DOCUMENT RESUME ED 438 386 UD 033 359 TITLE AdvoCasey: Documenting Programs That Work for Kids and Families, 1999-2000. INSTITUTION Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD. PUB DATE 2000-00-00 NOTE 114p.; Issued three times per year. AVAILABLE FROM The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 701 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, MD 21202. For full text: http://www.aecf.org/publications. PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022) JOURNAL CIT AdvoCasey; vl n1-3 Spr 1999-Fall 1999/Win 2000 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Charter Schools; *Child Welfare; Educational Administration; Elementary Secondary Education; Foreign Countries; Foster Care; Foster Family; *Job Training; *Juvenile Justice; Low Income Groups; Prevention; Program Descriptions; State Programs; Tax Credits; Therapy; *Urban Schools; Urban Youth; *Violence; Welfare Recipients Canada; Iowa; Massachusetts; Minnesota; *Reform Efforts; IDENTIFIERS Texas; *Welfare Reform ABSTRACT This periodical provides accessible, in-depth profiles of programs and policies that have made measurable differences in the lives of children and families. A particular focus is on initiatives that have helped reform child-serving institutions and systems and that have strengthened the physical infrastructure, economic vitality, and social fabric of distressed neighborhoods. Although coverage is not limited to projects funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, such projects predominate because of the detailed information available. The first issue contains the following articles: (1) "Decat in the Hat: Iowa's Successful First Step toward Devolving Resources, Responsibility, and Accountability for Child and Family Outcomes" (Bill "'Becky': A Case Study in Wraparound Services"; Rust); "Punish 'Em, (2) (3) Fix 'Em, Make 'Em Go Away: Multisystemic Therapy Has a Better Idea" (Patrice "Promises To Keep: Autonomy and Accountability in Massachusetts Pascual); (4) Charter Schools" (Bill Rust); "Organizing for Education: The Alliance (5) Schools in Texas" (Patrice Pascual); "A Tale of Two Cities: The Jobs (6) Initiative in Milwaukee and St. Louis" (Michael deCourcy Hinds); and (7) "Research and Evaluation Notes: Recent Evaluations of Initiatives That Improve Child and Family Outcomes, Reform Institutions, and Strengthen Communities." The second issue contains the following articles: "'Above (1) Average' Welfare Reform: The Minnesota Family Investment Program" (Bill "New Hope for Low-Income Workers: Improving Economic and Child Rust); (2) Outcomes in Milwaukee" (Bill Rust); "Canadian Doubles: Employment, (3) Income, and Other Impacts of the Self-Sufficiency Project" (Bill Rust); (4) "Tax Relief for Working Poor Families: State Earned Income Tax Credits" (Bill Rust); and (5) "Assessing Welfare Reform: Recent Reports from the Urban Institute" (Michael deCourcy Hinds). The third issue includes: "More (1) Foster Families, Fewer Children Entering Care: Rebuilding Family Foster Care in Cuyahoga and Anne Arundel Counties" (Patrice Pascual); "The Graduates: (2) The Casey Family Services Alumni Study" (Kristin Coffey); "'Quitting a (3) Beef': A Violence-Free Zone in Washington, D.C." (Rose Gutfeld); and (4) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. "Juvenile Jailhouse Rocked: Reforming Detention in Chicago, Portland, and Sacramento" (Bill Rust). (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. AdvoCasey: Documenting Programs That Work for Kids and Families, 1999-2000. Volume 1, Numbers 1-3 Fall 1999/Winter 2000 Spring 1999 BEST COPY AVAILABLE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND CENTER (ERIC) DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS This document has been reproduced as BEEN GRANTED BY received from the person or organization originating it. IV T. R4-1- Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. o Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES official OERI position or policy. INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 IR AN ADVOCASEY rt CRxmaacavomo Po@OCMSGM 4C384 G9®013 DCM MOIN LAM OLIEM0120 VOLUME ONE SUMMER 1999 E. CASEY FOUNDATION THE ANNIE A PUBLICATION OF w o N U M B E R T FARE REF "ABOVE AVERAGE" E THE MINNESOTA FAMILY INVESTMENT PROGRAM A \EW HOPE CANADO N IMPROVING ECONOMIC AND DOUBLES FOR LO CHILD OUTCOMES IN MILWAUKEE EMPLOYMENT, INCOME, AND OTHER IMPACTS ORKERS NCO[VE OF THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROJECT RK1NG POOR FAMILDES F FOR AX RELIE STATE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDITS RECENT REPORTS FROM ELFARE REFOR ASSESS° THE URBAN INSTITUTE PAGE 2° REWARDING WORK, REDUCING