National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendices
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

APPENDIX A
Leaver Studies

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

TABLE A-1 Fourteen ASPE Leaver Study Grantees: Summary Description of Proposals and Plans (as of 7/8/99)

Study Characteristics

Arizona

Outcomes

 

Adults

Employment, earnings, recidivism, other program and private assistance receipt, child support, reason for leaving TANF, health and health care coverage, and barriers to self-sufficiency

Children

Child care receipt and quality, use of child welfare services

Population

 

Study population

Former recipients of cash assistance

Definition of leavers

Case closed for at least 2 months; also sample of 1-month leavers

Divertees/applicants

No; Arizona's diversion program not implemented yet

Eligible, not participating

No

Child-only cases

No

Unit of observation

Closed case

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

TANF closed cash assistance cases 10/96–12/96; similar 2nd cohort 1/98–3/98 (after EMPOWER—Track I program began)

Comparison groups

Reason for case closure, across local economic conditions, urban/rural, education level, age, and marital status

Administrative Data

 

Sources

Cash assistance, food stamp, Medicaid, UI, JOBS, child care, child support, child protective services, emergency assistance

Years/time covered

Both cohorts tracked for 12 months; data as far back as 1990

Linkages

Cohort II data linked with survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Random sample of all Cohort II closed cases

Design

Stratified by reason for closing (2 strata); mixed mode survey

Number of observations

Hope to have 400 completed surveys from each strata; will sample 1,200 cases

Response rate

Aiming for 67%

Timing

Surveyed approximately one year after case closed

Subcontractor

Currently none

Special Features

 

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

Cuyahoga County, OH

Outcomes

 

Adults

Employment, earnings, recidivism, other program and private assistance receipt, household composition, material well-being, health and health care coverage, income, and barriers to self-sufficiency

Children

Child care arrangements, child living arrangements, and child health

Population

 

Study population

Former recipients of TANF

Definition of leavers

Case closed for at least 2 months

Divertees/applicants

Not as part of this grant, but may for another project

Eligible, not participating

No

Child-only cases

Not in survey but may track ''true'' child-only cases with administrative data

Unit of observation

Closed case

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Cohort I: left AFDC/TANF 3rd quarter of 1996;

Cohort II: left TANF 3rd quarter of 1998

Comparison groups

Cohort I vs. Cohort II; by welfare history (long vs. short term), work experience, reason for leaving, earnings, age of parents, number of kids, marital status, race; Cohort II, education level and public housing usage

Administrative Data

 

Sources

UI and welfare administrative records, food stamps, Medicaid 750 randomly selected from each cohort; reports results on all of cohort I

Years/time covered

1 year pre-and post-leaving

Linkages

Cohort II data linked with survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Random sample of single parent households from Cohort II

Design

Mixed mode, 30 minute interviews

Number of observations

Hope to have 300 completed surveys

Response rate

MDRC committed to 78% response rate

Timing

Surveyed 1 year after case closed

Subcontractor

Part of MDRC Urban Change Project, Case Western Reserve

Special Features

 

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

District of Columbia

Outcomes

 

Adults

Employment, earnings, barriers to self-sufficiency, sources of public and private income, family well-being, recidivism, and health care coverage

Children

Child care situation

Population

 

Study population

TANF leavers

Definition of leavers

Case closed for at least 2 months

Divertees/applicants

No divertees; DC diversion program not yet implemented

Eligible, not participating

No

Child-only cases

 

Unit of observation

Closed case, family

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Cohort I: left TANF 3rd quarter of 1997; Cohort II: left TANF 4th quarter of 1998; administrative data and focus groups for Cohort I; survey data for Cohort II

Comparison groups

Reason for leaving, whether return to TANF or not, by education level and whether or not receive other assistance

Administrative Data

 

Sources

TANF, food stamps, general assistance, SSI, Medicaid, foster care

Years/time covered

As far back as 1992; will track leavers for 1 year

Linkages

Not linked with survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

TANF leavers between October and December 1998

Design

Mixed mode survey; $20 incentive payment

Number of observations

Random sample of 500; survey will draw on NSAF

Response rate

Assumes a 75% response rate

Timing

6 months after left TANF

Subcontractor

Urban Institute

Special Features

Linking with unemployment insurance data not as useful because many work in Virginia or Maryland or for the federal government

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

Florida

Outcomes

 

