TABLE B-1 Summary of Welfare Reform Projects
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Abt Associates, Inc. |
|
|
|
Arizona's EMPOWER Program |
AZ |
Longitudional survey of participants |
Experimental design; random assignment |
Evaluation of Alabama ASSETS program |
3 counties in AL |
Administrative data |
Quasi-experimental design; each of 3 counties matched with another county in Alabama running standard AFDC programs |
Evaluation of Delaware's A Better Chance program |
DE |
Administrative data; survey data; aggregate cost data |
Experimental design; random assignment |
Evaluation of Electronic Benefits Transfer in Maryland |
MD |
Transaction data |
|
Evaluation of Indiana Manpower Placement and Comprehensive Training Program |
IN |
Administrative data; client survey; interviews of administrators and staff |
Experimental design; random assignment |
Evaluation of NY State Child Assistance Program |
7 counties in NY |
Administrative; survey data |
Experimental design at 3 localities |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Evaluation of New York Community Access Network (process and cost study too) |
New York City after sample entry |
Telephone surveys—3 months |
Pre-, post-design |
Evaluation of Ohio Transitions to Independence demonstration |
15 counties in OH |
Administrative data |
Experimental design; random assignment |
Evaluation of to Strengthen Michigan's Families Welfare Reform program |
MI |
Administrative data |
Experimental design; random assignment |
National Study of Low Income Child Care |
25 communities in 5 to 10 states |
|
|
American Public Human Services Association and National Conference of State Legislatures |
|
|
|
State efforts to track and follow-up on welfare recipients |
All states |
APHSA and NCSL, with the National Governors' Association, are keeping track of leavers studies |
|
Center for Law and Social Policy and Center for Budget and Policy Priorities |
|
|
|
State Policy Documentation Project |
All 50 states and DC |
|
Monitor, document and analyze state welfare, health, and family support programs |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Center for Urban Poverty and Social Change at Case Western Reserve University |
|
|
|
Study for Federation for Community Planning |
Cleveland, OH |
|
|
Study to aid county Department of Human Services |
Cuyahoga County, OH |
|
|
Transportation barriers to welfare recipients |
|
|
|
Urban Change project with MDRC |
Cuyahoga County, OH |
|
Neighborhood indicators study |
Urban Institute's National Neighborhood Indicators project |
Cleveland |
Will assist other communities in developing similar studies of inner-city welfare recipients' barriers to employment |
|
Chapin Hall Center for Children |
|
|
|
The dynamics of AFDC, Medicaid and food stamp use |
IL |
State-level administrative data |
Description and event-history analysis |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
The impact of welfare reforms on children's well-being |
IL |
Administrative data to track outcomes of families and children |
Technical assistance to Illinois Department of Public Aid |
Integrated Data Base on Children's Services |
IL |
Administrative data from child welfare, TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, special education, corrections, and mental health |
|
Massachusetts Longitudinal Database for Research on Child Support Enforcement and Social Service Agencies |
MA |
Constructing a longitudinal database of administrative data from TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, child enforcement, wage reporting, and new hires |
Also developing outcome indicators |
Monitoring child and family social program utilization: Before and after welfare reform in 4 states |
CA, IL, MA, NC |
Individual-level administrative |
Monitoring data |
The State of the Child |
IL |
|
Monitoring study of child well-being |
Child Trends |
|
|
|
Measuring child outcomes under state welfare waivers (support for project from DHHS, NICHD, and other private sources) |
CA, CT, FL, IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, OH, OR, VT, VA |
Aggregate state-level data on child well-being indicators |
Monitoring |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Welfare-to-Work (JOBS) National valuation of Child Outcomes Study with MDRC (funded by DHHS) |
Fulton County, GA; Grand Rapids, MI; Riverside, CA |
3,000 families; 790 in Fulton County, GA; survey of mothers and children 2 years after enrollment in JOBS program; administrative records |
Mothers randomly assigned to program or control group |
JOBS Observational Study |
Atlanta, GA |
In-home observational study of 250 mothers and children |
Mothers randomly assigned to program or control group |
New Chance Observational Study of Teen-Mothers with MDRC |
16 locations in 10 states |
Observational study of 290 teen mothers and children who are on welfare |
Voluntary program participation |
Measurement of the impacts on children in evaluations of state welfare reforms (with DHHS funding) |
CT, FL, IN, IA, MN |
|
Technical support to states to develop measures of child outcomes |
Assessing the New Federalism (part of Urban Institute's Project) |
AL, CA, CO, FL, MA, MI, MN, MS, NJ, NY, TX, WA, WI |
