    Welfare Reform: Data Available to Assess TANF's Progress (Letter Report,
    02/28/2001, GAO/GAO-01-298).

    GAO commented on the federal government's ability to assess Temporary
    Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program goals using national,
    state, and local data. These data address the goals to differing
    degrees. National data, which includes data collected in national
    surveys and information that all states report to the Department of
    Health and Human Services (HHS), include extensive information related
    to TANF's two goals of providing assistance to needy families and ending
    dependency on government benefits but have limited information about
    promoting family formation. The data pertain to such issues as changes
    in TANF workloads, recipients' participation in work activities,
    employment status and earnings, and family well-being. Although there
    are national data on the incidence of out-of-wedlock births and marriage
    among TANF recipients and other low-income families, these data include
    only very recently available information on states' strategies to
    prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies or promote family formation. Data
    from studies of welfare reform at the state and local levels contain the
    same kind of information as national data, but they also include
    information about areas very recently covered by national data. Much of
    these data come from waiver evaluations--evaluations conducted in states
    that experimented with their welfare program, under a waiver from HHS,
    prior to TANF. The usefulness of existing data for assessing TANF's
    progress varies. In general, the need for information about TANF's
    progress will have to be balanced against the challenges of rigorous
    data collection from the low- income population.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-298
         TITLE:  Welfare Reform: Data Available to Assess TANF's Progress
          DATE:  02/28/2001
       SUBJECT:  Public assistance programs
    	     Surveys
    	     Statistical data
    	     Data collection
    	     State-administered programs
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Welfare recipients
    IDENTIFIER:  Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
    	     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
    	     Census Bureau Panel Study of Income Dynamics
    	     National Survey of America's Families
    	     Food Stamp Program
    	     HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant
    	     Census Bureau Survey of Income and Program Participation
    	     Census Bureau Current Population Survey
    	     National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
    	     Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program
    	     Medicaid Program
    	     Earned Income Tax Credit

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-01-298

    A

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    February 2001 WELFARE REFORM Data Available to Assess TANF's Progress

    GAO- 01- 298

    Letter 3 Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 40

    Appendix II: Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed 47 Appendix III:
    Scope and Type of Analyses for Which Waiver and

    Demonstration Data Can Be Used 58 Appendix IV: Comments From the Department
    of Health and Human

    Services 61 Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 62

    Tables Table 1: Overall Sample Sizes for National Data Sources 23 Table 2:
    Attrition Rates for National Data Sources That Collect

    Data Over Time 25 Table 3: Response Rates for National Surveys 26 Table 4:
    Number of Waiver and Demonstration Data Sets With

    Acceptable Response Rates 30 Table 5: National Data Sources 47 Table 6:
    Sources of Waiver, Demonstration, Leavers, Metropolitan

    and Community- Based, and Other Welfare Reform Data 47 Table 7: Other
    Studies Examined 54

    Figures Figure 1: TANF's Legislative Goals, Research Questions, and Data
    Categories Associated With Those Goals 14 Figure 2: National Data That
    Address TANF's Goals and Related Data Categories 16

    Figure 3: National Survey and HHS Administrative Data on TANF Groups 19
    Figure 4: State and Local Data That Address TANF's Goals and

    Related Data Categories 21 Figure 5: Data Sources That Collect Information
    at One Point in

    Time and Across Time 24 Figure 6: Leavers Data From Statewide Samples 32
    Figure 7: Years Covered by Data Available for Metropolitan and

    Community Areas 34 Figure 8: Six Major Critiques of Welfare Reform Research
    41

    Abbreviations

    ACF Administration for Children and Families AFDC Aid to Families With
    Dependent Children ASPE Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation CPS
    Current Population Survey HHS Department of Health and Human Services JOBS
    Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training LA FANS Los Angeles Family and
    Neighborhood Study NLSY National Longitudinal Survey of Youth NSAF National
    Survey of America's Families OBRA Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
    PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

    Act of 1996 PSID Panel Study of Income Dynamics RDD random digit dialing
    SIPP Survey of Income and Program Participation SPD Survey of Program
    Dynamics TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

    Lett er

    February 28, 2001 The Honorable Walter W. Herger Chairman, Subcommittee on
    Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives

    The Honorable Nancy L. Johnson House of Representatives

    Over 4 years have passed since federal welfare reform legislation was
    enacted, replacing the legal entitlement to cash assistance under the Aid to
    Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the promotion of work
    and personal responsibility. 1 The policy and research community has been
    asking what has happened to low- income families since the Personal
    Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)
    created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant,
    replacing the federal entitlement to assistance and institutionalizing
    reforms that had been initiated by many states. Overseen

    by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at the federal level,
    TANF makes $16. 8 billion in federal funds available to states each year
    through 2002. While TANF delegates wide discretion to the states to design
    and implement the program, it does specify four broad program goals that
    focus on children and families:

    ? providing assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for
    in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; ? ending the dependence of
    needy parents on government benefits by

    promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; ? preventing and reducing the
    incidence of out- of- wedlock pregnancies; and

    ? encouraging the formation and maintenance of two- parent families. As TANF
    has been implemented by the states, the Congress has asked questions about a
    broad range of issues concerning welfare reform's consequences. Several
    issues- for example, the circumstances of those

    who have left TANF and the characteristics of those currently receiving cash
    assistance- relate to what has happened to low- income families since

    1 Title I of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
    Act of 1996, P. L. 104- 193, established the TANF block grant program.