Adults

Employment, earnings, financial well-being, health care coverage and health, housing and transportation situations, emotional situation, family stability, recidivism, use of other programs, and barriers to self-sufficiency

Children

Child care situation, child abuse, and neglect

Population

 

Study population

Participants who left (plus groups below) Florida's WAGES program

Definition of leavers

Case closed for at least 2 months

Divertees/applicants

Yes; WAGES applicants who never enrolled (no formal program)

Eligible, not participating

Yes; those participating in food stamps and/or Medicaid but not TANF

Child-only cases

No

Unit of observation

Individuals who left and their families

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Three groups above: (1) Left in 2nd quarter of 1997 (n ≆ 30,000); (2) applied in 2nd quarter of 1997 (n ≆ 9,500); (3) received food stamps or Medicaid, had minor kids and income below limit, no participation 3rd quarter of 1997 (n ≆ 12,000)

Comparison groups

Compare outcomes across three groups and by regional coalitions, racial and ethnic groups, rural vs. urban

Administrative Data

 

Sources

TANF, food stamps, Medicaid, child support, and employment data

Years/time covered

Tracked for 1 year

Linkages

Linked with survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

State sample: 1,000 completed surveys for each of three study groups; four samples from regional coalitions, 1,000 in each study group in all four regions

Design

Telephone survey

Number of observations

Approximately 15,000

Response rate

 

Timing

Surveys in field in March 1999

Subcontractor

Florida State University will help with survey

Special Features

State board and 24 regional coalitions of public and private partnerships who manage program

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

Georgia

Outcomes

 

Adults

Employment, earnings, income, other supports, ratio of income to needs, self-sufficiency, health care coverage, mental health, and recidivism

Children

Child care, absent father involvement, and child well-being

Population

 

Study population

Women who have left welfare

Definition of leavers

No cash assistance for at least 2 consecutive months

Divertees/applicants

No

Eligible, not participating

No

Child-only cases

Yes, both "true" child-only and partially sanctioned child-only cases

Unit of observation

Closed case

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Phase 1: sample of 2,000 leavers from 1/97 to 10/97; administrative data only; Phase 2: telephone survey of 200 leavers each month from 7/98 to 6/01

Comparison groups

Longitudinal study of 800 3rd quarter of 1998 sanctioned welfare recipients, Phase I vs. Phase II, rural/urban, race, education level, high/low poverty neighborhoods, length of time on welfare, and reason left welfare

Administrative Data

 

Sources

TANF database, food stamps, UI, new hires and child support enforcement

Years/time covered

Tracked for 1 year after leaving

Linkages

Linked with survey data from Phase 2 interviews

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Sample of 200 women leaving TANF each month for 36 months starting 7/98, longitudinal component interviews 6 months later

Design

Mixed mode survey

Number of observations

Approximately 7,200

Response rate

 

Timing

Interviews conducted as soon as client determined to have left

Subcontractor

Georgia State University

Special Features

Seeks funding for longitudinal study of 800 women: Wave I of current TANF recipients; Wave II, 6 months later when some will be off TANF

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

Illinois

Outcomes

 

Adults

Health insurance, housing, recidivism, income, household composition, other supports, employment, earnings, deprivation, and self-sufficiency barriers

Children

Foster care, child abuse and neglect, child support, and child care

Population

 

Study population

TANF closed cases for any reason

Definition of leavers

No cash assistance for 2 consecutive months

Divertees/applicants

No

Eligible, not participating

No

Child-only cases

Yes, but only those converted from family cases to child-only cases

Unit of observation

Closed cases

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

(1) Left 7/97 to 12/98; (2) stayed on TANF 7/97 to 12/98

Comparison groups

Leavers vs. stayers; reasons for case closure; by employment status, by region, and by ethnicity

Administrative Data

 

Sources

TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, UI, JOBS program, job training and education, WIC, drug abuse treatment, child welfare and family services cases, child abuse and neglect, and child care assistance

Years/time covered

As far back as 10 years; at least 1 year after leaving

Linkages

Linked with survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Survey 3 cohorts of leavers who left in 12/97, 6/98, and 12/98; stratified by Chicago vs. downstate; cluster sample of rural areas

Design

Mixed mode; $15 incentive for contact info; $35 for completed survey

Number of observations

Hope for 750 completed surveys

Response rate

Hope for 75%

Timing

Between 4 and 5 months after leaving welfare

Subcontractor

University of Illinois, Springfield; University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; and Chapin Hall

