Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page

doc

Scholar

Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory. For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.

Scholar Source Context

Document identity

localId

54978389

label

Advocacy Groups [Folder 1] [2]

core

doc

dtoType

document

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/54978389

pageCount

Source metadata

54978389

sourceUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/54978389

contentType

document

title

Advocacy Groups [Folder 1] [2]

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/54978389

collections

Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)

Kathryn Way's Files

iiifBase

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0854-S/42-t-7367486-20130854S-001-010-2016.pdf

thumbnailUrl

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0854-S/42-t-7367486-20130854S-001-010-2016.pdf

largeImageUrl

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0854-S/42-t-7367486-20130854S-001-010-2016.pdf

imageCount

hasImages

yes

source

import

hasTranscription

Source extras

url

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/54978389

naId

54978389

levelOfDescription

fileUnit

otherTitles

42-t-7367486-20130854S-001-010-2016

recordType

description

ocrSource

nara-archive

Single page context

seq

pageIndex

type

document

url

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0854-S/42-t-7367486-20130854S-001-010-2016.pdf

mediaId

2106b07c6b4e1bd9

ocrText

MARYLAND BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE 275 West Street FOUNDATION Suite 400 Formerly the Annapolis, MD Maryland Chamber Foundation 21401-3480 Robert E. Anastasi, Ed.D. 680 College Parkway Executive Director Rockville, MD 20850 (301) 424-7093 Fax: (301) 424-7348 Car: (301) 520-0009 Clinton Presidential Records Digital Records Marker This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff. This marker identifies the place of a publication. Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room. VOL. 1, NO.1 A MEGA AFFILIATE SUMMER 1992 THE PRIMER MARYLAND BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE FOR EDUCATION he eyes of a Maryland child reflect a pledge we make to each of the 715,176 students in the state's public schools: a quality education. Fulfillment of that pledge is a multi-dimensional task of almost overwhelming complexity. The only verity is that the educational system must be improved if Maryland is not to break faith with her children. The statistics detailing how the system is failing our children are bleak: the very definition of the problem, arduous and elusive. Yet, from the demonstrated success of innovative programs, we know that transformation of Maryland's educational system is a goal within reach. Critical analysis of the current system reveals that nothing short of systemic change will suffice. Our aspirations for educational reform demand utmost dedication from our classroom teachers, educators, parents, citizenry, and the business community. ROBERT MADDEN all Child Support Contact List Research and Advocacy Organizations Abt Associates, Inc. 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Greg Mills Chris Hamilton Nancy Burstein 617-492-7200 American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy 1100 17th Street, N.W. Suite 901 Washington, DC 20035 202-467-5113 Theodora Ooms American Public Welfare Association 810 1st Street, N.E. Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 202-682-0100 A. Sidney Johnson Association for Children for Enforcement of Support (ACES) 723 Phillips Avenue Suite 216 Toledo, OH 43612 (419) 476-2511 Geraldine Jensen Calibur Associates 3998 Fair Ridge Drive Suite 360 Faifax, VA 22033 703-385-3200 Sharon Bishop Center for Law and Social Policy 1616 P Street, N.W. Suite 450 Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5140 Alan W. Houseman Executive Director 1 Center for the Support of Children 5315 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20015 202-363-5923 Center for Policy Research 1720 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218 303-837-1555 Dr. Jessica Pearson Director Child Trends 2100 M Street, N.W. Suite 411 Washington, DC 20037 202-223-6288 Kris Moore Christine Nord Children's Defense Fund 25 E Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202-628-8787 Marian Wright Edelman President Education and Testing Service Mail Stop 10-R Princeton, NJ 08541 609-734-5757 Jean Brooks-Gunn Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation Three Park Ave New York, NY 10016 212-532-3200 Gordon Berlin Fred Doolittle Kay Sherwood Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. P.O. Box 2393 Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 609-799-3535 Rebecca Maynard 2 National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23187 804-253-2000 Larry L. Siper President National Opinion Research Center University of Chicago 1155 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 312-753-7518 Robert Willis Policy Studies, Inc. 1410 Grant St Denver, CO 80203 Bob Williams Urban Institute 2100 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 212-833-7200 Freya Sonenstein Linda Giannarelli Elaine Sorenson Laudie Aron Steve Sandell Pamela Holcomb Council of State Governments 444 N. Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 401 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5460 NAACP 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, MD 21215 410-358-8900 Dr. Benjamin F. Chowis, Jr. Executive Director National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 202-334-2000 3 National Association of Counties 440 First Street, N.W. 8th Floor Washington, DC 20001 202-393-6226 National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics Aldona Vartkus, President Arizona Department of Economic Security Family Assistance Administration Operations Support Manager - 960A 1789 W. Jefferson P. C. Box 6123 Phoenix, AZ 85005 National Child Support Enforcement Association Hall of the States 444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202-624-8180 National Council for Children's Rights 220 I Street, N.E. Suite 230 Washington, DC 20002 202-547-6227 National Council of State Child Support Administrators c/o Jerry Townsend Office of Child Support Recovery Department of Human Resources P. O. Box 8000 Atlanta, GA 30357 National Conference of State Legislatures 444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 515 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5400 National Governors' Association 444 N. Capitol Street Suite 267 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5300 Raymond Scheppach Executive Director 4 National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20004 202-626-3000 National Women's Law Center 1616 P Street, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5160 Marcia Greenburger Co-President Nancy Duff-Campbell Co-President National Rainbow Coalition 1700 K Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 202-728-1180 National Urban League 1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 202-898-1604 John E. Jacob President and CEO Professors Charles Adams Office of Public Management Programs School of Public Policy and Management The Ohio State University 1775 College Road, Room 210 Columbus, OH 43210-1399 Burt Barnow Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies Shriver Hall Baltimore, MD 21218 Andrea Beller University of Illinois 274 Bevier Hall 905 S. Goodwin Avenue Urbana, IL 61801 5 Doug Besharov American Enterprise Institute 1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 David Betson Department of Economics University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 Lindsay Chase-Landsdale Chaplin Hall Center for Children University of Chicago 1155 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 312-753-7920 Andrew Cherlin Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218 Sandra Danziger 3234 Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Frank Furstenberg University of Pennsylvania Department of Sociology 3318 Locust Walk Philadelphia, PA 19104-6299 Steve Garasky Department of Human Development and Family Studies 166 LeBaron Hall Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011 Irv Garfinkel Columbia University School of Social Work 622 West 113th Street New York, NY 10025 John Graham University of Illinois 274 Bevier Hall 905 S. Goodwin Avenue Urbana, IL 61801 6 Virginia Knox JKF School of Government Harvard University 79 John F. Kennedy Street Taubman 469 Cambridge, MA 02138 617-496-1070 Robert Lerman The American University Department of Economics 200 Roper Hall 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20016 Sara McLanahan Office of Population Research Princeton University 21 Prospect Avenue Princeton, NJ 08540 Dan Meyer Institute for Research on Poverty University of Wisconsin 3412 Social Service Drive Madison, WI 53706 Ann Nichols-Casebolt School of Social Work Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287 Liz Peters Department of Economics Campus Box 256 University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309 Maureen Pirog-Good School of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 Philip Robbins Department of Economics University of Miami P.O. Box 248126 Coral Gables, FL 33124 7 Eugene Smolensky Graduate School of Public Policy University of California at Berkeley 2607 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 94720 Jay Teachman Department of Sociology University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-1668 Foundations Foundation for Child Development 345 East 46th Street, Room 700 New York, NY 10017 212-697-3150 Sheila Smith Director of Research Government Agencies Gordon Lester Bureau of the Census HHES Division Washington, DC 20233 Lynn Fender General Accounting Office NGB-IS 441 G St NW, Rm 4707 Washington, DC 20548 Kathy Pardee General Accounting Office NGB-IS 441 G St NW, Rm 4707 Washington DC 20548 Kevin Kumanga General Accounting Office 230 Washington Ave Extension Albany, NY 12203-5369 Carmen Solomon Congressional Research Service Library of Congress Washington, DC 8 Jan Peskin Ford House Office Bldg, Rm 425A Congressional Budget Office Washington, DC 20515 John Taponga Ford House Office Bldg Congressional Budget Office Washington, DC 20515 Steve Carlson FNS/USDA 3101 Park Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22302 Jeff Evans NICHD/CPR/DBSB 6100 Executive Blvd, RM 8B13 Bethesda, MD 20892 9 Welfare Research and Advocacy Organizations AFSCME-AFL-CIO 1511 K Street, NW Suite 314 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 393-5757 P. Stuart Smith Abt Associates 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-492-7100 William L. Hamilton, Vice President America Works 704 Broadway 4th Floor New York, NY 10003 (212) 529-2900 Peter Cove, Founder American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy 1100 17th Street, NW Suite 901 Washington, DC 20035 202-467-5113 Theodora Ooms American Association of Adult and Continuing Educators 2101 Wilson Boulevard