    TANF has been in effect. The Congress also has asked about the extent to
    which any changes that have occurred in low- income families' life
    circumstances, such as TANF recipients' increases in employment and earned
    income and decreases in births, can be attributed to TANF rather than to
    other factors, such as changes in economic conditions. These questions will
    be especially important when the program is considered for reauthorization
    in 2001.

    To determine what data will be available from planned and existing research
    to address these and other questions, you asked us to examine (1) the type
    of data that will be available from national surveys and studies of welfare
    reform to help assess progress towards TANF's goals and (2) the usefulness
    of the data for assessing TANF's progress nationwide. Our major objective
    was to examine data already collected by national surveys of lowincome
    families and for major studies of welfare reform to identify data available
    for use in a comprehensive assessment of TANF for the

    reauthorization debate. We did not examine study findings; rather, we
    examined the data that have been collected or will be collected as part of
    the considerable body of research about TANF that is accumulating. 2 The
    focus on data also addresses issues raised by several critiques of this work
    that have emerged. The critiques that examine the methodology of this
    research agree that, for welfare reform research, the quality and

    comprehensiveness of the existing data are cause for concern. Two critiques
    in particular question whether the major national survey designed to provide
    information to assess TANF at the national level- the Survey of Program
    Dynamics (SPD)- has “a sufficient number of observations” for

    an analysis of TANF's effects in individual states. 3 To determine what data
    will be available, we considered all of the national surveys and welfare
    reform studies discussed in six major critiques of 2 See Christine Devere,
    Gene Falk, and Vee Burke, Welfare Reform Research: What Have We Learned
    Since the Family Support Act of 1988? (Washington, D. C.: Congressional
    Research Service, Oct. 20, 2000) for a summary of findings about the effects
    of welfare reform

    initiatives. 3 The Census Bureau conducts the SPD, a longitudinal survey of
    a nationally representative sample of families, with emphasis on eligibility
    for and participation in welfare programs,

    employment, earnings, the incidence of out- of- wedlock births, and family
    well- being. The provision in PRWORA that authorized the SPD specified that
    the sample be drawn from the 1992 and 1993 Survey of Income and Program
    Participation (SIPP) samples. However, the original samples for the SIPP
    were designed to be nationally representative, not to be representative of
    any state.

    welfare reform research, as well as surveys and studies available through
    the Research Forum and the Welfare Information Network, the major
    clearinghouses for welfare reform research. 4 We also interviewed HHS
    officials about their perspective on welfare reform data and asked welfare

    experts to nominate key pieces of work in the field for inclusion in our
    review. We selected a sample of surveys and studies that resulted in 187
    individual data sets related to TANF reauthorization issues. 5 For each data
    set, we analyzed the content of the data to determine (1) the range of TANF-
    related data topics covered; (2) the level of detail the data offer; (3) the
    data's quality, including, where relevant, the sampling method, sample

    size, response rate, and attrition rate; and (4) how the data could be used
    to provide the Congress with an understanding of what has happened under
    TANF. Appendix I provides additional details about our methodology and its
    limitations. We conducted our work between January 2000 and January 2001 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Results in
    Brief National, state, and local data will be available to help assess
    progress toward TANF's goals, but these data address the goals to differing
    degrees.

    National data, which include data collected in national surveys and
    information that all states report to HHS, include extensive information
    related to TANF's two goals of providing assistance to needy families and
    ending dependency on government benefits but have limited information about
    TANF's goals of preventing out- of- wedlock pregnancies and promoting family
    formation. The data pertain to such issues as changes in the TANF caseload,
    use of noncash assistance by current and former TANF

    recipients, recipients' participation in work activities, employment status
    and earnings, and family well- being. Although there are national data on
    the incidence of out- of- wedlock births and marriage among TANF recipients
    and other low- income families, these data include only very recently
    available information on states' strategies to prevent out- of- wedlock

    pregnancies or promote family formation. Data from studies of welfare reform
    at the state and local levels contain the same kind of information as
    national data, but they also include information about areas very recently

    4 See fig. 8 in app. I for a list of the major critiques. 5 A data set is a
    body of data gathered for analysis by a single data collection method, such
    as by survey or from welfare case records or the administrative records of
    programs such as the Unemployment Insurance or federal income tax systems.

    covered by national data. For example, data are available about the
    birthrates and marriage patterns of individuals who participated in
    programs, some of which had provisions intended to foster marriage and
    discourage out- of- wedlock pregnancy. Much of these data come from waiver
    evaluations- evaluations conducted in states that experimented

    with their welfare program, under a waiver from HHS, prior to TANF. The
    usefulness of existing data for assessing TANF's progress varies. National
    data can be analyzed to develop a descriptive picture of TANF for the nation
    as a whole. However, of the seven national data sets we reviewed, only two
    can be used to describe the lives of families receiving TANF within
    individual states. To gain information about TANF's effects in

    the states, data from waiver evaluations and demonstrations can be used
    instead. In many cases, these data were collected by randomly assigning
    welfare recipients to groups subject to different welfare provisions,
    allowing employment, earnings, and well- being of the groups to be
    attributed to the provisions. However, most waiver and demonstration data
    were collected in localities and so cannot be used to assess state- level
    effects. We examined nearly 40 data sets that could be analyzed for

    information about the circumstances of former recipients. However, only a
    subgroup of these data sets met criteria that allowed the sample to be
    generalized statewide. These data sets represented 15 states. In some cases,
    the value of survey data collected from those who left welfare was

    limited because few former recipients actually responded to the surveys. In
    general, the need for information about TANF's progress will have to be
    balanced against the challenges of rigorous data collection from the
    lowincome population.

