Wisconsin Works (W-2) Applicant Study: Analysis of W-2 Application-Process Dropouts

Transcription

1 Wisconsin Works (W-2) Applicant Study: Analysis of W-2 Application-Process Dropouts Marci Ybarra and Jennifer L. Noyes with the assistance of Yiyoon Chung Institute for Research on Poverty University of Wisconsin Madison March 2008 Prepared for: State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development This research was supported by a research agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development and the Institute for Research on Poverty. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the sponsoring institutions.

2 Wisconsin Works (W-2) Applicant Study: Analysis of W-2 Application-Process Dropouts I. INTRODUCTION People who seek the services and benefits provided by the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program must complete an application process to determine their eligibility. In an effort to develop information about the W-2 application process, the Institute for Research on Poverty is completing a three-part study designed to (1) document and examine the application process; (2) analyze the frequency of, and possible explanations for, applicant dropouts prior to eligibility determination; and (3) examine the later wellbeing of dropouts and their children. The study, through mutual agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, is focused on Dane County and three regions in Milwaukee County: Northeast, operated by the YWCA of Greater Milwaukee; Northwest, operating by MAXIMUS, Inc.; and Central, operated by UMOS, Inc. Begun in 2006, the study will continue through September The first stage of the study, completed in May 2007, examined the application process and documented the steps in the process common to the four agencies under review, including the key junctures at which applicants may drop out of the process. 1 This report describes the findings of the study s second stage, which focused on: Quantifying the number of applicants who drop out of the process at each of the identified dropout points through the review of case histories of individual applicants; Identifying how applicants drop out of the application process (e.g., declined services, were determined ineligible, had their application denied, did not attend an appointment, or attended an appointment but did not return for services or receive a W-2 placement); Describing characteristics of applicants by the juncture at which they dropped out of the application process and the way in which they dropped out; Developing an understanding of why applicants drop out of the process through the completion of one-on-one interviews with a small sample of applicants; and 1 Ybarra, M., and Kaplan, T. May Wisconsin Works (W-2) Applicant Study: The W-2 Application Process. Institute for Research on Poverty: Madison, Wisconsin.

3 2 Analyzing the degree to which individual characteristics are related to dropping out of the application process. In its final phase, the study will examine the well-being of dropouts and their children using available administrative data. The study s final report will be completed in September We employed the understanding of the application process developed in the first stage of the study, as shown in Figure 1. To allow for uniform measurement across agencies, the start of the application process is defined as the first scheduled appointment for an orientation session. This occurs following an applicant s on-site completion of an initial paper application provided at each agency s reception desk. 2 The application process that is followed over the next 12 days is broadly similar across the four agencies. 3 Initially, we had identified four points at which an applicant may drop out and four potential events triggering a drop out within this process. However, during our review of individual applicant case histories, we determined a fifth drop-out point: at an other Financial Employment Planner (FEP) meeting, which is an FEP meeting not classified as an intake or eligibility determination meeting within CARES. We also determined a fifth possible event that could trigger a drop out: when an applicant attends a scheduled appointment but no record of a W-2 tier placement or subsequent appointment appears in CARES. All five drop-out junctures and triggering events are reflected in Table 1. A placement within a W-2 tier may occur at any point in the process except orientation. 2 We did not include individuals who may have requested an application but did not have a scheduled orientation. 3 This is the general application process. Those applicants who are found to have barriers to work may not experience the same process.

4 3

5 4 Reason for Drop out No show (schedules but does not attend or reschedule appointment) Table 1 Potential Drop-out Junctures by Drop-out Reason* Potential Drop-out Juncture Orientation Resource Specialist 1 st Eligibility FEP 2 nd Eligibility FEP Other FEP Determined ineligible Declined services Denied services Attends appointment, no placement or subsequent appointment occur *A check indicates that a drop out could occur at that juncture for the intersecting reason. We draw on three primary sources of data to complete our analysis of the frequency of, and possible explanations for, applicant drop outs prior to eligibility determination. The first is applicant case histories available through CARES for all 1,913 individuals who applied for W-2 services in one of the four participating agencies during the months of September and October This information was reviewed and coded following the procedures outlined in Appendix A. The second source is individual demographic and program participation information for the sample drawn from administrative data available through CARES and the unemployment insurance data base. Appendix B outlines the methodology through which applicants were identified and related information was extracted. The third source is information obtained during interviews with 20 individual applicants who applied for W-2 but dropped out of the application process during April and May Information about the process 4 The sample includes one individual who applied for W-2 services in November 2006, although CARES records indicated she had applied for W-2 in May However, the May 2007 application was solely for participation in the MA program. The error was not discovered until the interview. Given the individual met all

