INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 I ) 74-6133 SMITH, Vernon Kent, 1944THE EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS OF AFDC MOTHERS: THE FIRST-YEAR EFFECT OF THE EARNINGS EXEMPTION IN TWO MICHIGAN COUNTIES. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973 Economics, finance U n iv e rs ity M icro film s. A XEROX Company , A n n A rb o r, M ich ig an THE EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS OF AFDC MOTHERS: THE FIRST-YEAR EFFECT OF THE EARNINGS EXEMPTION IN TWO MICHIGAN COUNTIES By Vernon Kent Smith A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Economics 1973 ABSTRACT THE EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS OF AFDC MOTHERS: THE FIRST-YEAR EFFECT OF THE EARNINGS EXEMPTION IN TWO MICHIGAN COUNTIES by Vernon Kent Smith Among the several public welfare provisions of the 1967 Social Security Amendments, two in particular were directed toward the objective of increased employment among individuals receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The first established the earnings exemption, which was designed to serve as a financial incentive for employment. This provision allowed working recipients to benefit financially from employment by exempting the first $30 of monthly earnings, plus one-third of the remainder, plus necessary work-related expenses, when calculating the monthly AFDC payment. In most states the earnings exemption replaced a policy under which recipients accrued no financial benefit from employment since earnings, net only of work-related expenses, were offset by a reduction of equal amount in the AFDC payment. Complementary to the financial incentive of the earnings exemption, the Amendments also provided for job training and placement by establishing the Work Incentive (WIN) Program. Both WIN and the earnings exemption were designed to increase the employment of recipients in jobs for which they already qualified. In addition, the WIN Program was also designed to improve recipients' earning capability through the use of education, training and placement services. Vernon Kent Smith The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the changes in employment and earnings which occurred among AFDC mothers in two Michigan counties in the first year following implementation of the earnings exemption and the WIN Program, and to identify those factors important in determining whether an AFDC mother was employed, and if employed, how much she earned. Although other factors, including the WIN Program, are considered, the major emphasis of this dissertation is upon evaluating the employment impact of the earnings exemption. The analysis is based on data obtained for a stratified sample of 1,184 single-parent, female-headed families who received AFDC in the Michigan Counties of Genesee and Ingham in 1969 and 1970. Differential sampling rates, which depended on employment and welfare status at the beginning (June 1969) and end (June 1970) of the period under study, were used to ensure that the number of employed mothers in the sample was sufficiently large to permit statistically significant inferences. Data for sample cases were obtained from a specially-conducted survey of individual case records located in each County Department of Social Services. Use of this data collection technique allowed the gathering of case-specific information on a wide range of economic and demographic variables not otherwise possible. These data indicated that after implementation of the earnings exemp­ tion in Michigan on July 1, 1969, the proportion of AFDC mothers in the two study counties who were employed increased significantly from 10.0 percent in June of 1969 to 14.1 percent in June of 1970. In analyzing this increase in the employment rate, changes in employment status and earnings levels which occurred over the study year were compared with similar changes which occurred during each of the previous two annual Vernon Kent Smith periods. that: Compared with the previous annual periods, the data indicated (1) recipients employed at the beginning of the study year were more likely to remain employed, although they were less likely to have had an increase in monthly earnings; (2) recipients not employed at the beginning of the study period were more likely to become employed, but were neither more nor less likely to have had higher or lower levels of monthly earnings; (3) new recipients were more likely to become or remain employed, and were also more likely to have high levels of earnings. To evaluate the extent to which the increases in AFDC employment might be attributed to the incentive effect of the earnings exemption, several factors which might also have affected employment activity were examined for their impact. These factors included a retention effect (the retention on AFDC of mothers who, except for application of the earnings exemption, would have been financially ineligible for AFDC), the WIN Program, the increasing "employability" of an increasing caseload, higher AFDC and food stamp benefits, and economic and labor market conditions. After consideration of these and other factors, the con­ clusion which emerged was that the earnings exemption was the primary factor contributing to the increase in AFDC employment over this period. Altogether, the exemption was found to account for 3.9 percentage points of the 4.1 percentage point increase in the AFDC employment rate over the study period, one-third of which was due to the retention effect, and two-thirds of which was due to the incentive effect. Despite the fact that the increases in AFDC employment were statis­ tically significant, the increases were relatively small in absolute value. Even a year after implementation of the exemption, the employment rate was a relatively low 14.1 percent. This suggests that those factors Vernon Kent Smith which constrained employment prior to the exemption's implementation continued to do so after its implementation. Multiple-regression analysis, undertaken to assess the impact of demographic and economic factors upon employment and earnings, provided support for this conclusion. In both June, 1969 and June, 1970, factors identified as significant barriers to employment included the presence in the home of pre-school age children, a lack of education, a lack of job experience, and poor health. Among factors designed to counteract these barriers, the provision of welfare^funded child care was found to be of particular importance. In addition, market earnings levels in jobs of similar occupational class­ ification were found to be an important determinant of the probability of employment and the level of earnings. In evaluating the financial impact of the exemption, it was found that the exemption contributed to the increases in AFDC costs and caseloads which occurred over the study period. Although recipients were more likely to be employed, employed recipients received larger AFDC payments and were less likely to terminate from assistance. Altogether, it was estimated that in its first year of application the earnings exemption increased annual AFDC payments in the two study counties by more than four percent. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS With sincere appreciation, I wish to thank each member of my dissertation committee: Professor Charles C. Killingsworth (Chairman), Professor John P. Henderson, and Professor Milton C. Taylor. I particularly appreciate the perceptive guidance, insight and suggestions offered by Professor Killingsworth, whose considerable contribution is gratefully acknowledged. The research for this dissertation was performed under the auspices of the Michigan Department of Social Services. I thank Dr. Leland E. Hall, Deputy Director for Research and Program Analysis, for support of this project. For their cooperative assistance during the data-gathering process, I thank Chester Bielaczyc, Director of the Genesee County Department of Social Services, and Daniel Prendergast, Director of the Ingham County Department of Social Services. For programming and statistical assistance, I am indebted to James Ellis, Director of the Bureau of Quality Control and Statistical Analysis; Charles Conley, Director of the Statistical Evaluation Division; and staff members Robert Lovell, Robert Zerby and Bruce Burke. Sandra Yonker helped prepare the tables in Appendices A and B, and Dallas Schultz prepared the maps in Appendix G. I benefited from numerous discussions with my colleague Aydin Ulusan of the Division of Income Maintenance and Employment Research. For his comments on earlier drafts, I am also indebted to Leonard Schwartz. Finally, I extend particular thanks to Mrs. Patricia Hansen, who typed the major part of the manuscript, and to Miss Sue Peterson, who assisted. A special expression of gratitude is reserved for my wife, Paula, and daughters Courtney and Cathy, for their sacrifice, patience and support. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ..................................................... ii LIST OF T A B L E S ....................................................... vi LIST OF F I G U R E S .......................................................xv Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION................................................ ................. Purpose and Scope of This Dissertation Previous Programs: CWT and W E T ......................... Congressional Debate .................................... Income Maintenance Objectives ........................... Impact of the 1967 Amendments: An O v e r v i e w ............... 2. 1 2 4 7 12 16 THE QUESTION OF EMPLOYABILITY: A REVIEW OF STUDIES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS, ATTITUDES TOWARD WORK, AND RESPONSE TO WORK INCENTIVES OF AFDC M O T H E R S ............... 24 Factors Affecting Female Labor Force Participation ... 25 AFDC Mothers Compared to Women in U.S. Population . . . . 31 How Employable Are AFDC W o m e n ? ............................31 Do AFDC Mothers Want to W o r k ? .............................. 37 The Employment Response of AFDC Mothers to Work I n c e n t i v e s .............................................. 42 The Denver P r o j e c t ...................................... 43 The Cleveland Project ............................... 44 Inter-State Comparison of AFDC Employment Rates ... 46 Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky ................... 47 New York C i t y .......................................... 50 A Comparison of 19 S t a t e s .............................. 52 Impact of the Earnings Exemption: Ten U.S. Cities . . 54 Impact of the Earnings Exemption: Michigan ........ 57 C o n c l u s i o n .................................................63 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR A N A L Y S I S ......................... 73 The General M o d e l .......................................... 73 The Measurable Variables ............................... 83 T a s t e s ...................................................84 Expected Market Wage R a t e .............................. 89 Expected Non-Market Wage R a t e ......................... 90 Family Resources ......................... . . . . . . 91 Welfare Regulations and Policy ....................... 93 S u m m a r y ..................................................... 95 iii Chapter 4. Page CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND EARNINGS LEVELS: THE SHORT-RUN IMPACT OF THE EARNINGS EXEMPTION ........... 99 Selection and Description of Survey Procedure and Study A r e a ............................................... 100 The Sampling Procedure .................................. 106 Changes in AFDC Employment in Genesee and Ingham Counties: July 1, 1969 to July 1, 1970 .................Ill Changes in Employment Status: Study Year versus Two Previous Y e a r s ...................................... 113 Changes in the Level of E a r n i n g s ......................... 122 Employed Mothers Who Remained Employed ............... 122 Not-Employed Mothers Who Became Employed One Year L a t e r ................................................. 129 Mothers Not Receiving AFDC Who Were Employed One Year L a t e r ............................................. 129 Possible Causes of the Observed Changes in Employment and E a r n i n g s .................................. 132 The Change in Maximum Earnings Permitted AFDC R e c i p i e n t s ............................................. 132 Changing Composition of the Caseload ................. 135 The WIN P r o g r a m ........................................ 137 Changes in Other Program Parameters ................. 138 Changes in Economic Conditions and the Job Market . .140 Attitudes and Information ............................ 142 Summary of Impact of Factors Influencing AFDC E m p l o y m e n t ............................................. 144 Summary and Conclusion .................................. 147 5. EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND EARNINGS LEVELS: EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF RECIPIENT CHARACTERISTICS AND WELFARE S E R V I C E S ........................................ 154 The Dependent Variables ................................... 154 The Independent V a r i a b l e s .................................. 157 Description of Analytical Techniques ................... 166 Concluding Observations About the Empirical Model . . . . 169 The Regression Results: Employment Status and Level of E a r n i n g s .........................................171 Income and Substitution Effects ..................... 172 The Impact of In-Kind Welfare Benefits ............... 181 The Impact of the Work Requirement and Participation in the WIN P r o g r a m .................................... 186 The Impact of Demographic Characteristics and Other Control Variables ............................ 190 Regression Results: Earnings Change June, 1969 to June, 1970 205 Observations on Differences Between Study Counties . . . 207 Magnitude and Signs of Explanatory Variables ........ 207 Labor Market Conditions .............................. 209 Summary and Conclusion .................................. 211 iv Chapter 6. Page SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY ... 217 Findings of Earlier Research ............................. 217 Analysis of Changes in Employment Rates and Earnings Levels . . . . . 218 Impact of Recipient Characteristics and Welfare S e r v i c e s ................................................. 222 Expected Market Wages ................................. 223 Child Care .......................................223 Non-Earned Income ...................................... 223 Children Under Age 3 ........................... Health of the M o t h e r .................................... 224 Participation in the WIN P r o g r a m ....................... 225 Policy Implications ........................................ 225 Expected Wages ......................................... 225 Welfare Benefits ........................................ 227 Child C a r e ............................................... 228 Recipient Characteristics ............................. 229 Financial Costs and Benefits of the Earnings Exemption ..................................... . . . . . 229 Definition of Costs and Benefits . ................... 229 Evaluation of Costs and B e n e f i t s ....................... 231 Concluding Statement ...................................... 236 APPENDIX A: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS ........................... 238 APPENDIX B: MULTIPLE REGRESSION EQUATIONS ...................... APPENDIX C: THE WIN PROGRAM IN INGHAM C O U N T Y ................... 341 APPENDIX D: THE WIN PROGRAM IN GENESEE C O U N T Y ............... . APPENDIX E: A NOTE ON AFDC RECIPIENTS' PERCEPTION OF THE EARNINGS EXEMPTION AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT P O L I C I E S ...........................................432 APPENDIX F: SURVEY FORM AND CODING INSTRUCTIONS ................ 442 APPENDIX G: M A P S ................................................. 449 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................... v 284 . 359 451 224 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1-A Employment Status of AFDC Mothers: 2-A Labor Force Participation Rates of All Women and Non-White Women Age 16 and Over, by Marital Status, March 1970 26 Labor Force Participation Rates of All Women and Non-White Women by Marital Status and Age, March 1970 27 2-B 2-C 2-D 2-E 3-A 3-B 4-A 4-B 4-C 4-D 4-E 4-F National Totals . . . Labor Force Participation Rates of Women Age 16 and Over by Race, Age, Age of Children and Marital Status, March 1970 19 . 28 Labor Force Participation Rates of Women Aged 18 and Over by Age, Marital Status and Years of School Completed, March 1970 ................................... 29 Selected Characteristics of AFDC Mothers and All Women Heading Families, by Race, 1969 ................. 32 AFDC Grant and Disposable Income, With and Without the Earnings Exemption, by Amount of Earnings ......... 79 AFDC Budgeted Need and Boundary Earnings by Family Size: With and Without Earnings Exemption . . . . . . 81 Characteristics of AFDC Recipients in Flint, Lansing and in Michigan, December, 1967 ........................ 105 Samples Sizes and Sampling Rates, by County, by Sample G r o u p s .................................................. 110 Total AFDC Cases and Cases with an Employed Adult, for All AFDC and Female-Headed AFDC Cases in Genesee and Ingham Counties, July 1, 1969 and July 1, 1970 . . 112 Employment Status in June, 1969 by Employment Status in June, 1970 for All Mothers Receiving AFDC on July 1, 1969, Counties Combined ................................ 115 Employment Status in June, 1968 by Employment Status in June, 1969, for All Mothers Receiving AFDC on July 1, 1969, Counties Combined ................................. 116 Employment Status in June, 1967 by Employment Status in June, 1968, for All Mothers Receiving AFDC on July 1, 1969, Counties Combined ................................. 117 vi Table 4-6 4-H 4-1 Page Earnings Level in June, 1969 by Earnings Level in June, 1970, for Mothers Employed and Receiving AFDC on July 1, 1969 and July 1, 1970, Counties Combined . . . 125 Earnings Level in June, 1968 by Earnings Level in June, 1969 for Mothers Employed and Receiving AFDC on July 1, 1968 and July 1, 1969, Counties Combined . . . 126 Earnings Level in June, 1967 by Earnings Level in June, 1968 for Mothers Employed and Receiving AFDC on July 1, 1967 and July 1, 1968, and Receiving AFDC on ...................... July 1, 1969, Counties Combined 127 4-J Earnings Level in June of 1968, 1969 and 1970 for Mothers Receiving AFDC and Not Employed one Year Earlier, Counties Combined ............................ 4-K Earnings Level in June of 1968, 1969 and 1970 of AFDC Mothers Who Were Not Receiving AFDC One Year Earlier, Counties Combined ....................................... 131 Number Employed and Employment Rates, Adjusted for those Not Eligible Without the Earnings Exemptions, June, 1969 and June, 1970 by C o u n t y .......................... 134 Unemployment Rates in Genesee and Ingham Counties June, 1967-June, 1970 ......................................... 140 OTHIN Coefficients and t-Values with Derived Income Elasticities Genesee and Ingham Counties Combined . . . 174 EXPWGS Coefficients and t-Values with Derived Uncompen­ sated and Income-Compensated Substitution Elasticitites Genesee and Ingham Counties Combined . . . . 179 Employment Rates by Work Requirement Status Genesee and Ingham Counties Combined . . . . . . . 187 Employment Rates by the Mother's Year of Birth Genesee and Ingham Counties Combined .......................... 191 Employment Rates by Level of Educational Attainment Genesee and Ingham Counties Combined ................. 193 4-L 4-M 5-A 5-B 5-C 5-D 5-E 5-F Employment Rates by AFDC Family and Household Sizes . . 5-G Employment Rates by Children Age Groups Genesee and Ingham County Combined ................................. 19® Coefficients of Children-Age Group Variables with Respect to Earnings Genesee and Ingham Counties C o m b i n e d ................................................ 199 Employment Rates by Months of Continuous AFDC Receipt Genesee and Ingham Counties Combined ................. 201 Employment Rates by Type of Housing Genesee and Ingham Counties Combined ....................................... 202 5-H 5-1 5-J vii . 196 Table 5-K 6-A 6-B Page Employment Rates by Geographic Area Genesee and .............................. Ingham Counties Combined 204 Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Eaxnaings Exemption July, 1969 and July, 1970, Counties Combined ......... 231 Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Earnings Exemption ............. Fiscal Year 1969-1970, Combined Counties 233 APPENDIX TABLES A-l Ratio of the Size of Each Employment (Sample) Group to the Size of the Total Female-Headed AFDC Case­ load, July 1, 1969 and July 1, 1970 .................... 240 A-2 Distribution of AFDC Mothers by Year of B i r t h ............ 241 A-3 Distribution of AFDC Mothers by R a c e .................... 242 A-4 Distribution of AFDC Mothers by Highest Grade of School C o m p l e t e d ................................................ 243 Distribution of AFDC Mothers by Current or Usual Occupation Classificaion .............................. 244 A-5 A-6 Distribution of AFDC Families by Area of Residence . . . 245 A-7 Distribution of AFDC Families by Housing Arrangements . . 246 A-8 Distirubiton of AFDC Families by Status of Father . . . . 247 A-9 Distribution of AFDC Families by Year of First Receipt of A F D C .................................................. 248 Distribution of AFDC Families by Months of Continuous Receipt of AFDC Prior to July, 1970 .................... 249 Distribution of AFDC Families by Total Number of Children in Assistance Group .......................... 250 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Children Age 0-2 in Assistance G r o u p ............................ 251 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Children Age 0-5 in Assistance G r o u p ............................ 252 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Children Age 6-12 in Assistance G r o u p .............................. 253 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Children Age 13 and Over in Assistance G r o u p ........................ 254 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Persons in the Assistance Group, July, 1969 .................... 255 A-10 A-ll A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 viii Table A-17 Page Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Persons in Household, July, 1969 ................................... 256 A-18 Distribution of Budgeted Rent, July, 1969 ............... 257 A-19 Distribution of Budgeted Homestead Amount, July, 1969 . . 258 A-20 Distribution of Total Requirements, July, 1969 259 A-21 Distribution of Budgeted Employment Expenses, July, 1969. 260 A-22 Distribution of Net Earnings of AFDC Mothers, July, 1969. 261 A-23 Distribution of Non-AFDC Net Income, July, 1969 ......... 262 A-24 Distribution of Monthly AFDC Payments, July, 1969 . . . . 263 A-25 Distribution of Food Stamp Bonus Values, July, 1969 . . . 264 A-26 Distribution of Emergency Assistance Payments JuneAugust, 1969. ..................................... 265 A-27 Distribution of Child Care Payments, July, 1969 ........ 266 A-28 Distribution of Medicaid Benefits for the AFDC Mother, June-August, 1969 .......... 267 Distribution of Medicaid Benefits for AFDC Dependents, June-August, 1969 ....................................... 268 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Persons in Assistance Group, July, 1970 269 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Persons in the Household, July, 1970 .............................. 270 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Non-AFDC Recipients in Household, July, 1970 ............... 271 A-33 Distribution of Budgeted Rent, July, 1970 ............... 272 A-34 Distribution of Budgeted Homestead Amount, July, 1970 . . 273 A-35 Distribution of Total Requirements, July, 1970 274 A-36 Distribution of Budgeted Employment Expenses, July, 1970 275 Distribution of Net Earnings of AFDC Mothers, July, 1970 276 A-38 Distribution of Non-AFDC Net Income, July, 1970 ........ 277 A-39 Distribution of Montlhly AFDC Payments, July, 1970 . . . 278 A-40 Distribution of Food Stamp Bonus Values, July, 1970 . . . 279 A-41 Distribution of Emergency Assistance Payments, JuneAugust, 1970 280 A-42 Distribution of Child Care Payments, July, 1970 ........ 281 A-43 Distribution of Medicaid Payments for AFDC Mothers, June, August, 1970 282 A-29 A-30 A-31 A-32 A-37 ix Table A-44 Page Distribution of Medicaid Payments for AFDC Dependents, June-August, 1970 ..................................... 283 B-l(C) Multiple Regression 1 ................................... 290 B-l(G) Multiple Regression 2 ................................... 291 B-l(I) Multiple Regression 3 ................................... 292 B-2(C) Multiple Regression 4 ................................... 293 B-2(G) Multiple Regression S ................................... 294 B-2(I) Multiple Regression 6 .......... . 295 B-3(C) Multiple Regression 7 ................................. 296 B-3(G) Multiple Regression 8 ................................... 297 B-3(I) Multiple Regression 9 .............................. 298 B-4(C) Multiple Regression 10.............................. 299 Multiple Regression 1 1 ..................... .......... 300 B-4(G) B-4(I) Multiple Regression 1 2 ............................ 3-1 B-5(C) Multiple Regression 13.............................. 302 B-5(G) Multiple Regression 14 ........................... 303 B-5(I) Multiple Regression 15 ........................... 304 B-6(C) Multiple Regression 16 . 305 B-6(G) Multiple Regression 17 ........................... 306 B-6(I) Multiple Regression 18.............................. 307 B-7(C) Multiple Regression 19 ........................... 308 B-7(G) Multiple Regression 20 ........................... 309 B-7(I) Multiple Regression 21 ........................... 310 B-8(C) Multiple Regression 22 ........................... 311 B-8(G) Multiple Regression 23 ........................... 312 B-8(I) Multiple Regression 24.............................. 313 B-9(C) Multiple Regression 25 ........................... 314 B-9(G) Multiple Regression 26 ........................... 315 B-9(I) Multiple Regression 27 ........................... 316 B-10(C) Multiple Regression 28.............................. 317 B-10(G) Multiple Regression 29 ........................... 318 B-10(I) Multiple Regression 30.............................. 319 B-ll(C) Multiple Regression 31 320 ....................... ........................... x Table Page B-ll(G) Multiple Regression 32 ................................ 321 B-ll(I) Multiple Regression 33 ........... 322 B- 12(C) Multiple Regression 34 ................................. 323 B-12(G) Multiple Regression 35 ................................ 324 B-12(I) Multiple Regression 36 ................................. 325 B- 13(C) Multiple Regression 37 ................................ 326 B-13(G) Multiple Regression 38 ................................ 327 B-13(I) Multiple Regression 39 ................................ 328 B-14(C) Multiple Regression 40 ................................ 329 B-14(G) Multiple Regression 4 1 ................................ 330 B-14(I) Multiple Regression 42 ................................ 331 B-15(C) Multiple Regression 43 ................................ 332 B-15(G) Multiple Regression 44 ................................ 333 B-15(I) Multiple Regression 45 ................................ 334 B-16(C) Mean Values for Independent Variables by Employment Group: Counties Combined ......................... 335 Mean Values for Independent Variables by Employment Group: Genesee County ............................. 336 Mean Values for Independent Variables by Sample Group: Ingham County .............................. 337 Mean Values for Independent Variables by Employed, Unemployed and All Cases July, 1969 and July, 1970: Counties C o m b i n e d ............. 338 Mean Values for Independent Variables by Employed, Unemployed and All Cases July, 1969 and July, 1970: Genesee C o u n t y .............................. 339 Mean Values for Independent Variables by Employed, Unemployed and All Cases, July, 1969 and July, 1970: Ingham C o u n t y ................................. 340 B-16(G) B-16(I) B-17(C) B-17(G) B-17(I) C-l C-2 C-3 C-4 Lansing WIN Applicant Characteristics February, 1969June, 1970 343 Basic Education and GED Training in the Lansing WIN Program: Status on June 1, 1971 of Participants Enrolled Spring, 1969 through Summer, 1970 347 Business and Community College Training in the Lansing WIN Program: Status on June 1, 1971 of Participants Enrolled Summer, 1969 through Summer, 1970 351 WIN Job Placements and Employability Plan Completions Lansing, Michigan .................................... 354 xi Table C-5 Page All WIN Placements: Characteristics and Starting Pay, by Month Lansing, M i c h i g a n ............................ 355 Female WIN Placements by Occupation, Race, Age Group and Starting Pay Lansing, Michigan ........................ 356 Flint WIN Applicant Characteristics February, 1969June, 1970 360 WIN Job Placements and Employability Plan Completions Flint, M i c h i g a n ......................................... 362 All WIN Placements: Characteristics and Starting Pay by Month, Flint, M i c h i g a n .............................. 365 Female WIN Placements by Occupation, Race, Age Group and Starting Pay Flint, Michigan ........... 366 D-5 Flint WIN Enrollees by Date of Initial Enrollment . . . . g7Q D-6 Date of WIN Enrollment by Priority Classification of E n r o l l e e s ................................................ 371 Percent of WIN Enrollees Ever Enrolled in Each Training Component, by Quarter of Enrollment ................. 373 Percentage Distribution: Reason for Termination from W I N ...................................................... 375 Priority Classification of WIN Terminees, by Employment and Non-Employment Reasons for Termination from WIN . . 375 Percentage Distribution of Trainee-Months, and Average Length of Training for Each Training Component, for Employment and Non-Employment Terminees who Enrolled in T r a i n i n g .............................................. 379 Total Time Enrolled in WIN, by WIN Activity, by Employed and Non-Employed T e r m i n e e s ............................ 381 WIN Job Placements: Distribution of Time in WIN Com­ ponents, by Reason for Termination from W I N ............ 383 Status of WIN Enrollees Placed Prior to July 1, 1971 by Priority Classification and Quarter of Placement . . 385 WIN Job Placements Terminating to Employment: Average Time in WIN and in each WIN Component, by Date of P l a c e m e n t ................................................ 387 WIN Job Placements Terminating for Reasons Other Than Employment Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of P l a c e m e n t ....................................... 388 WIN Orientation Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from WIN . . . . 391 C-6 D-l D-2 D-3 D-4 D-7 D-8 D-9 D-10 D-ll D-12 D-13 D-14 D-15 D-16 xii Table D-17 D-18 D-19 D-20 D-21 D-22 D-23 D-24 D-25 D-26 D-27 D-28 D-29 Page WIN Basic Education Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from WIN . . . . 395 WIN GED Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from W I N ......................... 397 WIN Flint Junior College Nursing Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from W I N ............................................... 400 WIN Flint Junior College-Non-Nursing Enrollees, Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from W I N ....... ....................................... 402 WIN U of M Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enroll­ ment andReason for Termination from W I N .............. 405 WIN Baker Business University Secretarial Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from W I N .................................. 406 WIN Baker Business University-Non-Secretarial Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from W I N .................................. 409 WIN ECPI Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from W I N ........................ 411 WIN Cosmetology and Beauty School Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Com­ ponent, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termina­ tion from WIN .................................... 413 WIN Weight Watchers Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from WIN . . . . 415 WIN Goodwill Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from WIN . . . . 417 WIN MDTA-Sales and Other Non-WIN Funded Training Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from W I N ....................... 419 WIN On the Job Training and Work Experience Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from W I N .................................. 421 Table D-30 E-l Page WIN Training Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Training Com­ ponent and Reason for Termination from W I N ........... 423 Questions and Responses from the October, 1970 Berrien County Survey Relating to Knowledge of AFDC Employ­ ment P o l i c i e s ........................................... 435 xiv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-A Page Outline of Variables Used to Explain Variations inLabor Force Participation Among Female Heads of AFDC F a m i l i e s ................................................. 4-A Definitions of Employment Groups B-l Appendix B Tables by Dependent Variable and Employment Group C o m b i n a t i o n ......................................... 285 F-l Code S h e e t .................................................... 447 F-2 Budget S h e e t ................................ G-l Location of Geographic Areas in Genesee County G-2 Location of Geographic Areas in Ingham County ............. xv .......................... 85 108 448 .......... 449 450 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A major objective of the 1967 Social Security Amendments was to assure, to the maximum extent possible, that individuals receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) "...will enter the labor force and accept employment so that they will become self-sufficient."* Among the several provisions of the Amendments, two in particular were designed to contribute toward the objective of increased employment among AFDC recipients. The first was a financial incentive in the form of an earnings exemption, which allowed recipients to benefit financially from employment. This provision required states to exempt in determining the amount of the AFDC grant all work-related expenses and the first $30 of monthly earnings, plus one-third of all additional earnings. This procedure contrasted sharply with the prior practice under which re ­ cipients accrued no financial benefit from employment, since any earnings, net only of work-related expenses, were offset by a reduction of equal amount in the AFDC grant. Second, and complementary to this financial employment incentive, the Amendments provided for training and job placement by establishing the Work Incentive (WIN) Program. While both WIN and the earnings exemption were intended to increase the employment of recipients in jobs for which they already qualified, the WIN Program was also designed to improve recipients’ earning capability by qualifying them for better jobs. Education, training and placement services were to be used to increase the wage level possible in the regular labor market as well as 1 2 the probability of obtaining and maintaining employment. In enacting these provisions, the intent of Congress was clear: increasing AFDC costs were to be controlled, and capable recipients were to go to work. Representative Wilbur Mills, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said Congress faced a taxpayers’ revolt if increas­ ing welfare costs were not reduced. The provisons, said Mills, were aimed at making ’’taxpayers out of taxeaters." Senator Russell Long, emphasizing the Finance Committee's desire to ’’reduce the welfare burden by helping AFDC recipients to become self-sufficient," said the purpose of the provisions was to encourage assistance recipients to move into private employment. 3 He indicated that the provisions "should act as a restraint on burgeoning welfare rolls." 4 Purpose and Scope of this Dissertation The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the changes in employment rates and levels of earnings which occurred among AFDC mothers in two Michigan counties in the first year following the implementation of WIN and the earnings exemption, and to identify those factors important in determining whether an AFDC mother was employed or not, and if employed, how much she earned. Although the WIN program is examined for its impact upon AFDC employment, a major emphasis of this dissertation is upon evaluating the impact of the earnings exemption. The reason for so placing the emphasis is simply thi s : Much has been written about the effect of the WIN program, but to date the effect of the earnings exemption has virtually been ignored. Literally dozens of investigators have examined WIN at the local, State and national 5 levels, but to my knowledge, only two studies have sought to determine 3 the impact of the earnings exemption. In the first of these, Gary Appel used data routinely maintained by the Michigan Department of Social Services to describe and evaluate the first-year impact of the earnings exemption upon females heading AFDC families in the State of Michigan. Appel concluded that the exemption was a success: ...the incentive [created by the exemption] has contributed to increased employment of AFDC mothers in Michigan and has led to higher in­ comes for those employed.4* The second study, contracted by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare to National Analysts, Inc., did not come to the same con­ clusion. Based on interviews of AFDC mothers in ten major U.S. cities over the period from Winter, 1970 to Summer, 1971 the study concluded that: ...the Earnings Exemption Provision has had no measurable effect in increasing the work response of AFDC mothers.7 This dissertation is a third attempt to determine the impact of the earnings exemption. Although in some ways this study is similar to the two earlier studies, it differs from them in several important respects, including location and size of the study area, source of data, variables for which data were collected and techniques of analysis. These and other differences are spelled out in greater detail as the studies are reviewed in Chapter 2. To provide perspective, the remainder of this chapter describes the background against which the 1967 Amendments were debated and adopted. In addition, some implications of the Amendments are identified. chapter concludes The with an overview of changes which occurred in program size, cost and rate of recipient employment after the Amendments' 4 implementation. Previous Programs: CWT and WET While statements reflecting the intent of these Amendments may have been clear, those statements differed from the rhetoric which accompanied earlier legislation primarily only in intensity rather than their focus. Over the 1960's the objective of controlling welfare costs by restoring recipients to financial independence from assistance has remained u n ­ changed. President Kennedy, in a February, 1962 special message to the Congress on public welfare, cited the need to "...find ways of returning 8 far more of our dependent people to independence.11 Toward this end, the 1962 Amendments established the Community Work and Training (CWT) program. Under this program recipients, especially unemployed male recipients, were to earn their welfare payment through participation in CWT work relief projects. This was, said President Kennedy, "...a new approach— stressing services in addition to support, rehabilitation instead of relief, and training for useful work instead of prolonged dependency.... to encourage Our objective is to prevent or reduce dependency and self-care and self-support." g The CWT program was expanded by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Title V of that Act allowed states to establish, at full federal cost, Work Experience and Training (WET) projects. The objective of WET was similar to that of CWT: to provide useful and meaningful training and job experience to participants. However, under WET eligibility for participation was extended to include individuals not receiving welfare whose net income was below a certain low level. With both CWT and WET, the primary focus in practice continued to be 5 that of income maintenance combined with a range of traditional rehabili­ tative social services. Despite the provision under Title V which authorized vocational training, work experience, education and day care to increase the skill level and employability of unemployed persons, the welfare administrators generally failed to take advantage of these opportunities. As a result, well over half of the funds expended under CWT and WET were for income maintenance.*® The overall success of CWT and WET was quite modest. CWT was always a small program, and its impact upon an AFDC caseload of nearly one million families in 1963 may be assumed to have been negligible. WET was a broader program, reaching a peak enrollment of 71,000, half of whom were women, in 1967 (when the AFDC caseload included 5.3 million recipients in 1.3 million families). Of course, all enrollees did not successfully complete their course of WET training, become employed and leave welfare. One study indicated that only about one-fifth terminated from the program to take a job; half of all enrollees continued to receive welfare assistance, including some who were employed. There is some evidence that in many cases completion of the prescribed WET train­ ing did little to improve the employability of program participants: only three-eighths of those who completed their course of training were able to obtain a job. This success rate is rendered even less impressive by noting that during this period the average unemployed father who received public assistance obtained a job and left welfare within a year whether he enrolled in the program or not. This suggests that many would have found a job and left welfare even in the absence of program participat ion.11 6 Nevertheless, the increased effort to provide training, education and work experience to the unemployed reflected a greater awareness that increased aggregate demand alone, as reflected in part by a decreasing overall rate of unemployment, was insufficient to reduce unemployment among certain groups of less-educated, less-skilled individuals. Even in a relatively tight overall labor market, such as that which existed in the mid-1960's, these persons remained unable to compete successfully for available jobs. Under these circumstances, a proper part of the remedy appeared to be training, education and a general upgrading of skills which would enable these individuals to qualify for available positions. Unfortunately, CWT and WET failed not only to train and find jobs for a significant number of program participants, but these programs also failed to have any noticeable effect upon welfare costs and caseloads, which in fact began to increase at an accelerating pace. The reasons for the lackluster program performance are several, but certainly a major factor was that welfare agencies themselves were generally un­ trained and unprepared to perform the tasks of retraining the unemployed. Thus, faced with a pool of trainees with limited skills and education, program administrators often responded by making work experience assign­ ments in low-pay, low-skill occupations. Such assignments may have been consistent with the rather short-sighted goal of increasing any employ­ ment experience, regardless of type, on the hope such experience would be self-reinforcing and lead to further employment. However, little actual upgrading of skills occurred under either CWT or WET which was designed to improve future job prospects of enrollees. 12 The lack of full success in these programs was but one factor in 7 the large increase in the AFDC caseload which occurred in the early and mid-1960's. Over the period from 1961 to 1967, for example, the number of recipients increased from 3.6 million to 5.3 million. Children under the age of 18 receiving AFDC increased from 4.2 percent to 5.6 percent of all persons under the age of 18. Simultaneously, total money payments to AFDC recipients doubled from $1.1 billion to $2.2 billion. To some observers, it seemed paradoxical that- these increases in program size and cost should occur in a period when the overall rate of unemploy­ ment declined from 6.7 percent to 3.8 percent, and the number of indivi­ duals with an annual income below the defined poverty line declined from nearly 40 million to less than 28 million. 13 Congressional Debate It was in the context of the rising AFDC caseloads and declining unemployment that the Congress convened in the Summer of 1967 to consider a bill to amend the public welfare provisions of the Social Security Act. The mood of many, including Wilbur Mills, the primary architect of what was later to become law, bordered on open hostility toward the failure of previous programs and policies to control welfare caseloads and Cin particular) costs. Mr. Mills spoke as follows on behalf of the bill: We want the states to have a work and training program. We want the states to see to it that those who are drawing as unemployed father, or drawing as mothers, unless there is good cause for them not to be required to take it, that they take training and then work. Is there anything wrong with that? What in the world is wrong with requiring these people to submit them­ selves, if they are to draw public funds, to a test of their ability to learn a job? * * * 8 What else have we done? We have taken what can be an expensive step because we tell the states that you must disregard certain earn­ ings of these people in determining their needs as an inducement to get them out of their house and to work. What do they say now? They say they cannot work. If they work, they lose their assistance payments. Maybe they are not qualified in all instances to earn very much, but to the extent that they can work and make something, we want them working. If there are any jobs available for them, we want them to have them. This is what we wanted to do in 1962. We left it to the option of the States, and they did not do it. Five years later, today, we are on the floor with a bill which requires that it be done. * * * What does this do? ...In 1972, the Department [of Health, Education and Welfare] tells us, in all probability they expect 400,000 fewer children on the rolls than there would have been under existing law.... [this] will reduce the cost of the programs by approximately $713 million by 1 9 7 2 .*4 Thus, Mr. Mills stated his support for a new training program, a tougher work requirement for welfare recipients, and the earnings exemption, and he indicated what he expected enactment of these pro­ visions to accomplish. However, much of the debate centered on a controversial "freeze" of AFDC rolls, which would have limited federal matching funds to the existing proportion of the child population receiving AFDC in each state. This provision would have provided a very powerful stimulus for states to hold down assistance rolls by any available means. Congress enacted this measure, but pressure from organizations who believed it to be an unnecessarily punitive means to - . 15 limit expenditures led to its repeal before it was implemented. 