Suite 925 Arlington, VA 22201 703-522-2234 Dr. Drew Allbritton American Association of School Administrators 1801 N. Moore Street Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 528-0700 Richard D. Miller, Executive Director American Association of Community and Junior Colleges One Dupont Circle Suite 410 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 728-0200 Dr. David Pierce, President 1 American Council on Education One Dupont Circle Suite 1B-20 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 939-9300 Robert H. Atwell, President Association of American Colleges 1818 R Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 (202) 387-3760 Dr. Paula Brownlee, President Council for Adult and Experimental Learning 10840 Little Patuxent Parkway Columbia, MD 21044 American Enterprise Institute 1150 17th Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 202-862-5800 Douglas Besharov American Public Welfare Association 810 First Street, NE Suite 500 & Washington, DC 20002 202-682-0100 A. Sidney Johnson American Vocational Association 1410 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-3111 Charles Buzzell, President Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 B 202-797-6000 Gary Burtless Gilbert Steiner Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse 152 West 37th Street 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 212-841-5200 William Grinker 2 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 777 North Capitol Street, NE Suite 705 Washington, DC 20002 202-408-1080 Bob Greenstein Center for Community Change 1000 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20007 202-342-0519 Pablo Eisenberg Center for Social Welfare and Law Policy 275 7th Avenue 6th Floor New York, New York 10001 212-633-6967 Gina Mannix Center for the Study of Social Policy 1250 Eye Street, NW Suite 503 Washington, DC 20005 202-371-1565 Tom Joe Center for Law and Social Policy 1616 P Street, NW Suite 450 Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5140 Mark Greenberg Alan Houseman Child Trends, Inc. 2100 M Street, NW Suite 610 Washington, DC 20037 202-223-6288 Kris Moore Child Welfare League of America 440 First Street, NW Suite 310 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 638-2952 David Liederman, Executive Director Shirley E. Marcus, Deputy Director 3 Children's Defense Fund 25 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 202-628-8787 Marian Wright Edelman Citizen's Committee for Children 105 East 22nd Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10010 212-673-1800 Gail Nayowith, Executive Director Council of Chief State School Officers Werner Rogers, President 1 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20001-1431 202-408-5505 Cynthia G. Brown Council of Governors Policy Advisors 400 North Capitol Street B Suite 390 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5386 Education Commission of the States 1860 Lincoln Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80295-0301 (303) 299-3600 Frank Newman, President Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 3 Park Avenue 32nd Floor B New York, New York 10016 212-532-3200 Judy Gueron Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 101 Morgan Lane Plainsboro, NJ 08536 609-799-3535 Rebecca Maynard John Burghardt MathTech, Inc. 210 Carnegie Center Suite 200 Princeton, NJ 08540 609-520-3840 William Morrill 4 National Alliance of Business 1201 New York Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 289-2888 William H. Kolberg, President and CEO National Association of Child Care Referral Agencies P. O. Box 40246 Washington, DC 20016-0246 (202) 333-4194 Yasmina Vinci, Executive Director National Association of Counties 440 First Street, NW 8th Floor Washington, DC 20001 202-393-6226 Michael L. Benjamin Amy Wilkins, Associate Legislative Director National Association of State Budget Officers 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 299 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5382 Mary Dingrando National Association of Private Industry Councils 1201 New York Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 289-2950 National Association of Social Workers 750 First Street, NE Suite 700 Washington, DC 20002 (202) 408-8600 Sheldon Goldstein, Executive Director National Bureau of Economic Research 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 617-868-3900 National Commission for Employment Policy 1522 K Street, NW Room 300 Washington, DC 20005 202-724-1545 5 National Conference of State Legislatures 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 515 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5400 National Association for the Education of Young Children 1509 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 232-8777 Dr. Marilyn Smith, Executive DirectorN National Governors' Association 444 North Capitol Street Suite 267 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5300 National Head Start Association 201 North Union Street Suite 320 B Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (703) 739-0875 Sarah M. Greene, Executive Director National Legal Aid and Defender Association 1625 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20006 (202) 452-0620 Clinton Lyons, President National Urban League, Inc. 1111 14th Street, NW B Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-1604 John E. Jacob, President and Chief Executive Officer National Women's Law Center 1616 P Street, NW Suite 100 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 328-5160 OIC of America 1501 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 236-3948 6 Policy Studies, Inc. 1410 Grant Street Suite D210 Denver, CO 80203 303-863-0900 Denise Polit Public/Private Ventures 399 Market Street 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 Gary Walker Jean Grossman United States Conference of City Human Services Officials 1620 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 293-7330 Laura DeKoven Waxman, Deputy Executive Director U. S. Conference of Mayors 1620 Eye Street, NW Suite 400 B Washington, DC 20006 (202) 293-7330 J. Thomas Cochran, Executive Director United Way of America 701 North Fairfax Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 836-7100 Elaine L. Chao Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 B 202-833-7200 Sandra Hofferth Demetra Nightingale Sharon Long Pat Ruggles Young Women's Christian Association 726 Broadway 5th Floor New York, NY 10003 (212) 614-2700 Gwendolyn Calvert Baker, National Executive Director 7 Young Men's Christian Association 101 North Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (1-800) 872-9522 Wider Opportunities for Women 1325 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 638-3143 Cindy Marano, Executive Director Work/Family Directions 930 Commonwealth Avenue, S. Boston, MA 02215-1212 (617) 278-4000 Fran Rodgers, Chief Executive Officer State Higher Education Executive Officers Association 1860 Lincoln Street, Suite 310 Denver, CO 80295 (303) 674-1688 David Figuli, President Westat 1650 Research Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850 301-251-1500 Professors Orley Ashenfelter Firestone Library and Industrial Relations Section A-18 Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-2098 609-258-4040 Burt Barnow Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies Shriver Hall Baltimore, MD 21218 41C-516-7174 Laurie Bassi Associate Professor Department of Economics Georgetown University 37th and 0 Street, NW Washington, DC 20057 202-687-0100 8 Dave Betson Department of Economics University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 219-631-5068 T. Berry Brazelton Harvard Medical School 23 Hawthorn Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-735-6948 Sheldon Danziger University of Michigan Institute of Public Policy Studies 440 Lorch Hall Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1220 313-764-1863 Greg Duncan University of Michigan Institute for Social Research B 426 Thompson Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1248 313-763-5186 Richard Freeman Harvard University Department of Economics Littauer Center #M-5 1875 Cambridge Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-495-4950 Irv Garkfinkel Columbia University School of Social Work 622 West 113th Street New York, NY 10025 212-854-84809 David Greenberg Department of Economics University of Maryland 5401 Wilkins Avenue Baltimore, MD 21228 410-455-1000 9 Peter Gottschalk Boston College 140 Commonwealth Avenue Chestnut Hill Boston, MA 02167 617-552-8000 Jan L. Hagen/Irene Lurie The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government 411 State Street Albany, NY 12203-1003 518-443-5522 Robert Haveman University of Wisconsin La Follette Institute 1225 Observatory Drive Madison, WI 53706 608-262-3581 James Heckman Department of Economics University of Chicago 1126 East 59th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 312-702-1234 Robinson Hollister Professor Department of Economics 500 College Avenue Swarthmore College Swarthmore, PA 19081-1397 215-328-8000 V. Joseph Hotz Professor Graduate School of Public Policy Analysis Political Science Graduate Office: University Mail Service M/C 276 University of Illinois--Chicago 1007 West Harrison Street Room 1119 Chicago, Illinois 60637-7137 312-996-8660 10 Christopher Jencks School of Urban Affairs 1810 Chicago Avenue Room 216 Evanston, IL 60208 708-491-8724 John F. Kain Harvard University Department of Economics Room, 234 Littauer Hall Cambridge, MA 02138 617-495-5592 Christopher T. King Center for the Study of Human Resources University of Texas 107 West 27th Street Austin, TX 78712 512-471-7891 Robert Lerman The American University Department of Economics Washington, DC 20016 202-885-3770 Richard Light Professor Kennedy School of Government 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138-5800 617-495-1100 Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. Social Services Administration University of Chicago 969 East 60th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 312-702-1431 Larry Mead New York University Department of Politics Fourth Floor 715 Broadway New York, NY 10003 212-998-8540 11 Sara McLanahan Office of Population Research Princeton University 21 Prospect Avenue Princeton, NJ 08540 609-258-4870 Robert Moffitt Department of Economics Brown University 64 Waterman Street Box B Providence, RI 02912 401-863-3836 Richard Nathan Rockefeller College Provost Office Draper 116 135 Western Avenue Albany, NY 12222 518-442-5289 Kathryn Neckerman Department of Sociology Columbia University 473 Fayerweather New York, NY 10027 212-854-4358 Sandra Newman Institute for Policy Studies Johns Hopkins University Shriver Hall Baltimore, MD 21218 410-516-7180 John L. Palmer Maxwell School Syracuse University 219 Maxwell Hall Syracuse, NY 13244-1090 315-443-2252 Frances Fox Piven Graduate School and University Center CUNY, Box 380 33 West 42 Street New York, NY 10036-8099 212-642-2385 12 Robert Plotnick Department of Public Affairs and Social Work University of Washington 225 Parrington Hall Mail Stop DC 13 Seattle, WA 98195 206-685-2055 Phil Robins Chairman, Depaartment of Economics University of Miami P.O. Box 248126 Coral Gables, FL 33124-6550 305-284-5540 James Rosenbaum 1133 Judson Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60202 708-491-3795 Lisbeth Schorr Harvard Medical School Department of Social Medicine and Health Policy 641 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 617-432-2039 Timothy Smeeding Professor School of Public Administration Room 205 Maxwell Hall Syracuse University Syracuse, NY 13244 315-443-1870 Lawrence Summers Office of the Undersecretary for International Affairs U.S. Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20220 202-622-0060 13 Marta Tienda Population Research Center University of Chicago 1155 60th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 312-702-0786 Nancy Tuma Professor Department of Sociology Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-2047 415-723-3956 William J. Wilson Department of Sociology University of Chicago 1126 East 59th Street Chicago, IL 60637 312-702-8689 Michael Wiseman University of Wisconsin La Follette Institute 1225 Observatory Drive Madison, WI 53706 608-262-3581 Barbara Wolfe University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty 3412 Social Science Building 1180 Observatory Drive Madison, WI 53706 608-262-0030 Foundations Annie E. Casey Foundation One Lafayette Place Greenwich, CT 06830 Ford Foundation 320 East 43rd Street New York, NY 10017 Anne Kubisch 212-573-5000 14 Foundation for Child Development 345 East 46th Street Suite 700 New York, NY 10017 Barbara Blum, President 212-697-3150 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation 2400 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 415-854-9400 Drew Altman The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-4400 Mott Foundation 1200 Mott Foundation Building Flint, MI 48502 313-238-5651 Pew Charitable Trusts One Commonwealth Square 2005 Market Street Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-575-9050 Thomas Langfitt, President The Rockefeller Foundation 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 212-869-8500 Dr. Phoebe H. Cottingham 20th Century Fund 41 East 70th Street New York, NY 10021 212-535-4441 William T. Grant Foundation 515 Madison Avenue 6th Floor New York, NY 10022-5403 212-752-0071 15 Legislative Branch - all Bs, except the As - Robert D. Reischauer for Legislative Branch Director Congressional Budget Office U.S. Congress Washington, DC 20515 202-226-2700 Ralph Smith Unit Chief Employment and Income Security Congressional Budget Office U. S. Congress Washington, DC 20515 202-226-2659 U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548 202-512-3000 U.S. Senate also Education A A Committee on Labor and Human Resources 428 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 202-224-9789 U.S. Senate Committee on Finance 205 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 202-224-4515 The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Senate X 464 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 202-224-4451 The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV U.S. Senate 109 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 202-224-6472 The Honorable Bill Bradley U. S. Senate 731 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 202-224-3224 16 Mr. Ronald Haskins Human Resources Minority Counsel Committee on Ways and Means 1106 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202-225-4021 The Honorable E. Clay Shaw U.S. House of Representatives 2338 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 (202) 225-8398 The Honorable Nancy L. Johnson U.S. House of Representatives 227 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 (202) 225-4488 The Honorable Fred Grandy U.S. House of Representatives 418 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 (202) 225-5476 The Honorable Richard J. Santorum U.S. House of Representatives 1708 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 (202) 225-2135 The Honorable Robert H. Michel U.S. House of Representatives 2112 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 (202) 225-9249 The Honorable Newt Gingrich U.S. House of Representatives 2438 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 (202) 225-4656 The Honorable Robert T. Matsui U.S. House of Representatives 2353 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 (202) 225-0566 17 The Honorable Harold E. Ford U.S. House of Representatives 2305 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202-225-3265 William H. Bradley Director of Western Massachusetts for Senator John F. Kerry 145 State Street Suite 504 Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 (413) 785-4610 18 Paul Offner Chief of Health and Welfare Senate Committee on Finance 205 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510 (202) 224-4515 Executive Branch Daniel H. Weinberg, Ph.D. Chief, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division U.S. Bureau of the Census Washington, DC 20233 301-763-8550 State Welfare Agencies Directors of all the state welfare agencies Mr. Sheffield Kenyon Deputy Secretary for Human Services Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 904-487-1111 Mr. Brian Cahill General Manager Department of Social Services City and County of San Francisco P.O. Box 7988 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-557-6541 Elected Officials Donald M. Fraser Mayor of Minneapolis 127 City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55145 612-673-2100 David A. Hamburg President Carnegie Corporation of New York 437 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-371-3200 Governors 19 THE WHITE HOUSE FAX COVER SHEET ECONOMY AND JOBS BACKGROUND FOR WELFARE TO WORK TRANSITION Dept. Phone # Fax # Jeremy Ben-Ami HHS 401-6954 401-5770 Gerald H. Britten HHS 690-8774 690-6518 Bonnie Deane NEC 456-2802 456-2223 Brad Delong TREA 622-0583 622-1294 Paul Dimond NEC 456-7604 456-2223 David Ellwood HHS 690-6443 690-7383 Robert Gillingham TREA 622-2220 622-1294 Larry Katz DOL 219-8271 219-8822 Debbie Lucas CEA 395-4737 395-6947 Larry Matlock OMB 395-3262 395-1596 Alicia Munnell TREA 622-2200 622-2633 Bruce Reed DPC 456-6515 456-7739 Heather Ross NEC 456-2802 456-2223 Doug Ross DOL 219-6050 219-6827 Belle Sawhill OMB 395-4844 395-5730 Issac Shapiro DOL 219-6181 219-6924 Gene Sperling NEC 456-2620 456-2878 Kathi Way DPC 456-7777 456-7739 Peter Yu NEC 456-2802 456-2223 FROM: NEC PHONE: 456-2802 2802 PAGES FOLLOWING COVER SHEET $5 THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON July 12, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR Economy and Jobs Issue Group FROM: Bonnie Deane SUBJECT: Meeting with the Empowerment Network As part of the welfare reform outreach, Jeremy Ben-Ami has suggested that our issue group should meet with the Empowerment Network. The Empowerment Network is described in the attachments that follow. Where: OEOB room 440 When: 5:00 to 6:00 on July 15. Please call Sandy Mancini at 456-2801 if you are interested and need clearance into the OEOB. TEN THE EMPOWERMENT NETWORK FOUNDATION DATE: July 12, 1993 TO: Bonnie Dean Office of Domestic Policy The White House FROM: David Caprara The Empowerment Network We have invited the following leading welfare reform advocates to attend a meeting with members of the Welfare Reform Working Group, Paul Diamond and Bruce Recd on Thursday, July 15 from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Each presenter would take no more than 5 minutes to brief the working group on their particular area of welfare reform. This would bc followed by Q's and A's and discussion. Please let me know if this is convenient and what information is needed to obtain clearance in to OEOB. I. Conference Synopsis David Caprara, President TEN-F II. Family and Responsibility Robert Woodson, Sr. National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise Charles Ballard, President National Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development (featured in the William Raspberry column last week) Irene Johnson LeClaire Courts Resident Management Council 1606 King Street. Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Office 703-548-6619 FAX 703-518-7328 III. "Full-Employment" Models / State Initiatives Charles Hobbs, President The Hobbs Company Sam Brunelli, Executive Director American Legislative Exchange Council Sam Black Consultant Ramona Younger Alexandria Tenant Council IV. Asset Models Bob Friedman Corporation for Enterprise Development Kathy Kecley Corporation for Enterprise Development Audley Evans, Executive Director Tampa Housing Authority Gussie Livingston Family Day Care Homes Tampa Staff: Sharron Lipscomb TEN THE EMPOWERMENT NETWORK FOUNDATION The Empowerment Network Foundation (TEN-F) focuses on the development of strategies to help people achieve economic independence. While welfare reform and demonstration projects involving waivers effect important short-term goals, we believe there must be a fundamental revolution to replace the present welfare system with a new "earnings and asset-based" system which fosters support for individuals who exert responsibility for themselves and their families. The Empowerment Network Foundation is bringing together a diverse group of people including welfare recipients and grassroots activists, leading scholars from the left and right, and state and federal decision-makers. From this working seminar, TEN-F will publish a journal on conference findings and papers presented and develop an implementation strategy for grassroots driven local, State and Federal actions. 