Child Trends is responsible for conceptualizing and designing ways to measure changes in child well-being as a result of policy changes |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, and Administration for Children and Families |
|
|
|
Analyzing the employment and wage patterns of welfare recipients (see MPR) |
CA, IL, OR, TX |
NLSY and post-employment services demonstration |
|
Assessing effective Welfare-to-Work strategies for domestic violence victims and survivors in the Options/Opciones Project (Taylor Institute) |
North Lawndale community of Chicago |
|
Study effective strategies of addressing needs of abused women |
Assisting states to design and conduct follow-up studies of recipients who leave welfare (NGA, NCSL, and APHSA) |
Conference in 1998 |
Report as issue brief—Tracking Welfare Reform: Designing Followup Studies of Recipients who Leave Welfare |
|
Baseline data on Aid to Families with Dependent Children |
All states |
|
Descriptive historical tables of families using AFDC |
Child Care Research Partnerships |
5 research partnership sites |
Field-initiated research on child care policies especially for low-income families |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Child outcomes study of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (see Child Trends) |
|
|
|
Domestic Violence and Welfare: An Early Assessment (see Urban Institute) |
|
Implementation study of states; implementation of the TANF Family Violence Option and child support enforcement responses |
|
Employment Retention and Advancement Project |
CA, IL, MD, NJ, NC, OH, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WI |
Planning grants |
Programs are required to utilize random assignment, experimental designs |
Evaluation of community-based job retention programs (the Pittsburgh Foundation) |
Pittsburgh, PA |
|
Implementation study; monitor outcomes |
Evaluating the feasibility of using food stamp administrative data to track welfare leavers |
|
Examining the possibility of tracking welfare leavers using linked federal quality control and state automated data systems |
|
Evaluation of Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN (see MDRC) |
Los Angeles, CA |
|
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Evaluation of New Jersey Substance Abuse Research |
NJ |
|
Will compare 2 models for providing services for substance abusing welfare recipients |
Front-Line Management and Practice Study (see Rockefeller Center-SUNY Albany) |
Part of 20-state study |
In-depth observations of three local offices in four states |
Implementation study |
Improving States' Capabilities to Evaluate Child Care Policy Options as Components of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (Urban Institute/Mathematica Policy Research) |
|
Development of expanded simulation model for state welfare administrators to consider interactions between child care assistance and welfare policies |
|
Integration of Welfare and Workforce Development Systems |
5-8 sites |
Case studies |
|
Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families (see MDRC) |
|
|
|
Mandatory review and modification of child support orders in TANF cases. (see IRP) |
|
|
Fiscal impact on state and federal governments of optional child support case modification of child support review under PRWORA |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Measurement of impacts on children in evaluations of state welfare reforms (see Child Trends and Chapin Hall Center for Children) |
Phase I: CA, CT, FL, IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, OH, OR, VT, VA |
Phase I: Planning phase; |
Technical assistance to states to develop data collection ability |
Phase II: CT, FL, IN, IA, MN |
Phase II: Large-scale data collection activities to expand states' abilities to measure and track child outcomes for impact analyses |
|
|
Modified State Welfare Reform Projects -13 states funded to continue evaluations of welfare reform demonstrations in place prior to TANF |
CA, IL, IA, MD, MN, NE, NH, NC, ND, OH, SC, VA |
Sources of data vary at each site |
Some experimental designs; site some nonexperimental designs |
Multi-Site Evaluation of Welfare to Work Grants |
Sites to be selected |
4 study components: descriptive assessment of all grantees; net impact and cost-effectiveness analyses with process/implementation analyses; process/implementation analyses only; and study of Tribal Welfare to Work |
|
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (see MDRC) |
|
|
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
National Study of Low Income Child Care (see Abt Associates) |
National study |
|
|
National Longitudinal Study of Children and Families in the Child Welfare System |
|
Longitudinal survey data; sample representative of children and families who enter the child welfare system; over 6,000 children; 1st interview in Spring 1999; 3 annual follow-up rounds planned |
|
Neighborhoods, Service Providers and Welfare Reform in Los Angeles County (see RAND) |
Los Angeles County |
|
|
Partner and Father Involvement in the Lives of Low-Income First Time Mothers-- Children's Hospital, Denver, CO |
Elmira, NY; Memphis, TN; Denver, CO |
Longitudinal study |
Experimental design; random assignment |
