How Welfare and Employment
Policies Affect Children
Beth Clark-Kauffman
Greg J. Duncan
Northwestern University
Pamela Morris
MDRC
The Next Generation Project
www.mdrc.org/NextGeneration
Participating researchers
from:

MDRC
University of Texas at Austin
Northwestern University
University of California at
Los Angeles
University of Oregan
University of Michigan
New York University
Syracuse University
Social Research and
Demonstration Corporation

Funders:
The David and Lucile
Packard Foundation
William T. Grant
Foundation
John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation
Question:

Do work-promoting welfare
policies help or hurt poor
children’s school achievement?
Method:

Pool data on ~30,000 children
whose families were enrolled in 7
random-assignment experiments
Welfare Reform and Child WellBeing
Welfare
Reform
Provisions
Changes
in Adult
Behavior
Work
mandates and
incentives
Employment
Sanctions
Welfare
Receipt
Time limits
Total Family
Income
Changes in
Child
Resources
and
Context
Parenting;
gatekeeping
Cognitive
stimulation
inside and
outside the
home
Maternal mental
health
Changes
in Child
Wellbeing
Effects of welfare reform
policies on children may
differ by child age or stage

Sensitivity to change
 Early childhood
 Transitions in development
BUT, also differences in family
demography

Turn to experiments of 1990s:

Various “treatments”
 Mandated Employment Services



Work or Education
Generous Earnings supplements
Time limits
 Random

Assignment
Follow-up after 2-3 and, in some
cases, 5 years
In contrast with recent work
with these data, we:

Pool microdata rather than working
with study-specific impact estimates


Allows us to test effects for smaller
groups of children
Add more studies and longer-run
follow-ups from existing studies

To understand generalizability of
effects
Experiments
Mandated Mandated
Training work
Earnings
Time
supplements limit
NEWWS
Atlanta
1
2
Grand Rapids
3
4
Riverside
5
6
MN MFIP I
7
MN MFIP II
8
Milwaukee New Hope
9
Canadian SSP
10
Experiments (continued)
Mandated Mandated
Training work
FL FTP
LA Gain
Connecticut Jobs 1st
Earnings
Time
supplements limit
11
12
13
Sample Sizes
Age:
0-1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-15
ALL
1803
9021
10029
3985
3409
2558
2067
32872
133
1037
970
821
730
537
564
4792
New Hope – 2
3
171
295
259
240
175
140
1283
New Hope – 5
174
356
238
255
213
101
0
1337
CT Jobs First
135
780
798
773
658
444
421
4009
SSP – 36
431
1163
1633
1248
1028
876
511
6890
SSP – 54
586
1229
512
0
0
0
0
2327
LA Gain
0
0
169
230
194
171
268
1032
NEWWS – 2
0
1275
1622
0
0
0
0
2897
NEWWS – 5
0
2392
3236
0
0
0
0
5628
341
618
556
399
346
254
163
2667
ALL
Earnings supp.
MFIP
Non – ES
FTP
Regression analyses

Dependent variable:



Achievement
Parent Earnings and Income
Independent variables:





Experimental status x age
Age
Source of achievement report
Study dummies
Baseline earnings, AFDC, maternal education,
family structure, race/ethnicity, etc.
Experimental Impacts on Achievement
standard deviation units)
Age at
baseline
All
Earnings
Supplement
Other
Programs
0-1
-.062
-.040
-.181
2-3
.046
.067*
-.030
4-5
.069**
.112**
.038
6-7
.007
.018
-.072
8-9
.023
.016
.043
10-11
-.102 *
-.110*
-.057
12-15
-.089
-.058
-.186*
*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Effects are robust to model
specification changes such as:

Adding interactions between experimental indicator
and:






Parent and family characteristics
Follow-up length
Source of achievement report
Including only the subset of studies that include all
age groups
Clustering at various levels
Including only one achievement score or point in
time per child
Summary:


Welfare reforms targeted to parents CAN
affect their children
Program design matters


Policies that increase income bring benefits to
younger children
Child age matters


Welfare reform policies that increase
employment can benefit younger children
Transitions in and out of middle childhood:
sensitive periods
Greg Duncan
greg-duncan@northwestern.edu
Gayle and her daughter
Gayle, a single mother of one adolescent-aged daughter,
Susan, noted that Susan was having several problems in
school. Skipping school had become a big problem.
Normally getting C’s or better, Susan was now getting D’s
and F’s. Gayle knew her daughter was skipping school, and
she was sure it had been going on frequently. However,
partly because Gayle had been working she didn’t know
exactly how much school Susan had missed. Gayle was
afraid to confront her daughter about it or ask the
school because “it’s all gonna come down on me and I’m not
ready to deal with it. I don’t think I should be punished
for that.” Gayle was further frustrated because she
knows Susan would be going to school every day if she was
home. In this situation, Gayle feels trapped between
caring for her daughter and working.
Tina and her daughter
Tina is a single mother. Her adolescent daughter
Tamara takes her younger sister to day care in the
morning:
“Cause she’s late every day for her school, every day.
And what the school says to me is they gotta do what
they do, what’s their policy. She’s gotta stay after
school, do her detention or she’ll lose her credit out
of that morning class cause she didn’t get there on
time. So, she feels sad and I feel bad because I
gotta be at work at 7. She can’t be at school by 7,
she can’t. We all can’t be at the same place at the
same time..”