1606 King Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Office 703-548-6619 FAX 703-548-7328 JUL-12-93 MON 15:10 P.05 The Washington Post V WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1993 Espy Urges 'Empowerment' As New Anti-Poverty Policy President Clinton embraced many of these By Guy Gugliotta Washington Post Staff Writer ideas during his campaign, treating them as if they had become part of a universal menu of Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy yester- anti-poverty alternatives rather than a Re- day called for an anti-poverty policy that publican call to arms. His program to "end goes beyond traditional welfare and subsis- welfare as we know it," co-written and an- tence programs to promote independence nounced by Espy at the Democratic National and initiative among poor people. signaling Convention, incorporated many elements of that "empowerment" is an idea whose time the empowerment agenda. has come-even for Democrats. And with a Democrat in the White House. "We need to come to a better under- there are increasing signs that empower- standing about how poverty can be eradi- ment is becoming politically correct for cated," Espy said. "Poverty has adamantly Democrats. The House Tuesday announced outlived the 'War on Poverty.' the New formation of a bipartisan "Congressional Deal and the Great Society: it has defied the Empowerment Caucus," and Rep. Charles 'Reagan Revolution' and Bush's 'kinder, B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) has scheduled an "em- gentler.' Poverty is here and it is powerment briefing" today with experts in- strong We have got to do it better." vited from around the country. Espy's remarks opened a three-day con- Espy, a former congressman from the ference held by The Empowerment Net- Mississippi Delta, recalled his days as a work, a newly formed nonprofit organiza- "renegade Democrat" supporting empow- tion that promotes strategies to mobilize erment policies among hostile colleagues. poor people to make their own decisions but showed the game had changed by prom- and create their own opportunities in hous- ising to be "a consistent voice within the ing, jobs and social action. Clinton administration for an empowerment Empowerment was a watchword for a agenda." As agriculture sccretary, Espy has Bush administration intent on nurturing control over food stamps, school lunches, market forces and individual initiative in the feeding programs for pregnant women and nation's slums. But it was a buzzword for new mothers, and a host of housing, lending Democrats suspicious that conservatives and development projects for rural areas. wanted to use empowerment as an excuse Espy also espouses the empowerment te- to cripple government-mandated welfare, net that the effectiveness of anti-poverty housing and social assistance programs. policy should be measured in asset accumu- Policies typically described as empower- lation rather than income and consumption. ment include tenant management and home "We spend billions of dollars to help poor ownership for low-income families, granting people subsist," he said. "But unless they tax breaks and other advantages to compa- can accumulate assets, the poor will always nies willing to settle in "enterprise zones" in be poor." poverty-stricken areas, promotion of small Owning your own home, hc said, "is not a business "micro-enterprises" among low-in- Republican idea; it is an American idea." If come entrepreneurs and active efforts to nothing else, he added, last year's Los An- stimulate training, education and asset for- gcles riots showed that "you don't burn mation among welfare recipients. Jown what you own." AMERICA WORKS Pal Dixond Pal Bonnie Deane July 14, 1993 I need this Mr. Bruce Reed, Deputy Assistant to the President Copy back. for Domestic Policy Old Executive Office Building Thaks Washington, D.C. 20501 Dear Mr. Reed: It was an honor to have the opportunity to brief you on welfare reform and America Works. We appreciate your taking the time to discuss these issues with us. On your recommendation and with encouragement from Senator Breaux, we have drafted a proposal to develop a national demonstration project similar to what we discussed with you that would stimulate the private sector, reduce the expenditures of welfare dollars by government, and get people off welfare and into good jobs. That proposal is enclosed along with a recently released article in City Journal documenting some of the public policy obstacles we face. We look forward to working with you further, please feel free to contact us or Richard Greenwald regarding any questions you may have at (212) 529-2900. If at all possible, a visit by the President would help focus on the critical element of a two year and off policy. I hope you are able to arrange that. Sincerely, Lee Bawes Dr. Lee Bowes, Peter Cove, CEO Founder Enclosure New York. Now York 10003 (212) 529-2900 FAX (212) 614-0921 WELFARE TO WORK DEMONSTRATION ISSUE - HOW TO REDUCE WELFARE DEPENDENCY, CREATE A REVENUE NEUTRAL MECHANISM TO FINANCE A JOB EFFORT, REDUCE THE BUDGET DEFICIT, STIMULATE PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND MAKE GOOD ON TWO YEARS AND OFF PURPOSE - Initiate a national demonstration of a fully performance based welfare to work program for 500,000 people annually for five years. Federally funded under the Family Support Act (FSA) but state implemented, private sector run welfare to work companies would be encouraged to invest in mounting programs which only if successful would be paid. This proposed demonstration is based upon America Works' successful nine year experience in two states. Review of America Works' experience and other programs focusing on jobs first as a welfare strategy suggest a major role for this type of approach. The key elements are: For five years place approximately 10% of the welfare population into jobs each year. Save 67.5 billion dollars during the five years in cost savings, half of which can be used to reduce the deficit and the other half can be reinvested into an increasing fund for welfare to work. Stimulate private capital investment into welfare to work programs. For the first time in welfare to work programs direct government to pay only for successful welfare reduction, not for programs regardless of their impact. BACKGROUND - 1. The Aid to Families With Dependent Children Program was established in the 1940's to help widows and their children. It has grown into a massive entitlement program. 2. There are over five million families on AFDC and the welfare rolls are growing. The costs have reached 150 Billion dollars. Of those on welfare, 60% stay for more than five years. Researchers say there is a trend toward longer term and intergenerational dependency. 3. Since the 1950's there have been a number of programs targeted at reducing dependency. In 1989 congress passed FSA. The JOBS piece of this legislation directs the states to design welfare to work strategies. 4. Simply stated there has been a debate in the field between those who believe in jobs versus those who believe that the route out of dependency in through education. The regulations for FSA heavily emphasized literacy and education as the route out of welfare dependency. 5. The general consensus is that the employment and training systems have not been effective. Many welfare recipients have been through a number of training programs of business schools yet have failed to find employment. They have paid for process not outcome. 6. Since the FSA implementation States have not drawn down all of the funds the federal government made available. This is because the local municipalities can not get its law makers to allocate additional revenue to the welfare budgets which are escalating. Thus the funds are there for dependency but not to seek a way off. 7. Recent research evidence indicates that despite FSA regulations, a jobs first approach, not education, is more effective in reducing the welfare rolls. (See the Rockerfeller Foundation studies, Riverside California's outcomes, MDRC research and the experience of America Works.) 8. Job placement efforts targeting private sector jobs can have the additional benefit of acting as an economic development tool. According to a recent Ernst and Young study conducted on the welfare recipients placed by America Works businesses averaged $2,448 savings per worker. RECOMMENDATIONS - The creation of a two billion dollar per year demonstration for five years paying $4,000 each placement. The placement fee would only be paid after a person had been working 90 days. The project would place 500,000 people a year. A 60% projected retention rate would yield: 500,000 welfare recipients X 60% retention = 300,000 X $15,000 (the average cost to keep a family of three on welfare) X 3 years (the average length of time the family would have stayed on welfare without the program) X 5 years (the length of the demonstration) = 67.5 billion dollars in cost savings for the five years of the program. Some of the funds can come from the unexpended FSA obligation thereby reducing the need for new funds. The demonstration will have the following elements: For each welfare recipient placed into a job a calculation of a cost savings to the taxpayer will be made. For as long as the individual remains off welfare a deposit will be made into the savings. Fifty percent will go into reducing the deficit and 50% will go into a new reinvestment fund. This fund will be a new entitlement for jobs pool. Based upon the above calculation 38.75 billion dollars would be available for future welfare to work programs. The demonstration will be totally performance based. The organizations delivering the service will only get paid when a person goes into a full-time job and have retention of 90 days thereafter. The demonstration will not require local match. It will be fully federally funded. However the program operation funds will be expanded by the use of Work Supplementation funds (see Jobs Regulations in FSA) for private sector jobs. There will be an on-going evaluation of the effectiveness of the approach and the true costs savings. Federal and participating State laws will be amended to allow reinvestment of savings from welfare into job programs which are paid only if they get a person off welfare. IMPLICATIONS - 1. This will build the capacity through job placement to implement a two years and off welfare if that becomes policy. 2. A fund will be created out of welfare savings to fund employment efforts in the future. 3. Through the evaluation component there will be hard evidence of the outcomes and value of the demonstration. 4. The performance based contracting model, if proven to be more effective will be adopted throughout the employment and training system. Roger Starr No Surrender in in Highbrow Tabloid PM: New York's Daniel Patrick Moynihan NS William McGowan Race and Reporting and nd Amy Amy Klein KI Bruce Bender the Budget J Ten Ways to Trim THE Thomas Main Did NE Homeli Homelesshess sshess Hard L ssons on Lobis Winnick LOUIS Government Enough? Is Reinventing J AM 2 100L N U.S. $6.95 0 80364 74470 70 5 03 3 America Works A Venture to End Dependency Jan Rosenberg and Sol Stern n February 1993, the New York Times carried a front-page story New York City has had little recounting the many frustrations suffered by a middle-aged woman trying to get off the welfare rolls and back into the labor market. The success in moving welfare article appeared just two weeks after the inauguration of a new presi- recipients to work. But a private dent who had pledged to "end the welfare system as we know it" by requiring stringent back-to-work programs for able-bodied recipients. company called America Works But what really raised eyebrows was that the "welfare client" profiled is placing hundreds of them in in the article was actually Barbara Sabol, commissioner of the cin's Human Resources Administration (HRA). good. private-sector jobs. its The normally press-shy Sabol gave the Times an exclusive secret stressing basic work account of how she had posed as a poor person and applied for welfare in order to learn how her agency treats its clients-not very well, she habits and contacts with discovered. She described long waits in filthy, cockroach-infested potential employers. offices. She said she had been "depersonalized" by the system, and us particularly critical of caseworkers in the city's BEGIN (Begin Employment Gain Independence Now program, which was created to get recipients into the labor market. They seemed indifferent to her expressed desire to move from an unsatisfying