finding employment and staying employed after leaving welfare

27
This article was downloaded by: [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] On: 08 October 2014, At: 06:57 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Poverty Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wpov20 Finding Employment and Staying Employed After Leaving Welfare Robert E. Crew Jr a & Joe Eyerman b a College of Social Sciences , Florida State University. , USA b Survey Research Division , The Research Triangle Institute. , USA Published online: 20 Oct 2008. To cite this article: Robert E. Crew Jr & Joe Eyerman (2001) Finding Employment and Staying Employed After Leaving Welfare, Journal of Poverty, 5:4, 67-91, DOI: 10.1300/ J134v05n04_04 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J134v05n04_04 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Upload: joe

Post on 16-Feb-2017

215 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

This article was downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola]On 08 October 2014 At 0657Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954Registered office Mortimer House 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JHUK

Journal of PovertyPublication details including instructions forauthors and subscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloiwpov20

Finding Employment andStaying Employed After LeavingWelfareRobert E Crew Jr a amp Joe Eyerman ba College of Social Sciences Florida StateUniversity USAb Survey Research Division The Research TriangleInstitute USAPublished online 20 Oct 2008

To cite this article Robert E Crew Jr amp Joe Eyerman (2001) Finding Employment andStaying Employed After Leaving Welfare Journal of Poverty 54 67-91 DOI 101300J134v05n04_04

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg101300J134v05n04_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the ldquoContentrdquo) contained in the publications on our platformHowever Taylor amp Francis our agents and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy completenessor suitability for any purpose of the Content Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses actions claims proceedings demands costs expenses damagesand other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposesAny substantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loansub-licensing systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden Terms amp Conditions of access and use can be found athttpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Finding Employment and Staying EmployedAfter Leaving Welfare

Robert E Crew Jr

Joe Eyerman

ABSTRACT This paper examines the impact of transportation childcare

and illness on the ability of former welfare recipients to secure employ-

ment and to maintain employment once more ldquodistalrdquo or structural fac-

tors are controlled The impact of these variables on gaining and keeping

employment is evaluated in a series of probit regression models The

analysis suggests that the current labor market has transformed securing

and maintaining employment into two separate events and that most of

the factors traditionally used to predict the ability of welfare recipients to

gain employment are now more important to maintaining employment

In particular the absence of an automobile reduces the probability of

keeping a job by 24 points [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service 1-800-HAWORTH E-mail addressltgetinfohaworthpressinccomgt Website lthttpwwwHaworthPresscomgt copy 2001by The Haworth Press Inc All rights reserved]

Robert E Crew Jr is Associate Dean of the College of Social Sciences at Florida StateUniversity He holds a PhD in political science from the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill and is the author of a variety of books and articles on American national andstate politics and on criminal justice environmental and social welfare policy Addresscorrespondence to the Department of Political Science Florida State University 130Bellamy Hall Tallahassee FL 32306-2160

Joe Eyerman is Survey Director in the Survey Research Division of The ResearchTriangle Institute He earned a PhD in political science at Florida State University and isa specialist in survey research methods and in social welfare policy Address correspon-dence to Survey Research Division Research Triangle Institute PO Box 12194 Re-search Triangle Park NC 27709-2194

Journal of Poverty Vol 5(4) 2001 2001 by The Haworth Press Inc All rights reserved 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

KEYWORDS Welfare reform transportation problems childcare prob-

lems

INTRODUCTION

The reform of the US welfare system put into law by the Personal Re-sponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 spurredrenewed interest in the circumstances of people who hd moved out ofwelfare programs and in their ability to gain and keep employment

The interest continues that of a long line of students of social welfare pol-icy who have examined the living circumstances of low income people (Edinand Lein 1997) and who have worked to identify the variables affecting theentry of welfare recipients into the labor force (see Osterman 1991 Mead1992 chp 6 Gueron and Pauly 1991 and Moffit 1992 for summaries of thisresearch) However the 1996 PRWOR Act requirement that persons receiv-ing cash assistance benefits must find employment (or enter a ldquowork activ-ityrdquo) immediately brought new attention to the immediate or proximatebarriers thought to be associated with finding and keeping work

Barriers to Employment

Research about the factors that impede progress toward employmenthas been extensive It focuses on the job qualifications of individu-alsndashboth the ldquohardrdquo and ldquosoftrdquo skills (Moss and Tilley 1995) of the jobseekerndashldquoon the attractiveness of available jobs on obstacles to workoutside the home such as mental illness and alcohol and drug addictionand on the capacity of the labor market to absorb new workers at partic-ular skill levelsrdquo (Burtless 1997 39) However those responsible forhelping TANF recipients find work (and many TANF beneficiariesthemselves) suggest that some of these constraints provide only a broadcontext for entry into work They argue that the structural or distal im-pedimentsndashlack of job skills poor education racial discriminationndashcanbe overcome only by long term strategies involving human capital in-vestments (Harris 1993 Burtless 1994) or by enforcement of employ-ment rights laws But even a person who is work-ready may still beunable to get a job if she faces one or more of the following more imme-diate or proximate barriers transportation issues child care issues andissues associated with personal illness or the illness of a child (Ong1996 Ward et al 1998 Moffitt and Slade 1997) Indeed welfare towork counselors from around the country recently identified lack of

68 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

child care and lack of transportation as the major barriers facing moth-ers transitioning off welfare (Childrenrsquos Defense Fund 2000) Otherscholars also point to the importance of child care and transportation inwelfare reform (Lino 1998 Pitegoff and Breen 1997 Wachs 1998)

Further earlier studies estimate tha between 10 and 20 of AFDCrecipients have health conditions that prevent them from working (ZillMoore and Stief 1991 Acs and Loprest 1995) and Urban Institute calcu-lations from the 1997 National Survey of Americarsquos Families suggest thatpoor general health and poor mental health are barriers to work for 48of TANF recipients throughout the nation (Zedlewski 1999)

Accepting the argument about the relationship between child careand transportation and welfacre reform at face value both the Congressand state TANF programs are allocating sizeable amounts of money toprograms designed to ameliorate these problems even though there islittle systematic empirical information about the relationship betweenchild care and transortation and success in the job market after leavingwelfare (Capizzano Adams and Sonenstein 2000) It is one thing toldquohave a child care problemrdquo which many people who are not welfare re-cipients do also and another altogether to have that problem so severelythat it prevents employment (Burtless 1997 48) Thus information isneeded that identifies the relative contribution that these variables maketo a personrsquos ability to gain and keep employment Such informationwill assist policymakers in understanding whether transportation prob-lems are severe enough to prevent rather than to simply affect employ-ment and in determining whether to support transportation rather thanchild care programs This paper is an effort to provide this informationand to sort out the relationship among these variables

DATA AND METHOD

The analysis described below was designed to address several researchquestions The general question is ldquoHow do various barriers to employ-ment (proximate and distal) affect the employment experience of Floridi-ans who left the statersquos welfare reform programrdquo Embedded in this ques-tion is our hypothesis that these barriers may have different effects on theability of persons who are leaving welfare to get a job than they do on theability to keep a job That is child care problems may not affect the abilityof a person who has recently left welfare to find employment but it mayhave a significant effect on the ability of that person to keep the job Thusour two specific questions (1) ldquoHow do specific barriers affect the ability

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

of individuals to find employment after leaving the TANF cash assistanceprogramrdquo and (2) ldquoDo these barriers have a differential effect on theability to get and to keep a job after leaving this programrdquo

We examine these questions with data on individuals who left Floridarsquoswelfare reform program-WAGES-during the period October 1996 throughSeptember 1998 The information came from telephone surveys conductedby the Florida State University Survey Research Laboratory and from ad-ministrative files maintained by the Florida Department of Children andFamilies Over one thousand (1006) of these individuals were interviewedduring the fall of 1998 An extensive battery of questions (approximately 90)were administered to this sample Additional information on these individualswas obtained from the FLORIDA and the WAGES information systems main-tained by Children and Families The survey response rate was 5147 and themargin of error was plus or minus 3 with a 95 confidence level1 An anal-ysis of data on the population the sample and those who completed the surveyshows very similar distributions across age race and region In all cases the dif-ferences between those who completed the survey and those who did not be-tween the population and the sample and between those who had telephonesand those who did not were 35 percent or smaller (See Table 1)

No direct measure of the incomes of the survey respondents or of those inthe full population was available Thus in order to examine the possibilitythat people in the population without telephones might be less affluent andtherefore different from the population we interviewed we gathered informationon the mean incomes of welfare households with phones listed and those with-out These data can not be tied to individuals in the sample and therefore donot provide a direct check on the income differences between the sampleand the population However since the population and the sample exhibitrelatively small differences with regard to telephone ownership we usethese the data as an indirect measure of income differences The differencebetween the income means of households without phones and those withphones was not statistically significant This suggests that the coverage biasresulting from excluding households without phones does not systematicallyexclude lower-income households within the Florida welfare population(See Table 2 for a summary of these data)

Study Design

The analysis begins with a description of two types of barriers to employmentproximateanddistalWethendescribe the indicatorsof theseconcepts and spec-ify the hypotheses involved This information is summarized in Table 3

70 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

71

TA

BLE

1D

istr

ibut

ion

Acr

oss

Dem

ogra

phic

Str

ata

All

Flo

rida

Sam

ple

ofW

AG

ES

Par

ticip

ants

Leav

ing

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

119

8

Diff

eren

ce

Age

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Diff

S

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

0-25

186

261

1

130

264

0

31

065

267

25

125

0

21

7

873

2726

9

131

626

3

251

250

2

06

21

92

14

25-3

116

423

0

106

624

9

19

976

244

25

425

2

08

836

1025

7

123

024

6

254

252

2

12

20

50

7

32-3

718

726

2

955

223

2

39

930

233

21

221

1

22

2

717

7121

7

114

222

8

212

211

1

12

06

21

8

38+

177

248

1

136

265

1

71

024

256

28

928

7

31

820

4325

3

131

326

3

289

287

1

03

52

5

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

996

10

010

0

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

To

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Bla

ck24

834

7

172

040

1

54

159

439

9

374

372

2

27

126

220

389

1

968

394

37

437

2

05

21

72

22

His

pani

c18

626

1

885

206

2

54

830

208

24

124

0

32

692

3821

3

107

121

4

241

240

0

12

62

5

Whi

te27

538

5

161

137

6

20

91

504

376

38

238

0

03

124

666

384

1

886

377

38

238

0

20

72

04

03

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

1(c

ontin

ued)

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

toS

ampl

eto

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Oth

er5

07

711

71

067

17

90

92

08

462

71

476

15

90

90

12

05

20

6

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

Reg

ion

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Sou

th22

731

8

145

133

8

21

133

133

3

350

348

1

510

909

233

6

168

133

6

350

348

0

01

21

2

Cen

tral

339

475

1

776

414

2

61

171

042

8

402

400

2

28

139

294

429

2

112

422

40

240

0

20

72

29

22

3

Nor

th14

820

7

106

024

7

40

954

239

25

425

2

14

763

6523

5

120

824

2

254

252

0

61

71

1

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

00

00

00

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

2A

vera

geH

ouse

hold

Inco

me

Spl

itB

etw

een

Hou

seho

ldW

ithP

hone

son

File

and

With

outf

orA

llT

AN

FF

amili

esR

ecei

ving

Ben

efits

inD

ecem

ber

1998

Mea

nS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nF

requ

ency

Diff

eren

ceof

Mea

ns2-

Tai

led

Sig

nific

ance

All

Flo

rida

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$34

399

$34

491

$20

095

$18

938

523

417

706

$(0

92)

070

WA

GE

SR

egio

n23

(Dad

ean

dM

onro

e)P

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

12$

339

86$

197

39$

172

0520

258

288

8$

426

027

WA

GE

SR

egio

n12

(Lak

eO

rang

eO

sceo

laS

emin

ole

Sum

ter)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

251

$34

713

$21

495

$18

887

402

566

0$

538

055

WA

GE

SR

egio

n3

(Cal

houn

Hol

mes

Jac

kson

Lib

erty

Was

hing

ton)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

654

$34

886

$20

969

$19

432

345 70

$(1

232

)0

65

WA

GE

SR

egio

n19

(Des

oto

Har

dee

Hig

hlan

ds)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

651

$36

853

$21

456

$23

215

345 66

$(1

202

)0

68

Sou

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

345

65$

341

37$

202

36$

178

9325

000

367

2$

428

023

Nor

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

45$

348

70$

202

95$

198

8517

242

276

7$

(42

5)0

31

Cen

tral

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

907

$34

691

$19

386

$19

741

100

991

267

$(7

84)

018

[1]

Inco

me

mea

sure

sfo

rth

est

udy

perio

dw

ere

unav

aila

ble

due

toda

taco

llect

ion

rout

ines

[2

]In

com

e=

Ear

ned

+U

near

ned

+W

AG

ES

bene

fits

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74

TA

BLE

3S

umm

ary

ofC

once

pts

and

Indi

cato

rs

Conc

ept

Indi

cato

rSo

urce

Que

stio

nsEx

pect

edRe

latio

nshi

pm

ean

std

Vaild

Obs

erva

-tio

n

W O R K

Secu

red

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

Q3

3a-D

idyo

ufin

da

job

afte

rlea

ving

WAG

ES

(1=

yes

0=

else

)0

760

43N

=98

5

Mai

ntai

ned

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

q10-

Isth

isth

eon

lyjo

byo

uha

veha

dsin

cele

avin

gW

AGES

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)0

770

42N

=74

9

P R O X I M A T E

Tran

spor

tatio

nNe

eds

Did

not

own

car

afte

rwe

lfare

=1

Q53

-Did

your

vech

icle

ever

gett

aken

away

(N

ever

owne

d=

1el

se=

0)Ne

gativ

e0

130

34N

=99

2

Child

Care

Need

s

Sum

ofch

ildca

repr

oble

ms

Q31

-Cou

ldge

tbet

terj

obwi

thbe

tterc

hild

care

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

32-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gejo

bs

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Q33

-Hav

ech

ildca

repr

oble

ms

led

you

toch

ange

hour

swo

rked

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

34-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gelin

eof

work

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

35-M

issda

yof

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildca

re

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

114

150

N=

942

Heal

thCa

rePr

oble

ms

Sum

ofhe

alth

prob

lem

s

Q87

-Wou

ldyo

usa

yth

atin

gene

raly

ourh

ealth

is(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

88-H

owab

outy

ourc

hild

renrsquo

she

alth

(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

95-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

tohe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

96-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildhe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)

Nega

tive

076

100

N=

996

D I S T A L

Racia

lBar

riers

toEm

ploy

men

tRa

ceW

hite

=1

else

=0

Blac

k=

1el

se=

0Hi

span

ican

dO

ther

infra

me

ofre

fere

nce

Posit

iveNe

gativ

e0

380

370

490

48N

=10

06

Educ

atio

nan

dTr

aini

ngHi

ghsc

hool

dipl

oma

(ore

quiva

-le

nt)