Special Features

Part of ongoing closed case study

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

Los Angeles County, CA

Outcomes

 

Adults

Employment, earnings, recidivism, income, other public and private assistance, self-sufficiency barriers, health care, household composition, and well-being

Children

Child care arrangements; child well-being

Population

 

Study population

AFDC/TANF leavers

Definition of leavers

Case closed for at least 2 months

Divertees/applicants

Los Angeles does not have diversion program

Eligible, not participating

No

Child-only cases

May track "true" child-only cases with administrative data, not with survey data

Unit of observation

Closed cases

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Cohort I: left welfare between July and September 1996; Cohort II: left welfare between July and September 1998; 750 from each cohort chosen randomly from administrative data

Comparison groups

Two cohorts above, long-vs. short-term welfare use, earnings before and after leaving, age of parents, number of kids, marital status, race, ethnicity, reason for leaving, by whether returned to welfare or not, and education level

Administrative Data

 

Sources

Cash benefits, food stamps, general assistance benefits, Medicaid, UI wage data

Years/time covered

1 year pre-and post-leaving welfare

Linkages

Cohort II linked with survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Single-parent households from Cohort II

Design

Mixed mode survey

Number of observations

Hope for 300 completed surveys

Response rate

MDRC committed to 78%

Timing

1 year after exiting, 1999

Subcontractor

MDRC

Special Features

A second phase of this project (not funded by this ASPE grant) will look at eligible nonparticipants

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

Massachusetts

Outcomes

 

Adults

Employment, earnings, family income and debt, other income and support, housing, food security, and transportation

Children

Child support, medical coverage, child care, child school attendance and child development

Population

 

Study population

Recipients leaving TANF

Definition of leavers

Case closed for at least 2 months

Divertees/applicants

No

Eligible, not participating

No

Child-only cases

 

Unit of observation

Closed cases and their families

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Cohort I: 20,000 cases who left 1/97 to 6/97; Cohort II: 15,000 cases estimated to leave 12/98 to 2/99; both are full population of leavers in that quarter

Comparison groups

Time-limit closings vs. other reason close, English speaking or not, age and number of kids, urban vs. rural, work history, welfare history, education level, disability status, ethnicity, and marital status

Administrative Data

 

Sources

Transitional assistance, child support, wage and earnings from Department of Revenue, food stamps, Medicaid, child abuse and neglect, and child care

Years/time covered

As far back as 1990 for some sources

Linkages

Both cohorts linked with survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

All leavers in both Cohort I and II

Design

Longitudinal, mixed mode, stratified by reason case closed

Number of observations

350 from Cohort I; 600 from Cohort II (400 of whom reached time limit)

Response rate

Hope for 75%

Timing

Cohort I: surveyed four times over course of 1 year; Cohort II: survey 6 months after leaving

Subcontractor

Chapin Hall did administrative data, survey by University of Massachusetts, Boston

Special Features

Survey of 350 Cohort I leavers is completed; offering $50 incentive for survey participation

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

Missouri

Outcomes

 

Adults

Income, earnings, employment, recidivism, private and public sources of assistance, barriers to self-sufficiency, and household composition

Children

Child care, child abuse, and neglect

Population

 

Study population

Universe of TANF leavers and subset of TANF applicants in 1 county

Definition of leavers

Case closed for at least 2 months

Divertees/applicants

Yes, TANF applicants in Jackson County enrolled in job placement program

Eligible, not participating

No

Child-only cases

Yes, but only those converted from family cases to child-only cases

Unit of observation

Closed case

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Cohort I: 4th quarter 1996 leavers; Cohort II: 4th quarter 1997 leavers; Cohort III: TANF applicants enrolled in Jackson County (KC) Work First program last quarter 1996 and 1997

Comparison groups

By employment and job services received; by geographic region

Administrative Data

 

Sources

Education (GED, vocational education, higher education), child care assistance, child welfare, emergency assistance records (private sources), employment security records, food stamps, UI, TANF, JOBS, and JTPA

Years/time covered

As far back as 1990

Linkages

Linked with survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Represents Cohorts I and II