6 5 through which these individuals were identified, as well as the semi-structured interview questionnaire employed, is included in Appendix C. The remainder of this report is organized in sections. The second section describes our overall sample and overall application outcomes. The third provides descriptive information about W-2 placement distributions, including individual agency distributions. The fourth focuses on drop outs, the junctures at which drop outs occur, and the reasons for drop outs. The fifth section provides reported explanations of applicant decisions to drop out of the application process. The sixth analyzes the significance of individual applicant characteristics in dropping out of the application process, and how applicants drop out. The final section considers the report s findings within the context of recent modifications to the W-2 program and subsequent applicant outcomes. II. OVERALL SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS Applicant Characteristics Table 2 shows the characteristics of the 1,913 individuals who applied for W-2 in the four agencies during September and October As would be expected, women composed 97.8 percent of the sample and most participants 87.7 percent had never been married. Over one-half the sample was 25 years old or older. The majority 78.9 percent was African American, whereas 8.8 percent was white and 3.1 percent was Hispanic/Latino; less than 1 percent was other. 5 We could not identify the racial/ethnic background of the remaining 8.3 percent based on available administrative data. Almost twothirds of sample members 65.7 percent did not have a high school diploma or GED; 10.1 percent had some education beyond high school. Finally, over 53.1 percent of all applicants had not received a W-2 payment in the 24 months prior to this application. other criteria for inclusion in the sample, the decision was made to retain her as part of this study s interview sample and interview her about her November 2006 application. 5 Other racial/ethnic category included Asian/Pacific Islander and Native American.

7 6 Table 2 Sample Characteristics Overall and by Agency DANE MAXIMUS UMOS YWCA OVERALL CHARACTERISTICS N % N % N % N % N % Age <18 years years years years or more Race*** White African American Latina/o Other Unknown Gender Female Education Level*** <HS =HS >HS Unknown Previous Employment None in previous 4 quarters Previous W-2 Receipt*** None in previous 24 months Children** No Children One Two Three or more Marital Status** Never married Pregnant Two-Parent Household ^Number of Applications* One Two Three or more ^ Refers to the number of applications in the time period under review.

8 7 The large majority of these applicants, 85.2 percent, applied at the three Milwaukee agencies: 374, or 19.6 percent, at the YWCA; 592, or 31 percent, at MAXIMUS; and 663, or 34.7 percent, at UMOS. The remaining 284 applicants, or 14.9 percent, applied at Dane County. As a first step in our analysis, we analyzed whether there were significant associations in applicant characteristics by agency affiliation using the chi-square test of independence. 6 The greatest associations found for applicant characteristics by agency were: Race - More than one-third of applicants in Dane County were white, compared to 2.1 percent at UMOS, 4.3 percent at the YWCA, and 6.8 percent at MAXIMUS. Education Level - A larger proportion of Dane County applicants 37 percent had a high school diploma or GED compared to 19 percent at the YWCA, 19.5 percent at UMOS, and 21.1 percent at MAXIMUS. Previous W-2 Receipt - Almost three-quarters of Dane County applicants had not received a W-2 payment in the 24 months prior to their application compared to approximately one-half of applicants in the three Milwaukee agencies. Other moderately significant characteristics identified include the number of children, marital status, and, to a lesser extent, number of applications during the time period under review. For the remaining characteristics included in the analysis age, previous employment, and pregnancy no associations were found. Application Outcomes Of the 1,913 applications received in the four agencies during September and October 2006, we determined that 93, or 4.9 percent, were still pending when the 60-day observation window expired. These cases had neither dropped out nor received a W-2 placement and thus were still in the application process. An additional 14 cases, or 0.7 percent, lacked sufficient administrative-appointment and/or worker-case-note information to determine the outcome of their case. Therefore, we eliminated these Characteristics found to be significant appear as bold text in tables. Applicant gender and two-parent households were excluded from chi-square analysis due to table cells with expected counts less than five. Levels of significance: *** p<.001; **p<.01;*p<.05.