Yes

=1

else

=0

Posit

ive0

360

48N

=75

4

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant

Age

Age

Posit

ive32

67

909

N=

1006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposesAny substantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loansub-licensing systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden Terms amp Conditions of access and use can be found athttpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Finding Employment and Staying EmployedAfter Leaving Welfare

Robert E Crew Jr

Joe Eyerman

ABSTRACT This paper examines the impact of transportation childcare

and illness on the ability of former welfare recipients to secure employ-

ment and to maintain employment once more ldquodistalrdquo or structural fac-

tors are controlled The impact of these variables on gaining and keeping

employment is evaluated in a series of probit regression models The

analysis suggests that the current labor market has transformed securing

and maintaining employment into two separate events and that most of

the factors traditionally used to predict the ability of welfare recipients to

gain employment are now more important to maintaining employment

In particular the absence of an automobile reduces the probability of

keeping a job by 24 points [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service 1-800-HAWORTH E-mail addressltgetinfohaworthpressinccomgt Website lthttpwwwHaworthPresscomgt copy 2001by The Haworth Press Inc All rights reserved]

Robert E Crew Jr is Associate Dean of the College of Social Sciences at Florida StateUniversity He holds a PhD in political science from the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill and is the author of a variety of books and articles on American national andstate politics and on criminal justice environmental and social welfare policy Addresscorrespondence to the Department of Political Science Florida State University 130Bellamy Hall Tallahassee FL 32306-2160

Joe Eyerman is Survey Director in the Survey Research Division of The ResearchTriangle Institute He earned a PhD in political science at Florida State University and isa specialist in survey research methods and in social welfare policy Address correspon-dence to Survey Research Division Research Triangle Institute PO Box 12194 Re-search Triangle Park NC 27709-2194

Journal of Poverty Vol 5(4) 2001 2001 by The Haworth Press Inc All rights reserved 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

KEYWORDS Welfare reform transportation problems childcare prob-

lems

INTRODUCTION

The reform of the US welfare system put into law by the Personal Re-sponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 spurredrenewed interest in the circumstances of people who hd moved out ofwelfare programs and in their ability to gain and keep employment

The interest continues that of a long line of students of social welfare pol-icy who have examined the living circumstances of low income people (Edinand Lein 1997) and who have worked to identify the variables affecting theentry of welfare recipients into the labor force (see Osterman 1991 Mead1992 chp 6 Gueron and Pauly 1991 and Moffit 1992 for summaries of thisresearch) However the 1996 PRWOR Act requirement that persons receiv-ing cash assistance benefits must find employment (or enter a ldquowork activ-ityrdquo) immediately brought new attention to the immediate or proximatebarriers thought to be associated with finding and keeping work

Barriers to Employment

Research about the factors that impede progress toward employmenthas been extensive It focuses on the job qualifications of individu-alsndashboth the ldquohardrdquo and ldquosoftrdquo skills (Moss and Tilley 1995) of the jobseekerndashldquoon the attractiveness of available jobs on obstacles to workoutside the home such as mental illness and alcohol and drug addictionand on the capacity of the labor market to absorb new workers at partic-ular skill levelsrdquo (Burtless 1997 39) However those responsible forhelping TANF recipients find work (and many TANF beneficiariesthemselves) suggest that some of these constraints provide only a broadcontext for entry into work They argue that the structural or distal im-pedimentsndashlack of job skills poor education racial discriminationndashcanbe overcome only by long term strategies involving human capital in-vestments (Harris 1993 Burtless 1994) or by enforcement of employ-ment rights laws But even a person who is work-ready may still beunable to get a job if she faces one or more of the following more imme-diate or proximate barriers transportation issues child care issues andissues associated with personal illness or the illness of a child (Ong1996 Ward et al 1998 Moffitt and Slade 1997) Indeed welfare towork counselors from around the country recently identified lack of

68 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

child care and lack of transportation as the major barriers facing moth-ers transitioning off welfare (Childrenrsquos Defense Fund 2000) Otherscholars also point to the importance of child care and transportation inwelfare reform (Lino 1998 Pitegoff and Breen 1997 Wachs 1998)

Further earlier studies estimate tha between 10 and 20 of AFDCrecipients have health conditions that prevent them from working (ZillMoore and Stief 1991 Acs and Loprest 1995) and Urban Institute calcu-lations from the 1997 National Survey of Americarsquos Families suggest thatpoor general health and poor mental health are barriers to work for 48of TANF recipients throughout the nation (Zedlewski 1999)

Accepting the argument about the relationship between child careand transportation and welfacre reform at face value both the Congressand state TANF programs are allocating sizeable amounts of money toprograms designed to ameliorate these problems even though there islittle systematic empirical information about the relationship betweenchild care and transortation and success in the job market after leavingwelfare (Capizzano Adams and Sonenstein 2000) It is one thing toldquohave a child care problemrdquo which many people who are not welfare re-cipients do also and another altogether to have that problem so severelythat it prevents employment (Burtless 1997 48) Thus information isneeded that identifies the relative contribution that these variables maketo a personrsquos ability to gain and keep employment Such informationwill assist policymakers in understanding whether transportation prob-lems are severe enough to prevent rather than to simply affect employ-ment and in determining whether to support transportation rather thanchild care programs This paper is an effort to provide this informationand to sort out the relationship among these variables

DATA AND METHOD

The analysis described below was designed to address several researchquestions The general question is ldquoHow do various barriers to employ-ment (proximate and distal) affect the employment experience of Floridi-ans who left the statersquos welfare reform programrdquo Embedded in this ques-tion is our hypothesis that these barriers may have different effects on theability of persons who are leaving welfare to get a job than they do on theability to keep a job That is child care problems may not affect the abilityof a person who has recently left welfare to find employment but it mayhave a significant effect on the ability of that person to keep the job Thusour two specific questions (1) ldquoHow do specific barriers affect the ability

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

of individuals to find employment after leaving the TANF cash assistanceprogramrdquo and (2) ldquoDo these barriers have a differential effect on theability to get and to keep a job after leaving this programrdquo

We examine these questions with data on individuals who left Floridarsquoswelfare reform program-WAGES-during the period October 1996 throughSeptember 1998 The information came from telephone surveys conductedby the Florida State University Survey Research Laboratory and from ad-ministrative files maintained by the Florida Department of Children andFamilies Over one thousand (1006) of these individuals were interviewedduring the fall of 1998 An extensive battery of questions (approximately 90)were administered to this sample Additional information on these individualswas obtained from the FLORIDA and the WAGES information systems main-tained by Children and Families The survey response rate was 5147 and themargin of error was plus or minus 3 with a 95 confidence level1 An anal-ysis of data on the population the sample and those who completed the surveyshows very similar distributions across age race and region In all cases the dif-ferences between those who completed the survey and those who did not be-tween the population and the sample and between those who had telephonesand those who did not were 35 percent or smaller (See Table 1)

No direct measure of the incomes of the survey respondents or of those inthe full population was available Thus in order to examine the possibilitythat people in the population without telephones might be less affluent andtherefore different from the population we interviewed we gathered informationon the mean incomes of welfare households with phones listed and those with-out These data can not be tied to individuals in the sample and therefore donot provide a direct check on the income differences between the sampleand the population However since the population and the sample exhibitrelatively small differences with regard to telephone ownership we usethese the data as an indirect measure of income differences The differencebetween the income means of households without phones and those withphones was not statistically significant This suggests that the coverage biasresulting from excluding households without phones does not systematicallyexclude lower-income households within the Florida welfare population(See Table 2 for a summary of these data)

Study Design

The analysis begins with a description of two types of barriers to employmentproximateanddistalWethendescribe the indicatorsof theseconcepts and spec-ify the hypotheses involved This information is summarized in Table 3

70 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

71

TA

BLE

1D

istr

ibut

ion

Acr

oss

Dem

ogra

phic

Str

ata

All

Flo

rida

Sam

ple

ofW

AG

ES

Par

ticip

ants

Leav

ing

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

119

8

Diff

eren

ce

Age

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Diff

S

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

0-25

186

261

1

130

264

0

31

065

267

25

125

0

21

7

873

2726

9

131

626

3

251

250

2

06

21

92

14

25-3

116

423

0

106

624

9

19

976

244

25

425

2

08

836

1025

7

123

024

6

254

252

2

12

20

50

7

32-3

718

726

2

955

223

2

39

930

233

21

221

1

22

2

717

7121

7

114

222

8

212

211

1

12

06

21

8

38+

177

248

1

136

265

1

71

024

256

28

928

7

31

820

4325

3

131

326

3

289

287

1

03

52

5

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

996

10

010

0

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

To

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Bla

ck24

834

7

172

040

1

54

159

439

9

374

372

2

27

126

220

389

1

968

394

37

437

2

05

21

72

22

His

pani

c18

626

1

885

206

2

54

830

208

24

124

0

32

692

3821

3

107

121

4

241

240

0

12

62

5

Whi

te27

538

5

161

137

6

20

91

504

376

38

238

0

03

124

666

384

1

886

377

38

238

0

20

72

04

03

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

1(c

ontin

ued)

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

toS

ampl

eto

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Oth

er5

07

711

71

067

17

90

92

08

462

71

476

15

90

90

12

05

20

6

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

Reg

ion

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Sou

th22

731

8

145

133

8

21

133

133

3

350

348

1

510

909

233

6

168

133

6

350

348

0

01

21

2

Cen

tral

339

475

1

776

414

2

61

171

042

8

402

400

2

28

139

294

429

2

112

422

40

240

0

20

72

29

22

3

Nor

th14

820

7

106

024

7

40

954

239

25

425

2

14

763

6523

5

120

824

2

254

252

0

61

71

1

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

00

00

00

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

2A

vera

geH

ouse

hold

Inco

me

Spl

itB

etw

een

Hou

seho

ldW

ithP

hone

son

File

and

With

outf

orA

llT

AN

FF

amili

esR

ecei

ving

Ben

efits

inD

ecem

ber

1998

Mea

nS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nF

requ

ency

Diff

eren

ceof

Mea

ns2-

Tai

led

Sig

nific

ance

All

Flo

rida

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$34

399

$34

491

$20

095

$18

938

523

417

706

$(0

92)

070

WA

GE

SR

egio

n23

(Dad

ean

dM

onro

e)P

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

12$

339

86$

197

39$

172

0520

258

288

8$

426

027

WA

GE

SR

egio

n12

(Lak

eO

rang

eO

sceo

laS

emin

ole

Sum

ter)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

251

$34

713

$21

495

$18

887

402

566

0$

538

055

WA

GE

SR

egio

n3

(Cal

houn

Hol

mes

Jac

kson

Lib

erty

Was

hing

ton)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

654

$34

886

$20

969

$19

432

345 70

$(1

232

)0

65

WA

GE

SR

egio

n19

(Des

oto

Har

dee

Hig

hlan

ds)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

651

$36

853

$21

456

$23

215

345 66

$(1

202

)0

68

Sou

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

345

65$

341

37$

202

36$

178

9325

000

367

2$

428

023

Nor

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

45$

348

70$

202

95$

198

8517

242

276

7$

(42

5)0

31

Cen

tral

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

907

$34

691

$19

386

$19

741

100

991

267

$(7

84)

018

[1]

Inco

me

mea

sure

sfo

rth

est

udy

perio

dw

ere

unav

aila

ble

due

toda

taco

llect

ion

rout

ines

[2

]In

com

e=

Ear

ned

+U

near

ned

+W

AG

ES

bene

fits

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74

TA

BLE

3S

umm

ary

ofC

once

pts

and

Indi

cato

rs

Conc

ept

Indi

cato

rSo

urce

Que

stio

nsEx

pect

edRe

latio

nshi

pm

ean

std

Vaild

Obs

erva

-tio

n

W O R K

Secu

red

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

Q3

3a-D

idyo

ufin

da

job

afte

rlea

ving

WAG

ES

(1=

yes

0=

else

)0

760

43N

=98

5

Mai

ntai

ned

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

q10-

Isth

isth

eon

lyjo

byo

uha

veha

dsin

cele

avin

gW

AGES

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)0

770

42N

=74

9

P R O X I M A T E

Tran

spor

tatio

nNe

eds

Did

not

own

car

afte

rwe

lfare

=1

Q53

-Did

your

vech

icle

ever

gett

aken

away

(N

ever

owne

d=

1el

se=

0)Ne

gativ

e0

130

34N

=99

2

Child

Care

Need

s

Sum

ofch

ildca

repr

oble

ms

Q31

-Cou

ldge

tbet

terj

obwi

thbe

tterc

hild

care

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

32-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gejo

bs

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Q33

-Hav

ech

ildca

repr

oble

ms

led

you

toch

ange

hour

swo

rked

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

34-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gelin

eof

work

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

35-M

issda

yof

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildca

re

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

114

150

N=

942

Heal

thCa

rePr

oble

ms

Sum

ofhe

alth

prob

lem

s

Q87

-Wou

ldyo

usa

yth

atin

gene

raly

ourh

ealth

is(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

88-H

owab

outy

ourc

hild

renrsquo

she

alth

(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

95-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

tohe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

96-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildhe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)

Nega

tive

076

100

N=

996

D I S T A L

Racia

lBar

riers

toEm

ploy

men

tRa

ceW

hite

=1

else

=0

Blac

k=

1el

se=

0Hi

span

ican

dO

ther

infra

me

ofre

fere

nce

Posit

iveNe

gativ

e0

380

370

490

48N

=10

06

Educ

atio

nan

dTr

aini

ngHi

ghsc

hool

dipl

oma

(ore

quiva

-le

nt)

Yes

=1

else

=0

Posit

ive0

360

48N

=75

4

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant

Age

Age

Posit

ive32

67

909

N=

1006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Finding Employment and Staying EmployedAfter Leaving Welfare

Robert E Crew Jr

Joe Eyerman

ABSTRACT This paper examines the impact of transportation childcare

and illness on the ability of former welfare recipients to secure employ-

ment and to maintain employment once more ldquodistalrdquo or structural fac-

tors are controlled The impact of these variables on gaining and keeping

employment is evaluated in a series of probit regression models The

analysis suggests that the current labor market has transformed securing

and maintaining employment into two separate events and that most of

the factors traditionally used to predict the ability of welfare recipients to

gain employment are now more important to maintaining employment

In particular the absence of an automobile reduces the probability of

keeping a job by 24 points [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service 1-800-HAWORTH E-mail addressltgetinfohaworthpressinccomgt Website lthttpwwwHaworthPresscomgt copy 2001by The Haworth Press Inc All rights reserved]