    Background PRWORA overhauled the nation's welfare system by abolishing the
    previous welfare program, AFDC, and creating the TANF block grant.

    PRWORA established four broad goals for TANF, which included (1) providing
    assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own
    homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) ending dependence of needy parents
    on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3)
    preventing and reducing the incidence of out- of- wedlock pregnancies; and
    (4) encouraging the formation and maintenance of twoparent families. Unlike
    the previous program, TANF gives states great flexibility to design programs
    that meet these goals. However, while states have flexibility, the programs
    they design must meet several federal requirements that emphasize the
    importance of work and the temporary nature of TANF. For example, PRWORA
    requires that parents receiving

    assistance engage in work, as defined by the state, after receiving
    assistance for 24 months, or earlier, at state option. In exercising their
    option, 28 states require immediate participation in work, and 9 other
    states require participation in work within 6 months of receiving cash
    assistance, resulting in great interstate variation in program provisions.
    Further, despite the programmatic flexibility authorized by TANF, states
    must meet federal data reporting requirements by submitting quarterly

    reports that include information from administrative records about those
    receiving welfare and those terminated from assistance, as well as an annual
    report, to HHS. The annual report contains information about program
    characteristics, such as states' activities used to prevent out- ofwedlock

    pregnancy. In 1995, we reported 6 that the block grants enacted as part of
    the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA) carried no uniform
    federal information requirements. 7 We found that the program information
    states collected was designed to meet individual states' needs and that, as
    a

    result, it was difficult to aggregate states' experiences and speak from a
    national perspective on the block grant activities or their effects. Without
    uniform information definitions and collection methodologies, it was
    difficult for the Congress to compare state efforts or draw meaningful
    conclusions about the relative effectiveness of different strategies. In a
    second examination of federal block grant programs, we reported that
    problems in information and reporting under many block grants- the Education
    Block Grant, the Community Services Block Grant, and the Alcohol, Drug
    Abuse, and Mental Health Services Block Grant- have limited the Congress'
    ability to evaluate them. 8 However, for the TANF

    Block Grant, the regulations require that states submit the quarterly TANF
    Data Report and the TANF Financial Report or be subject to statutory
    penalties. For these reports, HHS provides data reporting specifications
    including timing, format, and definitions for such data topics as family
    composition, employment status, and earned and unearned income. These 6
    Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions (GAO/ AIMD- 95-
    226, Sept. 1, 1995).

    7 OBRA created nine block grants: Community Services; Alcohol, Drug Abuse,
    and Mental Health Services; Primary Care; Social Services; Maternal and
    Child Health; Preventive Health and Health Services; Education (ch. 2); Low-
    Income Home Energy Assistance; and Community Development (small cities).

    8 Block Grants: Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons Learned (GAO/ HEHS-
    95- 74, Feb. 9, 1995).

    specifications facilitate the use of HHS' TANF administrative data for
    welfare reform research by improving the data's comparability from state to
    state. Several national surveys and data collected for state and local
    studies of welfare reform also are potential sources of data for an
    assessment of TANF. National Data Sources on

    A number of national surveys that collect information about welfare receipt
    TANF have been used in the past by researchers to analyze welfare reform or
    have been developed to assess current welfare reform. Four surveys- the
    Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Current

    Population Survey (CPS), the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY),
    and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID)- have been used in past
    research on the AFDC program and the low- income population in general. Both
    the SIPP and the PSID have updated their questionnaires to include questions
    that pertain to welfare reform specifically, including

    questions about the work participation requirements and penalties for not
    complying with these and other program rules. Moreover, two national surveys
    are designed specifically to answer questions about welfare reform. The U.
    S. Census Bureau, at the direction of the Congress, is conducting a
    longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of families, with
    emphasis on eligibility for and participation in welfare

    programs, employment, earnings, the incidence of out- of- wedlock births,
    and adult and child well- being. This survey, the Survey of Program
    Dynamics, was designed to help researchers understand the impact of welfare
    reform on the well- being of low- income families and children.

    Similarly, the Urban Institute has been conducting a multiyear project
    monitoring program changes and fiscal developments, along with changes in
    the well- being of children and families. Part of this project includes a
    nationally representative survey of 50,000 people called the National Survey
    of America's Families (NSAF) that is collecting information on the

    well- being of adults and children as welfare reform is implemented. 9 With
    the change in the fundamental structure of the nation's welfare program,
    there have been several efforts by private research organizations to
    document the policies states have adopted under TANF. The Center for Law and
    Social Policy and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in
    collaboration, have created the State Policy Documentation Project to 9
    Although valuable resources for assessing national programs, national
    surveys often are

    costly. For example, the 1997 NSAF cost $14 million to administer and
    process.

    document policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Available
    on the Web, the State Policy Documentation Project contains information
    about state policies contained in statutes, regulations, and caseworker
    manuals, but it does not describe state practices. In addition, the Urban
    Institute has developed and made available to the public a database that
    documents changes in state program rules since 1996.