9 8 cases from all subsequent analysis and focused on only those 1,806 applications that resulted in either an identified drop out or an identified W-2 tier placement. As reflected in Table 3, of these 1,806 applications, 998 or 55.3 percent, dropped out of the process before receiving a placement; 698, or 38.6 percent, received a W-2 cash tier placement; and 110, or 6.1 percent, received a W-2 non-cash tier placement. In the second step of our analysis, we examined whether the distribution of placements and drop outs varied by agency affiliation. We found, again using the chi-square test of independence, that the distribution of placements and drop outs was only moderately associated with agency affiliation. Applicant Characteristics by Outcome The characteristics of the 1,806 applicants for whom we were able to determine outcomes are shown in Table 4. (Detailed information about W-2 placements and drop outs by agency is included in Appendix D.) In the third step of our analysis of overall applicant outcomes, we analyzed the distribution of the characteristics of the 808 applicants who received a placement compared to the 998 who dropped out. Again using the chi-square test of independence, we found the distribution of placements and drop outs was most associated with: Number of Children Those with no children represented a larger proportion of drop outs (4.4 percent) and a much smaller proportion of placements (0.9 percent) compared to their proportion of the overall applicant population (2.8 percent). Pregnancy Almost one-quarter of all cases that received a placement were pregnant; only 4.9 percent of those who dropped out were pregnant. Of the overall sample, 13.2 percent were pregnant. Other characteristics that were significant included marital status and number of applications during the time period under review and, to a lesser extent, education level and previous employment. For the remaining characteristics included in the analysis previous W-2 receipt and race no statistically significant associations were found.

10 9 Table 3 W-2 Placements and Drop Outs By Agency DANE MAXIMUS UMOS YWCA TOTAL OUTCOME* N % N % N % N % N % Cash Tier % % % % Non-Cash Tier % Drop Out Total % % % % %

11 10 Table 4 W-2 Placements and Drop Outs Characteristics CHARACTERISTICS W-2 PLACEMENTS W-2 DROP OUTS OVERALL N % N % N % Age* <18 years years > Race White AA Latina/o Other Unknown Gender-Female Ed. Level* <HS HS/GED >HS Unknown Previous Employment* None in previous 4 quarters Previous W-2 Receipt None in previous 24 months Children*** No Children One Two Three or more Marital Status-Never Married** Pregnant Cases*** Two Parent HH Number^ of Applications** One Two Three or more ^ Refers to the number of applications in the time period under review

12 11 III. W-2 TIER PLACEMENTS Although the focus of this report is on the frequency of, and possible explanations for, applicant drop outs prior to eligibility determination, we also developed information about the placements that occurred during the time period under review. While not central to this report, this information will be needed to complete the analysis of the later well-being of dropouts and their children in relation to those who did not drop out of the process. Of the 808 applicants who received a placement, 110, or 13.6 percent, were placed in the case management only, or non-cash, tier; 245, or 30.3 percent, were placed in a Community Service Job (CSJ); 153, or 18.9 percent, were placed in the W-2 Transition (W2-T) tier; and 300, or 37.1 percent, were placed in a Caretaker of a Newborn (CMC) tier. None of the applicants were given a Trial Job. The characteristics of those who received a placement by placement type are reflected in Table 5. In the first step of our analysis of W-2 tier placements, again we employed chi-square analysis 7 to examine the relationship between characteristics of applicants and placement tier. There greatest associations in the distribution of tier placements occurred among the following applicant characteristics: Age Applicants age 33 and older were overrepresented in W-2T placements (38.6 percent) and underrepresented in CMC placements (4.3 percent). Applicants 18 years or younger were overrepresented in CSJ placements (18.4 percent) and underrepresented in W-2T placements (1.3 percent). Number of Children Applicants with only one child were overrepresented in CSJ (55.9 percent) as well as CMC (49.3 percent) placements relative to the proportion of all placements they represent (44.4 percent). Conversely, applicants with two children and those with three or more children were overrepresented in W-2T placements. Marital Status- Applicants who were single and had never been married were overrepresented in CSJ placements (92.2 percent) and CMC placements (95 percent) while those in both W-2T (82.4 percent) and case management only tiers (87.3 percent) were underrepresented. Education Those with less than a high school diploma were overrepresented in CSJ placements (78.8 percent) while being underrepresented in Case Management only tiers (56.4 percent). Those 7 Characteristics found to be significant appear as bold text in tables. Applicant gender and two-parent households were excluded from chi-square analysis due to table cells with expected counts less than five. Levels of significance: *** p<.001; **p<.01;*p<.05.