POVERTY By Douglas W. Nelson The Casey Foundation has been an advocate for The encouraging data on the impact of financial reforming welfare for a long time now. Like many incentives have prompted us to devote the entire others, we recognized that Aid to Families With Summer 1999 issue of to this subject. ADVOCASEY Dependent Children did not work for many, if not The first three stories, Which are based on the latest evaluations and interviews with policymakers, most, welfare families. It left too many children in deep poverty, it stigmatized too many young parents, researchers, and program operators, profile different approaches to providing work incentives: the it exacerbated tensions between the working poor and Minnesota Family Investment Program, the New the welfare poor, and, for some, it fostered an inter- Hope Project in Milwaukee, and the Self-Sufficiency generational acceptance of dependence. Project in Canada. The results from these projects are Knowing that something is broken and fixing it are, of course, two different things. Three years ago the particularly noteworthy because of their rigorous federal government ended "welfare as we know it." random-assignment evaluations. The fourth story examines an emerging trend to And throughout the 1990s states have been crafting a enact or expand state-level Earned Income Tax variety of work-based alternatives aimed at making Credits, which increase the net income of working access to earnings a substitute for long-term reliance on entitlement assistance. Aided by a robust economy poor families. These credits complement the federal and a strong demand for workers, we have managed to reduce caseloads and move significant numbers of families from welfare to work. THERE IS GROWING EVIDENCE While these early results should be viewed with optimism, they should not obscure the looming THAT FINANCIAL INCENTIVES CAN challenges that still face policymakers at the state and DELIVER ON THEIR HOPED-FOR federal levels. The central reform challenge continues to revolve around the question of whether we can GOALS OF STIMULATING WORK make "working" truly serve the best interests of EFFORT, REDUCING POVERTY, AND low-skilled parents, their children, the economy, and taxpayers. More plainly, can we make job holding an ENHANCING FAMILY WELL-BEING. affordable way of enabling more poor families to raise their children well? It is this core question that imparts such signifi- cance to a host of program and policy experiments Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a financial incentive that seek to encourage, subsidize, and support work that was enacted in the 1970s and expanded by the effort. By combining earnings and publicly funded Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations. Like the national EITC, state earned income credits have supplements, these financial incentives are designed to motivate job holding, enhance earnings, and improve received support from across the political spectrum. the material well-being of low-income families. As of This issue of concludes with a summary ADVOCASEY this writing, there is growing evidence that such of recent welfare-reform research from the Assessing financial incentives really can deliver on their hoped- the New Federalism project. Well before the enactment of federal welfare-reform legislation, states were for goals of stimulating work effort, reducing poverty, and enhancing family well-being. experimenting with new ways of providing assistance DOCUMEMEING* PROGRAMS THAT WORK FOR KIDS AND FAMILIES CONTENTS TABLE 0 F VOLUME ONE NUMBER Two SummER.,,1999 I to disadvantaged children and families. Moreover, the responsibility for the social safety net was shifting "ABOVE AVERAGE" 4 from the federal government to the states. In response WELFARE. REFORM to these developments, the Casey Foundation asked THE MINNESOTA FAMILY INVESTMENT PROGRAM the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan policy research organization in Washington, D.C., to develop the NEW HOPE FOR LOW- 12 Assessing the New Federalism project. The intent INCOME WORKERS of this multifaceted research initiative is to help IMPROVING ECONOMIC AND CHILD OUTCOMES policymakers and others distinguish effective state IN MILWAUKEE innovations from those less likely to improve outcomes for children and families.. CANADIAN DOUBLES 17 In calling attention to financial incentives, we do EMPLOYMENT, INCOME, AND OTHER IMPACTS OF THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROJECT not mean to suggest that they are the only determinant of welfare reform's ultimate success or failure. Serious TAX RELIEF FOR WORKING 22 questions remain about whether