Policy Implications of Welfare Reform: Technical Assistance to States for Serving People with Disabilities (with Urban Institute and SSA) |
All states |
Review of state efforts to provide welfare services to those with disabilities; also case study series |
|
The Role of Child Care in Low Income Families' Labor Market Participation (Urban Institute/Mathematica Policy Research) |
|
Project will develop optional research designs to identify and address child care services needed; working paper series |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
The Role of Labor Market Intermediaries in Welfare-to-Work |
All of U.S. |
Data on intermediaries participating in welfare-to-work project |
Description and implementation study |
Rural Welfare to Work Strategies |
IL, IA, LA, MD, MN, MS, MO, NY, VT, WA |
|
Implementation and evaluation studies |
State Welfare Waiver Demonstration Projects-- Waivers for 9 states to continue their pre-TANF demonstration projects |
AZ, CT, FL, IN, IA, MN, TX, VT, WI |
Sources of data vary at each site |
Experimental design |
Study of Nurse Home Visitation (University of Colorado Health Sciences Center) |
Memphis, TN |
696 women and their children; 5 years of data to be collected |
Experimental design—random assignment |
Supporting state efforts to link administrative data systems dor the purpose of studying the effects of welfare reform on other state and federal public assistance programs |
MD, MA, Mecklenburg County, NC, SC, WI |
Provides funding for sites to link administrative program data for monitoring and evaluating purposes |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Typology of welfare policy decisions at the local level (contract with IRP) |
|
|
Study of feasibility of collecting information on local administrative climate of county welfare offices |
Understanding the Impact of TANF and Other Laws on Immigrant Families (Urban Institute) |
|
Reviewing information on immigrants gathered in several major longitudinal data sets |
|
Welfare leavers project (see Appendix A, Table A-1) |
14 states, counties, or county groups |
Linked administrative data and survey data |
Monitoring and some non experimental impact studies |
Welfare Policy Typology Project (contract with Urban Institute) |
All 50 states |
Establish groundwork for data base of state welfare policy information |
|
Welfare Reform and Its Impact on Persons with Disabilities (part of Three-City Study) |
Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; San Antonio, TX |
Will be initial part of 5-year longitudinal study |
|
Welfare to Work: Monitoring the Impact of Welfare Reform on American Indian Families (Washington University School of Social Work) |
American Indians in Arizona |
|
Descriptive and impact analysis |
Welfare Reform Studies and Analyses (rural TANF)—Eastern Washington University |
3 rural counties in Washington State, WI |
|
Process evaluation |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Wisconsin Data Project on Former AFDC Recipients (see Institute for Research on Poverty) |
|
|
|
Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study (Columbia University and Princeton University |
20 cities randomly selected from all cities over 200,000 |
Birth cohort sample of 4,000 kids born to unwed parents and 1,000 kids born to wed parents. Longitudinal survey of parents annually for 4 years after birth of child |
Birth cohort design |
Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsino |
|
|
|
Development and use of merged administrative data |
|
Addresses issues related to use and organization of administrative data |
|
Evaluation of Wisconsin Works Child Support Demonstration |
WI |
Data from 1997 of families on AFDC—allowed to retain all of child support payments made |
Administrative data, policy documents, formal surveys of program staff and participants, and field research |
Examining the labor market impacts of W-2 |
Wisconsin |
State administrative data |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
How Teen Mothers are Faring under Welfare Reform |
One Michigan county |
Paired interviews of teen mothers with their mothers with whom they are required to live if given benefits; longitudinal study |
|
The Impact of Welfare Reforms on Families |
Dane County, WI |
Baseline and 1-year follow-up interviews of 200 participants |
Compare those who left welfare to those who stayed on welfare |
Immigrant Health and Welfare Reform |
Hmong and Mexican immigrants in WI and nonimmigrants in same area |
Child and maternal health information; also state policy data |
|
Job Holding and Earnings Dynamics for Low-Wage Workers |
Milwaukee, WI |
Part of New Hope Demonstration project; (see MDRC) pay stub data, household survey of participants. Experimental design |
|
Monitoring State Efforts to Reduce Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing: The Impact of Welfare Reform |
WI; other states |
State program and expenditures data; in WI—county data; federal expenditure and nativity data also |
Monitoring study of state efforts to reducing out-of-wedlock births; integrated administrative data |
The Welfarization of Family Law |
U.S. |
|
Examines how welfare law has influenced family law |
What Happens to Families Who Leave AFDC |
WI |
8,000 families on welfare in Who Leave AFDC? July 1995; linked administrative data |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