Design

Stratified by geography and "success," meaning left for at least 6 months

Number of observations

20-minute telephone surveys

Response rate

1,200 from each cohort selected for interview

Timing

Fall 1998 and 1999, 2 years after leaving

Subcontractor

University of Missouri, Midwest Research Institute

Special Features

Unique data set on usage of emergency assistance in Jackson County

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

New York

Outcomes

 

Adults

Reason case closed, employment, earnings, transitional services use, income, recidivism, health care coverage, self-sufficiency barriers, and household composition

Children

Child welfare outcomes, child care

Population

 

Study population

Sanctioned and closed cases (see Special Features, below)

Definition of leavers

No limit on length of closure, but will do analysis with 2-month definition

Divertees/applicants

No

Eligible, not participating

No

Child-only cases

Both "true" child-only and partially sanctioned cases with administrative data

Unit of observation

Closed cases and individuals in each case

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Cohort I: All cases closed/sanctioned in the 1st quarter of 1997 (administrative data only); Cohort II: All cases closed in the 1st quarter of 1999 (administrative and survey data)

Comparison groups

Rural vs. Urban, by previous work experience, and employment rates

Administrative Data

 

Sources

Public assistance, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid, foster care and child welfare, child support, employment, wage reporting from Department of Taxation

Years/time covered

1 year after sanctioned or closure

Linkages

Linked with Cohort II closed and sanctioned cases survey

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Full Cohort II population

Design

Stratified random sample by local district and by reason of closure; mixed mode survey

Number of observations

Target of 900 completed surveys

Response rate

Hope for 75% rate, will sample 1,200

Timing

1 year after leaving (early 2000)

Subcontractor

Contract out survey; Richard Nathan at Rockefeller Institute is an advisor

Special Features

NY still has a safety net for families who reach time limit (basically making them partially sanctioned cases)

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties, CA

Outcomes

 

Adults

Employment, earnings, sources and level of income and other support, family structure, deprivation, self-sufficiency barriers, and recidivism

Children

Child care, child well-being, and child abuse and neglect

Population

 

Study population

All TANF leavers and eligible nonparticipants

Definition of leavers

Case closed for at least 2 months; will check for "false" exits

Divertees/applicants

Too few divertees; will study applicants denied for nonmonetary reasons

Eligible, not participating

Only applicants who never enrolled but appear eligible

Child-only cases

Yes, but only those converted from family cases to child-only cases

Unit of observation

Individual client and family

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Cohort I: left last quarter of 1996; Cohort II: left last two quarters of 1998; administrative data for both cohorts, survey data for Cohort II

Comparison groups

Leavers vs. different types of applicants, reason left, by recidivism and by other demographics

Administrative Data

 

Sources

TANF Case Data System, food stamps, Medical, general assistance, Q5, GAIN, Public Housing Authority, UI data, child welfare services

Years/time covered

At least 1 year after leaving; as far back as 1988 for some sources

Linkages

Linked with Cohort II survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Cohort II population

Design

Stratified random sample, first by county and then by leaver category; mixed mode survey; 30-minute interview

Number of observations

900–950 completed surveys but considering a smaller sample

Response rate

Hope for 80–95% response rate

Timing

Surveyed 6 and 12 months after left

Subcontractor

SPHERE Institute; survey will be contracted out too

Special Features

Survey contains questions from SPD, SIPP, NSAF, and NLSY; $10 payment for each interview

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

South Carolina

(Grant is part of an ongoing project with previous grant)

Outcomes

 

Adults

Marital events, employment, and earnings

Children

Child abuse and neglect; low birth weight, infant mortality

Population

 

Study population

Cash assistance leavers

Definition of leavers

Not yet determined

Divertees/applicants

No official diversion program; will study applicants who never enrolled

Eligible, not participating

Yes, with survey and food stamp records will identify nonparticipants

Child-only cases

No

Unit of observation

Closed case

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Cohort I: left January to June 1997; Cohort II: left January to June 1999

Comparison groups

Reason for leaving cash assistance

Administrative Data

 

Sources

TANF Client History Information Profile, work support system, Medicaid, foster care, child support, UI, JOBS, CHIP

Years/time covered

As far back as 1986; followed for 2 years

Linkages

Linked with survey data for both cohorts

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Nonparticipating eligibles and leavers by each of 3 reasons for leaving

Design

Mixed mode, 30-minute survey; exploring possible oversampling of cases in high-risk neighborhoods