9 Nevertheless, the fact that the freeze was enacted was clear indication that Congress intended to halt the trend of increasing welfare rolls, and was willing to invoke new and more extreme measures to accomplish that goal in as short a time as possible. The WIN program and the earnings exemption also reflected this willingness to try new approaches. in several important respects. WIN differed from both CWT and WET First, primary responsibility for pro­ gram administration was shifted from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to the Department of Labor (DOL). This shift reflected general dissatisfaction with the earlier programs administered by HEW which had failed to produce the desired results. The DOL, with greater experience in providing job training and placement, was expected to concentrate more on improving employability and obtaining jobs for program participants. WIN also differed in that the target population was limited to AFDC recipients. Earlier programs, as part of a general anti-poverty effort, were not so constrained, and many enrollees were not receiving public assistance. But while the target population was so limited, the size of the program was to be expanded. WIN capacity was to be approximately twice the maximum enrollment under WET. In addition, WIN differed from CWT and WET in its general approach to training and employment. For example, expense and incentive payments were provided for enrollees participating in training programs. Training was not limited to WIN-funded programs since enrollment in other manpower programs through WIN was made possible. Able-bodied (AFDC-U) fathers not in training, youths age 16 or over and not in school or training, and certain mothers were subject to a mandatory work requirement. A 10 referral system was established which was designed to "cream" the AFDC population, so the most employable recipients would be enrolled first. Those who became employed while enrolled in WIN were to remain enrolled after placement for a three to six month "follow-up" period during which supportive social services were to be used if necessary to assist in maintaining employment.*® The earnings exemption, of course, also was a drastic departure from prior policy, inasmuch as it represented the unprecedented step of providing a general financial work incentive to AFDC recipients in all states. Prior to the implementation of this provision, AFDC payments in many states were reduced one dollar for each dollar of earned income (usually net of allowable work-related expenses such as taxes and trans17 portation). Since a dollar increase in (net) earnings resulted in a dollar decrease in the welfare payment, this procedure was sometimes referred to as the "100 percent welfare tax rate." The earnings exemp­ tion altered this procedure by "disregarding" the first $30 of earned income, plus one-third of the remainder, when calculating the AFDC payment. This had the effect of allowing total income to increase as earned income increased. In effect, the welfare tax rate was reduced from 100 percent of all earnings above zero to 66 2/3 percent of monthly earnings above $30. (Treatment of unearned income, such as social security or child support, was unchanged by the exemption. Such income continued to effect a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the welfare payment.) The primary justification for the earnings exemption provision was a general recognition that a 100 percent tax rate on earnings was not conducive to increasing employment among AFDC recipients. There was wide acceptance of the principle that a less-than-100 percent tax rate 11 would provide more incentive, or at least less dis-incentive, for recipient employment. Less widely accepted, however, was the exact formula for the earnings exemption which would be "optimal." The House version of the bill had offered the M$30 plus one-third" formula, but the Senate increased the incentive to "$50 plus one-half." Ultimately, the conference committee accepted the House version, although some members of Congress believed the incentive in that version was not large enough. For example, Senator Robert Kennedy responded to the conference report by asserting: The provision which the conference agreed to-$30 a month plus one-third of the rest of the earnings--is so small that it may not prove to be a meaningful test of the theory that a welfare re ­ cipient will go to work if he has some chance of keeping a significant portion of what he or she earns. On the other hand, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Wilbur Mills disagreed, indicating he believed the $30 plus one-third provided quite enough incentive: We believe this provision will furnish ample incentive to AFDC recipients to take employment and increase their earnings to the point where they become self-supporting.*® Chairman Mills’ support of the $30 plus one-third formula apparently was based at least in part on factors other than the degree of incentive alone. In particular, an attempt was made to balance the degree of incentive with the level of income which recipients might earn while receiving assistance. John Martin, chief counsel for the Ways and Means Committee, responded as follows when asked how the incentive formula was chosen: 12 Before reaching its decision on this pro­ vision, the Committee on Ways and Means con­ sidered numerous alternatives with varying dollar amounts and percentages of earnings to be dis­ regarded. The Committee decided upon the provisions that were adopted in an attempt to achieve a balance between the amount of work incentive that should be provided to welfare recipients and the reasonableness of the income (including welfare grant and earnings) which the recipients could achieve.^® Income Maintenance Objectives Mr. Martin’s statement suggests that in choosing the $30 plus onethird formula, the Committee was at least implicitly attempting to achieve an optimal balance among recognized (and competing) objectives of income maintenance schemes. such scheme may be identified: 1) Adequacy. The three primary objectives of any 21 Two aspects of adequacy are of concern. The first is the extent to which all individuals achieve incomes which equal or exceed the poverty level. The second is the extent to which particular groups of low-income individuals are lifted toward or above the poverty line. The second aspect is important when a program is designed for a specific group, as AFDC is for female-headed families with children, to the exclusion of other groups, such as the ’’working poor" who have full-time jobs but who earn sub-poverty level wages. 2) Efficiency. Efficiency refers to how well the program provides benefits to the target population while not providing benefits to others. The primary concern here is that benefits go to the poor with minimum leakage to the non-poor. 13 3) Work Incentives. Income maintenance programs inevitably have a dis-incentive effect with respect to employment due to the necessity of an implicit welfare tax rate. the rate, the greater the dis-incentive. The higher The lower the rate, the more recipients may benefit from increasing their earnings, and the more likely they are to accept or maintain employment. In addition to these objectives, there are others, such as providing equity, minimizing stigma, keeping costs at a reasonable level and achieving political support. However, these three--adequacy, efficiency and work incentives— may be considered primary criteria by which an income maintenance scheme may be evaluated. Taken individually, each of these objectives is worthy of maximization. ment of one may be accomplished only Unfortunately, achieve­ by sacrificing another. Economic theory assists in illustrating the conflict between these objectives. Conventionally, economists assume that within limits, individuals may adjust their work effort. but prefer to work less. as a desire for "leisure." They can work more or less, This desire to work less may be referred to Since individuals wish more leisure, it can be treated like any other economic good which may be purchased. The amount which is purchased depends upon preferences, prices and the financial ability to afford the desired good. For a given set of prices, the greater the income, the greater the ability to afford those goods which they prefer to purchase. Thus, as income increases, more income is available to spend on all goods, including the good of leisure. Thus, it would be expected that as income increases, more time would be alio- 14 cated to leisure and less to work. In other words, assuming no change in preferences and prices, an increase in income would be expected to encourage less work effort. This inverse relationship between income and work effort is commonly referred to in economic jargon as the "income effect." In addition to the amount of income, an income maintenance program also affects the price of leisure through the tax rate applied to earnings. The price of an hour of leisure is the value of earnings which would have been received if the individual had worked that hour; i.e., the price of leisure is the value of foregone earnings. For example, if an individual's wage rate is $3.00 per hour, then the price of leisure is $3.00. But if that individual is participating in an income maintenance scheme, the price of leisure is reduced by the amount of the tax rate. For example, if the tax rate were 50 percent, then for each hour worked and $3.00 earned, the income maintenance benefit would be reduced by 50 percent, or $1.50, so total income increases by only $1.50. If the tax rate were 66 2/3, then for each $3.00 earned, the benefit would decrease by $2.00, and total income would increase by only $1.00. Relative to the situation with the 50 percent tax rate, the price of leisure declined with the 66 2/3 tax rate. It is assumed that more of a good would be purchased as the price declined (with other prices constant). Thus, it would be expected that as the tax rate increased, more time would be allocated to leisure and less to work. In other words, the higher the tax rate, the more leisure is substituted for time at work. This relationship between the tax rate and work effort is commonly referred to as the "substitution effect." Returning to the discussion of program objectives, it is now easily seen that all three objectives cannot be achieved simultaneously. For 15 example, adequacy might be achieved by establishing a relatively high guarantee level, e.g., one at the poverty line. However, such an event would (through the income effect) weaken the work incentive, and (for any tax rate less than 100 percent) extend benefits to families w h o s e . total income was above the of 2/3, benefits would decline by only 2/3 of any increase in earnings, so that benefits would not the guarantee level. poverty line. For example, with a tax rate reach zero until earnings were 150percent of For a tax rate of 1/2, benefits would continue until earnings were twice the guarantee level. On the other hand, if the primary objective were to maximize work incentives, then a relatively low tax rate and low basic guarantee level would be chosen. The result would be a sacrifice of adequacy, due to the low guarantee level, and if the tax rate were low enough, a sacrifice of efficiency as well. Similarly, achievement of efficiency might be achieved with a high tax rate or low benefit level, with accompanying sacrifices in adequacy and incentives to work. Thus, any income maintenance scheme--including the one defined by the collection of programs and policies set out in the 1967 Social Security Amendments--may be described in terms of the particular balance achieved among these three competing objectives. Examination of the policy and program changes wrought by the Amendments indicates the new emphasis. First, with respect to adequacy, the Amendments provided tin a section virtually unnoticed during the debate of the bill) that states were required to adjust the AFDC budget standard used to compute assistance payments "...to reflect fully changes in living costs since such amounts were established.,.." 22 In most states this requirement did result in slightly higher standards (and payments to recipients), 16 although in general the impact was not large. 23 This requirement also did nothing to alleviate interstate differentials in payment standards. However, the requirement did represent explicit recognition of a need to improve the adequacy of payments, and to that extent was a significant departure from earlier legislation. The earnings exemption also was a significant departure from prior policy. In one sense, this new policy represented an initial official recognition that providing financial incentives to work should be an objective of the nation's largest income maintenance program. Even though the new welfare tax rate on earnings after the first $30 was to be a relatively high 67 percent, the inclusion of this policy was an indication that the new balance among objectives was to reflect increased emphasis upon work incentives. But, as indicated earlier, to the extent that one objective receives greater emphasis another must receive less emphasis. In the case of the 1967 Amendments, the necessary sacrifice involved a loss in program efficiency. As will be shown later in greater detail, implementation of the exemption allowed certain employed recipients to receive supple­ mentary assistance benefits even after earnings levels brought family income above the poverty level. Nevertheless, even though the possibility of benefit leakage to certain "non-poor" families may be undesirable in itself, the case might be made that this sacrifice brought an improved balance among program objectives Impact of the 1967 Amendments: An Overview While the implementation of the WIN program, the earnings exemption and the required adjustments in assistance standards together represented 17 a new balance among program objectives, it was not possible to predict the outcome in terms of the desired increase in recipient employment and reductions in welfare caseloads and costs. Economic theory is useful in determining the direction of policy impact, but not the magnitude. For example, the WIN program was designed to improve ''employability” by qualifying recipients for better paying jobs. In effect, it increased the price of leisure and, as a result of a substitution effect favorable to work effort, would be expected to encourage employment. On the other hand, the mandated increases in AFDC standards of assistance increased on-assistance income levels and, through the income effect, would be expected to have a negative impact upon employment activity. In evaluating the expected impact of the earnings exemption, it is useful to separate those recipients who were employed at the time of its implementation from those who were not employed. For the latter group, the exemption affected only the price of leisure. There was no income effect, only a substitution effect, so for this group the exemption would be expected to serve as an incentive for greater employment activity. However, for recipients already employed as the exemption was implemented, the expected outcome is less clear. For this group, the exemption increased both the price of leisure and the level of assistance (and total) income. Recipients in this group were, therefore, subject to both a substitution effect favorable to work effort and an income effect unfavorable to work effort. on the relative strengths of these effects. The final outcome depends Thus, while economic theory suggests that for certain recipient groups the policies would increase employment, it is ambiguous for other groups, and says nothing at all about the magnitude of these changes. 18 Further, no program experience which would have facilitated an informed forecast of policy impact was available to be drawn upon. The WIN program was sufficiently unique to preclude reliance upon the ex­ perience of its predecessors, the CWT and WET programs. The financial incentive embodied in the earnings exemption was virtually unprecedented. Evidence to indicate the effect of raising AFDC standards was also lacking. Thus, experience which would have suggested the probable impact of these major changes was practically non-existent. In effect, this attempt to increase employment among AFDC recipients was to be a national experiment in labor supply affecting millions of recipients across the United States. As of that noted earlier,this study is among the first to examine the results experiment. The importance of further evaluation of the impact of these provisions is underscored by the inclusion of similar incentive formulae and training programs in many of the income maintenance alterna­ tives offered in the current welfare reform debate. Certainly, one explanation for the lack of investigation in this area is the difficulty in obtaining data requisite for analysis. The only easily available indication of the policies' impact may be seen in the aggregate data prepared by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare from periodic nationwide surveys. (See Table I-A.) These data show that between December 1967 (six months prior to the first implemen­ tation by any state of either WIN or the earnings exemption), and January, 1971 (eighteen months after all states had implemented both policies), the proportion of AFDC mothers who were employed increased only from 16.6 to 17.1 percent. percent. Mothers employed full-time increased from 8.0 to 10.3 However, the proportion employed part-time declined from 19 Table 1-A Employment Status of AFDC Mothers: National Totals (December, 1967 and January, 1971) Status of AFDC Mother Female-Headed Families Only December, 1967 Number Percent3 January, 1971 Number Percent4 Employed: Full-Time Part-Time Actively Seeking Work 77,600 83,300 8.0 8.6 210,400 140,300 10.3 6.8 71,600 7.4 134,700 6.6 103,700 5.1 55,700 2.7 Enrolled in Work or Train­ ing Program k D U D Awaiting Enrollment After Referral to WIN UD k D All Other0 741,400 76.1 1,406,200 68.6 Total^ 973,900 100.0 2,051,000 100.0 Annual Cost (Billions)e $2.1 — $4.5 — £ Percentages may not add to total due to rounding. ^Data not available. c WIN was not operational in 1967. Includes mothers in the home who were incapacitated, without marketable skills, needed in the home full-time as homemaker, or otherwise not seeking work. t o t a l s include single-parent female-headed AFDC families only. Annual cost for calendar years 1967 and 1970 for the regular (non-AFDCUP) program. Source: Compiled from: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Service, National Cross-Tabulations from the 1967 and 1969 AFDC Studies (Washington: National Center for Social Statistics), December, 1971, NCSS Report AFDCSpecial (67-69); and, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Service, Findings of the 1971 AFDC Study: Part I Demographic and Program Characteristics (Washington: National Center for Social Statistics), December, 1971, NCSS Report AFDC-1 (71); and, U.S., Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 35, No. 7 (Washington: Government Printing Office, July, 1972), Table M-24. 20 8.6 to 6.8 percent, and those activiely seeking work declined from 7.4 to 6.6 percent. Altogether, the proportion in the labor force declined slightly from 24.0 to 23.7 percent. Over the same period, the number of recipients and the amount of total payments more than doubled as annual program cost increased by over $2 billion between 1967 and 1970. These aggregate data do not suggest unqualified success for WIN and the earning exemption. On the positive side, there does appear to have been a trend toward full-time employment, although perhaps at the expense of part-time employment. However, only very small changes occurred in the overall rates of employment and labor force participation. Interpretation of these data is made difficult by the fact that 7.8 percent of AFDC mothers were either enrolled or awaiting enrollment in WIN or another training program at the time of the January, 1971 survey, and comparable data were not available from the earlier survey. Un­ questionably, some portion of the 7.8 percent would have been employed or seeking work in the absence of WIN. This may account in part for the observed decreases in rates of part-time employment and labor force participation. Nevertheless,the data suggest very little positive impact upon employment activity for WIN and the earnings exemption. However, the data very clearly indicate that these measures were insufficient tools to "restrain the burgeoning welfare rolls" and to "control AFDC costs." These data also leave unanswered a number of questions regarding the impact of these policies. For example, with respect to WIN, it would be useful to know how program experience differed between program participants who found jobs and those who did not, and the extent to which WIN participation improved the probability of obtaining a job or becoming 21 financially independent of AFDC assistance. With respect to the earnings exemption, it would be useful to know how the response to the financial work incentive differed between employed and unemployed recipients, whether the incentive encouraged higher earnings levels, and the extent to which the work response was influenced by such demographic factors as education, family size, age of children, or length of time on assistance. Organization of this Study It is the purpose of this dissertation to attempt to answer questions such as those posed above, based primarily upon the analysis of data obtained from a specially-drawn sample of nearly 1,200 AFDC mothers in two Michigan counties. However, before presenting the results of this analysis, a reveiw is made in Chapter 2 of earlier research which has examined the personal characteristics and work attitudes of AFDC mothers which might play a role in their response to work incentives. Chapter 3, a conceptual framework for analysis is presented. In The analysis of sample data begins in Chapter 4 with a description of the sample population and of the changes in employment which occurred over the study period. In Chapter 5 the results of regression analyses are presented to suggest those factors which were important in deter­ mining both whether the AFDC mother was employed and, if employed, how much she actually earned. The findings and their implications for policy are summarized in the final chapter. 22 CHAPTER I FOOTNOTES 1Social Security Amendments of 1967, (P.L. 90-248, January 2, 1968, Sec. 201(c)(A) . 2 Congressional Quarterly, August 25, 1967, p. 1646. 3 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Social Security Amendments of 1967: Committee Amendments to H.R. 12080 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, November 8, 1967) p. 3. 4Ibid. p. 4. 5For example, Bibliography to Newspaper for Research see references in: Colin Cameron, Income Support Schemes: and Annotations to Academic Literature including References Citations (Madison: University of Wisconsin, Institute on Poverty, 1972), pp. 140-150. ^Gary Louis Appel, Effects of a Financial Incentive on AFDC Employment: Michigan’s Experience between July 1969 and July 1970 (Minneapolis: Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1972), p. 97. This study is anunchanged published version of Appel’s Ph.D. dissertation of the same title, Michigan State University, 1972. References in this dissertation are to the published version. 7 National Analysts, Inc., Effects of the Earnings Exemption Provision upon the Work Response of AFDC Recipients: Executive Summary (Philadelphia: National Analysts, Inc. 1972), p. 48. g John F. Kennedy, "Special Message to the Congress on Public Welfare Program," (February 1, 1962), cited in: Robert B. Stevens, Statutory History of the United States: Income Security (New York: McGraw-Hxll 1970), p. 635. 9 John F. Kennedy, "Presidential Statement Upon Approving the Public Welfare Amendments Bill," (July 26, 1962), cited in Stevens, pp. 651-652. *^Sar A. Levitan, Martin Rein, David Marwick, Work and Welfare Go Together (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), pp. 70-74. 11Ibid., p. 74. 12Ibid., p. 72-74. 13 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports: Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 77 (Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, May 7, 1971), Table 1. 14 113 Congressional Record, p. 10688 (August 16, 1967). -23- 15 See, for example, testimony by Lisle Carter, George Wyman, George Wiley,Leonard Lessor, Albert Rees and others in: U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Income Maintenance Programs, Vol. I: Proceedings, before the Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, June 11-27, 1968. 16Levitan, 1972, pp. 70-78. 17 States which imposed payment maximums or rateable reductions usually allowed recipients to retain earnings to the extent that the eligibility standard exceeded the allowable payment level. 18 U.S., Congressional Record, 90th Congress, (1967), CXIII, 36785. 19U.S., Congressional Record, 90th Congress, (1967), CXIII, 23054. 20 Correspondence from John M. Martin to Gary L. Appel, dated June 19, 1970, cited in Appel, p. 9. 21 These and other criteria are discussed in: Theodore R. Marmor, "Income Maintenance Alternatives: Concepts, Criteria and Program Comparisons" (Madison: University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty, Discussion Paper No. 55-69, 1969). 22 Section 402(a)(23) of the Social Security Act, as amended by Section 213(b) of P.L. 90-248, the Social Security Amendments of 1967. 23 Annual increases (December to December) in the average payment per AFDC recipient were $1.35, $3.40 and $3.25 in the three years ending with 1967, and $2.25, $31.0 and $4.50 in the following three years, suggesting that this requirement may have stimulated slightly larger increases in AFDC payments in some states than would have occurred otherwise. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Bulletin ,Vol. 35, No. 7 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, July, 1972), Table M-24, p. 58. 24 For example, Charles Killingsworth has argued that "...the great weakness of the present welfare system grows out of an excessive pre­ occupation with efficiency— that is, the great efforts that are made to prevent grants to the non-poor--and the neglect of the considera­ tions of adequacy and incentive." See: Charles C. Killingsworth, "Income Maintenance and the Social Security System--An Overview of Approaches," in Philip Booth (ed.), Income Maintenance and the Social Security System: Proceedings of the Sixth Social Security Conference (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1968), p. 14. CHAPTER 2 THE QUESTION OF EMPLOYABILITY: A REVIEW OF STUDIES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS, ATTITUDES TOWARD WORK, AND RESPONSE TO WORK INCENTIVES OF AFDC MOTHERS The establishment of the WIN program and the earnings exemption reflected a basic assumption (or perhaps a hope) that many women heading AFDC families were able-bodied individuals who were capable of holding jobs but who needed a little incentive and perhaps some assistance to find and maintain employment. It would be expected, however, that the degree to which AFDC mothers actually responded to these program changes by increasing their employment would depend in no small way upon the characteristics and circumstances of the recipients themselves. Cer­ tainly, if AFDC mothers generally lack a basic level of education or job skills, then they will find it difficult to secure employment, regardless of the strength of the incentives or the requirements for work and training. Similarly, if some recipients are constrained, for example, by an infant child requiring care in the home, or if others are inhibited by negative attitudes toward work itself, then many recipients may be unable or unwilling to enter the labor market in search of a job. A good deal of research has focused on questions relating to factors which affect the employment experience of AFDC mothers, including such factors as personal circumstances and attitudes toward work and welfare. Based on that research, it will be shown in this chapter that the em­ ployment experience of women in general is related to such factors as age, race, presence and ages of children, education and occupation, and that AFDC mothers often are subject to those conditions which are associ­ ated with lower rates of employment among women in general. 24 However, 25 although their circumstances may differ in important ways from those of other women, their attitudes toward work usually do not. Thus, while financial incentives to work may not produce dramatic increases in AFDC employment, the reasons more likely lie with unavoidable and largely non-modifiable circumstances facing AFDC mothers than with negative attitudes toward work itself. Factors Affecting Female Labor Force Participation For most AFDC mothers, the time during which public assistance is received is a relatively short portion of the years of potential employ­ ment. Median time on assistance is estimated to be about two years, and the indications are that this average is declining.1 Like women in general, most AFDC women engage in market work at some time during their lives, although women receiving AFDC are much less likely to be employed during the period of assistance. In this section, the relationships between employment and the personal characteristics and circumstances of females in general are examined to find those conditions under which employment is most likely for women. It will be shown that these re­ lationships provide a partial explanation for the relatively lower rates of employment among AFDC recipients. It is a well-documented fact that the labor force participation of U.S. women has increased in recent years. For example, over the two decades from 1950 to 1970, the number of working women in the U.S. aged 16 and over increased from nearly 18 million to 31 million, while the proportion of women in the labor forced increased by one-third from 31 percent to 43 percent. 2 This increase resulted primarily from a rise in employment among the largest group of women--married with husband present--who were nearly 60 percent of all employed women in 1970, com- 26 pared to only 30 percent of the total two decades earlier. Nevertheless, such women continued to be less likely to be employed than most women with other marital status. Of women with husband present in 1970, 41 percent were in the labor force, compared to 52 percent of those separated from their husbands, 72 percent of those who were divorced and 26 percent of those who were widowed. (See Table 2-A.) Women with husband present were also less likely to be employed full-time: of women employed, two- fifths of those with husbands present were employed full-time year-round, compared to half of those without husbands. Table 2-A Labor Force Participation Rates of All Women and Non-white Women Age 16 and Over, by Marital Status, March, 1970 Percent of Population in Labor Force Marital Status All Women Non-white Women Total 42.6 48.5 Single 53.0 43.6 Married, husband present 40.8 52.5 Widowed, Separated or Divorced 39.1 45.9 Widowed 26.4 31.1 Separated 52.1 53.7 Divorced 71.5 70.8 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, ’’Marital and Family Characteristics of Workers, March 1970,” Special Labor Force Report 130 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), Table A, p. A-9. In addition to marital status, labor force participation was affected 27 by the presence of children, age, educational level, and race. Tables 2-B, 2-C, and 2-D.) (See The presence and age of children in the home was a major factor in female labor force participation. Of all mothers Table 2-B Labor Force Participation Rates of All Women and Non-white Women by Marital Status and Age, March,1970 Percent of Population in Labor Force All Women Non-White Women Age Total Widowed, Separated, or Divorced Total Widowed, Separated, or Divorced 16-19 39.2 46.5 27.1 43.7 20-24 56.9 59.7 56.1 54.0 25-34 45.4 65.1 59.4 60.9 35-44 51.1 67.9 59.9 60.2 45-54 54.0 69.1 58.1 60.8 55-64 43.0 54.6 47.7 52.8 9.8 9.9 12.6 11.5 65+ Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Marital and Family Characteristics of Workers, March 1970," Special Labor Force Report 130 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), Table B-l, p. A- 11. whose youngest child was age 6 to 17, 52 percent were in the labor force in 1970. However, the proportion dropped to 32 percent when there was a child age five or younger, and was 27 percent for those with a child under age three. The presence of young children also reduced the proba­ bility of full-time employment. Of all working mothers whose youngest child was age 6 to 17, 41 percent were employed full-time year-round; of 28 Table 2-C Labor Porce Participation Rates of Women Age 16 and Over by Race, Age, Age of Children and Marital Status, March,1970 Percent of Population in Labor Force Marital Status Race, Age of Mother, Presence and Age of Children All Women Age 16+ Divorced, Married; Hus­ Separated, band Present Widowed All Women: No Children Under Age 18 Mother Age 16-34 Mother Age 35+ 38.8 69.1 34.6 42.2 69.0 36.8 33.4 69.0 31.3 Children Age 6-17 Only Mother Age 16-34 Mother Age 35+ 51.5 54.6 50.7 49.2 51.5 48.6 67.3 73.2 65.6 Children Under Age 6 Mother Age 16-34 Mother Age 35+ 32.2 32.4 31.4 30.3 30.4 30.2 50.7 52.2 44.7 Children Under Age 3 Mother Age 16-34 Mother Age 35+ 27.3 27.6 24.6 25.8 26.3 22.4 43.6 43.2 45.7 No Children Under Age 18 Mother Age 16-34 Mother Age 35+ 45.7 68.2 42.5 50.9 67.0 47.2 40.8 71.2 38.7 Children Age 6-17 Only Mother Age 16-34 Mother Age 35+ 62.0 68.4 60.2 62.6 66.7 61.5 60.8 71.4 57.3 Children Under Age 6 Mother Age 16-34 Mother Age 35+ 47.2 47.9 44.9 46.9 47.8 44.0 48.1 48.4 47.4 Non-white Women: Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Marital and Family Characteristics of Workers, March 1970," Special Labor Force Report 130 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), Table F, p. A-15. those with children age five and under, 22 percent; and for those with children under age three, the proportion dropped to less than 16 percent.-* Thus, only about seven percent (22 percent of 32 percent) of all mothers 29 Table 2-D Labor Force Participation Rates of Women Aged 18 and Over by Age, Marital Status and Years of School Completed, March ,1970 Percent of Population in Labor Force Marital Status and Age Elementary Total High School College 4+ 0-7 8 1-3 4 1-3 Years Years Years Years Years Years Married, husband present: Total, Age 18+ Age 18-34 Age 35+ 40.9 41.7 40.4 24.7 25.4 24.6 31.5 35.9 30.8 39.0 36.6 40.3 44.3 42.2 45.7 43.5 43.7 43.4 52.4 54.0 51.2 40.8 64.1 37.1 19.5 41.8 18.9 27.0 36.0 26.7 44.4 51.9 42.4 58.4 72.2 54.2 53.5 72.9 49.1 62.4 87.9 57.8 Widowed, Separated, or Divorced: Total, Age 18+ Age 18-34 Age 35+ Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Educa­ tional Attainment of Workers, March 1969, 1970," Special Labor Force Report 125 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), Table H, p. A-14. with children under age six were employed full-time year-round and the proportion dropped to approximately four percent (16 percent of 27 percent) for mothers whose youngest child wras not yet three years old. With respect to age, labor force participation of all women in 1970 was most likely in two age intervals during which child care problems were least likely. The labor force participation rate was highest (57 percent) for those aged 20 to 24, dipped (to 45 percent) for those aged 25 to 34, rose (to 51 percent) for the 35 to 44 group, and reached a second peak (at 54 percent) for those aged 45 to 54. However, the parti­ cipation experience of non-white, widowed, separated or divorced women was different in two respects. First, rates for this group tended to be 30 higher than those for all women at all age-group intervals. Second, rates for this group were higher (instead of lower) for the 25 to 34 age inter­ val relative to the 20 to 24 interval, and tended to remain relatively unchanged throughout the 25 to 54 age interval. 5 The years of school completed by a woman was also related to labor force participation. In 1970, one-fourth of women age 18 and over with less than eight years of schooling were employed, 39 percent of those with one to three years of high school, 44 percent of those with four years of high school, and 52 percent of those with four or more years of college. At all age levels women with more schooling were more likely to be in the labor force.^ Women who were in the labor force, therefore, had a higher educational level than those who were not. Two-thirds of women in the labor force had completed at least four years of high school, 7 compared to just over half of women in the general population. Except for non-white teenagers, non-white women were more generally likely to be in the labor force than white women for each age, educational level, and marital status. However, non-white women were less likely to have been employed in full-time year-round jobs, as they were more often employed in seasonal and part-time occupations. The type of occupation, of course, is an important determinant of ability to provide adequate family support through employment. In 1970, women were largely concentrated in occupations paying relatively low wages the current or usual occupation for 42 percent was clerical or sales; 20 percent were classified as service workers; and 14 percent were machine g operators. Altogether, about four-fifths of women were in occupations for which median annual earnings were below the federally-defined poverty line.^ 31 AFDC Mothers Compared to Women in U.S. Population It has been shown that the employment experience of women is related to such factors as marital status, age, ages of children, educational level, race, and occupation. Examination of the characteristics and circumstances of AFDC mothers indicates that these women generally face those conditions which are associated with lower rates of labor force participation, and with lower wages for those employed. As shown in Table 2-E, relative to all female family heads, AFDC mothers are more likely to be younger, to have children under age six, to have less edu­ cation, and to have worked in occupations yielding low wages. Based on these characteristics, it would be expected that the labor force participation of AFDC mothers would be lower than that of other women. Data from the 1969 AFDC Survey indicate that this is so. About 14.7 percent of the mothers in female-headed AFDC families were employed in the survey month (May, 1969), and another 5.9 percent were actively seeking work.*® On this basis the AFDC mothers' labor force participation rate was nearly 21 percent, which compares with March, 1969 rates of 41 percent for all women, and 53 and 71 percent rates for women who were separated and divorced, respectively.11 Although no attempt will be made at this point to assess the relative importance of the above factors, the data nevertheless suggest that age, race, education, and in particular the presence of preschool age children do in fact play a significant role in the employment experience of AFDC mothers during the period of time they receive public assistance. How Employable Are AFDC Women? Studies which have examined the employment experience of AFDC mothers have found that most have worked at some time, but that their connection 32 Table 2-E Selected Characteristics of AFDC Mothers and All Women Heading Families, by Race, 1969 (In Percent) Characteristic AFDC Mothers All Women Heading Families Total Non-White Marital Status: Widowed Separated Divorced Single 6 32 15 31 43 18 20 11 32 35 12 13 Age: Under 45 Under 35 86 60 44 23 60 33 100^ 60c 41 60 20 10 78 31 17 Education: 12 years or more 8 years or less 24 36 44a 34a 29? 42 Occupation: All services, except private household Private household Clerical and sales 31c 29c 14C 21 7 35 26 17 10 Race: Non-white 49 26 100 With Children: Under age 18 Under age 6 Under age 3 Of all women family heads under age 45, 52 percent had 12 years of schooling or more, and 20 percent had 8 years or less. These figures are more comparable with those for AFDC mothers, of whom 86 percent were under age 45. Of non-white women family heads under age 45, 35 percent had twelve years of schooling or more and 26 percent had 8 years or less. CData are for 1967. Data for 1969 are not available. Source: Compiled from: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Cen­ sus, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 200, "House­ hold and Family Characteristics: March 1969," (Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, May 8, 1970), Tables 4, 13, 14; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Social Statistics, "Findings of the 1969 AFDC Survey: Part I, Demographic and Program Characteristics," NCSS Report AFDC-3 (69) (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, December, 1970). 33 with the labor force typically has been sporadic and irregular. For example, a 1964 study of recipients in the State of Washington described a pattern of "...long association with the labor market but short employ­ ment periods. Fully 52 percent had been on their last jobs for less than 6 months, but only 9 percent had been in the labor market for so short a period." 12 These data suggest that AFDC mothers tend to have shorter periods of job tenure than do women in general. O'Boyle, using data for January of 1968, found median time on the job of all U.S. women workers to be 2.4 years. Median job tenure for widowed, separated or divorced women, however, was only 1.4 years. tenure varied by age: Among these women, job for those aged 16-24, the median was 1.4 years; aged 25-34, 1.1 years; aged 35-44, 2.2 years. 13 Thus, median job tenure was least among the group most comparable to AFDC mothers--those aged 25-34 who were widowed, separated, or divorced. Nevertheless, job tenure for this group was more than twice that indicated by the 1964 study of AFDC mothers. A 1967 study of AFDC recipients in New York City found that only 15 percent of AFDC mothers had no work experience at all, but that a third had only worked before the birth of the first child. Twenty-two percent had only worked after the birth of the first child, while a third had worked both before and a f t e r . ^ Although comparable data are not available for women in general, the picture which emerges is that regular employ­ ment over long periods is less common among AFDC mothers, but that many have substantial employment experience. An explanation for this pattern of irregular employment is suggested by studies of the barriers to obtaining and maintaining employment typi­ cally faced by AFDC mothers. For example, Carter indicates that pregnancy, illness, child-care problems, and the end of a job are the most frequent 34 reasons why their employment is interrupted.1*5 A 1969 panel-interview study conducted by Warren and Berkowitz, which included 50 AFDC mothers from the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas, also identified "the major obstacles to improved employment potential."1*’ In this study, panel m e m ­ bers were asked to identify and rank, from a list of 21 potential obsta­ cles, up to ten barriers to employment, such that the ranking would r e ­ flect both the frequency and the relative size of each problem. For this group of AFDC mothers, the panel found the five most important problem areas (in order of ranking) to be child care, limited work skill, lack of work experience, a "negative personality trait," and educational defi­ ciencies. Forty percent of the mothers were identified by the panel as having a high potential for self-support, and this group had an average of 4.3 obstacles. The remaining 60 percent were identified as unemploy­ able or as having a low potential for self-support. average of 6.6 employment barriers were identified. For this group, an 17 In another study, Levinson utilized national data to determine the proportion of AFDC mothers who were "employable," where this term meant that recipients were "...able-bodied and in a position to seek and take jobs that pay well." ability: 18 Thus, Levinson identified two aspects of employ­ (1) employment potential, as determined by level of education and type of previous employment; and (2) employment barriers, such as poor health, lack of child care facilities, or high unemployment, which might prevent an AFDC mother from even applying for a job. In this study all individuals with a high school diploma, plus those with less education who had employment experience as white-collar or skilled blue-collar workers, were assumed to have high employment potential. assumed to have a low employment potential. All others were On the basis of these criteria and data from the 1961 and 1967 AFDC Characteristics Studies sponsored by 35 the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Levinson found that the proportion of AFDC mothers in the U.S. with high employment potential increased from 25.3 percent in 1961 to 32.6 percent in 1967. 19 Levinson then applied the same criteria of employment potential to a 1968 sample of 7,602 AFDC mothers selected from 35 of the over 3,000 U.S. Counties. Although this sample may not have been representative of the national AFDC caseload, it did provide a source of data on employ­ ability and employment barriers not otherwise available. For this sample, 44.5 percent of the AFDC mothers were found to have high employment p o ­ tential in 1968. However, when current employment status was examined, slightly more of those with low employment potential were employed (19.2 percent vs. 18.8 percent). Levinson suggests that this similarity in actual employment may be explained in large part by the several employ­ ment barriers facing both groups. Data on employment barriers were ob­ tained by interview questions designed to identify which of twelve condi­ tions limited or prevented employment for each AFDC mother. Levinson identified a group of employment barriers different from that found by Warren and Berkowitz, but problems associated with young children still headed the list: "Ct]he proportion of recipients who had any given im­ pediment was— unexpectedly--similar for both groups. For both groups, the first ranking impediment was having children under 8 years old at home, the second was the poor quality or lack of day care facilities, and the third was poor general health (severe enough to prevent them from 'taking some kinds of jobs')." 20 In addition, both groups faced about the same number of employment barriers: About one-third of both groups had two or fewer employment impediments, a third three, and the remaining third more than three. 21 In an approach similar to that utilized by Levinson to determine em­ 36 ployment potential, Hausman sought to determine the proportion of AFDC family heads who, if employed, could support themselves at a level of income equal to or greater than that available through public assistance. Census data were used to determine potential earnings within particular occupation-education groups for females in the civilian labor force. Then, by matching occupation-education groups for AFDC family heads, it was possible to estimate the proportion of AFDC mothers who could or could not be expected to equal or exceed their on-assistance incomes by going to work in occupations for which they could qualify. Using this technique, Hausman found, based on data for all employed females, that: ... 64.2 percent of the AFDC mothers...could not have supported their families at the levels of income they could attain on welfare in 1965, if they entered the labor force and fell ran­ domly into the earnings distribution for persons of at least nominally similar occupation-education status.