we can find meaningful POOR FAMILIES work opportunities for the least job ready of welfare STATE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDITS many of whom are still on the rolls. recipients 3 Similarly, we don't yet know the best approaches for ASSESSING WELFARE 27 maximizing job retention and earnings continuity for REFORM new labor-force entrants, especially if labor demand RECENT REPORTS FROM THE URBAN INSTITUTE slackens in future years. But, in our view, these longer-term challenges will only be worth addressing if we first assure that job is published by the Annie E. Casey Foundation's ADVOCASEY holding and work effort actually provide under-skilled Office of External Affairs. Material may be reprinted with young parents a bona fide opportunity to do better by appropriate acknowledgment. Articles are also available online their children. The exciting suggestion in the at www.aecf:org. approaches profiled in this issue is that we just might The Annie E. Casey Foundation is a private charitable be able to secure that opportunity. organization dedicated to helping build better futures for As always, I welcome your comments and suggestions. disadvantaged children in the United States. The primary mission of the Foundation is to foster public policies, human-service reform and community supports that more effectively meet the Douglas W. Nelson is the president of the Annie E Casey Foundation. needs of today's vulnerable children and families. In pursuit of this goaZ the Foundation makes grants that help states, cities, and neighborhoods fashion more innovative, cost-effective responses to these needs. The Annie E. Casa Foundation was established in 1948 by Jim Casey, one of the founders of United Parcel Service, and his siblings, who Framed the Foundation in honor of their mother. A !3OVE AVERAGE" WELFARE By Bill Rust A proposal for deep reductions in welfare benefits Although many social programs might accurately be to poor families paralyzed the Minnesota legislature characterized as "welfare," the federal-state cash- in 1986. A majority in the state House of assistance program called "Aid to Families With Dependent Children" had, been at the heart of all Representatives, charging that low-income people efforts to reform public assistance. Created by the migrated to Minnesota because of its relatively generous Social Security Act of 1935, AFDC evolved from public-assistance programs, wanted to slash welfare a New Deal initiative designed primarily to support the benefits by 30 percent. The state Senate flatly rejected children of widowed mothers, who were not expected such steep cuts. to work, to a program that served divorced mothers, To help resolve the deadlock, then Gov. Rudy never-married mothers, and other clients. As increasing Perpich established the Minnesota Commission numbers of women and mothers began working on Welfare Reform to examine benefit levels and outside the home, the program sought to achieve other aspects of state public assistance. The first meeting multiple often conflicting goals that included of this bipartisan commission, which included reducing poverty, dependency, and costs. By the 1980s government officials and nonprofit leaders, began most policymakers, citizens, and welfare recipients inauspiciously, with divergent political views and themselves believed that AFDC was doing a poor job conflicting opinions surfacing quickly. "People were in one or more of these areas. kind of talking past each other," recalls Joel Kvamme, A key finding of the Minnesota welfare commission then a staffer to the commission from the Minnesota was that about 60 percent of the state's AFDC recipients Department of Human Services. "It was very ideological." used public assistance in a way that most people Determined to reach a consensus, the commission would deem appropriate a temporary boost to help members agreed to table their preconceptions and families in trouble return to the economic mainstream. immerse themselves in the facts about welfare On the othet hand, about 40 percent of welfare families in Minnesota. Why do families apply for public were long-term users. Within this group, the majority assistance? How long do they stay on welfare? How do were able bodied but appeared to lack either the families manage to leave the program? education, experience, or motivation to be self-sufficient. Embodying a traditional Midwestern faith in reliable In the view of the welfare commission, it was this information informing enlightened social policy, the group of long-term recipients who should be the focus commission conducted a six-month inquiry that of welfare reform. included testimony from