Robert E Crew Jr is Associate Dean of the College of Social Sciences at Florida StateUniversity He holds a PhD in political science from the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill and is the author of a variety of books and articles on American national andstate politics and on criminal justice environmental and social welfare policy Addresscorrespondence to the Department of Political Science Florida State University 130Bellamy Hall Tallahassee FL 32306-2160

Joe Eyerman is Survey Director in the Survey Research Division of The ResearchTriangle Institute He earned a PhD in political science at Florida State University and isa specialist in survey research methods and in social welfare policy Address correspon-dence to Survey Research Division Research Triangle Institute PO Box 12194 Re-search Triangle Park NC 27709-2194

Journal of Poverty Vol 5(4) 2001 2001 by The Haworth Press Inc All rights reserved 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

KEYWORDS Welfare reform transportation problems childcare prob-

lems

INTRODUCTION

The reform of the US welfare system put into law by the Personal Re-sponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 spurredrenewed interest in the circumstances of people who hd moved out ofwelfare programs and in their ability to gain and keep employment

The interest continues that of a long line of students of social welfare pol-icy who have examined the living circumstances of low income people (Edinand Lein 1997) and who have worked to identify the variables affecting theentry of welfare recipients into the labor force (see Osterman 1991 Mead1992 chp 6 Gueron and Pauly 1991 and Moffit 1992 for summaries of thisresearch) However the 1996 PRWOR Act requirement that persons receiv-ing cash assistance benefits must find employment (or enter a ldquowork activ-ityrdquo) immediately brought new attention to the immediate or proximatebarriers thought to be associated with finding and keeping work

Barriers to Employment

Research about the factors that impede progress toward employmenthas been extensive It focuses on the job qualifications of individu-alsndashboth the ldquohardrdquo and ldquosoftrdquo skills (Moss and Tilley 1995) of the jobseekerndashldquoon the attractiveness of available jobs on obstacles to workoutside the home such as mental illness and alcohol and drug addictionand on the capacity of the labor market to absorb new workers at partic-ular skill levelsrdquo (Burtless 1997 39) However those responsible forhelping TANF recipients find work (and many TANF beneficiariesthemselves) suggest that some of these constraints provide only a broadcontext for entry into work They argue that the structural or distal im-pedimentsndashlack of job skills poor education racial discriminationndashcanbe overcome only by long term strategies involving human capital in-vestments (Harris 1993 Burtless 1994) or by enforcement of employ-ment rights laws But even a person who is work-ready may still beunable to get a job if she faces one or more of the following more imme-diate or proximate barriers transportation issues child care issues andissues associated with personal illness or the illness of a child (Ong1996 Ward et al 1998 Moffitt and Slade 1997) Indeed welfare towork counselors from around the country recently identified lack of

68 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

child care and lack of transportation as the major barriers facing moth-ers transitioning off welfare (Childrenrsquos Defense Fund 2000) Otherscholars also point to the importance of child care and transportation inwelfare reform (Lino 1998 Pitegoff and Breen 1997 Wachs 1998)

Further earlier studies estimate tha between 10 and 20 of AFDCrecipients have health conditions that prevent them from working (ZillMoore and Stief 1991 Acs and Loprest 1995) and Urban Institute calcu-lations from the 1997 National Survey of Americarsquos Families suggest thatpoor general health and poor mental health are barriers to work for 48of TANF recipients throughout the nation (Zedlewski 1999)

Accepting the argument about the relationship between child careand transportation and welfacre reform at face value both the Congressand state TANF programs are allocating sizeable amounts of money toprograms designed to ameliorate these problems even though there islittle systematic empirical information about the relationship betweenchild care and transortation and success in the job market after leavingwelfare (Capizzano Adams and Sonenstein 2000) It is one thing toldquohave a child care problemrdquo which many people who are not welfare re-cipients do also and another altogether to have that problem so severelythat it prevents employment (Burtless 1997 48) Thus information isneeded that identifies the relative contribution that these variables maketo a personrsquos ability to gain and keep employment Such informationwill assist policymakers in understanding whether transportation prob-lems are severe enough to prevent rather than to simply affect employ-ment and in determining whether to support transportation rather thanchild care programs This paper is an effort to provide this informationand to sort out the relationship among these variables

DATA AND METHOD

The analysis described below was designed to address several researchquestions The general question is ldquoHow do various barriers to employ-ment (proximate and distal) affect the employment experience of Floridi-ans who left the statersquos welfare reform programrdquo Embedded in this ques-tion is our hypothesis that these barriers may have different effects on theability of persons who are leaving welfare to get a job than they do on theability to keep a job That is child care problems may not affect the abilityof a person who has recently left welfare to find employment but it mayhave a significant effect on the ability of that person to keep the job Thusour two specific questions (1) ldquoHow do specific barriers affect the ability

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

of individuals to find employment after leaving the TANF cash assistanceprogramrdquo and (2) ldquoDo these barriers have a differential effect on theability to get and to keep a job after leaving this programrdquo

We examine these questions with data on individuals who left Floridarsquoswelfare reform program-WAGES-during the period October 1996 throughSeptember 1998 The information came from telephone surveys conductedby the Florida State University Survey Research Laboratory and from ad-ministrative files maintained by the Florida Department of Children andFamilies Over one thousand (1006) of these individuals were interviewedduring the fall of 1998 An extensive battery of questions (approximately 90)were administered to this sample Additional information on these individualswas obtained from the FLORIDA and the WAGES information systems main-tained by Children and Families The survey response rate was 5147 and themargin of error was plus or minus 3 with a 95 confidence level1 An anal-ysis of data on the population the sample and those who completed the surveyshows very similar distributions across age race and region In all cases the dif-ferences between those who completed the survey and those who did not be-tween the population and the sample and between those who had telephonesand those who did not were 35 percent or smaller (See Table 1)

No direct measure of the incomes of the survey respondents or of those inthe full population was available Thus in order to examine the possibilitythat people in the population without telephones might be less affluent andtherefore different from the population we interviewed we gathered informationon the mean incomes of welfare households with phones listed and those with-out These data can not be tied to individuals in the sample and therefore donot provide a direct check on the income differences between the sampleand the population However since the population and the sample exhibitrelatively small differences with regard to telephone ownership we usethese the data as an indirect measure of income differences The differencebetween the income means of households without phones and those withphones was not statistically significant This suggests that the coverage biasresulting from excluding households without phones does not systematicallyexclude lower-income households within the Florida welfare population(See Table 2 for a summary of these data)

Study Design

The analysis begins with a description of two types of barriers to employmentproximateanddistalWethendescribe the indicatorsof theseconcepts and spec-ify the hypotheses involved This information is summarized in Table 3

70 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

71

TA

BLE

1D

istr

ibut

ion

Acr

oss

Dem

ogra

phic

Str

ata

All

Flo

rida

Sam

ple

ofW

AG

ES

Par

ticip

ants

Leav

ing

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

119

8

Diff

eren

ce

Age

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Diff

S

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

0-25

186

261

1

130

264

0

31

065

267

25

125

0

21

7

873

2726

9

131

626

3

251

250

2

06

21

92

14

25-3

116

423

0

106

624

9

19

976

244

25

425

2

08

836

1025

7

123

024

6

254

252

2

12

20

50

7

32-3

718

726

2

955

223

2

39

930

233

21

221

1

22

2

717

7121

7

114

222

8

212

211

1

12

06

21

8

38+

177

248

1

136

265

1

71

024

256

28

928

7

31

820

4325

3

131

326

3

289

287

1

03

52

5

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

996

10

010

0

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

To

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Bla

ck24

834

7

172

040

1

54

159

439

9

374

372

2

27

126

220

389

1

968

394

37

437

2

05

21

72

22

His

pani

c18

626

1

885

206

2

54

830

208

24

124

0

32

692

3821

3

107

121

4

241

240

0

12

62

5

Whi

te27

538

5

161

137

6

20

91

504

376

38

238

0

03

124

666

384

1

886

377

38

238

0

20

72

04

03

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

1(c

ontin

ued)

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

toS

ampl

eto

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Oth

er5

07

711

71

067

17

90

92

08

462

71

476

15

90

90

12

05

20

6

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

Reg

ion

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Sou

th22

731

8

145

133

8

21

133

133

3

350

348

1

510

909

233

6

168

133

6

350

348

0

01

21

2

Cen

tral

339

475

1

776

414

2

61

171

042

8

402

400

2

28

139

294

429

2

112

422

40

240

0

20

72

29

22

3

Nor

th14

820

7

106

024

7

40

954

239

25

425

2

14

763

6523

5

120

824

2

254

252

0

61

71

1

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

00

00

00

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

2A

vera

geH

ouse

hold

Inco

me

Spl

itB

etw

een

Hou

seho

ldW

ithP

hone

son

File

and

With

outf

orA

llT

AN

FF

amili

esR

ecei

ving

Ben

efits

inD

ecem

ber

1998

Mea

nS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nF

requ

ency

Diff

eren

ceof

Mea

ns2-

Tai

led

Sig

nific

ance

All

Flo

rida

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$34

399

$34

491

$20

095

$18

938

523

417

706

$(0

92)

070

WA

GE

SR

egio

n23

(Dad

ean

dM

onro

e)P

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

12$

339

86$

197

39$

172

0520

258

288

8$

426

027

WA

GE

SR

egio

n12

(Lak

eO

rang

eO

sceo

laS

emin

ole

Sum

ter)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

251

$34

713

$21

495

$18

887

402

566

0$

538

055

WA

GE

SR

egio

n3

(Cal

houn

Hol

mes

Jac

kson

Lib

erty

Was

hing

ton)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

654

$34

886

$20

969

$19

432

345 70

$(1

232

)0

65

WA

GE

SR

egio

n19

(Des

oto

Har

dee

Hig

hlan

ds)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

651

$36

853

$21

456

$23

215

345 66

$(1

202

)0

68

Sou

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

345

65$

341

37$

202

36$

178

9325

000

367

2$

428

023

Nor

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

45$

348

70$

202

95$

198

8517

242

276

7$

(42

5)0

31

Cen

tral

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

907

$34

691

$19

386

$19

741

100

991

267

$(7

84)

018

[1]

Inco

me

mea

sure

sfo

rth

est

udy

perio

dw

ere

unav

aila

ble

due

toda

taco

llect

ion

rout

ines

[2

]In

com

e=

Ear

ned

+U

near

ned

+W

AG

ES

bene

fits

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74

TA

BLE

3S

umm

ary

ofC

once

pts

and

Indi

cato

rs

Conc

ept

Indi

cato

rSo

urce

Que

stio

nsEx

pect

edRe

latio

nshi

pm

ean

std

Vaild

Obs

erva

-tio

n

W O R K

Secu

red

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

Q3

3a-D

idyo

ufin

da

job

afte

rlea

ving

WAG

ES

(1=

yes

0=

else

)0

760

43N

=98

5

Mai

ntai

ned

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

q10-

Isth

isth

eon

lyjo

byo

uha

veha

dsin

cele

avin

gW

AGES

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)0

770

42N

=74

9

P R O X I M A T E

Tran

spor

tatio

nNe

eds

Did

not

own

car

afte

rwe

lfare

=1

Q53

-Did

your

vech

icle

ever

gett

aken

away

(N

ever

owne

d=

1el

se=

0)Ne

gativ

e0

130

34N

=99

2

Child

Care

Need

s

Sum

ofch

ildca

repr

oble

ms

Q31

-Cou

ldge

tbet

terj

obwi

thbe

tterc

hild

care

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

32-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gejo

bs

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Q33

-Hav

ech

ildca

repr

oble

ms

led

you

toch

ange

hour

swo

rked

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

34-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gelin

eof

work

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

35-M

issda

yof

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildca

re

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

114

150

N=

942

Heal

thCa

rePr

oble

ms

Sum

ofhe

alth

prob

lem

s

Q87

-Wou

ldyo

usa

yth

atin

gene

raly

ourh

ealth

is(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

88-H

owab

outy

ourc

hild

renrsquo

she

alth

(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

95-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

tohe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

96-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildhe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)

Nega

tive

076

100

N=

996

D I S T A L

Racia

lBar

riers

toEm

ploy

men

tRa

ceW

hite

=1

else

=0

Blac

k=

1el

se=

0Hi

span

ican

dO

ther

infra

me

ofre

fere

nce

Posit

iveNe

gativ

e0

380

370

490

48N

=10

06

Educ

atio

nan

dTr

aini

ngHi

ghsc

hool

dipl

oma

(ore

quiva

-le

nt)

Yes

=1

else

=0

Posit

ive0

360

48N

=75

4

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant

Age

Age

Posit

ive32

67

909

N=

1006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

KEYWORDS Welfare reform transportation problems childcare prob-

lems

INTRODUCTION

The reform of the US welfare system put into law by the Personal Re-sponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 spurredrenewed interest in the circumstances of people who hd moved out ofwelfare programs and in their ability to gain and keep employment

The interest continues that of a long line of students of social welfare pol-icy who have examined the living circumstances of low income people (Edinand Lein 1997) and who have worked to identify the variables affecting theentry of welfare recipients into the labor force (see Osterman 1991 Mead1992 chp 6 Gueron and Pauly 1991 and Moffit 1992 for summaries of thisresearch) However the 1996 PRWOR Act requirement that persons receiv-ing cash assistance benefits must find employment (or enter a ldquowork activ-ityrdquo) immediately brought new attention to the immediate or proximatebarriers thought to be associated with finding and keeping work

Barriers to Employment

Research about the factors that impede progress toward employmenthas been extensive It focuses on the job qualifications of individu-alsndashboth the ldquohardrdquo and ldquosoftrdquo skills (Moss and Tilley 1995) of the jobseekerndashldquoon the attractiveness of available jobs on obstacles to workoutside the home such as mental illness and alcohol and drug addictionand on the capacity of the labor market to absorb new workers at partic-ular skill levelsrdquo (Burtless 1997 39) However those responsible forhelping TANF recipients find work (and many TANF beneficiariesthemselves) suggest that some of these constraints provide only a broadcontext for entry into work They argue that the structural or distal im-pedimentsndashlack of job skills poor education racial discriminationndashcanbe overcome only by long term strategies involving human capital in-vestments (Harris 1993 Burtless 1994) or by enforcement of employ-ment rights laws But even a person who is work-ready may still beunable to get a job if she faces one or more of the following more imme-diate or proximate barriers transportation issues child care issues andissues associated with personal illness or the illness of a child (Ong1996 Ward et al 1998 Moffitt and Slade 1997) Indeed welfare towork counselors from around the country recently identified lack of

68 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

child care and lack of transportation as the major barriers facing moth-ers transitioning off welfare (Childrenrsquos Defense Fund 2000) Otherscholars also point to the importance of child care and transportation inwelfare reform (Lino 1998 Pitegoff and Breen 1997 Wachs 1998)