13 12 Table 5 W-2 Placements of Applicants Who Received a Placement CASH PLACEMENTS CSJ W-2T CMC NON-CASH PLACEMENTS TOTAL CHARACTERISTICS N % N % N % N % N % % Age*** <18 years or younger years years > Race*** White African American Latina/o Other Unknown Gender-Female Ed. Level*** <HS =HS Diploma/GED > HS Diploma/GED Unknown Previous Employment*** None in previous 4 quarters Previous W-2 Receipt*** None in previous 24 months Children*** No children One Two Three or more Marital Status-Never Married*** Pregnant Case*** Two-Parent HH Number^ of Applications One Two Three or more ^ Refers to the number of applications in the time period under review.

14 13 with a high school diploma were overrepresented in CMC placements (29.3 percent) relative to their overall proportion of placements (24.0 percent). Similarly, those with greater than a high school diploma were overrepresented in non-cash tier placements (17.3 percent) relative to their proportion of all placements (10.4 percent). Previous Employment Those with no employment in the previous four quarters were overrepresented in CSJ placements (51.0 percent) while being underrepresented in CMC (22.7 percent) and case management only (23.6 percent) placements. Previous W-2 Receipt Of those who received a CMC placement, 74.7 percent had not received W-2 in the 24 months preceding their application, compared to 55.6 percent of all applicants. Race/ethnicity White applicants were underrepresented in CSJ placements (6.1 percent) and overrepresented in both W2-T (13.7 percent) and CMC (13.3 percent) placements relative to the proportion of all placements they represent (9.6 percent). Conversely, African American applicants were overrepresented in CSJ placements (88.2 percent) relative to the proportion of all placements they represent (79.1 percent). Pregnancy As expected, cases defined as pregnant at the time of their application were overrepresented in CMC placements (41.3 percent) and underrepresented in CSJ (10.2 percent) compared to the proportion of all placements they represent (23.5 percent). In the second step of our analysis, we tested the distribution of W-2 tier placements across agencies and found significant associations between the patterns of placements and the agency. As reflected in Table 6, the proportion of applicants who received a CSJ ranged from a low of 4.8 percent in Dane County to a high of 41.9 percent in UMOS; the proportion of applicants who received a W-2T placement ranged from a low of 15.7 percent in MAXIMUS to a high of 26.7 percent in Dane County; the percentage of applicants who were placed in a CMC ranged from a low of 24.6 percent in UMOS to a high of 63.8 percent in Dane County; and the proportion of case management cases ranged from a low of 4.7 percent in Dane County to a high of 19.7 percent in MAXIMUS. Additional detail regarding the distribution and characteristics of applicants who were placed in a W-2 tier, by agency, is available in Appendix E.

15 14 Table 6 W-2 Tier Placements by Agency DANE TIER*** N % N % N % N % N % CSJ 5 4.8% % % % W-2T CMC Case Management Total % % % % %

16 15 IV. DROPOUTS A total of 998 individuals dropped out of the application process during the two-month observation window. This section analyzes these dropouts from two different perspectives: the juncture in the process at which they dropped out and how an applicant dropped out. Associations in distribution and characteristics of applicants by both drop-out juncture and drop-out reason, or how an applicant dropped out, were analyzed using chi-square 8 analysis. Agency-specific information regarding drop-out juncture is in Appendix F; agency-specific information about the distribution and characteristics of applicants by how they dropped out is included in Appendix G Drop-out Juncture As reflected in Table 7, of the 998 applicants who dropped out of the application process, 34.1 percent dropped out at the W-2 orientation, 9.1 percent at the Resource Specialist meeting, 31.9 percent at the 1 st FEP meeting, and 20.8 percent at the 2 nd FEP meeting. The remaining 4.1 percent dropped out at a FEP meeting that was defined as other within CARES. 9 Significant relationships were observed between applicant characteristics and the juncture at which applicants dropped out of the application process. The most significant differences were found in relation to race. Whites are overrepresented at the Resource Specialist drop-out juncture (22.0 percent compared to 8.1 percent of all dropouts). In contrast, African Americans, who compose 79.2 percent of dropouts overall, are underrepresented at the Resource Specialist juncture (60.4 percent) and overrepresented at the 2 nd FEP meeting drop-out juncture (86.1 percent). 8 Significant characteristics appear as bold text in section tables. As a sensitivity test, chi-square analyses were conducted that excluded cases determined ineligible (N = 10), those with zero children (N = 7), and cases with missing levels of education (N = 6). No differences in level of significance were observed across tests. Applicant gender and two-parent households were excluded from chi-square analysis due to table cells with expected counts less than five. Levels of significance: *** p<.001; **p<.01;*p< A total of 41 applicants dropped out at a FEP meeting defined as other by CARES. Given the small size of this group, a comparison of differences in demographics may not be meaningful. Rather, such differences may only reflect the small proportion of the sample they compose. Therefore, although this information is included in the table, it will not be discussed separately.

