Connecticut's Jobs First Program: An Analysis of Welfare Leavers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report focuses on people who entered the Jobs First evaluation when they were applying for or receiving cash assistance in the Manchester and New Haven (Connecticut) Department of Social Services offices between January-June 1996 and who left cash assistance within 18 months after entering the program (before reaching the 21-month time limit). Section II describes methodology used in analyses. Section III reviews the Jobs First program model, highlighting aims and these key program features: time limit, earned income disregard, and mandatory first employment services. Section IV examines baseline characteristics of leavers and non-leavers. Section V presents data on employment, earnings, cash assistance receipt, and Food Stamp use from the quarter before sample members exited from welfare to the fourth quarter after exit. Section VI presents characteristics of leavers at the 18-month interim survey. Section VII examines leavers in relation to the time limit. Section VIII concludes the following: one key effect of Connecticut's unusually generous earned income disregard is that individuals who left welfare for work before reaching the time limit typically had relatively good jobs and did not return to welfare quickly; because of the way the time limit is implemented, sample members who left owing to the time limit were very likely to be employed; a large proportion of leavers lack health insurance; and many leavers have low household incomes. (YLB) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Connecticut's Jobs First Program: An Analysis of Welfare Leavers Laura Melton Dan Bloom U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION received CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as receiv d from the person or organization riginating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".