Policy Debate: Have Learnfare programs resulted in improved school attendance?

Our Learnfare and Merit Incentives programs are playing a key role in creating a positive learning experience for thousands of children throughout New York... By encouraging parental involvement, promoting good attendance in the classroom, and rewarding students who demonstrate academic excellence, we are laying the groundwork for a brighter, more fulfilling future for students all across the Empire State.

In the increasingly complex, technology and information-driven economy of the 21st Century, having a solid educational background will be absolutely essential if our children are going to avoid the heartbreaking cycle of dependency on government assistance.
~New York State Governor George Pataki, 8/3/99

LEARNfare appears to have little impact. To start with, the program may have been unnecessary. Children of parents receiving AFDC are not more likely to miss school than are other children.... Moreover, LEARNfare does not appear to increase the likelihood that children will stay in school.
~Michael Tanner

It has long been observed that welfare recipients, on average, tend to have relatively low levels of educational attainment. (A discussion of the relationship between education and earnings may be found in the debate dealing with investments in education.) Since workfare seemed to be successful in encouraging welfare recipients to work, it was thought that a similar incentive system could encourage children from low-income households to remain in school.

Critics of learnfare programs note that teenagers are not the direct recipient of TANF grants and thus do not bear the full effects of the incentives of a learnfare system. Parents of teenagers receive the financial sanctions associated with school absences or dropouts but they do not have complete control over their children's attendance decisions. Critics note that teenage years are often periods in which many children rebel against their parents and may not take into account the full costs of their actions. A study of the Wisconsin learnfare system indicated that a large proportion of households sanctioned under learnfare had been investigated for allegations of child abuse or child neglect.

Several studies, however, indicate that children from low-income households do not have higher rates of unexcused absences than do children from other households. Combining this result with the studies that show little or no impact of learnfare on attendance, critics of learnfare have suggested that it serves as an ineffective solution to a nonexistent problem.

Supporters of learnfare argue that teenagers will be harmed by a reduction in family income. Parents can alter the allocation of resources in the household so that the costs of non-attendance is borne, in large part, by those who are responsible for the reduction in household income. In any case, parents face an incentive to encourage school attendance to avoid economic sanctions. It is argued that this program will reduce high school dropout rates among children from low-income households and will make it less likely that fewer generations will be dependent on welfare benefits.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 requires that teenage parents under the age of 18 be enrolled in school or in an approved education or training program if they are to receive federal funds under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. Thus, even states that do not adopt an across-the-board learnfare system must introduce a form of learnfare for teenage parents that seek assistance under TANF. One of the first such programs was Ohio's "Learning, Earning, and Parenting" (LEAP) program. Ohio's program (which predates this requirement by several years) applies to teenage parents who have not completed high school or a GED under the age of 20 who receive public assistance (teenage parents over the age of 18 in Ohio may, however, choose a workfare option instead of maintaining educational enrollment). Under the LEAP program, the following incentive structure is used:

• teens who meet the attendance requirements for a month receive a bonus of $62 in their monthly welfare check.
• teens who do not attend a mandatory initial assessment interview, who do not enroll in school, or who exceed the maximum number of unexcused absences receive a $62 reduction in their monthly TANF benefits.
• teens enrolled in school who exceed the maximum number of absences, but not the maximum number of unexcused absences, have an unchanged level of monthly TANF benefits.

Empirical evidence on the effects of learnfare have been a bit mixed. Ohio's learnfare program for teenage parents appears to have been effective in increasing grade completion and GED completion rates, particularly for teenagers who had not already dropped out of school when they applied for TANF. Studies of Wisconsin's learnfare program, however, using a substantially larger sample have found no significant effects on high school graduation rates. The learnfare program in New York was allowed to expire without any systematic study of its impact.

There is general agreement in the studies, however, that learnfare can save money for the states that implement such programs. While there are implementation costs, these costs have appeared to be less than the savings generated by the sanctions imposed on low-income households. Critics argue, however, that this outcome is inequitable since this surplus results from a reduction in the income of some of the poorest members of society.

As more studies become available, a consensus on the impact of learnfare may emerge. At this stage, however, opinions on the impact and desirability of a learnfare system remain quite divided.

Primary Resources and Data

• Data and Program Library Service, "An Evaluation of the Learnfare Program, 1993-1996"
  http://dpls.dacc.wisc.edu/learnfare/
  This website contains information about Wisconsin's Learnfare program. Data from a study of this program between the years of 1993 and 1996 are available at this site. Links to a series of evaluations of the effectiveness of the program are also available from this web site. (The studies suggest that, after a few semesters of implementation, the program had no significant effect on attendance.)

• Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3734.ENR:htm
  This Act established a federal program of providing Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a block grant program that replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). One of the requirements of this Act is that teenage parents (under the age of 18) who have not completed high school must be enrolled in high school or in an approved education or training program to be eligible to receive TANF funds. This requirement essentially requires states to introduce learnfare programs for teenage parents.