What Happens to Families Under W-2 |
Milwaukee, WI |
Interview of families who apply or are diverted from program; interviewed twice: first as they first make contact with welfare agency and then 12 months later |
Compare those who left welfare to those who stayed on welfare; of those who left, compare those who return to those who did not return |
Wisconsin Works: A Case Study in Evaluating Comprehensive Welfare Reform |
Wisconsin |
|
Examines methods for evaluating state-based welfare reform program |
Conferences: |
|
|
|
Process Evaluation: Workshop, Papers, Conference |
|
|
Efforts to improve quality and utility of process evaluations |
Conference on Rethinking Evaluation Strategies under TANF |
|
|
Examine role of federal government in public assistance policy |
Foundations of Anti-Poverty Policies |
|
|
Examine public support of antipoverty policies |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Joint Center for Poverty Research, Northwestern, and University of Chicago |
|
|
|
Administers small grants program funded by ERS/USDA, ASPE/DHHS, Census Bureau |
|
Supports research on food assistance, domestic poverty and policy using the SIPP data set |
|
Advisory Panel on Research Uses of Administrative Data |
|
|
|
Working Papers Series on various poverty-related topics |
|
|
|
Lewin Group |
|
|
|
Analysis of the determinants of AFDC caseload growth |
All 50 states and DC |
Quarterly state-level data from 1979–1994 |
Models effects of changes in demographics, the economy, and programs to changes in the caseload, participants, and expenditures per case |
Disaggregating the TANF child-only cases in three states |
3 states |
Administrative records and case file records |
Describes composition and trends in child-only TANF cases |
Employment Retention and Evaluation Development Project (also with Johns Hopkins) |
13 states |
|
Help states develop program interventions and prepare sites for a possible multisite evaluation |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Evaluability assessment of Responsible Fatherhood programs |
|
|
Develop evaluation designs for impact analysis |
Evaluation of Maryland's Primary Prevention Initiative (with Johns Hopkins) |
MD |
|
Cost-benefit analysis of health components of intervention |
Policy evaluation of the overall effects of welfare reform and SSA programs |
|
|
Literature review and analysis design; analysis of pre-reform data; review of state-level reform assessments; site visits to 5 states; development of evaluation design |
Success in the New Welfare Environment (with ICF Kaiser Consulting Group) |
|
|
Review of locally implemented HUD employment and training programs and their linkage to other employment, training, and human services programs |
Temporary Assistance for Low-Wage Workers: Evolving Relationships among Work, Welfare, and Unemployment Insurance (for the NGA) |
|
|
Analyzed roles of TANF and state UI programs, including a look at participation patterns across UI and AFDC |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation |
|
|
|
California GAIN Analysis |
6 Counties in CA |
33,000 applicants of AFDC when GAIN was mandatory; data from automated employment earnings, welfare records, registrant survey, county level administrative data |
Experimental design; randomly assigned to GAIN or not |
Canada's Earnings Supplement Project |
9 sites in Canada |
Administrative data supplemented with ''mini-survey'' of sample of participants |
Experimental design; random assignment to program |
Canada's Self-Sufficiency Project |
British Columbia and New Brunswick, Canada |
Single parents on welfare 11/92-3/95 |
Experimental design; random assignment to program |
Connections to Work Project |
Various sites |
|
Case studies of communities that are developing innovative approaches to connecting welfare recipients with jobs |
Connecticut's Jobs First Program |
|
|
|
a) Evaluation and Post-Time-Limit Study |
New Haven and Manchester, CT |
|
Experimental design; random assignment to program |
b) Tracking study |
6 sites in CT |
3-month and 6-month follow-up surveys after time limit on TANF expired |
Monitoring study |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Cross-state study of time-limited welfare |
CT, FL, VT |
Focus groups and in-person interviews of 100 current welfare recipients |
Implementation component and monitoring component |
Florida's Family Transition Program |
2 counties in FL |
2,800 computerized records of monthly AFDC/TANF, food stamps and quarterly earnings; follow-up survey to 600 recipients 2 years later |
Randomly assigned to AFDC or FTP; longitudinal for part of sample |
Jobs-Plus Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families—Employment Demonstration Program |
Public housing developments in 7 cities |
|
Individual household study plus public housing project study |
Los Angeles Jobs First GAIN Program |
Los Angeles, CA |
Administrative data for almost 21,000 households |
Experimental design with random assignment to program |
Minnesota Family Investment Program |
MN—3 urban and 4 rural counties. |
1994–1996 baseline data, administrative data, 12 -and 36-month client surveys, staff attitude surveys, and field research |
