|
|
|
Findings Available
Final Implementation Findings
Findings
|
01/01/97:
Alabama ASSETS Demonstration: Final Report: Evaluation of the Alabama Avenues to Self-Sufficiency through Employment and Training Services (ASSETS) Demonstration
|
|
Final Implementation Findings:
"Overall, an adult receiving AFDC and /or NA benefits was far more likely to be referred to an E&T activity in the ASSETS counties than in the comparison counties"(vi).
"ASSETS did not lead to statistically significant increases in adults’ employment, over three years after entering the demonstration"(vii).
"There were no statistically significant increases in annual earnings found for adults in any ASSETS county"(vii).
"ASSETS increased the involvement in the CSE system of NA-only families with children"(viii).
"ASSETS increased support payments to children in NA-only households over all three years after sample entry in Limestone County, and in the first year in Madison County, but had no impact on support payments in Clarke County"(viii).
"ASSETS increased welfare payments in Clarke and Madison Counties, and reduced payments in Limestone County"(ix).
"ASSETS generally reduced welfare activity [overall] in Limestone and Madison counties and had no effect on welfare activity in Clarke County"(ix).
"ASSETS generally increased activity in AFDC in all three ASSETS counties. ASSETS impacts on NA activity, however, were mixed"(ix).
"The proportion of active welfare clients working was lower under ASSETS than in the comparison counties, and the degree to which families combined AFDC and NA benefits was higher under ASSETS"(x).
"ASSETS generally did increase Medicaid eligibility, but not in exactly the same pattern as AFDC activity"(x).
"For each demonstration county ASSETS consistently reduced the combined administrative costs for the AFDC, food stamp, Medicaid, and E&T program...Assets reduced overall case management administrative costs"(xi).
"ASSETS increased the mean monthly costs of active CSE cases, as well as overall administrative CSE costs, in all three demonstration counties"(xi).
"Clients’ monthly household incomes were lower, and government costs were higher under ASSETS"(xii).
|
| |
|
04/01/93:
Alabama ASSETS Demonstration: The Effect of Food Stamp Cash Out on Participants and Food Retailers in the Alabama ASSETS Demonstration
|
Interim Descriptive Findings
- Total food expenditures, adjusted for household size and composition, were about 18 percent lower for the ASSETS households than for comparison households.
- ASSETS households spent about 4 percent more of their food budgets on food away from home, yet both groups ate about the same number of meals (less than 3) away from home each week and spent about the same amount for them.
- Total expenditures per household were similar for ASSETS and comparison households. ASSETS households, on average, spent more on shelter and transportation than do comparison households.
- Although food expenditures are lower for ASSETS households, about 80 percent of households in both groups report having enough to eat, if not always the types of foods they would prefer.
- There is no evidence of large or widespread increases in food prices or rents related to cashout. ASSETS participants do pay significantly more in rent than comparison households, but it appears that much of the rent differential existed before cash-out was implemented.
- Nearly 60 percent of ASSETS participants prefer checks to food stamp coupons, and only about 15 percent prefer coupons.
- Most food retailers in the ASSETS counties do not view cash-out favorably. Managers of supermarkets in particular overwhelmingly prefer food stamp coupons to checks.
- Food retailers report that total store sales, food sales, and profits have decreased as a result of cash-out.
- The effect of cash-out on household food expenditures was larger in the ASSETS demonstration than in two other major studies.
|
| |
|
11/01/92:
Alabama ASSETS Demonstration: Interim Implementation and Process Report
|
Interim Implementation Findings
- Food stamps and AFDC are consolidated into one program providing a
single cash grant; eligibility rules, program definitions, and
administrative procedures are simplified and streamlined.
- ASSETS broadens the requirement among recipients to participate in an employment and training program.
- ASSETS extends the requirement to cooperate with efforts to establish courtordered child support obligations.
- ASSETS case managers are responsible for administering all income assistance programs, determining Medicaid eligibility, and providing recipient access to employment and training services.
|
| |
|
|