17 16 Table 7 Dropout Characteristics by Juncture Orientation Resource Specialist 1 st FEP Meeting 2 nd FEP Meeting Other FEP Meeting Total N % N % N % N % N % N % Characteristics Age Under 18 years years years years or older Race*** White AA Latina/o Others Unknown Gender-Female Education Level <HS HS/GED >HS Unknown Previous Employment** None in previous 4 Quarters Previous W2 Receipt** None in previous 24 months Children None One Two Three or more Marital Status-Never Married* Pregnant Cases Two-Parent HH ^Number of Applications One Two Three or more ^ Refers to the number of applications in the time period under review.

18 17 Other significant associations were found concerning: Previous Employment Those with no previous employment in the four quarters prior to application were overrepresented at the 1 st FEP meeting drop-out juncture (43.1 percent) and underrepresented at the other FEP meeting drop-out juncture (26.8 percent) and the Resource Specialist meeting drop-out juncture (36.3 percent). Previous W-2 Receipt Of those who dropped out at the Resource Specialist meeting there was the highest proportion of applicants without any W-2 receipt two years prior to their application for services (71.4 percent) relative to other drop-out junctures. Marital Status- Dropouts who were single and never married were underrepresented in dropping out at the Resource Specialist meeting and overrepresented at the 2 nd FEP meeting drop-out juncture. For the remaining characteristics included in the analysis age, number of children, education level, and pregnancy no associations were found. More striking, and significant, associations were found between how applicants dropped out of the process and the drop-out junctures. As reflected in Table 8, 94.1 percent of applicants who dropped out at the orientation appointment did so by not attending; 49.5 percent of those who dropped out after the RS meeting did so by declining services; 56.3 percent of those who dropped out after the 1st FEP meeting did so because they were denied services; and 71.2 percent of those who dropped out after the 2nd FEP meeting did so because they were denied services. Drop-Out Reason Table 9 reflects a shift in our analyses from analyzing the juncture at which an applicant dropped out to analyzing how an applicant dropped out. Overall, of the 998 individuals who dropped out of the application process, 1.0 percent was determined ineligible; 11.6 percent declined services; 12.9 percent attended their 2 nd FEP appointment, did not receive a placement, and did not return; 34.8 percent were denied services; and 39.7 percent did not return for a scheduled appointment. The two most significant associations between drop-out characteristics and drop-out reason were: Education Level - Those with less than a high school diploma were overrepresented in dropping out after being determined ineligible (70.0 percent), and being denied services (72.3 percent), and underrepresented in declining services (53.5 percent).

19 18 Table 8 Drop-out by Juncture and Reason Orientation Resource Specialist 1 st FEP Meeting 2 nd FEP Meeting Other FEP Meeting Total N % N % N % N % N % N % Drop-out Process*** Declined Services Determined Ineligible Denied Services No-Show Appointment Attended Last Appt. No return

20 19 Table 9 Dropout Reason by Characteristics Declined Services Determined Ineligible Denied Services No-Show Show-No Return Total N % N % N % N % N % N % Characteristics Age Under 18 years years years years or older Race** White AA Latina/o Others Unknown Gender-Female Education Level** <HS HS/GED >HS Unknown Previous Employment None in previous 4 quarters Previous W-2 Receipt* None in previous 24 months Children No Children One Two Three or more Marital Status-Never Married* Pregnant Cases* Two Parent HH Number of Applications^ * One Two Three or more ^Refers to the number of applications in the time period under review.