    State and Local Data From Prior to and since TANF's implementation, a
    considerable body of research

    Welfare Reform Research about the low- income population has been conducted
    to examine the

    circumstances of families affected by welfare reform, the effectiveness of
    welfare reform initiatives, and the implementation of TANF at the state
    level. HHS has played a major role in laying the foundation for this welfare
    reform research. 10 During the early 1990s, HHS granted waivers to states
    that allowed them to test various welfare reform provisions. In return,

    states were required to evaluate the effectiveness of the waiver provisions
    by randomly assigning welfare recipients to either participate in the waiver
    program or not. With the passage of TANF, states were given the option to
    continue their waiver evaluations as originally designed or modify the
    evaluation design. Several states opted to continue with their original
    random assignment design, while others modified their evaluation designs to
    focus on examining the implementation of the waivers or describe

    participants' employment, earnings, and well- being. Because some elements
    of the waivers granted to states were incorporated into many TANF programs,
    the waiver evaluations provide useful insights into issues and designs for
    research about TANF.

    However, according to HHS, one aspect of waiver policies may mean that some
    waiver evaluations may not represent TANF requirements completely. TANF
    established work requirements for all adult recipients,

    but states could delay adhering to these requirements under their TANF
    program, in part or whole, if the requirements were inconsistent with state
    waiver policies. Under the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training
    (JOBS) program, work requirements were mandatory for a work- ready or able-
    bodied population, excluding a number of subgroups such as those

    caring for young children and the disabled. For the most part, states that
    continued the original random assignment design maintained some or all of 10
    The Congress also has supported the use of rigorous evaluations. For
    example, in 1988, the Family Support Act authorized funding for research
    using random assignment that led to a major examination of welfare- to- work
    strategies that existed before TANF.

    the JOBS exemptions from work requirements and applied these exemptions in
    determining who was subject to time- limited assistance. Consequently, while
    these states' waivers may incorporate other work policies prescribed under
    TANF, these policies would not be expected to affect the exempt population.
    In contrast, in states that do not claim JOBS

    exemptions from work requirements, all adults are subject to work
    requirements and time limits on assistance. Thus, while testing TANF- like
    policies, evaluations that continued the random assignment design may not
    fully reflect the experience, outcomes, or impacts of fully implemented

    TANF requirements. In addition to the waiver evaluations, HHS, as well as
    private foundations, has provided funding for demonstration programs across
    the country. The demonstration programs are pilot projects designed to
    measure the effects of a particular strategy, rather than an entire program,
    on welfare recipients or those eligible to receive welfare. Many of these
    demonstration programs were intended to increase employment, decrease out-
    of- wedlock

    pregnancy, or promote marriage. For example, in the late 1980s, several
    demonstration programs aimed at decreasing teen pregnancy among welfare
    recipients were developed. One program, the New Chance Demonstration,
    randomly assigned teen mothers receiving welfare to participate in a program
    that offered education or training classes and other support services and
    then compared the accomplishments of these teen mothers with those of teen
    mothers who did not participate in the program. Given states' greater
    responsibility for welfare programs under PRWORA

    and the larger number of people leaving the welfare rolls, there has been
    general interest among program administrators and state and local
    policymakers about the condition of those who are no longer receiving TANF,
    otherwise known as “leavers.” In response to this concern, a
    growing body of research about leavers has been initiated at both the state
    and federal levels. Generally, researchers have found that once low- income
    families leave welfare, they become hard to keep track of. Moreover, we
    previously reported that studies of former TANF recipients' status differ in

    important ways, including geographic scope, the time period covered, and the
    categories of families studied, which limits the comparability of the data
    across states. 11 In order to facilitate cross- state study comparisons, the

    11 See Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients' Status (GAO/ HEHS-
    99- 48, Apr. 28, 1999).

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) within
    HHS has issued guidance to states and the research community on developing
    comparable measures for commonly reported outcomes and defined these
    outcomes. In fiscal year 1998, ASPE awarded approximately $2. 9 million in
    grants to 10 states and three large counties to study leavers, followed by
    additional grants in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. ASPE also has

    encouraged the researchers to use comparable measures. Research is also
    being conducted to examine the effects of welfare reform in metropolitan
    areas or neighborhoods. This area of research is important because the
    caseload decline in urban areas has been substantially lower

    than in other areas of the country. Moreover, urban areas can have higher
    unemployment rates and a greater concentration of poverty than suburban or
    rural communities; thus, insights gathered from these studies will be useful
    in understanding the potential for the success of welfare reform in

    the event of an economic downturn. For example, one study- the Three City
    Study- will survey primarily low- income, single- mother families from poor
    and moderate- income areas in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio, with half of
    those surveyed being TANF recipients. 12 The survey will collect information
    on adult and family well- being, employment, and welfare receipt three times
    within 4 years.