mandatory work assign- ment with the city to a full-time job. "I mean, nobody saw my spark." Sabol said. She concluded that HRA should become more focused on helping welfare clients search for jobs as soon as they enter the system. Did Sabol's experiment signal the beginning of a serious, long. overdue effort to apply David Osborne's concept of "entrepreneural government"-making government social services more accountable and competitive-to the huge HRA bureaucracy? It appears not. Sahol has once again become largely "unavailable" to the press. From all indications, not much has been done to improve HRA's dismal record of helping welfare recipients break the oncle of dependency. Indeed, a recent study by the Public Policy Institute concluded that the percentage of New York State's welfare recipients (of whom HRA's clients are the overwhelming majority) who move into paying jobs has actually dropped over the past several years. This happened despite new federal mandates imposed by the 1988 Family Support Act, which aimed to get welfare clients back to work. "Most states Research for this article was supported by the J.M. Kaplan Fund. 66 CITY leapt at the opportunity" to put the Family Support sands of welfare clients, with an average of between Act's requirements into effect, wrote the legisla- five and six years on the rolls, in private-sector jobs tion's principal author, Senator Daniel Patrick with an average starting salary of $15,000 plus ben- Moynihan, in the report's introduction. "Not New efits. Employers have been overwhelmingly satisfied; York." The study faulted New York's "questionable America Works has 2 long list of companies that decision to emphasize schooling to the exclusion of keep coming back. asking for more referrals from job experience." the welfare rolls. America Works has staked its sur- In New York City, it was none other than vival as a profitable business on the proposition that Barbara Sabol who shifted the BEGIN program's welfare clients, properly motivated and helped with emphasis away from securing immediate employ- a limited amount of technical assistance, can be suc- ment for welfare recipients. Instead. clients assigned cessful at getting and holding jobs. to BEGIN are allowed to choose among various Consider the case of 35-year-old Lenore training and education options. "In some ultimate Green. Other than two short-term jobs, she had sense HRA still believes in the employment goal," been on public assistance all her adult life. Like says Lawrence Mead. 3 welfare researcher at New Sabol, Green had a disappointing experience with York University. "But so much priority is now given HRA's BEGIN program. "They basically give you to reducing 'barriers' around recipients that few face the yellow pages and tell you to start calling to find any real pressure to go to work. BEGIN is induct- a job," she savs. "They also do something they call ing 2,500 new clients a month, but so many drop 'networking,' where someone comes in and says out and so few look for jobs that no impact on the that some company is hiring. And they tell you to caseload is discernible. HRA simply has not con- read the New York Times. Well, I was doing that fronted the ethos of entitlement that surrounds wel. anyway." fare in New York." When Green heard about America Works, she asked her caseworker to refer her to the firm, even Road to Success though its offices are in lower Manhattan and she Yes even in New York City, there are model pro- lives in the Bronx. When she made the trip, she grams that successfully match long-term welfare found a businesslike facility, in contrast with the clients with private sector jobs. During her underground stint as a welfare client, Sabol might have asked her caseworker to refer her TO J privately owned employment service called America Works. Or she might have called the company herself, as some welfare recipients do. Had she made that connec- tion, Sabol's "spark" would cer- tainly have been noticed. In fact, it is likely that she would have been quickly placed in an entry-level clerical job in a publishing firm, law office, or insurance company. For the past five years, America Works has placed thou- A job-reodiness class of America Works. SUMMER 1993 67 AMERICA WORKS grim welfare offices she was used to visiting. A projects; Bowes is a sociologist. They launched polite receptionist directed clients and visitors to America Works in the mid- 1980s with $1 million in the business lab, the pre-employment classroom, a start-up capital and the belief, based on their own small meeting room, and staff offices. America experiences in the job-training field, that the prima- Works was humming with activity, and no one 1125 ry obstacles preventing welfare clients from finding waiting in line. and retaining jobs are a lack of connections and Green signed up, and after a week of pre- gaps in interpersonal skills. Extended education and employment screening and "job readiness" training, training programs are unnecessary, time-consuming she landed J nwo-week data-entry job. Immediately diversions, Cove and Bowes argue. Further, they thereafter, she was sent on two interviews, each of contend, clients with shaky self-confidence are best which led to a job offer. She currently works in the sened by an early success in getting a job, not by claims department of the Amalgamated Life long periods of preparation. Insurance Company. America Works' week-long training sessions are narrowly focused on the skills needed to land an America Works makes its money by job. A counselor works with clients on such basics as maintaining 3 businesslike personal contracting with state welfare agencies appearance, speaking properly, preparing a résumé, showing up on time, and arranging child care. to place clients in jobs Attendance is strictly enforced: if J client is late to class, even by five minutes, she is dropped from the America Works functions as a kind of "old program, though she may enroll again at a later girls' network." (Most of its clients are women. date. After completing the class, clients spend half Staff members build relationships with employers their day in the company's business lab. working on and provide the connections to the job market that typing, word processing, and other office skills women on welfare usually lack. "Atter screening to while they wait for job interviews. During the make sure there's J fit with what the employer is remainder of their day, they can seek employment looking for, they go out and represent you to the on their own. employer." Green savs. "They help you get that Paula Phillips, an energetic former school- interview." teacher who leads the training sessions, stresses that America Works makes its money by contract- clients' success depends on their own motivation ing with state welfare agencies to place clients in and effort. "How many of you were referred by jobs. The contract is performance based: the com- BEGINE" she asks a larger-than average class of 46 pany is paid (about $4.000 per client in crowded into the classroom one spring morning. Connecticut and $5,300 in New York) only after Eight or nine women raise their hands. "Did they the client has completed J four-month probationary say that America Works will definitely find you J period with an employer. The state comes out job:- Only a couple sav yes, but she uses the occa- ahead " well. For its fee of $5,300, America Works sion to nail home her point: "There are no guaran- estimates that it saves taxpayers $22,000 J year, the tees If you want something to happen, you've cost of keeping a mother and two children on the got to make it happen." "But," she continues, -if welfare rolls in New York. we don't find people a job, we can't stay in busi- America Works is the brainchild of a husband- ness. We want to find jobs for as many people as and-wife team, Peter Cove and Lee Bowes. Cove is possible." a community activist, a veteran of the 1960s 11'ar on The company's entrepreneurial cthos is catch- Poverty and various non-profit employment training ing. We spoke with numerous women and men in 68 CIII JOBRUAL America Works classes who defied the stereotypes of long-term welfare clients steeped in a permanent cul- I I ture of dependency. After waiting several months to be admitted to the program, they understood that they had to compete for jobs, were work. ing very hard at improving their skills in the business lab, and were confident that they would succeed. Employers are impressed with the workers' enthusiasm. "Their candidates really want to work," savs the personnel director of a cata. log company "ho, since 1989, has relied exclusively on America Works A trainee in the America Works business lab. for filling level positions. "They have people who have been out of work and After the probationary period, the employee is so the 're willing to stay with a jub for quite some paid a standard wage. The support America Works time." savs the manager of a law office. "They're provides during the transition period is clearly effec- willing 10 stay longer than other people who tive; an estimated 85 to 90 percent of its clients are haven't been on public assistance. We're willing to still in their jobs at the end of the first year. take 3 chance on them; 11°C get a dedicated and loval employee. It's 3 win-win situation." Going Against the Grain During the four-month probationary period, Despite America Works' success, New York's social- the employer pays an agreed-upon wage to America service bureaucracy remains indifferent to its Works. which pays the employee minimum wage. promise. The company is under contract with New (Employees' welfare grants are gradually reduced York State to find jobs for 250 workers a year, but during their transition to permanent work.) The many more welfare clients are trying to get into trial period allows the employer to valuate the new America Works than it can accommodate under its employee's work habits and adaptability to the com- contract. And the firm does not have a single con- pany culture. A1 the same time, America Works tract with New York City. Indeed, it has been offers the employee services to case the transition rejected four consecutive times for welfare-to-work from dependency to the job market. America Works contracts let by city agencies. Critics and city offi. job counselors visit the worker on the job every cials offer several explanations for the city's reluc- week and meet with the employee's supervisor every tance to embrace the firm's approach. other neck to "troubleshoot." If there are problems One charge is that America Works "creams," with punctuality or attendance, or if the client needs selecting the most job-ready clients, who would help with child care or housing, the counselor will land jobs on their own anyway. A New York State intervene. "Most problems new employees have welfare official disagrees. "That may have been true show up quickly, in the first few months on the job. early on, when they were getting their clients from That's why the 'reps' are so useful," says one newspaper ads, but now more than half