Further earlier studies estimate tha between 10 and 20 of AFDCrecipients have health conditions that prevent them from working (ZillMoore and Stief 1991 Acs and Loprest 1995) and Urban Institute calcu-lations from the 1997 National Survey of Americarsquos Families suggest thatpoor general health and poor mental health are barriers to work for 48of TANF recipients throughout the nation (Zedlewski 1999)

Accepting the argument about the relationship between child careand transportation and welfacre reform at face value both the Congressand state TANF programs are allocating sizeable amounts of money toprograms designed to ameliorate these problems even though there islittle systematic empirical information about the relationship betweenchild care and transortation and success in the job market after leavingwelfare (Capizzano Adams and Sonenstein 2000) It is one thing toldquohave a child care problemrdquo which many people who are not welfare re-cipients do also and another altogether to have that problem so severelythat it prevents employment (Burtless 1997 48) Thus information isneeded that identifies the relative contribution that these variables maketo a personrsquos ability to gain and keep employment Such informationwill assist policymakers in understanding whether transportation prob-lems are severe enough to prevent rather than to simply affect employ-ment and in determining whether to support transportation rather thanchild care programs This paper is an effort to provide this informationand to sort out the relationship among these variables

DATA AND METHOD

The analysis described below was designed to address several researchquestions The general question is ldquoHow do various barriers to employ-ment (proximate and distal) affect the employment experience of Floridi-ans who left the statersquos welfare reform programrdquo Embedded in this ques-tion is our hypothesis that these barriers may have different effects on theability of persons who are leaving welfare to get a job than they do on theability to keep a job That is child care problems may not affect the abilityof a person who has recently left welfare to find employment but it mayhave a significant effect on the ability of that person to keep the job Thusour two specific questions (1) ldquoHow do specific barriers affect the ability

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

of individuals to find employment after leaving the TANF cash assistanceprogramrdquo and (2) ldquoDo these barriers have a differential effect on theability to get and to keep a job after leaving this programrdquo

We examine these questions with data on individuals who left Floridarsquoswelfare reform program-WAGES-during the period October 1996 throughSeptember 1998 The information came from telephone surveys conductedby the Florida State University Survey Research Laboratory and from ad-ministrative files maintained by the Florida Department of Children andFamilies Over one thousand (1006) of these individuals were interviewedduring the fall of 1998 An extensive battery of questions (approximately 90)were administered to this sample Additional information on these individualswas obtained from the FLORIDA and the WAGES information systems main-tained by Children and Families The survey response rate was 5147 and themargin of error was plus or minus 3 with a 95 confidence level1 An anal-ysis of data on the population the sample and those who completed the surveyshows very similar distributions across age race and region In all cases the dif-ferences between those who completed the survey and those who did not be-tween the population and the sample and between those who had telephonesand those who did not were 35 percent or smaller (See Table 1)

No direct measure of the incomes of the survey respondents or of those inthe full population was available Thus in order to examine the possibilitythat people in the population without telephones might be less affluent andtherefore different from the population we interviewed we gathered informationon the mean incomes of welfare households with phones listed and those with-out These data can not be tied to individuals in the sample and therefore donot provide a direct check on the income differences between the sampleand the population However since the population and the sample exhibitrelatively small differences with regard to telephone ownership we usethese the data as an indirect measure of income differences The differencebetween the income means of households without phones and those withphones was not statistically significant This suggests that the coverage biasresulting from excluding households without phones does not systematicallyexclude lower-income households within the Florida welfare population(See Table 2 for a summary of these data)

Study Design

The analysis begins with a description of two types of barriers to employmentproximateanddistalWethendescribe the indicatorsof theseconcepts and spec-ify the hypotheses involved This information is summarized in Table 3

70 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

71

TA

BLE

1D

istr

ibut

ion

Acr

oss

Dem

ogra

phic

Str

ata

All

Flo

rida

Sam

ple

ofW

AG

ES

Par

ticip

ants

Leav

ing

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

119

8

Diff

eren

ce

Age

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Diff

S

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

0-25

186

261

1

130

264

0

31

065

267

25

125

0

21

7

873

2726

9

131

626

3

251

250

2

06

21

92

14

25-3

116

423

0

106

624

9

19

976

244

25

425

2

08

836

1025

7

123

024

6

254

252

2

12

20

50

7

32-3

718

726

2

955

223

2

39

930

233

21

221

1

22

2

717

7121

7

114

222

8

212

211

1

12

06

21

8

38+

177

248

1

136

265

1

71

024

256

28

928

7

31

820

4325

3

131

326

3

289

287

1

03

52

5

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

996

10

010

0

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

To

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Bla

ck24

834

7

172

040

1

54

159

439

9

374

372

2

27

126

220

389

1

968

394

37

437

2

05

21

72

22

His

pani

c18

626

1

885

206

2

54

830

208

24

124

0

32

692

3821

3

107

121

4

241

240

0

12

62

5

Whi

te27

538

5

161

137

6

20

91

504

376

38

238

0

03

124

666

384

1

886

377

38

238

0

20

72

04

03

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

1(c

ontin

ued)

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

toS

ampl

eto

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Oth

er5

07

711

71

067

17

90

92

08

462

71

476

15

90

90

12

05

20

6

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

Reg

ion

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Sou

th22

731

8

145

133

8

21

133

133

3

350

348

1

510

909

233

6

168

133

6

350

348

0

01

21

2

Cen

tral

339

475

1

776

414

2

61

171

042

8

402

400

2

28

139

294

429

2

112

422

40

240

0

20

72

29

22

3

Nor

th14

820

7

106

024

7

40

954

239

25

425

2

14

763

6523

5

120

824

2

254

252

0

61

71

1

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

00

00

00

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

2A

vera

geH

ouse

hold

Inco

me

Spl

itB

etw

een

Hou

seho

ldW

ithP

hone

son

File

and

With

outf

orA

llT

AN

FF

amili

esR

ecei

ving

Ben

efits

inD

ecem

ber

1998

Mea

nS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nF

requ

ency

Diff

eren

ceof

Mea

ns2-

Tai

led

Sig

nific

ance

All

Flo

rida

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$34

399

$34

491

$20

095

$18

938

523

417

706

$(0

92)

070

WA

GE

SR

egio

n23

(Dad

ean

dM

onro

e)P

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

12$

339

86$

197

39$

172

0520

258

288

8$

426

027

WA

GE

SR

egio

n12

(Lak

eO

rang

eO

sceo

laS

emin

ole

Sum

ter)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

251

$34

713

$21

495

$18

887

402

566

0$

538

055

WA

GE

SR

egio

n3

(Cal

houn

Hol

mes

Jac

kson

Lib

erty

Was

hing

ton)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

654

$34

886

$20

969

$19

432

345 70

$(1

232

)0

65

WA

GE

SR

egio

n19

(Des

oto

Har

dee

Hig

hlan

ds)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

651

$36

853

$21

456

$23

215

345 66

$(1

202

)0

68

Sou

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

345

65$

341

37$

202

36$

178

9325

000

367

2$

428

023

Nor

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

45$

348

70$

202

95$

198

8517

242

276

7$

(42

5)0

31

Cen

tral

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

907

$34

691

$19

386

$19

741

100

991

267

$(7

84)

018

[1]

Inco

me

mea

sure

sfo

rth

est

udy

perio

dw

ere

unav

aila

ble

due

toda

taco

llect

ion

rout

ines

[2

]In

com

e=

Ear

ned

+U

near

ned

+W

AG

ES

bene

fits

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74

TA

BLE

3S

umm

ary

ofC

once

pts

and

Indi

cato

rs

Conc

ept

Indi

cato

rSo

urce

Que

stio

nsEx

pect

edRe

latio

nshi

pm

ean

std

Vaild

Obs

erva

-tio

n

W O R K

Secu

red

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

Q3

3a-D

idyo

ufin

da

job

afte

rlea

ving

WAG

ES

(1=

yes

0=

else

)0

760

43N

=98

5

Mai

ntai

ned

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

q10-

Isth

isth

eon

lyjo

byo

uha

veha

dsin

cele

avin

gW

AGES

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)0

770

42N

=74

9

P R O X I M A T E

Tran

spor

tatio

nNe

eds

Did

not

own

car

afte

rwe

lfare

=1

Q53

-Did

your

vech

icle

ever

gett

aken

away

(N

ever

owne

d=

1el

se=

0)Ne

gativ

e0

130

34N

=99

2

Child

Care

Need

s

Sum

ofch

ildca

repr

oble

ms

Q31

-Cou

ldge

tbet

terj

obwi

thbe

tterc

hild

care

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

32-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gejo

bs

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Q33

-Hav

ech

ildca

repr

oble

ms

led

you

toch

ange

hour

swo

rked

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

34-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gelin

eof

work

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

35-M

issda

yof

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildca

re

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

114

150

N=

942

Heal

thCa

rePr

oble

ms

Sum

ofhe

alth

prob

lem

s

Q87

-Wou

ldyo

usa

yth

atin

gene

raly

ourh

ealth

is(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

88-H

owab

outy

ourc

hild

renrsquo

she

alth

(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

95-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

tohe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

96-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildhe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)

Nega

tive

076

100

N=

996

D I S T A L

Racia

lBar

riers

toEm

ploy

men

tRa

ceW

hite

=1

else

=0

Blac

k=

1el

se=

0Hi

span

ican

dO

ther

infra

me

ofre

fere

nce

Posit

iveNe

gativ

e0

380

370

490

48N

=10

06

Educ

atio

nan

dTr

aini

ngHi

ghsc

hool

dipl

oma

(ore

quiva

-le

nt)

Yes

=1

else

=0

Posit

ive0

360

48N

=75

4

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant

Age

Age

Posit

ive32

67

909

N=

1006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

child care and lack of transportation as the major barriers facing moth-ers transitioning off welfare (Childrenrsquos Defense Fund 2000) Otherscholars also point to the importance of child care and transportation inwelfare reform (Lino 1998 Pitegoff and Breen 1997 Wachs 1998)

Further earlier studies estimate tha between 10 and 20 of AFDCrecipients have health conditions that prevent them from working (ZillMoore and Stief 1991 Acs and Loprest 1995) and Urban Institute calcu-lations from the 1997 National Survey of Americarsquos Families suggest thatpoor general health and poor mental health are barriers to work for 48of TANF recipients throughout the nation (Zedlewski 1999)

Accepting the argument about the relationship between child careand transportation and welfacre reform at face value both the Congressand state TANF programs are allocating sizeable amounts of money toprograms designed to ameliorate these problems even though there islittle systematic empirical information about the relationship betweenchild care and transortation and success in the job market after leavingwelfare (Capizzano Adams and Sonenstein 2000) It is one thing toldquohave a child care problemrdquo which many people who are not welfare re-cipients do also and another altogether to have that problem so severelythat it prevents employment (Burtless 1997 48) Thus information isneeded that identifies the relative contribution that these variables maketo a personrsquos ability to gain and keep employment Such informationwill assist policymakers in understanding whether transportation prob-lems are severe enough to prevent rather than to simply affect employ-ment and in determining whether to support transportation rather thanchild care programs This paper is an effort to provide this informationand to sort out the relationship among these variables

DATA AND METHOD

The analysis described below was designed to address several researchquestions The general question is ldquoHow do various barriers to employ-ment (proximate and distal) affect the employment experience of Floridi-ans who left the statersquos welfare reform programrdquo Embedded in this ques-tion is our hypothesis that these barriers may have different effects on theability of persons who are leaving welfare to get a job than they do on theability to keep a job That is child care problems may not affect the abilityof a person who has recently left welfare to find employment but it mayhave a significant effect on the ability of that person to keep the job Thusour two specific questions (1) ldquoHow do specific barriers affect the ability

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

of individuals to find employment after leaving the TANF cash assistanceprogramrdquo and (2) ldquoDo these barriers have a differential effect on theability to get and to keep a job after leaving this programrdquo

We examine these questions with data on individuals who left Floridarsquoswelfare reform program-WAGES-during the period October 1996 throughSeptember 1998 The information came from telephone surveys conductedby the Florida State University Survey Research Laboratory and from ad-ministrative files maintained by the Florida Department of Children andFamilies Over one thousand (1006) of these individuals were interviewedduring the fall of 1998 An extensive battery of questions (approximately 90)were administered to this sample Additional information on these individualswas obtained from the FLORIDA and the WAGES information systems main-tained by Children and Families The survey response rate was 5147 and themargin of error was plus or minus 3 with a 95 confidence level1 An anal-ysis of data on the population the sample and those who completed the surveyshows very similar distributions across age race and region In all cases the dif-ferences between those who completed the survey and those who did not be-tween the population and the sample and between those who had telephonesand those who did not were 35 percent or smaller (See Table 1)

No direct measure of the incomes of the survey respondents or of those inthe full population was available Thus in order to examine the possibilitythat people in the population without telephones might be less affluent andtherefore different from the population we interviewed we gathered informationon the mean incomes of welfare households with phones listed and those with-out These data can not be tied to individuals in the sample and therefore donot provide a direct check on the income differences between the sampleand the population However since the population and the sample exhibitrelatively small differences with regard to telephone ownership we usethese the data as an indirect measure of income differences The differencebetween the income means of households without phones and those withphones was not statistically significant This suggests that the coverage biasresulting from excluding households without phones does not systematicallyexclude lower-income households within the Florida welfare population(See Table 2 for a summary of these data)

Study Design

The analysis begins with a description of two types of barriers to employmentproximateanddistalWethendescribe the indicatorsof theseconcepts and spec-ify the hypotheses involved This information is summarized in Table 3

70 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

71

TA

BLE

1D

istr

ibut

ion

Acr

oss

Dem

ogra

phic

Str

ata

All

Flo

rida

Sam

ple

ofW

AG

ES

Par

ticip

ants

Leav

ing

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

119

8

Diff

eren

ce

Age

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Diff

S

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

0-25

186

261

1

130

264

0

31

065

267

25

125

0

21

7

873

2726

9

131

626

3

251

250

2

06

21

92

14

25-3

116

423

0

106

624

9

19

976

244

25

425

2

08

836

1025

7

123

024

6

254

252

2

12

20

50

7

32-3

718

726

2

955

223

2

39

930

233

21

221

1

22

2

717

7121

7

114

222

8

212

211

1

12

06

21

8

38+

177

248

1

136

265

1

71

024

256

28

928

7

31

820

4325

3

131

326

3

289

287

1

03

52

5

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

996

10

010

0

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

To

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Bla

ck24

834

7

172

040

1

54

159

439

9

374

372

2

27

126

220

389

1

968

394

37

437

2

05

21

72

22

His

pani

c18

626

1

885

206

2

54

830

208

24

124

0

32

692

3821

3

107

121

4

241

240

0

12

62

5

Whi

te27

538

5

161

137

6

20

91

504

376

38

238

0

03

124

666

384

1

886

377

38

238

0

20

72

04

03

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

1(c

ontin

ued)