Number of observations

Approximately 1,000 cases, 250 from each of the four groups

Response rate

Estimate 75%

Timing

Interview 1 year and 2 years after exiting

Subcontractor

Under negotiation

Special Features

Part of continuing project begun prior to other studies and funded by ACF

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

Washington

Outcomes

 

Adults

Earnings, employment, support sources, well-being, recidivism, other public assistance usage, child support, housing, mental or physical disabilities, addiction, and household composition

Children

Child care, child welfare use, child abuse and neglect, child well-being

Population

 

Study population

Cash assistance leavers and stayers

Definition of leavers

Left cash assistance for at least 2 months

Divertees/applicants

Cohort II had diversion program; these divertees will be studied

Eligible, not participating

Yes; those enrolled in food stamps and/or Medicaid but not TANF

Child-only cases

No

Unit of observation

Closed case

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

3 Cohorts: Cohort I left or stayed last quarter 1996 (pre-TANF); Cohort II left or stayed last quarter 1997; Cohort III left or stayed last quarter of 1998

Comparison groups

Across cohorts, leavers vs. stayers, rural/urban and east/west, those who return to TANF for a long term vs. those who return for only a short term and only tracked 1 year after leaving welfare

Administrative Data

 

Sources

UI, Medicaid, foster care and child welfare, child support, Basic Health for poor families, food stamps, Work First (TANF), child care

Years/time covered

1 year pre-and 1 year post-exit

Linkages

Cohort III will be linked to survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Welfare leavers exiting last quarter of 1998

Design

Stratified by urban/rural and east/west; mixed mode design

Number of observations

A sample of 1,300 will be drawn

Response rate

Hope for 70%

Timing

Cases surveyed in mid-1999, 6–9 months after exit

Subcontractor

 

Special Features

Already has baseline administrative data on 3,200 recipients pre-TANF, including survey of 560 of these who left the pre-TANF program; will have lottery as incentive for survey completion

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

Study Characteristics

Wisconsin

(Grant is part of three research projects)

Outcomes

 

Adults

Employment, earnings, use of other private and public supports, health insurance, deprivation, household composition, recidivism, and barriers to self-sufficiency

Children

Child well-being, child care, child abuse and neglect

Population

 

Study population

AFDC leavers or nonparticipants in W-2; W-2 leavers

Definition of leavers

Case closed 2-6 months for administrative data, at least 6 months for survey data

Divertees/applicants

Milwaukee study looks at W-2 applicants not yet enrolled

Eligible, not participating

Only applicants who appear eligible but are not enrolled

Child-only cases

Yes

Unit of observation

Closed case (or applicant for Milwaukee study*)

Methodology

 

Cohort definitions

Cohort 1: leavers in quarter 4 of 1996; Cohort 2: leavers in 1998; Cohort 3: entrants and applicants 10/98 to 3/99 in Milwaukee

Comparison groups

By recidivism; by agency for profit or nonprofit, stayers vs. leavers vs. never enrolled, demographics, welfare history, receipt of other services

Administrative Data

 

Sources

AFDC, food stamps, child care, medical assistance, child support, foster care, some child abuse and neglect, SSI, UI, tax data

Years/time covered

1988 for some sources through 1 year after leaving welfare

Linkages

Cohort's I and II linked to survey data

Survey Data

 

Sample population

Leavers in Cohorts I and II; entrants, divertees, and leavers in Cohort III

Design

Mixed mode survey

Number of observations

Cohort I: 1,200; Cohort II: 900; Cohort III: 1,200

Response rate

75%

Timing

Surveyed 1 year after leaving (or after application for Milwaukee study)

Subcontractor

Institute for Research on Poverty, MPR, Hudson Institute

Special Features

* Milwaukee study also plans a survey of applicants; it will be a two-wave panel survey of applicants (n = 1,200); wave 1 interviews 7–14 days after initial application visit; wave II, 1 year later

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

TABLE A-2 Outcomes Studied and Sources of Data Used by the Welfare Leaver Grantees

 

State/County

Outcome and Data Sources

AZ

Cuyahoga County, OH

DC

FL

GA

IL

Los Angeles County, CA

MA

MO

NY

San Mateo County, CA

WA

WI

Outcomes Studied  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employment and Earnings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employment status

A,S

A,S

S

A,S

A,S

A,S

A,S

S

A

A,S

A,S

A,S

A,S

Quarterly earnings

A,S

A,S

S

 