of their employer, singling out the baby-sitting problems clients come after failing to find jobs through that trip up even the most eager working mothers. HRA's programs." And, indeed, why would people 1993 69 AMERICA WORKS who could find work on their own sit through a week of job-readiness classes and then spend four months working at minimum wage? It seems more More - likely that America Works is successful with those public assistance recipients who are willing to work but lack the interpersonal skills, self-confidence, and connections necessary to find work. Another concern is cost. Cathy Zall, deputy commissioner of HRA, argues that America Works is much more expensive than other welfare-to-work programs and that the $22,000 savings trumpeted by the company is exaggerated, because it assumes that none of the people placed in jobs by America Works would have found work on their own. Computing the exact savings from various welfare reform programs is complicated, but the Public Policy Institute report notes that America Works' America Works cofounder Peter Cove says government must "bring in creative entrepreneurs" to help people off welfare. placement fee "compares favorably with the $8,259 per placement cost of the JOBS program." a federal Works has done "exceptional work," the state has initiative offering education and placement services. come in for "criticism from the traditional employ- Our interviews with welfare officials and inde- ment and training agencies, from the nonprofit sec- pendent analysts suggest that much of the criticism tor. They wanted to know why we were contracting of America Works is driven by an underlying suspi- with J for profit agency." cion of J for-profit company operating on the belief Compounding the problem is the bureaucratic that welfare clients can and should compete in the procedure by which contract proposals are judged, a market economy. This approach directly challenges process that elevates form over substance. In the the institutional biases of much of the nonprofit competition for J recent welfare-to-work contract world and the government bureaucracy. with the city's Department of Employment (which America Works lost). the final decision was made How could n company that places so many largely on the basis of the written "statement of pur- people in good jobs be judged as lacking pose" in the contract proposal. The organization's success rate in actually placing and keeping recipients "demonstrated effectiveness"? in jobs 11:25 J secondary consideration. In J proposal for another Department of Employment contract, Some officials concede that such J bias exists. America Works earned just one-quarter of the possi- "It's very difficult for us in the social work professions ble points for "demonstrated effectiveness." How, to accept individuals who make J profit," says Audrey we asked our guide through the bureaucracy, could Rowe, Connecticut's commissioner of income main- a company that was placing so many people in good, tenance, who became a champion of America Works private-sector jobs be judged as lacking "demon- after evaluating its performance under a state con- strated effectiveness": The answer: "They just didn't tract. "It's difficult to work through staff biases." write a very good proposal." Michael Dowling, New York State's commis- America Works recently found itself a new sioner of social services, adds that while America champion, Manhattan Borough President Ruth 70 BITT JOUDNAL Messinger. Having seen the company's good work For many conservatives, the solution is some- for herself, Messinger tried to cut through the thing like economic shock therapy-reducing bene- bureaucratic thicket by intervening directly with fits or even taking people off welfare altogether. For First Deputy Mavor Norman Steisel. Her letter to their liberal counterparts, welfare reform must await Steisel recommended that the city take a second major governmental intervention in the economy to look at how America Works could benefit New create "decent" jobs. York's welfare reform effort. America Works confounds the shared pes- Steisel's reply was, typically, more bureau- simism of both liberals and conservatives about the cratese. He expressed regret that America Works possibility of getting welfare recipients into jobs had lost four straight competitions and explained quickly. It points beyond the familiar "won't work" that there just isn't enough money to fund all the versus "can't work" argument, toward pragmatic, worthy proposals. He encouraged America Works intermediate solutions. to keep trying. Finally, the deputy mayor assured Messinger that the Department of Employment was America Works confounds the shared "looking forward 10 receiving additional proposals pessimism of both liberals and conservatives from America Works in response to future RFP's [requests for proposals]." Peter Cove argues that success in welfare reform "must be measured by the obtaining of jobs, reten- Beyond Left and Right tion, and the resultant welfare cost reductions." Tomes have been written about the difficulties of Government should not pay for classroom programs, getting long-term welfare recipients into the job hc says, but for "the job acquisition and retention that market. Liberal and conservative critics alike insist result This will immediately guarantee govern- on the almost insurmountable odds against ending ment getting what it pays for It will bring in creative welfare dependency. Conservatives tend to argue entrepreneurs and maintain only the successful ones." that long-term welfare clients won't work. because These ideas, very much in keeping with they have not developed the values and discipline- President Clinton's stated goal of making govern- the "culture." if you will-that push people into the ment social services more effective and accountable, labor market. Liberals counter by arguing that the are worthy of attention in the coming national wel- jobless poor can't work. pointing to J range of fare reform debate. In New York City, meanwhile, "structural barriers" that prevent minority and hundreds of welfare recipients on America Works' unskilled inner city residents from succeeding in the waiting list deserve better. They too have "sparks" private job market. that ought to be recognized. 1993 71 FINAL IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT: THE WASHINGTON STATE FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM DRAFT April 1993 (Revised May 1993) Authors: Sharon K. Long Douglas A. Wissoker Programming Support: Daniel J. Dowhan Sharon M. Hirabayashi This report is one of a series from the Evaluation of the Washington State Family Independence Program conducted by The Urban Institute under contract from the Washington State Legislative Budget Committee. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Washington State officials, The Urban Institute, or its sponsors. THE URBAN INSTITUTE 2100 M Street N.W. / Washington, D.C. 20037/ (202) 833-7200 I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE RESULTS The welfare reform initiative in Washington State -- the Family Independence Program (FIP) -- is intended to improve the State's welfare system by redefining the interaction among income maintenance, education and training activities, employment, and supportive services available to recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The goal of FIP is to increase the self-sufficiency of welfare families and decrease the number of children growing up in poverty by (1) providing a strong education, training, and work component; (2) changing the structure of the income support system, including converting food assistance from coupons to cash; and (3) expanding the availability of child care and other supportive services for families on welfare, and providing transitional child care and Medicaid benefits for families who leave welfare with earnings. FIP operates as a welfare demonstration program under waivers from federal law granted for a five-year period. As part of the FIP demonstration, Washington State is conducting an evaluation of the program's ability to help families enter the work force and attain economic independence. The evaluation of the FIP demonstration has three broad objectives: 1. To assess the effect of FIP relative to the AFDC program on program costs, caseloads, and the economic well-being of children and families, 2. To assess the relative effectiveness of various education and training activities under FIP on welfare recipients' labor market outcomes, and 3. To identify the practices and procedures that result in an effective welfare program. In addressing these objectives, the evaluation has three interrelated components -- a process analysis of the implementation and operation of FIP, an analysis of the net impacts of the program on welfare recipients' behavior, and a cost-benefit study. 1 The first component of the evaluation considers program implementation and operations. The issues addressed include: how FIP operations differ from those of AFDC; how the FIP and AFDC programs change over time; how the two programs differ by location (e.g., urban vs. rural areas); and what practices, procedures, organizational features, and interorganizational linkages contribute to a successfully run program. Periodic interviews with program administrators and staff, questionnaires completed by staff, observations of group activities, and program documents and records are the data sources for this part of the evaluation. The second component, the net impact analysis, focuses on estimating the overall effects of FIP relative to the AFDC program on welfare recipients' employment and earnings, duration of welfare receipt, and welfare recidivism. This part of the evaluation uses administrative data from welfare, employment services, and education management information systems. The third component, the cost-benefit analysis, compares administrative costs and benefits paid under the two programs, estimates what the long-term savings from FIP (compared to AFDC) are likely to be for both the State and Federal governments, and assesses the costs and benefits to the individuals who participate in FIP (again in comparison 1 Appendix A lists the evaluation reports completed to date. 2 to AFDC). The cost-benefit analysis uses the results of the impact analysis and administrative cost records in evaluating FIP. The final report of the FIP evaluation will synthesize the findings from the process, net impact, and cost-benefit components of the evaluation. This report summarizes the findings for the net impact component of the FIP evaluation. The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of the impact analysis and evaluation design (Section A), and summarizes the impact analysis findings (Section B). Section C provides a brief assessment of the results. The final section, Section D, outlines the organization of the report. A. OVERVIEW OF THE NET IMPACT ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION DESIGN The FIP evaluation is based on a quasi-experimental design that uses matched pairs of treatment and comparison sites. In selecting the treatment and comparison sites, all the welfare offices in the state were stratified by region (east or west) and by urban or rural location to ensure reasonable geographic coverage of the state. 