^2 A second estimate was derived using data for females employed 50 to 52 weeks of the year. However, the data still indicate 49.9 percent of AFDC mothers could not earn sufficient income, even with year-round em­ ployment, to equal the amount of on-assistance income. Furthermore, Haus­ man indicates that "these estimates are no doubt exceedingly conservative," due to assumptions made concerning the data; the implicit assumptions that the capacity to earn is not lower for welfare recipients than other persons in the labor force of similar educational-occupational classification, and that suitable jobs were in fact available. Thus, those studies which have attempted to determine the extent to which AFDC women are employable have found, at most, that less than onehalf, and perhaps less than one-third of AFDC mothers are employable in the sense that they could earn as much as they receive in on-assistance income. In addition, the lower rate of labor force participation actually observed among AFDC mothers is generally attributed to the existence of a 37 number of barriers which further limit or preclude seeking or maintaining a job. By far, the single barrier cited most frequently is the presence of young children in the home, especially preschool-age children. How­ ever, problems associated with poor health, lack of job skills and educa­ tional deficiencies were also considered significant obstacles to employ­ ment . Do AFDC Mothers Want to Work? Significantly, studies which have examined the employment potential of AFDC mothers and the role of barriers to their employment have not found a lack of motivation to work among this group. Common stereotype would suggest that welfare recipients are lazy individuals who prefer de­ pendence upon public aid to self-support through work. This view, that welfare recipients must be forced to work, is reflected in the provisions of the 1967 Social Security Amendments, which conditioned welfare benefits on a willingness to accept training or an available job, and built into the WIN program an orientation component designed in part to stimulate work motivation. Little evidence, however, is available to provide sup­ port for the thesis that welfare recipients are less motivated to work than are nonrecipients. Indeed, the opposite is the case. As Schiller summarizes: Fortunately, the subject of work motivation is one of the most frequently researched issues in federally funded projects, so that ample data exist to guide policy decisions in this area.... All of the data collected are markedly consistent and imply that the assumption that welfare recipients require extraordinary world-of-work orientation or other forms of motivation stim­ ulus is not well-founded.23 The demonstrated employment experience of AFDC mothers, as described earlier, is concrete evidence of a desire to work among many AFDC recip­ ients. Certainly, the cliche of "motivating women for work" is not par­ 38 ticularly relevant to AFDC mothers whose histories generally indicate years of market work, even though such work may have been in irregular, marginal j o b s . ^ However, this evidence of both pre-assistance and on- assistance participation in the labor force is reinforced by the several studies which have examined the work aspirations and attitudes of this group. Podell, for example, reported that 70 percent of the AFDC mothers in his New York City survey indicated they would rather work than stay at home. 25 Levinson found that less than 20 percent of his 1968 sample of 7,602 AFDC mothers were rated as having low motivation to work, and that both high and low employment potential groups were rated identically in this respect. 26 Warren and Berkowitz reported that 72 percent of their sample (36 of 50) was rated by the panel "as having motivation to become self-supporting." However, they found the high employment poten­ tial group to be somewhat more motivated than the low potential group, although it was not possible to determine whether the lower motivation rating of the low potential group was associated with a recognition that their relative chance of obtaining employment was also lower. 27 Carter reported a Baltimore study of AFDC mothers in which 70 percent indicated that they expected to be working (again) within a year, and that they viewed public assistance specifically as short term emergency support to be used only until they could again support themselves. 28 In a 1967 survey of 766 AFDC mothers in six Wisconsin counties, Handler and Hollingsworth asked those who were not working at the time of the interview whether they would like to work if satisfactory child care arrangements could be made. Of those not working (78 percent of the total), 54 percent were positive about working, including 37 percent who 39 registered a "very much" response. Of the entire sample, 64 percent were either working (22 percent) or positive about working (42 percent), while only 27 percent were "not at all" interested in working if satisfactory child care arrangements could be made. This study found attitudes toward work to be related to age, race, presence of preschool-age children, and recent work experience. Those who had worked or recently tried to find a job, whose immediate past behavior tended to validate their responses, were more inclined to indicate a positive response to working. In addi­ tion, being younger, having preschool-age children, and being black tended to increase the desire to have a job. 29 It is not possible to determine the extent to which the results of these studies are biased due to respondents' "giving the expected answer" to interviewers' questions. Nevertheless, the conclusion can unambiguously be drawn from these studies that the majority of AFDC mothers do say they want to work. But how do their expressed attitudes toward work compare with those of non-AFDC recipients? Does the fact that many AFDC mothers are not employed imply that their desire to work, while strong, is still less strong than that of nonrecipients? Other studies, which have examined the work attitudes of both welfare recipients and nonrecipients, have coneluded that both groups share very similar attitudes toward work. 30 Per­ haps the most systematic of these studies was conducted by Goodwin, whose analysis was based on the interview responses of over 4,400 individuals. 31 Among the sample were nearly 400 Baltimore AFDC mothers with teenage sons, and nearly 1,200 AFDC females who were involved with the WIN program in six cities: Baltimore and the District of Columbia in the East; Detroit and Milwaukee in the Midwest; and the San Francisco Bay area and Seattle in the West. Also included in the sample were 2,200 persons from intact families, including 1,000 non-welfare mothers and daughters, and 1,200 40 nonwelfare fathers and sons. By stratifying the sample in this manner Goodwin was able to examine and compare the work orientations of welfare and nonwelfare mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. With respect to mothers, Goodwin found that all groups of women, from long-term black welfare recipients to outer-city white nonrecipients, gave equally high ratings to the work ethic. However, there was a wide dif­ ference in beliefs concerning their own efforts to achieve job success. While outer-city white women felt secure in their abilities, long-term welfare women lacked confidence. Goodwin explains these differences be­ tween welfare and outer-city mothers in terms of "situational factors:" A mother is understandably unsure of her ability to succeed and more willing to accept government support when she has an average of only about nine years of school and can earn little more than the minimum wage while having more than three children to support. The white outer-city mothers have ample reason to feel much more confident and to reject government help. They have twelve years of schooling, can earn considerably more than the minimum wage, and are mem­ bers of families to which the husband contributes consider­ able income. These findings do not support the position that there are cultural differences (differences in basic goals or values) between the poor and nonpoor with respect to wor k . ^ These findings suggest that while both welfare and nonwelfare recip­ ients share aspirations for employment, welfare mothers tend not to have confidence in their ability to secure steady employment which pays well, but to exhibit greater acceptance of receipt of welfare. Furthermore, the findings suggest that welfare mothers’ confidence in their ability, and their acceptance of welfare, are directly related to their experience in the labor market. Goodwin indicates that AFDC mothers who have one bad experience with work are more likely to have another: Women in the Work Incentive Program (WIN) who were terminated from it without jobs--who experienced another failure in the work world--showed a market increase in the acceptance of wel­ fare score over their score when they entered WIN, demonstrating that the concrete experience of failure directly and negatively influenced this work orientation. 41 Thus, the finding that women who find welfare most acceptable also show the lowest propensity toward employment does not necessarily mean that these women prefer welfare to work. Instead, the picture which emerges is one of women who want to work but who, because of continuing failure, become more accepting of welfare and less inclined to again seek a job. 34 ' Goodwin concludes that the differences which do emerge between the poor and nonpoor are more the result of their different experiences of success and failure to the work world than the result of differences in attitudes. 35 If Goodwin's findings are valid, then policies designed to encourage employment among AFDC mothers should attempt to reduce the risk and the cost of job failure, and increase the probability and pay-off of success. The reasoning suggested here is that providing a better opportunity for recipients to experience job success in the present would enhance the chances of success in the future. Now, for an AFDC mother, the primary short-run pay-off of working is the net financial gain, i.e., the amount of money wages less employment expenses and any reduction in welfare in­ come which might result. The primary costs are those associated with the potential loss of welfare status and the sense of financial security which it affords. What is needed, then, is a policy which increases the pay-off while reducing the costs associated with employment. One such policy is the earnings exemption, which was designed to serve as a financial work incentive. In the next section, research is examined which suggests the potential effect of allowing AFDC mothers a lower-risk opportunity to rise in economic status through the implementation of this incentive formula. 42 The Employment Response of AFDC Mothers to Work Incentives The earnings exemption was designed to act as a finanaial incentive to work because of the manner in which it increased the effective wage rate of AFDC mothers. There was, however, very little real knowledge of what the impact of this incentive might be. situation still persists. In large measure, this Although recent studies based upon census and other national data have examined the work response to wage rate changes of males, 37 married females, 38 and adult lower-income females 39 for the purpose of predicting the impact of alternative negative income tax schemes, few investigators have attempted to determine the employment response of AFDC mothers. This is the case even though AFDC mothers would be among those most directly affected by the various welfare reform proposals, including any negative income tax plan. The primary reason for this near-vacuum of information is the lack of data requisite for analysis. Necessary national data do not exist, so research which has been and is being conducted is largely based on specially gathered data for specific geographic regions. For example, large-scale income maintenance experi­ ments are currently underway in Seattle, Washington; Gary, Indiana; and in rural areas of North Carolina and Iowa; and an experiment in New Jersey was just completed in 1 9 7 2 . ^ Although preliminary data are available for the New Jersey Experiment, this project primarily was concerned only with employed male family heads. Therefore, available preliminary results from that project (which tend to indicate that no disincentive to work occurs when guaranteed transfer payments are made to employed males) may not be applicable to the female family heads who are the subjects of this study. Both the Gary and Seattle experiments include female-headed households, but preliminary findings have not yet been released for these projects. Reviewed below are those studies which have examined data for AFDC recipi- > 43 ents in Denver; Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Ohio; the State of Michigan, ten U.S. cities and interstate comparative studies. The Denver Project Between July, 1959 and July, 1961, the Denver Department of Welfare conducted a demonstration project to examine the impact of "incentive budgeting." 41 The purpose of the project was "...to test the premise that additional monies available as a result of earnings would motivate and encourage self-support." 42 The incentive budgeting formula utilized in this project exempted the first $25 of monthly earnings plus 25 percent of the remainder from consideration in calculating the monthly AFDC benefit. This formula was applied to three sample groups, the largest of which in­ cluded 1,000 nonemployed mothers drawn from the general AFDC caseload. A second group consisted of 10 employed mothers who were designated to re­ ceive special employment-oriented casework services. A third group in­ cluded 31 mothers, unemployed as the project began, who also were to re­ ceive special casework services. The control groups included 1,000 non­ employed and 10 employed mothers selected from the general caseload. Two criteria were utilized to evaluate the impact of the incentive: rates of case closure due to employment or level of earnings, and the percent employed during the project. At the end of the project, there was almost no difference in the rates of case closure for all reasons b e ­ tween experimental and control groups (29.3 percent, vs. 29.6 respectively), nor was there a significant difference between rates of closure due to em­ ployment or level of earnings between experimental and control groups (1 0 . 0 vs. 9.8 percent, respectively). In terms of percent employed, a difference did emerge between the experimental and control groups. Of the 1,000 mothers in the experimental, 44 incentive-budgeted group, 13.4 percent were employed during at least one month of the project. This compared with 11.4 percent for the 1,000 mothers in the corresponding control gTOup. (The difference is not sta­ tistically significant in a Chi-square test with P about .10.) In addi­ tion, employed mothers in the experimental group averaged earnings 15 per­ cent greater than employed mothers in the control groups. Altogether, there were 14.7 percent of mothers in the incentive-budgeted groups versus 11.7 percent of control groups who were employed during at least one of the twenty-four project months. 43 In evaluating this project, Hausman noted several project design li­ mitations which may help to explain the apparent insensitivity of earnings and employment rates to the change in effective wage rate brought about through the incentive formula. These limitations included the following: 44 1. The financial incentive was small. 2. In some cases, mothers were not free to decide for themselves whether or not to work. The Denver Department of Welfare influenced the de­ cisions of those it felt belonged in their homes. 3. The period of high unemployment during which the project took place made it difficult to obtain either full-time or part-time work. Despite these limitations, the project indicated that financial incen­ tives had some potential for encouraging employment among AFDC recipients. The project report indicated that "...the major conclusion of the study, with regard to financial incentives to work, was that they are a useful tool only when used in combination with other welfare services and that even then they are of limited value in promoting self-support."^ The Cleveland Project In 1965 a twelve-month experimental project was carried out in the Hough area of Cleveland to test the impact of a relatively small financial incentive. Prior to project implementation, AFDC mothers were allowed to 45 retain the first $ 2 0 of monthly earnings (after allowing for employment expenses) before net earnings resulted in a reduction of the AFDC payment. The incentive formula made available to three experimental groups depended on the amount of "budgeted need" for that family. As described in the project report: Ohio maintains AFDC budgets at approximately 30% below minimal needs. Thus, for example, if a family's need is pegged at $200 per month, the family would receive only $140. Under the In­ centive Program, however, it was possible on an experimental basis to provide employment incentives up to, but not above, 100% of need. Therefore, an earner in this hypothetical family would, after allowance for work related expenses, retain $60, as an employment incentive, the difference between a 70% budget and full need. ° In other words, the incentive formula merely raised from $20 to $60 the level of earnings (net of work expenses) above which additional earnings resulted in a dollar for dollar reduction in the welfare payment. Although this formula did not differ substantially from the previous one, employment rates increased from 2.0 to 4.8 percent in the experimental groups, while employment rates declined from 5.0 to 4.2 percent in the corresponding control groups. 47 Based on these results, the project report indicates that the incentive provided "... a very powerful stimulus to employment." 48 However, since only very small proportions of AFDC mothers in the experimental groups were employed, this conclusion may be stronger than warranted by the data. Nevertheless, a number of factors were present in the Cleveland pro­ ject which tend to substantiate the significance of the observed response. First, the financial incentive was small. Second, changes in employment rates occurred primarily among cases managed by nonprofessional caseworkers and professionals with large caseloads. The project report notes that the professional caseworkers with small caseloads did not allow a free response to the incentive where they believed mothers belonged with their children. 49 46 Finally, a U.S. Civil Rights Commission study of the Cleveland AFDC p r o­ gram indicated that AFDC mothers were not uniformly informed about the incentive formula by caseworkers. As a result, many mothers were ignorant of their right to retain additional earnings. Instead, employment-related decisions were apparently often made under the belief that indication of "employability" would increase the risk of being denied eligibility for all AFDC assistance .5 0 Inter-State Comparison of AFDC Employment Rates Just as the Ohio AFDC program permits payment up to a maximum of about 70 percent of defined "need," a number of other states limit the amount of assistance to less than the defined financial need. In 1961, there were 25 states which limited the amount of assistance by setting maximum payments or by meeting a specified percentage of a family's need. In most of these states, an income incentive existed (as opposed to strictly an earnings incentive), in the sense that income (from whatever source) might be utilized to make up the difference between the maximum AFDC payment and the family's defined need. For example, defined monthly need in Florida could have been as high as $196 for a family of four, while the maximum payment was only $78. The difference of $118 might have been met by earnings or other income without reducing the maximum monthly payment of $78. Similarly, in South Carolina, need was set at $156, and the maximum at $87. In Indiana, need was $271, the maximum $126. For Louisana, need was $226, and the maximum $116.5* At the time of the 1961 AFDC survey, the national average of all AFDC mothers employed full- or part-time was 14 percent. However, in states which limited payments, the median proportion was 22 percent, while in states paying full need (as defined in that state) the median was only 47 about 6 percent. Among the 25 states which limited payments, employment rates ranged as high as 44 percent (in Florida). In only six of these states was the proportion employed less than the national average of 14 percent. In contrast, among states paying full need, the highest employ­ ment rate was 13 percent. Clearly, states that attempted to meet 100 percent of state standards for minimum family needs tended to have lower rates of employment. In interpreting these data, Carter concludes that "...women on AFDC are highly motivated to work when grants are low and earnings exemptions are allowed...." 52 However, recognizing the low levels at which certain of the states established their grant maximums, Carter notes that "...employ­ ment incentives such as earnings exemptions for life survival have a different meaning from employment incentives for upward mobility." 53 That is, in economic terminology, the higher employment rates noted in certain limited-payment states may have reflected to a large extent an income effect resulting from the very low payment levels rather than a substitu­ tion effect resulting from the zero effective tax rate on low levels of earnings. Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky Leonard Hausman examined cross-section data for Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi derived from the 1967 AFDC survey administered in all states by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and W e l f a r e . ^ These three states were chosen because of their unique method of treating non­ assistance income in calculating the AFDC payment. Specifically, the AFDC payment equalled a specific percentage of defined living requirements less earnings and other income. Under this type of payment formula, the impli­ cit marginal tax rate on earnings varies with the level of income exempted 48 (e.g., for work expenses) and the specific percentage applied in calcu­ lating the amount of the AFDC payment. considerably among the three states. The specific percentage varied In Mississippi, 27 percent of defined need less income was paid to recipients; in Alabama, 50 percent; and in Kentucky, 87 percent. No income was exempted in Mississippi for any pur­ pose, but small amounts were exempt in Alabama and Kentucky. In all states, the bonus value of food stamps declined with income, so the implicit tax rate associated with food stamps was added to obtain the total implicit tax rate. Hausman estimated a labor supply equation in which the dependent variable was specified in two ways. In the first, mothers were assigned a value of 1 if they were in the labor force and 0 if not. Over all ob­ servations, the resulting proportion corresponds to a "labor force partici­ pation rate (LFPR)." sity rate (LFIR)." The second measure was called a "labor force inten­ This latter measure was derived by assigning a value of 1 for full-time employment, a value of 0.5 for part-time employment or unemployment, and a value of zero if not in the labor force. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the importance of the implicit tax rate and the level of welfare income upon the likelihood of labor force participation. The results, which were comparable for either specification of the dependent variable, indicate that labor force participation of these AFDC mothers was sensitive to both of these f a c t ors.^ Specifically, the results imply an elasticity of LFPR and of LFIR with respect to welfare income of -.39 and -.37, respectively. (An "elasticity" indicates the percentage change in one variable associated with a given small change in another variable. In this case, a 1.00 percent increase in welfare income is associated with a .39 percent decrease in a .37 percent decrease in LFIR.) LFPR, and Hausman cites the following example as an 49 implication of these results: The mean monthly potential payment, Yp, for these mothers was just under $82, the labor force intensity rate (LFIR) was 19.8 percent; and the labor force participation rate (LFPR^ was 30.9 percent in December 1967.... A $40 increase in Yp results in a decline of 3.8 and 5.6 percentage points, respectively in the LFIR and LFPR for this group of mothers; a drop of this magnitude thus constitutes about a 2 0 percent reduction in each of the two labor force rates in response to a nearly 50 percent increase in Y p .... With respect to the implicit tax rate, the results imply an elas­ ticity of LFPR and LFIR of -.27 and -.43 respectively.. The implication of these values, and in particular the larger value obtained for LFIR, is that a lower implicit tax rate will tend to induce proportionately greater part-time work among AFDC mothers. For example, Hausman notes that a decrease of 1 0 percentage points (or roughly 16 percent) in the implicit tax rate, from its mean of 60.6 percent, would result in a seven percent increase in LFIR (from 19.8 to 21.2 percent), and a four percent increase in LFPR (from 30.9 to 32.3 percent). 57 On the basis of these results, Hausman concludes that work effort of AFDC mothers is more sensitive to variations in family income than to changes in the implicit tax rate. While this conclusion appears reasonable for individuals at public assistance income levels and with the responsi­ bilities associated with young and/or several children in the home, it does nevertheless differ from the response observed both for married fe­ males with husband present and for all females heading households. For these groups, recent research would suggest relatively higher substitution and lower income elasticities. 58 In other words, the work response to an increase in the effective wage rate would be more positive among married females with husband present and among all females heading households than it would be among AFDC mothers. Again, because of the characteristics and circumstances of AFDC mothers, this is not a surprising result. 50 New York City In his 1971 study of the labor supply response of AFDC recipients in New York City, Daniel Saks estimated a labor force participation equation for AFDC women. 59 The data for this study were obtained from the 1967 AFDC Study conducted by the U.S. Department^of Health, Education, and Welfare, and included observations on about 5,000 New York City AFDC families. In defining the basic model for regression analysis, Saks notes that labor force participation of welfare recipients presents one unusual prob­ lem: earned income above a specified level results in termination from AFDC, and consequent removal from the sampled population. decision to work, therefore, involves first An AFDC mother's an assessment of the benefit from employment while continuing to receive welfare, and second an assess­ ment of the benefits and costs of earning enough to leave welfare entirely. The second component of the decision poses problems when estimating a crosssection participation equation on the basis of a current welfare popula­ tion. Therefore, Saks cautions that his calculations of participation rates must be interpreted as referring to the particular welfare system, with associated assistance cut off points, which existed in New York City in 1967.60 In the equation estimated, the dependent variable was defined as equal to one if the AFDC mother was in the labor force, and zero otherwise. Over all observations, therefore, it measures the rate of labor force par­ ticipation (LFPR). Independent variables included the expected welfare income in the absence of earned income, the expected labor market wage, a set of variables reflected the relative importance cf home goods, for which the age distribution combinations of children are proxies, and a set of mis­ cellaneous control variables expected to affect the employment decision, 51 such as incapacity, enrollment in training, race, age, or residence in public housing .®1 An evaluation of the income effect was made using the "welfare grant level" variable. Saks notes that normally income from different sources is not expected to have different effects on work behavior. However, in this case "...such an assumption would be untenable because welfare grant levels are so much a positive function of the number of children in the household, which in turn increases the value of home work and must account for part of the negative sign. So long as we recognize that welfare in­ come is not like other income and make our interpretations accordingly, there is no problem." 62 Evaluated at the sample means, the elasticity of labor force participation with respect to welfare income is - . 9 4 for fe­ male-headed AFDC households. To estimate a wage elasticity, data from the 1967 Survey of Economic Opportunities were used to estimate the expected wage for each AFDC mother. These data produced coefficients very significantly positive in all of Sak's equations. The resulting elasticity of labor force participation with respect to variations in the wage rate was 2.83 for female-headed cases, evaluated at sample means. The implication of this result is that, other things equal, a one-third cut in the welfare tax rate would lead to a doubling of the labor force participation rate among AFDC mothers. 63 This finding would suggest that AFDC mothers would be quite responsive to an increase in their effective wage rates, increasing their work effort to an extent even greater than married women with husband present. An explana­ tion for the dominant substitution effect observed by Saks, which was not found by others investigating the work response of AFDC mothers, is not clear. It might have resulted from the procedure and data used to estimate expected wages, or it may simply reflect a situation unique to New York 52 City in 1967. A Comparison of 19 States Kalachek and Raines estimated a labor force participation equation using data drawn from records for matched families from the February and March, 1966 Current Population Surveys of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The sample was limited to households with incomes which did not exceed twice the Social Security Administration's low-cost budget income level. This meant a cut-off point of $8,200 for a family of four and $3,800 for a single individual. The equation was defined to allow "...some explora­ tion of the incentive effect of public a s s i s t a n c e . " ^ This was accomplished by grouping observations by state according to state regulations governing AFDC payments. Specifically, the 19 states (in 1965) in which the effec­ tive tax rate on initial levels of earnings was less than 1 0 0 percent were denoted by dummy variables indicating residence. (a) The groupings included two states where payments were low and a 35 to 38 percent tax rate was applied to the moderate amount of permitted earnings; (b) seven states where payments were low and a small amount of permitted earnings was not taxed; (c) ten states where payments were moderate and a moderate amount of permitted earnings was not taxed. In all of the above state, earnings above the permitted level were taxed at a 100 percent effective rate. In the remaining 31 states, payments ranged from fairly low to adequate, with effective rates at or close to 1 0 0 percent on any e a r n i n g s . ^ Among the three groups of states, it was expected that the income ef­ fect, tending to decrease participation in the labor force, would be largest in group (c) states and smallest in group (a) states. Conversely, the substitution effect should induce greater labor force participation in group (a) states relative to those in group (c). S3 Multiple-regression analysis applied to the cross-section data in­ dicated a dominant income effect. The status of being a public assistance recipient in the three groups of states was associated with a very large drop in labor force participation (LFPR) for women (relative to non­ recipients) . Further, the labor force withdrawals were substantially larger in the group (c) states where the assistance payment level was relatively higher. was 44 percent. Specifically, the LFPR for all women in the sample However, after controlling for such variables as age, race, residence, education, occupation, marital status, and ages of children, the status of being a public assistance recipient was associated with a decrease in LFPR of about 15 percentage points in group (a) and group (b) states, and a decrease of 21 percent in group (c) states. Kalachek and Raines assert that since financial needs and home responsi­ bilities of AFDC mothers are relatively large, high income and low substi­ tution elasticities are reasonable. This result also corresponds with their finding that substitution elasticities are relatively low for non­ white women, who constitute a high proportion of AFDC mothers in some states. Thus, the ranking of coefficients accords with the authors' ii priori expectations.5^ Kalachek and Raines urge caution in interpreting these results, since differences in the degree of enforcement of work requirements as well as differences in payment levels and tax rates may be reflected in their findings. In addition, their definition of "public assistance recipient" was somewhat broader than just AFDC mothers, so that their sample included an undetermined number of women receiving aid to the disabled or general assistance. they conclude that: other forms of public aid, such Despite these limitations, 54 If this analysis is correct, only a modest flow of current welfare recipients into the labor force would be expected if current welfare programs were replaced by a negative income tax program involving the same income guarantee but a less onerous effective tax rate.67 Thus, Kalachek and Raines appear to be speaking directly to the situ­ ation which occurred with the nationwide implementation of the earnings exemption; viz., the existing income maintenance component of the AFDC program was replaced by another "...involving the same income guarantee but a less onerous effective tax rate." As discussed below, they also appear to have correctly predicted the result. Impact of the Earnings Exemption: Ten U.S. Cities As far as I have been able to determine, only two studies to date have specifically addressed the question of whether the "$30 plus onethird" earnings exemption had an impact upon the work effort of AFDC re­ cipients. tion. Gary A p p e l ’s Michigan study will be discussed in the next sec­ This section will examine a study conducted by National Analysts, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare which was designed to assess the effects of the earnings exemption on the work behavior of AFDC family heads. 68 The study was based on survey data obtained from two waves of recipient interviews conducted in ten U.S. cities, in­ cluding Chicago, Columbus (Ohio), Dallas, Indianapolis, Jersey City, Miami, New York City, Richmond (Va.), San Francisco, and St. Louis. The first wave of interviews was conducted during the Winter and Spring of 1970 and yielded a total of 3,508 observations. ducted in the Spring and Summer of 1971. Follow-up interviews were con­ Altogether, a total of 2,425 were re-interviewed, or about 69 percent of the original respondents. Analysis of the effect of the earnings exemption was based entirely on the longitudinal data for those recipients who were interviewed in both 55 69 surveys. The study found that between the first and second interviews very little change occurred in employment behavior of AFDC mothers, but that change which did occur was generally not positive. Specifically, the proportion who were employed decreased from 25 to 24 percent, the proportion in the labor force decreased from 40 to 37 percent, and the proportion engaged in any job-related activity (i.e., working, seeking work or in training) decreased from 42 to 41 percent. 70 Based on these findings, the study concludes that: ...the Earnings Exemption failed to act as a work incentive for the population it was designed to motivate. This conclusion is considerably weakened, however, by the several limitations imposed by the project design. The most serious of these limitations stems from the fact that the initial interview did not provide baseline data which reflected a pre-exemption period. Initial inter- views began in January and continued through the "Spring of 1970." However, all states 72 had implemented the exemption by July 1, 1969 and some states had implemented it in July, 1968. In other words, at the time of the initial interview, the exemption had been in effect "for at least six months" 73 (i.e., July, 1969 to January, 1970) and up to 23 months (i.e., July, 1968 to May, 1970). No attempt was made in the analysis to control for the length of time the exemption had been in effect prior to the first interview. More seriously, the very fact that the baseline interview occurred well after the exemption's implementation precluded an analysis of its full incentive effect. There is no reason to believe that the exemption should have led to an increase in employment over an extended period, 56 as is implied by the study design. On the contrary, it is quite possible that the full incentive effect would occur over a relatively short period— perhaps less than a year or even less than six months— after which recipient employment would level off as a new equilibrium level was achieved. National Analysts, therefore, in picking this particular period for study, limited the actual scope of their analysis to measuring employment behavior of recipients subject to the exemption at two points in time. The study cannot claim to measure any change (or lack of change) in employment behavior which occurred as a result of the exemption's implementation. Other problems further limit the usefulness of this study. examples will be noted. Two First, neither the initial nor the follow-up interviews reflected respondents' situations on a given date. Since each wave of interviews required about five months to complete, and since a respondent's situation was recorded as of the interview date, the data reflected different seasons for the same wave. Further, since first interviews in one wave were not necessarily first interviews in the other wave, the data reflected widely varying lengths of time between interviews, ranging from ten to twenty m o nths. No attempt was made to control for the impact of seasonal factors or the length of time between interviews. Second, a degree of bias was introduced by the fact that one-third of respondents who were re-interviewed were located with the aid of the local welfare department. Follow-up interviews were obtained for only 69 percent of those for whom an initial interview was secured. However, to increase the proportion to this level, local welfare departments (otherwise not involved in this study) were asked to provide last known 57 addresses of individuals who could not be located. this procedure The drawback of ..was to increase the probability of finding those no longer receiving assistance...." 74 If, as is probable,those who had terminated from AFDC were more likely to be employed, then the study underestimates changes in recipient employment activity. In view of these (and other) limitations, the conclusion that the exemption failed to increase employment among AFDC mothers can hardly be considered either conclusive or meaningful. At best, the data suggest that the proportion of AFDC mothers who were employed may have remained at about the same level over a study period which averaged slightly more than a year in length, and which began at least six months after the exemption's implementation. Impact of the Earnings Exemption: Michigan Gary Appel’s Michigan study utilized data maintained in the central computer file of the Michigan Department of Social Services in his analysis of the effect of the earnings exemption upon changes in AFDC employment over the year from July, 1969 to July, 1970. 75 Three sets of sample data were drawn for female-headed AFDC cases in thirteen geographic regions of the state. The regions were selected to include all metropolitan areas, plus a representative sample from rural areas. One cross-section sample of 4,660 cases was drawn from the July, 1969 caseload. A second sample included 7,656 cases drawn from the July, 1970 caseload. A third sample--really a subsample of the first--included those sample cases which received assistance in both July, 1969 and July, 1970. This group included 3,831 cases (i.e., 829 cases terminated or moved from the sample area over the year so as not to be included in this 7f% sample). 58 The time period for Appel's study included only the initial twelve months following implementation of the earnings exemption. His just­ ification for limiting analysis to this period, thus permitting evalua­ tion of only short-run impacts of the incentive formula, is worth reviewing at this point, since the analysis in this dissertation is based upon essentially the same time period. Appel asserts that this one-year interval was a unique period during which (a) data were available, (b) Michigan AFDC policy remained relatively constant, and (c) employment changes in the general economy were not drastic. Specifically, even though policy-makers and researchers -alike were aware of the pending change in policy, no steps were taken to collect baseline data for use in policy analysis. As a result conqiarable data did not exist for the period prior to July, 1969. In addition AFDC policy changed significantly in September, 1970, in two major ways. First, AFDC standards were adjusted upward by about $32 per month for a family of four. 77 Clearly, a change of this magnitude in what Saks calls welfare income, or Hausman calls potential welfare payments, could be expected to have a measurable negative impact upon AFDC employment rates. 78 Simultaneously, a significant change occurred in the AFDC employment expense policy. For years, allowable employment expenses (i.e., those which offset gross earnings when computing the AFDC payment) included a $20 per month general allowance plus actual cost for such items as income and payroll taxes, transportation, uni­ forms, union dues, retirement contributions and other "necessary" work expenses. In general, such expenses were 20 to 30 percent of gross earnings, although in some situations they were more. However, the new policy limited the allowance for work expenses to $40 per month, re­ 59 gardless of the amount of earnings or actual expenses. 79 This meant that more than half of employed recipients had to pay employment-related expenses (to the extent such expenses exceeded $40) for which they formerly had been reimbursed— in effect, an increase in the welfare tax rate. Although a quantitative estimate of the impact upon AFDC employment was not attempted, the direction of expected impact was clearly negative. In addition to the September, 1970 AFDC policy changes, the threemonth General Motors strike, which began in September, 1970, had a large impact on both the Michigan economy and on AFDC caseloads. "Unfortunately," as Appel and Schlenker remark, "the real world does not remain static long enough to satisfy the researcher's needs." 80 Consequently, the time interval for analysis was dictated by policy and economic changes on one end and data availability on the other. Because Appel utilized data maintained centrally by the Department of Social Services, he was limited to the relatively few data items available from that source. For example, he was only able to identify levels of earned and (non-child support) unearned income., employment expenses, potential and actual welfare income, age and number of persons in the assistance group, race, county of residence and an employment code designed to assess barriers to employment or training. were not available to Appel 81 However, data (but were obtained for the analysis in this dissertation) on such variables as educational attainment, occupation, employment experience, current or previous participation in training, time on AFDC and date of first receipt of AFDC, number of persons in the household (as opposed to number in the assistance group), housing arrangements and cost, location of residence and such financial data as 60 the amount received for child support or the value of program benefits such as child care, medicaid, emergency assistance, general assistance, and food stamps. Due to data limitations, Appel also was limited as to appropriate techniques of analysis and, as a result, he did not estimate a labor supply equation, and he did not derive any estimates of income and substitution parameters (as are presented in Chapter 5 of this disserta­ tion) . Instead, Appel confined his analysis to a description and inter­ pretation of changes in employment rates and levels of earnings in his thirteen study areas. Appel begins by noting that in Michigan "...between August 1969 and July 1970, the number of AFDC families with earned incomes almost doubled, rising steadily from 5,657 to 10,743." 82 Over the same period the total caseload increased substantially so that "...the employed portion of the AFDC caseload increased from 10.0 to 13.5 percent, with most of the increase occurring within the first five months of the start of the work incentive provision." 83 Analysis of changes in employment rates in all thirteen geographic areas revealed that increases occurred in all areas, and that the differences in employment percentages were statistically significant at the .05 level or better in all but two areas were significant at the .10 level). C m which the increases No geographic pattern emerged, as both relatively larger and smaller increases occurred in each of the urban, rural and intermediate areas. Appel next examined the impact of a number of factors other than the earnings exemption which might have influenced the employment rate of AFDC mothers. The conclusion of his analysis was that other factors were not likely to have caused the increases in AFDC employment rates: 61 1. The overall unemployment rate Increased in all thirteen areas. Therefore, Appel asserts that "...the increase in AFDC employ­ ment rates occurred in spite of, not because of, changes in labor market conditions.8* 2. Since the total caseload increased 45 percent over the year of study, the demographic composition of the caseload might have changed. New AFDC recipients might have been more em ­ ployable, thus increasing the AFDC employment rate. However, Appel found that families whose receipt of AFDC began during the year of study had a lower employment rate than the general caseload. Thus, the large number of new recipients tended to depress the observed increases in employment rates .88 3. Since the earnings exemption raised the breakeven point, termination from AFDC due to high levels of earnings became more difficult and less probable. Thus, the increase in employ­ ment rates might have resulted solely from the failure of employed recipients to terminate w h e n , in the absence of' the earnings exemption, they would have been ineligible for AFDC payments due to their high earnings. To examine this possibility, Appel adjusted the July, 1970 employment rates by netting out those cases with earnings which would have resulted in termination were it not for the earnings exemption. The adjusted employment rates remained, in all thirteen areas, higher than the corresponding July, 1969 rate. The increases were, after this adjustment statistically significant in nine of the thirteen areas.8® 4. The Work Incentive Program (WIN) was operational in most of the areas included in the Appel study. Through job place­ ment and training, WIN might have had a positive influence on AFDC employment. However, Appel estimates that nine WIN graduates may have been in his sample of 449 for July, 1969, and that 56 may have been in his sample of 1,168 for July, 1970. Thus, he concludes that "...WIN contributed at best only in a minor way to the measured increases in AFDC female employment...."87 After examining other factors, such as attitudes, health services, availability of child care services, knowledge of the earnings exemption and reporting of earnings, Appel concludes that the increase in employ­ ment rates cannot be attributed to any one or group of these factors, and that the increase appears therefore to be the result of the work incentive resulting from the earnings exemption. 88 Appel next turns to examine the effect of the earnings exemption upon levels of earnings. Average earnings increased in eleven of the 62 thirteen sample regions. The general increase in earnings m a y be observed in the following analysis of the 3,831 sample cases which were receiving AFDC in both July, 1969 and July, 1970 sample periods. To determine changes in earnings, intervals of $ 2 0 were specified for levels of earnings in each period. With this procedure, we find that of the 372 mothers employed in July 1969, 112 had higher earnings (moved to a higher $20 earnings category), 59 had about the same earnings, 44 had lower earnings but were still employed, and 157 had no earnings in July 1970. In addition, ...there were another 420 cases that had no earnings in July 1969 but had earnings in July 1970. Therefore, the total number of cases which had sufficient increased earnings to move to a higher $20 earnings category was 532 (420 + 112), while the total number of those with decreases was only 201 (157 + 4 4 ).89 Part of the explanation of a higher average earnings lies in the fact that higher earnings were possible due to higher breakeven points. In six of the thirteen areas,the proportion of employed mothers earning $300 or more per month doubled, and only three areas showed a decline in this proportion. The result was that a "substantial portion" of employed mothers had a level of earnings which would have made them ineligible for AFDC in the absence of the earnings exemption. In one area, 28 percent were in this category, and in the remaining twelve areas the range was 11 to 21 percent. On the other hand, Appel found that the proportion earning under $ 1 0 0 declined, which he interprets as indicating that "...part-time employment is not strongly encouraged by the incentive." Appel concludes that The data and analysis in this study provide a reasonably convincing argument that the incentive has contributed to increased employment of AFDC mothers in Michigan and has led to higher incomes for those employed. 