    Finally, a body of welfare reform research examines the implementation of
    TANF at the state and local levels. Since PRWORA has not only granted states
    greater responsibility for providing cash assistance but also changed the
    nature of cash assistance, it is important to learn how states and
    localities are coping with these changes. Much of the research about program
    implementation focuses on challenges faced by state, and in some cases
    local, administrators in implementing TANF. Typically, in this research
    qualitative data are collected by visiting state or local TANF

    agencies; reviewing program records; and interviewing agency officials,
    caseworkers, and clients. For example, the State Capacity Study conducted by
    the State University of New York, Rockefeller Institute of Government, is
    collecting data in 20 states about the implementation of TANF at the state

    level, such as the structure of government services and information systems
    used to track clients.

    12 Johns Hopkins University, in collaboration with the University of Texas
    at Austin, Pennsylvania State University, Northwestern University, and
    Harvard University, is conducting the Three City Study.

    Framework for Assessing Because we expect much of the reauthorization debate
    to focus on TANF's Data Availability

    four legislative goals, the framework for our data assessment was based on
    those goals. To assess whether data exist to address the goals, we first
    created a list of “descriptive” and “effect”
    research questions relevant to each goal. Descriptive questions concern a
    low- income individual's or family's status or behavior, such as the receipt
    of TANF cash assistance or

    support services like transportation, housing, child care, or health
    services; an adult's employment status and earnings; and a family's reliance
    on nonTANF government benefits, such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, or the Earned
    Income Tax Credit. Effect questions concern the extent to which changes in
    an individual's or family's status or behavior, such as obtaining
    employment, earning income, avoiding out- of- wedlock births, or forming a
    two- parent family, are the result of the TANF program. These research
    questions represent the broad issues that the Congress will consider during
    TANF's reauthorization.

    To summarize our findings, we identified data categories associated with
    TANF's goals, some of which are more narrowly focused than the research
    questions. The data categories represent combinations of topics we found in
    the data, such as employment and earnings or family and child wellbeing,
    that were associated with the research questions. Figure 1 shows the
    relationships among TANF's goals, the research questions, and the data
    categories, several of which are associated with more than one question.

    We then compared the data categories with the HHS administrative data, the
    data collected by national surveys, and the data derived from existing and
    planned studies.

    Our assessment of the data's usefulness for determining TANF's progress is
    based on the data's strengths and weaknesses, the design of the survey or
    study for which the data were gathered, and the topics to which the data
    related. The criteria we used in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of
    survey data included survey sample size, the attrition rate of respondents
    from whom data were collected over time, and survey response rate. For
    administrative data, we examined the geographic scope and the comparability
    of the data among states. The design features examined included what the
    data collection method was, whether the data were collected at one point in
    time or at different points in time, and whether the

    data were used for descriptive analysis of TANF or AFDC program recipients
    and their families or analysis of the program's effects. Data that can be
    used for descriptive analysis are useful for research that addresses
    questions in the descriptive column of figure 1, and data that can be used

    for analyses of effect are useful for questions in the effect column of the
    figure.

    Figure 1: TANF's Legislative Goals, Research Questions, and Data Categories
    Associated With Those Goals

    National, State, and Together, national surveys, HHS administrative data,
    and data from state

    and local studies of welfare reform address TANF's four legislative goals.
    13 Local Data Address The national data provide extensive information
    related to TANF's goals of Different TANF Goals providing assistance to
    needy families and ending dependency on government benefits through job
    preparation, work, and marriage. State and local data not only address the
    same goals as the national data but in some cases also provide information
    related to the goals of preventing outof-

    wedlock pregnancies and promoting family formation. National Data Address
    Two

    National data provide detailed descriptive information related to two of
    TANF Goals but Provide TANF's goals, but limited information related to
    TANF's goals of preventing Limited Information on Outof- out- of- wedlock
    pregnancies and promoting family formation. HHS administrative data 14 and
    the six national surveys we examined- the CPS, Wedlock Pregnancy NLSY, NSAF,
    PSID, SIPP, and SPD- provide descriptive information related Prevention and
    Family

    to TANF's goal of providing assistance to needy families, including
    Formation Strategies information about the change in size and composition of
    the TANF caseload and the use of noncash assistance by current and former
    TANF recipients (see fig. 2). 15 13 See app. II for a complete list of the
    national surveys and studies about welfare reform that we examined for data.

    14 HHS administrative data are data that states report to HHS on their AFDC
    and TANF caseloads. 15 We reviewed only the CPS March Supplement.

    Figure 2: National Data That Address TANF's Goals and Related Data
    Categories

    Note: We did not assess the American Community Survey, a national survey
    that will collect information about welfare receipt and other measures,
    because the data will not be available in time for the reauthorization
    debate. This survey was developed by the Census Bureau as a way to provide
    more timely demographic information for local, state, and federal
    governments. The Census Bureau is currently testing the data collection
    instrument and sampling strategy for this survey, and full- scale

    implementation for a sample of 3 million households is scheduled for fiscal
    year 2003. We also did not assess the National Survey of Family Growth,
    which collects information on fertility, family formation, and other family
    characteristics, because its post- TANF data will not be available in time
    for reauthorization. The National Survey of Family Growth is administered by
    the National Center for Health Statistics. a Out- of- wedlock birthrates may
    be able to be constructed from such measures as date of marriage and

    child's birthdate, which many of the national surveys collect. b HHS
    administrative data are data reported by the states about AFDC or TANF
    caseloads. c Beginning in fiscal year 2000, each state must include this
    information in its annual report. The first fiscal year 2000 report was due
    December 31, 2000.