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

toS

ampl

eto

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Oth

er5

07

711

71

067

17

90

92

08

462

71

476

15

90

90

12

05

20

6

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

Reg

ion

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Sou

th22

731

8

145

133

8

21

133

133

3

350

348

1

510

909

233

6

168

133

6

350

348

0

01

21

2

Cen

tral

339

475

1

776

414

2

61

171

042

8

402

400

2

28

139

294

429

2

112

422

40

240

0

20

72

29

22

3

Nor

th14

820

7

106

024

7

40

954

239

25

425

2

14

763

6523

5

120

824

2

254

252

0

61

71

1

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

00

00

00

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

2A

vera

geH

ouse

hold

Inco

me

Spl

itB

etw

een

Hou

seho

ldW

ithP

hone

son

File

and

With

outf

orA

llT

AN

FF

amili

esR

ecei

ving

Ben

efits

inD

ecem

ber

1998

Mea

nS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nF

requ

ency

Diff

eren

ceof

Mea

ns2-

Tai

led

Sig

nific

ance

All

Flo

rida

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$34

399

$34

491

$20

095

$18

938

523

417

706

$(0

92)

070

WA

GE

SR

egio

n23

(Dad

ean

dM

onro

e)P

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

12$

339

86$

197

39$

172

0520

258

288

8$

426

027

WA

GE

SR

egio

n12

(Lak

eO

rang

eO

sceo

laS

emin

ole

Sum

ter)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

251

$34

713

$21

495

$18

887

402

566

0$

538

055

WA

GE

SR

egio

n3

(Cal

houn

Hol

mes

Jac

kson

Lib

erty

Was

hing

ton)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

654

$34

886

$20

969

$19

432

345 70

$(1

232

)0

65

WA

GE

SR

egio

n19

(Des

oto

Har

dee

Hig

hlan

ds)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

651

$36

853

$21

456

$23

215

345 66

$(1

202

)0

68

Sou

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

345

65$

341

37$

202

36$

178

9325

000

367

2$

428

023

Nor

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

45$

348

70$

202

95$

198

8517

242

276

7$

(42

5)0

31

Cen

tral

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

907

$34

691

$19

386

$19

741

100

991

267

$(7

84)

018

[1]

Inco

me

mea

sure

sfo

rth

est

udy

perio

dw

ere

unav

aila

ble

due

toda

taco

llect

ion

rout

ines

[2

]In

com

e=

Ear

ned

+U

near

ned

+W

AG

ES

bene

fits

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74

TA

BLE

3S

umm

ary

ofC

once

pts

and

Indi

cato

rs

Conc

ept

Indi

cato

rSo

urce

Que

stio

nsEx

pect

edRe

latio

nshi

pm

ean

std

Vaild

Obs

erva

-tio

n

W O R K

Secu

red

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

Q3

3a-D

idyo

ufin

da

job

afte

rlea

ving

WAG

ES

(1=

yes

0=

else

)0

760

43N

=98

5

Mai

ntai

ned

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

q10-

Isth

isth

eon

lyjo

byo

uha

veha

dsin

cele

avin

gW

AGES

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)0

770

42N

=74

9

P R O X I M A T E

Tran

spor

tatio

nNe

eds

Did

not

own

car

afte

rwe

lfare

=1

Q53

-Did

your

vech

icle

ever

gett

aken

away

(N

ever

owne

d=

1el

se=

0)Ne

gativ

e0

130

34N

=99

2

Child

Care

Need

s

Sum

ofch

ildca

repr

oble

ms

Q31

-Cou

ldge

tbet

terj

obwi

thbe

tterc

hild

care

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

32-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gejo

bs

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Q33

-Hav

ech

ildca

repr

oble

ms

led

you

toch

ange

hour

swo

rked

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

34-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gelin

eof

work

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

35-M

issda

yof

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildca

re

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

114

150

N=

942

Heal

thCa

rePr

oble

ms

Sum

ofhe

alth

prob

lem

s

Q87

-Wou

ldyo

usa

yth

atin

gene

raly

ourh

ealth

is(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

88-H

owab

outy

ourc

hild

renrsquo

she

alth

(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

95-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

tohe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

96-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildhe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)

Nega

tive

076

100

N=

996

D I S T A L

Racia

lBar

riers

toEm

ploy

men

tRa

ceW

hite

=1

else

=0

Blac

k=

1el

se=

0Hi

span

ican

dO

ther

infra

me

ofre

fere

nce

Posit

iveNe

gativ

e0

380

370

490

48N

=10

06

Educ

atio

nan

dTr

aini

ngHi

ghsc

hool

dipl

oma

(ore

quiva

-le

nt)

Yes

=1

else

=0

Posit

ive0

360

48N

=75

4

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant

Age

Age

Posit

ive32

67

909

N=

1006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

of individuals to find employment after leaving the TANF cash assistanceprogramrdquo and (2) ldquoDo these barriers have a differential effect on theability to get and to keep a job after leaving this programrdquo

We examine these questions with data on individuals who left Floridarsquoswelfare reform program-WAGES-during the period October 1996 throughSeptember 1998 The information came from telephone surveys conductedby the Florida State University Survey Research Laboratory and from ad-ministrative files maintained by the Florida Department of Children andFamilies Over one thousand (1006) of these individuals were interviewedduring the fall of 1998 An extensive battery of questions (approximately 90)were administered to this sample Additional information on these individualswas obtained from the FLORIDA and the WAGES information systems main-tained by Children and Families The survey response rate was 5147 and themargin of error was plus or minus 3 with a 95 confidence level1 An anal-ysis of data on the population the sample and those who completed the surveyshows very similar distributions across age race and region In all cases the dif-ferences between those who completed the survey and those who did not be-tween the population and the sample and between those who had telephonesand those who did not were 35 percent or smaller (See Table 1)

No direct measure of the incomes of the survey respondents or of those inthe full population was available Thus in order to examine the possibilitythat people in the population without telephones might be less affluent andtherefore different from the population we interviewed we gathered informationon the mean incomes of welfare households with phones listed and those with-out These data can not be tied to individuals in the sample and therefore donot provide a direct check on the income differences between the sampleand the population However since the population and the sample exhibitrelatively small differences with regard to telephone ownership we usethese the data as an indirect measure of income differences The differencebetween the income means of households without phones and those withphones was not statistically significant This suggests that the coverage biasresulting from excluding households without phones does not systematicallyexclude lower-income households within the Florida welfare population(See Table 2 for a summary of these data)

Study Design

The analysis begins with a description of two types of barriers to employmentproximateanddistalWethendescribe the indicatorsof theseconcepts and spec-ify the hypotheses involved This information is summarized in Table 3

70 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

71

TA

BLE

1D

istr

ibut

ion

Acr

oss

Dem

ogra

phic

Str

ata

All

Flo

rida

Sam

ple

ofW

AG

ES

Par

ticip

ants

Leav

ing

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

119

8

Diff

eren

ce

Age

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Diff

S

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

0-25

186

261

1

130

264

0

31

065

267

25

125

0

21

7

873

2726

9

131

626

3

251

250

2

06

21

92

14

25-3

116

423

0

106

624

9

19

976

244

25

425

2

08

836

1025

7

123

024

6

254

252

2

12

20

50

7

32-3

718

726

2

955

223

2

39

930

233

21

221

1

22

2

717

7121

7

114

222

8

212

211

1

12

06

21

8

38+

177

248

1

136

265

1

71

024

256

28

928

7

31

820

4325

3

131

326

3

289

287

1

03

52

5

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

996

10

010

0

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

To

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Bla

ck24

834

7

172

040

1

54

159

439

9

374

372

2

27

126

220

389

1

968

394

37

437

2

05

21

72

22

His

pani

c18

626

1

885

206

2

54

830

208

24

124

0

32

692

3821

3

107

121

4

241

240

0

12

62

5

Whi

te27

538

5

161

137

6

20

91

504

376

38

238

0

03

124

666

384

1

886

377

38

238

0

20

72

04

03

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

1(c

ontin

ued)

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

toS

ampl

eto

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Oth

er5

07

711

71

067

17

90

92

08

462

71

476

15

90

90

12

05

20

6

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

Reg

ion

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Sou

th22

731

8

145

133

8

21

133

133

3

350

348

1

510

909

233

6

168

133

6

350

348

0

01

21

2

Cen

tral

339

475

1

776

414

2

61

171

042

8

402

400

2

28

139

294

429

2

112

422

40

240

0

20

72

29

22

3

Nor

th14

820

7

106

024

7

40

954

239

25

425

2

14

763

6523

5

120

824

2

254

252

0

61

71

1

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

00

00

00

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

2A

vera

geH

ouse

hold

Inco

me

Spl

itB

etw

een

Hou

seho

ldW

ithP

hone

son

File

and

With

outf

orA

llT

AN

FF

amili

esR

ecei

ving

Ben

efits

inD

ecem

ber

1998

Mea

nS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nF

requ

ency

Diff

eren

ceof

Mea

ns2-

Tai

led

Sig

nific

ance

All

Flo

rida

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$34

399

$34

491

$20

095

$18

938

523

417

706

$(0

92)

070

WA

GE

SR

egio

n23

(Dad

ean

dM

onro

e)P

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

12$

339

86$

197

39$

172

0520

258

288

8$

426

027

WA

GE

SR

egio

n12

(Lak

eO

rang

eO

sceo

laS

emin

ole

Sum

ter)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

251

$34

713

$21

495

$18

887

402

566

0$

538

055

WA

GE

SR

egio

n3

(Cal

houn

Hol

mes

Jac

kson

Lib

erty

Was

hing

ton)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

654

$34

886

$20

969

$19

432

345 70

$(1

232

)0

65

WA

GE

SR

egio

n19

(Des

oto

Har

dee

Hig

hlan

ds)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

651

$36

853

$21

456

$23

215

345 66

$(1

202

)0

68

Sou

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

345

65$

341

37$

202

36$

178

9325

000

367

2$

428

023

Nor

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

45$

348

70$

202

95$

198

8517

242

276

7$

(42

5)0

31

Cen

tral

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

907

$34

691

$19

386

$19

741

100

991

267

$(7

84)

018

[1]

Inco

me

mea

sure

sfo

rth

est

udy

perio

dw

ere

unav

aila

ble

due

toda

taco

llect

ion

rout

ines

[2

]In

com

e=

Ear

ned

+U

near

ned

+W

AG

ES

bene

fits

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74

TA

BLE

3S

umm

ary

ofC

once

pts

and

Indi

cato

rs

Conc

ept

Indi

cato

rSo

urce

Que

stio

nsEx

pect

edRe

latio

nshi

pm

ean

std

Vaild

Obs

erva

-tio

n

W O R K

Secu

red

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

Q3

3a-D

idyo

ufin

da

job

afte

rlea

ving

WAG

ES

(1=

yes

0=

else

)0

760

43N

=98

5

Mai

ntai

ned

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

q10-

Isth

isth

eon

lyjo

byo

uha

veha

dsin

cele

avin

gW

AGES

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)0

770

42N

=74

9

P R O X I M A T E

Tran

spor

tatio

nNe

eds

Did

not

own

car

afte

rwe

lfare

=1

Q53

-Did

your

vech

icle

ever

gett

aken

away

(N

ever

owne

d=

1el

se=

0)Ne

gativ

e0

130

34N

=99

2

Child

Care

Need

s

Sum

ofch

ildca

repr

oble

ms

Q31

-Cou

ldge

tbet

terj

obwi

thbe

tterc

hild

care

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

32-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gejo

bs

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Q33

-Hav

ech

ildca

repr

oble

ms

led

you

toch

ange

hour

swo

rked

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

34-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gelin

eof

work

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

35-M

issda

yof

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildca

re

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

114

150

N=

942

Heal

thCa

rePr

oble

ms

Sum

ofhe

alth

prob

lem

s

Q87

-Wou

ldyo

usa

yth

atin

gene

raly

ourh

ealth

is(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

88-H

owab

outy

ourc

hild

renrsquo

she

alth

(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

95-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

tohe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

96-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildhe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)

Nega

tive

076

100

N=

996

D I S T A L

Racia

lBar

riers

toEm

ploy

men

tRa

ceW

hite

=1

else

=0

Blac

k=

1el

se=

0Hi

span

ican

dO

ther

infra

me

ofre

fere

nce

Posit

iveNe

gativ

e0

380

370

490

48N

=10

06

Educ

atio

nan

dTr

aini

ngHi

ghsc

hool

dipl

oma

(ore

quiva

-le

nt)

Yes

=1

else

=0

Posit

ive0

360

48N

=75

4

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant

Age

Age

Posit

ive32

67

909

N=

1006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

71

TA

BLE

1D

istr

ibut

ion

Acr

oss

Dem

ogra

phic

Str

ata

All

Flo

rida

Sam

ple

ofW

AG

ES

Par

ticip

ants

Leav

ing

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

119

8

Diff

eren

ce

Age

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Diff

S

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

0-25

186

261

1

130

264

0

31

065

267

25

125

0

21

7

873

2726

9

131

626

3

251

250

2

06

21

92

14

25-3

116

423

0

106

624

9

19

976

244

25

425

2

08

836

1025

7

123

024

6

254

252

2

12

20

50

7

32-3

718

726

2

955

223

2

39

930

233

21

221

1

22

2

717

7121

7

114

222

8

212

211

1

12

06

21

8

38+

177

248

1

136

265

1

71

024

256

28

928

7

31

820

4325

3

131

326

3

289

287

1

03

52

5

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

996

10

010

0

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

To

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Bla

ck24

834

7

172

040

1

54

159

439

9

374

372

2

27

126

220

389

1

968

394

37

437

2

05

21

72

22

His

pani

c18

626

1

885

206

2

54

830

208

24

124

0

32

692

3821

3

107

121

4

241

240

0

12

62

5

Whi

te27

538

5

161

137

6

20

91

504

376

38

238

0

03

124

666

384

1

886

377

38

238

0

20

72

04

03

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

1(c

ontin

ued)

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

toS

ampl

eto

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Oth

er5

07

711

71

067

17

90

92

08

462

71

476

15

90

90

12

05

20

6

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

Reg

ion

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Sou

th22

731

8

145

133

8

21

133

133

3

350

348

1

510

909

233

6

168

133

6

350

348

0

01

21

2

Cen

tral

339

475

1

776

414

2

61

171

042

8

402

400

2

28

139

294

429

2

112

422

40

240

0

20

72

29

22

3

Nor

th14

820

7

106

024

7

40

954

239

25

425

2

14

763

6523

5

120

824

2

254

252

0

61

71

1

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

00

00

00

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

2A

vera

geH

ouse

hold

Inco

me

Spl

itB

etw

een

Hou

seho

ldW

ithP

hone

son

File

and

With

outf

orA

llT

AN

FF

amili

esR

ecei

ving

Ben

efits

inD

ecem

ber

1998

Mea

nS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nF

requ

ency

Diff

eren

ceof

Mea

ns2-

Tai

led

Sig

nific

ance

All

Flo

rida

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$34

399

$34

491

$20

095

$18

938

523

417

706

$(0

92)