14,639 families randomly assigned to one of 4 research groups |
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies |
7 sites nationwide |
55,000 sample members; in some sites telephone and in-person interviews |
Random assignment; process, implementation, and impact study components |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
New Chance Demonstration and Observational Study |
16 locations in 10 states |
Young moms in 10 States (n = 2,322); observational study has videotapes of 290 mother/child combinations |
Individual data and the coding of mother/child interactions |
New Hope Project |
Milwaukee |
Linked administrative data; 2-year follow-up survey of all applicants |
Experimental design; applicants randomly assigned to program |
Ohio's Learning, Earning and Parenting Program |
OH—12 counties |
Teen mothers on welfare: survey of 1, 118 teens 1 year after randomly assigned to program; review 263 participant cases; survey of 913 teens 3 years after randomly assigned |
Case reviews, survey, random assignment |
Oregon's Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work program |
OR |
Administrative data on 5,547 single-parent AFDC applicants and recipients aged 21+ who attended orientation between 10/93 and 10/94 |
Experimental design |
Parent's Fair Share |
7 counties across the country |
Administrative data and survey data |
Experimental design; randomly assigned to program |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Project on Devolution and Urban Change |
L.A., Miami, Cleveland, Philadelphia |
Survey of households—two cohorts of AFDC/TANF single mothers.; in-depth interviews; Welfare office site visits; Interviews with community institutions and service agencies, neighborhood-level indicators |
5 components: individual impact study, implementation study, neighborhood indicators study, ethnographic study, institutional study |
ReWORKing Welfare |
|
Guidance to planning and implementing welfare reform |
|
Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project |
6 districts in VT |
|
|
Winning New Jobs |
3 California sites |
|
|
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. |
|
|
|
Addressing Barriers to Employment for Welfare Recipients |
|
|
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project |
17 diverse communities |
3 rounds of site visits, program documents, parent services follow-up interviews, child care observations, staff surveys, parent report, direct assessments of children, observations of children, videotape coding of parent-child interactions, interviews of parents |
Experimental design: implementation study, impact evaluation, local research studies, policy studies, guide to EHS programs |
Evaluation of Iowa's Family Investment Program and Limited Benefit Plan |
Iowa |
Surveyed 137 families; case records of over 4,000 families |
Experimental design; process study; impact study; cost-benefit study; client focus-group discussions |
Evaluating Welfare Reform: New Freedom, New Challenges for States |
CA, CO, MI, MN, WI |
Advice to states in evaluating welfare reform |
|
Expanding Health Insurance Coverage for Low Income People: Experiments in 5 States with Urban Institute |
HI, MD, OK, RI, TN |
Current Population Survey; interviews with local and state officials, managed care reps, health care providers, consumers; focus groups with consumers and providers |
Implementation study |
National Evaluation of Welfare to Work Grants Program: |
State and local sites |
|
|
(a) Descriptive assessment of program designs |
All sites |
Surveys to grantees; about 35 site visits |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
(b) Impact and cost-effectiveness |
8–10 sites that agree to participate |
|
Experimental design; random assignment |
(c) Process and implementation study |
12–15 sites |
Site visits, discussion with staff, focus groups with participants, program observations |
|
Post-Employment Services Demonstration |
Chicago, Portland, Riverside, San Antonio |
Survey of about 300 in each site; participants administrative data for full sample of participants |
Experimental design: random assignment |
Teenage Parent Demonstration |
Camden, Newark, and South Chicago |
Site observations, interviews and case reviews with program staff, program data, state records data, baseline and follow-up interviews with teens, focus groups, in-depth semi-structured interviews |
Experimental design; n= 6,000; late 1987–1991 |
Welfare Reform: New Requirements for Teen Parents |
Welfare waiver states |
|
|
Youth Fair Chance Program |
17 sites in high-poverty areas |
Telephone survey of youth in target areas |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Michigan Women's Employment Survey |
An urban county in MI |
Simple random sample of 753 single mothers with children who received cash assistance in Feb. 1997; face-to-face interviews; in total, 3 waves of data to be collected |
|
National Center for Children in Poverty—Columbia University |
|
|
|
Research Forum on Children, Families and the New Federalism |
|
Three purposes: promote monitoring and evaluation research; promote collaboration among key stakeholders; information exchange that includes a clearinghouse for welfare research projects |
|
National Governors' Association |
|
|
|