    National data also address TANF's goal of ending dependence on government
    benefits by describing the circumstances of those receiving TANF and those
    who are no longer receiving TANF. HHS administrative records and national
    surveys provide descriptive information about TANF

    recipients' participation in work activities, employment status, earnings,
    and other family well- being measures. HHS administrative records contain
    information only about whether a recipient is working and how much income
    that individual earns, while national surveys collect more detailed
    employment and earnings data, such as the types of jobs held and the hourly
    wage. National data are also available about family well- being measures,
    which provide information about how TANF's focus on work and marriage may be
    changing the lives of low- income families. For

    instance, national surveys have information about the amount of personal
    income spent on health and housing, whether recipients or former recipients
    rent or own housing, and the well- being of children of welfare

    recipients. Several of the national surveys provide information about
    children's school attendance or developmental status, while SIPP and SPD
    also collect data about the number of births to teenagers. SIPP is the only
    national survey we examined that contains information about whether parents
    have had to terminate their parental rights or give a child up for

    adoption. National data related to the goals of preventing out- of- wedlock
    pregnancy and promoting family formation are limited. While all the national
    data sets include information about recipients' and nonrecipients' marital
    status, only HHS administrative records contain information about out- of-
    wedlock

    births among the TANF caseload. 16 However, states did not begin reporting
    this information to HHS until fiscal year 2000.

    Aside from information about welfare reform in general, national surveys and
    HHS collect information about several different groups of individuals
    affected by TANF, including those who remain on assistance, those who no
    longer receive TANF, those who are diverted from TANF, 17 and those who

    are eligible but choose not to participate. HHS administrative data and all
    six national surveys collect data about current and former TANF recipients,
    but the type of information collected about these individuals differs. As
    figure 3 shows, only the NSAF and SIPP have data about those diverted from
    TANF, while the NLSY, NSAF, PSID, SIPP, and SPD have data about

    individuals who are eligible to receive TANF but do not. 16 HHS has tracked
    changes in the number of out- of- wedlock pregnancies in each state with
    data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics, Division of
    Vital Statistics. HHS uses this information to award bonuses to states that
    have decreased their number of out- ofwedlock pregnancies. 17 Under TANF,
    states may opt to offer cash diversion payments or job search services to
    families applying for TANF benefits. Diversion payments and services are
    intended to address an emergency situation and keep families from entering
    the welfare system.

    Figure 3: National Survey and HHS Administrative Data on TANF Groups

    a The actual year varies for each survey and HHS administrative data set
    reviewed. b SIPP collects information on total benefits received in a month.
    c As part of TANF reporting requirements, states must report this
    information to HHS beginning in fiscal year 2000. States also report
    information on non- TANF assistance to TANF recipients, such as Medicaid,
    housing, and Supplemental Security Income. d Special Supplemental Nutrition
    Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

    State and Local Data The state and local data we reviewed can be classified
    into four categories

    Complement and Fill Gaps that complement and, in some cases, fill in gaps
    not covered by the national in the National Data data. Waiver data come from
    evaluations that tested the effects of programs implemented by states under
    waivers approved by HHS prior to TANF. 18 Demonstration data come from
    studies that tested the

    effectiveness of particular strategies aimed at individuals either receiving
    welfare or eligible to receive welfare. Leavers data come from
    administrative records and surveys that describe the circumstances of

    those who left welfare. Finally, metropolitan and community- based data come
    from studies that, in general, describe the circumstances of lowincome
    families and TANF participants in specific metropolitan areas,
    neighborhoods, or communities.

    Waiver data have been used to examine the effects of TANF- like provisions
    on welfare recipients' employment status, birth rates, and marital status,
    as shown in figure 4. Several states have been evaluating the waiver
    provisions in their welfare programs by randomly assigning welfare
    recipients to either the waiver program or AFDC. Waiver programs require
    participants to follow provisions that later were required or permitted

    under TANF, such as being required to work or risk losing eligibility for
    benefits or being allowed to receive welfare for only a limited time. Most
    of the waiver program evaluations collected data used to analyze the effect
    of waivers on welfare receipt, employment, and income. Data from several of
    the evaluations have also been used to analyze the effects of waivers on
    out- of- wedlock pregnancy or family formation.

    18 Under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, HHS was authorized to
    grant states waivers of statutory requirements governing the AFDC program.
    This authority was intended to give states the flexibility to test
    innovations in their programs, such as limiting the length of

    benefit receipt or strengthening work requirements.

    Figure 4: State and Local Data That Address TANF's Goals and Related Data
    Categories

    Note: A dot indicates that at least one data set provides information
    related to this issue. a Data related to these topics were collected from
    demonstration programs operated before enactment of PRWORA in 1996. With the
    passage of PRWORA, several states incorporated their waiver provisions into
    their TANF program and have been collecting data about the experiences of
    participants in the program. Some of these states chose

    not to continue their evaluations as originally designed, instead conducting
    modified evaluations that typically involved studies that will provide
    information on the experience of implementing the program. For example,
    Montana is surveying TANF participants to collect data about the duration

    of their welfare receipt, the types of noncash assistance they use, and
    their employment.