21 20 Race- African Americans were overrepresented in having services denied (83.6 percent) and underrepresented in dropping out by declining services (61.2 percent). In contrast, White dropouts were overrepresented in declining services (15.5 percent) and underrepresented in having services denied (4.9 percent). Four other characteristics no W-2 receipt in the previous 24 months, marital status, pregnancy, and number of applications in the time period under review were also only moderately significant in relation to drop-out reason. As would be expected, given the previous analysis of the association between drop-out reasons and drop-out junctures, there were also significant differences in the distribution of drop-out reasons across junctures. As reflected in Table 10, 80.8 percent of the no-shows occurred at the orientation dropout juncture; the largest proportion of drop outs due to a determination of ineligibility occurred at the 1 st FEP meeting; the proportion of dropouts due to a decline of services was very similar at both the Resource Specialist meeting and the 1 st FEP meeting; and almost all drop outs because of denial of services occurred at the 1 st and 2 nd FEP meeting. Overall, our initial analysis identified significant associations between applicant characteristics and related W-2 application outcomes. For those who dropped out of the application process, characteristics such as previous W-2 receipt, racial/ethnic background, marital status, and being pregnant were associated with the juncture at which an applicant dropped out and how they dropped out of the process. Moreover, significant relationships were observed for the level of education and the number of times they applied and how an applicant dropped out of the process. These results suggest that the background and characteristics of dropouts play a key role in how they drop out of the W-2 application process. The results do not, however, tell us the direction or magnitude of the relationship between individual characteristics and dropping out. Nor do they provide information about the individual circumstances surrounding a particular dropout reason..

22 21 Table 10 Drop-Out by Reason and Juncture Declined Services Determined Ineligible Denied Services No-Show Show-No Return Total N % N % N % N % N % N % Drop-out Juncture*** Orientation Resource Specialist st FEP meeting nd FEP meeting FEP Other

23 22 VI. APPLICANT PERSPECTIVES Although the information available through CARES provides insight into the junctures in the application process at which applicants dropped out and how they dropped out, it provides little insight into the thinking of applicants as they contemplated dropping out or into the circumstances behind their drop-out. To develop additional information on these issues, we conducted a series of one-on-one interviews with twenty individuals who had applied for W-2 but dropped out of the application process in April and May Of these applicants, 6 (30 percent) applied in Dane County; 4 (20 percent) applied at MAXIMUS; 6 (30 percent) applied at UMOS; and 4 (20 percent) applied at the YWCA. Table 11 reflects the characteristics of the dropouts who were interviewed, including demographic information and self-reported information about the support they were receiving at the time of the interview. All of those interviewed were female. They were, on average, 27 years old and had an average of 2.8 children. One-third of those eligible to receive it reported receiving some formal or informal child support, and 80 percent reported receiving informal support from family. At the time of the interview, 35 percent said they were employed. The interviewees reported multiple reasons for applying for services. Three key reasons emerged: 13 applicants applied following a job loss and an unsuccessful independent job search; 5 applicants applied for a CMC benefit due to a pregnancy; and two applied following housing difficulties and a partner split. Drop-out Circumstances and Applicant Perceptions Of the 20 applicants interviewed, 11, or 55 percent, did not return for a scheduled appointment at their W-2 agency; 8, or 40 percent, declined services; and 1, or 5 percent, was denied services. No-show for a scheduled appointment The 11 applicants who dropped out by missing a scheduled appointment fell into two general groups. Seven of the eleven believed they would not be placed in a cash tier based on the information they had received and thus chose not to return. These applicants expressed the belief that they could find employment on their own. The other four reported that they missed an appointment owing to circumstances beyond their control that affected their ability to attend. Of these, three reported a problem with transportation and one had been incarcerated. All four reported that they planned to or had already reapplied for W-2. These

24 23 applicants tended to be younger, and have less work history, and they reported valuing the employment opportunities the W-2 program offered. Moreover, all four indicated they expected to be placed in a cash tier once their application was processed. Declined Services The eight applicants interviewed who had dropped out by declining services all reported doing so based on their perception they were ineligible for a cash tier placement. One-half of these applicants were applying for a CMC placement and pregnant but not yet eligible for a cash payment. Of the pregnant applicants with whom we spoke, all were either currently employed, on leave from a job to which they intended to return after their maternity leave, or residing with the other parent of their unborn child. The other four applicants who declined services reported they had been assessed as job-ready. These applicants were typically older, had work histories, and reported they would be better off searching for employment on their own than enrolling in a non-cash tier. Denied services One applicant was denied services because she was unable to resolve a FoodShare sanction within the allotted application period. This applicant reported difficulty in accessing Milwaukee County services in a timely manner.

25 24 Table 11 Interview Sample Characteristics Demographics N % Average Age 27 N/A Number of Children Married/Cohabitating 7 35 Disability Mom 4 20% Child 3 -- Child Support Formal 1 5% Informal 5 25% Housing Assistance Formal 2 10% Informal 15 75% Informal Supports Family 16 80% Friends 4 20% Non Profit 8 40% Partner 13 65% Employed 7 35% * 4 respondents were married at the time of the interview; therefore, only 16 respondents were child support eligible. The proportions for child support are based on N = 16.