experts, service providers, The commission also voiced concerns about the and welfare recipients; public hearings throughout the federal AFDC rule requiring that each dollar earned state; and an examination of reform options as well as by a welfare recipient be matched by an equivalent the data and values that supported them. On Dec. 1, reduction in benefits. When combined with child-care 1986, the commission submitted a report to the costs, transportation, and other employment expenses, governor that transformed a narrow, partisan debate these benefit reductions meant that many recipients about appropriate benefit levels into a thoughtful found themselves financially worse off by working consensus on comprehensive welfare reform. than if they remained on welfare. The commission Foreshadowing the federal legislation enacted a decade urged that "incentives to exit the system should always later, the commission unanimously concluded: "THE be greater than those to remain on welfare." OLD AFDC INCOME-MAINTENANCE PROGRAM The Minnesota welfare commission's pragmatic MUST END [emphasis in original]." approach to reforming welfare was accompanied by an REFORMTHE MINNESOTA FAMILY INVESTMFNT PROGRAM equally realistic, if politically less palatable, corollary: It would take "substantial expenditures 'up front"' to THE GOAL: MOVING reform AFDC totally, and it would be years before savings from such reform could be recovered. WELFARE RECIPIENTS OFF Although hailed in Minnesota as a "philosophical OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE breakthrough," the recommendations of the welfare commission were, for the most part, not acted upon AND OUT OF POVERTY. immediately. Some required waivers from federal regulations, and others were deemed too expensive for a state then facing a substantial budget deficit. On the other hand, the analysis of the Minnesota welfare commission had a profound long-range impact on the state's thinking about welfare reform. Its recommendations provided the philosophical foundation of one of the most ambitious and success- ful welfare-reform initiatives of the 1990s one that "expects, supports, and rewards work" and that has the explicit goal of moving recipients off of public assistance and out of poverty the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP). "Reliable Evidence" MFIP, pronounced "M-fip" by state officials, researchers, and others, is one of a new generation of public policies and programs called "financial incentives." Intended to "make work pay," financial incentives seek to reduce poverty by supplementing the earnings of low-income people who work. MFIP, which reverses a "perverse incentive" of AFDC, rewards welfare recipients more for working than not working. Using both "carrots" and "sticks" to encourage work, MFIP enables recipients to mix earnings and public assistance and requires participation in job- related and training activities. The program has had particular success in boosting the employment and earnings of long-term welfare recipients in urban areas. Eighteen months after entering the program, according to an evaluation by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), the employment rate for these MFIP participants was nearly 40 percent higher than a comparison group organization established in 1974, to help design and manage the evaluation. Some 9,000 people were that received traditional welfare services. "[The] employment and earnings impacts are randomly assigned by computer to either an experi- among the largest produced by previously studied mental group that received MFIP benefits or to a control welfare-to-work programs," wrote the authors of group that enrolled in the traditional AFDC program. Researchers further divided caseloads into new Making Welfare Work and Work Pay, MDRC's interim evaluation of MFIP. "The impacts are also notable applicants who received financial incentives only and given that long-term recipients represent the most long-term recipients who received incentives and participated in mandatory job-related activities. disadvantaged segment of the welfare population." Although MDRC's final report will not be available Comparing these groups enabled researchers to until early next year, the evidence from MFIP and measure not only the impact of MFIP compared with other financial-incentive programs indicates that it AFDC, but also the relative effects of just financial is possible to balance the competing goals of incentives and the incentives plus mandatory work reducing dependency, raising living standards, and requirements. "The Minnesota evaluation is the only controlling costs. "We don't know whether this one to date that