    Demonstration data provide information on topics that are similar to those
    addressed by waiver data and have also been used to analyze the effects of
    programs on their participants, but demonstration data differ in two key
    ways. First, most demonstration data, including all data related to
    pregnancy prevention and family formation, were collected before

    PRWORA was enacted. Second, demonstration data were collected for studies
    focused on how a particular approach affected program participants. In fact,
    many of the demonstration data we examined were used entirely to assess the
    effects of various strategies on participants' employment status and
    earnings, which helps to distinguish the effects of particular provisions
    included in a program like TANF.

    Leavers data provide descriptive information about those who have left
    welfare. This information includes the length of time an individual received
    TANF, reasons for leaving welfare, types of noncash assistance used, and
    employment and earnings information. In addition, some leavers data sets
    contain information about former recipients' marital status, and a few have

    data about the number of pregnancies and births among former recipients.
    Metropolitan and community- based data cover some of the same issues as the
    other data categories, including information about TANF work requirements
    and time limits. Although the same issues are addressed, the data are
    collected in large cities or neighborhoods in order to examine the
    circumstances of welfare recipients in areas that may have high
    concentrations of poverty or limited access to jobs. In addition,
    metropolitan and community- based data provide information about groups
    other than TANF recipients and former recipients- including individuals
    diverted from TANF and those who are eligible to participate in TANF but

    do not. Strengths and

    Although existing data provide rich information about the lives of families
    Weaknesses of Existing who are receiving or have received TANF, the
    strengths and weaknesses of

    these data affect their usefulness for understanding welfare under the Data
    Affect Usefulness

    TANF block grant. National data can be analyzed to gain a descriptive for
    Assessing TANF's picture of what has happened under TANF for the nation as a
    whole. Progress

    However, of the seven national data sets we reviewed, only two can be used
    to describe the well- being of families receiving TANF within individual
    states. Although waiver and demonstration data can be analyzed to gain
    information about TANF's effects, these analyses can be done within only a
    limited number of states and disparate localities. We examined nearly 40
    data sets that could be analyzed for information about the circumstances of
    former recipients. However, only a subgroup of these data sets met criteria
    that allowed the sample to be generalized statewide. These data sets
    represented 15 states. In some cases, the value of survey data collected

    from those who left welfare was limited because few former recipients
    actually responded to the surveys: in some cases, former recipients could

    not be located, and in other cases they chose not to answer the questions
    posed to them. Metropolitan and community- based data can be analyzed to
    describe changes over time in the lives of welfare recipients in urban

    centers. Much of this data collection will continue beyond 2001. National
    Survey Data The strength of the national data is that they were collected
    from samples Provide Descriptive

    selected randomly from the nation's population and include low- income
    Information About Nation, families and TANF recipients in numbers sufficient
    to allow reliable but Not Effects in Individual estimates about these
    groups. In addition, most of the national data were States collected for the
    same individuals over time, allowing changes in welfare recipients'
    employment, earnings, and well- being to be tracked across

    programs implemented at different times. However, all the national surveys
    have participants who drop out of the survey sample over time, and this may
    limit how well the samples represent the nation's welfare recipients.
    National data are collected from random samples that contain low- income
    families and TANF recipients. Because samples from national surveys are
    selected randomly, they are, at the time of selection, representative of the
    population at large, including the welfare population. In addition, all the
    national data sets we reviewed have sample sizes large enough to allow
    reliable estimates about the nation's low- income and TANF populations-

    as sample size increases, the degree of precision of the estimates made
    using that sample also increases (see table 1).

    Table 1: Overall Sample Sizes for National Data Sources National data
    sources Overall sample size

    HHS administrative data a 164, 481 CPS 50, 000 NLSY 12, 686 NSAF 46, 000
    PSID 7,000 SIPP 36, 800 SPD 37, 000 a Under the TANF data reporting system,
    states have the option to submit either sample data or data on their entire
    TANF caseload to HHS. For its fiscal year 1999 report to the Congress, HHS
    randomly selected approximately 200 to 400 cases each month from each state
    that submits data on its entire caseload. Thus, the total in column two
    combines data from states that submitted a sample and states that submitted
    data on the entire caseload.

    As shown in figure 5, two national data sources collect data on individuals
    at one point in time; others collect data on the same individuals across
    time. In both cases, the data can be used for comparisons between groups of
    individuals living under welfare provisions implemented at different time
    periods.

    Figure 5: Data Sources That Collect Information at One Point in Time and
    Across Time

    a The CPS rotates participants in the following way: a housing unit is
    interviewed at regular intervals for 4 consecutive months; for the next 8
    months, the housing unit is not part of the sample; the unit is then
    interviewed for the next 4 months and then retired from the sample. As a
    result, less than 50 percent of the sample can be linked across years.

    Five national surveys- the CPS, NLSY, PSID, SIPP, and SPD- collect data from
    the same individuals over time. For the SIPP, the Census Bureau, after a
    specified period, changes the group of individuals from whom data are
    collected. For example, the 1993 SIPP panel followed a group of individuals
    through 1996. In 1996, a new group was randomly selected and followed

    through 2000. Data collected over time could be analyzed to describe how
    people cycle on and off TANF, how their use of benefits changes over time,
    and how their family well- being changes. In addition, comparisons could be
    made between groups covered by different welfare provisions. For example,
    AFDC recipients included in the 1993- 96 SIPP panel could be compared with
    TANF recipients who were part of the 1996- 2000 SIPP panel. The NSAF, as
    well as HHS administrative records, has collected data

    from different samples of individuals in different years. For example, in
    1997 one group of people completed the NSAF; another group completed the
    survey in 1999. In cases such as these, the samples from different years can
    be compared with each other to look for changes across time.