26 25 The Application Experience In considering the experience of the applicants who were interviewed, it is apparent that demographics play a role in their perceptions of the experience. The following observations describe relationships between four key applicant characteristics pregnancy/recent birth, two-parent households, previous work experience, and barriers and the application process. Pregnancy/Recent Birth - All applicants seeking a CMC placement expressed dissatisfaction with the application process, particularly given their perception that a CMC placement is a benefit placement rather than a work-related placement. They cited numerous concerns, including the difficulty they faced in attending appointments shortly after giving birth. They all suggested altering the application process so that they could more easily apply, or reapply, for W-2 upon the birth of the child without returning to the agency. Two-Parent Household Status - Four of the applicants two of whom were applying for a CMC benefit were considered members of two-parent households when they applied. Three of these applicants declined case management services only, which they were told they had been offered because two-parent households are ineligible for a cash assistance placement. The fourth applicant in this status reported that agency staff had informed her that she would better off banking her months of W-2 for the future and that case management services would use up her W-2 time clock. In all four cases, the applicants misunderstood the rules and reported having been given incorrect information. Previous Work Experience - Applicants who were older and had a job history differed in important ways from their younger, less experienced counterparts. Overall, older applicants with a job history valued the work-first philosophy of W-2 but were less likely to view the program as beneficial to their own ability to secure employment. In particular, given their job history and skills, these applicants questioned the utility of soft skills training, check-in requirements, and pre-eligibility job search for themselves, although they did allow that such requirements might help younger, less experienced applicants. For themselves, they thought that W-2 should operate as a short-term income resource they could access while they tried to secure employment on their own. Applicants with Barriers Of the four applicants who reported having a barrier to work, three reported a diagnosed learning disability; one of these three also reported a concurrent mental health concern. The other applicant reported a mental health barrier for which she was receiving treatment at the time of the interview. Three of these applicants dropped out of the application process by not showing up for a scheduled appointment; the fourth was the individual denied services because she was unable to resolve a FoodShare sanction with Milwaukee County. These applicants did not always understand the requirements of W-2. For example, one of the applicants with a learning disability believed that acceptance of a CMS placement would draw down her W-2 lifetime eligibility; another believed she had to wait two weeks to reapply every time she missed a scheduled orientation. Overall, interviews with applicants offered additional information about factors that contributed to an applicant s decision to drop out. In general, the interviews augment some of the administrative data

27 26 findings of relationships between applicant characteristics and applicant drop outs. For example, the administrative data show pregnant applicants to be overrepresented in the pool of applicants who declined services. The interviews suggest that one reason that pregnant applicants disproportionately decline services stems from their belief that they would be eligible for a cash tier before the birth. Once they do become eligible after giving birth, they are likely to reapply and obtain cash assistance. The applicant interviews also raise the possibility that that some attributes that cannot be measured by administrative data may have an effect on dropouts. For example, the administrative data indicates that the greatest number of applicants drop out by not showing up for a scheduled appointment and significantly fewer drop out by declining services. The interviews suggest that some of those who did not show for a scheduled appointment were motivated by the same understanding as those who declined services a belief that they would be ineligible for cash assistance. V. DROPOUT RESULTS AFTER THE IMPOSITION OF STATISTICAL CONTROLS FOR APPLICANT CHARACTERISTICS AND W-2 AGENCY In this section of the report, we are seeking to address the overall question of whether the variation in outcomes of the application process by applicant characteristics, including the agency at which the applicant applied, remains once we control for other observable characteristics. With this goal in mind, we use descriptive OLS regression models 10 to examine the extent to which applicant characteristics reflected in Appendix H were associated with: dropping out versus receiving a W-2 placement among all applicants; dropping out of the application process for specific reasons (e.g., dropping out by not showing for a scheduled appointment, declining services, or having services denied) versus receiving a W-2 placement for all applicants; and dropping out for specific reasons (e.g., dropping out by not showing for a scheduled appointment, declining services, or having services denied) for dropouts only. 10 Sample members excluded from all regression analysis included: male applicants, two-parent households, applicants determined ineligible, and cases that were not pregnant and had no recorded custodial children in administrative data, resulting in N = 1,687.