2 Within each stratum pairs of sites were matched based on characteristics of the welfare caseloads and the local labor market. Five matched pairs of welfare offices were selected for the evaluation. Welfare offices assigned to treatment status implemented FIP, while comparison sites continued to operate the AFDC program. 2 (CSO). Some sites encompass more than one local welfare office, called Community Service Office 3 The site pairs selected for the evaluation are: FIP Treatment Sites Non-FIP Comparison Sites Burien/West Seattle King South/Federal Way Everett/Skykomish Valley Pierce West Goldendale/White Salmon/Stevenson Shelton Spokane North Yakima/Yakima-Kittitas Moses Lake/Othello Okanogan The analysis focuses on adults who were on welfare in the sites during a six-month sample window, adjusting for the experiences of a corresponding group of adults on welfare during a six-month period prior to the implementation of FIP. Estimates of the net impact of FIP are obtained by comparing outcomes for welfare recipients (both FIP and AFDC) in the treatment sites with outcomes for AFDC recipients in the comparison sites. 3 Thus, the estimates are the impact of FIP relative to the AFDC program, not the impact of FIP relative to no program. In order to control for differences between the treatment and comparison sites that existed prior to FIP, a "difference-in-differences" estimation approach is used. Regression analysis is also used to increase the precision of the estimates and to help control for differences between the treatment and comparison sites that are not related to FIP. This report provides estimates of short-run impacts of FIP on participation in education and training activities and on six employment and welfare outcomes -- probability of employment, average earnings, probability of welfare participation, average welfare grant, rate of exit from welfare participation, and rate of welfare recidivism. The analysis covers a 3 Households already on AFDC in the treatment sites when FIP was implemented were given the choice between staying on AFDC or participating in FIP. About 10 percent chose to stay on AFDC. 4 three year period following entry into our sample and focuses on estimating net impacts for adults in one- and two-parent households in each quarter of the follow-up period. Within the one-parent caseload, separate estimates are obtained for new entrants to welfare under FIP and for those who were continuing a period of welfare participation. Small sample sizes prevent us making this distinction for two-parent cases. However, for the two-parent cases we do obtain separate estimates for women and men. 4 Both because of small sample sizes and the likelihood that the two-parent estimates are influenced by FIP-induced program entry (see Chapter III), the estimates of the net impacts of FIP on the adults in two-parent cases are less reliable than those for adults in one-parent cases. Two-parent cases represent about 12 percent of the welfare caseload in Washington State. B. SUMMARY OF KEY RESULTS FIP was designed to help families become self-supporting by providing parents with the opportunity to acquire needed job skills through employment, education, and training services. Financial incentives are provided to encourage participation in education and training programs and to promote increased work effort. Child care and other support services are provided to ensure that the families are able to take advantage of the education, training, and employment opportunities that are available. Transitional child care and medical services are extended to families of those who obtain a job and leave welfare, to 4 This distinction is not made for the one-parent cases because so few sample members are male. We do include gender as one of the explanatory variables included in the regression analysis for the one-parent cases. 5 reduce the cost and uncertainty associated with moving from welfare to economic self- sufficiency. Given this program design, it was expected that FIP participants would increase their job skills (as a result of education and training activities) and face fewer barriers to employment (as a result of child care and transportation subsidies), so that, in the long run, employment and earnings would be increased and welfare participation reduced relative to what would have occurred under the AFDC program. The remainder of this section summarizes our findings on the net impact of FIP on participation in education and training activities, and employment and welfare behavior for the twelve quarters of the follow-up period. Participation in Education and Training Activities. The analysis of education and training participation in the treatment and comparison sites considers three types of activities: job search, education, and training. Because of limited data on job search referrals, we focus here on participation in education and training activities. Relative to the AFDC program, FIP has little or no impact on the level of participation in education and training activities for adults in one-parent cases and men in two-parent cases. FIP women in two-parent cases are significantly less likely to participate in education or training activities than are their counterparts in the comparison sites. Among the one-parent caseload, new entrants to welfare are more likely to participate in some education or training activities under FIP than are their counterparts in the comparison sites, as shown in Figure I.1. Although these estimates of FIP net impacts are often quite large relative to the level of participation in the comparison sites, in no quarter are 6 Net Impact of FIP on Participation in Education or Training for Adults in One-Parent Cases 100 80 New Entrants On-Going Participants 7 Percent in Education or Training 60 40 20 * 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Follow-up Quarter FIP Comparison Sites Estimate of FIP impact IS significant at the 10 level, two-tailed test they statistically significant. For the on-going welfare participants, who make up the majority of the one-parent caseload, the estimates of the net impact of FIP on education and training behavior are small and of mixed direction: education or training participation is sometimes higher and sometimes lower under FIP over the follow-up period. In only one quarter is the estimate statistically significant. Men in two-parent cases also generally increase participation in education and training activities, although only the estimate for quarter eight is statistically significant. In contrast, women in two-parent cases are significantly less likely to participate in education or training activities in four of the eight follow-up quarters. However, the estimates of the impact of FIP on education and training participation for the two-parent cases are particularly sensitive to the method used to adjust for pre-FIP differences between the treatment and comparison sites and, therefore, should be interpreted with caution. 5 Although it appears that FIP did not increase the level of participation in education and training activities relative to the AFDC program, several factors suggest that we may be understating FIP net impacts. First, the data sources used to measure participation in education and training activities fail to capture a share of those activities. Second, for outcomes that occur infrequently in the sample, like participation in education and training, the sample sizes available to this study can detect only large treatment-comparison site differences. Finally, the adjustment for treatment-comparison site differences that exist independent of FIP, which is based on limited data for the education and training analysis, 5 Because of the sensitivity of the two-parent results, we have not included a figure illustrating those findings. 8 has a large effect on the FIP net impact estimates for these outcomes. Even so, estimates under alternative models and assumptions suggest that the "true" net impact of FIP on participation education and training activities is unlikely to differ greatly from the estimates reported here. Employment and Welfare Outcomes. The net impact of FIP on welfare recipient's employment and welfare behavior is estimated using six outcome measures: average earnings, whether employed, average welfare grant, whether a welfare grant is received, rate of exit from welfare, and, for those who exit, rate of return to welfare. We focus here on employment, welfare receipt, and program exit and re-entry. Relative to the AFDC program, FIP has little or no impact on employment for adults in one-parent cases or women in two- parent cases. Employment is lower under FIP for men in two- parent cases. As a result of FIP, new entrants and on-going participants in one-parent cases are less likely to be employed over the follow-up period than similar individuals in the comparison sites, as shown in Figure I.2. However, the net impact estimates are only statistically significant for the new entrants and only for quarters early in the follow-up period. For women in two-parent cases, employment is sometimes higher and sometimes lower under FIP -- the estimates are never statistically significant (Figure I.3). In contrast, men in two-parent cases are significantly less likely to be employed under FIP relative to the AFDC program in all twelve of the follow-up quarters. 