A

A

A,S

A

A

A,S

A,S

A,S

A

Hourly wage

S

S

 

A,S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

A,S

A,S

Fringe benefits

S

S

S

A,S

 

S

S

S

 

S

S

S

 

Types of jobs/occupation

A,S

S

S

A,S

S

S

S

A,S

A

S

A,S

S

A,S

Hours worked

S

S

S

A,S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

A,S

S

Education/training

A

S

S

 

A,S

A,S

S

S

 

S

A,S

S

 

Other

 

S

S

S

 

 

S

 

S

S

 

A,S

A

Other Income Supports

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food stamps

A,S

A,S

A

A,S

A

A

A

A,S

A,S

A

A,S

A,S

A,S

Child support

A,S

S

S

A,S

A,S

S

S

A,S

S

A

S

A,S

A,S

Family resources

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

A,S

S

S

S

S

SSI

 

S

A

 

S

S

S

S

S

A

 

 

A,S

General assistance

 

 

 

 

 

S

 

 

S

A

A,S

 

 

Housing assistance

?

 

S

 

S

S

 

S

A,S

S

A,S

S

A,S

Energy assistance

?

 

 

S

 

 

 

S

A,S

 

 

S

S

EITC

 

 

S

 

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

A

Other

 

 

 

 

S

A

 

 

 

S

 

 

S

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

 

State/County

Outcome and Data Sources

AZ

Cuyahoga County, OH

DC

FL

GA

IL

Los Angeles County, CA

MA

MO

NY

San Mateo County, CA

WA

WI

Health Insurance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Medicaid

A,S

A,S

A

A

A,S

A

A,S

A,S

A,S

A,S

A,S

A,S

A,S

CHIP

 

 

 

 

 

A

 

 

 

S

S

 

 

Employer provided

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

Adult coverage

?

S

 

S

S

 

S

 

 

S

S

S

S

Child coverage

?

S

 

S

S

 

S

S

 

S

S

S

S

Other

 

 

 

S

 

 

 

 

 

 

S

S

 

Deprivations/Insecurity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health status

?

S

S

S

 

S

S

 

?

?

S

 

S

Access to health care

?

S

S

S

S

S

S

 

?

?

S

S

S

Hunger

?

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

A

?

S

S

S

Food pantries

S

S

S

 

A

S

S

S

A

?

S

S

S

Doubling-up/living with relatives

?

 

S

 

S

 

 

 

A

?

S

S

S

Money to pay rent

?

S

S

S

 

S

 

 

A

?

S

S

S

Periods of homelessness

S

S

S

S

A

S

 

 

A

?

S

A,S

S

Use of community agencies, general

 

S

S

S

 

S

S

 

A

S

 

S

 

Other

 

S

S

S

S

S

S

 

A

S

 

 

S

Other Changes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in residence

?

S

S

A

S

S

S

S

A

 

A,S

A

A

Change in marital status

?

S

 

S

S

S

S

 

?

S

A,S

S

A,S

Change in household composition

?

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

A

S

A,S

S

S

Other

 

 

 

 

 

S

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

 

State/County

Outcome and Data Sources

AZ

Cuyahoga County, OH

DC

FL

GA

IL

Los Angeles County, CA

MA

MO

NY

San Mateo County, CA

WA

WI

Child Care

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arrangement/type

A,S

S

S

S

S

A

S

S

A

S

S

S

S

Subsidy

A

S

S

S

A,S

A,S

S

S

A

S

A,S

S

A,S

Cost

A,S

S

S

S

A,S

A

S

?

A

S

S

S

S

Quality

A,S

 

 

S

S

 

 

 

 

S

 

S

S

Other

 

S

 

 

S

 

S

 

 

 

S

S

S

Child Well-Being

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abuse and neglect/foster care

A

 

 

S

A,S

A,S

 

?

A

A,S

A,S

A,S

A,S

Living arrangements/kinship care

A

S

 

S

A,S

S

S

?