070

WA

GE

SR

egio

n23

(Dad

ean

dM

onro

e)P

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

12$

339

86$

197

39$

172

0520

258

288

8$

426

027

WA

GE

SR

egio

n12

(Lak

eO

rang

eO

sceo

laS

emin

ole

Sum

ter)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

251

$34

713

$21

495

$18

887

402

566

0$

538

055

WA

GE

SR

egio

n3

(Cal

houn

Hol

mes

Jac

kson

Lib

erty

Was

hing

ton)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

654

$34

886

$20

969

$19

432

345 70

$(1

232

)0

65

WA

GE

SR

egio

n19

(Des

oto

Har

dee

Hig

hlan

ds)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

651

$36

853

$21

456

$23

215

345 66

$(1

202

)0

68

Sou

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

345

65$

341

37$

202

36$

178

9325

000

367

2$

428

023

Nor

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

45$

348

70$

202

95$

198

8517

242

276

7$

(42

5)0

31

Cen

tral

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

907

$34

691

$19

386

$19

741

100

991

267

$(7

84)

018

[1]

Inco

me

mea

sure

sfo

rth

est

udy

perio

dw

ere

unav

aila

ble

due

toda

taco

llect

ion

rout

ines

[2

]In

com

e=

Ear

ned

+U

near

ned

+W

AG

ES

bene

fits

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74

TA

BLE

3S

umm

ary

ofC

once

pts

and

Indi

cato

rs

Conc

ept

Indi

cato

rSo

urce

Que

stio

nsEx

pect

edRe

latio

nshi

pm

ean

std

Vaild

Obs

erva

-tio

n

W O R K

Secu

red

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

Q3

3a-D

idyo

ufin

da

job

afte

rlea

ving

WAG

ES

(1=

yes

0=

else

)0

760

43N

=98

5

Mai

ntai

ned

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

q10-

Isth

isth

eon

lyjo

byo

uha

veha

dsin

cele

avin

gW

AGES

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)0

770

42N

=74

9

P R O X I M A T E

Tran

spor

tatio

nNe

eds

Did

not

own

car

afte

rwe

lfare

=1

Q53

-Did

your

vech

icle

ever

gett

aken

away

(N

ever

owne

d=

1el

se=

0)Ne

gativ

e0

130

34N

=99

2

Child

Care

Need

s

Sum

ofch

ildca

repr

oble

ms

Q31

-Cou

ldge

tbet

terj

obwi

thbe

tterc

hild

care

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

32-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gejo

bs

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Q33

-Hav

ech

ildca

repr

oble

ms

led

you

toch

ange

hour

swo

rked

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

34-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gelin

eof

work

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

35-M

issda

yof

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildca

re

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

114

150

N=

942

Heal

thCa

rePr

oble

ms

Sum

ofhe

alth

prob

lem

s

Q87

-Wou

ldyo

usa

yth

atin

gene

raly

ourh

ealth

is(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

88-H

owab

outy

ourc

hild

renrsquo

she

alth

(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

95-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

tohe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

96-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildhe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)

Nega

tive

076

100

N=

996

D I S T A L

Racia

lBar

riers

toEm

ploy

men

tRa

ceW

hite

=1

else

=0

Blac

k=

1el

se=

0Hi

span

ican

dO

ther

infra

me

ofre

fere

nce

Posit

iveNe

gativ

e0

380

370

490

48N

=10

06

Educ

atio

nan

dTr

aini

ngHi

ghsc

hool

dipl

oma

(ore

quiva

-le

nt)

Yes

=1

else

=0

Posit

ive0

360

48N

=75

4

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant

Age

Age

Posit

ive32

67

909

N=

1006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

1(c

ontin

ued)

Rac

eP

hone

Ava

ilabl

eC

ompl

eted

Sur

vey

Tot

als

Pop

ulat

ion

toS

ampl

eto

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Oth

er5

07

711

71

067

17

90

92

08

462

71

476

15

90

90

12

05

20

6

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

Reg

ion

Pho

neA

vaila

ble

Com

plet

edS

urve

yT

otal

sP

opul

atio

nto

Sam

ple

to

No

Yes

Diff

N

oY

esD

iff

Pop

ulat

ion

Sam

ple

Com

plet

eS

ampl

eC

ompl

ete

Com

plet

e

Sou

th22

731

8

145

133

8

21

133

133

3

350

348

1

510

909

233

6

168

133

6

350

348

0

01

21

2

Cen

tral

339

475

1

776

414

2

61

171

042

8

402

400

2

28

139

294

429

2

112

422

40

240

0

20

72

29

22

3

Nor

th14

820

7

106

024

7

40

954

239

25

425

2

14

763

6523

5

120

824

2

254

252

0

61

71

1

Tot

al71

410

04

287

100

500

110

0

399

510

01

006

100

500

110

0

324

751

500

11

006

00

00

00

143

85

7

799

20

1

100

100

100

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

2A

vera

geH

ouse

hold

Inco

me

Spl

itB

etw

een

Hou

seho

ldW

ithP

hone

son

File

and

With

outf

orA

llT

AN

FF

amili

esR

ecei

ving

Ben

efits

inD

ecem

ber

1998

Mea

nS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nF

requ

ency

Diff

eren

ceof

Mea

ns2-

Tai

led

Sig

nific

ance

All

Flo

rida

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$34

399

$34

491

$20

095

$18

938

523

417

706

$(0

92)

070

WA

GE

SR

egio

n23

(Dad

ean

dM

onro

e)P

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

12$

339

86$

197

39$

172

0520

258

288

8$

426

027

WA

GE

SR

egio

n12

(Lak

eO

rang

eO

sceo

laS

emin

ole

Sum

ter)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

251

$34

713

$21

495

$18

887

402

566

0$

538

055

WA

GE

SR

egio

n3

(Cal

houn

Hol

mes

Jac

kson

Lib

erty

Was

hing

ton)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

654

$34

886

$20

969

$19

432

345 70

$(1

232

)0

65

WA

GE

SR

egio

n19

(Des

oto

Har

dee

Hig

hlan

ds)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

651

$36

853

$21

456

$23

215

345 66

$(1

202

)0

68

Sou

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

345

65$

341

37$

202

36$

178

9325

000

367

2$

428

023

Nor

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

45$

348

70$

202

95$

198

8517

242

276

7$

(42

5)0

31

Cen

tral

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

907

$34

691

$19

386

$19

741

100

991

267

$(7

84)

018

[1]

Inco

me

mea

sure

sfo

rth

est

udy

perio

dw

ere

unav

aila

ble

due

toda

taco

llect

ion

rout

ines

[2

]In

com

e=

Ear

ned

+U

near

ned

+W

AG

ES

bene

fits

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74

TA

BLE

3S

umm

ary

ofC

once

pts

and

Indi

cato

rs

Conc

ept

Indi

cato

rSo

urce

Que

stio

nsEx

pect

edRe

latio

nshi

pm

ean

std

Vaild

Obs

erva

-tio

n

W O R K

Secu

red

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

Q3

3a-D

idyo

ufin

da

job

afte

rlea

ving

WAG

ES

(1=

yes

0=

else

)0

760

43N

=98

5

Mai

ntai

ned

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

q10-

Isth

isth

eon

lyjo

byo

uha

veha

dsin

cele

avin

gW

AGES

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)0

770

42N

=74

9

P R O X I M A T E

Tran

spor

tatio

nNe

eds

Did

not

own

car

afte

rwe

lfare

=1

Q53

-Did

your

vech

icle

ever

gett

aken

away

(N

ever

owne

d=

1el

se=

0)Ne

gativ

e0

130

34N

=99

2

Child

Care

Need

s

Sum

ofch

ildca

repr

oble

ms

Q31

-Cou

ldge

tbet

terj

obwi

thbe

tterc

hild

care

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

32-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gejo

bs

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Q33

-Hav

ech

ildca

repr

oble

ms

led

you

toch

ange

hour

swo

rked

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

34-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gelin

eof

work

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

35-M

issda

yof

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildca

re

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

114

150

N=

942

Heal

thCa

rePr

oble

ms

Sum

ofhe

alth

prob

lem

s

Q87

-Wou

ldyo

usa

yth

atin

gene

raly

ourh

ealth

is(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

88-H

owab

outy

ourc

hild

renrsquo

she

alth

(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

95-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

tohe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

96-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildhe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)

Nega

tive

076

100

N=

996

D I S T A L

Racia

lBar

riers

toEm

ploy

men

tRa

ceW

hite

=1

else

=0

Blac

k=

1el

se=

0Hi

span

ican

dO

ther

infra

me

ofre

fere

nce

Posit

iveNe

gativ

e0

380

370

490

48N

=10

06

Educ

atio

nan

dTr

aini

ngHi

ghsc

hool

dipl

oma

(ore

quiva

-le

nt)

Yes

=1

else

=0

Posit

ive0

360

48N

=75

4

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant

Age

Age

Posit

ive32

67

909

N=

1006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BLE

2A

vera

geH

ouse

hold

Inco

me

Spl

itB

etw

een

Hou

seho

ldW

ithP

hone

son

File

and

With

outf

orA

llT

AN

FF

amili

esR

ecei

ving

Ben

efits

inD

ecem

ber

1998

Mea

nS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nF

requ

ency

Diff

eren

ceof

Mea

ns2-

Tai

led

Sig

nific

ance

All

Flo

rida

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$34

399

$34

491

$20

095

$18

938

523

417

706

$(0

92)

070

WA

GE

SR

egio

n23

(Dad

ean

dM

onro

e)P

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

12$

339

86$

197

39$

172

0520

258

288

8$

426

027

WA

GE

SR

egio

n12

(Lak

eO

rang

eO

sceo

laS

emin

ole

Sum

ter)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

251

$34

713

$21

495

$18

887

402

566

0$

538

055

WA

GE

SR

egio

n3

(Cal

houn

Hol

mes

Jac

kson

Lib

erty

Was

hing

ton)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

654

$34

886

$20

969

$19

432

345 70

$(1

232

)0

65

WA

GE

SR

egio

n19

(Des

oto

Har

dee

Hig

hlan

ds)

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$35

651

$36

853

$21

456

$23

215

345 66

$(1

202

)0

68

Sou

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

345

65$

341

37$

202

36$

178

9325

000

367

2$

428

023

Nor

thP

hone

No

Pho

ne$

344

45$

348

70$

202

95$

198

8517

242

276

7$

(42

5)0

31

Cen

tral

Pho

neN

oP

hone

$33

907

$34

691

$19

386

$19

741

100

991

267

$(7

84)

018

[1]

Inco

me

mea

sure

sfo

rth

est

udy

perio

dw

ere

unav

aila

ble

due

toda

taco

llect

ion

rout

ines

[2

]In

com

e=

Ear

ned

+U

near

ned

+W

AG

ES

bene

fits

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74

TA

BLE

3S

umm

ary

ofC

once

pts

and

Indi

cato

rs

Conc

ept

Indi

cato

rSo

urce

Que

stio

nsEx

pect

edRe

latio

nshi

pm

ean

std

Vaild

Obs

erva

-tio

n

W O R K

Secu

red

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

Q3

3a-D

idyo

ufin

da

job

afte

rlea

ving

WAG

ES

(1=

yes

0=

else

)0

760

43N

=98

5

Mai

ntai

ned

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

q10-

Isth

isth

eon

lyjo

byo

uha

veha

dsin

cele

avin

gW

AGES

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)0

770

42N

=74

9

P R O X I M A T E

Tran

spor

tatio

nNe

eds

Did

not

own

car

afte

rwe

lfare

=1

Q53

-Did

your

vech

icle

ever

gett

aken

away

(N

ever

owne

d=

1el

se=

0)Ne

gativ

e0

130

34N

=99

2

Child

Care

Need

s

Sum

ofch

ildca

repr

oble

ms

Q31

-Cou

ldge

tbet

terj

obwi

thbe

tterc

hild

care

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

32-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gejo

bs

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Q33

-Hav

ech

ildca

repr

oble

ms

led

you

toch

ange

hour

swo

rked

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

34-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gelin

eof

work

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

35-M

issda

yof

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildca

re

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

114

150

N=

942

Heal

thCa

rePr

oble

ms

Sum

ofhe

alth

prob

lem

s

Q87

-Wou

ldyo

usa

yth

atin

gene

raly

ourh

ealth

is(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

88-H

owab

outy

ourc

hild

renrsquo

she

alth

(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

95-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

tohe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

96-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildhe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)

Nega

tive

076

100

N=

996

D I S T A L

Racia

lBar

riers

toEm

ploy

men

tRa

ceW

hite

=1

else

=0

Blac

k=

1el

se=

0Hi

span

ican

dO

ther

infra

me

ofre

fere

nce

Posit

iveNe

gativ

e0

380

370

490

48N

=10

06

Educ

atio

nan

dTr

aini

ngHi

ghsc

hool

dipl

oma

(ore

quiva

-le

nt)

Yes

=1

else

=0

Posit

ive0

360

48N

=75

4

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant

Age

Age

Posit

ive32

67

909

N=

1006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74

TA

BLE

3S

umm

ary

ofC

once

pts

and

Indi

cato

rs

Conc

ept

Indi

cato

rSo

urce

Que

stio

nsEx

pect

edRe

latio

nshi

pm

ean

std

Vaild

Obs

erva

-tio

n

W O R K

Secu

red

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

Q3

3a-D

idyo

ufin

da

job

afte

rlea

ving

WAG

ES

(1=

yes

0=

else

)0

760

43N

=98

5

Mai

ntai

ned

Empl

oym

ent

Yes

=1

q10-

Isth

isth

eon

lyjo

byo

uha

veha

dsin

cele

avin

gW

AGES

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)0

770

42N

=74

9

P R O X I M A T E

Tran

spor

tatio

nNe

eds

Did

not

own

car

afte

rwe

lfare

=1

Q53

-Did

your

vech

icle

ever

gett

aken

away

(N

ever

owne

d=

1el

se=

0)Ne

gativ

e0

130

34N

=99

2

Child

Care

Need

s

Sum

ofch

ildca

repr

oble

ms

Q31

-Cou

ldge

tbet

terj

obwi

thbe

tterc

hild

care

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

32-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gejo

bs

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Q33

-Hav

ech

ildca

repr

oble

ms

led

you

toch

ange

hour

swo

rked

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

34-H

ave

child

care

prob

lem

sle

dyo

uto

chan

gelin

eof

work

(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

35-M

issda

yof

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildca

re

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

114

150

N=

942

Heal

thCa

rePr

oble

ms

Sum

ofhe

alth

prob

lem

s

Q87

-Wou

ldyo

usa

yth

atin

gene

raly

ourh

ealth

is(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

88-H

owab

outy

ourc

hild

renrsquo

she

alth

(fa

iran

dpo

or=

1el

se=

0)Q

95-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

tohe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)Q

96-M

issed

work

inla

stm

onth

due

toch

ildhe

alth

prob

lem

s(y

es=

1el

se=

0)