63 Conclusion Prom the studies reviewed in this chapter, three major conclusions may be drawn: (1) AFDC mothers typically face those conditions and exhibit those characteristics which are associated with lower rates of employment and, for those employed, lower levels of earnings. The employment potential of AFDC mothers is typically lower than that of other women, due to their lower educational attainment and occupational experience in jobs which yield lower wages. Further, AFDC mothers face significant barriers to successful employment. Most important of these barriers is the presence of young children which require care in the home, although health problems and difficulty in arranging suit­ able child care are also frequently cited obstacles to employment. (2) AFDC mothers are no less desirous of working than are women in general. Indeed, most AFDC mothers not only want to work, but do work, although their jobs typically are irregular and sporadic. However, bad job experiences have made them less willing to persist at trying to secure permanent employment and more willing to accept welfare status. (3) Financial work incentives can play an important role in encouraging employment among AFDC mothers. However, the effectiveness of financial work incentives among AFDC recipients would be expected to be less than among women in general. This is the case primarily be­ cause of the barriers to employment faced by AFDC mothers which prevent the degree of positive work response which otherwise would be expected from increasing the effective wage rate in this fashion. 64 Chapter 2 Footnotes ^David B. Eppley, "The AFDC Family in the 1960's," Welfare in Review, VIII (September-October, 1970), p. 8 . 2 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Marital Status of Workers, March 1959," Special Labor Force Report No. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1959), Table 1, p. 2; and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Marital and Family Characteristics of Workers, March 1970," Special Labor Force Report 130 (Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1970), Table A, p. A-9. 3 U.S. Department of Labor, Special Labor Force Report 130, Table H. 4 Elizabeth Waldman and Kathryn R. Gover, "Children of Women in the Labor Force," Monthly Labor Review, July, 1971, Table 2, p. 21. 5 U.S. Department of Labor, Special Labor Force Report 130, Table B-l, p. A-ll. ^U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Educational Attainment of Workers, March 1969, 1970," Special Labor Force Report 125 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), Table H, p. A-14. 7 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics: United States Summary (Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1972), Table 8 8 . 8 Ibid., Table 91. 9 In 1967, 82 percent of employed women were in clerical, sales, service or non-transportation operative occupations. The median annual earnings level for women in those occupation was less than $3,700. See: Irene Cox,"The Employment of Mothers as a Means of Family Support," Welfare in Review, VIII (November-December, 1970), p. 10. *^U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social and Rehabilita­ tion Service, National Center for Social Statistics, Findings of the 1969 AFDC Study: Part I, Demographic and Program Characteristics NCSS Report AFDC-3(69) (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970). **U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Marital and Family Characteristics of Workers. March 1968 and 1969," Special Labor Force Report 120 (Washington, D . C . : Government Prining Office, 1970). 65 Sfildred Rein and Barbara Wishnov, "Patterns of Work and Welfare in AFDC," Welfare in Review. IX (November-December, 1971), p. 10, citing Greenleigh Associates, Public Welfare, Poverty— Prevention or Perpetration, A Study of the State of Washington (Mew Vork: 'Greenleigh Associates), 1 & 4 , p. 39, fable l7. 13 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Job Tenure of Workers, January 1965," Special Labor Porce Report 112 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969), p. A-9. 14 Rein and Wishnove, Ibid., p. 10, citing Lawrence Podell, Families on Welfare in New York City, Preliminary Report No. 3 (New York: Center for Social Research, City University of New York), December 20, 1967, p. 25, Table 1. *®Genevieve W. Carter, "The Employment Potential of AFDC Mothers," Welfare in Review, VI (July-August, 1968), p. 7. 16Martin Warren and Sheldon Berkowitz, "The Employability of AFDC Mothers and Fathers," Welfare in Review, VII (July-August, 1969), pp 1-7. ^ I b i d ., p. 5, Table 2. 18 Perry Levinson, "How Employable are AFDC Women?" VIII (July-August, 1970), pp. 12-16. Welfare in Review, 19 Ibid., p. 12. 2 0 Ibid., p. 15. 2 1 Ibid., p. 16. 22 Leonard J. Hausman, "Potential for Financial Self-Support Among AFDC and AFDC-UP Recipients," (Undated mimeograph), p. 9. These results are also presented in: Leonard J. Hausman, "The Potential for Work Among Welfare Parents," Manpower Research Monograph No. 12 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 1969). For a fuller discussion, see: Leonard J. Hausman, "The 100% Welfare Tax Rate: Its Incidence and Effects," (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1967). 23 24 25 Bradley R. Schiller, "Empirical Studies of Welfare Dependency: Survey," (Unpublished, mimeograph, 1972), pp. 3-4. A Carter, p. 2. Lawrence Podell, Families on Welfare in New York City (New York: City University of New York, Center for the Study of Urban Problems, 1968), p. 17. 66 26 Levinson, pp. 15-16. "No" as an answer to the question, "Would you want to work, if you could find a steady job?" was interpreted to indicate a lack of motivation, and 19.6 percent of both high and low potential groups answered "no." 27 Martin Warren and Sheldon Berkowitz, "The Employability of AFDC Mothers and Fathers," Welfare in Review, VII (July-August, 1969), p. 4. 28Carter > pp. 7-8. 29 Joel F. Handler and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth, The "Deserving Poor," (Chicago: Markham Publishing Co,, 1971), pp. 142-143. 30 For example, see: Harold Feldman and Margaret Feldman, A Study of the Effects on the Family Due to Employment of the Welfare M o ther, Vol. T1 Findings and Implications (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1972), esp. pp. 66-71; Edward M. Opton, Factors Associated with Employment Among Welfare Mothers (Berkeley: The Wright Institute, 1971); Conference on Manpower Services for the Welfare Poor, Summary of Findings and Discussion (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1971). 31 32 Leonard Goodwin, Do the Poor Want to Work? Brookings Institution, 1972). Ibid., pp. 51-52. 3 3 Ibid., p. (Washington, D . C . : Emphasis is Goodwin's. 113. 34,. . , Ibid. 3 5 Ibid., p. 118. 36 As stated by the Council of Economic Advisors: "There is an abundance of assertion and anecdote regarding the impact of work incentives on low-income Americans, but very little real knowledge." Quoted in: James C. Vadakin, "A Critique of the Guaranteed Annual Income," The Public Interest, No. 11 (Spring, 1968), p. 61. 37 For example, see: Marvin Kosters, Income and Substitution Effects in a Family Labor Supply Model (Los Angeles: Rand Corporation, 1966); David H. Greenberg and Marvin Kosters, Income Guarantees and the Working Poor: The Effect of Income Maintenance Programs on the Hours of Work of Male Family Heads (Los Angeles: Rand Coporation, 1970); Orley Ashenfelter and James Heckman, "The Estimation of Income and Substitution Effects in a Model of Family Labor Supply," Working Paper #29 (Princeton: Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section, August, 1971); Orley Ashenfelter, "Using Estimates of Income and Substitution Parameters to Predict the Work Incentive Effects of the Negative Income Tax: A Brief Exposition and Partial Survey," (Unpublished mimeograph, November, 1970); Malcolm Cohen, Samual Rea, and Robert Lerman, A Micro Model of Labor Supply, BLS Staff Paper 4 67 (Washington, D.C . : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1970); Christopher Green and Alfred Telia, "Effect of Nonemployment Income and Wage Rates on the Work Incentives of the Poor," Review of Economics and Statistics. 51 (November, 1969), pp. 399-408; Finis Welch and Sherwin Rosen, *'A Note on the Estimation of Labor Supply Effects and Income Redistribution Policy," Journal of Human Resources, VII (Winter, 1972), pp. 104-111. 38 Robert Hall, "Wages, Income and Hours of Work in the U.S. Labor Force" (Working Paper of the Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August, 1970); Marvin Kosters, "Effects of an Income Tax on Labor Supply," in Harberger and Bailey, (ed.), The Taxation of Income from Capital (Washington, D . C . : Brookings Institution, 1969), pp. 301-324; Alfred Telia, Dorothy Telia and Christopher Green, The Hours of Work and the Family Income Response to Negative Income Tax Plans; The Impact on the Working Poor (Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1971). 39 Edward D. Kalachek and Frederic Q. Raines, "Labor Supply of Low Income Workers," in The President's Commission on Income Maintenance Programs, Technical Studies (Washington, D . C . : 1970), pp. 159-186. 4^For descriptions of these projects, see: Harold Watts, "Graduated Work Incentives: An Experiment in Negative Taxation," American Economic Review, LIX (May, 1969), pp. 463-478; Harold Watts, The Graduated Work Incentive Experiments: Current Progress," American Economic Review, LXI (May, 1971), pp. 15-21; Fred Cook, "When You Just Give Money to the Poor," New York Times Magazine, May 3, 1970, pp. 110-112; Mordecai Kurz and Robert G. Spregelman, "The Seattle Experiment: The Combined Effect of Income Maintenance and Manpower Investments," American Economic Review, LXI (May, 1971), pp. 22-29; Terrence F. Kelly and Leslie Singer, "The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment: Plans and Progress," American Economic Review, LXI (May, 1971), pp. 30-38. 41 Denver Department of Welfare, The Incentive Budgeting Demonstration Project (Denver: Department of Welfare, December, 1961). 42... . Ibid., p. n . 4 3 Ibid., p. 44 45 46 12. Leonard J. Hausman, "The 100% Welfare Tax Rate: Its Incidence and Effects" (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1967), p. 59. Denver Department of Welfare, p. vii. Cuyahoga County Welfare Department, Employment Incentives and Social Services: A Demonstration Program in Public Welfare (Cleveland, Ohio, 1966), p. 2. 4 ^Ibid., p p . 4- 5. I soU.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Children in Need; A Study of Federally Assisted Programs of Aid to Needy Families with Children in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, Ohio {Washington, D.C.,' 1966), pp. 19->21. ^Carter, p. 8 . A parallel discussion is presented in: Irene Cox, "Working Paper on the Effects of an Earnings Exemption on the Employ­ ment of ADC Mothers" (Washington, D . C . : U.S. Department o f Health, Education and Welfare, Division of Intramural Research, 1968). 5 2 Ibid., p. 8 . 54 Leonard J. Hausman, "The Impact of Welfare on the Work Effort of AFDC Mothers" in the President's Commission on Income Maintenance Programs, Technical Studies, pp. 83-100. ^ F o r the principal equations reported (utilizing fourteen independent variables) for the combined three-state sample, R 2 values of .170 and .171 were obtained when LFPR and LFIR, respectively, were used as the dependent variable. While not reporting results obtained when using the LFPR specification for the individual state regressions, he indicates R 2 values of .137, .117 and .112 for the individual Alabama, Kentucky and Mississippi LFIR runs, respectively. Hausman, pp. 96-97. 5 7 Ibid., p. 97. 58 59 Ashenfelter, p. 13, concludes that recent research would indicate a substitution elasticity of about 0.9, but an income elasticity of only about -0.1, for married women with husband present. For female household heads, Telia, Telia and Green, pp. 11-13, 20-21, calculated substitution elasticities (over the 25 to 75 percent negative tax range) of slightly greater than unity, while income elasticities for lower-income workers varied from about -0.3 to -0.5. Daniel H. Saks, "The Labor Supply Response of AFDC Recipients in New York City," Research Report No. 12 (East Lansing; Michigan State University, Center for Urban Affairs, December, 1971). ^ I b i d ., pp. 12-13. Also see: Daniel H. Saks, "The Economics of the Decision to Go on Welfare," Research Report No. 10 (East Lansing, Michigan State University, Center for Urban Affairs, September 20, 1971), pp. 15-17. ^*Saks, Report No. 12, p. 14. Using ordinary least squares, the estimated equation yields coefficients significant at the .05 level or better for 12 of 17 variables, with an R 2 value of .15. 69 Saks notes that because the dichotomous dependent variable yields disturbances which are non-spherical, use of generalized least squares is more appropriate. However, dropped to .04 with this technique. See Ibid., pp. 14-15. 62 Saks, Report No. 10, p. 17. d. i,us fa.3 3.8 5.1 35.4 2.3 2,3 6.8 56.8 20,5 2.3 9.1) .V U^Tj. 0 0.7 13.3 26,7 46.7 6.7 0 4. ttir:s 6.3 2.1 0 47.9 29.2 2.1 12.5 5. U,US 4.9 3.9 11.7 44.7 21.4 2.9 10.7 6. U,C5 7. N,ns 28.6 0 14.3 42.9 0 0 14.3 0 1.1 2 2 18.7 35.2 0 42.9 8. 11,0,. n 1.6 3.3 32.8 19.7 1.6 40.9 Average : July JD69 6.1 3.5 10.1 44.4 22.1 3.0 10.9 Average: July 11)70 2.6 2.6 6*5 37.5 22.8 2.2 25.8 Combined Counties: i. 3.0 7,4 7.4 45. 1 il).J -• ri"s S. 1=,CS 4. II,Es 3.5 6.2 50.4 23.5 25.7 4.4 4.4 5.3 4.4 0 4.9 7.3 43,9 39.0 4.9 0 2.3 3.2 1.6 49.6 30.0 2.1 11.0 8. 11,11,. 5.1 6.7 11.4 48.9 18.8 2.8 fa.5 h ,c5 3.8 0.3 9.S U .3 59.6 15.1 3.7 1ft.9 0.5 2.6 24.5 36.2 3.6 32.2 0 2.2 7,5 31.3 26. 1 2.2 50.:> 4.6 6.7 10.3 8.6 47.S 19*8 3.1 8.0 40*0 23,6 2.7 18.0 7. N,l5 8. S,tls Average: July 1969 \veragc: July lf .)7D 2.6 4.3 aRow percentages may not add to 100.U due to rounding 244 Tabla A.-5 Distribution of AFDC Mother* by Current or U*ual Occupation Claiiifieation (How Parcantag**)* County Employment liraup licneHCi*: i. i=liis -• 'V s 5 'Y's '■ ' V s s. I.,u5 0. Unskilled, Semi-Skilled, Factory Clerical ft Soles Service Private Household 10.4 65.6 14.4 4.8 0 4.8 S.'* 60.9 15.9 2.9 0 11.5 7.7 69.2 11.5 11.5 0 0 34.2 JO.5 12.7 10.1 0 2.6 7.5 38.7 12.3 7.5 32.1 1.9 Never Worked All Other (Incl. Unknown) u,c5 4.3 26.1 13.0 6.5 41.3 8.6 7. N,n5 21.9 55.2 10.5 8.6 0 3.9 8. Y > s 24.7 37.0 11.0 5.5 19.2 2.8 Average: July 1969 8.6 39.1 12.6 7.3 29.0 3.3 Averager July 1970 16.3 40.2 11.8 6.7 22.5 2.6 Ingham: 1. C,ES 25.3 54.4 16.5 2.5 0 1.3 ii,ir5 18.2 61 .4 13.6 4.5 0 2.3 s. n,cs 26.7 46. 7 13.3 13.3 0 0 I. u ,es 22.9 47.9 16.7 8.3 0 4.2 S. 11,11s 21.4 34.0 7.8 4.9 25.2 6.9 ... II,C5 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 28.6 14.3 7. N,ns 40.7 42.9 5.S 6.6 0 8. s,ir5 27.9 29.5 3.3 9.8 8.2 Average: July 1969 21.4 37.2 9.9 5.6 19.8 6.3 \verngc: July 19~0 26.0 35,2 6.7 7.0 13.2 11.9 I,u5 16.2 61.3 15.2 3.9 0 3.5 r.,u5 12.4 61.1 15.0 3.5 0 7.9 14.7 61 .0 12.2 12.2 0 0 4.4 21.3 I'lMitliinod ('otinrir« • .. ’■ |;. S .. n,.^ 29.9 43.3 14.2 9.4 0 3.2 s. 11,115 12.0 37.2 10.8 6.7 29.8 3.5 “■ "i1^ 5.6 24.5 13.2 7.5 39.6 v ,,:5 30 .6 49 .5 8.2 7.7 V,U 5 26.2 33.6 7.5 7.5 14.2 11.2 Iveragc: July 1969 12.6 38.4 11.7 6.8 26.2 4.3 lverage: July 1970 19.8 38.1 9.7 7.0 18.8 6.7 S. J lt o u percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. Q 9.4 4.1 245 Tabla A-6 Diatrlbutlon of AFDC Faailiai by Araa of Residence (Row Percentages)» County Baploynant Group Model Cities Area Other Central City Suburban 1 Saall Town Rural Genesee: B1ES 2. E1US 3. E1CS . 4. U1ES S. U1US 27.2 37.6 22.4 23.2 54.B 23,2 1.4 17.4 23.1 58.5 23.1 0 15.4 4.0 8.8 24,4 35.9 17.9 1.3 20.5 28.3 38.7 20.3 1.9 10.8 6. U1C5 7. N!E5 40.0 20.0 15.6 0 24.4 30.5 26.7 22.9 5.7 14.3 Be N1US 22.2 41.7 23.6 0 12.5 Average: July 1969 29.6 35.5 19.7 1.6 13.5 Average: July 1970 25.7 39.1 21.8 1.4 12.1 Inghaa: *• E1ES 2. E1US 3. E1CS 4. U1ES S. U.US 24.1 32.9 26.6 7.6 8.9 42.9 28.6 21.4 4.8 2,4 13.3 40,0 40.0 6.7 0 14.3 30.6 44.9 2.0 8.2 35.4 31.3 21.2 4.0 8.1 0 71.4 28.6 0 0 6. U1CS 7. N1ES 18.7 36.3 28.6 9.9 6.6 S. V s 37.7 24.6 32.8 3.3 1.6 Average: July 1969 31.0 33.4 24.3 4.0 7.4 Average: July 1970 33.4 29.1 27.8 4.4 5.3 Combined Counties: I. E1ES 26.0 35.8 24.0 5.4 8.8 2. E1US 3. E1CS 30.9 32.4 22.5 2.7 11.6 19.5 39.0 29.3 2.5 9.8 4. U1ES 5. uius 6. U1CS 20.5 33.9 28.2 1.6 15.8 30.6 36.3 20,6 2.6 9.9 34.7 26.8 17. 3 0 21.2 7, N1ES S. N1US 25.0 31.2 25.5 7,7 10.7 29.3 33.9 27.8 1.5 7.5 Average: July 1969 30.1 34.8 21.0 2.4 11.7 Average: July 1970 29.2 34.8 24.3 2.6 9.2 *Row percentages nay not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 246 Tab]* A-7 Diatrlbutlon of AFDC Fwllla* by Homing Arrang«a«nta (Row Perc.nt.gaa)* Count) limployment Croup Ownod or Purchasing Purchasing FHA 235/221 Public Housing Private Housing 22.4 19.2 12.8 45.6 0 i,ii. S.~ 26.1 15.9 46.4 2.8 s. iv -. 15.4 3.8 7.7 65.4 7.6 Ci’nctce: t. I:,i:s t. Rant Praa and Other 3,9 15.2 17,7 51.9 6.4 5. 11,11, 10.4 26.4 12.7 47.6 2.8 "• "i,:s 7. X,l:5 19.0 2.2 4.3 67.4 6,7 13.3 12.S 4.8 62.5 1.9 «■ V's 11.0 8.2 0 72.6 8.2 ,\vikra)ic: July |%D 12.3 21.5 11.7 50.9 3.5 A v er.'ijio: J u l y 11.4 17.7 7.4 SB.6 5,0 1J"l> Inuhnm ; 1‘ in. 2 2.6 9.0 66.7 2.6 9. 1 11.4 11.4 68.2 0 -■ l;iur. .v e ,.:s 15.5 0 13.3 73.3 0 .. ly:, 13.4 4.1 22.4 55.1 0 S. 11, 111. s 6. IPjC.. 15.5 4.9 12.6 61.2 5.8 14.5 14.3 0 71.4 0 r. v,t;5 1!).8 7.7 2,2 69.2 1.1 S. N,.l, 9.8 4.9 4.9 80,3 0 15.7 5.3 12.5 62.1 4.4 13.8 5.2 8.8 69.6 2.5 12.8 113 53.8 1.0 8.9 20.4 14.1 54.9 1.7 14.6 2.4 9.8 68.3 4.8 •W er.-ige: J u l y \vornji<*: I9 6 0 July Combined Counties ; I. 1.,!., -• J l.a i 'Vs .v 4. ii,n. 17.5 U.O 19.5 53.1 3.9 5. II.|J. 12.1 19.4 12.7 52.0 3.8 1 9 0. II,c5 18.9 3.8 3.7 67.9 5.8 N,n, 19.0 10.3 3.6 65.6 1.5 s. N,IIS 10.5 6.7 2.2 76.1 4.5 13.4 16.4 11.9 54.4 3.8 12.2 13.1 8.1 62.8 3,8 7 . iv c r n n c : J u ly 11)6 9 H'cr.ige: July J970 | *'now p c r c c n t n ilP S may n o t add t o 1 0 0 .0 duo t o r o u n d in g . 247 Tibia A-$ Diatrlbutlon of AFDC Faalliaa by Statu* of Father (How percentage)*)1 County employment Croup Absent for Other Reasons divorced Legally Separated Deserted No Legal Father ,!I,!S 20,3 2 1.6 28.8 16.8 12.0 l;i"s _ 21.7 ir.4 20.5 2h.l 14.4 50. A 15.4 11.5 34 .0 7.7 Cencscer 'V s ' 5 8.0 25.3 IS.2 29.1 21.7 18.0 25,6 2S.9 0 .0 '*• "iS 15.2 21 .7 21.7 25.0 17.4 7. 18.1 5.8 22.0 15.2 40.0 ■ s- Y 's 15. 1 12.5 23.5 35.6 13.7 \veragcr .July 1»>09 20.7 18.8 23.4 24.7 12.3 Nvorpge: July 1P70 18.8 15.1 23.6 28.6 13.8 Inch.uti: i. i:,i5 45,0 to. 5 27.8 17.7 5.1 4.5 '■ "lKS 5. ii. . Itio 21. 'V s 54 1 13.0 15.9 51.8 ,:.s 20.~ 15.5 33. 5 26.7 '• 'V :s 5. 11 II. 20 5 1 30.6 20.4 16.5 52.0 1.9 1(3.2 21.4 15.5 ... ulS 11.5 14.5 <1 ■■ V :5 a. vti.s 12.1 t».«» 27.5 12.1 41.8 18.0 s.: 59 5 24,*i 0.7 -• 0 0 71.5 Vveragr: July lsic.il 52.5 6.1 25.1 20.S 16.8 \versigc: .fitly* 1970 24.8 6.7 31.S 21.8 1S.1 I'omlMilcJ Counties: 1. 29.4 15 T ■»o ! 57. 1 9.5 26.5 15.9 18.6 28. 3 10.3 3. 1,l'j 20. 3 14.6 19.5 51.7 4.9 4. V s 5. ","3 o. ",S 23.4 7.8 2”.3 17.2 24.2 25. 1 14.5 21.5 21. 1 11.4 15.1 20. 7 18.8 20. 7 24.5 |:|U5 Vr- 15.5 5. 1 25 .o 13.8 40.8 Y 's 16.4 10.4 50 ,6 50. 6 11.0 \Vtl■ape: July 19o9 23.3 14.8 23.9 23. 3 13.6 \\rr;i^c: fuJy 1970 21.1 11.9 27.1 25.7 14.0 s. lUin. pervent.i^e*- na> IJOt .uld to 100.u duo to roundine. 248 . Tabla A*9 Diatrlbutlon of AFDC Faaillai by Yaar of Pir»t Kocetpt of AFDC (How Percentage*)* County Hnploymont Croup 19641965 1$661967 19681969 1970 12.8 14.4 16.8 32.0 0 4.3 11.b 31.9 29.0 Q 0 0 19.2 33.8 0 1959 or earlier 19601961 19621963 ,4.4 I .5 9.6 U.o ?.- Cent'scc: 1. -• l;.l,s 1 ! V* • i. ii1 ,i:a . 5. II,U. i:.7 10. 1 3.8 11.4 21.5 40.5 0 14.0 9.0 14.2 15.1 20.5 26.9 0 IIjCj 12.9 0.S T.o 8.7 1.9 4.8 50.1) 37.1 38.1 2.8 S.7 5.S t> 15.0 7. s..:. S. NjU, 4.1 1.4 34.2 50.2 14.2 9.2 9.1 S.2 13.0 7.9 13.3 Average: July 1969 Average: July 1070 Ingham: 1. U,HS -• v * s. i;,cs 0 18.7 31.8 0 10.0 12.0 31.1 24.8 ; 16.7 7.7 12.8 9.0 24.4 29.5 ; 22.8 6.8 9.1 IS.2 18.2 25.0 35.-4 0.7 0 20.0 20.0 20.0 II.[ fi 2 14.3 4.1 26.5 32.7 0 0 0 0 21.5 28.0 » 0 i. ii,>:s s. 3.8 1.I ii,i.5 ... U|CS : ■■ V s S. X,US j 7.8 7.8 10.7 17.5 35.0 0 14.3 28.6 14,5 14.3 0 3.3 5.3 4.4 0.6 35.0 47.3 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.0 3.3 29.5 00.7 Average: July 196*1 20.9 7.4 9.0 11.3 18.7 32.7 0 Average: July 1970 11.2 4.9 5.5 6.3 11.6 32,1 28.6 Combined Counties: i. i:,i:5 16.5 8,9 12.8 12.3 19.7 31.0 0 1-1.2 26.6 27.4 0 7.3 19.5 •11.4 0 -■ V i:ics J. IV ;5 15.9 9.7 0.2 24.4 7.3 0 13.2 9.4 7.S 8.6 23.4 37.5 0 5. 11,11, 17.2 8.5 11.7 19.2 30.0 ft. U,C5 15.0 7.0 9.4 45.5 0 0 7. N,,:, 3.0 3.0 15.1 3.0 13.1 9.4 6.1 5.6 35.2 42.4 2,3 32.1 58.2 32.5 31 5 26.2 s. S,us Average: July 1909 Average: July 1970 p e rc e n ta g e s may n o t 2.6 0.7 1.5 3.O 16.6 8.5 11,4 12.5 18.5 5.1 6.8 6.5 11.8 10,2 :h I i ! t o 1 0 0 .0 d u o t o r o u n d in g 0 249 Table A-10 Distribution of AFDC Paailie* by Month* of Continuous Receipt of AFDC Prior to July, 1970 (Row Percentages) County Baplnyaent Group Mean MONTHS Genesee: 1. El8s 37.240 30.406 3. ElCs 32.038 «. UtEs 38.380 2. E,US ■ 0-6 7-12 13-10 19-24 7.2 13.6 12.8 s.a 13.0 13.0 0 7.7 30.8 5.1 8.9 15.2 25-36 37-48 49-60 61-72 73+ 8.0 16.8 12.0 8.8 4.8 16.0 15.9 21.7 13,0 7.2 4.3 19.2 15.4 7.7 7.7 0 11.5 12.7 19.0 8.9 7.6 8,9 13.9 5.8 5. UjU, 40.712 4.2 8.0 15.6 9.9 16.0 10.4 11,8 8.5 15.6 6. UlCs 31.358 6.5 6.5 30.4 IS.2 15.2 4.3 2. 2 6.5 13.0 7. NlE5 6.229 54.3 45.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 «. N,US 5.096 67.1 32.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average: 7-69 38.619 4.7 8,2 17.8 11.0 16.2 9.5 9.8 7.8 14.8 Average: 7-70 24.084 32.5 20.4 8.3 5.5 8.9 5,7 6.1 4.4 8.2 34.646 6.3 19.0 10.1 12.7 17.7 12.7 2.S 5,1 13.9 6,8 IS.9 13.6 Inghaa: *■ EiEs 2. ElUs 40.432 2.3 9.1 11.4 13.6 22.7 4.5 3. ElCs 27.467 0 20,0 33.3 6.7 20.0 13.3 0 0 6.7 4. UlEs 32.490 0 12.2 22.4 16.3 16.3 14.3 2.0 8.2 8.2 s- uius 6. u,rs 28.485 3.9 16,S 25.2 13.6 14.6 9.7 8.7 2.9 4.9 13.714 14.3 14.3 71.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. NlEs 5.615 61. S 33.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. NlUs 5.098 68.9 31.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average: 7-69 29.OSS 4.1 IS.9 25.6 13.0 14,7 9.7 7.0 3.9 6.0 Average: 7r70 17.753 35.1 24.1 11.7 7.0 7.8 5.1 3.8 2.1 3,2 12.3 6.4 4.9 lb.£ 9.7 7.0 8,8 8.8 Combined Counties: 1. F. 1FS 2. ElUs 1T*. '»tC 6.9 15.7 11.8 S.o 34.310 4.4 11.5 12.4 1S.0 22.1 3. ElCs 30.366 0 12.2 31.7 14.6 17.1 9.7 4.9 0 4. UlEs 36.12S 3.1 10.2 18.0 14.1 18.0 11.0 5.5 8.6 s. ulUs 36.713 4.1 10,8 18.7 11. 1 IS.5 10.2 10.8 6.7 12.1 6. UlCs 29.036 7.S 7.5 35.8 13.2 13.2 3.7 1.9 5,6 U.3 7. NlEs 5.944 57,6 42.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. NlUs 5.097 67.9 32. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.0 6.5 Average: 7-69 548 4.6 10.7 20,3 11.6 IS.7 9.5 8.9 6.6 Average: 7-70 ->1.854 33.4 21.6 9.5 6.0 8.5 5.5 S.3 3.6 aRow percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 9.7 11.7 250 Tabi* A-U Distribution of AFDC Fnilies by Total Number of Children in Assistance Group (Row Percentages)8 County Employment Croup Genesee: 1. E,ES 1 14.4 •> 18.4 1 N'ot Recorded 4 S 6 7 19.2 19.2 15.2 7.2 4.0 2.4 0 8+ ■ 2. E,US 24.6 27.5 15.9 15.9 5.8 2.9 2.9 4.2 (1 S. ElCs 42.5 23.1 19.2 7.7 3.8 3.8 0 0 0 4- U1ES s. ulU$ 16.5 32.9 21.5 13.9 S.1 3.8 5.1 1.3 0 19.3 23.1 21.7 14.6 8.5 5.2 5.2 1.9 o.s 6. UjCj 34.8 26.1 15.2 10.9 4.3 4.3 2.2 0 >2 7. NlEs 23.8 31.4 15.2 16.2 5.7 4.8 2.9 0 0 8. NiU£ 39.7 32.9 S.S 9.6 5.5 S.5 0 0 1.4 Average: July 1969 21.7 24.0 20.4 14.2 7.9 5.0 4.6 1.6 0.7 Average: July 1970 27.6 27.8 14.6 12.8 7.2 5.3 2.9 1.1 0.6 20.3 26.6 20.3 16.5 7.6 6.3 2.5 0 0 2. B,US 15.9 34.1 13.6 13,6 13.6 4.5 2.3 2.3 0 3. ElCs 26.7 40.0 6.7 13,3 6,7 0 0 0 6. 7 4. UjEs IB.4 34,7 16.3 10.2 B. 2 4.1 4.1 4.0 O 5. UjU5 21.4 19.4 27.2 16.5 4.9 4,9 3.9 2.0 0 6. UlCs 42.9 28.6 Q 14.3 14.3 0 0 t) 0 7. NlEs 31.9 2B.6 13,2 13.2 6.6 3,3 3.3 0 0 8. N,US 41.0 18.0 18.0 13.1 4.9 3.3 1.6 0 0 Ingham: Average: July 1969 22.0 22.7 23.5 15.7 6.3 4.6 3.5 1.9 0.1 Average: July 1970 29.8 21.1 21.1 14.5 5.S 4.1 2.8 1.0 0 Combined Counties: 1. ElEs 16.7 21.6 19.6 18.2 12.3 6.9 3,4 1.5 0 2. E,US 21.2 30.1 15.0 15.0 8.B 3.5 2.7 3.5 0 9.7 4.9 Z.^ 0 O 2.5 12,5 6.3 s.y 4.7 2.3 0 3. 36.6 29. 3 14 4. 17.2 33.6 19.S S. utus 20.0 21.9 23,5 IS.2 7.3 5.1 4.8 1.9 o. 3 6. UlCs 35.9 26,4 13.2 11.3 5.6 3,7 1.9 0 1.9 7. NlEs 27.6 30.1 14.3 14.8 6. 1 4.1 3. 0 0 8. NlUs 40,3 26. 1 11.2 11.2 5.2 4.5 0.7 0 0.7 Average: July 1969 21.8 23.5 21.4 14,6 7.3 4.9 4.2 1.7 0.5 Average: July 1970 28.5 24.7 17.5 13.6 tr.5 4.6 2.9 1.0 0.4 aRow percentages may not add to 1 0 0 ,0 due to rounding. 251 Table A-12 Distribution of AFDC Fnilies by Number of Children Age 0-2 in Assistance Group (Row Percentages)* County nmployment Group 0 1 2 Genesee: i. n,Es 83.8 10.4 .8 ,:,u5 38.4 11.6 0 l> l:iS 30.S 19.2 0 0 "5.9 21.5 2.5 0 7**.4 19.8 2.8 0 '• V s s. 5 0 i«. iijt:,. 82.0 17.4 0 9 -■ V s 7l>.5 25.7 2.9 J.0 "■ V s 4S.8 ill.O 9.6 4) Average: July 1969 79.0 18.A 2.2 0 Nverage: .Inly I97H 63.9 30.6 5.4 0.1 Iugh.im: 1. 15,1=3 89.*> 10. 1 0 11 i:,us 8 1. 1 15.5) 0 0 H t) S. 1,1'., 95.5 6.7 ll,,;5 (>5.3 32 V 00.(1 52 .0 1■ '• »,"s 0 .0 .0 1) 1.0 "• 'Vs n ,.s JUH.il 55* .5 57 .1 s.s (1 s. Slii5 II .1) 50.8 O .M 1 .n o 0 J u ly 1909 70.7 27.7 0.9 0.7 \v<*ragc: J u l y 15)70 56.9 38.7 3.4 1.0 N9 ’ Mi * f 2 J \v o r:ig o : Combined C o u n t i e s : 1. II, l._ -■ 'l"s s. IV :S SO.“ 15.3 il H s r , .i 1l.C 0 0 '■ lV s ~l s 25. S J.J H "3. “ 23.8 l .1 S-l.5* 15. ! ' V s 05. .5 s Vs \ : .5 "i"s 0. H .l'- \ \C V .i g O : \v c i.ig c : 'hoi. !>Le ss ’illv 1909 J u ly I *17*0 percentages may n o t than 0.05 p e rc e n t. add to o •3 ! 0 51.1 5. I 0 5 48 .3 S.^ o. ■ 76.4 21 . 6 1.7 0.2 h i.3 3 3.6 4.6 0.4 I i l i l . i l du e to ro im J in V 252 Tlbl* A-13 Distribution of AFDC Families by Nunbar of Children Age 0-S in Assistance Group (Row Percentages)* County Employment Group 0 1 2 52.0 33.6 11.2 3.2 0 0 EIUS Vs ll,l£s 40.3 27.5 18.8 2.9 0 1.4 3 4 5+ Genesee: «• ' , S 46.2 23.1 26.9 3.8 0 0 36.7 34.2 22.8 3.8 2.6 S. I.,..,, 42.0 25.9 21.7 7.5 0 2.8 0 "Vs 7. V .5 45.7 30.4 13.0 8.7 2.2 0 33.3 37.1 25.7 3.8 0 0 R. S,lls 20.5 47.9 27.4 4.1 0 0 Average: July 1969 43.0 33.1 27.4 19.9 36.0 23.9 7.1 5.6 2.3 1.3 0.2 0.1 58.2 29.1 7.6 3.8 1.3 0 Average: July 1970 Ingham: -■ Kius 36.4 36.4 20.5 4.5 2.3 0 3- E.cs 00.0 26.7 13.3 0 0 0 u.r:s s. «.1I.S 42.0 30.6 18.4 8.2 35.0 31.1 18.4 10.7 71.4 28.6 0 0 0 0 ’• V s 8. ST,!!,. 20.0 45.1 25.3 7.7 1.1 0 14.8 41.0 27.9 13.1 3.3 0 Average: July i960 39.7 30.9 16.7 9.0 3.8 0 Average: July 1070 27.0 36.4 22.4 10.6 3.5 0 Combined Counties: >■ 'V s 54.4 31.9 9.8 3.4 0.5 0 44.5 31.0 19.5 3.5 0.9 0.9 51.2 39.1 24.4 21.9 2.4 0 0 32.8 21.1 5.5 0 1.6 s. 1i"r. i,i:5 0 0 4.9 0 '■ V s S. UjU;- 41.1 26,6 21.3 7.9 3.1 0 '• “ |S 49.1 30.2 11.3 7.6 1.9 0 27.5 40.8 25.5 5.6 0.5 0 17.9 44.8 27.6 8.2 1.5 0 42.9 27.9 19.3 7.3 31.3 35.4 1 ''noh percentages may not :nid to 100.0 due to rounding. 23.7 7.5 2.5 2.0 0.1 0.1 v.-. •s. n |(i5 1 1 \veragc: July I'.Ut'J \wr.igo: Julv 1070 1 i t 253 Table A-14 Diftrlbutlon of AFDC Families by Nueber of Children Axe 6-12 in Assistance Group (Row Percentages)® County Eaployaent Group CensiM: 1. E,ES 2. E,U5 . 0 1 22.4 20.0 29.0 36.2 3 4 5 6* 26.4 17.6 10.4 1.6 1.6 15.9 13.0 2.9 1.4 1.4 2 S. E,CS S3.8 11.5 19.2 11.5 3.8 0 0 4. U,ES 35.4 29.1 16.5 10.1 7.6 1.3 0 5- V s 37.7 25.9 17.5 12.3 4.2 1.4 0.9 6. «jCs 45.7 26.1 17.4 8.7 2.2 0 0 7. NlEs 41.0 20.0 18.1 14.3 5.7 1.0 0 8. NlUs 63.0 19.2 4.1 8.2 4.1 1.4 0 Average: July 1969 36.2 25.8 17.8 11,9 4.3 1.2 0.8 Average: July 1970 47.S 22.9 12.3 10.8 4.5 1.4 0,5 34.2 24.1 21.5 17.7 2.5 0 0 Inghasi: 1' V s 2- V s 45.5 15.9 6,8 18.2 9.1 4.5 0 *■ E1CS 4. UlEs 46.7 20.0 20.0 6.7 6.7 0 0 36.7 16.3 22.4 12.2 6.1 2.0 4.0 s. ulUs 42.7 23.3 17.5 11.7 2.9 1.9 0 6. 57. 1 0 28.6 0 14.3 0 0 7. NtEs 49.S 23.1 15.4 6.6 5.5 0 0 8. NlUs 65.6 13.1 11.5 6.6 3.3 0 0 Average: July 1969 42.4 21.2 18.4 11.8 4.0 1.8 0.3 Average: July 1970 51.8 18.8 15.1 9.6 3.6 1.0 0.2 Coaibined Counties: 1. ElFs 26.9 21.6 24.5 17,6 7,4 1.0 1.0 2- V s 39.S 23.9 12.4 15.0 5. 3 2.6 0.9 3. EtCs 51.2 14.6 19.5 9.7 4.9 0 0 4. UlEs 35.9 24.2 18.8 10.9 7.0 1.5 0.6 s. ulUs 39.3 25.0 17.5 12.1 3,7 1.6 1.6 6. 47.2 22.7 18.9 7.6 3.8 0 0 7. NlEs 44.9 21.4 16.8 10.7 5.6 0.5 0 8. NlUs 64.2 16.4 7.5 7.5 3.7 0.8 0 Average: July 1969 39.5 24.3 18.0 11.8 4.2 1.4 0.6 Average: July 1970 49.1 21.1 13.6 10.4 4. 1 1.2 0.4 aRow percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. i Tabia A-1S Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Children Ag. ISand Over In Assistanca Group (Row Percentages)* County Kmploymont Group 0 1 2 3 4* 8,0 3.2 Conosco: I. ElBs 'V s . I15 i. i.,r:_ 27.2 59,4 18.8 20.8 10.1 “0.!> 15.4 63.3 7.2 4.3 7.7 0 0 16.5 8.9 7.6 3.8 19.3 13.7 9,0 2.9 26. 1 6.5 4.3 8.6 11.0 4.B 1.4 0 0 0 y.. 70.5 16.2 s. Nln5 HO.8 6.8 Average: .Inly 1*160 56.5 20.5 12.5 8.0 2.5 Vverage: July 66.3 14.2 12.3 5,6 1.6 1. 11,BS 43.0 26.6 17.7 8.9 3.8 68.2 11.4 13.6 2.3 4.6 A. 60.0 20.0 20.0 0 71.4 12.2 10.2 4.1 5. ..,1,5 61.2 16.5 11.7 9.7 "• "ilr. 12.9 28.6 28,6 0 ‘ ji 55.2 63.0 •I ’ 40.8 73.6 14.3 11,0 i.l S. Xjllj. 80.3 19.7 0 0 2.0 1.0 0 0 0 Average: -fvi1>* 1969 60.0 17.3 13.1 Average: 69.8 17.7 CnmhincJ Countic*: l. 1 . 4*, 7 -■ '."s 62.8 high.-un: 0 8.2 1.4 7.2 4.6 0.8 27.6 19.0 8.3 3.4 15.9 11.5 5.3 4,4 70.7 17.1 12.2 0 0 66.4 9,4 6.3 3.1 57.2 14.9 18.4 13,0 9.2 2.3 60.3 26.4 9.4 3.7 0 N.I., 71 .9 15.3 9.7 3.1 0 s. X,,,. 80.6 12.7 6.0 0.8 0 57.6 19.6 12.6 8.1 2.2 67.5 16.0 10.0 5.2 1.3 J u ly 19"*0 ’■ 1|i:S 4. 11,1., I "i"s n. lt,t:p Average: July |‘>ol> 1 Average: July I ''n o n lu -rc e iita R C S 1 1 \ may n o t ndd t o 100 .0 due t o r o u n d in g . 255 Table A-16 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Persons in the Assistance Croup, July, 1969 (How Percentages) County Employ­ ment Group Mean PEL1 2 3 Genesee: 1. E1ES 4.464 15.4 2 3.76S 24.6 E1US 3. E,CS 4. U1ES 5. U1US 4 5 6 7 8+ 18.7 16.3 21.1 15.4 5.7 7.3 34.8 8.7 11.6 14.S 2.9 2.9 3.8 7.7 3.8 0 | 3.115 46.2 26.9 11.5 3.987 16.5 32.9 24.1 10.1 6.3 5.0 5.0 7.1 3.8 a.o 4.103 21.7 22.2 23.6 13.7 6. U1C5 7. N1ES 3.195 37.0 23.9 21.7 6.5 2.2 8.7 0 ... ... --- --- ... ... S. N1US -- ... -- --... ... 3.959 23.8 23.3 22.5 12.6 6.9 4.7 6.4 23.7 18.4 21.1 5.3 9.2 1.3 Average: 7-69 Ingham: 3.835 21.0 3.977 27.3 25.0 13.6 9.0 15.9 4.5 4.5 3.200 33.3 40.0 6.7 13.3 6.7 0 0 4. U1ES 5. U1U5 4.020 22.4 32.7 14.3 10.2 12.2 0 8.2 3.922 24.3 24.3 21.4 13.6 5.8 5.8 4.9 6. U1CS 7* N1ES 3.143 42.9 28.6 0 --- ... ... K E1E5 2. E1U5 3. E1CS 0 0 ... ... ... -- -- ... ... -- -- 25.1 25.S 18.9 13.7 7.2 5.1 4.6 17.6 20.6 17.1 21.1 11.5 7.1 5.0 3.850 25.7 31.0 10.6 10-6 15.0 3.5 3.5 3.146 41.5 31.7 9.7 7.3 7.3 2.4 0 ... Average: 7-69 3.877 Combined Counties: 1. E1ES 4.221 4. U1ES S. U1U5 14.3 ... ... 8. N1US 2. E1US 3. E1CS 14.3 ... 4.000 18.8 32.8 20.3 10.1 8.6 3.1 6.2 4.04B 22.6 22.9 22.9 13.7 6.7 4.S 7.0 0 6. U!CS 7. N1ES 8. N1U5 3. 359 37.8 24.5 18.8 7.5 3.8 7.6 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... -- -- ... -- Average: 7-69 3.953 24.3 23.9 21.4 13.0 7.0 4.9 5.8 ttRow percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 256 Table A-17 Distribution of APUC Families by Number of Persons Ln Household, July, 1969 (How Percentages)11 County Employment Group 3 4 5 6 7 8+ 13.8 17.9 17.0 17.9 17,9 6.5 8.9 17,-1 27.5 13,0 15.9 11.6 5.8 8.7 34.6 19.2 15,4 7.7 15.4 3.8 3.8 '• U1ES u,u5 7.6 29.1 26.6 13.9 5.1 6.3 11.4 s. 12.3 20,8 22.6 18.4 7.5 5.7 12.7 6. U,C5 15.2 32.6 26. 1 8.7 6.5 8.7 2.2 — ... ... ... --- --- -- ... ... -- 12.9 23.1 22.8 16,5 Genesee: *■ E1E5 ' -- EIUS 3. n,c5 7. NjEs 8. N,US Average: July 1969 ... 7.9 6.2 10.6 Ingham: '• EIES 2. ElUs 15.8 22,4 19.7 23.7 6.6 10.5 1.3 25.0 25.0 13.6 6.8 20.5 4.S 4.5 3. EjC5 26.7 40.0 6.7 20.0 6.7 0 0 4. UjEs 18.4 26.5 16.3 14.3 16.3 0 8.2 7.8 6.8 0 0 5. U,U5 15.5 20.4 22.3 18.4 8.7 *. ulCs 42.9 28.6 0 14.3 14.3 '• N1E5 8. N,US Average: July 1969 ... ... --- -- -- -- -- -- 17.7 22.0 19.9 17.8 9.9 6.7 6.0 14.6 19 .6 18.0 20.1 13.5 8.0 6.0 20.4 26.5 13.2 12.4 IS. 1 5 .3 7.1 2.4 Combined Counties: 1• '=,E? -■ E1US 3. r,rs 31.7 26.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 2.4 4. II, l 5 11.7 28.1 22.7 14. 1 9.4 3.9 10.2 10.8 s. u,«5 13.3 20.7 22.5 18.4 7.D 6.4 k. u,c5 18.9 32.1 22.7 9.4 7.5 7.6 1.9 --- ... ---- ---- 6.4 9.: ... 7. N,E5 --- 8. S,lls ---- ---- ---- 14.4 22.8 21.9 ... ' Average: July 1969 ^Kow p e r c e n t a g e s may n o t add to 1 0 0 .0 d u e to r o u n d in g . 16.fi fi.S 257 T»bl» A-1S Distribution of Budgotod Ront, July, 1968 (Row Percantagos)* County Employment Croup No Kent Budgeted 1-59 60-79 80-09 00-99 28.3 6.4 16.4 14.4 6.4 -■ El"s S. F.,CS 21.7 10.1 34.6 7.2 7.2 4.3 19.2 15.4 7,7 7.7 7.7 26.9 4. II,Es 21,5 6.3 30.4 10.1 6.3 11,11,. 23.6 6. 1 17.9 7.5 4,7 6. U,CS 23.9 4.3 10.9 17.4 8.7 100-109 110-119 120+ 14.4 0.0 10.4 0 14.5 3.8 11.5 15.2 0 10.1 26.9 0.9 12.3 17.4 6.5 10.9 Genesee: C1ES . s. 7. NlEs 8. N,US Average: July 1969 ! 23.7 6.0 17.9 9.5 5.6 23.6 1.7 11.9 Ingham: 1. E,ES j 22.8 1.3 12.7 8.9 11.4 22.8 8.9 11.4 2. E,US 15.9 2.3 6.8 6.8 4.5 36.4 15.9 11.4 E.CS 20.0 0 6.7 13.3 6.7 33.3 6.7 13.3 4. ul h : s. ii,iis 6. ll,Cs | 24.5 4.1 12.2 2.0 10,2 20.4 14.3 12.2 23.3 2.9 1.0 4.9 9.7 28.2 9.7 20.4 28.6 0 28.6 28.6 0 14.3 0 ... 7, N,l£5 ... __ __ 10. 5 27.6 9.8 17.5 12.3 8.3 17.7 3.9 10.8 __ __ Average: July 1969 23.3 2.7 3.9 4.9 Combined Counties: 1. li,Es 26.5 4.4 16.2 8. »,lis 0 __ -• ni"., a. K,CS 19.4 7.1 23.9 7.0 6.1 16.8 6,2 13.3 19.S 9.8 7.3 9.7 7.3 29.2 4.9 12.2 4. „lEs 22.6 S.5 23.4 7.0 7.8 17.2 5.5 10.9 s. .i,i.s 23.5 5.1 12.4 6.6 6.3 27.3 3.8 14.9 ft. II,CS 24.5 3.7 11.3 15,1 11.3 18.9 5.6 9.5 — ... ... --- ... 8.1 7.1 24,8 4.2 13.7 ... V 5 8. V rs Average: July 1969 ■'lim. p e r c e n t .i r p s may n o t add to — 23.6 5.0 1 0 0 .0 d u o t o r o u n d in g - — 13.5 258 Table A-lfl Distribution of Budgeted Hoaestead Amount. July, 1969 (Row Percentages)* County taployaent Group I Houestesd Budaeted 81-59 $60-79 $80-89 $90-99 $100-109 $110-119 7.2 1.6 $120+ 1. ElEs 72,0 4.0 4.8 0.8 7.2 2. ElUs . 84.1 1.4 2.9 1.4 4.3 2.9 0 2.9 *■ B1CS 4. UlEs 88.5 0 0 0 7.7 0 0 3.8 88.6 0 2.5 1,3 0 3.8 1.3 2.5 s. u,u5 83.9 2.4 2.4 0.9 0.9 3.3 1.4 4.7 6. UlCs 87.0 2.2 4.3 2.2 0 0 2.2 2.2 7. HjEj — — — — — ... ... ... --- --- --- — ... ... ... 84.1 2.3 2.8 1.1 1.2 3.0 1.5 4.0 1' E1ES 2. ElUs 83.5 3.8 0 2.5 2.5 5.1 0 2.5 88.6 2.2 0 2.2 2.2 4.5 0 0 3. ElCs 80.0 6.7 0 0 4- V s s. ulUs 81.6 2.0 2.0 4.1 4.1 85.4 1.0 2.9 3.9 4.9 1.0 1.0 0 6. U,CS 85,7 0 0 14.3 0 0 0 0 7. Hl h ... ... — ... — -- ... ... 8 . NlUs — --- ... ... ... ... ... 1.8 0.7 0.2 B. NjUs Average: July 1969 2.4 Ingham: Average: July 1969 Combined Counties: 1. E,ES 13.3 0 0 0 6.1 0 0 85.0 1.4 2.3 4.2 4.4 76,5 3.9 2.9 1.5 5.4 6.4 1.0 2.4 85.9 1.7 1.8 1.7 3.5 3.5 0 1.8 2- E1US 3. ElCs 85.4 2.5 0 0 9.7 0 0 2.4 4- V s 85.9 0,8 2.3 2.4 1.6 4.7 0.8 1.5 S. UjUj. 84.4 1,9 2.6 1.9 2.2 2,5 1.3 3.2 6. «lC5 86. B 1.5 3.8 3.8 0 0 1.9 1.9 7. NlCs — — — — ... — ... 8. N,US — --- ... ... 84.4 1.9 2.6 1.3 Average: July 1969 *Rov percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. ... 2.7 2.1 2.2 2.8 259 Tabla A-20 Distribution of Total Requirements, July, 1969 (Row Percentages)* County Enploymont Group Mean TOTRQ1 *0-99 $100-139 $140-179 $180-219 $220-259 $260-299 $300-399 $400+ Cornso*: *■ E1ES 2. ElUs 259.736 0 2.4 9.8 16.3 21,1 19.5 28.5 2.4 225.261 2.9 7.2 17,4 24.6 17.4 17.4 10.1 2.9 3. ElCs 208.077 3.8 3.8 23.1 30.8 19.2 7.7 11.5 0 4- U1ES s. u,u5 230.759 5.1 6.3 12.7 25.3 16.5 13.9 17.7 2.5 242.527 3.3 4.7 11.4 23.7 16,6 20.9 13.7 5.7 217.217 6.5 6.5 15,2 19.6 26.1 17.4 8.7 0 — — . 6. U,C5 7. N,E5 ... ... ... ... — 8. NjUj ... ... ... ... ... — ... --- — ... --- Average: 7*69 238*033 3.7 5.0 12.3 22.9 18.3 19.7 13.7 4.4 Ingham: 1. ElEs 241.342 2.6 3.9 9.2 17.1 15.8 25.0 26.3 0 2. ElUs 249.455 2.3 4.5 6.8 22.7 IB. 1 20.5 22.7 2.3 3. ElCs 233.933 0 6.7 O 46, 7 20.0 20.0 6.7 4- U1ES 246.918 2.0 6, 1 12.2 22.4 16.3 20.4 12.2 5- uius 6. UlCs 246.290 3.9 3.9 16.5 8.7 24.3 18.4 22.3 1.9 206.857 14.3 0 14.3 28.6 14.3 0 28.6 0 — ... 0 8.2 ... ... ... ... — --- ... --- ... --- — ... 243.969 4.0 4,0 14,8 12,7 22.1 18.3 21.8 '• EiEs 2. E,U, 252.613 1.0 3.0 9.6 16.6 19.0 21.6 27.6 1.5 234.681 2.7 6.1 13.3 23.9 17.7 18.6 15.0 2.7 s- Eics 213.878 2.4 4.9 14.6 36.6 19.5 12.2 9.7 4- U1ES s. u,us 236.945 3.9 6.2 12.5 24.2 16.4 16.4 15,6 4.7 243.756 3.5 4.4 13.1 18.8 19.1 20.1 16.5 4.5 6. UlCs 215.849 7.5 5.6 15. 1 20.8 24.5 15.1 11.3 0 — ... — — — ... — ... — --- ... ... --- --- --- ... 239.740 3.8 4.6 13.1 19.6 19.6 16,3 3,7 7. N,Es 8. N,US Average: 7-69 — ... ... 2.2 Combined Counties: 7. N,E5 8. N,US Average: 7-69 ... aRow percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 19.2 0 260 Table A-21 Distribution of Budgeted Employment Expenses, July, 1969 (Row Percentages) Comity Employment Group Mean $0 $ 1-20 $21-39 $ 40-79 $80-99 $100+ 14.4 22.4 32.0 10.4 12.8 Genesee: *• E1ES 56. 70 8.0 -• E1US 3. E,CS 55. 75 5.S 14.5 18.8 43.5 8.7 8.7 59. “1 0 19.2 15.4 30.8 26.9 7.7 4. If E. 5. GjUj ... ... ... ... 6. UjCj ... ... 7. ^F, 8. Average: July I960 (Employed Cases Only) ... ... ... ... ... 6.4 15.0 20.4 35.5 11.8 10.9 8.9 13,9 19.0 31.6 10.1 16.5 ... 56.76 Ingham: *• E1ES 2. ElUs 61.85 55. 14 2.3 15.9 22.7 31.8 11.4 15.9 3. E)C5 82.71 13.3 13.3 O 13.3 26.7 33.3 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... -- -- 7.3 14.5 18.1 29.7 12.3 18.1 58.69 8.3 14,2 21.1 31.8 10.3 14.2 2. ClU5 55.51 | 4.4 15,0 20.3 38.9 9.8 11.5 3. HjCj 68.12 I 4.9 17.0 9.8 24.4 26.8 17.1 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... --- ... — ... ... ... ... 6.7 14.8 19.6 33.2 12.0 13.7 4.* If1CS Es. U,US ... 6. U,CS 7. NjEs 8. NjUg Average:July 1969 (Employed Cases Only) Combined Counties: 1. ElEs 61.98 4. UlEs 3. UlUs ... j | j 6. U,C5 7. N,ES _ 8. --- Average: July 1969 (Employed Cases Only)(58.77 i aRow percentages may not add to 100.0 due to round ing. 261 Table A-22 Distribution of Net Earnings of APDC Ilothers, July,' 1969 (Row Percentages)3 County Employment Croup $0 $ 1-39 $40-79 $80-119 $120-159 $ 160+ 1* Eins J51.4J 26.4 24.0 23.2 16.0 5.6 -• V s 5. E,CS 41 +10 21.7 31 .9 26.1 13.0 5.8 1.4 62.27 23.1 30.8 3.8 26.9 7.7 7.7 ... ... ... ... ... — ... ... ... • 4. 11,1=,. 5. U,U5 — ... ... ... — ... 6. UjCg ... ... ... ... ... 7. NjEs ... 8+ NjU5 Average: July 1969 (Employed Cases ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 24.5 77.3 21.8 16.3 5.9 4.1 49.45 Only) * 4.8 Ingham: '■ Ei Es 56.93 26.6 20.3 21.5 17.7 11.4 2.5 2. ElUs 48.77 ' 29.5 22.7 13.6 18.2 15.9 0 3. E,CS 75.67 ■ 1 4. 20.0 26.7 20.0 13.3 UlEs ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0 20.0 ... 5. U,U5 ... ... ... ... 6. 0,0.. — ... ... ... ... ... ... 7. N,Es ... ... ... ... ... — ... 8. . V s --- ... ... ... ... ... ... 26.8 21.8 18.8 17.4 11.6 3.6 53.55 j 1 26.5 22.6 22.5 16. 7 7S 39 44.09 | 24.7 28.3 21.2 15.0 9.7 0.9 66.44 , 22.0 29.3 9.7 21 .9 4.9 12.2 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ; Average: July 1969 (F.mployed Cases 56.15 1 Only) Combined Counties: 1. -• Eius 3. ElCs 4. UlEs --- s. Ulus ; ... 6. u,c5 ; ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... 7. Nlns | ... ; ... ... ... ... ... ... --- ; ... ... ... ... ... ... 25.4 25.2 20.6 16.8 8.1 3.9 8. N,US : i Average: July 1969 (Kmploycd Cases Only) 52.04 ! Row p e r c e n t a g e s may n o t add t o 1 0 0 .0 d u e t o r o u n d in g . 262 Table A-2S Distribution of Non-AFDC Net Income, July, 1969 (Row Percentages)8 County Employment Group $1-49 $50-99 $100-199 24,0 30,4 26.4 17.6 No Net Income | Ccnesec: 1. I:,ES 1 $200* 1.6 15.9 42.0 23.2 15.9 2.9 S. CjCj. 23.1 26.9 19,2 19.2 11.5 4. UlEs 92.4 5.1 1.3 1.3 0 5. 11 Us 88.7 5.7 0.9 4.2 0.5 6. UlCs 87.0 ... 6.5 --- 2.2 - 4.3 - 0 ... Average: July 1909 82.9 B.2 3.1 5.2 0.6 Ingham: i. 22.8 25.3 24.1 25,3 2.5 2. ElUs 27.3 25,0 18.2 29.5 0 s. e,c5 20.0 20.0 33.3 13.3 13.3 f,iis 7. N[L5 8. N,US 4. U,ES 81.6 4.1 8,2 4.1 2.0 S. U,us 77.7 8.7 3.9 5.8 3.9 0. 0lC5 42.9 14.3 0 28.6 14.3 --- --- --- --- 6.7 9.4 4.1 1.9 7. H,Es S. N,US - Average: July liU.p 69.0 10.8 Combinoil Counties: '• ^o5 H, iJ- 23.5 yi t 28.4 25.5 20.6 ir 4 21.3 21.2 15 22.0 24.4 24.4 17.0 12.2 88.3 4.7 3.9 2.4 0.8 85. 1 6.7 1.9 4.7 1.6 81.2 ... 7.S ... 1.9 7,5 1.9 --- — - - ... 78.6 9.0 4.2 3- C1CS 4. Il,^ s. n,ti5 j c. u,r5 7. N;ES 3. N,U. \vcr.Jgc: July i ... ' j 1!W > J.i.oii porefiituji " . not .1 l it 1 11 1 0 (1 .0 J ilt' to TVUIKli 111'. . 6.5 1.7 263 Table A-24 County Employment Group Genesee: 1. E,F,. EIUS 3. I^f. 0 Mean $149 $5099 tio o - 149 $150199 roll £ g» Distribution of Monthly AFDC Payments, July. 1969 (Row Percentages)* $250299 $300399 $400+ 0.8 192.71 0 4.0 4.8 16.0 2S.6 23.2 11.2 14.4 156,41 0 2.8 IS.9 18.8 27.5 21.7 10.1 2.9 0 0 115.27 0 15.4 19.2 19.2 30.8 7.7 3.8 3.8 '• V s 5. Ulll5 202.04 0 1.3 6.3 6.3 20.3 30.4 15.2 17,7 2.S 212.8S 0 1.0 4.7 7.5 19.8 25.9 24.1 12.3 4.7 6. l.lCs 185.54 0 0 8.7 13.0 23.9 21.7 23.9 8,7 1.2 S.9 9.1 21.1 25.1 22.4 11.8 8. 0 NlUs •Iveragc: July 1969 204.83 3,5 Ingham: 15 3. Eins 5. riC5 160.49 3.8 13.9 20.3 19.0 25.3 12.7 5.1 0 187.87 0 13.6 6.B 31 .8 27.2 11.4 9.1 0 116.80 20. 0 6.7 26.7 33.3 0 6.7 6.7 0 ■I. IJ1,SS 208.92 0 8.2 8.2 28.6 18.4 18.4 14.3 4.1 V* 207.11 1.9 7.8 9.7 19.4 18.4 22.3 19.4 1.0 U1C5 128.43 28.6 28.6 0 14.3 14.J 0 14.5 0 197.78 3.4 9.6 10.0 20.7 18.8 19.4 17.0 1.1 0.5 5. 6. 7. N1E5 8. V s \vernge: .Inly 1969 Combined (.bounties: 180.24 0 4.0 8.3 17.7 23.0 24.0 11.8 10,8 16B.65 0 1.8 1S.0 14.J 29.2 23.8 10.6 5.3 0 *■'* 'I15 115.83 0 17.1 14,6 21.9 31.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 0 ■i. 204.35 0 0.8 7.0 7.0 23.5 25.8 16.4 16.4 3.1 211.58 0 1.3 5.7 8.2 19.7 23.4 23.5 14.6 3.5 178.57 0 3.8 11.3 11.3 22.6 20. 7 20.7 9.4 0 2.0 7.0 9.4 20.9 23.1 21,4 13.4 0 i \vcragr: .July 202.84 ■ **Row p e r c e n t a g e s m ay n o t add t o 1 0 0 .0 due t o r o u n d in g . 2.7 264 Table A-25 Distribution of Food Stomp Bonus Values, July, 1969 (Row Percentages) County Ikploy■ent Group Mean F00DS1 0 $12 $18 $24 $36 $44 $54+ Genesee: 1. BlBs 18.464 28.0 11.2 16.0 33.6 7.2 1.6 2.4 2. BlUs 17.85S 24.6 14.5 17.4 37.7 S.8 0 0 3. HlC5 15.038 26.9 30.8 15.4 15.4 7.7 3.8 0 4. UlEs 14.481 38.0 7.6 20.3 27.8 5.1 1.3 0 5. Uft 17.697 28.3 11.3 14.2 36.3 6.6 3.3 0 6. UlC5 15.000 32.6 13.0 17.4 28.3 8.7 0 0 7. NlEs --- — — — — — — ... 8. NlUj -- --- — --- — --- --- ... 6.9 2.5 Average: 7-09 17.124 29.4 11.6 15.2 34.3 Inches: 1. EjEj 21.835 64.6 5.1 13.9 11.4 2.5 0 2.5 12.682 45.5 11.4 11.4 27.3 4.5 0 0 5.867 73.3 6.7 6.7 13.3 0 0 0 4. 8.429 63.3 10.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 2.0 0 5. 12.136 52.4 3.9 8.7 29.1 1.9 2.9 1.0 1. 714 85.7 14.3 0 0 0 — ... — ... — 2- E1US 3. E,CS 6. UlCs 7. NlEs — 8. NlUs --- Average; 7-69 — — 0 0 — ... — --- 0.1 11.991 55.9 5.4 8.7 24.2 2.5 2.3 0.9 Combined Counties: 1. EjEj 19.770 42.2 8.8 15.2 25.0 5.4 1.0 2.4 2. E,US 15.841 32.7 13.3 15.1 33.7 5.3 0 0 3. ElCs 11.683 43.9 22.0 12.2 14.6 4.9 2.4 0 4. UlEj 12.164 47.7 8.6 15.7 20.3 6.3 1.6 0 s- U1US 6. UlC5 15.879 36.2 8.9 12.4 33,9 5.1 3.2 0.3 13.245 39.6 13.2 15.1 24.6 7.6 0 — — 7. NlEs . . . 8. NlUs Average: 7-69 15.490 — — --- --- 37.7 9.7 aRow percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. --- -■ 13.2 31.2 5.5 2.5 0.4 265 Table A-26 Distribution of taergency Assistance Payments June'August, 1969 (Row Percentages)8 County Employ­ ment Group Mean EMAST1 0 $1-99 $100-199 $200-299 $300-399 $400+ Genesem: i. exe5 . 2. E!U5 3. E1CS 20.648 90.4 4.0 3.2 0.8 0 1.6 4.406 92.8 5.8 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 1.3 0 1.3 1.3 13,269 92.3 3.8 4. U1ES 5. U1US 20.025 82.3 13.9 14.608 84.4 10.8 3.8 0 0.5 0.5 6. U1CS 7. N1ES 12.000 89.1 8.7 0 0 2,2 0 — ... ... §. N1US “-" — -- -- ... — — ... _b 14,506 85.6 14.823 89.9 6.3 5.S00 86.4 13.6 5,000 86.7 13.3 0 0 0 0 3.551 87.8 12,2 0 0 0 0 6.350 92,2 6.8 0 0 1.0 0 6. U1C5 7. N1ES 0.000 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... 8. N1US ... Average: 7-69 6.400 91.7 7.3 0.1 0 0.8 0.1 18.392 90.2 4.9 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 4.832 0.9 0 0 n 0 0 2.4 0 Average: 7-69 10.1 3.0 0.8 0.5 Ingham: 1* E1*S 2. E1US 3. E1CS 4. U1ES 5. U1US Combined Go's 1. ElEs 2. E1US 3. E1CS 1.3 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 0 0 ... 90. 3 8.8 10.244 90.3 7.3 13.719 84.4 13.2 0.8 0 0.8 0.8 11.908 87.0 9.S 2.6 0 0.7 0.3 6. U1CS 7. N1ES 10.415 90.5 7.6 0 0 1.9 0 ... ... ... ... ... --- 8. N1US ... --- --- ... --... 2.1 b 0.8 0.3 4. U1ES S. U1U5 Average: 7-69 11.963 #7.6 9. 2 *Aow percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding, bLess than 0.05 percent. 266 Ya&lo *-57 Distribution of Child Care Payments, July, 1969 (Row Percentages)8 County Employacnt Group Mean CCARC1 0 $41-80 $81-120 $121-160 $161-200 $201+ ' Genesee: *■ E1ES 2. E,US • $1-40 1.6 31,424 67.2 1.6 12.0 12.0 4.8 0.8 32.783 69.6 2.9 11.6 5.8 7.2 0 2.9 3. E,CS JO.423 53.8 7.7 11.5 15.4 7.7 3.8 0 4. ttlBs 3.911 94.9 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 0 0 0 0 0.5 s. Ulu5 ' 3.7S8 96.2 0.5 1.4 1.4 6. UlCs 8.658 97.8 0 0 0 0 2.2 0 — ... --- ... -- -- 7. NlEs — --- t 8. NlUs Average: 7-69 7.025 93.8 0.7 2.1 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.5 33.291 63.3 3.8 15.2 8.9 5.1 2.5 1.3 30.205 61.4 6.8 15.9 9.1 4.5 2,3 0 20.0 13.3 6.7 0 0 Ingham: '• K1ES 2. ElUs 5. ElCs 34.067 60.0 0 4. U,ES 21.551 87.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 2,0 4.1 S. IIjUj 8.961 93.2 1.9 0 1.9 0 1,9 1.0 ft. UjCs 0.000 100.0 0 0 l> 0 0 0 — ... ... --- — 7. ... ... — -- --- L2.792 88.9 2.1 2.3 2.8 0.7 1.9 1.2 Combined Counties: 32.147 1. E.E. 65. 7 2.5 13.2 10.8 4.9 1.5 l.S 2. Si. 770 66.4 4.4 13.3 7. 1 6. 1 0.9 1.8 3 ~8 Op8 50 ! 4.9 14.G 14.o 7..» J.4 0 30.004 92.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.8 0.8 1.6 5.479 95.2 1.0 0.9 1.6 0 0.6 O. 7 8. N,U5 ... " Average: 7-69 F1Cf t 4. UjCj 5. U,U 15 ft. u,c5 7. N,E5 98. 1 3.038 ... — ^Row p e r c e n t a g e s 8.216 may hot a d d ... ... --- 92.3 1.2 8. N,US Average: 7-69 0 to JUO.O d u e t o r o u n d in g . 0 {> 0 1.9 0 — ... ... ... - -- -- ---- 2.2 0.6 0.9 0.7 2.1 ... 267 Table A-28 I>1strihution of Medicaid Benefits for the AJ:DC Mother, June-August, 1969 (How Percentages^ Mean MLUPYl 0 I ■ 67.560 36.0 County Employ­ ment Croup Genesee: Sl39 $40- $100- $200- 99 199 299 $300399 $40049 9 $500999 $1000* 40 .8 10.4 5.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.8 21.7 44.9 13.0 7.2 7.2 0 1.4 1.4 2.9 e , cs !108.261 J "6.115 23.1 46.2 11.5 3.8 7.7 0 3.8 3.8 0 4. UlE& :nr. 255 26.6 32.9 17.7 8,9 2.5 3.8 2.5 3.8 1.3 s. Uji;5 1154,197 20.8 33.0 19.8 9.0 5.2 0.9 1.4 7.1 2.8 6. ii,c 5 ‘214.586 i 43.5 19,6 10.9 6.5 4.3 0 2,2 6.5 6.5 — ... -- ... ... ... ... ... ... ... --- ... — ... --- 25.4 31.3 17.6 8.3 4.8 0.9 1.6 j 45.557 44.3 35.4 11.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 1.3 J 46.795 43.2 25.0 13.6 11,4 4.S 0 2.3 O 0 20.0 60.0 6.7 6,7 0 0 0 6.7 0 4. II,Es ; 61,067 j : 79.082 24.5 36.7 28.6 0 2.0 0 2.0 6.1 0 5. UjUj 84.572 24.3 38.8 16.5 11.7 1.0 2.9 1.9 1.0 1.9 *. u,c5 39.571 57. 1 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... --- ... ... ... — ... ... '• E.ES -■ E1US s. ■ 7. NlE5 B. Njus ... i Average: 7-69 [lSS.262 1 1 1 Ingham: i '• E.Es 3. EjU5 3. E,CS 6.4 3.2 0 28.6 7. N,ns ... ... — ... — 8. H,US ... --- ... --- --- 28.3 36.2 17.5 10.0 1.5 2.3 1.7 1.4 1.5 39.2 38.7 10.8 4.4 t.9 1,9 1.0 .0 1.0 8.8 1.8 0.9 1.8 Average: 7-69 76.857 Combined Counties: i. Eie5 59.039 E1U5 3. E,C? 4- u i Es S. u u 15 6. 84.327 30.1 37.2 13.2 70.829 22.0 51 . 2 9. 7 102,641 25.8 34.4 131.431 21.9 191.471 45.3 7. N.n. 15 8. N,II, 1S I Average: 7-69 j130.790 a Row p e r c e n t a g e s may n o t ... 