Tracking Welfare Reform: Designing Follow-up Studies of Recipients Who Leave Welfare |
All states |
NGA, with National Conference of State Legislatures and American of Public Human Service Association, is keeping track of leavers studies |
|
Summaries of Selected Elements of State Programs for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) |
All states |
Keeping track of state welfare policies |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Working Out of Poverty: Employment Retention and Career Advancement for Welfare Recipients |
|
Explores promising welfare-to-work programs and practices of states and localities |
|
Summary of state welfare-to-work plans |
All States |
Summarizes state plans |
|
RAND |
|
|
|
Los Angeles Survey of Families and Communities |
65 neighborhoods (census tracts) in L.A. County |
Stratified random sample of neighborhoods with oversample of poor neighborhoods and of households with children under age 18; 4-year panel study |
Annual household survey and annual neighborhood survey: household survey contains program participation questions and questions on child outcomes; neighborhood survey collects administrative data and interviews key neighborhood informants |
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Statewide CalWORKS evaluation — 5 components to study: State-level process study; county-level process study; implementation study; statewide impact and cost-benefit study; county-level impact and cost-benefit study |
58 California counties |
For the corresponding 5 components: (1, 2, and 3) all-county implementation survey with county and state site visits; (4, 5) administrative data from the state and counties, household survey in 6 focus counties, first in 9/99 and again a year later, plus data from components 1–3 of study. |
Observational study—standard regression approach and case-control design; process and implementation analyses |
Rockefeller Institute of Government Federalism Research Group |
|
|
|
State Capacity Study & Implementing PRWORA (SUNY Albany) |
20 sample states |
Implementation and process study of institutions administering social welfare programs |
Field research evaluation |
University of California Data Archive and Technical Assistance (UC-Data) |
|
|
|
CA Work Pays Demonstration Project (with California Department of Social Services Research) |
California |
State-level administrative records for AFDC, Medical, UI, other state and federal assistance programs, and employment tax files; county-level administrative records for AFDC and food stamp programs; nonautomated client records at county |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
|
|
welfare offices; and telephone interviews with AFDC recipients |
|
Advisory Panel for Research Uses of Administrative Data—with JCPR |
|
Published in January 1998 |
|
CAL—Learn Program Evaluation |
CA—4 counties |
3 cohorts of AFDC teens n = 4,900 |
Random assignment; 2-way factorial design of the 2 program elements. |
Inventory of state effort to use administrative data for welfare research (funded by ASPE) |
28 states |
Interviews with state-level data system managers, administrators, and researchers to determine how each state use administrative data records for monitoring evaluation and research |
|
University of Maryland, School of Social Work, Welfare and Child Support Research and Training Unit |
|
|
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Life After Welfare Study |
Maryland |
Matched administrative records; 5% random sample of closed cases taken every month for a year (2,156 cases); survey of former recipients |
|
Examining Customer Pathways and Assessment Practices |
Maryland |
In-person staff interviews, site visits, case record review, observation of worker-customer interactions |
Process analysis of Maryland's welfare program, which is state supervised, locally administered |
Urban Institute: Assessing the New Federalism |
|
|
|
State indicators |
All 50 states |
Compiled data on income security, social services, health, child and youth well-being, taxes, etc. |
Aggregate state-level data |
State case studies of policy and programs |
AL, CA, CO, FL, MA, MI, MN, MS, NJ, NY, TX, WA, WI |
Collecting data in base year (1996) and again in following years |
Development and implementation of policies |
National Survey of America's Families |
AL, CA, CO, FL, MA, MI, MN, MS, NJ, NY, TX, WA, WI |
Survey of over 40,000 households in 1997; follow-up survey of second cross-section in 1999 |
Well-being changes of two cross-sections to be analyzed |
Child Well-Being, with Child Trends (see above) |
All 50 states |
Tracks legislation at federal and state level. Child Trends is developing ways to measure changes in child well-being |
|
Project Title and Investigators |
State/Locality Studied |
Data Used |
Study Design |
Understanding the Impact of TANF and Other Laws on Immigrant Families |
Los Angeles and New York City |
Large-scale study of immigrants and communities |
|
Welfare Children and Families: A Three-City Study |
|
|
|
Various researchers across country |
Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio |
Longitudinal data on 2,800 households; developmental study of 800 children in 2,800 households; comparative ethnographies of 170 families |
Cohort design |