (and the other benefits

and costs) have been valued on the basis of the market prices or resources

used or 'sailed and the outputs prodUted as 'a result of the demonstration.

The limitations of this approach,..particularly,its failure to estimate

social willingness to pay, are obvious, and refinements . or superior alternative approaches would be valuable contributions to policy analysis;_but

the approach used here does allowthese important ben fits and costs to be

valued and included directly in the benef' cost calculations along with

increased earnings. '

Fifth, no matter how good the research design or the sample,

evaluation results like the ones in ttlis report are sensitive to assumptions made in extrapolating benefits and costs .into the future. , The problem is'unavoidable because evaluation follow-up must be ended

t at some

1/

A reduction of only*0;02 robbery arrests per participant per year

would create benefits worth over S260 a-year (0.02 arrests x $13,135/arrest).

This value is of the same order of magnitude as the annual post-program,

earnings', gains estimated for ex-addicts. .Corresponding reductions in other

types of crime would Make total. crime benefits greater than those for postprogram earnings.

384_ _ _ 442-
point-;and' bleause. polloyielksii- need eni/Yees as soon as POe;\ible. We hive

tried. to MakereasOnahle-aSSUSaptiona in)dakidg, the geiChmarkextrapoiatiod,

a fidAvellav e . tested tie- sensitivity of'th ere sults to the asaUmptiOns.

The..:actthait'the-resuiti,kor-e*$itfinders were found to be so sensitive

I

] that ?i,d0*.tbink reasonable to make s benchmarkestinets underscores

the need; for lohg-terM. folio to on a sample of substaitie. iiie. it

aleo:deMonstrates the need for carefUl research On the methodOiogy Or_ . 04 estimating. decay rates not only for earnings but for Other, effeOts as-veil..

The job of estimating the-benefits and costs of the national demon-

*stration is now finished, butt the task of assessing Supported Work

is not over. The a counting,'Phe computations, and the dollar values

reported in this analysis should not convey precision andfidality--we

certainly do not intend them to. The analysis'is intended rather as a

tool to be used,, among others, in making judgments about the desirability

of Supported Work. The purpose of benefit-cost analysis of social

programs should not be to arrive mechadically at an estimate of net present

value that dictates an investment decision. Rather, the function is to

identify what issues and program effects are important to consider and to

weigh the relative importance of these effects. Thus, for example, identi-

_ fying what assumptions are most critical to the results may well provide

more insight to a policymaker than assigning a value to a given benefit or

cost. Readers who wish to make full use of the analysis, therefore, should

recognize the sensitivity of the results to key assumptions, the relative

roles of various benefit and cost components, and the potential importance

of unmeasured `effects and implementation difficulties.

385 4 4 4

O
A °Ashenfelter; Orley. listimating-theEftect of Training programs on .;arningS9. Review of'EdonotniCiehdlStatiatics. 60(1978) :

Bjorkiand ,

, and Borgeidn, N.S.

AttiVey4k,brUg:IS.itieTreatment.!Colis. Menlo Park, California:

S40PrC=APPeArc111t111.97 '.4,

. , .BOrus,

. -4*141,2*4u1 A104/A0ieh f Sidney. "A BenefitCdst-.-Anall*t.e of the:04,4*6-664' .Youth Corps: The cut-64-

'Sohool. pOgiam. in ;hdiana;" Journal" -of :AumemvIt -dtices.'

. Caih, Glen' d: 43inef"it/COStES4ditei for Job Corps." Institikefdr

Research-* PdVertir-DiaCussion Paper 9-67. Madison, Wisconsin:

Institute for'ReSeirch'on Poverty, 1967.

Cain, Glen G. and StromSdorfer, Ernst W. "An Economic Evaluation of

Government Retraining, Programs in West Virginia." Retraining

Unemployed. Edited by Gerald G. Somers. Madison: University

of Wisconsin Press, 1968.

"Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Job Corps." In Assessments of the Job Corps

Performance and Impacts. Volume I. U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Office of Youth Programs,

1979.

Dickinson, Katherine. "The Impact of Supported on Ex-addicts." Princeton,

New Jersey:' Mathematiaqolicy Research, Inc., 1979.

Drug Enforcement Administration. Heroin-Related Crimes. Washington, D.C.:

Drug Enforcement AdministratiOn, February, 1977.

Employment and Training Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office,'1979.

Friedman, Lee S. "An Interim Evaluation of the Supported Work Experiment."

-Policy Analysis 3, No. 2, Spring, 1977.

Friedman, Lucy. Vera Institute of Justice. The Wildcat Experiment: An

ypmji3.nDruuseEarlTestOfSurtedWorAbRehabilitation. Prepared

as a Service Research Monograph of,National Instittte of Drug Abuse.

(Washingtdn, U.S.'Government Printing Office, 1978). DHEW

Publication No. 79-782.

Griliches, Zin. "EarnipgS of Very Young Men. In Income Distribut n and

Economic,Inequality.- Edited by Zin Griliches, Wilhelm Krell,

Hans-Jurgen-Krupp, and Aldrich Kyn. New York: Halsted Tress, 1978.

386
Haveman, Robert H. "The Duich"Social Employment Program." Ili Creating

Jobs: Public-Employment-Programs and Wage Subsidies. Edited

4 by.' John L. Flamer.' (Washington, DX.: The Brookings Institute,

#. 1978).

. r tb

, Hertzman, M. and Montague, G. "Cost-:Benefit Analysis and AlcohAism.".

Journal of,StUdiea of Alcohol. 38(7), 1977.