Nega

tive

076

100

N=

996

D I S T A L

Racia

lBar

riers

toEm

ploy

men

tRa

ceW

hite

=1

else

=0

Blac

k=

1el

se=

0Hi

span

ican

dO

ther

infra

me

ofre

fere

nce

Posit

iveNe

gativ

e0

380

370

490

48N

=10

06

Educ

atio

nan

dTr

aini

ngHi

ghsc

hool

dipl

oma

(ore

quiva

-le

nt)

Yes

=1

else

=0

Posit

ive0

360

48N

=75

4

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant

Age

Age

Posit

ive32

67

909

N=

1006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

D I S T A L

Age

ofPa

rticip

ant-

Squa

red

Age

squa

red

Age

Nega

tive

1149

14

654

75N

=100

6

Gen

der

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

=1

Nega

tive

091

029

N=1

006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Ur

ban

Rura

lPo

pula

tion

pers

qm

ilePo

sitive

741

4761

454

N=

1006

Loca

lLab

orM

arke

t-Jo

bsAv

aila

ble

Coun

tyun

empl

oym

entr

ate

Nega

tive

005

002

N=

1006

C O N T R O L S

Fam

ilyTi

me

Dem

ands

Num

bero

fown

child

ren

unde

rage

18in

hom

eQ

24Ne

gativ

e2

041

16N

=99

5

Lang

uage

Barri

erSu

rvey

lang

uage

Was

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

inSp

anish

(yes

=1

else

=0)

Nega

tive

013

034

N=

1006

Unpl

anne

dFi

nanc

ialS

tatu

sCh

ange

s(A

B)

Forc

edof

fpro

gram

due

tono

n-co

mpl

ianc

e(A

)ort

ime

limit

(B)

Q3-

Why

did

you

leav

eW

ages

(non

-com

plia

nce

=1

else

=0)

AQ

3W

hydi

dyo

ule

ave

WAG

ES

(reac

hed

time

limit

=1

else

=0)

B

Nega

tive

008

004

027

019

N=

1006

Tem

pora

lOpp

ortu

nity

toFi

ndW

ork

(For

Find

aJo

bO

nly)

Mon

ths

since

leav

ing

WAG

ESQ

1-W

hen

did

you

leav

eW

ages

Posit

ive12

75

597

N=

1006

Conn

ectio

nto

Curre

ntW

ork

Envir

onm

ent

Leng

thof

time

onW

AGES

Q2

-How

long

had

you

rece

ived

wel-

fare

bene

fits

befo

reyo

ule

ftW

AGES

(0

-6m

onth

s=

1el

se=

0)

Posit

ive0

350

48N

=95

4

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of the barriers to employment on the work experience ofWAGES leavers was evaluated using a series of probit regression models

The dependent variables in the study are secure employment and main-tain employment These variables are measured as dichotomies based onanswers to survey questions If a respondent found a job after leaving theWAGES roles they were coded 1 otherwise they were coded 0 on the se-cured employment variable If a respondent was still working at the firstjob they found after leaving WAGES they were coded 1 on maintainedemployment and 0 otherwise2 (We control for length of time since leav-ing welfare in order to mitigate the possibility that we increase thechances of those who left welfare recently to be included in the numberswho ldquomaintained employmentrdquo)

The barriers to employment are visualized as a set of factors that can beameliorated within shorter or longer periods of time Those that take lon-ger periods of time to resolve are described as distal variables These vari-ables set broad parameters for employment For example people with lim-ited education can expect to have fewer chances for employment than thosewith more education and this barrier will take time to overcome Variablesthat can be resolved in shorter periods of time are referred to as proximate innature and can moderate the effect of the distal factors For example an in-dividual who has a relatively low level of education but who owns an au-tomobile may be able to find employment whereas a person with highereducational attainment but without transportation may not

This division of barriers to employment into two classes is somewhat ar-bitrary but exemplifies the problems faced both by job seekers and thosewho attempt to assist them It is not enough to match job skills to positionsIndividuals who gain employment must also get to work on a daily basisand be able to stay on the job without concern about the welfare of theirchildren At various points in the employment cycle the effect of thesemore proximate variables becomes pronounced

The proximate or immediate needs for transportation child care andhealth were measured with information drawn from the survey Transpor-tation needs were measured as a dichotomy based on whether or not therespondent owned a vehicle after leaving welfare Childcare needs andhealth problems were measured with indices derived from questions on thesurvey In all cases the proximate measures were expected to be nega-tively related to the ability of the respondents to find and keep a job

The distal measures are designed to capture structural characteristicsof an economy or the society and general socioeconomic characteristicsof individuals that set general parameters for employment but are at someremove from the immediate ability to gain employment In our study

76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

these distal factors are represented by racial characteristics educationallevel age gender and the condition of the local labor market

Two measures of race are used dichotomies for white and black It isexpected that whites will have more success on the job market whileblacks will have less than the frame of reference (in this case self-identi-fied Hispanics Native Americans and other) since evidence on the eco-nomic performance of racial and ethnic groups show substantialdifferences along racialethnic lines (Darity Guilkey and Winfrey 1996)

Education is expected to increase success in getting and keeping a jobsince higher levels of education make individuals more attractive to em-ployers Indeed from the perspective of employers the presence in jobapplicants of the basic cognitive skills that come from additional educa-tion is among the most desirable characteristics (Holzer 1999) Educa-tion is measured as a dichotomy and scored one if the respondent had ahigh school diploma or more education 0 if less than high school Thisdivision was chosen because the research literature shows that it is themost important By contrast the importance of tenth versus eleventhgrade is much less (Blackburn Bloom and Freeman 1990)

The age of the respondent is expected to have a positive effect on get-ting and keeping a job but being female is expected to have a negative ef-fect As people age we expect them to grow more attached to the labor mar-ket and more attractive to employers (Osterman 1980) Nevertheless atapproximately middle age this attractiveness begins to dissipate (Becker1980) To account for this we include the square term of the age variableas well

Rebecca Blank shows that less-skilled working women in Americafaced essentially stagnant wage levels between 1979 and 1994 (199443) thus suggesting some discrimination against females in the labormarket that can be expected to hinder the ability of women to find em-ployment Darity and Mason (1998) provide evidence supporting thisargument Thus we code females as l and males as 0 and look for a neg-ative effect between being female and finding and keeping employ-ment

Finally the condition of the local labor market is expected to have alarge influence on employment since the existence of jobs is a precondi-tion for both acquiring and keeping a job Labor market conditions aremeasured by (1) population density in the county in which the respondentlives and (2) by county unemployment rates It is expected that respon-dents from large cities will have more opportunities to find employmentthan will people from rural areas In addition we expect that cities willprovide more quality jobs and therefore will increase the chances that

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

residents will stay employed County unemployment rates provide amore direct measure of the availability of jobs

A series of statistical control variables were included in order to moreaccurately estimate the relationship between the barriers to employmentand work experience The controls included are family demands on timelanguage barriers unplanned financial status change temporal opportu-nity to find work and connection to the current labor market

The family demands on time were measured as the number of the sur-vey respondentrsquos own children under the age of 18 living at home Childrenwere expected to have a negative impact on the work experience becauseof the time demands involved in raising children Angel and Tienda (1983)provide suggestive evidence that family structure is important in influ-encing the allocation of the family headrsquos time between work andnon-market activities

The language barrier is particularly important in a study of Floridasince a large percentage of survey respondents spoke Spanish as a firstlanguage (13) Other research on the welfare population in Florida (Crewand Eyerman 1998) suggests that Spanish-speaking respondents are some-what more vulnerable in the Florida job market than are English-speakersand we expect Spanish-speakers to have more difficulty finding permanentwork than English-speakers

Unplanned status change was expected to force the respondent into a worksituation perhaps before they were prepared thereby having a negative impacton the work experience Two dichotomous measures of this phenomenon wereemployed The first was scored 1 if the respondent was forced to leaveWAGES for non-compliance and 0 otherwise The second was scored 1 ifthe respondent was forced off because of time limits and 0 otherwise3

We expected that the time a respondent was off WAGES to have an im-pact on their work experience The number of months off WAGES shouldhave a positive impact on the chance of finding a job (more time to look forwork) However time off the welfare rolls should decrease the chances ofkeeping the job (more time to lose the job)

Based on other research about the labor market performance of the welfarepopulation we expect the length of time a respondent was in the WAGES pro-gram to have a negative impact on the chances of getting and keeping a jobLongtime welfare beneficiaries appear to be out of touch with the labor mar-ket and have a more difficult time with re-entry (Bane and Ellwood 1983)

Analysis

78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The relationship between the barriers to work and the work experienceof welfare leavers was modeled using the limited dependent variable variantof the Heckman two-stage selection model It is expected that securing andmaintaining employment are dependent events that should be modeled to-gether The Heckman model can be used to estimate the dependence betweentwo events and make adjustments to the parameter estimates In this re-search the probability of securing employment is modeled using a probitregression model while storing the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) A secondprobit regression is used to model the probability of maintaining a job giventhat a job was secured The IMR is used in the second model to adjust fordependence between the two events The models are4

P(Securing Employment) = f(proximate distal controls)

P(Maintaining Employment) = f(proximate distal controls IMR)

Getting a Job The results of the get a job model are contained in Ta-ble 4 The proximate and distal measures each provide some explana-tion for the likelihood that a leaver will find a job Transportation problemswere significant and negative as expected This suggests that the absenceof a personal vehicle is a burden to finding employment Surprisingly giventhe rhetoric on this issue neither child care nor health needs produced sig-nificant results The health index was significant in the proximate onlymodel but attenuated with the addition of the control measures

The distal measures also produced mixed results Both of the raceeth-nicity variables failed to produce significant results as did educationAge of the respondent has a positive effect but age squared is negativesuggesting that the probability of being employed increases as an indi-vidual attains a certain age but decreases beyond that point Gender has asignificant negative impact in the full model

These findings suggest that both proximate and distal measures in-hibit the ability of welfare leavers to find a job The absence of a relation-ship between childcare needs and work and health care needs and workcan be explained It is reasonable to expect that the barriers provided bychildcare and health care do not inhibit a personrsquos ability to find a jobThese barriers are more likely to affect the ability of a person to keep ajob However inadequate transportation could limit the search area aswell as the type of job the respondent could pursue

Keeping a Job The results of the second model (keeping a job afteradjusting for dependence between finding and keeping a job) are con-

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80

TA

BLE

4R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofS

ecur

ing

Em

ploy

men

tA

fter

Leav

ing

WA

GE

SS

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8P

robi

tReg

res-

sion

with

IMR

Sto

red

for

Mod

el3ndash

Sec

ured

Em

ploy

men

t=1 Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

bse

086

007

084

017

20

400

692

046

075

20

470

80

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

bse

(mea

n=

13)

z

20

220

132

168

20

250

142

181

20

290

162

174

Child

Care

Inde

xb

se(m

ean

=1

14)

z

001

003

018

000

002

003

000

20

010

042

034

Heal

thIn

dex

bse

(mea

n=

76)

z

20

080

052

168

20

050

052

093

20

030

062

045

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

8)z

20

180

152

120

20

040

192

024

20

050

202

025

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)b

se(m

ean

=3

7)z

016

014

110

017

019

090

017

020

084

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

ntb

se(m

ean

=3

6)z

001

011

012

005

012

047

003

013

026

Age

bse

(mea

n=

326

7)z

010

004

288

009

004

229

011

004

256

Age

Squa

red

bse

(mea

n=

1149

14)

z

20

002

000

12

321

000

000

22

50

000

000

22

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

81

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

200

182

112

20

160

192

083

20

320

212

148

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

002

000

009

024

000

014

000

010

146

000

010

000

010

099

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

25

863

152

186

24

8731

03

3940

02

144

23

0960

03

6481

02

085

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

20

001

004

20

02

20

020

052

032

20

020

052

041

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

220

142

152

001

023

005

20

110

252

045

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

20

970

162

621

20

990

182

557

21

030

182

567

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

21

150

232

496

21

140

252

449

21

120

262

428

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

001

001

159

001

001

100

001

001

106

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

007

011

065

005

012

042

003

013

024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82

TA

BLE

4(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

NM

odel

Chi-S

quar

eM

odel

Sign

ifica

nce

Actu

alP

redi

cted

921

567

012

85

782

884

739

50

0000

793

0

744

251

60

0015

771

5

710

721

20

0000

793

0

667

769

60

0000

808

1

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

83

TA

BLE

5R

elat

ions

hip

Bet

wee

nP

roxi

mat

ean

dD

ista

lF

acto

rsan

dth

eLi

kelih

ood

ofM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Afte

rLe

avin

gW

AG

ES

S

urve

yof

Flo

rida

Wel

fare

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Left

the

Pro

gram

Bet

wee

n10

96

and

109

8F

IML

Est

i-m

ates

ofB

ivar

iate

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nndashS

econ

dS

tage

Con

trol

ling

for

IMR

from

Tab

le2ndash

Mai

ntai

nJo

b=

1

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

Cons

tant

b se1

309

602

077

177

23

045

960

063

302

297

315

P R O X I M A T E

Did

NotO

wnCa

rAfte

rLea

ving

Wel

fare

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

222

842

008

20

720

562

128

20

910

382

237

Child

Care

Inde

x

(mea

n=

114

)

b se z

20

090

082

120

20

0999

70

042

284

20

120

042

286

Heal

thIn

dex

(mea

n=

76)

b se z

007

097

007

20

020

112

019

001

007

013

D I S T A L

Race

(Whi

te=

1)

(mea

n=

38)

b se z

20

480

502

097

20

270

232

120

20

250

232

107

Race

(Bla

ck=

1)

(mea

n=

37)

b se z

015

044

033

20

210

312

070

011

030

037

High

Scho

olG

radu

ate

orG

EDor

Equi

vale

nt

(mea

n=

36)

b se z

024

013

185

025

015

164

034

014

237

Age

(mea

n=

326

7)

b se z

021

031

067

003

016

016

018

017

106

Age

Squa

red

(mea

n=

1149

14)

b se z

20

003

000

52

065

20

0002

000

20

10

000

000

20

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84

TA

BLE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Prox

imat

eO

nly

Prox

imat

ean

dCo

ntro

lDi

stal

Onl

yDi

stal

and

Cont

rol

Full

Mod

el

D I S T A L

Gen

der(

Fem

ale

=1)

