IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v14y1995i4p567-589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Con a voluntary workfare program change the behavior of welfare recipients? new evidence from washington state's family independence program (FIP)

Author

Listed:
  • Duane E. Leigh

    (Professor of Economics at Washington State University)

Abstract

This article examines a voluntary workfare demonstration program in Washington state-the Family Independence Program (FIP)-designed to encourage longer-term investments in employment and training (E&T) activities, with the ultimate objective of achieving economic self-sufficiency for welfare recipients. A unique longitudinal data set is used to compare E&T enrollment and the labor market and welfare outcomes for a sample of FIP clients and a comparison group of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients subject to the state's mandatory workfare requirements. Correcting for self-selection, the estimates obtained indicate that FIP's combination of financial incentives, enhanced support services, and a more client-centered environment results in an E&T enrollment rate that is from 9 to 12 percentage points higher during the post-FIP June 1989 to May 1990 period than the rate for respondents subject to the state's workfare program. Relative to the enrollment rate calculated for nonparticipants, FIP net impact estimates in this range represent a 33 to 44 percent increase in E&T enrollment. These results offer a more positive assessment of the potential of a voluntary workfare program to affect the behavior of welfare recipients than does the large-scale FIP evaluation carried out by the Urban Institute. However, both the evidence presented here and the Urban Institute's evaluation suggest that FIP had little impact on employment and earnings but significantly increased welfare receipt and the level of welfare benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Duane E. Leigh, 1995. "Con a voluntary workfare program change the behavior of welfare recipients? new evidence from washington state's family independence program (FIP)," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 567-589.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:14:y:1995:i:4:p:567-589
    DOI: 10.2307/3324910
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/3324910
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2307/3324910?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Jo Bane, 1989. "Welfare reform and mandatory versus voluntary work: Policy issue or management problem?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 285-289.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laurence E. Lynn, 1990. "Rejoinder to mead," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 405-408.
    2. Howard S. Bloom & Carolyn J. Hill & James A. Riccio, 2003. "Linking program implementation and effectiveness: Lessons from a pooled sample of welfare-to-work experiments," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 551-575.
    3. Irene Lurie, 1996. "A lesson from the JOBS program: Reforming welfare must be both dazzling and dull," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 572-586.
    4. Douglas J. Besharov, 2009. "Presidential address: From the Great Society to continuous improvement government: Shifting from “does it work?” to “what would make it better?”," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(2), pages 199-220.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:14:y:1995:i:4:p:567-589. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.