This article was downloaded by: [Rutgers University]On: 19 February 2015, At: 15:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Social ServiceResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wssr20

Beyond Intention to TreatAnalysis in Welfare-to-WorkStudiesRadha Jagannathan PhD a & Michael J. Camasso PhDb

a Rutgers University, Bloustein School of Planningand Public Policy , 33 Livingston Avenue, Suite 100,New Brunswick, NJ, 08901-1958, USAb Rutgers University Center for Urban PolicyResearch and School of Social Work , 33 LivingstonAvenue, Suite 400, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USAPublished online: 23 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Radha Jagannathan PhD & Michael J. Camasso PhD (2006) BeyondIntention to Treat Analysis in Welfare-to-Work Studies, Journal of Social ServiceResearch, 31:4, 43-60

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J079v31n04_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any

losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

TABLE 1. Comparison of Program Components Under Family DevelopmentProgram’s Enhanced JOBS and JOBS Under the Family Support Act

Family Development ProgramEnhanced JOBS

Family Support ActJOBS

Recipient with child under 2 must participate incounseling and vocational assessment.

Exempt if child is under 2, but may volunteer.

Recipient with child 2 years or older mustparticipate in FDP activities.

Recipients who have a child 3 years or older andare in a federal target group must participate.

Participants must complete a Family Plan,including a written contract, outlining theparticipant and each family member's educationaland job goals.

Participants complete an Employability Plan and asigned agreement.

The Family Plan includes support services (childcare, transportation, Medicaid for up to two yearsif eligibility lost due to earned income). Post AFDCfamilies must have been on AFDC for 3 out of 6months prior to loss of benefits to receiveextension.

Provides same support services, however,Medicaid benefits extended only for one year andfamilies are required to have been on AFDC forone month prior to loss of benefits.

Job development and placement, counseling,vocational assessment, intensive remedialeducation, job search assistance, community workexperience, job-specific employment skills training,on-the-job training. Services are provided to allfamily members.

Services are the same except they are notextended to family members.

High School diploma or equivalency for eachparticipant and family member before assignmentto vocational activity. Exemptions granted if thereis a legitimate inability to complete. If exempt,referred to alternative educational programs,employment, job training, job search.

High school diploma or equivalency mandatedonly for custodial parents under age 18. Needsassessment and individual employment goaldetermine education requirements. Onlyparticipants under 25 must acquire a high schooldiploma regardless of whether or not employmentgoals require it.

Case management must conduct an assessmentof health-related, educational, social, andvocational needs for the participant and familymembers.

Participants are eligible for determined servicesand activities.

Services to the participant and the family mustinclude remedial education and/or training andparent skills training.

Services extended to family members are lesscomprehensive.

A Family Resource center must be established ineach county. Services will be collocated to themaximum extent possible.

Is not required.

Failure to participate without good cause will resultin a reduction in benefits of at least 20% orineligibility for at least 90 days.

Failure to participate without good cause will resultin a reduction in grant by per capita share for thatperson for 1) a minimum of 30 days, 2) for 6months or longer, or 3) based on the number ofnoncompliances.

Source: New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development, October 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

TABLE 2. Four-Year Impact of the Family Development Program on Employ-ment and Earnings for Non-Exempt Ongoing Cases (N of cases in parentheses)

Percentage Employed at Least One Quarterin the Year Average Annual Earnings

YearExperimental

(%)Control

(%)Difference

(Impact)Experimental

($)Control

($)

Difference(Impact)

($)

1993 11.7 (218) 11.6 (109) .1 2291 2774 �486

1994 28.6 (535) 28.1 (263) .5 3001 3061 �60

1995 33.7 (630) 32.3 (303) 1.4 3204 3255 �51

1996 46.6 (869) 47.7 (447) �1.1 2692 2929 �237

Total �831

Notes: None of the differences are significant at the 95 percent confidence level based on a chi-squaretest (employment) or t-test (earnings).The number of women represented in this Table is 2803 who were non-exempt from either FDP (N = 1866)or FSA (N = 937) regulations in at least one of the four years displayed.