A

 

S

S

S

Cognitive/school

 

S

 

 

S

 

S

S

 

 

A,S

 

S

Behavioral

 

 

 

 

S

 

 

S

 

 

S

S

 

Child health

 

S

 

S

S

 

S

 

 

S

S

A,S

S

Other

 

 

 

S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S

Diversion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Payments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A

 

A

A

 

Up-front job search

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A,S

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

 

State/County

Outcome and

Data

Sources

AZ

Cuyahoga County,

OH

DC

FL

GA

IL

Los Angeles County,

CA

MA

MO

NY

San Mateo County,

CA

WA

WI

Awareness of Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transitional child care

S

 

S

 

A

S

 

S

S

S

S

S

S

Transitional Medicaid

S

 

S

 

A

S

 

 

S

S

S

 

S

Other benefits

S

 

 

 

 

 

 

S

S

 

S

S

S

Recidivism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Returns to TANF

A

A,S

A

A,S

A,S

A

A,S

A,S

A

A,S

A,S

A,S

A,S

Reason for return

?

S

S

S

S

S

S

 

?

S

S

A

S

Attitudes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Toward work

 

 

 

S

S

 

 

 

 

S

 

 

S

Toward TANF

S

 

 

S

S

 

 

 

S

 

S

 

S

other

S

S

S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reasons for Case Closure

A,S

A,S

A,S

S

A,S

A,S

A,S

A

A

A,S

A,S

S

S

Barriers to Self-Sufficiency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disability/health problems

?

S

 

S

A,S

S

S

 

A,S

?

 

A,S

A

Illiteracy

?

 

 

 

A

 

 

 

A,S

?

 

 

 

Limited English proficiency

?

 

 

S

A

 

 

A

S

?

S

 

 

Domestic Violence

?

 

 

 

 

S

 

S

S

?

S

A,S

A

Maternal depression or other mental illness

?

 

 

S

S

 

 

S

S

?

S

S

A

Substance abuse

?

 

 

S

 

S

 

S

S

?

S

A,S

A,S

Transportation

S

 

S

S

 

S

 

S

S

?

S

S

S

Lack of child care

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

?

S

S

S

Lack of education/skills

?

S

S

 

S

 

S

S

A,S

?

A,S

S

S

Other

 

 

 

 

 

S

 

 

 

 

S

 

 

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

 

State/County

Outcome and Data Sources

AZ

Cuyahoga County, OH

DC

FL

GA

IL

Los Angeles County, CA

MA

MO

NY

San Mateo County, CA

WA

WI

Administrative Data Source To Be Used

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TANF

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Food Stamps

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Medicaid eligibility

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Medicaid claims

X

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

 

JOBS or JOBS successor

X

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

Child support

X

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

 

X

 

X

X

Child welfare

X

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

Child care

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

X

SSI

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

General assistance

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

X

 

 

Emergency service

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

Unemployment insurence

X

X

 

 

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

State revenue or IRS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

Substance abuse

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

 

X

X

 

NOTES:

A = Administrative Data

S = Survey Data

? = Proposal indicates the outcome will be studied, but the source of the data is not given.

X = Indicates data source will be used.

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×

ACRONYMS: CHIP Children's Health Insurance Program

EITC Earned Income Tax Credit

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training

SSI Supplemental Security Income

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

SOURCE: Data prepared by staff of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, for a presentation to the panel on February 19, 1999.

Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"A Leaver Studies." National Research Council. 1999. Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9672.
×
Page 116
Next: B Summary of Welfare Reform Projects »
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work, Interim Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $68.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 fundamentally changed the nation's social welfare system, replacing a federal entitlement program for low-income families, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), with state-administered block grants, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. PRWORA furthered a trend started earlier in the decade under so called "waiver" programs-state experiments with different types of AFDC rules-toward devolution of design and control of social welfare programs from the federal government to the states. The legislation imposed several new, major requirements on state use of federal welfare funds but otherwise freed states to reconfigure their programs as they want. The underlying goal of the legislation is to decrease dependence on welfare and increase the self-sufficiency of poor families in the United States.

In summer 1998, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the Committee on National Statistics of the National Research Council to convene a Panel on Data and Methods for Measuring the Effects of Changes in Social Welfare Programs. The panel's overall charge is to study and make recommendations on the best strategies for evaluating the effects of PRWORA and other welfare reforms and to make recommendations on data needs for conducting useful evaluations. This interim report presents the panel's initial conclusions and recommendations. Given the short length of time the panel has been in existence, this report necessarily treats many issues in much less depth than they will be treated in the final report. The report has an immediate short-run goal of providing DHHS-ASPE with recommendations regarding some of its current projects, particularly those recently funded to study "welfare leavers"-former welfare recipients who have left the welfare rolls as part of the recent decline in welfare caseloads.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!