Kemper, ,peter. SuPOorted Work Evaluation SupplementaryPaper: Indirect

Labor Market-Effecttin Benefit-Cost Analysis. Princeton, Nett

Jersey: Mathematica- Policy-Research, Inc.-, forthComing.

Kemper, Peter and'Iong, David A. "The.Supi,orted Work Evaluation: Technical

Report on Value-of in-PrograOutput and Costs." Princeton, New

Jersey:- MatheMatica Policy,Reseirdh,,,Inc.,, forthcoming.

Kemper, Peter and MO's,, Philip. "Economic Efficiency df.Public Employment

Programs," Creating Jobs Public Employment Programs and Wage

Subsidies. Edited by John L. Palmer. (Washington, DX.: The

Brookings Institution; 1978).-

Lettre, Michael A. and Syntax, Anthony M. Application of JUSSIM,to_the

Maryland Criminal Justice Planning.Processi Towson, Maryland:

Maryland governor's Commission on Law Enforcement and the

Administration-6f 'Justice, 1976.

Mallar, Charles D. and Thornton, Craig V.D. A Comparitive Evaluation of

the Benefitsand Costs from the LIFE Program. Washington, D.C.:

American Bar Association, 1978a.

Mailer, Charles. D. and Thornton, Craig V.D. "Transitional Aid'for

Released Prisoners: Evidence from the LIFE Experiment." Journal

of Human Resources. XIII 2 (Spring, 1978b). 210-236.

Manpower Demonstratioh Research Corporation (MDRC). Summary of the Second

Annual Report on the National Supported Work Demonstration. August,

1978.

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC).' 1977 Report. (New "ark:

1978).

Martinson, Robert. "What Works7--Questions and Answers About Prison Reform."

In Aldine Crime and Justice Annual for 1974, pp. 352 -284. Edited

by Seymour Halleck, et al. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co". 1975.

Masters, Stanley. "The Impact of Supported Work on Long-Term:Recipients

of'AFDC." Princeton, New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,

1979. . Maynard, Rebecca. "The Impact of Supported Work on Young School Dropouts."

Princeton, New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1979.

3.87 4 46'

ca
,SA

Mincer, ii4C0b4 ,Schooling, ENPerience, and, Earning!. New York: National

. Bureau et Economie'ResearckandColumbia University Press, 1974.

Nay, Jay.N.4-Scartion.,-JOhn:W.r.end*Oleoseph S. ,"Benefits and

..Cests of,ManpOWerlreining:prOgraMs: kSyntheeis of Previous

Studies, with4iSer*tieWandIRecomeepdations-.:" InJoint'

Economic :is of Federal -Pko rama . PP. 249!,.;74:- Weshington,4:.i JOint Economic Committee, 92nd . , . - Cengress, Session;- 1973.

- Olympus Research Corporation. "Tbi TOtal Impact of Manpower Programs:

AIPOur,aity CASs 'Study., " Report:prepared-for theOffice of Policy,

Evcaluitionetandajaisearthf Manpower- Administration, U.S.

DeOirtmeni.,oi%iibror, 1971. ,, Organization of tia,64c C6iii4ty acid: Development (OECD). :Labou.;

,Market Policy* in $Widen: Paris: 1963.

Piliavin, Irving and Gartner, Rosemary. "The Impact of Supported Wdrk

on EX-Offenders." Princeton, New Jersey: Mathematica Policy

Research; Inc. 1979.

Reubens, Beatrice G. The Hard Employ: European Programs. (New York,

New York: Columbialniversity Press, 1970).

Rossi, Peter H.; Berk, R.A.; and Lenihan, Kenneth. Money, Work and Crime.

New York Academic Press (forthcoming).

Schiller, Bradley R. "Lessons from WIN: A Manpower Evaluation." Journal - of Human Resources.. XIII 4(Fall, 1978): 502-523.

Schore, Jennifer; Maynard, Rebecca; and Piliavin, Irving. The Accuracy

of Self-Recorded Arrest Data. Princeton, New Jersey: Mathematica

Policy Research, Inc., May 15, 1979.

Sellin, Thursten and Wolfgang, Marving. The Measurement of Delinquency.

New York: John Wiley, 1974.

Smith, C.L.; Martinez, P.i and Harrison, D. "An Assessment: The Impact

of Providing Financial or Job Placement Assistance to Ex-Prisoners."

Huntsville, Texas: Texas Department of Corrections, 1978.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statisties 1977. Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration, U.S. Departmeht of Justice. Washington D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, 1978.

Stephens,,J.L. and Sanders, L.W. "Transitional Aid for Ex-Offenders:

An Experimental Study." Atlanta: Georgia Department of Offender

Rehabil?,tationv 1978.

3
1

.40 tIV",A,

4

1 Stramsdorfer,.ErnstlAW. "Determinants a Economic Success in Retraining

the Unemployed." Journal of Human Resources .3(1968)°: 139-158..

ttromsdorfer, Ernst -W. itevisicandtynthesis- Cost-Effettivanesit StUdies.

of Vocational and Technical; Education. "Columbus: ERIC Clearing.

Houia;on:Vodatiobaind'Technical RduCitiOh--; 1972: . Thornton, Craig,- Long, David; and Mallat, Charles. "A CoMparitive

Lyaltiatioh-Of-thS,Benifits-and:Cbsts of. the Job Corps After

Sevin Months'OfTost4rogriObliow-up." Technical Repdrt D.

(Princeton, New Jersey:°Maihematica Policy'Research, Inc., 1978).

4U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, ,980-32V344/4607

A

448

389

#