Source: New Jersey Department of Labor, Wage Reporting System (WRS)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

TABLE 3. Sample Characteristics by Experimental Status for All and Non-Ex-empt Cases at Time of Random Assignment

Sample Characteristics

All Ongoing Cases Non-Exempt Ongoing Cases

Experimental Control Experimental Control

Percent

Race/Ethnicity

White 14.59 15.96 15.27 17.79

Black 50.67 53.10 54.61 54.32

Hispanic* 33.46 29.33 30.12 26.89

Education

Less than HS 40.10 40.70 38.68 31.60

HS graduate 38.81 38.05 39.74 39.25

Some college 8.97 9.60 9.42 9.92

Other, post HS 7.77 8.83 8.75 9.59

Marital status

Never married 64.52 67.73 66.37 65.58

Married/widowed/divorced

35.48 32.27 33.63 31.42

Employed 14.46 14.39 15.25 14.88

Mean (Std. Dev)

Age of mother 32.47(8.30)

31.75(8.72)

30.86(8.13)

31.02(8.51)

Number ofeligible children

1.88(1.16)

1.82(1.14)

1.77(1.15)

1.80(1.19)

Number of cases 3268 1607 1866 937

*indicates statistical significance at .05 level.Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

TABLE 4. Pattern of Participation for Non-Exempt Welfare Recipients in LaborForce Attachment, Human Capital Investment and Mixed Strategies Over theFour-Year Study Period

Labor Force Attach-ment

Human CapitalInvestment Mixed

Total Number ofParticipants

Year

Experi-mental

(%)Control

(%)

Experi-mental

(%)Control

(%)

Experi-mental

(%)Control

(%)Experi-mental Control

1993 43 46 49 42 8 12 365 189

1994 47 43 42 44 11 13 404 209

1995 48 45 36 39 16 16 470 228

1996 51 53 33 30 16 17 514 246

Notes: The number of women represented in the Table is 2,803 who were non-exempt from either FDP (n =1,866) or FSA (n = 937) regulations.

Source: New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development, On-Line Managementof Economic Goal Achievement (OMEGA) System.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

λ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

λ

λ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

TABLE 5. Relative Impact of Labor Force Attachment (LFA), Human Capital In-vestment (HCI) and Mixed Strategies on Employment and Earnings with andWithout Adjusting for Selection

Predictions

Unadjusted (a)

EmploymentModel

AdjustedEmployment

ModelUnadjusted (c)

Wages ModelAdjusted

Wage Model

Years in LFA �0.431*(0.028)

0.131*(0.038)

1.41(70.95)

�27.20(71.04)

Years in HCI �0.541*(0.027)

�0.042(0.032)

�142.52*(77.05)

�162.93*(77.17)

Years inMixed

0.301*(0.069)

�0.010(0.062)

�63.37(188.76)

�49.81(188.30)

Hazard Rate - 0.626*(0.070) - �609.03*

(124.10)

Intercept 0.482(0.020)

�1.00(0.061)

2950.55(40.24)

3380.07(90.91)

Selection Model (b) Selection Model (d)

AssignedExperimental - 0.007

(0.035)- 0.042

(0.035)

Black - 0.449*(0.054)

- �0.233*(0.053)

Hispanic - 0.464*(0.056)

- �0.223*(0.055)

Age (inYears) - �0.021*

(0.002)- �0.019*

(.002)

HS Graduate - �0.133*(0.037)

- 0.298*(0.038)

SomeCollege - 0.092

(0.058)- 0.376*

(0.061)

Other, PostHS - �0.103

(0.066)- 0.044

(0.066)

NeverMarried - 0.143*

(0.040)- �0.186*

(0.041)

County ofResidence

Atlantic - 0.795*(0.084) - �0.201*

(0.080)

Camden - 0.770*(0.066) - �0.376*

(0.062)

Cumberland - 0.856*(0.087) - �0.374*

(0.084)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

TABLE 5 (continued)

Predictions

Unadjusted (a)

EmploymentModel

AdjustedEmployment

ModelUnadjusted (c)

Wages ModelAdjusted

Wage Model

Essex - 0.336*(0.058) - �0.306*

(0.057)

Hudson - 1.09*(0.064) - �0.624*

(0.061)

Mercer - 0.648*(0.085) - �0.265*

(0.083)

Passaic - 0.797*(0.078) - �0.430*

(0.097)

ParticipationYear

Dummies

1994 - �0.440*(0.053) - 0.608*

(0.054)

1995 - �0.451*(0.052) - 0.634*

(0.053)

1996 - �0.664*(0.054) - 0.908*

(0.053)

Intercept - �0.132(0.115) - 0.591

(0.114)

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses

(a) Probit regression results (b) Heckman Probability model for Participation in JOBS (c) OLS regressionresults (d) Heckman Sample Selection model for employment

* indicates significance at the .05 level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

ϕ φ

∂ ∂ ϕϕ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:14

19

Feb

ruar

y 20

15