• Policies of the School Board of Palm Beach County, "Violation of Attendance Requirements for the Learnfare Program
  http://www.palmbeach.k12.fl.us/policies/5_094.htm
  This website, provided by the School Board of Palm Beach County, contains a brief description of Florida's Learnfare program.

• Florida's Learnfare Act
  http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/01laws/ch_2001-149.pdf
  This document contains the text of Florida's Learnfare law, as amended on June 1, 2001. (The Adobe Acrobat viewer plugin is required to view this document. You may download this viewer by clicking here).

• Lawskills.com, "Learnfare"
  http://www.lawskills.com/code/ga/49/4/192/
  This document, provided by Lawskills.com, contains the text of the bill creating Georgia's Learnfare system.

• Claire McIntire, "Learnfare"
  http://www.doe.mass.edu/mailings/1997/cm091797.pdf
  This September 15, 1997 memo to Massachusetts School Superintendents and Principals describes the reporting requirements under the Massachusetts Learnfare system. (This memo appears on p. 4 of the document.) The Adobe Acrobat viewer plugin is required to view this document. You may download this viewer by clicking here.

• David A. Long and Johannes M. Bos, "Learnfare: How to Implement a Mandatory Stay-in-School Program for Teenage Parents on Welfare"
  http://www.mdrc.org/Reports/Learnfare.pdf
  David A. Long and Johannes M. Bos argue that a learnfare system may be useful for teen parents in this September 1998 Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation online document. A large share of welfare cases begin with births to teenage mothers who do not complete high school. It is argued that keeping these teenage mothers in school can reduce future welfare costs. The discussion in this article is based primarily on an analysis of Ohio's "Learning, Earning, and Parenting" (LEAP) program, a program that was first implemented in 1989.

  An evaluation of the outcomes from this program found somewhat mixed results. 93% of enrolled teen parents experienced at least one upward or downward adjustment in their grants. A typical teen parent experienced approximately six grant adjustments in an 18-month period. The program appeared to have a significant and positive effect on school enrollment and grade completion for grades 9 through 11. It did not, however, have a significant effect on high school graduation rates, although it did significantly increase the proportion of teen parents receiving a GED. The program appeared to be more successful for teens who had not yet dropped out, were younger, and had fewer children. Over a four-year period, the program had a significant effect on employment outcomes for teens who were already enrolled in school when they began participating in LEAP. It did not have a significant effect for those who had already left school before beginning their participation. The study concludes that this program reduced the overall cost of the welfare program for participants in Ohio. Teens in the program, however, experienced an income loss of approximately $1,100 over a 4-year period. (The Adobe Acrobat viewer plugin is required to view this document. You may download this viewer by clicking here).

• Abt Associates, "Abt Associates Finds Welfare Children Miss More School than Others"
  http://www.abtassoc.com/Page.cfm?PageID=16132
  This March 1, 2000 press release summarizes the results of an Abt Associates study that indicates that children from low-income households have more school absences. Most of these additional absences, however, are excused absences that appear to be the result of health problems. It is suggested that improved health care, rather than a learnfare system, may be the best method of addressing this concern.

• David J. Fein, Wang S. Lee, and E. Christina Shofield, "The ABC Evaluation: Do Welfare Recipients' Children Have a School Attendance Problem?"
  http://www.abtassoc.com/reports/sch5.pdf
  David J. Fein, Wang S. Lee, and E. Christina Shofield examine school attendance patterns by income level in this August 1999 evaluation of the Delaware welfare reform program. Using data from Delaware, as well as national data, it is found that differences in unexcused absences are low across income groups. The children of welfare recipients, however, have a higher rate of total absences. Illness accounts for approximately 80% of the difference in attendance rates. (The Adobe Acrobat viewer plugin is required to view this document. You may download this viewer by clicking here).

• Johannes M. Bos and Veronica Fellerath, "Final Report on Ohio’s Welfare Initiative to Improve School Attendance Among Teenage Parents"
  http://www.mdrc.org/publications/149/full.pdf
  This very extensive August 1997 report examines the Learning, Earning, and Parenting (LEAP) program in Ohio. This program used a system of financial rewards and punishments to encourage higher school attendance among teen parents on welfare. This program was found to have increased school attendance and reduced welfare expenditures. Participants in the program had GED completion rates and employment outcomes than did other teen parents. The program did not significantly benefit teens who were not in school when they first became eligible for the program. (The Adobe Acrobat viewer plugin is required to view this document. You may download this viewer by clicking here).

• Educational Priorities Panel, "EPP May 1995 Letter on Learnfare"
  http://www.edpriorities.org/Pubs/Opinion/Letters95/Let95_Lernfare.html
  This May 1995 letter to Governor George Pataki presents the Educational Priorities Panel's arguments against a learnfare system. It is argued that there is no evidence that learnfare has worked elsewhere. Alternative remedies that have been shown to be successful are proposed.