28 27 In considering the findings, it is important to note that these are descriptive models testing correlations between variables, rather than causal relationships. Relationship between Applicant Characteristics and Outcomes among All Applicants The estimated relationship between applicant characteristics and dropping out of the W-2 application process for all applicants is reported as Model 1 in Appendix I. In summary, we found: Pregnant applicants and non-pregnant applicants with a child younger than two years were significantly less likely to drop out relative to applicants who were not pregnant and had a dependent child between two and five years of age. Pregnant applicants who had no other children were significantly more likely to drop out relative to applicants with one dependent child. Applicants who applied for services at the YWCA or UMOS were significantly less likely to drop out of the application process relative to applicants at Dane County, after controlling for all other observable applicant characteristics in the model; we found no significant differences between MAXIMUS and Dane County. 11 Relationship between Characteristics and Drop-out Reason among All Applicants We also examined the relationship between applicant characteristics and drop-out reasons for all applicants, regardless of whether they dropped out of the process or received a placement. The results are reported, as Models 2, 3 and 4, in Appendix J. The following summarizes what we found, based on dropout reason. No-Show for an Appointment Applicants who were not pregnant and had a child two years or younger were significantly less likely to not show for a scheduled appointment relative to those who had children between the ages of two and five years. Being pregnant with no other dependent children, which was significant across all other models, was not significant in predicting dropping out by not showing up for a scheduled appointment. 11 Individual models for dropping out, declining, denied services, and not-showing up for a scheduled appointment between Milwaukee County agencies and Dane County were conducted as a sensitivity test. Levels of significance or significant predictors did not change.

29 28 Those who applied at Milwaukee agencies were significantly less likely to drop out by not showing for a scheduled appointment relative to those who applied for services at Dane County, controlling for the other observable client characteristics. Declined Services 12 Those who received W-2 cash assistance for greater than one month but less than six months 24 months prior to their application were more likely to decline services relative to those who did not receive W-2 cash assistance at all. Never married applicants were significantly less likely to decline services. Applicants who were pregnant without other dependent children were more likely to decline services than those who were not. Applicants at all the Milwaukee agencies were statistically significantly less likely to decline services than applicants at Dane County, controlling for other differences in client characteristics. Denied Services Those who were pregnant but without a dependent born child were more likely to have services denied relative to applicants who were pregnant and had other children. Those who applied at MAXIMUS were significantly less likely to have services denied than were those who applied for services at Dane County, controlling for other differences in client characteristics. Relationship between Characteristics of Dropouts and Drop-out Reasons Finally, we examined the relationship between individual characteristics of dropouts only and the drop-out reason. These models, the results of which are reflected in Appendix K, explore the relationship between drop-out applicant characteristics and dropping out by: missing a scheduled appointment (Model 5); declining services (Model 6) and; having services denied (Model 7). The results from these models were similar to those found for full sample models with the three following exceptions: There was little relationship between our selected characteristics and dropping out by not showing up for a scheduled appointment. 12 Chow Test analyses were performed to test for interactions between explanatory variables and racial/ethnic group membership across all four models. Some differences in coefficient strength and direction by race were found only for Model 3: decline services. The magnitude of effects, however, was small. Please refer to Appendix K to examine Chow test analyses by race/ethnicity for Model 3.

30 29 Age was a significant factor in declining services for dropouts. For example, applicants between 19 and 24 years of age and those who were 33 years of age or older were significantly less likely to decline services relative to those who were 18 years or younger. W-2 dropouts at the YWCA and MAXIMUS were significantly more likely have services denied than their Dane County counterparts. Overall, the models employed served to reinforce some, but not all, of the observations regarding dropouts developed from the simple descriptive data and the qualitative interviews. For example, applicants have significantly different outcomes regarding dropping out, declining services, or having services denied, relative to the agency at which they apply for services. This is particularly true in comparing Dane County with all three Milwaukee agencies. Moreover, whether an applicant is pregnant with or without other children remained significant in both dropping out in general as well as how an applicant drops out of the process even after controlling for other factors. After holding other applicant characteristics constant, the models do not suggest that applicant characteristics of age, prior work experience, or race/ethnicity are consistently or significantly associated with declining services or dropping out of the application process (although the descriptive data and interviews did suggest the importance of previous employment to the application process). Finally, although the interviews seemed to indicate that differences between applicants who dropped out by declining services and those who dropped out for other reasons were not as great as the descriptive data may have indicated, our models supported the conclusion that these differences do exist, even after controlling for other applicant characteristics. VII. FINAL THOUGHTS This report provides a significant amount of insight into the proportion and characteristics of people who begin and then drop out of the W-2 application process in a specific time period, overall and by individual agency. Although our analysis initially focused on better understanding who was dropping out of the process based on the key junctures at which a drop out may occur, we now believe based on descriptive, interview, and multivariate analyses that more insight can be gained by considering how an