| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
APPENDIX A
Leaver Studies
OCR for page 96
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 97
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 98
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 99
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 100
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 101
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 102
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 103
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 104
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 105
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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)
OCR for page 106
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 107
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 108
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 109
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 110
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 111
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
?
OCR for page 112
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 113
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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
OCR for page 114
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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.
OCR for page 115
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
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.
OCR for page 116
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work
This page in the original is blank.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
food stamps
Items in cart [4]