0 4.9 n 21.9 5.5 2.3 2.3 34.9 18.7 9.9 3.8 17.0 13.2 7.5 4 .9 c 2.3 4.7 O.s 1.6 1.6 5. 1 2. S 3.7 0 1.9 5.6 5.6 ... _ _ _ _ _ 3.7 1.4 1.7 4.8 2.6 ... ... add t o 6. 1 O A _ _ _ 26.3 33.1 17.5 1 0 0 .0 d u e to r o u n d in g . 8.9 268 Table A-29 Distribution of Medicaid Benefits for AFDC Dependents, June-August, 1969 {Row Percentages)* County Employ­ ment Group Mean MEUPY1 $o 76.528 42.4 30.4 -• R1US 95.319 33.3 37.7 *• FICS 4. UjEj. 46.925 38.5 65.038 s. u,us 6. II,C5 $400499 $5DO999 0 4.0 3.2 0 0 1.4 0 5.8 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 7.6 1.3 2.5 0 3.8 0 17.9 8.0 2.4 2.4 1.4 3.3 0 10.9 2.2 4.3 0 0 2.2 0 — ... ... — --- ... 7.0 2.5 1.9 1.2 3.2 0 $100199 $200299 12.8 5.6 1.6 11.6 10.1 34.6 19.2 3.8 36.7 35.4 12.7 75.641 31.6 33.0 64.507 45.7 34,8 — ... I $11 39 $4099 $300399 $1000+ Ccnesce: '■ r.Es . 7. NlEs — 8. NjUs Average: 7-69 73.532 34.7 33.4 39.278 44.3 32.9 11.4 6.3 1.3 1.3 2.5 0 0 95.682 36.4 27.3 20.5 4.5 9.1 0 0 2.3 0 16.1 Ingham: '• E1ES 2. ElUs 3. E)Cs 16.067 S3. 3 33. 3 13.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. UlB5 70.286 32.7 44.9 8.2 10.2 0 0 0 4.1 0 s. u,us 55.563 35.9 35,0 19.4 2.9 2.9 1.0 0 2.9 0 6. UlCs 4.429 71.4 28.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. U,F, -- -- -- -- -- --- -- --- -- — Average: 7-69 >4.192 38.3 35.0 16.8 3.7 2,6 0.8 0.2 2.6 0 Combined Counties: i. n,Es 62.103 43.1 31.4 12.3 5.9 1.5 0.5 3.4 2.0 0 J- E1U5 3. n,c5 95.460 34.5 33.7 15.1 7.9 3.5 0.8 0 4.4 0 I35.634 43.9 34.1 17.0 2.4 0 0 0 2,4 0 4. U,ES ibS.813 35.2 39.0 11.0 8.6 0.8 1.5 0 3,9 0 8. NlUs s. u i(j5 69.075 33.0 33.7 18.4 6.3 2.6 1.9 0.9 3.2 0 6. U,CS 52.604 49.1 34.0 9.5 1.9 3.7 0 0 1.9 0 7. NlE5 ... ... ... — -- ... ... ... ... ... 8. N,US ... -- -- -- -- ... ... ... ... 1 j66.878 35.9 33,9 16.4 5.9 1.5 0.8 3.0 0 Average: 7-69 **Row p e r c e n t a g e s m ay n o t add to IO n .0 due to r o u n d in g . 2.6 269 Tabl* A-30 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Persons in Assistance Group, July, 1970 (Row Percentages)* County Employ­ ment Group Mean PEL.2 ■ “ 3 4 4.536 14.4 20 .8 16.0 3.739 26 ,0 29.0 IS .9 ... ... 5 6 7 20.8 14.4 6 .4 7.2 14.5 7 .2 1.4 5.B 8* Genesee; 1. EjEs -■ [:i us ‘ 3. ClCs ... — ... --- ... 4. 0 ,E S 3.962 15.4 34.6 20 .5 16.7 3.8 2 .6 6.4 5. UjUs 4. 132 20.3 23 .6 21 .7 1S.1 7.1 5.7 6 .6 6- U! C5 7. Nj Cj 3.705 25.7 30.5 15.2 IS .2 5 .7 4.8 2 .9 8. NlUs 3. 151 43 .9 31.5 5.5 6 .8 8 .2 4.1 0 3.712 29.9 27.6 14.5 12 .0 7.6 4 .8 3 .7 3.886 2 1 .S 27.8 19.0 15.2 7 .6 6.3 2.5 4.0 23 20.5 2 7 .3 15.9 IS .9 13.6 2.3 4 .6 Average: 7-70 Ingham: EIES »■ 2. Ei U5 i 3. p ,L rS L ... 4. II,ES 4.061 20.4 32. 7 16.3 10 .2 8 .2 4.1 8.1 5. U lUs 3.854 24.3 24.3 21.4 IS .5 5 .8 3 .9 4.9 6. U j Cj ... 7. N( ES 3.549 29.7 31.9 15.4 9.9 6.6 3 .3 3 .3 8. N,US 3.393 4 1 .0 ia .o 16.4 16.4 3 .3 3.3 1.6 3.657 31.0 23 .2 18.4 15.1 5 .3 3.7 3.5 4. 284 17.2 23.5 17,2 18.6 11.8 6 .4 5.4 3.850 23.9 28. 3 15,9 15.0 0 7 ! .0 5. 3 Average: 7-70 Combined Co's i. E,ns -■ C! U? 3. ElCs 4. Uj Hj 4.000 17.3 33.9 IB .9 14.2 5.5 3,1 7.1 5. [1,11,, 4.041 21 .6 23 .8 21.6 IS .2 6 .7 5.1 6.1 o. u,cs 7. NlKs 3.633 27.6 31. 1 15. 3 12.8 6.1 4.1 3.1 8. N,U5 3.261 42.5 25 .4 10.4 11.2 6.0 3.7 0.7 3.703 30.1 25.4 16.3 13.5 6.6 4.4 3.7 Average: 7-70 '*Uow p e r c e n t a g e s may n o t add t o 1 0 0 .0 d u e t o r o u n d in g . 270 Table A-31 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Persons in the Household, July, 1970 (Row Percentages)tt County Employ­ ment Croup E^ 13.6 18.4 16.8 20.8 14.4 7.2 R1US 15.9 26.1 15.9 18.8 8.7 4.3 8.8 10.0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... E1CS 4. U,E5 11.5 32.1 17.9 17.9 5.1 5. U,US 13.2 20.8 24.1 14.2 10.4 2.6 6.1 U,C5 --- ... ... --- ... --- -- 7. NlEs IS. Z 27.6 19.0 19.0 8.6 3.8 6.7 8. 34.2 28.8 8.2 8.2 5,5 8.2 6.8 21.8 24.8 16.8 12.4 8.2 6.7 9.2 EjE, 15.2 22.8 24.1 20 -3 6.3 8.9 2.5 2- E1US 3. E,CS IS.9 29.5 13.6 15.9 13.6 4.5 6.8 — ... — ... ... ... 4. U,E5 12.2 32.7 18.4 12.2 10.2 s. u,u5 10.7 18.4 24.3 18,4 10.7 2.0 6.8 ... ... — ... 6. N,U5 Average: 7-70 12.9 * 11.4 Ingham: 1. 6. UlCs — 12.1 10.8 — --- 7. N,E5 22.0 27.5 18. 7 12.1 9.9 4.4 5.4 8. 31. 1 13.1 21.3 18.0 6.6 6.6 3.2 20.2 18.3 22.0 17.4 8.9 6.3 6.9 EjEj. 14.2 20.1 IQ.6 * 7Q C.4 17.7 11 7 10.6 4.4 8.9 N,US Average: 7-70 Combined Co's 1. 2. El„s 15.9 27.4 15.0 3. E,CS ... ... — --- 4. U,HS n .a 32.3 18.1 5. UlUs 12.4 20.0 24.1 b. UjCj — 7. NlEs 18.4 — ... --- 15.9 7. 1 2.4 12.7 IS.6 10.5 6.3 11.1 ... ... — ... ... — 27.6 18.9 15.8 9.2 4. 1 6. 1 6.0 7.5 5.2 8.5 6,5 8.2 8. NlUg 32.8 21.6 14.2 12.7 Average: 7-70 21.1 21.8 19.2 14.7 Row percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 271 Table A-32 Distribution of AFDC Families by Number of Non-AFDC Recipients In Household, July, 1070 (Row Percentages)11 County Employ­ ment Group 0 1 2 88. 8 8.0 2.4 0 0 0.8 72.S 11.6 7.2 4.3 0 4.3 ... ... ... ... ... ... 81.0 7.6 3.8 3.8 1.3 25 76.4 u.a 6.6 2.4 0.9 1.9 ... ... 3 4 L 5 Genesee: '• E,Es ■ -• E.US 3. r,CS 4- U1ES 3. 0lUs 6. UlC5 — --- — ... 7. NjEg 80,0 8.6 3.8 4.8 0 2.9 6.8 4.0 8. N,US Average: 7-70 80.8 6. B 1.4 2.7 1.4 7B.9 9.3 4.1 2.7 1.0 83.5 8.9 5. 1 1.3 1.3 0 88.6 4.5 2.3 4.5 0 0 Ingham: '• E1ES 2. ElUs 3. EjCg -- ... ... ... .— ... 4- U1ES s. Ulu5 85. 7 8.2 0 4.1 0 2.0 68.9 6.8 9.7 4.9 3,9 5.8 6. U,C5 — ... ... — ... ... 7. N,Es 79.1 8.8 7,7 2.2 l.l 1.1 8. NjUg 83.6 1.6 4.9 1.6 4.9 3.3 77.6 5.0 6.8 3.1 3.6 3.8 Average: 7-70 Combined Co's '• E1ES 2. EjUg 3. ElS 86.8 8. 3 3.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 78.8 8.8 5. 3 4.4 0 2.7 — ... ... — 4. UlF.5 82.8 7.8 2.3 3.9 5. U,Us 74.0 10.2 7.6 6. UjCg --- --- --- 0.8 2.3 3.2 1.9 3.2 ... ... ... 7. NjEg 79.6 8.7 5.6 3.6 0.5 2,0 8. NjUs 82.1 4.5 3.0 2.2 3,0 5.2 78.5 7.6 5.2 2,8 2.1 3.B Average: 7-70 aRow percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 272 Table A-33 Distribution of Budgeted Rent, July, 1970 (Row Percentages)a County taploy■ent Group- Rent Not Budgeted $1-59 $60-79 $80-89 $90-99 $100-109 $110-119 $ 120+ Genesee: 1. E,ES 40.Q 1.6 4-0 16.0 12.8 14.4 1+6 2. E.U;. 34.8 5.8 11.6 11.6 8.7 10.1 0 3. ElCs — ... ... — ... ... ... ... 4. UlEs 30.4 3.8 10.1 13.9 10.1 15.2 2.S 13.9 11,11,. 35.4 2.8 3.3 7.S 9.0 19.8 2.4 19.S — ... — ... ... ... ... s. 6. ... 9.6 17.4 7. N,^ 33.3 3.8 7.6 6.7 5.7 2.9 18.1 8. NlUs 30.1 2.7 S.S 5.5 5.5 16.4 4.1 30.1 Average: 7-70 33.1 2.9 4.8 7.2 7.6 18+0 3.1 23.3 E1ES 2. ElUs 22.8 1.3 11.4 S.l 8.9 31.6 11.4 7.6 15.9 2.3 4.5 2.3 6.8 29.5 20.5 18.2 3. ElCs — ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 4. U,Es 20.4 8.2 12.2 2.0 6.1 22.4 8.2 20.4 5. UlUs 31.1 1.9 1.0 8.7 7.8 23.3 11.7 14.6 6. UlCs ... ... — ... ... ... — ... 7. NjE5 24.2 5.5 6.6 8.8 4+4 27.5 8.8 14.3 8. NlUs 16.4 4.9 6.6 4.9 4.9 29.5 14. 8 18.0 Average: 7-70 23.4 3.7 4.8 6.6 6-3 26.6 12.7 16.0 1. EiE5 33.3 1.5 6.9 11.8 11.3 21.1 5.4 8.8 2. EiU5 27.4 4.4 8.8 8.0 8.0 17.7 6.0 17 .7 S. tjLj ... --- — ... ... 21.9 Ingham: 1' Combined Co's ... ... ... 4. tllEs 26.6 5.5 10.9 9.4 8.6 18.0 4 .7 16.4 5. 34.0 25 25 7.9 8.6 21.0 5.4 18. 1 ... 6. U,CS — -- ... ... ... ... ... 7. NjBj 29.1 46 7.1 7.7 5. 1 24. 5 5.6 16. 3 B. N,US 23.9 3.7 6 .0 5. 2 5 ,2 22.4 9 .0 24.6 Average: 7-70 29. 2 3.2 4.8 7.0 7.1 21.6 6.9 20. 2 Row percentages may not add to 100.0 clue to rounding. 273 Table A-34 Distribution of Budgeted Homestead Amount, July, 1970 (Row Percentages) County Employ­ ment Group Homestead Not Budgeted $1-59 $60-79 $80-89 $90-99 $100-109 $110-119 $120* 4.0 5.6 10.4 5.6 8.0 8,7 Genesea: 59.2 4.0 3.2 2. ElUs 1. E,ES 68.1 0 2.9 2.9 4.3 5.8 7.2 j. Elcs — ... ... ... ... ... — — 4. UlEs 7S.9 0 3.8 1.3 0 7.6 3.8 7.6 s. 3.8 4.2 6.6 10.8 68.4 2.4 1.9 1.9 6. UlCs ... ... ... — --- — --- 7. NlEs 70.S 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.9 2.9 S.7 12.4 *• N1US 80.8 0 1.4 0 2.7 4.1 2.7 8.2 Average: 7-70 73.5 1.3 1.8 1.2 3.2 4.4 4,9 9.6 Ingham: >• E1ES 79.7 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 7.6 1.3 3.8 2- E1US J. Elcs 86.4 4.5 0 2.3 0 4.5 0 2.3 ... -- ... 4. U,ES 79.6 0 4.1 ... --- ... 4.1 2.0 8.2 0 2.0 1.0 2.9 5.8 1.9 1.0 --- 5. UlU5 82.S 1.9 2.9 6. UtCs ... ... ... — ... 7. N,ES 79.1 1.1 2.2 2.2 0 8.8 2.2 4.4 8. NlUs 85.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 3.3 4,9 1.6 0 Average: 7-70 83.1 1.7 2.2 1.6 2.6 5.9 1.7 1.1 I. E,ES 67.2 3.4 2.0 3.4 4.4 9 3 39 64 2. ElUs 7S.2 1.8 1.8 2.7 2.7 5. 3 4.4 6.2 J. -- ... ... ... — ... ... --- 4. 77. 3 0 3.9 2.3 0.8 7,8 2.3 5.5 5- V s 6. Vft 73.0 2.2 2.2 1.6 35 4 .8 5. 1 7.6 ... ... ... — ... --- ... Combined Co's Nj E5 74.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 5.6 4. 1 8 .7 8. NlU5 82.8 0.7 l.S 0.7 3.Q 4.5 2.2 4.5 77.0 1.S 2.0 1.4 3.1 5.0 3.7 6.3 7. Average: 7-70 *Row percentages may not add to 100,0 due to rounding. 274 Table A-35 Distribution of Total Requirements, July, 1970 (Row Percentages)8 County Employ­ ment Group Mean TDTRQ2 Genesee: i. E,es 286,928 2. E,US 3. ElCs 4. U,E5 5, U,U5 6. UlCs $100149 $150199 $200 249 $250299 $300349 $350399 $400+ 0 0.8 12.8 20.fi 26.4 16.0 14.4 8.8 252.725| 4.3 7.2 14.5 23.2 26.1 14.5 1.4 8.6 ... ! 1 258.S70| i 273,360 ... ... --- ... ... ... ... — $5099 1 J 1.3 6.4 7.7 30.a 26.9 16.7 2.6 7.7 1.4 2.4 9.4 30,7 25.0 14.2 8.0 8.9 — — ... ... ... ... — 7. NjEs 255.743 1.9 9.5 9.5 33.3 13.3 22.9 5.7 3.9 8. NlUs 228.246 S.2 8.2 12.3 41.1 11,0 8.2 8.2 2.7 Average: 7-70 253.688 4.2 S.3 10.7 34.6 18,8 12.4 7.9 6.1 *■ E1ES 263.278 2.5 2,5 19.0 25. 3 19.0 16.5 10.1 S.l 2- E1US 3. E,CS 270.864 0 4.5 IE.2 22.7 20.S 18.2 11.4 4.6 — — ... — — 4. UlEs 270.6S3 0 4.1 18.4 22.4 26.5 10.2 10.2 E.l s. Ujus 253,122 7.7 4.9 13.6 23.3 22.3 14.6 5.8 7.9 ... — — — Ingham: — ... — — — 6- "lCS 7. NlE5 247.407 1.1 5.5 24.2 30.8 16.S a.8 8.8 4.4 S. NjUs 240.656 1.6 4.9 36.1 16.4 19.7 14,8 3.3 3.3 Average: 7-70 249.309 i j 3.9 4.8 24.1 21.3 20.7 14.1 5.6 5.6 Combined Co's j '• E1E5 !277.770 !259.788 1.0 1.5 15.2 22. S 23.5 16.2 12.7 7.4 2.7 6.2 15.9 23.0 23.9 15.9 5.3 7,1 ... ... ... S.5 7,9 8.5 ^ C11J5 3. ElS J — ... ... — 4. UjEj j263.195 0.8 5.5 11.6 27.6 26.8 14.2 3.2 10.8 28. 3 24.1 14, 3 7.3 5, ... 266.734 3.5 6. U]Cs --- ... — --- -- — 7. N]ES 251.872 1.5 7.7 16.3 32.1 14.8 16.3 7.1 4.1 8. NlU5 233.895 5.2 6.7 23.1 29.9 14,9 11.2 6.0 3.0 Average: 7-70 252.649 3.8 5.0 16.4 28.9 19.9 13.3 6.8 S.9 --- 275 Table A-36 Distribution of Budgeted Employment Expenses, July, 1970 (Row Percentages)® County Enploy> ment Croup Mean SO $1-19 $zo 321-40 341-60 361-80 1381-100 3101-139 3141* Genesee: 66.99 1. E|E-• E1US 3. E,CS 0 0.8 11.7 2S.0 IS.8 10.8 13.3 13.3 9.2 — ... ... ... -- ... -- ... ... ... ... ... ... ... -- ... ... ... ... ... 18.6 12.9 12.9 IS.7 10.0 4.2 ... ... -- ... 4. UjE, 53.16 0 4.3 21.4 s. u,us --- — ... ... 6. UjCj — — ... ... ... ... ... ... ... — ... 7. NlEs 70.95 0 3.8 16.3 19.2 13.S 12.S S.8 19.3 9.6 8. N,US -- — -- ... -- -- ... ... ... ... Average: 7-70 1 (Employed Cases Only) .64.72 i 1 Ingham: ! 0 3.2 16.6 20.6 13.9 12.2 10,7 1S.0 7.9 i68.22 0 3.9 S.3 18.4 23.7 10. S 18.4 13.2 6.5 ... — ... — ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... — 10.9 23.9 21.7 13.0 8.7 13.1 8.7 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 9.9 16.S 16.S 19.8 14.3 IS.4 ... ... ... ... ... ... 6.8 IS.3 19.4 14.3 16.7 13.8 11.7 3.2 22.4 Is.y 15.3 ... 13.3 8.1 *• E1ES 2- V s j 3- E1CS 4. U,E5 | ... |65.30 5. UjU, 0 0 ; ... — ... *■ U1CS 7. N,ES 1 ... — ... ... ... I85.13 0 2.2 s.s 8. NlUs | --- ... ... 0 2.0 Average: 7-70 j (Employed Cases Only) 76.2B i Combined Co's j 1. E.E, 1J 2. ElUs '67.46 ■ ... n 3. ElCs ! ... ... Average: 7-70 (Employed Cases Only) ... — — ... ... ... 1U.7 ... ... ... — ... ... ... ... — ... 57.83 2.6 17.2 20.7 16.4 12.9 12.9 11.2 6.1 77.53 3.1 11.3 14.9 14.9 14.4 12.3 16.9 12.3 2.7 J2.4 18.4 16.3 13.1 13.2 14.4 9.6 Row percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 276 Table A-J7 Distribution of Net Earnings of AFDC Mothers, July, 1970 (Row Percentages) County Employ­ ment Group Mean 0 $1-39 59.33 20.8 23.2 ... $40-79 $80-119 $120-159 $160-199 200+ 22.4 16.0 12.8 2.4 2.4 ... ... ... ... Genesee: '• EiEs 2. ElUs — ... — ... j. Elcs ... ... ... ... ... ... 31.6 24.1 16.S 11.4 lG.i 5.1 1.3 ... ... — ... ... ... ' ... 4. UlEs 54.59 5. UlUs --- 6. UlCs --- — ... ... ... ... ... ... 7. NlEs 74.80 13.3 24.8 25.7 14.3 9.5 6.7 5.7 --- -- ... -- ... ... 64.79 20.6 24.2 22.1 13.9 10.6 5.1 3.5 75.61 13.9 21.5 20.5 19.0 IS.2 6.3 3.8 ... ... ... ... ... ... *• N1US Average: 7-70 (Eaployed Cases Only) ! Infhan: 1. E,ES 2‘ E1US 3. ElCs 4. UlEs s. V s 6. 0lCs 7. NlEs -- — ... -- ... -- — ... -- ... 36.7 IB.4 18.4 0 6.1 4.1 — — ... ... ... — ... — ... ... ... — ... ... ... 24.2 20.9 22.0 16.5 11.0 4.4 1.1 -- -- -- --- ... ... --- 60.81 25 .0 20.4 20.7 17.0 9.2 5.3 2.5 65.65 18.1 22.S 21,6 17.2 13.7 3.9 2.9 --- ... ... ... ... 43.70 62.57 8. N,US Average: 7-70 (Eaployed Cases Only) 16.3 Combined Co's 1. ElEs 2. Blu5 — ... 3. ElCs ... -- -- ... --- ... ... ... 4. UlBs 50.40 33.6 21.9 17.2 13.3 6.3 5.5 2.3 — ... ... ... ... s. u,us — ... 6. UlCs ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7. NjEs 69.12 IB.4 23.0 24.0 15.3 10. 2 5.6 3.6 -- - -- ... -- -- ... 21.6 15.2 10.0 5.1 3.1 8. N,US --- Average: 7-70 22.4 22.6 (Eaployed Cases 63.10 | Only) percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 277 Table A-3« Distribution of Non-ARDC Net Incone, July* 1970 (Row Percentages) County Eaploy■ant Group No Net Incone 11-49 $50-99 $100-149 $150-199 200+ Gemaae: 1. ElE5 . 20.0 27.2 25.6 19.2 4.8 3.2 2. E!US 3. E1CS 88.4 2.9 4.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 ... ... ... ... ... — 4. UjEs 30.4 24.1 20.3 13.9 10.1 1.3 5* °1US 6. U1C5 92.9 1.9 1.4 0.9 1.4 1.4 — ... — — ... --- 7. N1ES 8. N1US 11.4 30.5 25.7 18.1 7.6 6 .7 87.7 0 5.5 1.4 2.7 1.4 Average: 7-70 81.9 4.2 5.8 3.0 2.7 1.7 6.3 5.1 0 0 Inghaa: I* ElEs 10.1 25.3 22.8 30*4 2. E1°S 3. E1CS 88.6 0 9. 1 2*3 ™ ... — ... — — 4. U1ES s. U1US 34.7 22.4 20.4 8.2 8.2 6. 83.5 3.9 4.9 3.9 1.0 2.0 ... ... — ... ... 1 6. U1CS 7. N1ES 18.7 23.1 27.5 19.8 8.8 2.2 8. N1US 82.0 8.2 3.3 6.6 0 0 71.3 9.1 8.1 7.8 1.9 1.5 l. ElEs 16.2 26.5 24 -5 23. 5 5.4 3.9 2 88.5 l.S 6.2 1.8 0.9 0.9 Average: 7-70 Combined Co's £1US 4. U.E j 32.0 23.4 11.7 9.4 3. 1 5. U lUs 89.8 2.5 2.S 1.9 1.3 1.9 7. NlEs 14.8 27.0 26.5 18.9 8.2 4 .6 85.1 3.7 5 .2 3.7 1.5 0 .7 6 .7 4.9 Average; 7-70 78.1 a‘Row percentages nay not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 20.6 1 .7 278 Table A-39 Distribution of Monthly AFDC Payments, July, 1970 (Row Percentages)8 County Employ­ ment Group Mean 1-99 100-139 140-179 180-219 220-259 260-299 300-399 400+ 1. EjEs 195.61 4.8 11.2 15.2 24.0 12.8 13.6 15. 2 3.2 -• E1US j. Elc5 224.17 Genesee: 7.1 7.2 8.6 20.3 17.4 17.3 12.9 8.7 ... — ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 4. U,HS 162.33 14.3 15.6 13.0 16.9 11 .7 13.0 11,7 3.9 5- V s 6. UlCs 238.62 3.2 3. 3 5.2 19,8 23.1 15.6 21.7 8.1 --- — ... ... ... ... ... --- ... 7. N,ES 158.01 15.4 15.4 21.2 16.3 15,4 10.6 4.9 1,0 8. NlUs 199.07 12.3 6.9 9.6 24,7 23.3 6.8 13.7 2. 7 Averager 7-70 214.57 8.0 6.1 8.5 21,6 22.0 11.6 16.9 5,2 160.26 16.6 15.4 19.2 15.4 14.1 8.9 8.8 1.3 0 2.3 6.6 22.7 22.7 13.6 29.9 2.3 ... — ... ... ... ... ... Ingham: '• V s b ,us 237.95 3. E]CS • — — 4- V s S. U,US 193.58 18.3 2.0 14.2 16. 3 20.4 14.3 12.2 2.0 204.75 12.6 5.9 7.7 13.6 18.5 17.4 19.5 4.9 6. U,CS ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7. 154. 16 19.8 14. 3 16.5 16.5 17.6 7.7 6.6 1.1 8. N,US 210.71 3.2 4.9 16.5 27.9 13. 1 14.8 16.4 3.3 200.12 9.7 6.5 12.8 19.9 16.3 14.8 16. 5 3S 151.32 n « J .■ « 12.5 16.5 ./>..V v 13. 3 11.0 1..o -•J 2. E,US 229.54 4.5 5.3 7.9 21.2 19.5 16.0 19.4 6.2 3. ElC5 — ... ... ... ... ... --- Average: 7-70 Combined Co’s % 4. r r ... ... 4. U,ES 174.30 16.0 10.4 13.5 16.7 15.0 13.4 12.0 3.2 s. Ulu5 228.90 6.3 4.2 6.0 17.8 21.6 16.2 21. 1 7.0 6. U,C5 ... --- ... ... ... ... ... --- 9.2 5.6 1 .0 14.9 3.0 156.22 17.4 14.9 19.0 16.5 16.4 202.70 8.2 5.9 12.7 26.1 18.7 Average: 7-70 ,!R o w p e rc e n ta g e s 10.3 may not add t o 100.o due to r o u n d in g 10.4 279 Table A-40 Distribution of Food Stamp Bonus Values, July, 1970 (Row Percentages) County Employ­ ment Croup Mean $0 F000S2 $26 $40 (2 Persons) (3 Persons) $46 (4 Persons) $54-56 (5-6 Persons) $66+ (7+ Persons) Genesee: 1. B lBs . 36.480 27.2 11.2 15.2 10.4 20 .8 15.2 2. E lU5 32.638 30.4 15.9 15.9 10.1 18.8 8 .7 ... 3. EjCs — — ... --- ... 4. U,ES 32.873 29.1 8.9 27.8 13.9 11.4 8.9 s. u,u5 33.490 27.4 15.1 15.1 16.5 17.0 9.0 — ... 6‘ — — U1CS ... ... 7. NjEs 34 762 19.0 ;4 .i 24 .8 13.3 17. 1 7 .6 * 8. N,U5 28.109 24.7 34.2 20.5 6.8 11.0 2 .7 31.432 26.0 22 .7 18.3 12,0 1 4 .S 6 .6 •Average: 7-70 Ingham: 1. e,es 19.089 55.7 11.4 8 .9 6 .3 12.7 2. ElU& 22.341 36.4 20 ,5 29.5 4.5 9 .1 ... ... --- ... ... 3. ElCs 5.1 0 ... 4. UlEs 31.347 34.7 14.3 18.4 6.1 14. 3 12.2 s. ulUs 20.679 4 9 .S 14.6 12.6 11.7 8.7 2 .9 — ... ... ... ... ... 6. UlS 7. N l E5 23.912 42 .9 1 4 .3 18.7 6.8 12.1 3 .3 8. N,US 30.328 26.2 26 .2 11.5 13. 1 16,4 6 .6 25.272 38.9 19.1 13,3 11.3 12.5 4.9 E,ES ■**> 1 1 c 35 11.5 12. 1 8.8 17.6 11.3 2- E1US 28.628 32.7 1S.0 5 .3 3. ClC5 ... Average: 7-70 Combined Co's 17.7 21 .2 8.0 ... — ... ... 32.289 31.3 10.9 24.2 10.9 12.5 10.2 29.300 34.6 14.9 14. 3 1-1.9 14. 3 7.0 ... ... ... c n J. 5. 6. U,C5 — ... ... ... 7. N,ES 29.724 30.1 16. 3 21.9 11.2 14.8 5.6 8. N jUs 29.119 25.4 30 .6 16.4 9.7 13.4 4.5 29.374 30.6 2 1 .1 16. 1 12.1 14.0 6.1 Average: a ... ... 7-70 Row percentages may not add to 1 0 0 .0 due to r o u n d i n g . 280 Table A-41 Distribution of Bnergency Assistance Payments, June-August, 1970 (Row Percentages) County Employ­ ment Group Mean EMAST2 $0 $1-99 $100-199 $200-299 $300-399 $400-499 $500+ Genesee: t. n,Es 19.968 83.2 12.0 0.8 2.4 1.6 0 0 -• E,us 27.464 71.0 23.2 1.4 0 2.9 1.4 O — . .. — . . . --- --- — - 4- UIES 39 848 74.7 13.9 5.1 2.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 s- U1U5 6. UjC, 23.301 80.7 12.7 0.5 7. N,ES 35.038 8. — 3- Eics 1.9 2.4 1.4 0.5 — ------ — — --- 78.1 12,4 3.8 2.9 0 0 2.9 35.959 83.6 6.8 2.7 1.4 1,4 1.4 2.7 29.597 81.4 10.5 2.4 2.0 1.4 0.9 1.5 9.866 89.9 7.6 31.909 70.5 IS.9 0 0 — — — NlUs Average: 7-70 Ingham: '• E1ES 2. ElUs 0 1.3 1.3 D 9.1 2.3 0 2.3 — . . . . .. — 0 0 0 1.0 3. EjCj — 4. U,ES 6.163 87.8 10.2 2.0 0 5. U,US 24. 330 77.7 13.6 4.9 1.9 0 1.0 — 6. U,CS — — — — — — --- 7. NlEs 24.758 91.2 3.3 8. 18.525 75.4 21.3 1.1 0 1.1 1.6 0 0 1.1 1.6 0 20.801 78.9 15. 3 2.4 1.6 0.5 0.8 0.6 ElEs 16.064 85.8 10.3 0.5 2.0 1.5 2. E lUs 29.195 70.8 20.4 4.4 0,9 1.8 0 1.8 0 0 t. 3 FT E1CS 4. 26.953 79.7 12.5 3.9 1.6 0.8 0.8 5. UlUs 23.837 79.7 13.0 2.9 2.2 1,3 0. 3 0.8 0.6 7. Nlf;s 30.265 84.2 8.2 2 .6 2.0 0 O.S 2.6 8. 28.022 79.9 13.4 1.5 1.5 0.7 1.5 1.5 25.903 30.1 12.9 2.3 1.8 1.0 0 .8 1.1 HlUs Average: 7-70 2.2 Combined Co's 1. 6. U.C1 s Average: 7-70 aRow percentages may not add to 100,0 due to rounding. 281 Table A-4Z Distribution of Child Care Payments, July, 1970 (Row Percentages)* County Eaploy•ent Group Mean CCAAE2 «o $1-39 140-79 | $80-119 | $120-159 $160-199 $200-299 $300+ Genesee: E1ES 43.040 60 .0 2 .4 11 .2 13.6 7 .2 2 .4 2.4 0.8 *• Eius 8.0 43 8 9 .9 1.4 5 .8 0 2.9 0 0 0 — ... — — ... --- — 5.1 17.7 7.6 1.3 2.5 0 1.4 0.9 0.5 0 --- — ... »• — 3‘ E1CS 4. U,ES 37.190 65 .8 0 91 .5 0 .9 1.4 3 .3 — ... ... 10.5 20 .0 5. UjUs 9.099 6. UjCs ... 7. N l Es •• Ni us Average: 7- 70 . — 40.533 60 .9 1.0 6 .7 1 .0 0 1*0 1.356 98.6 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 9.644 90.9 0.6 1.8 4.2 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 Ingham: 1. 2. ElEs 48.076 54.4 0 2 0 .3 8 .9 8 .9 5.1 1-3 1.3 ElUs 23. 568 84.1 0 4.5 2.3 2.3 2 .3 4.5 0 i. E lc s ... ... ... ... — — ... — 4- U1ES 41.347 | 63 .3 4.1 8.2 10. 2 8 .2 0 6.1 0 5. 14.369 90.3 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.9 2.9 0 — ... ... — 62 .6 3 .3 4.4 11.0 9 .9 6 .6 0 1.1 ... Ut U5 ... 6. 7. N,ES 8. — 43.692 NjUs Average: 7-70 ... 8.0 49 ] 90.2 3.3 3.3 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 17.633 ; 84.6 2.2 3.5 2.7 2.8 2.3 1.6 0.2 Combined Co's ' V* 44.990 57.C 1.3 14. 7 ix .b 7.a 3.4 2.0 2. EtVs 14.089 87.6 0.9 5.3 0.9 2.7 0.9 1.8 1.0 0 — ... ... ... ... ... ... 3. ElC5 ... ... 4. U l Es 38.781 64 .8 1.6 6.3 14.8 7.8 0.8 3.9 0 5. U,US 10.822 91.1 1.0 1.3 2.9 1 3 1.3 1.3 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... --- 61.2 2.0 7 15.8 8.7 3.6 0 1.0 94.8 1.5 l.S 0.7 0.7 0.7 0 0 88.3 1. 3 2,5 3.6 2. 1 1. 3 0.8 0. 6. U,CS 7. N l E5 ... 42.000 8. Average: 4.403 7-70 12.665 aRow percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 7 1 282 Tab la A-4J Distribution of Medicaid Payments for AFDC Mothers, June, August, 1970 (Row Percentages)* County Enploynent Group Mean MEDPY2 $0 $1-39 $40-99 78.688 36.0 29.6 121.725 21.7 $100-199 $200-299 23,2 4.8 0 33.3 21,7 10.1 ... ... ... $300-499 $500-999 $1000+ 4.8 0.8 7.2 1.4 — Genesee: * 1. E^ 2. E,US 4.3 0.8 0 ... — --- ... 4. UlEs 93.772 26.6 29.1 17.7 19.0 3.8 2.5 0 1.3 s. ulUs 151.646 22.6 26.9 21.2 14.2 3.8 5.2 2.4 3.8 — ... ... ... ... --- ... — 59.019 29.5 37.1 18.1 8.6 4.6 1.0 0 89.219 32.9 39.7 15.1 4.1 1.0 0 1.4 4.1 2.7 116.621 27.7 32.9 18,5 9.6 2.0 3.3 3.1 2.9 ElEs 26.759 41.8 38.0 17.7 0 1.3 1.3 0 EjUs 74.795 38.6 25,0 27.3 2.3 2.3 2,3 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... — — ... 53.388 26.5 53.1 12.2 2.0 2.0 0 4.1 O 10S.301 32.0 29.1 20.4 8.7 2.9 1.9 2.9 1.9 ... 3. ElCs 6. — UjC, — 7. 8. KlUs Average: 7-70 liuhas: 1. 2. 3. ElCs — 4- uiEs s. u,us 6. U,CS — 7. N,ES 8. NlUs Average: 7-70 ... --- -- ... 2.3 — — 76.670 42.9 38.5 8.8 4.4 0 0 2.2 3. 3 174.279 16.4 47.5 18.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 4.9 123.278 27.2 38.7 18.0 5.3 2.7 2.2 2.9 3.1 0.5 1.0 2.9 0.5 Combined Co's *• E1E5 2. EjUj 58.578 38.2 32.8 21.1 2.9 103.451 28.3 30.1 23.9 7.1 3.5 0.9 4.4 1.8 S. ElS ... ... — ... ... ... ... ... ... 4. U,ES 78.313 26.6 38.3 15.6 12.5 3. 1 1.6 1.6 0.8 s. ulUs 136.491 25.7 27.6 21.0 12.4 3.5 4.1 2.5 3.2 ... ... ... — ... — 0.5 1.5 1.5 3.7 3. 7 2.9 3.1 6. UlCs NlUs Average: 67.214 35.7 37.8 13.B 6.6 127.940 25.4 43.3 16.4 3.7 1.5 2.6 2.2 122.808 26.8 35.2 18.5 8.1 2.4 3.0 — 7. NiEs 8. — ... 7-70 *Row percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. 283 Table A-44 Distribution of Medicaid Payments for AFDC Dependents, June-August, 1970 (Row Percentages) County Employ­ ment Group $0 Mean MEDFM2 31-39 {40-99 $100-199 $200-299 $300-499 $500-999 $1000* Genesee: 2.4 1.4 0.8 2.8 ... ... — — 7.6 0 5.1 1.3 0 0.9 1.9 6.1 0 .9 --- --- ... — 1.0 1-.9 2.7 2,7 0 0 2,3 4.1 o.s 32.8 38.4 16.0 6.4 2- E1US 3. ElC5 21.7 43.5 13.0 11.6 ... — — 4- U1ES s. U,US 56.734 38.0 30.4 17.7 9S.S15 31.1 29.7 19.3 9.9 ... ... ... 6. UlCs — — 0 3.2 0 49.464 133.391 >■ E1ES . 5.8 7. N,ES 36.581 37.1 38.1 18.1 0.8 Nius 50.370 37.0 39.7 13.7 4.1 0 0 72.097 33.9 34.7 16.7 7.1 0.5 ElEs 60.810 38.0 34.2 IS.2 6.3 2.5 1,3 1.3 1.3 ElUs 54.955 31,8 31.8 22.7 9.1 0 2. 3 2.3 0 — — ... — — --- ... ... 0 1.0 4.1 2.0 4-9 4.9 2.0 0 — ... — — ... Average: 7-70 Ingham: 1. 2. 3. E,CS — 4. UjEs 81.408 28.6 38.6 20.4 4.1 s. ulUs 84.048 35.0 25.2 16.5 12.6 6. UlCs — 7. 8. NlUs Average: 7-70 — — 54.033 44.0 34.1 IS.4 41.0 27.9 18.0 0 8.2 2.2 0 2.2 69.033 3.3 1.1 0 1.6 73.403 33.0 28. 3 17.3 8.9 0.7 3.8 2.2 0.9 53.658 34.8 36.8 15.7 6.4 2.9 0.5 25.7 38.9 16.8 10.6 0 2,0 1.8 1.0 102.B50 2. 7 3.5 ... ... ... --- — --- ... 66.180 34.4 33.6 18.8 6.3 0 4.7 1-6 0.8 91.967 32.4 28.3 18.4 10.8 1.0 2.9 5.7 6. 3 -- ... — ... ... 1.1 Combined Co's '• E1ES ’• E.us 3. El S 4. U lEs — s. 6. U ]Cs — ... — 7. NlCs 44.685 40. 3 36. 2 16.8 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 O.S a. Nju5 SB.B65 38.8 34. 3 15.7 6.0 0 3.0 1.5 0.^ 73. .175 35.5 31.9 17. 1 7.9 0.6 2.9 3. 3 3.: Average: 7-70 aRow percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. APPENDIX B MULTIPLE REGRESSION EQUATIONS This appendix presents the results of multiple-regression equations and the mean values of explanatory variables used in those regressions. There are, for Genesee County, for Ingham County, and for the two counties combined, 15 regressions for each appropriate combination of the eight employment groups and six specifications of the dependent variable.'*' The organization of tables presenting these regressions is shown in Figure B-l. Following the presentation of these 45 regressions are six tables which show the mean values of the dependent variables for each employment group combination, for each county and for both counties combined. Asa guide to interpreting the significance of individual coefficients, reference may be made to the critical values for the t-statistic and associated levels of significance below: Critical t-Value 1.645 1.960 2.326 2.576 One-Tail Significance Level 0.050 0.025 0.010 0.005 Two-Tail Significance Level 0.100 0.050 0.020 0.010 284 Figure B-l Appendix B Tables by Dependent Variable and Employment Group Combination (Multiple Regression Tables Only) Employment Group ¥ 2 ¥ 2 ¥ 2 All E Level of Earnings 7-69 7-70 7-69-7-70 B-l B-5 B-9 7-69-7-70 B-4 B-6 285 7-69 and 7-70 Cases 7-70 B-3 B-7 N1E2 All E2 All 7-70 Cases 7-69 B-2 “A ' All 7-69 Cases Employment Status B-8 B-13 B-10 B-14 B-ll B-12 B-15 aIn these tables, a letter in parentheses following the table number indicates that the table refers to Genesee County only (G), Ingham County only (I), or to the counties combined (C). Definitions of Variables Used in Regressions The Dependent Variables EARNINGS JULY 1969 Gross monthly earnings of the AFDC mother for June of 1969, as reported in July, 1969. EARNINGS JULY 1970 Gross monthly earnings of the AFDC mother for June of 1970, as reported in July, 1970. EARNINGS CHANGE The change in earnings from June of 1969 to June of 1970. EMPLOYMENT STATUS JULY 1969 A dummy variable indicating that the AFDC mother was employed in June of 1969; i.e., earnings of $1 or more were reported in July, 1969. EMPLOYMENT STATUS JULY 1970 A dummy variable indicating that the AFDC mother was employed in June of 1970; i.e., earnings of $1 or more reported in July, 1970. EMPLOYMENT STATUS JULY 1969 AND 1970 A dummy variable indicating that the AFDC mother was employed both in June of 1969 and June of 1970. The Independent Variables 1 MONTHS The number of months of continuous receipt of AFDC assistance prior to July, 1970. 2 PREV A dummy variable indicating that a previous period of AFDC assistance occurred prior to the current period of assistance. 3 YOB Hie year of birth of the AFDC mother. 4 PUBHOS A dummy variable indicating residence in a housing unit owned and operated by a local public housing agency. 5 HOME A dummy variable indicating residence in a home which the AFDC mother owns or is purchasing. 6 HSDROP A dummy variable indicating that the highest grade of school completed by the AFDC mother was more than 8 but less than 12, i.e., she was a high school dropout. 287 The Independent Variables 7 HSGRAD A dummy variable indicating that the AFDC mother completed at least 12 full years of education, i.e., she was a high school graduate. 8 RACE-W A dummy variable indicating the race of the AFDC mother to be Caucasion. 9 CH02 A dummy variable indicating the pre­ sence of one or more children age 0 to 2 in the assistance group. In the regressions, this variable is omitted and serves as the basis for comparison for the following five children-age group variables. 10 CH001 A dummy variable indicating that the child(ren) in the assistance group are age 13 or over only. 11 CHI00 A dummy variable indicating that the child (ren) in the assistance group are age 6 to 12 only. 12 CH100 A dummy variable indicating that the chiId(ren) in the assistance group are age 3 to 5 only. 13 CHI10 A dummy variable indicating that the children in the assistance group are in both the 3 to 5 and 6 to 12 age groups only. 14 CHI11 A dummy variable indicating that one or more of the children in the assistance group is aged 13 or over and others are aged 6 to 12 and/or 3 to 5. 15 INCAP A dummy variable indicating that the AFDC mother has been determined in­ capacitated and therefore not required to work. 16 NOTEX A dummy variable indicating that the AFDC mother has been determined as not expected to work, due to the age or number of children in the home or due to other reasons which would make the mother's absence from the home contrary to the best interest of the family. 288 The Independent Variables 17 AREA A A dummy variable indicating residence in a part of the central city desig­ nated as a model cities area. 18 AREA B A dummy variable indicating residence in a part of the central city not designated as a model cities area. 19 AREA C A dummy variable indicating residence in a suburban neighborhood or city. 20 AREA D A dummy variable indicating residence in a small town. 21 AREA E A dummy variable indicating residence in a rural area. In the regressions, this was the omitted category. 22 EXPWGS The level of "expected wages" for the AFDC mother, based on her occupa­ tion and county of residence. The expected wage for each AFDC mother is assumed to equal the average starting salary of female WIN placements into jobs of similar occupational class­ ification during the period from July, 1969 to June, 1970. (For the following eleven variables, the subscript "1" refers to the July 1, 1969 observation point (i.e., the month of June, 1969), and the subscript "2" refers to the July 1, 1970 observation point (i.e., the month of June, 1970). 23 PEL 1 PEL 2 The number of persons in the household eligible for AFDC assistance. 24 POTH 1 POTH 2 A dummy variable indicating the presence of persons in the household other than those who are included in the AFDC assistance group. 25 RENT 1 RENT 2 The dollar amount included in the AFDC budget specifically for the rent, house payment, or other actual shelter cost, per month. 26 T0TRQ1 T0TRQ2 The dollar amount of monthly total requirements, as defined by the family's circumstances and AFDC policy. This amount, less any net income equals the AFDC payment. 289 The Independent Variables 27 OTHIN 1 OTHIN 2 The dollar amount of monthly social security, child support, or similar non-assistance, n o n r e a m e d transfer income considered in computing the amount of the AFDC payment. 28 FOODS 1 FOODS 2 Hie monthly dollar value of bonus food stamps. I.e., the amount by which the value of food stamps in the grocery store exceeded the price paid by the AFDC mother for the stamps. 29 EMAST 1 EMAST 2 The dollar value of items such as stoves, refrigerators, washing machines, home repairs, etc. paid for by the welfare department through the Emergency Assistance program or through County General Assistance funds, over the three-month June-August period surrounding each observation point. 30 CCARE 1 CCARE 2 The dollar value of monthly child care services paid by the welfare department. 31 MEDPY 1 MEDPY 2 The dollar value of Medicaid services for the AFDC mother only paid by the welfare department over the threemonth June-August period surrounding each observation point. 32 MEDFM 1 MEDFM 2 The dollar value of Medicaid services for the members of the AFDC family (except the mother) paid by the welfare department over the three-month JuneAugust period surrounding each ob­ servation point. 33 WIN 1 WIN 2 A dummy variable indicating enrollment in the WIN program. 34 RATIO 1 RATIO 2 An "opportunity cost" measure defined as the ratio of expected wages to total requirements; i.e., the ratio of expected off-AFDC income to quaranteed on-AFDC income. 290 Table B-l CC) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 1 COMBINED COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT GROUP 1 ( E ^ ) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 204 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV): 197.4314 (126.68S1) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF SUM OF SQ. 12 191 1176967 .000 2081000 .000 MULTIPLE - R = 0.601 R - SQUARED = 0.361 MEAN SQ. 98080.562 10895.285 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 104.381 F - RATIO = 9.002 VARIABLE COEFFICIENT CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PUBHOS 3 RACE-W 4 CH010 5 INCAP 6 NOTEX 7 AREA B 8 OTHIN 1 9 EMAST 1 10 CCARE 1 11 EXPWGS 12 RATIO 1 -90.6191 -0.8630 -35.0589 -25.8281 -50.0743 120.5083 -102.4565 29.9703 -0.4028 0.1885 0.4178 1.2986 -62.0543 STD. ERROR 0.2808 24.8265 15.4711 21.4225 54.1179 25.5488 15.7341 0.1788 0.0823 0.1442 0.2378 13.8776 T-VALUI -3.073 -1.412 -1.669 -2.337 2.227 -4.010 1.905 -2.253 2.290 2.897 5.461 -4.472 291 Table B- 1 (G) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 2 GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP 1 ) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 125 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV) : 190 .9520 (125.4052 ) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF SUM OF SQ. MEAN SQ. 16 108 1019030 .400 931051 .560 63689.402 8620.848 MULTIPLE - R = 0.723 R - SQUARED = 0.523 VARIABLE CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PEL 1 3 HOME 4 HSDROP 5 HSGRAD 6 CH010 7 NOTEX 8 WIN 1 9 AREA B 10 AREA D 11 T0TRQ1 12 EMAST1 13 CCARE1 14 MEDPY1 15 EXPWGS 16 RATI01 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 92 849 F - RATIO = 7.388 COEFFICIENT -305.1772 -0.4569 32.4871 25.1594 -31.4715 -46.0164 -32.1665 -89.4269 -33.4025 29.4852 -53.6928 -1.0851 0.2196 0.5550 0.0341 2.3903 -77. 3266 STD. ERROR 0.3306 12.7112 18.1731 20.5834 24.9954 23.6128 35.8379 31.3562 18.8482 45.1114 0.3179 0.0869 0.1682 0.0374 0.3467 29.6156 T-VALUE -1.382 2.556 1.384 -1.529 -1.841 -1.362 -2.495 -1.065 1.564 -1.190 -3.413 2.527 2.981 0.912 6.894 -2.611 292 Table B-l (I) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 3 INGHAM COUNTY E M P L O Y M E N T G R O U P 1 ( E j E ^ NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 79 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS J U L Y 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE M E A N (STD DEV): 207.6835 (128.8193) ANA L Y S I S OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF 23 55 MULTIPLE-R = 0.786 R-SQUARED = 0.617 VARIABLE CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PUBHOS 3 HOME 4 HSGRAD 5 HSDROP 6 RACE-W 7 CH001 8 CHOIO 9 INCAP 10 NOTEX 11 WIN 1 12 AREA A 13 AREA B 14 AREA C 15 POTH 1 16 RENT 1 17 TOTRQ 1 18 OTHIN 1 19 FOODS 1 20 EMAST 1 21 MEDPY 1 22 EXPWGS 23 RATIO 1 S U M OF SQ. 798785.120 495578.870 M E A N SQ. 34729.785 9010.523 STD. E R R O R OF EST. = 94.924 F - RATIO = 3 .854 C OEFFICIENT 69.4619 -1.0779 -87.6420 61.7083 92.2015 28.6279 -65.7782 -32.4834 -87.8331 89.9323 -135.7567 -119.4719 -59.1890 -21.0888 -125.8954 58.3819 1.6131 -0.2195 -0.4028 -0.1673 0.2983 -0.1116 0.8487 -57.6959 STD. ERROR 0.5029 46.2024 4 8.0053 30.0023 32.0403 30.9513 34.8733 40.3914 54.7242 34.9253 84.1536 47.4347 4 4.2934 46.7880 39.9287 0.5614 0.2028 0.2601 0.1042 0.1730 0.0815 0.3677 20.9926 T-VALUE -2.143 -1.897 1.285 3.073 0.893 -2.125 -0.931 -2.175 1.643 -3.887 -1.420 -1.248 -0.476 -2.691 1.462 2.874 -1.082 -1.549 -1.606 1.724 -1.369 2.308 -2.749 293 Table B-2 (C) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 4 COMBINED COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT GROUP 2 (E.U2) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 113 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV) : 178. 3805 (110.8882) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF SUM OF sqi. MEAN SQ. 15 97 597093.500 780078.500 39806 .230 8042 .043 MULTIPLE - R = 0.659 R - SQUARED = 0.434 STD. ERROR OF EST. -89.i677 F - RATIO = 4.950 VARIABLE COEFFICIENT CONSTANT 1 PEL 1 2 YOB 3 PREV 4 HOME 5 HSDROP 6 HSGRAD 7 RACE-W 8 AREA A 9 AREA C 10 RENT 1 11 TOTRQ 1 12 OTHIN 1 13 CCARE 1 14 MEDFM 1 15 EXPWGS -300.7134 59.9533 2.2980 -34.8330 50.1343 48.8393 37.0710 -34.9605 79.8968 24.8925 0.3095 -0.9502 -0.2160 0.3741 -0.0772 1.0031 STD. ERROR 15.7642 1.3149 18.8135 23.8875 28.4093 30.1647 20.2289 23.8314 22.6362 0.2952 0.3819 0.1867 0.1661 0.0310 0.2667 T-VALUE 3.803 1.748 -1.851 2.099 1.701 1.229 -1.728 3.353 1.100 1.048 -2.488 -1.157 2.252 -2.490 3.761 294 Table B-2 (G) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 5 GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP 2 ( E ^ ) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 69 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV): 172.1449 (113.7083) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DOF REGRESSION RESIDUAL 16 52 MULTIPLE - R = 0 . 7 6 2 R - SQUARED = 0.580 VARIABLE CONSTANT 1 YOB 2 PREV 3 HOME 4 HSDROP 5 RACE-W 6 CHI00 7 CHI10 8 AREA A 9 POTH 1 10 FOODSI 11 EMAST 1 12 CCARE1 13 MEDPY1 14 MEDFM1 15 EXPWGS 16 RATI01 SUM OF SQ. MEAN SQ. 509838.180 369372.310 31864.887 7103.313 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 84.281 F - RATIO = 4.486 COEFFICIENT -171.6778 -3.0173 -41.5301 13.9137 42.1337 -39.9754 -62.8314 43.0565 59.2728 46.9450 2.5001 1.3089 0.6994 -0.0674 -0.1174 0.4262 25.8312 STD. ERROR 1.5763 25.3297 24.6528 22.7512 25.2325 35.6007 33.6101 27.6580 25.8665 1.0414 0.6127 0.2165 0.0383 0.0467 0.3634 21.4786 -VALUE -1.914 -1.640 0.564 1.852 -1.584 -1.765 1.281 2.143 1.815 2.401 2.136 3.230 -1.760 -2.514 1.173 1.203 295 Table B-2 (I) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 6 INGHAM COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP 2 ( E ^ ) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 44 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV): 188.1591 (106.8673) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF 13 30 SUM OF SQ. 304053.370 187032.930 MULTI PLE-R = 0.787 R-SQUARED = 0.619 VARIABLE CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PREV 3 RACE-W 4 CH100 5 NOTEX 6 WIN 1 7 AREA C 8 AREA D 9 TOTRQ 1 10 EMAST 1 11 CCARE 1 12 MEDPY 1 13 EXPWGS MEAN SQ. 23388.719 6234.430 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 78.958 F-RATIO = 3.752 COEFFICIENT -172.5155 -0.5215 -1.9734 -57.7670 44.8852 -106.2347 121.7220 -43.8740 90.4887 0.5361 -1.9655 0.5199 0.1311 0.8113 STD. ERROR 0.5050 36.1965 27.7999 35.7020 51.8548 68.5967 34.5897 86.7857 0.1846 0.8186 0.2906 0.1742 0.3327 T-VALUI -1.033 -0.055 -2.078 1.257 -2.049 1.774 -1.268 1.043 2.903 -2.401 1.790 0.752 2.439 296 Table B-3(C) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 7 COMBINED COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT GROUP 3 ( E ^ ) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 41 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY, 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD. DEV.): 229.6341 (159.4839) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DOF REGRESSION: RESIDUAL: MULTIPLE - R = 0.661 R - SQUARED = 0.438 SUM OF SQ. 8 445076.680 572327.370 32 COEFFICIENT CONSTANT 1 PUBHOS 7 CCARE1 24.0963 142.7001 214.8137 -134.3896 -229.9541 -121.5377 -0.5156 0.7073 8 EXPWGS 0.6686 3 4 5 6 NOTEX WIN 1 AREA A OTHIN1 55634. 586 17885. 230 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 133.736 F - RATIO - 3.111 VARIABLE 2 CHI10 MEAN SQ. STD. ERROR 76.9655 91.9547 81.7513 87.3505 56.2341 0.4562 0.4474 0.5055 -VALUE 1.854 2.336 -1.644 -2.633 -2.161 -1.130 1.581 1.323 297 Table B-3 (G) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 8 GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP 3 ( E ^ ) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 26 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV): 215.3462 (135.5940) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DOF REGRESSION RESIDUAL 16 9 SUM OF SQ. 410512.370 49130.742 MULTIPLE - R = 0.945 R - SQUARED = 0.893 VARIABLE CONSTANT 1 PUBHOS 2 HOME 3 RACE-W 4 CH010 5 CH100 6 CHI11 7 WIN 1 8 AREA C 9 POTH 1 10 RENT 1 11 FOODS 1 12 EMAST1 13 MEDPY1 14 MEDFM1 15 EXPWGS 16 RATI01 MEAN SQ. 25657.023 5458.969 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 73.885 F - RATIO = 4.700 COEFFICIENT -532.5903 241.7190 307.7488 -88.8641 125.1211 -69.3607 -349.3696 377.4573 -403.3923 -48.0932 1.5309 1.7683 -7.7472 -1.2461 4.8432 1.1158 124.7264 STD. ERROR 73.1773 77.4038 39.4818 59.9437 45.2588 93.6349 141.4285 106.6333 52.4921 0.7795 1.6106 1.8555 0.1573 1.0314 0.6490 46.1330 T-VALUE 3.303 3.976 -2.251 2.087 -1.533 -3.731 2.669 -3.783 -0.916 1.964 1.098 -4.175 -1.565 4.696 1.719 2.704 298 Table B-3 (I) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 9 INGHAM C O U N T Y E M P L O Y M E N T G R O U P 3 ( E j N ^ NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 15 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: E A RNINGS J U L Y DEPENDENT V A R I A B L E M E A N (STD DEV): 1969 254 . 4 0 0 0 (196.9868) A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E DOF REGRESSION RESIDUAL 5 9 MULTIPLE - R = 0.892 R - SQUARED = 0.796 S U M OF SQ. M E A N SQ. 432522.560 1 1 0 7 30.560 86504.500 12303.395 STD. E R ROR OF EST. F - R A TIO = 7.031 VARIABLE CO E F F I C I E N T CONSTANT 1 HOME 2 CH111 3 NOTEX 4 WIN 1 5 EMAST1 250.2033 -221.2033 252 . 2 9 6 3 -148.7037 -451.5000 6.6316 STD. = 110.921 ERROR 90.5656 90.5657 90.5656 135.8496 2.4148 -VALUE -2.442 2.786 -1.642 -3.324 2.746 299 Table B-4 (C) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 10 COMBINED COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT GROUPS 1, 2, 3 ( E ^ , E ^ , E ^ = All Ej) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 358 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV): 195.1061 (126.7354) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF SUM OF SQ. 15 342 1573326.000 4160753.000 MULTIPLE - R = 0.524 R - SQUARED = 0.274 MEAN SQ. 104888.370 12165.941 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 110.299 F - RATIO = 8.621 VARIABLE COEFFICIENT CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PEL 1 3 YOB 4 RACE-W 5 CHI10 6 CHI11 7 NOTEX 8 WIN 1 9 POTH 1 10 TOTRQ 1 11 OTIIIN 1 12 EMAST 1 13 CCARE 1 14 EXPWGS 15 RATIO 1 -43.9979 -0.7262 21.4849 0.9618 -33.1513 22.5730 11.7697 -83.3005 -48.5702 24.4420 -0.5631 -0.2351 0.2053 0.2950 1.1556 -55.1830 STD. ERROR 0.2342 8.8427 0.7591 12.2516 19.5443 17.1823 19.7562 25.6044 16.7738 0.2179 0.1322 0.0827 0.1209 0.1799 14.2831 T-VALUI -3.101 2.430 1.267 -2.706 1.155 0.685 -4.216 -1.897 1.457 -2.584 -1.763 2.482 2.440 6.424 -3.864 300 Table> B-4 (G) MULTIPLEi REGRESSION GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROUPS 1, 2, 3 ( E ^ , 11 E ^ , E ^ = All NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 220 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV) : 187.9364 (123.2506) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DOF REGRESSION: RESIDUAL: 16 203 SUM OF SQ. 1223676. 000 2103089. 000 CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PEL I 3 YOB 4 HOME 5 HSGRAD 6 RACE-W 7 CHI10 8 NOTEX 9 WIN 1 10 P0TH1 11 T0TRQ1 12 F00DS1 13 EMAST1 14 CCARE1 15 EXPWGS 16 RATI01 76479.750 10360.043 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 101.784 F - RATIO = 7.382 MULTIPLE - R = 0.607 R - SQUARED = 0.368 VARIABLE MEAN SQ. COEFFICIENT -124.7296 -0.5087 40.6096 1.8223 32.4689 -23.6464 -35.2103 19.5745 -64.9992 -40.4674 21.2224 -1.2605 0.6187 0.2420 0.3058 1.4982 -54.0507 STD. ERROR 0.2877 10.1511 0.9285 15.3168 16.7305 14.7103 21.0865 25.1411 27.3693 18.9979 0.2777 0.5777 0.0870 0.1345 0.2573 19.6207 T-VALUE -1.768 4.001 1.963 2.120 -1.413 -2.394 0.928 -2.585 -1.479 1.117 -4.539 1.071 2.782 2.274 5.823 -2.755 301 Table B-4 (I) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 12 INGHAM COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROUPS 1, 2, 3 ( E ^ , E1U 5* E1N5 = A11 Ei> NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 138 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1969 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV): 206.5362 (131.7487) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DOF REGRESSION RESIDUAL 16 121 SUM OF SQ. MEAN SQ. 1002808.000 1375200.000 MULTIPLE - R = 0.649 R - SQUARED = 0.422 62675.500 11365.289 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 106.608 F-RATIO = 5.515 VARIABLE COEFFICIENT CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PUBHOS 3 HSGRAD 4 RACE-W 5 CH010 6 INCAP 7 NOTEX 8 WIN 1 9 AREA C 10 AREA D 11 POTH 1 12 RENT 1 13 0THIN1 14 F00DS1 15 EXPWGS 16 RATIO 1 58.1580 -1.2285 -61.1413 75.2172 -61.8533 -54.3327 65.1233 -127.6276 -62.1112 -45.2990 55.4340 42.5207 0.6926 -0.5011 -0.1380 0.8569 -56.9538 STD. ERROR 0.3551 34.6151 21.0400 21.7184 26.7818 51.3239 30.3002 51.8572 23.7626 42.0194 31.0829 0.2409 0.2315 0.1098 0.2527 15.6124 T-VALUE -3.460 -1.766 3.575 -2.848 2.029 1.269 -4.212 -1.198 -1.906 1.319 1.368 2.875 -2.165 -1.257 3.391 -3.648 302 Table B-5 (C) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 13 COMBINED COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT GROUP 1 ( E E ) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 204 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1970 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV): 228.7549 (140.9842) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF SUM OF SQ. MEAN SQ. 13 190 1266211.000 2768728.000 97400.812 14572.250 MULTIPLE - R = 0.560 R - SQUARED = 0.314 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 1 2 0 .716 F - RATIO = 6.684 VARIABLE COEFFICIENT CONSTANT 1 PUBHOS 2 HSDROP 3 RACE-W 4 CHI00 5 CHI11 6 INCAP 7 WIN 2 8 AREA A 9 AREA D 10 TOTRQ 2 11 OTHIN 2 12 CCARE 2 13 EXPWGS -131.1968 -80.8891 -23.1695 -38.0518 78.1994 36.1296 128.5255 -75.6507 -70.1751 -61.4611 0.3503 -0.5369 0.4425 0.9308 STD. ERROR 28.9290 17.4142 20.0097 32.2378 21.7012 62.0097 55.9053 21.7700 39.2530 0.1590 0.1427 0.1352 0.2664 T-VALUI -2.796 -1.330 -1.902 2.426 1.665 2.073 -1.353 -3.223 -1.566 2 .520 -3.762 3.273 3.494 303 Table B-5 (G) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 14 GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP 1 ( E ^ ) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 125 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1970 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN(STD DEV): 218.2320 (142.4577) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF SUM OF SQ. MEAN SQ. 14 110 1139416.000 1377065.000 81386.812 12518.770 MULTIPLE - R = 0.673 R - SQUARED = 0.453 VARIABLE CONSTANT 1 HOME 2 HSGRAD 3 RACE-W 4 CHOOl 5 CHI11 6 WIN 2 7 AREA A 8 AREA B 9 AREA C 10 AREA D 11 OTHIN2 12 EMAST2 13 CCARE2 14 EXPWGS STD. ERROR OF EST. = 111.887 F - RATIO = 6.501 COEFFICIENT -141.7576 38.7522 -31.8683 -76.7167 -39.7889 37.4171 -104.259.9 -209.5292 -117.2668 -108.3454 -150.8829 -0.5185 -0.1944 0.4111 1.6351 STD. ERROR 21.0846 26.0646 25.9834 36.7497 23.8853 57.7335 46.6827 43.1100 41.7113 63.1130 0.1530 0.1644 0.1669 0.3911 T-VALUE 1.838 -1.223 -2.953 -1.083 1.567 -1.806 -4.488 -2.720 -2.598 -2.391 -3. 389 -1.182 2.463 4.181 E— — 304 Table B-5 (I) M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N 15 INGHAM COUNTY E M P L O Y M E N T GROUP 1 (Ej E 2> NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 79 DEPENDENT V A R I A B L E : E A R N I N G S J U L Y 1970 DEPENDENT V A R I A B L E M E A N (STD DEV): 2 45.4051 (137.8749) ANALYSIS 1 OF V A R I A N C E REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF 15 63 MULTIPLE-R a 0.710 R-SQUARED = 0.504 VARIABLE CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PEL 2 3 PUBHOS 4 HOME 5 HSDROP 6 WI N 1 7 WIN 2 8 AREA A 9 AREA B POTH 2 11 TOTRQ 2 12 OTHIN 2 13 CCARE 2 14 MEDPY 2 15 EXPWGS S U M OF SO. 74 6 9 3 1 . 5 0 0 735807.500 M E A N SQ. 497 9 5 . 4 3 0 1 1 6 79.480 STD. E R R O R O F EST. F-RATIO = 4.263 COEFFICIENT -162.2548 -0.8758 -28.9548 -143.0295 -99.0199 -73.4883 179.3415 -231.6772 4 9.8190 71.9434 65.9471 1.1163 -0.8008 0.4940 0.2468 0.7 8 5 7 STD. » 108.072 ERROR 0.5 4 8 9 13.2872 53.7700 33.1308 28.3530 8 5.6839 120.9921 33.1744 32.5975 S I . 0718 0.3 1 4 8 0.2691 0.2261 0.2200 0.3715 T-VALUE -1.595 -2.179 -2.660 -2.989 -2.592 2.093 -1.915 1.502 2.207 1.291 3.546 -2.976 2.185 1.122 2.115 Table B-6 (C) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 16 COMBINED COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT GROUP 4 (Ul V NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 128 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1970 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV): 190.6563 (153. 7375) ANALYSIS: OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF SUM OF SQ. MEAN SQ. 16 111 936555.000 2065117.000 58534.688 18604.656 MULTIPLE - R = 0.559 R - SQUARED = 0.312 STD . ERROR OF EST. = 136.399 F - RATIO = 3.146 VARIABLE COEFFICIENT CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PEL 1 3 PUBHOS 4 HOME 5 HSGRAD 6 CH001 7 CHI00 8 INCAP 9 WIN 2 10 AREA D 11 POTH 2 12 OTHIN 2 13 CCARE 2 14 MEDPY 2 15 EXPWGS 16 RATIO 2 -13.2001 -1.1527 -15.0541 59.8598 -34.3667 47.4533 49.7993 -32.7189 -59.8957 -69.8168 -123.2971 39.6761 -0.3044 0.5556 -0.0755 1.1828 -67.3528 STD. ERROR T-VALUJ 0.5488 8.4125 34.3068 30.9758 29.1499 60.3844 32.1801 52.3175 43.9283 101.7479 36.3315 0.2195 0.2154 0.0478 0.2745 30.4073 -2.100 -1.789 1.745 -1.109 1.628 0.825 -1.017 -1.145 -1.589 -1.212 1 .092 -1.387 2.579 -1.579 4.309 -2.215 306 Table B-6 (G) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 17 GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP 4 (U.^) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 79 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1970 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD D E V ) : 189.3798 (157.1554) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF SUM OF SQ. MEAN SQ. 25 53 970514.870 955915.120 38820.594 18036.133 MULTIPLE - R = 0.710 R - SQUARED = 0 . 5 0 4 VARIABLE CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PEL 1 3 PEL 2 4 YOB 5 PREV 6 HOME 7 HSDROP 8 HSGRAD 9 CH010 10 CH100 11 INCAP 12 NOTEX 13 WIN 2 14 AREA B 15 AREA C 16 AREA D 17 POTH 2 18 RENT 2 19 T0TRQ2 20 0THIN2 21 EMAST2 22 CCARE2 23 MEDPY2 24 EXPWGS 25 RATI02 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 134.299 F - RATIO = 2.152 COEFFICIENT -120.5018 -0.8147 -13.6534 66.3054 -3.1735 32.1436 188.8434 -45.3539 36.8886 -22.4073 -12.6698 -32.3352 38.9341 -143.0892 -31.6760 34.6879 -263.5059 66.5018 2.0247 -1.8666 -0.1722 0.0776 1.1946 -0.0760 2.0128 -86.4089 STD. ERROR -VALUE 0.6942 29.8079 53.9261 2.7860 39.6050 108.9596 56.2620 57.0871 56.7697 52.9290 71.2451 39.9730 60.9725 39.3995 49.8771 166.9177 45.9767 1.0241 1.0977 0.2803 0.1585 0.3736 0.0548 0.5933 48.1378 -1.174 -0.458 1.229 -1.139 0.812 1.733 -0.806 0.646 -0.395 -0.239 -0.454 0.974 -2.347 -0.804 0.695 -1.581 1.446 1.977 -1.700 -0.614 0.490 3.198 -1.387 3.393 -1.795 307 Table B-6 (I) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 18 INGHAM COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP 4 (U-^) NUMBER OF O B S E R V A T I O N S 49 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1970 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV): 192.7143 (149.6471) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DOF REGRESSION RESIDUAL 24 24 MULTIPLE-R = 0.839 R-SQUARED = 0.704 VARIABLE CONSTANT 1 MONTHS 2 PEL 3 YOB 4 PREV 5 PUBHOS 6 HOME 7 HSGRAD 8 CHOOl 9 CHOIO 10 CHI00 11 CH110 12 CHI11 13 INCAP 14 NOTEX 15 WIN 1 16 WIN 2 17 AREA A 18 AREA C 19 RENT 2 20 0THIN2 21 EMAST2 22 MEDPY2 23 EXPWGS 24 RATI02 SUM OF SQ. 756656.680 318266.310 MEAN SQ. 31527.359 13261.094 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 1 1 5 . 157 F - RATIO = 2.377 COEFFICIENT 924.0259 -1.6231 -47.0292 4.4787 -44.0519 192.6593 -313.9604 43.4471 192.3326 -381.8054 -437.1057 -533.2126 -439.2795 -136.9919 46.1587 142.6425 -173.6074 60.2163 -110.2659 -3.4364 -0.5803 0.8934 -0.0566 2.1419 -459.6223 STD. ERROR T-VALUE 1.2561 18.6245 3.9862 45.9057 60.1900 115.0260 46.8066 167.8786 116.0610 99.5535 122.8269 126.7926 101.7990 55.5642 83.3497 136.7792 78.5602 55.0619 1.2386 0.3792 1.3424 0.1623 0.4827 104.4574 -1.292 -2.525 -1.124 -0.960 3.201 -2.729 0.928 1.146 -3.290 -4.391 -4.341 -3.465 -1.346 0.831 1.711 -1.269 0.766 -2.003 -2.774 -1.530 0.666 -0.349 4.437 -4.400 Table B-7 (C) MULTIPLE: REGRESSION 19 COMBINED COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT GROUP 7 CNlE2) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 196 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1970 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV): 249.2806 (153. 1384) ANALYSISI OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL DOF SUM OF SQ. 14 181 1435722.000 3137293.000 MULTIPLE - R = 0.560 R - SQUARED = 0.314 MEAN SQ. 102551.560 17333.109 STD. ERROR OF EST. = 131.655 F - RATIO = 5.917 VARIABLE COEFFICIENT CONSTANT 1 PEL 2 2 HOME 3 HSDROP 4 CHI00 5 CHI10 6 INCAP 7 WIN 1 8 WIN 2 9 AREA C 10 AREA D 11 POTH 2 12 OTHIN 2 13 CCARE 2 14 EXPWGS -241.7908 28.1861 30.1731 -39.7161 -27.2705 -54.4255 -87.8695 -121.1796 -53.7536 -28.7454 -99.4353 33.0891 -0.401S 0,2943 1.2888 STD. ERROR 7.1455 23.5071 22.7767 24.2204 26.3377 63.7677 99.2187 43.0483 22.9216 36.9341 24.3021 0.1850 0.1660 0.2687 T-VALUI 3.945 1.284 -1.744 -1.126 -2.070 -1.378 -1.221 -1.249 -1.254 -2.692 1. 362 -2.172 1.773 4. 796 309 Table B-7 (G) MULTIPLE REGRESSION 20 GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP 7 ( N ^ ) NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 105 DEPENDENT VARIABLE: EARNINGS JULY 1970 DEPENDENT VARIABLE MEAN (STD DEV) : 246.4571 (170.9206) ANALYSIS 0 9 of 64 (NA = 12) 0 0 0 2 of 72 (NA - 4) 120.00 306.25 310.50 340.00 272.42 130.00 PT 120,00 PT 200.00 360.00 260.00 $376.61 ------------------------------------ Race status was repotted only for placements made after September, 1969. **Average for two placements, a male and a female, one underage cAverage for two placements, a male and a female, one of whichwas nonwhite, ^Average for eight placements, seven of which were female. 22. *One or two of these four were aged 45 or over. ^Average for three placements, two of which were female. ^Average for fourteen placements, eight of which were female, hAverage for three placements, two of which were female. Source: Compiled from data reported in: Nancy .1. Felder, "The Work Incentive Program," Michigan Employment Security Commission. Monthly reports August, 1969 through June, 1970. 367 Analysis of Genesee County WIN Activity: Methodology An attempt was made to duplicate for the Flint WIN program the analysis in the preceding Such an approach proved program. Appendix for the Lansing WIN program. to be not possible in the case of the Flint In part, this was the result of the larger size of the program, the somewhat broader spectrum of training and educational opportunities available, and the more individualized approach utilized by the two MESC-WIN teams in Flint. For example, from May 12, 1969, when training was begun under contract number one, through August, 1970 a total of 56 contracts were negotiated with 25 different providers in which 395 training positions were established. These included 32 individual contracts, under which specific training was arranged for one enrollee each, and 24 group contracts for 363 enrollees.* The large number of enrollees, contracts and providers made impractical a simple contract analysis for each area of training as was presented earlier for the Lansing program. data were obtained for each individual enrollee. Instead, complete program This procedure involved recording all available information concerning WIN activity from the master card file maintained in the Flint MESC-WIN office. While this procedure required a great deal more time and effort, it allowed a more comprehensive analysis of WIN activity. 368 Data were recorded for the following items for each observation; priority number. dates of enrollment in and termination from WIN. reason for termination from WIN. dates of enrollment in and termination from each component. type of training enrolled in. date of each job placement. beginning and ending dates of each follow-up period. beginning and ending dates of each period of holding status. Data were gathered in July, 1971 for all enrollees whose WIN participation had begun since the implementation of WIN in Flint in February, 1969, through August, 1970. Those who enrolled in the September, 1970, through June, 1971, period were not included. This eliminated from consideration those enrolled fewer than ten months, and also made this analysis more relevant to the analysis of AFDC employment during fiscal 1969-70 in the earlier-presented text. In interpreting the results, it should be kept in mind that this analysis includes only participants who enrolled prior to September, 1970, and that WIN activity was traced through July 1, 1971, unless termination from WIN occurred prior to that date. The data gathered in this fashion were used to answer the following questions: 1. When did participants enroll in WIN? 2. How many enrollees were men, youth, women with or without preschool children? 3. How many enrollees participated in training programs; how many did not? 369 4. What type of training did enrollees receive? 5. How did the type of training and time in training differ between successful and unsuccessful WIN terminees? 6. For what reasons did enrollees terminate from WIN? 7. How long was a typical enrollment, and how was enrollment time spent? 8. For each WIN training component, how did WIN activity differ between successful and unsuccessful terminees? WIN Enrollment and Priority Classification WIN enrollees in this study include only those who actually participated in WIN. Individuals who enrolled, but who were not assigned to a training component or for whom a job placement was not attempted, were not included. This distinction eliminated from the study those who refused to participate before training began, or whose referral was withdrawn by DSS after enrollment, or whose WIN status never progressed beyond holding for initial assessment. Also excluded were those who for some other reason such as transportation or health problems were unable to participate in WIN in any capacity. As shown in Table D-5, the number in these categories totalled about one-third of all those enrolled over this period (280 of 807). Data were obtained for the remaining 527. The 527 WIN participants in this study enrolled in WIN over the study period as shown in Table D-6 About 40 percent enrolled in the first three months of program operation, with the remaining enrollees fairly evenly distributed over the following five quarters. Early emphasis seemed to be upon the enrollment of youth and mothers without preschool children. With the third quarter of program operation, the emphasis shifted somewhat to mothers with preschoolers, and the relative number of AFDC-U fathers enrolled also increased. Overall, AFDC-U 370 Table D-5 Flint WIN Enrollees by Date of Initial Enrollment Quarter of Initial EnrolIment New EnrolleesProgram Participants All New Enrollees (1) March - May, 1969 (2) June - August, 1969 (3) September - November, 1969 61 115 (4) December, 1969 - February, 1970 54 85 (5) March - May, 1970 72 127 (6) June - August, 1970 52 102 527 807 TOTAL 221 \ 67 ) 288 ^ 378 Source for this column is Nancy Felder, "The Work Incentive Program," MESC, appropriate monthly issues. Table d -6 Date of WIN Enrollment by Priority Classification of Enrollees (Genesee County WIN Program: March, 1969 - August, 1970) Priority Classification Quarter of Enrollment Spring, 1969 Total AFDC-U Fathers Youths Mothers without Preschoolers Mothers with Preschoolers 221 18 15 99 89 Summer 67 7 21 29 13 Fall 61 2 1 9 49 Winter, 1970 54 5 0 14 35 Spring 72 8 3 12 49 Summer 52 12 9 11 20 527 49 49 174 255 Total Percent of Total 100.0 9.3 Quarterly enrollment periods are defined as follows: Spring: March, April, May Summer: June, July, August Fall: September, October, November Winter: December, January, February 9.3 33.0 48.4 fathers comprised 10 percent of enrollees: youths, 10 percent; mothers without preschoolers, 33 percent; and mothers with preschoolers, 48 percent. Distribution of Training Components All except 42 of the 527 had at least one training component during their WIN enrollment. The frequency with which available training was utilized is shown in Table 4-G. This table shows that for the initial 221 enrollees, over half participated in orientation, nearly one-fifth enrolled in a high school equivalency course, while 12 percent enrolled at Flint Junior College and 14 percent at Baker Business University. Other training programs, such as work experience, a computer institute, MDTA, or non-WIN funded training, were utilized by 24.9 percent of Spring, 1969 enrollees. Altogether, the sum of the percent who enrolled in each training program is 140.7, which indicates that participants who enrolled during this Spring, 1969 quarter averaged about 1.4 training programs each (through their WIN enrollment, or if still enrolled, through July 1, 1971). Examination of the remaining columns in Table D-7 indicates that after the initial enrollment period, the relative number utilizing orientation declined, while the relative number utilizing basic education and junior college level training increased. For those enrolled during the entire six quarter period, orientation was utilized by 36 percent of all enrollees, high school equivalency by 22 percent; basic education, 17 percent; junior college, 18 percent; business college, 19 percent; beauty or cosmetology school, 6 percent; and all other training, 17 percent. The average participant enrolled in 1.35 training components. Table D-7 Percent of WIN Enrollees Ever Enrolled in Each Training Component, by Quarter of Enrollment (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled March, 1969 - August, 1970, WIN Activity Through July 1, 1971) Percent Ever Enrolled in Each Training Component Through July 1,1971 Quarter of Enrollment in WIN Training Component Spring 1969 (N=221) Summer 1969 (N=67) Fall 1969 (N=6I) Winter 1970 (N=54) Spring 1970 (N=72) Summer 1970 (N=52) Weighted Average (N=527) 53.8 23.9 16.4 27.8 40.3 1.9 36.1 Basic Education 16.3 11.9 23.0 11.1 19.4 25.0 17.0 High School Equivalency (GED) 19.9 9.0 24.6 27.8 38.9 13.5 21.8 Flint Junior College 11.8 31.3 16.4 20.4 20.8 26.9 18.4 Baker Business University 14.0 28.4 31.1 29.6 6.9 19.2 19.0 Cosmetology, Beauty School 4.5 9.0 4.9 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.5 Weight Watchers 5.9 3.0 4.9 1.9 1.4 0 3.8 Work Experience and On-theJob Training 4.5 3.0 8.2 9.3 4.2 0 4.7 All Others 10.0 10.4 13.1 9.3 4.2 3.8 8.9 Total 140.7 129.9 142.6 142.6 141.7 96.2 135.3 373 Orientation 374 Reasons for Termination from WIN Terminations from WIN as a result of employment were about 20 percent of all terminations, as shown in Table D-8. Indirect placements (i.e., enrollees who had participated in training) were half of this total. The other half were direct placements (i.e., placed without benefit of any WIN training, except perhaps orientation). Family and health reasons accounted for about one-third of all terminations. In this group, the lack of suitable child care arrange­ ments is shown to be a relatively minor reason. However, health problems, including preganancy, account for nearly one-fourth of all terminations, making health the most important single reason for WIN termination. Among other reasons for termination, about one-in-six were for failure to participate (drop-outs), while five percent were for trans­ portation reasons. Termination by Priority Classification Table P-9 shows the percentage who were AFDC-U fathers, youths, or mothers with or without preschool children, for employment and nonemployment reasons for termination. This table shows that although AFDC-U fathers comprised 9.5percent of terminations for all reasons, they accounted forl4.8percent of terminations to employment. Furthermore, an AFDC-U father was more likely to be placed directly without WIN training, while other employment terminees were about as likely to be direct as indirect placements. Youths and mothers without preschoolers also comprised a greater proportion of terminations to employment relative to terminations to 375 Table D-8 Distribution of Reasons for Termination from WIN (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled M a r c h , 1969August, 1970 and Terminated by July 1, 1971) Reason for Termination Number Percenta Employment: Direct Placements Indirect Placements Subtotal 40 41 10.0 10.2 81 20.1 9 36 23 69 2.2 9.0 5.7 17.2 137 34.1 64 9 15.9 2.2 73 18.2 28 22 10 51 7.0 5.5 2.5 12.7 111 27.6 402 100.0 Family, Health: Child Care Family Care Pregnancy Health Subtotal Dropped Out, Failed: Dropped Out Failed Training Subtotal Other: AFDC Closed Transportation Marriage Other Subtotal Total ^ o t a l and Subtotals may not add due to rounding. 376 Table D-9 Priority Classification of WIN Terminees, by Employment and Non-Employment Reasons for Termination from WIN (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled March, 1969August, 1970 and Teiminated by July 1, 1971)a Priority Classifica­ tion Texminations to Employment Direct Placements Terminations All To All Other Termina­ Indirect Placements. Reasons tions Placements Combined Percent Down AFDC-U Father 25.0 4.9 14.8 8.1 9.5 Youths 10.0 12.2 11.1 8.1 8.7 Mothers w/o preschoolers 37.5 48.8 43.2 33.0 35.1 Mothers with preschoolers 27.5 34.1 30.9 50.8 46.8 100.0 (N=40) 100.0 (N=41) 100.0 (N=81) AFDC-U Fathers 26.3 5.3 31.6 68.4 100.0 (N=38) Youths 11.4 14.3 25.7 74.3 100.0 (N=35) Mothers w/o preschoolers 10.6 14.2 24.8 75.2 100.0 (N=141) Mothers with preschoolers 5.9 7.4 13.3 86.7 100.0 (N=188) 10.0 10.2 20.1 79.9 100.0 (N=402) Total 100.0 (N=321) 100.0 (N=402) Percent Across: Total t o t a l s may not add due to rounding. 377 employment relative to terminations to all reasons. However, the opposite result held for mothers of preschool children. Whereas this latter group comprise 46.8 percent of fill terminations, they accounted for only 30.9 percent of terminations to employment. Apparently the presence of preschool children served to reduce the probability of successful job placement through WIN. Distribution of Time in Training by Reason for Termination The two columns on the left in Table D-10 show a percentage distribution of trainee-months b y reason for termination. Direct placements are of course omitted since, by definition, these enrollees did not engage in any WIN training. However, comparison of the time distribution for indirect placements with the time distribution for non-employment terminations provides an indication of differences between the training programs of successful relative to unsuccessful terminees. The table shows clearly that relative to non-employment terminees, successful terminees spent significantly less time in basic education (4.4 versus 14.7 percent) and in high school equivalency courses (2.8 versus 19.5 percent). Instead, successful terminees spent relatively more time in junior college (31.9 versus 19.8 percent) and business college level courses (36.2 versus 23.0 percent). In addition, successful terminees spent relatively more time in computer training, Goodwill industries work experience program, and MDTA Sales course, and in other (usually non-WIN funded) training. Successful terminees spent relatively less time in orientation, weight watchers, cosmetology and beauty school training. None of the cosmetology-beauty school enrollees terminated 378 from WIN to employment Data in this table suggest that enrollees who terminated to employment were relatively better educated at the time of WIN enroll­ ment, and were, therefore, able to spend their time in training activities for which high school level skills were prerequisite. For other enrollees, WIN apparently served as a vehicle to obtain remedial basic education or high school equivalency instruction. This conclusion is reinforced by data developed in preparation of Table D-18 which indicate that 174 enrollees received either or both basic education and GED training. Of the 35 with both, all except two enrolled in basic education following failure in the GED component. These two were able to move from basic education on to GED (but both ultimately terminated for health reasons) . Altogether, only four percent (5 of 129) terminated to employment after participation in basic education and/or GED. Length of Each Training Component by Reason for Termination The two columns on the right in Table D-10 show the average duration of each training component for employment and non-employment terminees. This table shows that successful terminees spent nearly two months more in each training component (5.4 versus 3.5 months). Successful trainees spent more time in business college, junior college and Goodwill com­ ponents, but less time in basic education, MDTA sales, and cosmetologybeauty school course. Table D-10 Percentage Distribution of Trainee-Months, and Average Length of Training for Each Training Component, for Employment and Non-Employment Terminees who Enrolled in Training (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled March, 1969August, 1970 and Terminated by July 1, 1971) Training Component Percent of All Trainee-Months by Reason for Termination for Enrollees To Employment: Indirect Placements (N=307.8 tr.mo.) 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Orientation Basic Education High School (GED) Flint Jr. College/ U of M Baker Business University Cosmetology/ Beauty School Computer Training Goodwill Industries Weight Watchers MDTA-Sales Other Total Average To Employment: Indirect Placements Non-Employment (N=1503.7 tr.mo.) (N=57 components) (N=427 components) 2.3 4.4 2.8 6.2 14.7 19.5 .7 3.4 2.8 .7 4.1 3.4 31.9 19.8 8.9 7.6 36.2 23.0 8.6 6.6 0.0 4.7 7.9 1.8 3.6 4.4 9.2 1.0 1.4 4.4 .1 .7 7.2 4.8 5.5 2.2 3.7 100.0 100.0 - - — — 5.5 3.9 2.2 4.4 2.0 1.7 — — 5.4 3.5 379 1. 2. 3. 4. Non-Employment Average Length of Training per TraineeComponent by Reason for Termination (in months) 380 Distribution of Total Time in WIN, by Reason for Termination Table D-ll indicates that, for all terminees, the time in WIN averaged 11 months, including 4.5 months in training, 5.6 in holding, and one in follow-up. However, total time in WIN for successfully-placed trainees differed from unsuccessful trainees in both length and distribu­ tion. Both total time in WIN and total time in training were, for non­ employment terminees, about two-thirds that of successful trainees. However, the shorter time in training was entirely the result of shorter rather than fewer training components. Specifically, successful trainees averaged 7.5 months in training (5.4 months per 1.4 components) while non­ employment terminees averaged 4.7 months in training (3.5 months p e r 1.4 components). In addition, non-employment terminees exhibited a greater tendency to re-enroll in the same component. The 307 non-employment terminees enrolled in 427 components in 449 segments. That is, 22 re-enrollments occurred, or 5.2 percent of all such component enrollments. However, among the 41 successful trainees, only one re-enrollment occurred among 58 component segments, or 1.8 percent of component enrollments. Aside from the difference in time spent in follow-up, which simply reflects the fact that, by definition, successful terminees held their jobs through the three-plus month follow-up period, a significant d i f ­ ference is evident in time spent in holding. Even though unsuccessful terminees spent less time in WIN, nearly one-fourth more time was spent in holding status. Time in holding was 55 percent of total time for non-employment erminees, but only 31 percent for successful trainees. These data suggest that WIN inactivity while in holding status may con­ tribute to an unsuccessful termination. Direct placements terminating to employment averaged nearly eight 381 Table D-ll Total Time Enrolled in WIN, by WIN Activity, by Employed and Non-Employed Terminees (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled March^ 1969August, 1970 and Terminated by July 1, 1971) Average Time in WIN Activity, in Monthsa WIN Activity Training (including orientation) Holding Follow-Up (post placement) Total Months Terminations to Employment All Other (Non-Employ­ ment) Terminees (N=321) All Terminees Direct Placement Indirect Placement (N=40) (N=41) .2 (.4) 7.5 (4.9) 4.7 (4.2) 4.5 (4.4) 3.9 (2.3) 4.8 (2.7) 5.9 (4.2) 5.6 (4.0) 3.8 (2.1) 3.0 (1.1) .2 (1.0) .9 (1.7) 7.9 (2.5) 15.3 (5.0) 10.8 (5.3) 11.0 (5.3) (N=402) Standard deviations shown in parentheses. i i 382 months in WIN, about evenly split between holding prior to job place­ ment and follow-up after placement. By definition the only training perhaps received by these placements was orientation, which was used by 30 percent of the successful direct placements. All Job Placements: Priority Classification and Time in WIN Activities Table D-12 summarizes available data for all job placements among the 527 enrollees in the Genesee WIN study. This table shows that 134 individuals were placed in employment, including nine who were placed twice. Of the 134, 81 terminated to employment, 32 terminated for non­ employment reasons, and 21 were still enrolled at the time these data were drawn (July 1, 1971). AFDC-U fathers (priority number one) had the least success in maintaining employment after placement. Just under half of placements for this group led to employment terminations, while the success rate for the other three groups was about three-fourths. Average time in training for successful indirect placements was 7.3 months, compared to just 4.7 for unsuccessful placements. However, total time enrolled in WIN was similar (11.6 months for successful, 10.8 months for unsuccessful placements). Those who had been placed, but who were still enrolled in July 1, 1971 averaged 12.4 months in training out of 22 months in WIN by that date. Unsuccessful placements spent nearly 60 percent of enrollment time in holding status, while suc-r cessful placements, and those still enrolled, spent less than 40 percent of enrollment time in holding. Similarly, among all placements, enrollment in Orientation did not seem to increase the chances of success: one-third of the non-employment terminations had enrolled in Table D-12 WIN Jot Placements: Distribution of Time in WIN Among WIN Components, by Reason for Termination from WIN (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70: Status or. 7-1-71 Reason for Termination From WIN Orientation Training (Orientation Excluded) Average Time for All Placements (Months) Total Number With Number With Average Time* In WIN 0 7.3(5.1) 7.9(2.S) 15.3(5.0) 7.3(5.1) 5.1(1.8) 5.0(5.2) 2.7(1.1) Niaber Placed Twice In Orientation In Training In Follow-Up In Holding .2 .2 .0 7.3(5.I) 3.8(2.I) 3.0(1.1) 3.9(2.3) 4.8(2.7) 1 2 11.6(5.4) .2 3.7 3.4(1,7) 4.4(2.5) 3 ,1 .5 .3 2.6 5.0(5.2) .4 2.6(1.7) 3.7(1.4) 1.9(1.7) S.3(4.0) 8,4(4.7) 6.0(4.0) Employment Subtotal 40 41 12 10 61 22 0 41 41 12 5 15 2 3 6 6 5 2 Non-Employment Family, Health Dropped Out Other Subtotal Still Enrolled Total 32* 11 13 4.7(3.6) 10.6(5.9) 17.7(4.4) S.8(5.1) 10.8(6.2) .3 1.9 2,4(1.8) 6.2(4.3) 1 2 1 4 21 5 17 U.4(S.3) 22,0(5.3) .2 10.0 2.3(1.8) 9.5(4.6) 2 134 38 71 8.1(5,6) 13.1(6.8) .2 4.3 3.0(1.8) 5.6(3,8) 9 ^Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. includes 14 with neither orientation nor training, and 5 with only orientation. 383 Direct Indirect 384 orientation» while about one-fourth of the successful placements had. Information summarized in Table D-12is shown by date of placement in Tables D-l^ D-14 a n d D-15. Table D-13shows the priority classification of individuals placed in employment by the date of placement. Examina­ tion of data in this table does not suggest a pattern of placements over this period: changes in emphasis among AFDC-U fathers, youths and mothers appear to have occurred randomly. However, the percentage of placements terminating to employment did generally increase over the nime-quarter period, from 63 percent in the first three quarters to 71 percent in the middle three quarters, to 85 percent for the final three quarters. Table D-14shows the average time spent in each WIN component for successful placements by date of placement. This table shows that total enrollment time for successful placements generally increased over the period, the result of more training among later placements. Although time in holding was relatively unchanged over the period, the percentage of time spent in training declined markedly, from an average of 47 percent of total time for enrollees placed in the first three quarters to 25 percent fot those placed in the last three. Table D-15 shows average time spent in each WIN component for unsuccessful placements by date of placement. The usefulness of this table is somewhat limited due to the number of observations and by the fact that over two-fifths of the observations occur in one quarter. Nevertheless, the table illustrates the interesting point that failure to maintain employment after placement does not necessarily mean the end of WIN enrollment. For example, the six who were placed in the Summer of 1969 averaged 12 months total time in WIN. This time Tabu D-1J Statin of WIN Enrolled Placad Prior to July 1, 1971 by Priority Cluaification and Quarter of PlactMut (Genaiee Comity MIN Participant! Enrolled March, 1969-Aujujt, 1970: Statua on 7-1-71) WIN Status on July 1, 1971 Priority Classification by Date of Placement* Reason for Tenination Total 1 To bployMnt Direct Spring, 1969: AFDC-U Father Youth Mother, no preschooler* Mother, with preschoolers Total Sumer, 1969: AFDC-U Father Youth Mother, no preschoolers Mother, with preschoolers Total Fall, 1969: AFDC-U Father Youth Mother, no preschoolers Mother, with preschoolers Total Winter, 1970: AFDC-U Father Youth Mother, no preschoolers Mother, with preschoolers Total Spring, 1970: AFDC-U Father Youth Mother, no preschoolers Mother, with preschoolers Total Sumer, 1970: AFDC-U Father Youth Mother, no preschoolers Mother, with preschoolers Total Family Health Dropout Other e* 41 1 d ll li Enrolled 7-1-71 Indinct | 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 8 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 3 13 3 4 2 0 0 0 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 3 0 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 11 5 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 I 0 1 1 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 I 1 2 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 4 S 2 3 $ 9 22 9 4 11 S 31 2 6 2 15 3 4 S s 13 7 2 0 0 1 • 15 2 3 0 4 3 9 s 4 » 5 I 2 1 1 3 i Table 0-13(continued) Pall, 1970: AFDC-U Father Youth Mother, no preschoolers Mother, with preschoolers Total Winter, 1971: AFDC-U Father Youth Hither, no preschoolers Nether, with preschoolers Total Progra Beginning through Juljr l, 1971: AFDC-U Father Youth Mdhher, no preschoolers Mother, with preschoolers Total 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 7 0 2 0 2 10 0 9 5 6 1 0 1 O 3 I 1 8 0 2 20 1 7 28 17 44 45 134 10 4 IS 11 40 *Qutrters of PIaccent include: Spring: March, April, Nay Sinner: June, July, August Fall: September, October, Noveober Winter: Deceuber, Jmuary, February The nine enrollee* placed twice art' included in the quarter of second placenent. ^Includes 3 placements in June, 1971. 0 0 2 6 IB IS 41 386 Spring, 1971: AFDC-U Father Youth Mother, no preschoolers . Mother, with preschoolers Total 0 Table D-14 WIN Job Placements Terminating to Employment: Average Time in WIN and in each WIN Component, by Date of Placement (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled March, 1969August, 1970 and Terminated by July 1, 1971) Average Time by WIN Component (in months) Date of Placement Number Placed Total in WIN Orientation 4 9.2 .1 0 8.2 0.9 Summer 15 7.1 .4 .1 3.5 3.2 Fall 16 8.2 .2 .5 2.6 4.8 6 10.2 .2 .4 3.2 6.4 Spring 11 12.8 .3 4.4 3.1 5.0 Slimmer 11 13.5 .3 5.2 3.3 4.7 Fall 1 19.6 0 11.6 3.5 4.5 Winter, 1971 9 17.6 0 9.1 3.4 5.1 Springb 8 17.7 .2 11.0 2.9 3.6 11.6(5.4) .2(0.3) 3.4(1.7) 4.4(2.5) Spring, 1969 TotalC 81 Components may not add to Totals due to rounding. Includes month of June, 1971 (one observation) cStandard deviations shown in parentheses. 3.7(5.2) Follow-Up Holding 387 Winter, 1970 Training Table D-15 WIN Job Placements Terminating for Reasons Other Than Employment Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Placement (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled March, 1969August, 1970 and Terminated by July 1, 1971) Date of Placement Number Placed Average Time by WIN Component (in months)3 Total in WIN Orientation Training Follow-Up Holding 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summer 6 12.0 .2 3.0 1.7 7.1 13 10.0 .3 .9 2.3 6.4 Winter, 1970 4 6.8 0 1.1 1.7 4.0 Spring 2 7.3 0 0 3.4 3.9 Summer 5 16.3 .1 2.3 4.4 9.5 Fall 1 18.3 .7 15.0 1.1 1.5 Winter, 1971 1 3.2 .7 0 1.1 1.4 Spring 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fall Total 32 10.8(6.2) £ Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. .3(0.3) 1.9(3.2) 2.4(1.8) 6.2(4.3) 388 Spring, 1969 389 included, on the average, three months prior to placement and nine months after placement. Three of the six enrolled in training following their unsuccessful job placement. WIN Training by Component The analysis of training activities fourteen areas of training involved anexamination of and education opportunities available through the Genesee County WIN program. Actually, training was available in several more training and education programs and institutions, but for purposes of this analysis, the following fourteen componenets or groups of components were specifically identified: Orientation Basic education Adult high school and GED preparation Flint Junior College: Nursing Flint Junior College: Non-Nursing University of Michigan Baker Business University: Secretarial Baker Business University: Non-Secretarial Goodwill Industries Electronic Computer Programming Institute Cosmetology and Beauty Schools Weight Watchers MDTA Sales and other Non-WIN Funded Training On-the-Job Training and Work Experience The experience of each enrollee was examined to determine the dates of enrollment in the termination from WIN, each training component, holding and follow-up status. This information is summarized for the above 14 component areas in Table D-16 through D-29. These tables show by component the priority classification of enrollees, number with training other than that component, number who were placed, and average time in that component, other components, orientation, follow-up status and holding, all by date of enrollment in that component and by reason 390 for termination from WIN. Summary data for all fourteen component areas is presented in Table D-30. The following sections describe briefly the training activity which occurred in each component area. To place average time in training, holding, etc. for each component area into perspective, it may be useful to refer back to Table D-ll. Orientation More Genesee County WIN participants enrolled in orientation than any other single component. Altogether 190, or about 36 percent of the 527 WIN participants included in this study, had enrolled in this component. (Compare Table D-7 ). In every case except one, orientation was the first Phase II WIN activity. Typically, enrollment in orientation occured after an average of 4.2 weeks (1.0 months)in holding status, during which time the initial assessment process took place. Enrollment in orientation was somewhat more likely for mothers without preschool children (priority 4), relative to other priority classification groups. Forty-four percent of this group enrolled in orientation, compared to 34 percent of mothers with preschoolers (priority 5), 27 percent of AFDC-U fathers (priority 1), and 26 percent of youths (priority 3). However, as shown in Table D-16 , the trend was toward enrollment of mothers with pre­ school children. In the first three quarterly periods (Spring through Fall, 1969), mothers without preschoolers comprised 48 percent of orienta­ tion enrollees, while mothers with preschoolers were 35 percent of the total. However, over the following three quarters (Winter through Summer, 1970), the situation reversed: mothers without preschoolers were 23 percent of enrollees, while mothers with preschoolers comprised 70 percent. T M U 0-16 VIM OrtMmiM Carol1m <: Priority CUs,mention in. 1m t m « Tin im Encti VIM Co^MMnt, by Data of Ennllant ud lauon for TaiaiMCiea fraa VIM CCanasea County VIN Pnrticfptatn Esrollad Prior bo M*TVr (Utu •V',-1-71) Tin in Months Prlwitjr ClastificatitM Data Eatarad Orienution and Reason for Taxilnation free WIN Total 1 3 Training 4 S 6 2 4 14 Placwat Average Tlaa Unbar Average Nuabar Average Total OrieataFollow- Holding laa With Tin* Placad iT tioa Training up n P-U in ww Sprint, 1969 12 Non-Eaployment Still Enrolled Toul 41 4 57 4 2 0 6 0 6 0 6 SWRa 1949 hploywt Non-finployaeat Still Euolled Total 4 39 4 55 1 0 0 3 0 4 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 22 $ 27 0 ^loyaant 3 17 25 2 2 20 5 14 3 24 4 31 11.7 $.3 7.2 4.2 S 19 4 32 4.4 19 7 24 1 20 1 6 3 0 5 1 10 4 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 1 10 5 s 16 0 1 I 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 6 16 3 19 13 5 14 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 2 0 2 , 1971 Still Earollad • Total 2 1 0 Trogra Oegiaaing through Swr, 1971 a^loyaont Noe-EnployMAt Still Enrolled 22 134 34 3 9 6.1 13.5 7.7 12 3 0 15 4 7 0 15 3.3 l.S 0 3.0 11.4 11.$ 27.4 2.9 3.2 0 3.0 2.1 12.6 .7 ,7 .7 ,7 3.1 7.2 3.3 13.9 12.5 2S.6 14.6 .7 .7 .7 .7 3.1 3.0 13.S 4.6 2.4 14.7 .7 .7 .7 .7 5.4 2.3 12.7 4.7 3.0 .7 .7 .7 .7 11.9 2.3 9.S 5.0 3.1 .3 3.0 4.7 7.5 4.1 3.4 .1 0 .1 .6 0 .9 4.5 7.6 19.S 7.4 7.3 4.2 11.4 4.S Pally 1969 ^loyneat Still Enrolled Toul 14 4 19 Winter, 1970 Enploynaat Mm-Enployaaat Still Emlled Total 14 7 Non-B^loyMat 1 1 9 4 14 1 S 7 13 1 0 5.4 3.S 12.7 6.3 3 4 1*6 25.6 15.4 11.9 6.3 9.S 4.S 1 0 1 2 3.1 0 4.0 3.6 14,7 11,7 19,3 14,1 0 0 0 0 3.0 0 1.1 12.S 0 .4 .3 0 .6 S.6 9.5 11.4 9.7 Spring, 1970 Mon-Enplopaant Still Ennllad Toul 1970 ftployant Non^Enployaant Stilltnrolled Total GRAND TOTAL 190 2 0 0 5,7 4.9 0 3.5 4.7 4.5 0 0 0 .6 .1 Q 5.3 4.6 S.4 0 2.0 0 0 4.6 I 1 .1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 3 5 3.9 4.5 6.7 0 1.9 1.9 11.3 14.2 12.4 .7 ,7 .7 6.4 4.2 .5 .3 0 1 1 3.7 2 .3 19,6 .7 1.9 .3 0 12 1 9 51 16 10 7.7(5.1)22 5.4(4.1)10 10.2(4,4) 1 5.2(1.5)12.9(4.9) .7 2.7(2.5)11.6(5.6) .7 1.6(1.1)21.6(5.2) .7 3.2 2.9 9.6 3.2 15 76 17 6.9(4.7)40 2.7(1.6)15.5(6.6) .7 10 72 32 11,1 0 6,6 62 15 9.4 14.4 .7 .7 .7 0 2.9 ,2 .4 0 6.6 7.6 16.7 5.5(2,4) 5.0(4.9’ 10.9(6.5; 5.2(5.2: 392 For 76 of the 190 enrollees (40 percent), orientation was the only Phase II training received. Twelve of this group terminated from WIN due to employment, while 62 terminated for non-employment reasons. were still enrolled on July 1, 1971. Two Those who enrolled in other training components following orientation numbered 114 of the 190 (60 percent) . Ten of this group terminated from WIN due to employment, 72 terminated for non-employment reasons, while 32 continued their WIN enrollment on July 1, 1971. An obvious conclusion might be that partici­ pation in additional training contributed little toward increasing the chances of successful termination from WIN, since 12 of 74 terminees (16 percent) with orientation alone terminated to employment, whereas only 10 of 82 (12 percent) with additional training did so. the reverse might well be the case. However, Those who enrolled in further training did so specifically because they were not considered "job ready" after participation in orientation. For this reason the group which received additional training was likely less employable and more in need of training than the group which was deemed ready for employment im­ mediately following participation in the three-week orientation. There­ fore, even though the employment rate among orientation enrollees with further training was one-fourth less than that for those without further training, the difference in capability and employability between these two groups precludes the conclusion that the probability of successful termination declined with additional training. Average time spent in WIN for all 190 enrollees in this component was 13.6 months (with a standard deviation around this mean of 6.6 months), including seven-tenths of a month in orientation, 4.1 months in training, 393 six-tenths of a month in post-placement follow-up, and 8.2 months in holding status. For the 22 orientation enrollees who terminated to employment, total time in WIN averaged 12.9 months (standard deviation of 4.9 months), including(in addition to orientation) 3.5 months in training, 3.2 months in post-placement follow-up, and 5.5 months in holding status. Ten of the 22 enrolled in other training. For these ten total time in WIN averaged 17.3 months, including 7.7 months in training, 2.6 months in follow-up, and 6.3 months in holding status. Non-employment terminees who enrolled in orientation totalled 134. This group spent somewhat less total time in WIN (11.6 versus 12.9 months), but more time in holding status (8.0 versus 5.5 months) relative to those who terminated due to employment. Orientation en­ rollees still enrolled in WIN on July 1, 1971 numbered 34. On that date this group had averaged 21.6 months in WIN, including 9.6 months in training and 10.9 months in holding status. Only two of the 34 were enrolled in orientation after Summer, 1970. Both were unusual cases in that enrollment in orientation did not occur immediately after enrollment in WIN. In one case, WIN enrollment occurred in July, 1970, and the initial component was four months of GED instruction, followed by five months in holding, prior to enrollment in orientation in June, 1971. This was the only case in this study in which orientation was not the initial component. Spring of 1969. In the second case, enrollment in WIN occurred in the After 25 months in holding status, this individual was enrolled in orientation in June, 1971. However, both of these enrollees plaesd into employment in the Inst week of June, 1971, and are in­ cluded in the eight placements among those still enrolled. Altogether, i 394 six of the eight placements who were still enrolled were in follow-up status. The remaining two had failed to maintain employment and had returned to Phase II training activities. Basic Education Basic education instruction through the Genesee County WIN program was offered primarily through the Mott Adult Education program of the Flint Board of Education. Many of the 90 basic education enrollees in this study were enrolled after failure to pass the General Educational Development (GED) high school equivalency exam. In many cases the individual enrolled in GED preparation classes through WIN, and then after taking the exam was placed in basic education. In other cases the GED exam was attempted without any WIN training, and then the individual was enrolled in basic education through WIN. The following narrative, taken from the MESC-WIN case record for a basic education enrollee, illustrates the typical situation: Mrs. H is twenty-nine years old, an ADC recipient who has three school age children. She is in good health and is motivated to acquire a skill that will enable her to be gainfully employed, and able to maintain her family without public assistance. She attended school in Mississippi where she was raised. Her husband is now in the service. She took the GED Prep, classes but failed the test. Mr. Hughes the Hazelton Principal thinks she could prepare herself better through Mott Basic Education courses. Altogether, 35 of the 90 basic education enrollees also participated in the GED preparation classes through WIN. Only two of the 35 moved from basic education to GED; i.e., 33 of the 35 who enrolled in both basic education and GED preparation classes first failed the GED exam, and TABLE D-17 MIN Basic Education Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Tine in Each BIN Component, by Date of Enrollaent and Jtcasoi for Termination from DIN (Genesee County BIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70: Status on 7-1-71) Tine in Months Dace Entered Component and Reason for Termination froa WIN Priority Classification Orien­ tation Other Training Follow-Up Average Time in KIN by Component Total 1 3 4 5 Number With Nuabcr With Average Tine Number Avpragc Total With Time in WIN Orien­ This Co Other Com­ Follow Holding tation ■ponent ponent Up Spring, 1969 Non-Efflplopioit 1 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 a 6.0 .3 2.2 10 2 12 i Q 4.5 2 0 3.3 3.3 11.3 26.5 13.9 .5 .7 .5 2.1 8.8 2 3 Q 3 1 0 0 0 0 3.4 ,9 17.7 15.6 3.9 4.9 7.2 5.6 .7 .3 4.5 .3 .7 .4 9.9 z 2.8 0 S.5 4.3 5.1 .1 0 .2 3.L 2.4 2.7 0 0 0 4.7 1.9 4.7 O 4.3 3.4 6.7 5.0 I'otai S Non-Enployneni Still Enrolled Total Binter, 1970 Bsploymcnt Non-Employment Still Enrolled Total Spring, 1970 Non-Employment Still Birolted Total Suaaer, 1970 Non-Employment Still Enrolled Total Fall, 1970 Employment Non-Employment Still Enrolled Total Binter, 1971 Still EnrolledsTotal Spring, 1971 Non-Eaployacnt Still Enrolled* Total Program Beginning through July 1, 1971 Employment Non-Employment Still Enrolled U .8 y7 .6 7.2 1-1.9 8.3 Pall, 1969 1 7 1 7 3 23 IS 44 6 I 9 4 3.3 0 0 I 0 2 3 0 I 2 0 3 G 2 0 L 0 5 2 0 6.0 3 7 4 I 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 s 3 t •) 3 1 1 4 4 2 1 I 2 0 3 0 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 3 I 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 1 4 19 7 8 0 10 8 2 14 13 28 IS 15 31 1 8.5 6.7 1 1 0 2 3.2 9.9 4.9 0 0 0 5.1 2.4 3.7 0 0 2.2 22.8 0 0 11.7 22.4 13.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.2 13.8 6.5 3.4 3.6 4.4 3 3 3 9 3.4 2.7 1.7 J 18.2 11.0 8.2 5.0 3.1 10.9 6.2 3.2 0 .2 .9 2.2 1.1 4.1 G.O 5.7 5.7 1.6 6.6 6.0 .3 .3 .3 2.1 2.6 17.7 13.2 1S.0 15.3 3.2 5.7 3.0 U .5 3.4 .2 0 .5 Q .1 0 5.6 4.2 9.9 6.5 .3 8.0 6.2 5 1 0 0 4 2 2 7.1 2 1.4 15.2 3.7 .3 2.8 .6 7.9 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 1 8.7 2.0 .7 .4 .5 6.6 0 0 0 3.2 13.5 7.2 0 0 0 21.8 3 0 0 0 8.7 6.6 14.6 2 3 19.4 1.4 1.6 7.2 5.7(2.3) 4.4(2.2) 4.6(3.2) 4 7 5 3.4(0.4) 17.7(5.3)3.5(1.3) 2.9(2.1) 12.6(4.6)4.1(2.5) 1.6(0.6) 18.9(5.4)6.3(3.7) 4*3 27 14 3 27 25 .2 s 13 32 1 3 n IT .3 .3 2.2 7 26 51 42 55 4.6(2.7) 16 2.6(1.6) 15.1(5.9)4.9(3.3) .3 4 54 32 0 90 b t 2 "includes one individual enrolled in June, 1971. 2 1 10.0 3.6 3.4 0.4 .3 6.4(3.3) 5.6(3.5) 8.4(4.9) 2.8 .5 6.7(4.2 395 GRAND TOTAL 5 3 0 7 ■» 2 1 396 then were placed in basic education for remedial instruction. Four basic education enrollees terminated from WIN due to employment, including two enrollees with both basic education and GED instruction* and two with basic education instruction alone. A total of 54 others terminated from WIN for non-employment reasons* and 32 were still enrolled on July 1* 1971. As shown in Table D-17., the four who terminated from WIN due to employment averaged 17.7 months in WIN, including 3.4 months in basic education* 4.3 months in other training components (5.7 months for the three with other training)* 3.4 months in post-placement follow-up* and 6.4 months in holding status. The 54 non-employment terminees averaged 12.6 months in WIN* including 4.1 months in basic education* 2.2 months in other training* and 5.6 months in holding status. The 27 who had other training (mainly GED) dveraged 4.4 months in such activity* while the 7 who were placed* but failed to maintain employment* averaged 2.9 months in follow-up. Enrollees in basic education tended to be mothers with preschool children, as this group comprised 51 of the 90 total enrollees (57 percent). Most of the remainder (26 or 29 percent) were mothers whose children were of school age. GED/High School Equivalency WIN enrollees who did not complete high school but who appeared to be capable of achieving high school graduate status were candidates for referral to the GED program. Upon referral, a preliminary test was given to determine whether additional instruction was necessary prior to taking the General Educational Development (GED) exam. Enrollees for TABLE D-18 MIN CEO Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Tiae in Each BIN Component, by Date of Enrollaent and Reason for Termination fra BIN (Genesee County BIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70: Status on 7-1-71) Tiae in Months Date Entered Coaponent and Reason for Tenination froa BIN Sunaer, 1969 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled Total Fall, 1969 Non-Employnent Still Enrolled Total Spring, 1970 Non-&Bployaent Still Enrolled Total SuMtr, £970 Non-Eaployaent ■ Total Fall, 1970 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled Total Binter, 1971 E^loyment Still Enrolled Total Prograa Beginning through July 1, 1971 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled GRAM) TOTAL 1 1 28 50 6 3 9 1 20 S 26 22 7 29 Priority Orien­ Clusification tation 1 uaber 3 4 S NB ith 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 15 12 0 0 1 1 15 14 1 8 0 7 9 9 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 5 4 2 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 7 13 0 4 1 0 1L LS 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 17 4 3 9 20 3 0 0 0 8 4 7 IS 1 2 3 3 87 25 US Other Training 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 6 Nuaber Bith 1 1 6 1 Follow-Up Average Nuaber Average Total This Coa­ Orien­ Other Coa­ Follow Tiae Bith Tiae in BIN ponent tation ponent Up Holding 4.0 5.4 7.8 5,5 1 0 0 1 3.4 4,3 11.3 7,8 0 0 0 0 0 0 23.S 15.7 3.8 6.3 8.7 7.0 1 0 1 2 3.0 20.8 1.7 2.4 1 0 1 6.6 0 6.6 8.4 17.4 4 9 5 IS 7 3 8 6 10 14 5.1 6.9 5.9 0 1 4.0 0 1 0 2 Average Tiae in BIN by Coaponent 3.4 0 0 0 17.8 10.2 27.0 U.O 11.8 12.4 23.8 14.9 4.1 5.7 4.0 3.7 0.2 0 0.2 4.0 1.4 7.8 1.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.2 0 0.2 11.3 5.2 4.0 3.6 4.2 3.7 0 0.1 2.8 0.7 0.3 0.1 2.2 3.4 0 0 O.l S.6 4.9 15.2 S.3 0 5.4 0 8.2 0 6.3 3.8 2.9 8.7 4.0 0.3 10.0 5.9 10.2 0.2 6.9 0.3 3.2 7.8 4.3 3.0 0 0.3 0.2 1.9 5.9 10.6 3.4 3.0 0.2 2.8 0 0.2 0 5.9 1.5 0 L.3 0 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.6 3.6 5.3 3.