9 Figure 1.2 Net Impact of FIP on Employment for Adults in One-Parent Cases 100 80 New Entrants On-Going Participants 60 10 Percent Employed 40 * * 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Follow-up Quarters FIP Comparison Sites . Estimate of FIP impact significant at the 10 level, two-tailed test. Net Impact of FIP on Employment for Adults in Two-Parent Cases 100 80 Women Men 60 * * 11 Percent Employed * * * * * * * * * * 40 20 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< AQY \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Z Z_ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Follow-up Quarters FIP Comparison Sites Estimate of FIP impact significant at the 10 level, two-tailed test Since there is little difference in participation in education and training activities as a result of FIP, the lower levels of employment are unlikely to be reflecting changes in participation in those activities. As with the analysis of participation in education and training activities, these estimates may understate the net impacts of FIP on employment because of missing data. We estimate that missing data leads us to underestimate the magnitude of the net impacts of FIP by 10 to 20 percent. Adjustments for the missing data produce slightly larger reductions in employment under FIP, but do not change our overall conclusions. Welfare participation is higher under FIP than the AFDC program for adults in both one- and two-parent cases. Although FIP appears to lead to, at most, small reductions in employment for most of the welfare caseload, with some partially offsetting increases in participation in education and training activities, the net FIP impacts on participation in welfare are relatively large and highly significant for both the one- and two-parent caseloads, as shown in Figures I.4 and 1.5. Participation in welfare is up to 12 percentage points higher for adults in one-parent cases and 18 percentage points higher for adults in two-parent cases as a result of FIP. Welfare participation remains significantly higher under FIP through the end of the evaluation follow- up period. Recipients of welfare tend to stay on longer under FIP and, for those who do leave, return more quickly than under AFDC. 12 Net Impact of FIP on Welfare Participation for Adults in One-Parent Cases 100 New Entrants On-Going Participants * * 80 * * * * * * * * * * * 60 * 13 Percent on Welfare * * * * * * * 40 20 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Follow-up Quarters / FIP Comparison Sites - Estimate of FIP impact significant at the 10 level. two-tailed test. Net Impact of FIP on Welfare Participation for Adults in Two-Parent Cases 100 80 Women Men * * * * * 60 Percent on Welfare * * * * * * 14 * * * * 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Follow-up Quarters / FIP Comparison Sites . Estimate of FIP impact significant at the 10 level two failed test Increases in the share of individuals who are on welfare under FIP could result from treatment-comparison site differences in the rate of leaving welfare and/or from differences in the rate of returning to welfare for those who have left. Our evidence suggests that FIP reduces the rate of exit from welfare, adding 3 months to the median duration of welfare spells for both new entrants and on-going participants in the one-parent caseload (although only the estimate for new entrants is statistically significant) and women and men in the two- parent caseload. The re-entry rate is also higher for both one- and two-parent cases, although the limited data available for the analysis suggests the results should be interpreted with caution. C. ASSESSMENT OF THE RESULTS Over the three-year period following enrollment in FIP, we estimate that, relative to AFDC, FIP reduces initial employment probabilities and average earnings, while increasing the probability of being on welfare and raising the average grant amount. The impacts on the welfare outcomes, in particular, remain large and statistically significant throughout the follow-up period. The employment and welfare patterns can be explained in part, but only in part, by increased participation in education and training activities. These estimates of the net impacts of FIP are not consistent with the expected impacts of the program and are difficult to explain. We divide the potential explanations for these unanticipated findings into issues related to data, program design, program operations, and evaluation design. Data Issues. Although there is some evidence that the estimates reported here may understate the magnitude of the net impacts of FIP on education and training participation 15 and employment because of missing data problems, an assessment of the sensitivity of our estimates to alternative assumptions about the scope of missing data suggest that the "true" net impacts are unlikely to be substantially larger than those reported here. However, it is likely that education and training participation increased and employment decreased somewhat more under FIP than is reported here. Furthermore, it is possible that if we were not missing data the estimates for a greater share of the follow-up quarters would be statistically different from zero. (It should be noted that there is no evidence that the magnitude of the impacts of FIP on welfare participation have been understated.) Program Design Issues. Under the program design changes implemented under FIP, the breakeven level -- the level of earnings at which welfare benefits drop to zero -- is higher under FIP than under AFDC. As a result, workers could continue to receive benefits under FIP with levels of earnings at which they would have to leave the AFDC program. It is likely that this program feature explains at least part of the higher levels of welfare participation under FIP; however, it does not explain a reduction in employment under FIP. Program Operation Issues. Interpretation of the FIP net impact estimates requires consideration of the "black box" of program circumstances that produced them. Available evidence suggests that the treatment sites were successful at implementing the FIP design, with particular emphasis on the key features of FIP -- the change in the welfare culture, child care subsidies, financial incentives, and transitional benefits. In particular, evidence from staff and client interviews indicate that FIP was successful in changing the welfare "climate" in Washington State by increasing and improving client and staff interactions. However, staff report that increased responsibilities, expanded services to clients, and growing 16 caseloads under FIP prevented them from providing the degree and frequency of staff interaction that was needed to operate the program as intended. There is also some evidence that information on the benefits available under FIP may not have been communicated effectively to the welfare participants. In a survey of households that left welfare with earnings, 24 percent of the FIP participants did not feel that the program had been explained when they applied to welfare in such a way that they could understand it. When asked specifically about different components of the program, even larger shares reported not knowing about such program features as financial incentives, extended Medicaid coverage, and transitional child care assistance. If, as these figures suggest, a substantial share of participants were unaware of the benefits available under FIP, it should not be surprising that those benefits had no impact on behavior. Evaluation Design Issues. The matched treatment-comparison site design used for the FIP evaluation allows for site-wide program impacts that cannot be captured by the random assignment of individuals to treatment and control status within a site. While we use a difference-in-differences approach and regression analysis to remove site differences that are not due to FIP, we can never be completely sure that the comparison sites provide an appropriate control group. In exploring the quality of the treatment-comparison site matches for this study, we estimated the net impact of FIP within each matched pair of sites. The pattern of net impacts that we observe for the pairs of sites are roughly consistent with our overall findings. With the exception of one pair of sites in one year, welfare participation is higher under FIP in each pair of sites in each year of the follow-up period. Employment either does not change 17 or is reduced under FIP for all of the site pairs in the first year of the follow-up period. The net impacts of FIP on employment in the final two years of the follow-up period and the net impacts on education and training participation for all three follow-up years are of mixed signs. The latter is consistent with our finding that the overall net impacts are not statistically different from zero for those outcomes over those periods. A second issue that arises with respect to the evaluation design concerns the focus on welfare participants rather than eligibles. By focusing on welfare participants, the observed treatment-comparison site differences in outcomes may reflect differences in who chooses to participate in welfare across the sites. The available evidence suggests that FIP-induced program entry was not an issue for the one-parent cases, but was a substantial issue for the two-parent caseload. Given the possibility that the two-parent cases in the comparison sites may not provide a good match for the two-parent cases in the treatment sites, the estimates for the two-parent cases are potentially subject to biases of unknown direction and magnitude. In addition to the problem of FIP-induced program entry in the treatment sites, there is also evidence that individuals in the comparison sites moved to treatment sites and received FIP benefits. By receiving FIP benefits, these "crossover" individuals reduced the differences in services between the treatment and comparison sites and, consequently, the estimates of the impacts of FIP relative to the AFDC program. Given the relatively low level of crossovers (about 9 percent of the cohort by the end of the third follow-up year), alternative adjustments for this contamination of the matched comparison site design do not change the net impact estimates by substantial amounts. 18 Under the framework for the FIP evaluation, the net impact analysis cannot provide guidance as to whether parts of FIP are effective and should be incorporated in future employment and training initiatives. However, the process analysis does suggest that FIP, and particularly the education and training component of FIP, was not very different from the existing AFDC program. Furthermore, there is evidence that budgetary difficulties, caseload growth, and the implementation of JOBS in the comparison sites eroded many of the differences that exist at the start. The final report of the FIP evaluation provides a synthesis of the findings from the process, net impacts, and cost-benefit components of the evaluation. D. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT The remainder of this report is organized as follows. Chapter II provides a background summary of the changes associated with FIP and the welfare reform developments in non- FIP sites. Chapter III contains an overview of the FIP net impact analysis design. Chapter IV presents the findings regarding participation in education and training activities. Chapter V estimates the net impacts of FIP on the employment and welfare outcomes for adults in one-parent households. Chapter VI discusses how the findings should be assessed. 19

nara / coll_wjc-dpc / doc

Advocacy Groups [Folder 1] [2]

ID: 54978389
Type: document

Citation Image

Metadata

id	54978389
sourceUrl	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/54978389
contentType	document
collections	Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration) Kathryn Way's Files
iiifBase	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0854-S/42-t-7367486-20130854S-001-010-2016.pdf
thumbnailUrl	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0854-S/42-t-7367486-20130854S-001-010-2016.pdf
largeImageUrl	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0854-S/42-t-7367486-20130854S-001-010-2016.pdf
imageCount	1
hasImages	yes
source	import

Additional Source Fields

url	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/54978389
naId	54978389
levelOfDescription	fileUnit
otherTitles	42-t-7367486-20130854S-001-010-2016
recordType	description
ocrSource	nara-archive

Pages

Page 1 OCR

Survos folio item chat

Ask the Scholar

Scholar Source Context