(mea

n=

91)

b se z

20

570

562

102

20

240

292

083

20

450

402

114

Urba

nLa

borM

arke

t(Po

pPe

rSq

Mile

)

(mea

n=

741

47)

b se z

000

021

000

012

179

000

024

000

021

113

000

036

000

016

221

Job

Avai

labi

lity

(Une

mpl

oym

entR

ate)

(mea

n=

05)

b se z

215

92

160

22

099

26

9035

07

8213

02

088

212

979

005

5241

02

235

C O N T R O L S

Num

bero

fOwn

Child

ren

Livin

gwi

thSR

(mea

n=

204

)

b se z

005

70

051

17

001

006

010

002

007

032

SRSp

eaks

Span

ishO

nly

(mea

n=

13)

b se z

20

390

492

080

20

210

272

077

20

160

322

049

Left

Prog

ram

forN

on-C

ompl

ianc

e

(mea

n=

08)

b se z

21

992

562

078

20

491

692

029

22

211

572

141

Left

Prog

ram

Beca

use

Reac

hed

Tim

eLi

mit

(mea

n=

04)

b se z

22

673

182

084

20

932

082

045

22

971

822

163

Num

bero

fMon

ths

Sinc

eLe

avin

gW

AGES

(mea

n=

127

5)

b se z

003

003

113

002

002

138

004

002

244

On

WAG

ESfo

r6or

Fewe

rMon

ths

(mea

n=

35)

b se z

036

019

191

022

015

144

034

015

228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

85

Inve

rse

Mills

Ratio

b se z

21

2028

19

20

04

376

505

074

411

605

068

064

322

020

377

299

126

N Mod

elCh

i-Squ

are

Mod

elSi

gnifi

canc

e

Actu

alP

redi

cted

720

114

20

0222

774

693

184

90

0472

775

571

132

10

1535

813

545

221

60

1037

760

525

427

60

0009

771

[1]

Mea

nsar

eca

lcul

ated

for

the

entir

esa

mpl

ebe

fore

listw

ise

dele

tion

ofm

issi

ngva

lues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

tained in Table 5 In this model the proximate measures fared better asexplanations for keeping a job than they did for getting a job

Two of the proximate barriers were significant in the hypothesized direc-tion Both transportation and childcare represented significant barriers tokeeping a job Health issues remained insignificant Thus while childcare isnot an issue in finding a job it was an issue when trying to keep a job

Three of the distal measures were significant predictors of keeping a jobGender while negative and a significant indicator of finding a job was in-significant in the keeping a job model As expected high school graduateswere more likely to keep a job than were non-high school grads Also for-mer welfare recipients who lived in more urban areas were more likely tokeep a job than were those who lived in more rural parts of the state Andperhaps reflecting greater numbers of job opportunities individuals wholived in areas with greater job availability were less likely to keep jobs thanwere those who lived in counties with lower unemployment rates

One other finding from the analysis is worth noting the positive direc-tion between number of months since leaving welfare and keeping a jobAs one reviewer commented ldquoeven after controlling for the other vari-ables one would guess that people who had left WAGES earlier wouldhave been more likely to have changed jobsrdquo While the magnitude of thecoefficient is rather small we agree with the reviewer and find the resultunexpected We can only postulate that those who left welfare early in thetime period did so on their own volition (as opposed to being forced off)because they found a job they liked and thus have stayed on

Probabilities of Getting and Keeping a Job Although the foregoinganalysis is useful in testing hypotheses about the relationship betweenproximate and distal variables and the ability to get and keep a jobpolicymakers may find it difficult to interpret Because of the non-linearspecification of the probit model the coefficients do not have the sameintuitive meaning as do coefficients in linear regression In fact the mar-ginal impact of any variable upon the estimated probability of getting orkeeping a job will vary with the value of all of the other variables Thusin order to provide more policy relevant results we transform the coeffi-cients into estimated probabilities of a person getting or keeping a jobfor several alternative circumstances These probabilities are shown inTable 6

Table 6 gives the predicted probability of getting and keeping a jobfor a typical person from our sample The typical person is defined bythe mean or modal values of each of the modeled characteristics In thiscase the typical person who left welfare during the time period of our sur-vey had a 90 probability of getting a job and a 91 probability of keep-

86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

87

TA

BLE

6P

redi

cted

Pro

babi

litie

sof

Sec

urin

gan

dM

aint

aini

ngE

mpl

oym

ent

Poi

ntE

stim

ates

from

Pro

bitR

egre

ssio

nsin

Tab

les

4an

d5

Ful

lMod

elE

stim

ates

with

IMR

Typ

eo

fP

erso

nP

rob

abili

tyS

ecu

rin

gJo

bC

han

ge

toT

ypic

alP

rob

abili

tyM

ain

tain

ing

Job

Ch

ang

eto

Typ

ical

Typ

ical

Per

son

090

40

909

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

084

62

005

80

667

20

242

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alC

hild

Car

eP

robl

em0

902

20

002

088

72

002

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Add

ition

alH

ealth

Pro

blem

089

92

000

50

911

000

2

Typ

ical

Per

son

With

outa

Car

Add

ition

alC

Can

dH

ealth

083

62

006

80

624

20

285

Typ

ical

Per

son

with

Hig

hS

choo

lDip

lom

aor

Equ

ival

ent

090

90

005

095

40

045

Typ

ical

Per

son

inD

ade

Cou

nty

090

70

003

092

00

011

Typ

ical

Per

son

Who

Onl

yS

peak

sS

pani

sh0

883

20

021

088

12

002

8

TY

PIC

AL

PE

RS

ON

H

asow

ned

aca

r2

child

care

prob

lem

s1

heal

thca

repr

oble

mb

lack

no

dipl

oma

oreq

uiva

lent

33

year

sol

dfe

mal

eliv

esin

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

(psm

=87

9un

emp

=3

0)2

child

ren

inho

me

spea

ksE

nglis

hon

WA

GE

Sfo

rm

ore

than

6m

onth

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing a job If the typical person had more barriers to employment theirprobability of success would decline

For example if the typical person did not own a car her probabilityof getting or keeping a job would decline 5 points (90 to 85) and theprobability of keeping a job would decline 24 points (91 to 67) If theyhad a car but had an additional childcare problem their chances of find-ing a job would not change but their chances of keeping a job would drop2 points from 91 to 89 If that person was really down on their luck didnot have a car had an additional childcare problem and an additionalhealth problem they would drop 6 points in the probability of getting a joband 29 points in the probability of keeping a job (90 to 84 and 91 to 62)

CONCLUSION

Our analysis began as an effort to specify the relative importance toindividuals who have left welfare of two types of employment barriersThe analysis revealed that our conception of the dependent variable as aprocess-gaining and keeping employment-was too simple Rather thanbeing a continuum the two processes may be fundamentally differentevents Finding a job may simply be a function of the availability of workand the effort expended to locate it Keeping a job may be a more com-plex process that combines ability training the absence of immediateproblems and the availability of work

Our most intriguing finding is that the standard distal explanations aswell as the currently popular proximate explanations play a much largerrole in keeping a job than in finding a job

This finding may be related to the condition of the labor market in bothFlorida and the US The survey was conducted during a strong economyand the respondents were drawn from the population of leavers who leftduring that economy (1996-1998) Thus neither proximate nor distal vari-ables played a large role because jobs were comparatively easy to findHowever even a strong economy cannot diffuse the importance of trans-portation child care and education for keeping a job This finding supportsthe obvious fact that a decline in the labor market would reduce substan-tially the ability of persons leaving the welfare rolls to gain employment

Nevertheless if finding and keeping a job are separate events and ifas we show here keeping a job is significantly affected by the proximatefactors described in our study then policymakers should concentrate theirattention on people who have achieved employment and strive to assistthem in keeping and advancing in their current positions Programs inwhich employers are subsidized to alleviate the barriers their employees

88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

face in keeping a job may be effective However evidence from Michi-gan indicates that very few employers in that state would be willing tohelp provide transportation or child care but almost half would be willingto provide basic skills remediation (Holzer 1999 469) Thus welfare re-form programs need to design their own transportation and childcare as-sistance programs to target individuals already employed

Minimizing the effects of bureaucratic barriers to getting child careshould also be a priority For example mothers may have to take time offfrom work to sign up for child care assistance in person very few officesare open at night or on weekends and processing a child care voucher cantake more than two weeks For people who must go to work immediatelythese are serious problems

As Nathan Glazer reminds us these efforts to elaborate the administrativestructures that put the requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act intoplace will not be easy Mobilizing and providing support services for a largeportion of the adults on welfare ldquohave turned out to be enormously difficult because of the complexity of the tasksrdquo involved (Glazer 1994)

NOTES

1 The response rate was calculated using equation 3 from the Standard Definitionshandbook American Association of Public Opinion Research The equation is RR3 =I((I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO)) The values are 1 = 1006 P = 17 RI 18 NC +O = 727 UH = 1346 UO = 1073 Total = 4280 where I = Complete Interview P = Par-tial Interview R = Refusal NC = Non-contact O = Other UH = Unknown if house-holdoccupied HU UO = Unknown other

2 The models were also estimated against two alternative measures of keeping a job Inone alternative keeping a job was scored one if the respondent was working at the timeof the survey but not necessarily on the first job In another alternative keeping a jobwas scored one if the respondent had worked two or fewer jobs since leaving WAGESBoth of the alternative measures yielded similar results to those reported in this paper

3 Floridarsquos welfare reform act imposed time limits of two years All survey respon-dents left the WAGES program prior to October 1998 before the time limit was appliedThis means that the respondents who left for time limits were anticipating time limits

4 The relationship was also estimated in a bivariate probit model to capture the se-lection effects of the conditional relationship between getting and keeping a job Theselection parameter (rho for the Inverse Mills Ratio) was not significant The magni-tude of some of the parameters changed as did the standard errors However thechange was small and did not effect the hypothesis Thus only the univariate probitsare reported here

REFERENCES

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Acs G and Pamela Loprest 1995 The Effects of Disabilities on Exits from AFDCWashington DC Urban Institute Press Tables 4 and 5

American Association for Public Opinion Research 1998 Standard Definitions FinalDispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys andIn-Person Surveys Ann Arbor Michigan AAPOR

Bane Mary Jo and David Ellwood 1983 ldquoThe Dynamics of Dependence The Routesto Self Sufficiencyrdquo Report to the US Department of Health and Human ServicesCambridge Mass Urban Systems Research and Engineering

Becker Gary 1980 Human Capital Chicago University of Chicago PressBlackburn McKinley David Bloom and Richard Freeman 1990 ldquoThe Declining Po-

sition of Less Skilled Malesrdquo In A Future of Lousy Jobs Editor Gary Burtless31-76 Washington DC The Brookings Institute

Blank Rebecca M 1994 ldquoOutlook for the US Labor Market and Prospects forLow-Wage Entry Jobsrdquo In Demetra S Nightingale and Robert Haveman editorsThe Work Alternative Washington DC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary 1994 ldquoEmployment Prospects of Welfare Recipientsrdquo In Demetra SNightingale and Robert Haveman editors The Work Alternative WashingtonDC The Urban Institute Press

Burtless Gary T 1997 ldquoWelfare Recipientsrsquo Job Skills and Employmentrdquo Welfare toWork Vol 7 No l Spring 39-51

Capizzano Jeffrey Gina Adams and Freya Sonenstein 2000 ldquoChild Care Arrange-ments for Children Under Fiverdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B B-7March p 1

Childrenrsquos Defense Fund July 17 2000 Child Care Advocacy Newsletter New YorkCrew Robert E Jr and Joe Eyerman 1998 After Leaving WAGES Tallahassee Fla

College of Social Sciences Florida State UniversityDarity William A David Guilkey and William Wilfrey 1996 ldquoExplaining Differ-

ences in Economic Performance Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in the USAThe Data Examinedrdquo American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 554pp 411-426

Darity William A and Patrick Mason 1998 ldquoEvidence on Discrimination in Em-ployment Codes of Color Codes of Gender Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol 122 pp 63-90

Edin Katherine and Laura Lein 1997 Making Ends Meet How Single Mothers Sur-vive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York The Russell Sage Foundation

Glazer Nathan 1994 ldquoMaking Work Work Welfare Reform in the 1990srdquo InDemetra S Nightingale and Robert H Haveman editors The Work AlternativeWashington DC The Urban Institute Press

Greene WH 1993 Econometric Analysis 2nd edition Englewood Cliffs NJPrentice Hall

Gueron Judith and Edward Pauly 1991 From Welfare to Work New York RussellSage Foundation

Harris Kathleen M 1993 ldquoWork and Welfare Among Single Mothers in PovertyrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol 99 No 2 September 317-352

90 JOURNAL OF POVERTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Heckman James ldquoThe Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation Sam-ple Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for SuchModelsrdquo Annals of Econometric and Social Measurement Vol 5 No 4 475-492

Holzer Harry J 1999 ldquoWill Employers Hire Welfare Recipientsrdquo Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management Vol 18 No 3 449-472

Lino Mark 1998 ldquoChild Care and Welfare Reformrdquo Family Economics and Nutri-tion Review Vol 41(1) Winter

Mead Lawrence 1992 The New Politics of Poverty New York Basic BooksMoffitt Robert 1992 ldquoIncentive Effects of the US Welfare System A Reviewrdquo

Journal of Economic Literature Vol XXX March 1-61Moffitt Robert A and Eric Slade 1997 ldquoHealth Care Coverage for Children Who Are

on and Off Welfarerdquo Welfare to Work Vol 7 No 1 Spring 87-98Moss P and C Tilley 1995 Soft Skills and Race New York The Russell Sage FndOsterman Paul 1991 ldquoWelfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy The

Impact of Neighborhoodrdquo Social Problems Vol 38 No 4 NovemberPitegoff P and L Breen 1997 ldquoChild Care Policy and the Welfare Reform Actrdquo

Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Vol 6(2)113-130

Wachs Martin 1998 ldquoCan Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Chal-lengerdquo Journal of the American Planning Association Vol 64 No 1 Winter p 15

Ward Beverly Eric Hill and others 1998 ldquoAccess to Jobs An Assessment of the Roleof Transportation in the Florida WAGES Programrdquo Tampa University of SouthFlorida Center for Urban Transportation Research

Zedlewski Shelia 1999 ldquoWork Activity and Obstacles to Work Among TANF Recip-ientsrdquo Washington DC Urban Institute Series B No B-2 September Figure 1

Zill N Moore K and Stief T 1991 Welfare Mothers as Potential EmployeesWashington DC Child Trends p 16

Robert E Crew Jr and Joe Eyerman 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 06

57 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014