finding employment and staying employed after leaving welfare
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