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.8 1.0 0 0 0 7.5 9.5 8.4 1 0 2.9 0 26.2 21.2 2.9 1.9 2.9 2.9 0.7 0.5 0 I 1.5 3.6 2.9 6.7 19.0 14.9 3.1 5 I O 9 3 5 6 2.6 2.6 2.6 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 2.9 2.9 1 1 6 1 21 10 29 2 22 3.9(0.1) 5.3(3.3) 6.6(5.9) 3 1 I 1.7 3.1(0.2)16.6(4.1) 3.2(1.2) 10.3(4.1) 3.3(1.4) 19.I(S.1) 3.7(1.0) 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.6 1.8 S.8 0.1 7*4(1.9) 4.9(3.4) 10.0(4.8) 32 53 5,8(5.6) 5 3.5(1.6)12.6(6.3) 3.4(1.3) 0.2 2.7 0.2 6.1(4.3) O 4 0 0 2 2 30 51 0 12 12 2 42 65 5 14.9 13.2 11.1 6.6 0.2 0 0 1.0 0.1 397 Ninter, 1970 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled Total Total 398 whom additional preparation was necessary were enrolled in GED prepara­ tion classes for a maximum o f about three-and-a-half months, during which time courses were offered in English, math, history, science and social studies. Those who passed the GED exam received a high school equivalency certificate.^ High School, Typically, instruction was provided at the Mott Adult although a few enrolled through adult education courses offered in local high schools. Enrollment in GED preparation courses was second only to orientation in number of WIN participants. As shown in Table D-18, a total of 115 individuals enrolled in this instruction through WIN. As with basic education, GED has largely been instruction for mothers: 57 percent of enrollees were mothers with preschool age children, and 37 percent were mothers with school age children. As indicated in the previous section, 35 enrollees participated in basic education following unsuccessful preparation for the GED test. Two of these 35 terminated from WIN due to employment. One who received only GED preparation also terminated due to employment, for a total of three successful terminations, from a total of 90 terminations for all reasons. These three spent 17.8, 20.8 and 11.1 months each in WIN, the last being the individual with only GED preparation prior to place­ ment. Average time in GED classes was 3.2 months; in follow-up, 3.1 months; and in holding, 7.4 months. The two who also enrolled in basic education averaged 3.9 months in that component. Non-employment terminees who participated in GED preparation numbered 87. These enrollees averaged 10.3 months in WIN, including 3.3 months in GED classes and 4.9 months in holding. Twenty-nine 399 participated in other training components, 19 of which included basic education as one area of other training. as well as another training component. Six enrolled in basic education Ten of the 29 participated in business or junior college training following GED enrollment. A total of 25 GED enrollees were still enrolled on July 1, 1971. Total time in WIN to that date averaged 19.8 months for this group* over half of which (10.0 months) was spent in holding status. Most of this group (22 of the 25) had enrolled in other training components after GED enrollment* including nine who participated in basic education as well as another training component* and ten who advanced to business or junior college level training. Flint Junior College: Nursing A total of 97 enrollees were supported in some fashion in programs of study at Flint Junior College (FJC), For purposes of this analysis* those enrolled in a nursing program at FJC were considered separately from those engagdd in other areas of study. "Nursing" programs offered by FJC included a one-year program to become a Licensed Practical Nurse and a two-year program for certification as a Registered Nurse. 7 Thirty-four of the 97 FJC enrollees had been involved in the nursing program. All 34 were female* including 26 who were mothers with preschool age children. As shown in Table D-19, 13 enrollees had terminated from WIN, all for non-employment reasons (5 had failed training or dropped out* 5 had family or health problems, 3 had other reasons). On the average, these 13 spent 12.8 months in WIN, including 6.4 months in FJC nursing training and 4.9 months in holding. None of this group was TABLE D-19 4IN Flint Junior College Nursing Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Tiae in Each MIN Component, by Date of Enrollnent and Reason for Tenination fro* MIN (Genesee County MIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70: Status on 7-1-71) Tiae in Months Priority Classification Date Entered Component Termination from MIN Total 1 3 4 5 0 0 0 2 Orien­ tation Other Training Number With Number With Average Tiae Average Tiae in MIN by Component Follow-Up Nuaber Average Total With Tiae in MIN This Com­ Orien­ Other Com­ Follow Holding ponent tation ponents Up Summer, 1969 Still Enrolled * Total 0 0 25.7 20.1 0,0 0 0 5.6 0 0 26.6 19.0 0.7 0 0 6.9 Fall, 1969 Still Enrolled • Total Winter, 1970 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 2.5 0.7 0 0 0 0 12.2 21.4 6.3 15.2 0 0.2 1.3 0.2 0 0 4.6 5.7 Total c 0 0 3 2 1 2 1.6 0 0 17.7 11.6 0.1 0.6 0 5.3 0 0 0 2 0 0 16.1 14.4 0.4 0 0 1.4 Spring, 1970 Still Enrolled « Total Suaaer, 1970 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled E 7 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 7 3 3 1 1 2.3 4.2 0 0 0 0 12.6 15.9 7.5 9.0 0,3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0 0 4.6 6.0 Total IS 0 1 1 13 6 2 3.3 0 0 14.1 8.2 0.3 0.4 0 5.2 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 0 2 2 2 2 21.4 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 13.8 18.0 3.7 5.2 0.2 0.4 3.8 2.7 0 0 6.1 9.8 Total 0 0 2 5 3 7.3 0 0 16.2 4.5 0.3 3.1 0 8.2 0 0 0 1 I 9.7 1 2.1 21.6 3.0 0 9.7 2.1 6.8 0 0 0 1 3.6 0 0 14.4 0.3 0 3.6 0 10.S II 21 0 0 1 0 2 20 5 16 4 8 3 5 5.4(4.2) 0 1 0 S.6(2.1) 2.1 12.8(4.7) 6,4(3.2) 18.7(4.8)10.5(5.8) 0.2 0.3 1.3 1.3 0 0.1 4.9(3.1) 6,5(3.7) 34 0 1 B 26 12 8 S.5(3.1) I 2.1 16.5(5.6) 8.9(5.3) 0.2 1.3 0.1 5.9(3.6) Ninter, 1971 Spring, 1971 Still Enrolled ■ Total SiMKr.1971 Still Enrolled * Total Program Beginning through July 1, 1971 Non-Eaployment Still Enrolled GRAND TOTAL 400 Non-Eaployment Still Enrolled 401 placed while enrolled in WIN. Twenty-one nursing enrollees were still enrolled on July 1, 1971. Time in WIN to that date averaged 18.7 months, including 10.S months in nursing training and 6.5 months in holding status. received training in other components. Four Five nursing enrollees of the Five enrolled in nursing following preparatory training in other components. The other one returned for four months of basic education instruction after a four month enrollment in a nursing program. Flint Junior College: Non-Nursing A wide range of one-and-two-year vocational programs through FJC in addition to the nursing curriculum. Q following: vere available These included the One-year occupational programs: Automotive Service Machine Tool Culinary Arts Electronic Data Processing General Clerical Secretarial Skills Dental Assistant Two-year occupation programs: Accounting Electronic Data Processing Food Management Technology General Business General Secretarial Medical Secretarial Insurance Retailing Labor Standards Dental Hygiene Learning Resources Technology Community School Director and Recreation Leader ! i \ tuu t-a WIN flint Junior Colin* Non-Nuninf Enroll*.!: Priority Clninlficntlan and »»m|« Tian In Ench WIN Conooat, by Onto of Enrollnnnt oN Union for Totainotlon frou WIN rrtnnm County WIN PaniclpwnU Enrolltd Prior to 9-1-70: Sums on 7-1-71) Tin in Month* Stair. 1969 Enploynent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolltd Orion- Othor Trolninf [ Priority Foil*i-Up [Clooiificotion tntion iOtOl l— tabor Avnrnf* Nuabor Avornfo 11 1 4 5 Nnbor With Tin Tin With With 2 7.7 10.0 9.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 4.6 305 0.6 0.3 5.2 S.S 6.7 11 3.6 14.2 9.2 0.1 2.6 1.4 4.9 0 0 0 14.4 U.O 0 0 0 3.4 0 1 1 0 2.2 0.4 2 0 1 4.0 0 1.2 14.9 13.2 22.2 7.9 6.3 16.2 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.1 4.9 0 0.4 7,0 6.4 5.5 0 2 1.3 5 3.1 17.0 9.6 0 0.3 0.9 6.3 0 0 1 4.1 0 0 12.6 3.9 0 4.1 0 0.6 1 0 0 0.1 0 0 9.9 11.1 16.5 9.3 5.2 10.7 0 0 0 0 1.5 1.0 0.1 0 0 0.5 4.4 5.1 0.1 12.6 7.1 0 1.3 0 4.3 1 2 0 4 3 5 1 1 0 1 5 0 2.9 12.1 4 25 0 5 10 12 3 6 9.4 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 B^loyuent Non-8eploy*tnt Still enrolled 2 S s 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 9 0 0 0 0 To ul 10 0 1 3 6 i 0 0 1 i Fill,196® Non-frploynent ■ Total Othor Con- Folio* Holding pooontn Up 16.6 14.5 25.6 0 0 0 To ul Toul Thii Conla WIN pooont 3.S 6.0 1.2 S 10 7 3 S 2 Avorngo rin in (W by Coapouoat S2 If Onto Entered Coapontnt end Eouon for Tnninotion fna WIN Vinter.1970 Non-fi^loyBnt ■ Toul 9 — w , 1970 Enploynent NM*>Gnploynent Still Enrolled 9 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4.6 3.1 To ul 14 0 3 4 7 0 4 4,4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.6 9.5 0 0 0 1.1 Noa>teplo)*ent Still Enrolled 2 I 0 1 3 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 4 7.4 S.l 0 1 0 2.9 15.6 14.1 3.9 S.S 0.4 0.2 3,7 2.6 0 0.4 7.6 5.5 tb ul 10 L 4 3 2 3 5 S.6 2.9 14.4 5.2 0.2 2.4 0.3 5.9 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 7.4 0 12.7 9.5 0 7.4 0 4.4 U 29 24 0 0 1 2 S 7 4 5 9 IS 1 s 1 2 3 0 7 12 0 4.6(2.5) 7.7(4.9) 11 1 4 3.6(l.2)17.0{4.4) 1.5(3.3} 0.1 6.0 13.2(5.2) 7.2(4.9) 0 1.6(0.9)1«.6(5.4) 4.9(4.63 0,1 0 1.3 3.9 3.3 0.2 0.3 S.I( 4.5( 5.5( 64 1 14 21 28 6 20 6,5(4.3) 16 3.2(1.5)15.9(6.1) «.0(4.6) 0.1 2.1 0.7 S.0( Fall. 1970 Still Enrolled ■ Total Vinter* 1971 Saner, 1971 Still Enrolled ■ Toul 0 Prognn lagiMiing through July 1, 1971 Eqtloynaat Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled GRAND TOTAL 402 Spring. 1970 403 Chemical Lab Technology Police Administration Fire and Safety College Parallel Curriculum Among these choices, about hal f were enrolled in two-year programs, such as mechancial drafting, data processing, police administration, and college parallel curriculum in such areas as elementary education, social work, history and philosophy. As shown in Table D-20 , a total of 64 individuals enrolled in a non-nursing program of study at FJC. Enrollment was somewhat cyclical in that most were enrolled in the Summer (40) or Winter (20) terms, rather than Fall (3) or Spring terms (1). Again, a large proportion of enrollees were mothers with preschool age children. However, enrollment in this training area was notable for the relatively large number of youths (14 of 64, or 22 percent). Forty enrollees terminated from WIN following training in this area. Eleven, or 28 percent, terminated due to employment. eleven this was the only area of training. For all Average time in WIN for these successful terminees was 17.0 months, exactly half of which was spent in this component. The remaining 8.5 months were spent in holding (5.1 months), follow-up (3.3 months) and orientation (one of the-eleven participated in orientation). Twenty-nine terminees left WIN for non-employment reasons after an enrollment which averaged 13.2 months. FJC training was 7.2 months of this total, and time in holding status averaged 4.5 months. Eight of the 29 participated in other training components, including four who entered FJC after successfully completing GED training. One of these i I 404 eight was placed after one term at FJC, but returned to enter another component. Twenty-four individuals were still enrolled on July 1, 1971, after an average enrollment of 18.6 months. An average of 8.9 months of this time was spent in this component, with 5.5 months spent in holding status. Twelve of the 24 had enrolled in other training components for an average of 7.7 months. These included six who advanced from basic education of GED training to FJC, and six who left FJC to enter other vocational training components. University of Michigan Five individuals enrolled at the University of Michigan (U of M) through WIN. Areas of study included elementary education, social work, and social science. As of July 1, 1971, one of the five had terminated from WIN (due to remarriage) after 12.6 months in WIN and 8.1 months at U of M (see Table D-21 ). This individual, and two of the four still enrolled, transferred to U of M after enrollment in the college paralell curriculum at FJC, The four who were still enrolled had included 23.4 months in WIN, including 13.7 months at the U of M, 4.4 months in holding status, and 5.3 months at FJC. Baker Business University: Secretarial Baker Business University (BBU) offered the WIN enrollee a number of three-to-six term business-related vocational training programs. Available programs included the following: 9 TABU 0*21 WIN U of H Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Time in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination froa WIN (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70: Status on 7-1-71} Time in Months Oate Entered Component and Reason for Termination from WIN Priority Classification Orien­ tation Other Training Follow-Up Average Time in WIN by Component Total Average Time 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 } 2 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 Number Average With Time Total in WIN This Com­ Orien­ Other Com­ Follow Holding ponent Up tation ponents 0 2S.8 21.5 0 0 0 4.3 10.7 0 26.0 11.7 0 10.7 0 3.7 1 0 3.9 0 0 12.6 8.1 0 15.9 9.9 0 0 3.9 0 0 0 0.6 6,0 0 1 3.9 0 14.3 9.0 0 2.0 0 3.3 0 3 0 0 1 2 3.9 10.7 0 0 0 0 12.6 23.4 8.1 13,7 0 0 3.9 5.3 0 0 0 .6 3 0 3 0 0 21.3(5.8)12.6(4.7) 0 5.0 0 3.6(1.8) 3 4 S 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 J 0 Non-Employment Still Enrolled 1 1 0 0 ) ) Total 2 0 1 4 5 Number With Fall, 1969 Still Enrolled * Total Sumer, 1970 Still Enrolled » Total Fall, 1970 Program Beginning through July 1, 1971 Non-Employment Still Enrolled GRAND TOTAL 8.4(3.3) 4.4 405 Number With 1 TABLE D-22 WIN Baker Business University Secretarial Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Tine in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination from WIN (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70: Status on 7-1-71} Tine in Months Date Entered Component and Reason for Teraination from WIN Priority Classification Orien­ tation Other Tiraining Follow-Up Average Tine in WIN by Component Total Number With Nuber With Average Time Number With Average Time Total in WIN This Com­ Orien­ ponent tation Other Com­ Follow ponent Up 1 3 4 S 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 I 0 2.4 1 0. 5.3 0 8.1 B.l .5 .4 0 0 0 2.4 5.3 0 2.3 5.3 Non-Employment Still Enrolled 7 2 0 0 3 2 3 0 1 0 3 1 2 2.9 1.7 0 1 0 2.1 17.4 24.4 10.4 18.6 0.3 0 0.4 1.7 0 1.1 6.3 3.1 Total 9 0 S 3 1 5 3 2.1 1 2.1 19.0 12.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 5.6 1 12 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 10 4 1 4 0 0 2 3 0 5.3 3.5 1 0 1 2.9 0 1.2 14.7 12.0 21.3 3.1 6.1 13.0 0.7 0.2 0 0 0.9 2.1 2.9 0 0.2 B.O 5.0 6.1 IB 0 0 4 14 5 5 4.2 2 2.1 14.8 7.9 0.2 1.2 0.2 5.5 Employment Non-Employment Still Enrolled 1 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 9 4 1 0 1 0 5 1 0 2.8 0.5 1 3 1 3.0 3.0 1.4 18.6 10.8 21.2 11.9 5.6 11.2 0.7 0 0.1 0 1.2 0.1 3.0 0.8 0.3 3.0 3.3 9.4 Total IB 0 0 4 14 2 6 2.4 5 2.7 14.1 7.5 0.1 O.B 0.7 5.0 Non-Employment Still Enrolled 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 1.9 6.5 0 1 0 1.9 8.8 21.2 4.9 9.7 0.2 0.1 0.5 3.9 0 0.4 3.2 7.1 Total 9 0 0 4 5 2 4 S.3 1 1.9 15.7 7.6 0.2 2.4 0.2 5.3 5 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 14.0 9.3 0 0 0 4.7 3 36 22 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 9 5 2 24 14 2 8 2 0 10 9 0 3.3(1.2) 3.7(2.8) 3 3 4 3.7(1.1)13.8(4.3: 5.3(4.9) 3.0(2.1)12.3(5.2) 6.7(4.1) 1.7(.4) 19.9(4.8)11.5(4.3) O.S 0.2 0.1 0 O.S 1.5 3.4 0.3 0.3 4.4(2.51 4.4(2.8) 6.5(4.2) 61 0 6 IS 40 12 19 3.5(2.2) 10 2.7(1.6)15.1(6.2) 8.3(4.91 0.1 1.0 0.S S.2(5.5) Holding Suaner, 1969: Employment Non-frployaent 11, 1969 Winter, 1970 Total Spring, 1970 Sumer, 1970 Fall, 1970 Still Enrolled > Total ogram Beginning through uly 1, 1971 Employment Non-Employment Still Enrolled GRAND TOTAL 406 Employment Non-Employment Still Enrolled 407 Three-Term Programs: Clerk-iypist-Receptionist Airlines Reservations Clerk Four Texm Programs: Stenography Junior Accounting Five-Term Programs: General Secretarial Secretarial-Data Processing Six-Term Programs: Business Administration Accounting Data Processing Fashion Merchandising IBM Keypunch and Verifier For purposes of this analysis, enrollees in BBU were divided between those engaged in some form of secretarial training and those in nonsecretarial training. The following section will examine the experience of non-secretarial enrollees. Altogether, 100 individuals were enrolled in BBU, including 61 who enrolled in secretarial training. All 61 were female, including 40 (66 percent) who were mothers of preschool children. As shown in Table D-22, 39 of the 61 had terminated from WIN by July 1, 1971, including three who terminated to employment. These three averaged 13.8 months in WIN, including 5.3 months in BBU, 4.4 months in holding status and 3.0 months in follow-up. None enrolled in any other training except orientation. The 36 who terminated for non-employment reasons averaged 12.3 months in WIN, including 6.7 months in this component and 4.4 months in holding. Altogether, there were ten who enrolled in other training programs, including three who advanced from GED training to BBU and two who entered a work experience component prior to enrollment at BBU. One other enrolled first in a secretarial program at Flint Junior College, while another enrolled in these two components in the reverse order. For one, enrollment in BBU was followed by basic education instruction. Three of the 36 were placed but failed to maintain employment. The 22 still enrolled had averaged 19.9 months in WIN by July 1, 1971, including 11.5 months in secretarial training at BBU, and 6.5 months in holding status. training: Nine of this group also had enrolled in other five left BBU for work experience (4) or basic education (1), while four enrolled at BBU following training in GED (2), FJC (1), or in non-WIN funded vocational training (1). Four of the 22 had been placed, including three still in follow-up status on July 1, 1971 and one who had not maintained employment Baker Business University: Non-Secretarial Of thelOO BBU enrollees, 39 were enrolled in non-secretarial courses of study, including business administration, accounting, data processing and keypunch training. This group included four m a l e s : AFDC-U fathers and one youth. As shown in Table D-23, three the remaining 35 included 17 mothers without, and 15 mothers with, preschool age children. Twenty-six enrollees terminated from WIN by July 1, 1971, including ten who left WIN due to employment. These ten averaged 17.4 months in WIN, including 9.6 months in BBU, 4.2 months in holding status, and 3.0 months in follow-up. Two of these ten participated in other training: TABLE D-23 WIN Baker iiusiness University Non-Secretariai Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Ti*e in Each WIN Component, by Date of Enrollnent and Reason for Termination fron WIN (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70: Status on 7-1*71) Tiae in Months Priority Classification Date Entered Coaponent Orien­ tation Other Training Follow-Up Average Tine in fIN by Coaponent Total Termination froa WIN 1 3 4 S Nuaber With Nuaber With Average Tiae Nuaber Average With Tiae Total in WIN This Coa­ Orien­ Other Coa­ Follow Holding ponent tation ponent Up Sumer, 1969 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 1 1 0 0 Total 2 0 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 7 $ 2 Total 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 3.3 0 0 2 4 1 0 1 3 4 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 3.2 0 0 17 1 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 1 2 2 0 0 0 Total S Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled Total 0 B.6 9.7 0.7 0 0 3.3 0 0 2.6 13.1 0 11.9 26.1 19.0 9.2 0.4 1.7 0 7.9 7 0 1 2.8 0 0.7 17.7 14.9 27.6 10.4 8.S 16.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0 0 2.8 0 0.4 3.9 6.4 10.9 Fall, 1969 3 7 6 3 1 0 8 2.5 17.6 10.2 0.1 0.2 1.2 5.9 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.3 0 1.5 1 0 0 4.0 0 0 23.3 7.2 20.2 8.9 3.7 9.6 0 0 0 1.3 0 0.9 4.0 0 0 9.1 3.5 9.7 0 0 2 3 0 2 1.6 1 4.0 15.6 7.1 0 0.6 O.S 7.1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 3.1 0 0 0 0 13.7 18.9 6.7 10.4 0 0 0 3.1 0 0 7.0 S.4 4 0 0 1 3 0 2 3.1 0 0 16.3 5.5 0 1.6 0 6.2 2 0 0 0 0 2 3.2 13.3 7*3 0 0 3.2 2.8 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 3 3 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 3.8 9.7 0 0 0 0 9.9 16.1 2.8 9.4 0.1 0 1.3 3.2 0 0 5.7 3.5 Total 6 2 0 4 0 1 2 6.8 0 0 13.0 6.1 0.1 2.3 0 4.6 3 0 0 1 2 0 2 7.1 0 0 15.2 5.4 0 5.2 0 4.6 10 16 13 0 1 2 3 1 0 2 6 7 1 3 1 2 1 7 2.3 3.8 5.2 10 0 1 3.0 0 0.7 17.4 12.7 19.5 9.6(5.4) 7.0(3.9) 9.7(4.4) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 2.8 5.0 0.1 0.1 4.2(1.9) 5-4(4.1) 6.8(4.6) 39 3 4 17 15 5 10 4.6(2.7) 11 2,8(1.0)16.1(6.3) 8.4(4.8) 0.1 1.3 0,8 5.6(4.o) Winter, 1970 Spring, 1970 Sumer, 1970 Eaployaent ■ Total 1 0 1 Fall, 1970 Winter, 1971 Still Enrolled • Total Profrm legimini through July 1, 1971 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 5 8 4 409 0 410 one in basic education and the other on-the-job training, both after enrollment in BBU. The 16 who terminated for non-employment reasons averaged 7.0 months in BBU and 5.4 months in holding. months. Average total time in WIN was 12.7 0ne of this group participated in other training (and this one left BBU to attend GED preparation classes). i Thirteen were still enrolled on July 1, 1971. By that date time in WIN averaged 19.5 months, which included 9.7 months in BBU, 6.8 months in holding and 2.8 months in other components. The seven who enrolled in other training averaged 5.2 months in that training. Four of these left BBU to enroll in GED, FJC, work experience or on-the-job training. Three enrolled in GED, basic education or FJC prior to enrollment at BBU. Computer Programming Computer programming instruction was available for qualified en­ rollees through the Electronic Computer Programming Institute (ECPI) in Flint. This school offered a wide variety of courses in such areas as basic assembler language, common business-oriented language, operation of the keypunch, sorter and disc systems, and the application of acquired skills in a work environment. As shown in Table ECPI through WIN. D-24, a total of eight individuals enrolled at Four were male (two youths) and four were female. By July 1, 1971 six had terminated, including two (both males) who left due to employment. The two successful terminees average 14.1 months in WIN, about twice the 7.6 months averaged by non-employment terminees. Time TABLE D-24 MIN ECPI Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Tiae in Each NIK Coaponent, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination froa NIN (Genesee County NIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70: Status on 7-1-71) Tine in Months Date Entered Coaponent and Reason for Termination froa NIN Priority Classification Tota I Orien­ tation Other Training Number Nith Nuaber Nith Average Time Follow-Up Number Average Nith Time Average Tiae in NIN by Coaponent Total in NIN This Coa­ Or ieo­ Other Com­ Follow ponent lation ponents Up Holding 1 3 4 5 1 I 0 0 1 0 0 D 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 .3 1 0 0 .9 0 0 12.9 4.0 21.5 7.7 2.2 10.8 0 0 0 u 0 .3 .9 0 0 4.3 1*8 10.4 0 1 .3 1 .9 10.6 S.7 0 .1 .2 4.6 5.7 5.6 Tall. 1969 Employment Non-Employment Still Enrolled 1 I 0 0 0 Total 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 Ninter, 1970 Total 411 Non-Eaployient Spring, 1970 Employment Still Enrolled 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6.0 .1 I 0 1.5 0 15.2 17.2 5.S 8.5 0 0 6.0 .1 1.5 0 2.2 8.6 Total 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 3.1 1 1.5 16.2 7.0 0 3.1 .8 5.* 16.9 S.7 0 11.2 6.6 3.9 9.7 1.2 3.3 3.7 9.5 Suaaer, 1970 Non-Eaployaent Total Program Beginning through July 1, 1971 Employment Non-Employment Still Enrolled GRAND TOTAL 2 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 6.0 0 .2 2 0 0 1.2 0 0 14.1 7.6 19.4 2 .1 (2 ,7 ) 2 1.2(0.5) 12.2(6.4)6.0(2.9) 5.0 0 .2 0 0 .3 5.0(4.l) 412 in ECPI training averaged 6.6 months for successful terminees, compared to 3.9 months for unsuccessful texminees. The two still enrolled on July 1, 1971 had averaged 19.4 months in WIN, including 9.7 months en­ rolled at ECPI, and 9.5 months in holding status. « Cosmetology and Beauty School A total of 29 WIN enrollees received training at one of a halfdozen beauty, barbering or cosmetology schools in the Plint area.11All except two of these enrollees were female, and a majority (16 of 28) were mothers with preschool children. (See Table D-25.) Twenty-five of the 29 had terminated by July 1, 1971. None had terminated because of employment, although one was placed, but failed to retain employment through the follow-up period. The lack of termina­ tions due to employment may be explained in part by the fact that entrance standards for training in this component were relatively low: ’specifically, a ninth grade education ani an age of 16 years. 12 As a result less quali­ fied enrollees may have elected to enroll in this component. Of the four still enrolled on July 1, 1971, one was still enrolled in beauty school, one had been placed two months earlier and continued in follow-up, and two had been judged "job ready" and were awaiting place­ ment. The 25 unsuccessful terminees had averaged 10.8 months in WIN, including 5.6 months in beauty, barbering or cosmetology school. The four still enrolled had spent an average 21.8 months in WIN and 13.6 months in this component (through July 1, 1971). None in either group had enrolled in any training component except this one. TABLE D-25 MIN Cosmetology and Beauty School Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Tiae in Each NIN Coaponent, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination froa MJN (Genesee County BIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9*1*70: Status on 7-1*71) Tiae in Months Date Entered Coaponent and Reason for Termination froa MIN Priority Classification Orientation Follow-Up Average Tiae in MIN by Coaponent Total 1 3 4 5 Nuaber With Nuaber Vith Average Tiae Total in MIN In this Coaponent In Orien­ In Other IN tation Component Follow-Up In Holding Suaaer, 1969 Non-Eaployaent ■ Total IB.7 11.4 6.9 Fall, 1969 0 1 0 2.2 B.4 23.7 3.8 U.S 0 0 0 1.1 4.3 8.1 Toul 1 2.2 11.4 5.9 0 .2 5.1 I 3.0 10.3 4.7 0 .6 4.9 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 0 1 0 S.2 8.2 27.4 6.5 13.6 0 0 0 0 5.2 1.7 8.6 Total 1 5.2 14.6 8.9 0 0 1.7 4.0 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 0 0 0 0 10.8 12.3 4.7 11.9 0 0 0 0 6.0 .4 Total 0 0 11.1 5.9 0 0 5.1 0 5.S 3.1 0 0 0 2.4 Winter, 1970 Non-Eaployaent * Total Spring, 1970 Stater, 1970 Fall, 1970 0 0 I 0 25 6 0 2 14 1 2 3.0 3.7(1.S) 10.8(6.3) 21.8CS.7) 5.6(4.2) 13.6(1.6) .2 0 0 0 .1 1.9 4.9(3.5) *.3(3.7) 29 6 16 3 3.5(1.3) 12.3(7.3) 6.7 (4.8) .2 0 .4 5.1(3.6) Non-Eaployaent ■ Total Program Beginning through July 1, 1971 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled GRAND TOTAL 4 413 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 414 Weight Watchers Recognizing the employment problems sometimes associated with being overweight, the Flint WIN program established a Weight Watchers component in January, 1970. Justification for this program is suggested in the following quote from a form letter sent to prospective participants in the Fall of 1969: One of the common reasons for failing employment physical examinations is being overweight, with the high blood pressure which it can cause. From the information you have given us we believe this could be one of your problems. Since there are several WIN enrollees with a similar problem in a greater or lesser degree we are attempting to set up a weight reduction program through Weight Watchers Incorporated. Weight Watchers would require weekly attendance at a two-hour meeting, a great deal of self-discipline, and a slight increase in your food budget. WIN would pay for the course and pay you the incentive payment. You would also learn new ideas in nutrition for the feeding of your family. As shown in Table D-26 , a total of 20 AFDC mothers enrolled in the Weight Watchers program through WIN. Nine of these enrollees, including the single enrollee who terminated due to employment, partici­ pated only in the Weight Watchers component while enrolled in WIN. The remaining eleven enrolled in other training (in addition to orientation). Seven of the eleven combined Weight Watchers with basic education or GED training, while two enrolled at FJC, one at BBU, and another participated in a work experience program. Average time in WIN for all 20 enrollees was 17.3 months. Hie one employment terminee was enrolled for 16.2 months, non-employment terminees averaged 15.5 months, and those still enrolled in WIN ( in other components) TABLE D-26 WIN Weight Hatchers Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Tiae in Each WIN Coaponent, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination froa NIN (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9*1*70: Status on 7-1-71) Tiae in Months Date Entered Coaponent and Reason for Termination froa WIN Other Training Follow-Up Average Tiae in WIN by Coaponent Total 1 1 10 3 14 3 4 5 Nwber Nith 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 6 0 0 3 0 Q 0 7 7 Nuaber Nith 0 Average Maher Average Total This ex­ Orien­ Other Coa­ Follow Holding ponent tation ponent Tiae Nith Tiae in NW Up 0 J 7 3 U 4 3 7 4,1 S.4 4.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.2 1S.0 2S.7 17.4 s.s 4.6 S.6 s.o 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 5.4 2.3 1.6 0 10.0 0 6.1 0 14.0 0 9.5 Spring, 1970 6.1 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 3 0 2 1 9.0 3.6 1 0 1.6 0 17.1 20.6 3.6 5.9 O.S 0 4.5 3.6 0.4 0 U.l Total 5 0 0 2 3 3 3 7.2 i 1.6 17.8 4.0 0.4 4.3 0.3 8.7 Non-Eaployaent ■ Total 1 0 0 0 I 1 1 7.7 0 0 14.1 2.1 0.7 7.7 0 3.6 Program Beginning through July 1, 1971 Eaployaent Non-Eaployment Still Enrolled 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 9 0 3 1 0 9 11 1 11 0 15 4 7 4 0 6.0 16.2 15.5 24.4 5.5 4.3 5.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 15 11 0 1 0 1 0 2.8 3 17.3(5.5) 4.6(1.6) 0.5 3.1 11, 1970 GRAND TOTAL 20 5.0 5.6(3.5) 0 1.6 0 1.6(0) S.O 0 10.0 0.1 7.8 0 13.3 0.1 9,0(3.7) 415 Winter, 1970 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled Total Priority Orien­ Classification tation 416 had averaged 24.4 months through July 1, 1971. Average time in Weight Watchers for all groups was about five months. Goodwill Through Goodwill Industiries, a hybrid training program was offered in which enrollees participated in a combination of testing, on-the-job training, and work experience. Training in this component was the first offered through the Flint program (under Contract number one, which authorized training beginning May 12, 1969). The first week of this component was devoted to pre-vocational tests to determine dexterity, tolerance for frustration and distractions, and aptitudes for various vocational skills. Based upon test results, the enrollee was assigned to work one week each in three or four departments of Goodwill. Typical assignments were in the departments of textile steam pressing, maintenance, furniture repair and refinsishing, or small electrical appliance repair. During this time the enrollee was further evaluated to determine work attitudes, physical tolerance, quality of work, etc. Finally, a work station was selected in accord with the aptitudes and limitations enrollee. of the The purpose of this work adjustment period was to provide work experience which would make the individual more employable, either 14 with Goodwill or in the community. Of the fifteen enrolled in training through Goodwill, seven were placed into a job, and five successfully maintained employment through the follow-up period. Successfully employed terminees found such areas as clothing alterations, upholstry repair, or as a seamstress. As shown in Table D-27, the five successful terminees more total time in WIN compared to non-employment terminees jobs in averaged (13.3 versus TABLE D-27 NIN Goodwill Enrollees: Priority Classification and Avenge Tiae in Each NIN Coaponent, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Termination froa NIN (Genesee County NIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70: Status on 7-1-71} Tiae in Months Date Entered Component Priority Orien­ Classification tation Tctal Termination from NIN Sumer, 1969 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Total 1 2 8 10 3 4 5 Nuber Nith 0 0 2 0 2 0 S 2 0 7 4 5 Other Training Nuber Nith 2 3 Follow-Up Average Time in NIN by Component Average Nuber Average Total This Coa­ Orien­ Other Com­ Follow Holding Tiae Nith Tine in WIN ponent tation ponent Up 4.B S.O 4.9 2 2 3.1 11.S 8.2 2.2 2.S 8.9 1.2 2.4 3.1 0.5 2.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 l.S 0.8 3.5 5.6 3.8 4 1.0 2.1 0 0 6.9 0.2 0 0 0 6.7 Fall, 19(9 0 0 Non Eaployaent ■ Total Ninter, 1970 bployment ■ Total 0 0 1 0 1 3.0 14.8 3.1 0.7 0 3.0 6.0 Spring, 1970 Eaployaent • Total 0 0 1 1 3.1 18.3 9.5 O 0 3.1 5.7 1 0 1 2.9 10.6 6.1 0 10.1 7.2 3.6 1.6 2.9 0.9 3.5 0 0 0 2.9 7.2 7.2 4.8 5 3.0 13.3 4.6 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.5 Su*er, 1970 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Total 0 0 9.S 0 1.5 1.4 1.5 Program Beginning through July 1, 1971 Eaployaent 1 Non-Eaployaent GRAND TOTAL S 10 IS 2 0 11 5,7 2 5.5(5.2) 7 1.0 8.2 2.1 2.5(.9) 9.9(4.6) 2.9(2.6) 1.7 3.0 0.2 1.2 4.5 3.9 4.1(1.9) 418 8.2 months), more time in this component (4.6 versus 2.1 months) and more time in holding (4.5 versus 3.9 months). One of the five successful texminees had enrolled in a second WIN component, on-the-job training. The three non-employment terminees who enrolled in another component had participated in basic education instruction. MDTA-Sales and Other Non-WIN Funded Training WIN enrollees were able to participate in non-WIN funded training programs when such training was appropriate. Such training might involve training programs funded through, for example, the Manpower Development Training Act (MDTA), the Job Corps, or National Alliance of Businessmen. In Flint, several trainees were involved in a retail sales course offered through MDTA and administered through the Flint Branch Office of MESC. Enrollees in this program were trained specifically for the retail sales positions which became available with the opening of the Genesee Valley Shoppmng Mall in late Spring of 1970. Special classes were established especially for AFDC recipients, and several WIN enrollees were among those participating.1^ Among the enrollees included in this study, nine were identified who took part in these classes (including all eight enrolled Winter, 1970). Of these nine, three were still enrolled, one had dropped out, and five had terminated because of employment. That is, of the six who had terminated from WIN, five had done so because of employment. Of the 19 enrollees described in Table D-28, . nine had enrolled in the MDTA sales course. The remaining ten had enrolled in other training programs while enrolled in WIN. All ten such trainees were still enrolled TABLE 0-28 NIN NDTA-Salcs and Other Non-NIN Funded Training Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Tiae in Each NIN Coaponent, by Date of Enrollment and Reason for Teraination froa WIN iGenesee County NIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70; Status on 7-1-71) Tiae in Months Date Entered Coaponent ’and Reason for Teraination froa NIN Priority Classification Orien­ tation Other Training Follow-Up Average Tiae in NIN by Coaponent Total 1 3 4 S Nuaber Nith 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 S.O 0 0 27.0 6.3 0 8.0 0 12.7 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 IS.4 1 2.0 24.4 1.8 0 18.4 2,0 2.2 1 0 0 0 I 0 1 2.7 0 0 24.8 19.2 0 2.7 0 2.9 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled S 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 I 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 2.3 3.8 s 0 1 3.3 0 2.1 12.5 8.6 24.7 2.2 2.0 4,6 0.3 0 0.4 0 2.3 3.8 3,3 0 1.1 6.6 4.3 14.9 Total 8 0 0 3 5 3 3 3.3 6 3.1 1S.0 2.8 0.3 1.2 2.4 S.4 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 18.8 11,1 0.4 0 O 7.4 Still Enrolled * Total 3 0 1 0 2 2 2 1.7 3 4.0 2S.8 5.0 O.S 1.1 4.0 15.2 Still Enrolled ■ Total 3 0 0 0 3 1 2 10,0 0 0 23.2 0.3 0.2 6.7 0 16.0 5 1 13 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 1 a 2 o 5 0 1 9 0 2.3 6.7(S.S) 0 S 3.3(0.2)12.5(2.8) 2.2(1.5) 2.0 0 8.6 3.2(2.0)23.8(3.3) 5.7(5.3) 0.3 0 0.3 O 2.3 4.6 3.3 0 1.2 6.6(2. 8) 4.3 12.0(7.3) 19 2 2 3 12 7 10 6.2(5.4) 10 3.3(1.4)20.0(6.4) 4.6(4.6) 0.3 3.3 1.7 10.2(4.8) Nuaber Nith Average Tiae Nuaber Average Tiae Nith Total in WIN This Coa­ Orien­ Other Coa­ Follow Holding ponent tation ponent Up jarring, 1969 Still Enrolled • Total w , 1969 still Enrolled ■ Total ■fall, 19*9 Still Enrolled - Total Hunter, 1970 Still Enrolled ■ Total Hbnter, 1971 'irograa Beginning through July 1, 1971 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled GRAND TOTAL 5 419 •annaer, 1970 420 on July 1, 1971. Together with the three MDTA enrollees, average enrollment time in WIN to that date was nearly two years--23.8 months-including 5.7 months in non-WIN training, an average 4.6 months in WIN training, and 12.0 months in holding. On-the-Job and Work Experience On-the-job training (OJT) involved structured skill training pro­ vided by an employer who had indicated that he would retain the trainee as permanent employee upon successful completion of training.*6 Among enrollees included in this study, four had participated in OJT. Two had been employed in dry cleaning establishments, one as a wool presser and another performed alterations. A third was trained as a computer programmer with an accounting firm, and a fourth as a secretary with a private welfare agency. Of the four, three completed training, and retained a job with their employer to successfully terminate from WIN (all except the alterations lady). 17 The remaining 21 enrollees described in Table D-29 in a work experience program (WEP) of some type. participated This training involved placement in an actual work situation (without pay, except for the WIN incentive and expense allowance) to gain experience and develop basic work habits, usually for a period of 13 or 26 weeks. of one enrollee assigned as in clerical training. With the exception a switchboard operator, all were involved Employers cooperating in WEP training included the Flint MESC Branch Office, the MESC-WIN office, Vocational Rehabilitation and the local military Of the 21 who enrolled 18 recruiting offices. in WEP, five had terminated from WIN, all for 7AILE D-29 WIN On the Job Training and Nort Experience Enrollees: Priority Classification and Averafe Tiae in Each WIN Coaponent, by Date of Enrollaent and Reason for Teraination froa NIN (Genesee County WIN Participants Enrolled Prior to 9-1-70: Status oa 7-1-71) Tiae in Months Priority Orien­ Classification tation Oate Entered Coaponent and Reason for Teraination froa NIN Fall, 1969 Eaployaent ■ Total Winter, 1970 Non-Eaployaent ■ Total Spring, 1970 Non-Bq>loyaent Still Enrolled Total Suaaer, 1970 Still Enrolled - Total aber 3 4 S Nu Nith S 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 I 0 0 1 0 1 Nuaber Nith Follow-Up Average Tiae in NIN by Coaponent Average Nuaber Average Total This Coa­ Orien­ Other Coa­ Follow Nith Tiae in NIN ponent tation ponent Tiae Up Holding 1.8 2 1 1.8 10.4 27.3 13.8 1.7 0.4 1.5 0.2 0 0.1 1.3 4.7 0.9 6.3 6.7 15.5 3 6.7 3.4 2.0 2,0 8.1 3.1 1 3.3 16.3 4.7 0.7 3.1 3.3 4.S 1 1.9 1 0.7 6.8 2.8 0 1.9 0.7 1.4 1 0 1 0 1 1 7.2 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 27.0 16.8 0.7 3.1 1.9 0.7 0 0.4 7.2 3.6 0 0 0 5.1 16.7 10.9 1 0 0 0 1 18.9 0 0 24.4 1.6 0 18.9 0 3.9 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 S.6 12.9 9.3 1 1 2 1.6 2.1 6.0 1.6 3.8 0 0 0 5.6 12.9 9.3 1.6 2.1 1.9 15,1 21.5 18.3 1.9 1.9 4.9 3.4 Winter, 1971 Eaployaent * Total 1 0 0 1 0 I 1 16.7 1 l.Q 26.7 3.2 0.7 16.7 1.0 S.l Spring 1971 Still Enrolled * Total 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 11.6 0 0 17.3 1.9 0 11.6 0 3.9 Sour 1971 Still Enrolled - Total 10 1 0 6 3 3 10 9.3 0 0 20.6 0.4 0.2 9.3 0 10.7 Prograa Beginning through July 1, 1971 Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled 3 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 1 6 3 1 11 0 2 8 10 2 2 3 3 O.S 8.5 3 3 4 16 8.5 16 2.0 J.*(1.4) 0.7 5.3(2.4) O.S 10.1(5.2) 7 23 7.8 0.7 Fall, 1970 Eaployaent Still Enrolled GRAND TOTAL 4 1 3 1 4 4.7 2.5 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 1 1 D 6 25 1.8 10.0 8.5(5.4) 2 8 2.0(1.0)19.4(5.2} 4.6(1.1) I.4(0.9) 9.2(3,0) 1.7(1.0) 4.4(2 3)21.8(3.9) 0.9(0.8) 2.4(1.8)18.5(6.6) 1.5(1,5) 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.2 10.0 ». (S.O) 421 Spring, 1969 Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled Total 1 Other Training 422 non-employment reasons. Sixteen were still enrolled in WIN, including nine who on July 1, 1971 continued their work experience assignment. All sixteen had participated in at least one other WIN training component. Seven had received basic education instruction, six had enrolled at BBU, and two enrolled at PJC, while others enrolled in ECPI, GED, MDTA-Sales or non-WIN funded training. Table D-29 summarizes the WIN experience of both OJT and WEP. The three who terminated due to employment (all OJT trainees) averaged 19.4 months in WIN, including 4.6 months in OJT, 8.5 months in other training, 2.0 months in follow-up, and 3.8 months in holding status. The six who terminated for non-employment reasons did so after an average 9.2 months in WIN, of which 5.3 months were spent in holding status. Three of these six were placed, but failed to maintain employment. Training Components: A Summary Hie subsections above have described WIN activity in fourteen areas of training available through the Flint WIN program. Data presented in these subsections and in Tables D-16 through D-29 are summarized in Table D-30, which shows component activity for all enrollees in this study who participated in some type of training. Among the 13 non-orientation training areas identified, six may be listed as having a relatively high rate of employment relative to non­ employment terminations. MDTA/non-WIN training obtained while enrolled in WIN had the highest rate of employment terminations, 83 percent (5 of 6). Employment terminations were 38 percent of all termination for BBU non-secretarial terminees, and 33 percent for Goodwill, ECPI and QJT-WEP. Next TABLE 0-30 WEN Training Enrollees: Priority Classification and Average Tiae in Each MIN Coaponent, by Training Coaponent and Reason for Teraination froa NIN (Genesee County NIN Participants Enrolled March, 1969-August, 1970: Status on 7-1-71) Tiae in Months Training Coaponent and Reason for Teraination froa NIN Total Priority Classification 1 3 4 Orien­ Other Training tation aber Niaber Average Niaber Average 5 Nu Nith Nith Nith 1 Tiae Tiae 23 134 34 190 9 10 51 62 16 IS 14 13 76 87 134 34 190 Basic Education Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled Total 4 54 32 90 0 0 2 2 S 4 13 32 1 3 11 17 6 7 26 51 27 14 42 3 27 25 55 iD Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled Total 3 87 25 115 1 1 6 1 21 10 29 2 22 32 53 4 3 5 lint Junior College irsing Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled Total Flint Junior College Non-Nursing Eaployaent Non-Eaployaent Still Enrolled Total 13 21 34 11 0 12 2 1 3 9 0 0 2 2 30 51 0 12 12 2 42 65 0 I 2 10 0 0 5 16 0 1 7 26 22 1 8 12 1 2 28 24 63 0 2 4 5 0 S 9 14 1 7 8 8 1 14 21 27 6 I 4 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 10 7.7(5.1) 72 5.4(4.1) 32 10.2(4.4) 114 6.9(4.7) 22 10 8 Average Tiae in NIN by Coaponent Total >1his Conjo­ Orien- ]Other Ccapoin Nin | nent tation : nents Holding --- 40 3.2(1.3) 2.7(2.3) 1.6(1.1) 2.7(1.6) 12.9(4.8) 11.6(5.6) 21.6(5.2) 13.6(6.6) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.5 2.9 9.6 4.1 5.7(2.3) 4.4(2.2) 4.6(3.2) 4.6(2.7) 4 7 5 16 3.4(0.4) 2.9(2.1) 1.6(0.6) 2.6(1.6) 17.7(5.3) 12.6(4.8) 18.9(5.4) 15.1(5.9) 3.5(1.3) 0.2 4.1(2.7) 0.3 6.3(3.7) 0.3 4.9(3.3) 0.3 4.3 3.9(0.1) 5.3(3.3) 6.6(3.9) 5.8(3.6) 3 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.6 1.8 S.8 5 3.1(0.2) 16.6(4.1) 3.2(1.2) 10.3(4.8) 3.3(1.4) 1.7 19.8(5.1) 3.7(1.0) 3.5(1.6) 12.6(6.3} 3.40.3) 0.2 2.7 0.1 4.9(3.4) 0.1 10.0(4.8) 0.2 6.1(4.3) 5.4(4.2) 5.6(2.1) 5.5(3.1) 0 1 1 0 2.1 2.1 12.8(4.7) 6.4(3.2) 0.2 18.7(4,8) 10.5(5.8) 0.3 16.5(5.6) 8.9(5.3) 0.2 1.3 1,3 1.3 0 4.9(3.1) 0.1 6.5(3.7) 0.1 5.9(3.6) 0 0 7 4.9(2.5) 12 7.7(4.9) 30 6.7(4.4) 11 1 6.0 1 2 0 0 0 8 1 1 4 16 6.6 2.2 3.6 2.8 3.2 5.5(2.4) 0.4 10.9(6.3) S.2(5.2) 0.2 8.0(4.9) 0.6 6.7(4.2 3.1 7.4(t.9) 3.3(1.1) 16.4(4.6) 7.9(3.4) 13.5(5.6) 7.6(5.0) 1.6(0.9) 18.6(5.8) 8,9(4,6) 3.0(1.5) 16.0(6.0) 8.1(4.7) 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 2.0 0.3 O.S 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.9 5.3 5.0 0 0 0 1.3 3.9 6.4(3.3) S.6(3.5) 8.4(4.9) 3.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 3.3 0.2 4.9(4.3) 4.5(3.0) 5.5(3.0) 5.0(3.3) X loyaent Still Enrolled 3 6 16 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 3 6 0 2 8 2 2 3 3 4 16 8.5(5.9) 1.8(0.9) 10.1(4.7) Total 25 J> 1 11 10 7 23 8.5(5.4) 2.4(1.«) 425 was FJC non-nursing enrollees with a 26 percent employment rate. These components accounted for about three-fourths of employment terminations. The remaining seven components all had rates of employment terminations which were ten percent or less, including three components with no successful terminees. The WIN Program in Ingham and Genesee Counties: Conclusions The purpose of examining in detail the local WIN programs in Lansing and Flint has been to determine the extent to which WIN influenced the rate of employment among AFDC recipients over the study period (i.e., through June, 1970). It was found that between the two counties, a total of 186 job placements were made among WIN enrollees. About half of such placements were able to maintain employment through the post-placement follow-up period. Of the 186, 131 had left WIN, including 73 who terminated 19 successfully, and 58 who held their jobs less than three months. For a program which had enrolled 1,062 recipients from a much larger group of potential participantsand from which 578 enrollees had terminated for all reasons, the record of 73 successful terminations from WIN may appear to indicate something less than complete program success over this period. Indeed, the argument might well be made that WIN failed to significantly affect employment among welfare recipients. For an expenditure of about $600,000 ($100,000 for trainee incentive 20 allowances; $500,000 for contractual training services), produced 186 placements. the program But even this figure overstates program impact t since some who were placed into employment through WIN probably would have located jobs anyway. The extent to which this would have occurred was 426 not possible to ascertain, but an indication is suggested by two items: First, about 40 percent of all placements were •’direct," meaning that individuals were judged to be "job ready" upon enrollment and were placed without benefit of any of the training or education services available through WIN. ITiese 40 percent required only the usual assessment and placement services offered by MESC prior to the WIN program, and which continue to be utilized in counties in which WIN is not operational. Second, many jobs located by WIN enrollees were found by the enrollee himself. In Lansing 21 (28 percent) of 74 placements, and in Flint 65 (58 percent) of 112 placements were in jobs obtained by the enrollee on his own. In addition, the analysis of the Flint program indicated that about 6 percent of all placements were second placements for enrollees who had failed to maintain employment in their preceding job. For these reasons, little question exists that the 186 placements, taken without further qualification, overstates the impact of WIN. Of course, a job placement by itself did not represent full success in any case. Some who were placed failed to maintain employment for at least three months (about one-third in Lansing, one-half in Flint), and even among those who kept their jobs, many did not earn enough to leave AFDC assistance. Data on the number of WIN enrollees who left AFDC due to employment (note: not necessarily because of a high level of earnings) were unavailable except for the six-month period ending in January, 1970. 