lets you break the pieces apart," says encouraging information from MFIP, SSP [the Rebecca M. Blank, who recently concluded a two-year term as a member of the President's Council of Canadian Self-Sufficiency Project, see page 17], and other incentive programs will hold up over time," says Gordon L. Berlin, a senior vice president at MDRC and author of a forthcoming monograph on USING BOTH "CARROTS" AND financial incentives.1 "But if it does, we will have very "STICKS" TO ENCOURAGE WORK, reliable evidence that policies can help long-term welfare recipients work more, increase their income, MFIP ENABLES RECIPIENTS TO and even get out of poverty." MIX EARNINGS AND PUBLIC Marketing Work ASSISTANCE AND REQUIRES Following years of planning and discussion by policymakers, researchers, and advocates, MFIP PARTICIPATION IN YOB-RELATED finally began on April 1, 1994, as a major "waiver" AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES. demonstration in seven Minnesota counties. In the 1990s many states received waivers from federal AFDC rules and regulations to experiment with new forms of public assistance. As part of the waiver Economic Advisers and is now dean of the School of agreements with the federal government, the state Public Policy at the University of Michigan. demonstration programs were rigorously evaluated to MFIP's financial incentives included a 20 percent determine their effectiveness. increase in the basic welfare grant for recipients who To assess the impact of MFIP, the state of were employed. Moreover, welfare benefits were Minnesota hired MDRC, a nonpartisan research reduced by only 62 cents for every dollar earned, instead of the nearly dollar-for-dollar reduction under AFDC. "The objective," in the words of the MDRC Encouraging Work, Reducing Poverty: The Impact of Work Incentive evaluation, "is to increase the incentive recipients Programs, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, Fall 1999. have to work and to make those who work better off." verification meetings with caseworkers and monthly To reduce poverty, participants in the MFIP meetings with employment trainers, as well as by mail demonstration mixed earnings and declining amounts and by phone, recipients received a consistent message of welfare until their income reached 140 percent of that they would be financially better off by working a total in 1997 of the federal poverty standard rather than remaining on public assistance. $22,960 per year for a family of four. At this point, The MFIP marketing efforts also increased case- their welfare grant was eliminated. Other features of workers' enthusiasm for the program and their efforts MFIP that facilitated the transition to work were the to promote work to clients. "In MFIP, welfare case- direct payment of child-care expenses to providers and workers were able to sell work in way they were never the consolidation of other state and federal assistance really able to before," says Virginia Knox, MDRC's principal investigator for the demonstration. "The programs into a single cash grant. Long-term welfare recipients in the MFIP staff now could look you in the eye and honestly say that you would be better off if you went to work, experimental group who worked less than 30 hours per week were'required to participate in employment something they could seldom say before." and training services. These recipients, under penalty Increasing Employment, Reducing Poverty of a 10 percent loss of welfare benefits, had to attend At the end of the 18-month follow-up period, meetings with job counselors, document job-search 7 or training efforts, and turn in check stubs from MFIP helped long-term welfare recipients living in part-time work. Minneapolis and surrounding counties post a nearly 40 percent increase in employment over the AFDC MFIP's financial incentives and work requirements were reinforced by a deliberate effort to "market" control group. Over that same period, the MFIP the program to welfare recipients. At eligibility- group had a 27 percent increase in earnings. The MAKING WORK PAY IN MINNESOTA $2,000 Earnings MFIP En Tax Credits This chart compares the monthly income of IM1-4 Other Assistance $1,500 two hypothetical Minnesota families (one adult, two children in each). The income of Poverty Level: $1,138 the family on the left, which is derived solely $1,000 from the. Minnesota Family Investment Program and other public assistance, is 88 percent of the poverty level. The income of the working family, which combines $500 earnings and public assistance, is 150 percent of the poverty level. $0 per $5.15 per hour hour earnings earnings Source: Minnesota Department of Human Services