• Office of the New York State Governor, "Funding to Increase for Learnfare, Merit Incentives"
  http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/99/aug03_11_99.htm
  This August 3, 1999 press release summarizes New York State Governor George Pataki's views on Learnfare. He claims that Learnfare will help "to foster a more positive and rewarding learning experience for thousands of children attending New York's public schools." (This program was not renewed in 2000.)

• Alexander Nguyen, "No Fanfare for Learnfare"
  http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/8/nguyen-a.html
  Alexander Nguyen raises questions concerning the efficacy of New York State's expanded Learnfare program in this February 28, 2000 American Prospect article. He notes that no evidence is presented that suggests that children from low-income households have lower school attendance rates than children from other households. Nguyen cites several studies in other states that have found no significant relationship between school attendance and household income. He also observes that several studies have found that learnfare systems have had no significant positive effects on school attendance rates.

• Autumn Barbosa, "Learnfare Falls Short"
  http://www.edpriorities.org/Pubs//PubsArchive/Winter01/01Win_LearnFallShort.html
  Autumn Barbosa discusses the reasons behind the demise of the New York State Learnfare system. It is noted that several previous studies of learnfare programs in other states did not find significant improvements in school attendance rates in response to participation in a learnfare system. It is argued that part of the problem was an inefficient implementation system caused by insufficient funding for the reporting and counseling requirements. The diverse reactions of school district representatives to this learnfare system are also presented.

• John Pawasarat and Lois M. Quinn, "The Impact of Learnfare on Milwaukee County Social Service Clients"
  http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/ETI/pages/surveys/each/learn390.htm
  John Pawasarat and Lois M. Quinn examine the effect of Learnfare on Milwaukee County social service clients in this March 1990 report. This report summarizes research results from a "review of over four million client computer records, including all Children's Court records since 1979, family service records since at least 1987, and all records on individuals in the income maintenance system including all Learnfare participants from September 1988 through December 1989." The focus of this study was on households where there had been some indication of either child abuse or neglect. The study finds that a large share (20%) of teens sanctioned under Learnfare were from homes in which there had been indications of child abuse or neglect. An even larger proportion of teen parents sanctioned under learnfare (over 1/3) were from families that had been investigated for abuse or neglect. A large proportion (41%) of those receiving sanctions had been either involved with Children's Court in some way or had been in a household in which charges of neglect or abuse had been investigated.

• John Pawasarat, Lois M. Quinn, and Frank Stetzer, "Evaluation of the Impact of Wisconsin's Learnfare Experiment on the School Attendance of Teenagers Receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children"
  http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/ETI/pages/surveys/each/learn292.htm
  In this February 1992 Employment and Training Institute document, John Pawasarat, Lois M. Quinn, and Frank Stetzer examine the effects of the Wisconsin Learnfare program. This study was commissioned by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services. School attendance records for over 50,000 teens in Milwaukee public schools and 6,000 teenagers in five other state school districts outside of Milwaukee were examined over a 6-year period. The study found that, ceteris paribus, learnfare participants had school attendance patterns that were not significantly better than those of other teenagers. In fact, Milwaukee teens who participated in learnfare exhibited a statistically significant higher rate of absences than the control group of teens who did not participate in learnfare. In particular, it was noted that, "[a]fter one year of Learnfare, nearly half (47 percent) of in-school youth whose families received AFDC sanctions for their poor attendance dropped out of school completely."

  In a note appended to this document, Lois M. Quinn indicates that the Wisconsin Department of Health and Human Services attempted to suppress these findings and requested a revision of their evaluation. The Department of Health and Human Services canceled their contract with the Employment and Training Institute when the Institute refused to do follow these instructions.

• Michael Tanner, "Ending Welfare as We Know It"
  http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-212.html
  Michael Tanner discusses problems with the current welfare system in this July 7, 1994 Cato Policy Analysis paper. As part of this analysis, he notes that there is no evidence that low-income households have greater problems with school attendance than do other households. Furthermore, he notes that there is no compelling evidence indicating that this program achieves its objective.

• American Civil Liberties Union, "Background Briefing: The Civil Liberties Issues of Welfare Reform"
  http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=9041&c=146
  In this April 1995 document, the American Civil Liberties Union raises concerns over Learnfare (and several other forms of recent welfare reform). It is argued that this program imposes costs on the entire household, including other children in the household who have good attendance records. The ACLU notes that studies of Wisconsin's program find no significant effect on dropout rates.

• Paul Offner, "Teenagers and Welfare Reform"
  http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410808_teenagers_and_welfare_reform.pdf
  Paul Offner examines the effect of welfare reform on teen parents. As part of this analysis, he reviews studies of the outcomes of specific learnfare programs. The results have been mixed. Offner observes that programs that provide financial rewards as well as penalties seem to have better effect on attendance and school completion than those programs that rely solely on penalties. (The Adobe Acrobat viewer plugin is required to view this document. You may download this viewer by clicking here).