21 During this period 40 percent (45 of 116) of placements in Ingham and Genesee Counties left welfare. The remaining 60 percent continued to receive AFDC assistance, albeit at a monthly grant reduced by the amount of earnings (net of exempted earnings and work expenses). Perhaps not 427 coincidentally, about 40 percent of all placements were males, most of whom were heads of families receiving AFDC-U assistance. For these families, eligibility for assistance was dependent upon the unemployment status of the male-head, not on the level of earnings. Full-time employment (defined as 64 hours worked in any two week period) at any wage, regardless of level of earnings, automatically disqualified the family from assistance and was recorded as a termination due to employment. On the other hand, a female-head-of-family could continue to receive assistance until financially ineligible. Most AFDC mothers, particularly those with several children, would not normally be expected to be capable of attaining the relatively high levels of earnings necessary to financially disqualify them from assistance. A comparison of starting salary levels listed in Tables C-6 and D-4 with the boundary earning levels defined in Table 3-B lends support to this contention. It may be concluded that AFDC mothers who left AFDC to work usually did so voluntarily rather than because of their loss of AFDC eligibility. To estimate the impact of WIN upon the change in employment among all AFDC recipients from July, 1969 to July, 1970, the following assump­ tions were m a d e : (1) that of the WIN enrollees who were employed and receiving AFDC in July, 1970, none were employed and receiving AFDC in July, 1969 (2) that all "successful*' WIN terminees who continued to receive AFDC assistance after placement were employed in July, 1970; (3) that 60 percent of "successful" WIN terminees continued to receive AFDC in July, 1970; and, (4) that all enrollees who had been placed, but who had not terminated from WIN, were employed and receiving AFDC in July, 1970. 428 The nature of these assumptions ensures that the derived impact of WIN upon employment over this period will most likely overstate the actual impact. Specifically, it is possible and probable that some enrollees employed in July, 1970 were also employed in July, 1969; that some successful terminees were receiving AFDC and were unemployed in July, 1970; and that some of those placed, but not terminated from WIN by July, 1970, were either not employed or not receiving AFDC in that month (e.g., AFDC-U fathers placed in full-time positions). Based on these assumptions, the estimated impact of WIN upon employ­ ment over this period was an increase of 99 employed recipients (including youths, AFDC-U fathers and AFDC mothers) in Ingham and Genesee Counties. The estimate was derived in the following manner. ments, 55 were still enrolled in WIN. Of the 186 total place­ All 55 were assumed employed in July, 1970 but not in July, 1969, and therefore this group represents an increase of 55 employed recipients. 22 The remaining 131 placements included 73 who terminated from WIN due to employment and 48 who did not. It was assumed that none of the 48 were considered employed in 1970. Of the 73 who terminated due to employment, 60 percent, or 44, were assumed to be among employed recipients of AFDC in July, 1970. The 44 and the 55 sum to the derived increase of 99. Over the period from July 1, 1969 through July 1, 1970, employment among all AFDC recipients in Ingham and Genesee Counties increased from 431 to 1,008 individuals, an increase of 577. If WIN were responsible for 99 of this increase, then about 17 percent of the increase in employ­ ment over this period among all AFDC recipients might be attributable to WIN. For AFDC mothers, the increase in the number employed over the same period was from 358 to 822, or an increase of 464. It is estimated that approximately two thirds of the above-indicated 99 were AFDC mothers. 429 Therefore, based on the above assumptions, approximately 14 percent of the increase in employment among AFDC mothers was attributable to those who had participated in WIN. 430 Appendix D Footnotes Data presented in Table D-l are based upon characteristics of all new enrollees, not just those who actually participated in WIN. The fact that about one-third of all new enrollees did not participate in the program indicates the degree of caution with which this table must be interpreted. For further discussion of this point see the description of data presented in Table D-5. 2 This section based upon data presented in: Nancy J. Felder, ''The Work Incentive Program, June, 1970," Michigan Employment Security Commission, Management Release #38, August 7, 1970, Table IIB, p. 8. 3 Data summarized in the monthly WIN reports indicate "number of place­ ments" rather than unduplicated persons placed. As a result persons placed a second time are not distinquished from those placed for the first time. Data generated in the compilation of Table 4-M indicate that in Flint for every seven first placements which failed to result in an employment termination from WIN, one was placed a second time through WIN. Chances of success did not appear to change with the second placement: Of the eight in the sample who were re-placed, four were successful the second time, four not. In each group o f four were three who received training and one who had none. 4 This paragraph based upon conversations with Robert Yoder, WIN Project Director, and subsequent examination of WIN contracts, in Flint, July, 1971. ^Selected from several narratives on file at the Flint MESC-WIN, July, 1971. ^Flint MESC-WIN Sub-Agreement #2, Clause No. 1, Statement of Services to be Provided. Flint MESC-WIN Sub-Agreement #5, Clause No. 1. 8 Ibid. Flint MESC-WIN Sub-Agreement #4, Clause No. 1. 10 11 Flint MESC-WIN Sub-Agreement #12, Clause No. 1. Included were: Mr. David School of Cosmetology, Michigan College of Beauty Culture, Flint Institute of Barbering, Edward's School of Cosmetology, Pointe Beauty Academy, Joan Clarre Beauty School and Michigan Beauty School. 431 12 Flint MESC-WIN Sub-Agreement #6, Clause No. 4: Enrol lee Standards. *^Merao from: Patricia Ihiderwood, Prpject Director, Genesee WIN #563; to Mrs. Powell Cozart, Supervisor, Review and Evaluation Unit; on the subject: Justification for Other-Than-Skills, dated October 3, 1969. *^Flint MESC-WIN Sub-Agreement #1, Clause No. 1. 1SBased on conversations:;with Robert Yoder, Flint WIN Project Director, July, 1971. 1^Glossary of Key Terms and Definitions, p. 5, included in Nancy Felder, "The Work Incentive Program, June, 1970," Op.Cit. 17 Based on telephone conversations with Robert Yoder, Flint WIN Project Director, February, 1972. 18 Based on examination of sub-agreements for each individual and data recorded for each individual in the enrollee card files, July, 1971. 19 Until late in 1970 no attempt was made to examine the employment reten­ tion of successful WIN terminees. In October, 1970, MESC-WIN initiated "follow-through" contacts, in which successfully placed texminees were contacted to determine their employment status 90 and 180 days following termination from WIN. Contact was first attempted utilizing pre-addressed stamped post cards, with telephone or personal contacts sometimes used when a mail response was not received. Based on (sometimes incomplete) data obtained in this fashion for all WIN projects in Michigan, the experience from October, 1970 through June, 1971 was that 66 percent (296 of 452 contacts) were employed after 90 days, and 75 percent (216 of 289 contacts) were employed after 180 days. In Flint the corresponding figures were 67 percent (6 of 9) and 83 percent (5 of 6). In Lansing, they were 74 percent (32 of 43) and 71 percent (5 of 7). The percentage employed at the 180 day contact may be greater than at the 90 day contact since the contact determines whether the former enrollee is employed or not, rather than whether h e is enrolled at the same job; and, terminees included in the 90 day contact may or may not be included in the 180 day contact, and vice-versa. 20 Nancy Felder, "The Work Incentive Program, June, 1970," o p .cit, Table IV, p. 22. 21 22 Michigan Department of Social Services, Data Reporting Division. The inclusion of all 55 (per the fourth assumption) almost certainly overstates the number of enrollees who continued to receive AFDC while employed on July 1, 1970, since full-time employment of male family heads in AFDC-U cases resulted in termination from assistance while WIN enroll­ ment might continue. Of the 54 placements in both counties in the months of April, May and June, 1970, 25 were for male enrollees (7 o f 28 in Flint, 18 of 26 in Lansing). To the extent that these 25 placements resulted in terminations from AFDC, the derived increase overstates the actual case. APPENDIX E A NOTE ON AFDC RECIPIENTS' PERCEPTION OF THE EARNINGS EXEMPTION AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT POLICIES The degree to which AFDC mothers were aware of and understood the earnings exemption must be considered an important factor when evaluating the employment response to that policy. One of the few sources of data on this subject is a survey administered in October, 1970 by the Michigan Department o f Social Services to a group of AFDC recipients who were participants in a three-year "Concerted Services" project in Berrien County, Michigan. The purpose of this project, which began in September, 1969, was to test the impact upon family functioning and employment behavior of a broad range of social services, some of which were not noxmally available to AFDC recipients. These services included, for example, more intensive attention from the caseworker and special health, transportation, and job placement services. The original sample for this project included 160 female-headed AFDC families in the target group, and 80 similar families in a control group. Families in both target and control groups were randomly selected from cases receiving assistance in August, 1969 who were residing within the city limits of the city of Benton Harbor. The October, 1970 survey was a lengthy (66 page) questionnaire which required trained interviewers about two hours to administer:''A b o u t 'a dozen questions, which were asked about mid-way in the interview, related to the recipients' understanding of welfare regulations and policies regarding employment and the treatment of earned income. A summary of the responses to these questions is 432 433 presented below, followed by the actual questions and recorded responses for both target and control groups. Summary of Survey Results Even though, at the time o f the survey, the earnings exemption had been operative for about fifteen months, and all respondents had been receiving AFDC for more than one year, very few were familiar either with the earnings exemption or, for that matter, with employment policies which had been in effect for years. It is true that all but about 15 percent were aware that it was possible to work and receive AFDC at the same time. However, of those who knew they could work while receiving assistance, most could not accurately indicate how much they could earn while receiving assistance, how their AFDC payment would be affected by earning $30 or $100, or how their eligibility for food stamps, Medicaid or child care would be affected by their earnings. When the provisions of the earnings exemption were explained to them, only 22 percent of the target group, and 12 percent of the control group, reported that they had even heard of this plan. However, of those who had heard of it, over half indicated that it had caused them to work more or to seek more training. And, after the plan was described, seven-tenths believed that it would cause more AFDC recipients to go to work. The indicated low level of awareness of employment policies begs the question of what attempts had been made to inform recipients of old and new policies alike. It turns out that the Michigan Department of Social Services made no organized effort to inform recipients of the new policy. Caseworkers were informed via policy letters, the normal procedure for such changes, and in the case of the earnings 434 exemption, the subject was covered in seminars held throughout Michigan for first-line supervisors four or five weeks prior to the July 1, 1969 policy implementation. recipients. However, no attempt was made to directly inform It was simply assumed that news of the exemption would get around, primarily through recipient groups such as the Welfare Rights Organization; through explanation of eligibility criteria to applicants for assistance; through caseworkers explanations to employment recipients who inquired why their AFDC payments inexplicably went up on July 1, 1969; through recipients' interaction with other programs, such as WIN, Medicaid, 0E0 Legal Services or MDTA training programs, in which welfare policies might be discussed; through newspaper articles; and by wordof-mouth, especially in communities where large numbers of recipients and potential recipients were located. There apparently was no reluctance to explain and discuss the implications of the policy with those who wished information. The impression is given, however, that the Department of Social Services was reluctant to advertise this new policy broadly, since it apparently was believed such information might have contributed to further increases in the caseload or that such publicity would evoke an adverse public reaction owing to the high levels of earnings permitted recipients due to the exemption. Regardless of the reason, it is clear that the Michigan Department of Social Services did not try to inform all recipients of the exemption, and those recipients who did learn of it often did so only by happenstance. 435 Table E-l Questions and Responses from the October, 1970 Berrien County Survey Relating to Knowledge of AFDC Employment Policies* Can a person work and receive an ADC check at the same time? Target (N=156) Control (N=78) 86.5 83.3 85.5 No 3.8 2.6 3.4 Don't Know 9.6 14.1 11.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 Response Yes Total Total (N=234) How much do you think someone with the same number of children and the same situation as you have could earn before she would no longer get an ADC check? Target (N=149) Control (N=75] Total (N=224) $1- 99 12.1 5.3 9.8 100-199 13.4 6.7 11.2 200-299 4.7 8.0 5.8 300-399 10.7 10.7 10.7 400-499 12.1 6.7 10.3 Response 500-599 0 6.7 2.2 600-699 2.0 2.7 2.2 700-799 0.7 0 0.4 0.7 1.3 0.9 48.3 52.0 49.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 800+ Don't Know Total Responses are shown in percentages. 100.0 due to rounding. Column totals may not add to 436 Table E-l (Continued) 3. If someone earned just enough money by working so that her ADC check was cancelled, could she continue to get a) food stamps, b) help paying for child care, c) a Medicaid card? anj Item and Response a) Control (N=75) Total (N=224) Food Stamps Yes No Don't Know Total b) Target (n -149) 41.6 10.1 48.3 33.3 9.3 57.3 38.8 9.8 51.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 48.3 18.1 33.6 38.7 9.3 52.0 45.1 15.2 39.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 44.3 21.5 34.2 40.0 22.7 37.3 42.9 21.9 35.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 28.9 7.4 8.0 22.7 5.3 12.0 26.8 6.7 9.4 44.3 40.0 42.9 Help Paying for Child Care? Yes No Don't Know Total C.l) A Medicaid Card? Yes No D o n 't Know Total If "Yes" to C.l then ask C.2: C.2) Could she Use the Medicaid card for the same things as she could when she was receiving ADC? Yes No Don't Know Total 437 Table E-l 4. Let’s suppose a friend of yours, who is receiving ADC, begins to work. How would the first $30 she earned change the size of her ADC check? Response No Change Target (N=149) 38.9 2.7 Larger Smaller 29.5 Control (N=75) 37.0 0 21.9 0 Total (N=224) 38.3 1.8 27.0 Cancel ADC 0.7 Don't Know 28.2 41.1 32.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total 5. (Continued) 0.5 If she earned $100 by working, would she have more money to spend after the required reduction in her ADC check, than she had before she started working? Response Target (N=149) Control (N=75) Total (N=224) Yes 41.6 29.3 37.5 No 44.3 45.3 44.6 Don't Know 14.1 25.3 17.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total If response to Question 5 was "yes," ask Question 5.a.: About how much more would she have to spend? Response $1-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-99 100 D o n ’t Know Total Target (N=62) Control (N=22) Total (N=84) 0 19.3 19.3 6.5 3.2 11.3 40.3 13.6 13.6 13.6 4.5 9.1 9.1 36.4 3.6 17.9 17.9 6.0 4.8 10.7 39.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 438 Table E-l (Continued) 6. While she worked, would the welfare department pay for: Item and Response Target (N=149) Control (N=75) 78.5 5.4 16.1 76.0 5.3 18.7 77.7 5.4 16.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 46.3 28.2 25.5 41.3 32.0 26.7 44.6 29.5 25.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 9.4 45.0 45.6 9. 3 33.3 57.3 9.4 41.1 49.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 12.1 63.1 24.8 6.7 57.3 36.0 10.3 61.2 28.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 23.5 47.6 28.9 9.3 44.0 46. 7 18.8 46.4 34.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total (N=224) a) the care of her children? Yes No Don't Know Total b) any expenses she had in getting to work and back home? Yes No D o n ’t Know Total c) her taxes? Yes No D o n ’t Know Total d) any union dues she had to pay? Yes No D o n ’t Know Total e) Any other expenses that were connected with her working? Yes No D o n ’t Know Total 439 Table E-l (Continued) 7. I would now like to tell you about a plan which was designed to give the working ADC client more money. Hie plan, which has been in effect for the past year, calls for allowing the client to keep the first $30 per month of earnings plus enough more to cover her work e x p e n s e s .Of every dollar she earns above this, she loses about 66 cents in her ADC check. Have you heard about this plan? Target (N=149) Control (N=75) Yes 21.5 12.0 18.3 No 78.5 88.0 81.7 Response Total (N=224) If the response to Question 7 was "Yes," ask questions 8, 9, and 10. If response was "no," proceed to Question 11. How did you hear about this plan? Response Target (N=31) Control (N=7) Total (N= 38) Social Worker 67.7 57.1 65.8 Friend 12.9 28.6 15.8 Other Gov't Program 6.5 14.3 7.9 Newspaper 9.7 0 7.9 D o n 't Know 3.2 0 2.6 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 What changes would you like to see in this plan? (Open ended question) Response None Keep more outright Other volunteered response Total Target (N=31) Control (N=7) Total (N=38) 58.1 19.4 28.6 42.9 52.6 23.7 22.5 28.6 23.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 440 Table E-l 10. Has this plan caused you to work more or to seek more training and/or jobs? Target (N=31) Control (N=7) Yes 51.6 57.1 52.6 No 38.7 42.9 39.5 Response No Response Total 11. 9.7 100.0 0 100.0 Total (N=38) 7.9 100.0 From what I've told you about this plan , and from what you may have already known about it, do you think it will cause more ' ADC clients to work? Response Target (N=149) Control (N=75) Total (N=224) Yes 72.5 64.0 69.6 No 16.1 20.0 17.4 Don't Know 11.4 16.0 13.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total 12. (Continued) Has it made the idea of work more appealing to you? Target (N=149) Control (N=75) Yes 61.1 62.7 61.6 No 17.4 8.0 14.3 Don't Know 21.5 29.3 24.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 Response Total Total (N=224) 441 Table E-l (Continued) 13. Why do you think it won't cause more clients to work? Respons e Target (N«32) Control (N=16) Total (N=48) 40.6 37.5 39.6 37.5 37.5 37.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 Other 15.6 18.8 16.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 ADC checks cuttoo much ADC mothers don't want to work No Jobs available 442 APPENDIX F SURVEY FORM AND CODING INSTRUCTIONS The purpose of this appendix is to display the form on which data were coded, the form which the earnings data were derived, and the in­ structions for coding the data. With the exception of data indcating the amount paid for child care, Medicaid, and the WIN training allowance, plus the amount of child support paid by court order to the Michigan Department of Social Services, all data used in this study were derived directly from the individual case record for each AFDC family included in the sample. Data from these records, which were located in the respective local office of the County Department of Social Services, were obtained, coded and prepared for key­ punching over the six-month period from October, 1970 through March, 1971. The form on which these data were recorded was pretested in September, 1970. On the basis of this pretest, certain items of data were found to be either unreasonably difficult to determine or simply not available from this data source. These included items of employment history and previous training participation for the AFDC mother, and items of education and occupation for the (absent) father. The form on which data were recorded was not modified after the pretest. As a result, certain parts of the code sheet were not utilized. Both the coding instructions and code form (identifed as DSS-1285) are shown in this appendix. In addition, a sample budget sheet (identified as DSS-2D) is displayed with hypothetical data filled in. The budget sheet was the source of data for earned income, unearned income by source, housing costs, and number of persons eligible and in the household. 443 Instructions for Coding Data Information from the case record is to be recorded on the code sheet for each sample case according to the guidelines which follow. Items below correspond with similarly numbered items on the code sheet. I. Household Characteristics 1. Home: Enter code which applies during the period July 1, 1969 to July 1, 1970. If a family moved during the year, record the code which applied for the greatest portion of this period. Code Owned or being purchased: By AFDC group member . .......................... FHA 235 By other member of f a m i l y ........................ FHA 235 .......................... Home rented: Public Housing Private Housing .......................... Home occupied rent f r e e ................................ ............................... Other, including unknown 2. II. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Neighborhood: Enter code for census tract of home as of July 1, 1969. These will be two digit codes ranging from 00 to 99. 3. Months on ADC: Enter the number of consecutive months case has received ADC, prior to July, 1970. Ignore temporary closings of 3 months or less. For cases opening in April, 1962 or before, enter code 99. 4. Prior assistance: Enter the last two digits of the year in which the case first received ADC. For example, if the first receipt was in 1955, enter 55. 5. Children: Enter the number of children of age groups 0-2, 3-5, 6-12, and 13 or over, according to the age of the eligible children as of December 1, 1969. This information is to be recorded from the DSS-5 form dated nearest July 1, 1970. A child born between December 1, 1969 and July 1, 1970 is to be counted in the 0-2 group. The Mother 1. Education: Enter the code for the highest grade of school completed: Code Elementary School: Less than 5th grade (including none) . . . . 1 5th to 7th g r a d e ............................. 8th g r a d e ....................................... 3 High School: 1st to 3rd y e a r ............................... High School Graduate ........................ 5 2 4 444 College: 1st to 3rd y e a r ............................ .......................... College Graduate Unknown ...................... . . . . . . . . . 2. ^2^© 6 7 8 Occupation: Enter code for current or usual occupation classification Code Professional, semi-professional, proprietors, managers, officials, and farm owners ......... 1 Clerical, sales, and kindred workers ............. 2 Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers ......... 3 Farm tenants, laborers, renters, and share croppers ....................................... 4 Operatives and kindred semi-skilled and skilled w o r k e r s .......... . 5 Service workers, except private household . . . . 6 Private household service workers ............... 7 Unskilled workers ................. . ........... 8 Never held full-time e m p l o y m e n t ................... 9 Unknown ............................................ 0 Examples of common occupations and their appropriate codes include the following classifications: Typist, clerk, saleswoman, cashier ............... 2 Waitress, nurses aide, teacher aide, cook beauty operator, charwoman .................... Babysitter, home cleaning woman ................. 7 Factory worker ..................................... III. Data is not recorded for these items. IV. Data is not recorded for these items. V. 6 8 DSS-5 Enter the appropriate code from the designated field on the DSS-5 form. 1. Program: Determine from the narrative and DSS-5 the program for which the case has established eligibility, according to the classification which follows. Where two codes might apply, use the code which applied on July 1, 1970. One-parent regular ADC ............................ C Two-parent cases: Incapacitated father .......................... Stepfather ..................................... Unemployed Parent ............................... I S U 445 Other Ca s e s : Grandparent ..................................... G Room and B o a r d ................................... R Transfer out of c o u n t y .......................... T 7. Reason for Opening: Enter reason code for most recent case opening. 9. Reason for Closing: For cases not receiving AFDC on July 1, 1970, enter closing code. 53. Age of Grantee: Enter year of birth of the grantee. The grantee . will normally be the mother except in two-parent cases. 55. Father Status: Enter code recorded for the children. Where more than one code is listed, enter code used most often. Where two codes are used the same number of times, enter code for the youngest child. Status D e a d ............................................ Incapacitated (in home or e l s e w h e r e ) .......... Unemployed and in h o m e ........................ In home (neither incapacitated nor unemployed) ................................. Divorced and not in h o m e ...................... Legally separated and not inh o m e ............ Abandoned, deserted, or estranged separation and not in the h o m e ............... No legal father .............................. Imprisoned ..................................... Absent from home for other r e a s o n ............ Code 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 56. Mother Status: Enter code in same manner as for Father Status. Codes are same as above, expcept that codes 2 and 7 are not used, and code 3 reads: In home (not incapacitated). 57. Race: Enter code recorded for grantee. Caucasion (except Mexican and other Spanish-American) ........... . Negro (of any degree if considered Negro in community) ................................. American Indian (on a reservation or considered Indian in community) ........... Other (includes Oriental and Polynesian) . . . Unknown ....................................... Mexican, Puerto Rican, and other caucasion with Spanish s u r n a m e s ...................... 58. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Employment Code: Enter code for grantee. These codes (00 to 81) indicate client's status with respect to the work requirement. 446 VI. Financial Data 1. to 24. Budget Sheet Information Data for these six columns, lines 1 through 24 are to be recorded from budget sheets found in the case file. Data in each column refers to the budget sheet dated closest to but not before the first of the month indicated. Data in each column are to reflect the situation for the month prior to the months indicated on the code sheet. 25. Food Stamp Bonus: Enter the amount of food stamp bonus authorized for the month prior to the month indicated on the code sheet. 26. Emergency Assistance/County Supplementation: Enter total amount for all items of supplementation for the month prior to, following, and of each indicated month. The following three items, plus support received by the Department on assignment, are being obtained separately from data stored on computer tapes. 27. Child Care: Data to be merged from child care claims payment report. 28. Medicaid: Data to be merged from Medicaid claims payment data tape. 29. Win Training Allowance: report. 30. Other: 31. Gross Earnings, 1968-69: Record in the first four columns the amount of gross earnings for the month prior to July, October, January and April, during 1968-69. Use same guidelines for choosing budget sheets as for other financial data above. 32. Gross Earnings, 1967-68: Record gross earnings for J u ly, October, January, April during 1967-68, per instructions for line 31. Data to be merged from WIN training payment This line is not used. 447 Case Number I. II. V Number and Street Household Characteristics: 1. Home ............................ _ 2. Neighborhood ................... _ 3. Months on A D C ............ ....... 4. Prior assistance .............. . 5. Children _____ /______ /_____ /______ 0-5 6-12 13+ Total Zip Code III. Father: 1. E d u cation........................ 2. O ccupation....................... IV. Mother: 1. Education ....................... __ 2. Occupation ........ ............ Employment: (mother except ADC-U> 1. Data pertains t o ........... ...... 2. Months employed ....... .......... 3. Months since last job .. _________ 4. Length of prev.empl. ... ___ 5. Work/ed./training .. a b c d e f g ncc.s> 6. 7-69 VI. Name / Prog. 7 9 Financial Data: July 1969 October 1969 1. Persons eligible/at table (1-2) 2. Homestead total ... ...( 4) 3. Rent ............. ...( 5) 4. Total needs ...... 6) 5. Personal needs .... ...( 7) 6. Household needs ... ...( 12) 7. Heating fuel ..... ...( 13) 8. Utilities ........ ...( 14) 9. Water ............ ...( 15) 10. Laundry .......... ...( 16) ...( 18) 11. Medical needs .... 12. Special diet ..... 19) 13. Telephone ........ ...( 20) 14. 15. Total requirements ...( 27) 16. Net income ....... ...< 28) 17. Deficit/grant .... (29--30) Income: 18. OASDHI ........... 19. Support assignment 20. 21. Gross earnings .... 22. $30 plus 1/3 disregard 23. a. Employment exp.: Minimum ... b. Business expense c. Transportation . d. Social Security tax e. Group insurance C. Retirement contributions ... g. Income tax ................. h. Union dues ................ 1. Court-ordered payments .... j. Other: _________________ .... 24. Net earnings ................. 25. Food stamp bonus ............. 26. Emergency asslstance/Co.sup. .. 27. Child care .................... 28. Medicaid ...................... 29. Training allowance ........... 30. Other ......................... 31. Hours employed per week ...... 32. Wage rate ..................... D S S -1 7 6 5 ( 9 -7 0 ) Training program ... 53 “ 55 ~ 56 “ 57 “ 58 T c m p o r o fv ♦ E x p i r e * 7-71 Figure F-l Code Sheet January 1970 April 1970 _/_/_/_/_/_/ a b c d e f July 1970 October 1970 448 • mnrrerr T o m 4 BUDGET SHEET Stofo of Michigan - Dopartmont of Social Sorvico* C M C NDM»db C R o Il INDEX-------------------------- C. INCOME A. NUMBER OF PERSONS 1. E l i g i b l e 35. P t 'io n ( i) R oc. 2. At TabU 3 6 . S o u re e Bo ASSISTANCE BUDGET F LIST 3 7 . G ro s s a-v* 1. P r in c ip a l & In te r e s t 36. Am ount D is r e g a r d e d 2. Taties (4- 12) 3 9 . A d { . G ro s s 3. U pkssp 4 0 . E n d .of E m p . (PSS»S H o rn 4 2 ) 4 . H o m o s to o d T o ta l 4 1 . N o t In c o m o 5. Rant 4 2 . T o t a l B u d g e t a b lo In c o m o (D S S « j tto m 4 3 ) 6 . T o ta l H oods U k UtL C'iiodDOffA i mwrmmm --- 'bO€‘ 1 1 3 3k 1 32- iJ U L ~ £ * L s T ~7if ft £ * . 4 3 . T o t a l n o o d s o f L e g a l D o p o n d o n ts ( L i s t n a m o a n d a g o I n S o c tio n P ) 4 4 . In c o m o t o A s s i s t . B u d g e t (E n te r a m o u n t o n L in o 2 8 ) 7 . P s rs o n o l H oods D. REMARKS AND COMPUTATION 8 . B o a rd a n d R o a m 9 . C o n g r e g a te C a ro M70 ^ 7 tAAAt.I96f 1 0 . A d u lt I n c id e n t a ls X>ouH ftud 1 1 . H o s p it a l S u n d r ie s 1 2 . H o u s e h o ld N e e d s yo.zsr 1 3 . H o o tin g F u e l 14. U t ilit ie s ho. o O 6-'* 15. 4*.60 SH* 7 T 16. L a u n d ry 4-'* 1 7 . H o u s e h o ld o p e r a t io n s ( A d u l t ) _________________ 7-r-70 *40.to 1 8* M . d i c . l N » .d > P . r _____________ 19. S p .c io I D i . l P . r __________ 20. T .I.p K o n . * /is- n P . r ________ 21. Foad 2 2 . I n c id . n t a l. fxfUAAses : 1 4 .*0 2 3 . C l o t h in g Yy 24. 25. 26. 2 7 . T o t a l R e q u ir e m e n ts Z77SV ex?**4*? ’ 2 8 . In c o m e n 29 . D . f ic lr 2.19 2-2*0 3 0 . S ta te G ra n t 2.v o T / t « — • (/?d«ys * ± ' I Z 3 1 . S u p p le m e n ta l 3 2 . W o rk e r 3 3 . A p p ro v e d b y w I F w * - £ > * • 3 4 . D a te o f B u d g e t D U -3 D l i « , A * 0 I t r r r i a i u i e d it io n o f | 4 t m » y b f u s e d ) Figure F-2 Budget Sheet APPENDIX G MAPS 449 tMJNAW li&Ui II■ 'II'\l a*1n-v R-v +-,“-T i— • TIv :— ■■■■ 1 ' ' j-H j : 4 ” • • •• •» /• , •* i. — s w n r ir~' \ I; 1 — I— -44. H — i— r■'*•• <■' ff --.; — •*-> : ■-» ! .■ ; r■ ■ > • y v■_ •■ • ■• : t "T \ T"* i ■SW* i f: M 1? y -» ■*.... -Wit-.V'. > v • -4 LOCATION OF GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN GENESEE COUNTY I I AREA A : M ode/ Cities ^ AREA B : O ther Central Flint | AREA O : S m a ll Town □ FIG U R E G - 1 A REA E : Rural A REA C : Flint Suburban 450 CO CO _L! <> iiyiKrol Obi, LOCATION OF GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN IN G H A M COUNTY 111] AREA A : M o d el Cities H A REA B : O ther C entral Lansing A REA D : S m a ll Tow ns FIG U R E G - 2 | AREA C : Lansing Suburban \A R E A E : R ural 451 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Appel, Gary Louis. Effects of a Financial Incentive on AFDC Employment: Michigan’s Experience Between July 1969 and July 1970. Minneapolis: Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1972. Bowen, William G. and T* Aldrich.Finegan. The Economics of Labor Force Participation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969. Cain, Glen G. Chicago: Married Women in the Labor Force: An Economic Analysis. University of Chicago Press, 1966. Conference on Manpower Services for the Welfare Poor. Report of the Con­ ference. Summary of Findings and Discussion. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1971. Durbin, Elizabeth F. Welfare Income and Bnployment: An Economic Analysis of Family Choice. New York: Frederick A. Prager, 1969. Feldman, Harold, and Margaret Feldman. A Study of the Effects on the Family due to Employment of the Working Mother. Vol. 1. Findings and Implica­ tions . Ithaca: Cornell University, 1972. Fine, Ronald E. AFDC Employment and Referral Guidelines: Final Report. Minneapolis: Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, Welfare Policy Division, 1972. Goldberger, Arthur S. Inc., 1964. Econometric Theory. New York: Goodwin, Leonard. Do the Poor Want to Work? Brookings Institution, 1972. John Wiley and Sons, Washington, D.C.: The Greenberg, David H. and Marvin Kosters. Income Guarantees and the Working Poor: The Effect of Income Maintenance Programs on the Hours of Work of Male Family H e a d s . Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 1970. t Greenleigh Associates. Public Welfare, Poverty— Prevention or Perpetration, A Study of the State of Washington. New York: Greenleigh Associates, 1964. Handler, Joel F., and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1971. The "Deserving Poor". Hausman, Leonard J. The Potential for Work Among Welfare Parents. U.S. Department of Labor Manpower Research Monograph. No. 12. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969. KoSters, Marvin. Income and Substitution Effects in a Family Labor Supply M o d e l . Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 1966. Levitan, Sar A . , Martin Rein and David Marwick. Work and Welfare Go Together. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972. National Analysts, Inc. Effects of the Earnings Exemption Upon the Work Response of AFDC Recipients. Part II. Final Report. Part III. Addenda. Executive Summary. Philadelphia: National Analysts, Inc., 1972. Option, Edward M. Factors Associated with Bnployment among Welfare Mothers. Berkeley: The Wright Institute, 1971. Podell, Lawrence. Families on Welfare in New York City. New York: University of New York, Center for Social Research, 1968. City Smith, Vernon K. and Aydin Ulusan. The Employment of AFDC Recipients in Michigan. Lansing: State o f Michigan, Department of Social Services, 1972. Stevens, Robert B. Statutory History of the United States: New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Income Security. Telia, Alfred, Dorothy Telia and Christopher Green. The Hours of Work and the Family Income Response to Negative Income Tax Plans. Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1971. Articles and Periodicals Appel, Gary L. and Robert E. Schlenker. "An Analysis of Michigan's Experience with Work Incentives," Monthly Labor Review, IX (September, 1971), pp. 15-21. Becker, Gary S. "A Theory of the Allocation of Time," Economic Journal, 75 (1965), pp. 493-517. Burnside, Betty. "The Employment Potential of AFDC Mothers in Six States," Welfare in Review, IX (July-August, 1971) pp. 16-20. Carter, Genevieve W. "The Employment Potential of AFDC Mothers," in Review, VI (July-August, 1968), pp. 1-11. Welfare Cohen, Wilbur J . , and Robert M. Ball. "Social Security Amendments of 1967: Summary and Legislative History," Social Security Bulletin, XXXI (February, 1968), pp. 3-19. 453 Cook, Fred. "When You Just Give Money to the Poor," New York Times Magazine, (May 3, 1970), pp. 110-112. Cox, Irene. "The Employment of Mothers as a Means of Family Support," Welfare in Review, VIII (November-December, 1970), pp. 9-17. Dumpsom, James R. "Public Welfare and Implementation of the 1967 Social Security Amendments." Child Welfare, Vol. 47, July 1968, pp. 382-390, 426. Eppley, David B. "The AFDC Family in the 1960,s," Welfare in Review, VIII (September-October, 1970), pp. 15-21. Green, Christopher and Alfred Telia. "Effect of Nonemployment Income and Wage Rates on the Work Incentives of the Poor," Review of Economics and Statistics, LI (November, 1969), pp. 399-408. Hausman, Leonard J. "The AFDC Amendments of 1967: Their Impact on the Capacity for Self-Support and the Employability of AFDC Family Heads," Labor Law Review, XIX (August, 1968), pp. 496-508. ________ . "The Impact of Welfare on the Work Effort of AFDC Mothers," in Technical Studies. The President's Commission on Income Maintenance Programs. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970. ________ . "The Welfare Tax Rate," Trans-Action (April, 1969), pp. 48-53. Kalachek, Edward D. and Frederick Q. Raines. "Labor Supply of Low Income Workers," in Technical Studies. The President's Commission on Income Maintenance Programs. Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1970. Kelly, Terrence F. and Leslie Singer. "The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment: Plans and Progress," American Economic Review, LXI (May, 1971), pp. 30-38. Killingsworth, Charles C. "Income Maintenance and the Social Security System— An Overview of Approaches." Income Maintenance and the Social Security System: Proceedings of the Sixth Social Security Conference. Edited by Philip Booth. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. The Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1968. Kosters, Marvin. "Effects of an Income Tax on Labor Supply," in The Taxation of Income From Capital. Edited by Harberger and Bailey. Washington, D. C . : The Brookings Institution, 1969. Kurz, Mordecai and Robert G. Spregelman. "The Seattle Experiment: The Combined Effect of Income Maintenance and Manpower Investments," American Economic Review, LXI (May, 1971), pp. 22-29. Leuthold, Jane H. "An Empirical Study of Formula Income Transfers and the Work Decision of the Poor," Journal of Human Resources, III, (Summer, 1968), pp. 312-323. 454 Levinson, Perry. "How Employable Are AFDC Women?" (July-August, 1970), pp. 12-16. Welfare in Review, VIII Mincer, Jacob. "Labor Force Participation of Married Women," Aspects of Labor Economics, ed. by H.G. Lewis. Princeton: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1962. Morse, Harold A. 'Measuring the Potential of AFDC Families for Economic Independence," Welfare in Review, VI (November-December, 1969), pp. 13-18. Rein, Mildred. "Determinants of the Work-Welfare Choice in AFDC," Service Review, XLVI (December, 1972), pp. 539-566. Social , and Barbara Wishnov. "Patterns of Work and Welfare in AFDC." in Review, IX (November-December, 1971), pp. 7-12. Welfare Parnes, Herbert S. "Labor Force Participation and Labor Mobility," in A Review of Industrial Relations Research. Edited by Gerald G. Somers. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1970. Smith, Vernon K. "An Assessment of the WIN Program in Michigan," State Economic Record, 14, (May-June, 1972), pp. 1-2,6-7. The Michigan Warren, Martin and Sheldon Berkowitz. "The Employability of AFDC Mothers and Fathers," Welfare in Review, VII (July-August, 1969), pp. 1-7. Watts, Harold. "Graduated Work Incentives: An Experiment in Negative Taxation," American Economic Review, LIX (May, 1969), pp. 463-478. ________ . "The Graduated Work Incentive Experiments: Current Progress," American Economic Review, LXI (May, 1971), pp. 15-21. Welch, Finis and Sherwin Rosen. "A Note on the Estimation of Labor Supply Effects and Income Distribution Policy," Journal of Human Resources, VII (Winter, 1972), pp. 104-111. Public Documents Cuyahoga County Welfare Department. Employment Incentives and Social Services: A Demonstration Program in Public Welfare. Cleveland: Cuyahoga County Welfare Department, 1966. Denver Department of Welfare. The Incentive Budgeting Demonstration Project. Denver: Department of Welfare, 1961. State of Michigan. Department of Labor. Economic Opportunity Office. Poverty Incidence in Michigan by County. Lansing: Economic Opportunity Office, 1972. 455 State of Michigan. Department of Social Services. "Interpretive Text of Annual Quality Control Report for the Period July 1, 1969 through June 30, 1970." Undated report. Michigan Employment Security Commission. Michigan Manpower Review. Monthly issues, July, 1969 - July, 1970. . Michigan Employment Security Commission. The Work Incentive Program, by Nancy Felder. Detroit: Michigan Employment Security Commission, Monthly Issues, August, 1969 - July, 1970. _ _ . U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Nays and Means. Work Incentive Program— Survey of Selected Welfare and Employment Service Agencies. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, January, 1970. ________ . Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy. Income Maintenance Programs. Vol. I: Proceedings, June 11-27, 1968. Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1968. ________ . Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy. Public Income Transfer Programs: The Incidence of Multiple Benefits and the Issues Raised by Their Receipt. Studies in Public Welfare, Paper No. 1, by James R. Storey. Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, April 10, 1972. ________ . Public Law 90-248. 90th Congress. H.R. 1208, January 2, 1968. ________ • Senate Committee on Finance. Social Security Amendments of 1967: Committee Amendments to H.R. 12080. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, November 8, 1967. 90th Congress. 1st session. Congressional Record, CXIII, 90th Congress. 1st session. Congressional Record, CXIII, 23054. 36785. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Children In Need: A Study of Federally Assisted Programs of Aid to Needy Families with Children in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports: Consumer Income. Series P-60, No. 77. Washington, D .C.: Government Printing Office, 1971. ________ . Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics: United States Summary. Washington, D .C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Social Security Bulletin. Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, July, 1972. 456 ________ . Social and Rehabilitation Service. National Center for Social Statistics. Findings of the 1969 AFDC St u d y : Part I, Demographic and Program Statistics. NCSS Report AFDC-3(69). Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1970. ________ . Findings of the 1971 AFDC Study. Part I . Demographic and Social" Characteristics. NCSS Report AFDC-1(71). Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1971. ________ . Social and Rehabilitation Service. National Center for Social Statistics. National Cross-Tabulations from the 1967 and 1969 AFDC Studies. NCSS Report AFDC Special (67-69). Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, December IS, 1971. U.S. Department of Labor. The Work Incentive Program. Government Printing Office, June, 1970. Washington, D . C . : ________ . Bureau of Labor Statistics. A Micro Model of Labor Supply, by Malcolm Cohen, Samuel Rea and Robert Lerman. BLS Staff Paper 4. Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1970. ________ . Bureau of Labor Statistics. ''Educational Attainment of Workers, March 1969, 1970." Special Labor Force Report 125. Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1970. ________ . Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Job Tenure of Workers, January, 1965." Special Labor Force Report 112. Washington, D . C . : Govern­ ment Printing Office, 1969. ________ . Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Marital and Family Characteris­ tics of Workers, March 1968 and 1969." Special Labor Force Report 120. Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1970. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Martial and Family Characteris­ tics of Workers, March 1970." Special Labor Force Report 130. Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1970. ________ . Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Marital Status of Workers, March 1959." Special Labor Force Report 2. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1959. D . C .: "Revised Equivalence Scale," Bulletin No. 1570-2. Government Printing Office, November, 1968. Washington, Unpublished Materials Ashenfelter, Orley. "Using Estimates of Income and Substitution Parameters to Predict the Work Incentive Effects of the Negative Income Tax: A Brief Exposition and Partial Survey." Unpublished paper, Prince­ ton University, November, 1970. 457 ______ , and James Heckman. "The Estimation of Income and Substitution Effects in a Model of Family Labor Supply," Working Paper No. 29. Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section, August, 1971. Cox, Irene. "Working Paper on the Effects of an Earnings Exemption on the Employment of ADC Mothers." Unpublished paper. Division of Intramural Research, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1968. Hall, Robert. "Wages, Income and Hours of Work in the U.S. Labor Force," Unpublished Working Paper of the Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August, 1970. Hausman, Leonard J. "The 100% Welfare Tax Rate: Its Incidence and Effects." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1967. Ingham County Department of Social Services. No. 1, by Jean Vogt. January 19, 1970. "Ingham WIN-Letter." Vol. 1, Marmor, Theodore R. "Income Maintenance Alternatives: Concepts, Criteria and Program Comparisons." Duscussion Paper No. 55-69. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty, 1969. Saks, Daniel H. "The Economics of the Decision to Go On Welfare." Research Report No. 10. East Lansing: Michigan State University Center for Urban Affairs, 1971. ________ . "The Labor Supply Response of AFDC Recipients in New York City." Research Report No. 12. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Center for Urban Affairs, 1971. ________ . "Economic Analysis of an Urban Public Assistance Program: Aid to New York City Families of Dependent Children in the Sixties." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 1973.