    For those national surveys that collect information about changes in welfare
    across time, the likelihood that survey participants will drop out over time
    increases, potentially affecting how well the data actually represent all
    members of the nation's low- income and TANF populations.

    In general, the greater the attrition rate, the less likely a sample is to
    be representative of the larger population from which it was drawn. Those
    who have continued participating in the survey may be different from those
    who stopped or dropped out. As surveys that collect data over time, the
    NLSY, PSID, SIPP, and SPD all have experienced sample loss, as shown in
    table 2. Concerns about attrition are especially significant for the SPD,

    because it was designed specifically to track welfare recipients from AFDC
    through TANF. Census has tried mathematically adjusting available responses
    to compensate for the survey's sample loss, but this adjustment has not
    sufficiently remedied the problem, according to a Census official. Census
    will take steps to lessen attrition through intensive follow- up with survey
    dropouts to enlist their participation and through the use of monetary
    incentives for future respondents to the survey.

    Table 2: Attrition Rates for National Data Sources That Collect Data Over
    Time Attrition a calculated from

    Percentage of sample that Beginning of data

    stopped Survey

    collection Through participating NLSY79 1979 1996 36 PSID 1968 1993 47 SPD
    1992 1998 50 SIPP 1996 2000 36

    Note: Attrition rates vary depending on whether deceased respondents are
    included in the calculation. a The attrition rates for the four national
    surveys that collect data across time are not necessarily comparable. As the
    table shows, some surveys started tracking their samples earlier than
    others, increasing the potential for sample loss. In addition, surveys vary
    in when they begin counting attrition. Some start counting attrition only
    after the sample has been formed, while others include in the

    calculation those who were selected for the original sample but who could
    not be contacted or did not participate. See Daniel H. Weinberg and
    Stephanie S. Shipp, The Survey of Program Dynamics: A Mid- term Status
    Report (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Census Bureau, Feb. 2, 2000) for a more
    detailed discussion of attrition and a related measure, cumulative response
    rate, in the SPD, NLSY, and PSID.

    For national surveys, the response rate- the number of people in the survey
    sample who actually responded, compared with those who were asked to respond
    but did not- has been large enough to allow the survey results to be
    generalized beyond those who completed the survey, with the

    exception of the 1999 NSAF. Most practitioners of survey research, including
    GAO, require at least a 70- to 75- percent response rate before survey data
    can be generalized beyond those who completed the survey. As table 3 shows,
    the response rate for all the national surveys except the 1999

    NSAF was at or above the 70- percent standard. 19 Given the survey's
    response rate, using the 1999 NSAF survey data would require determining
    whether patterns in who responded and who did not respond existed and what
    this means for how well respondents represent the original sample. For those
    surveys that collect data on the same individuals over time, response rates
    sometimes are considered in conjunction with rates of attrition.

    Table 3: Response Rates for National Surveys Response rate National surveys
    (percentage)

    CPS 84 NLSY 90 a NSAF 1997 70 NSAF 1999 64 PSID 92 a SIPP 90 b SPD 89 a a
    This rate represents only the most recent administration of the survey. b
    The typical response rate for the 1996 SIPP panel was in the high 80s to low
    90s.

    The major limitation of most existing national data is that they cannot be
    used for state- level analyses. In general, national data sources have state
    sample sizes that are too small to allow reliable generalizations about 19
    The NSAF's sample was gathered by a procedure known as random digit dialing
    (RDD). An RDD sample is drawn by randomly selecting entries from a list of
    telephone numbers for the general population. Depending on how recently the
    list was updated, many of the entries may not be for working telephones.
    Thus, the response rates of RDD samples tend to be lower.

    TANF recipients within individual states. The NLSY, PSID, SIPP, and SPD
    collect data not from states per se, but from regions that, in some cases,
    include more than one state. Thus, while these data can be analyzed to
    provide a descriptive picture of TANF for the nation, they cannot be used

    within states for descriptive analyses or to analyze the effects of states'
    TANF provisions. This does not mean that researchers do not use these data
    sources for state- level analyses. For example, some researchers combine
    several years of CPS data to obtain adequate sample sizes within

    states for state- level analyses. However, Census, which administers the
    CPS, SIPP, and SPD, does not recommend using data from these surveys for
    state- level analyses, because doing so when sample sizes are small may
    produce findings that are not reliable. 20

    Two national data sources, HHS administrative records and the NSAF survey,
    can be used for state- level analysis, but with limitations. HHS
    administrative records provide data from all 50 states and the District of
    Columbia. However, the reporting requirements for these data are not
    completely standardized across states, so that how a variable is defined

    may vary among states. For example, each state may define the work or work-
    related activities in which TANF recipients participate as they think
    appropriate to the state program. Like HHS administrative records, NSAF
    survey data can be used for statelevel

    analyses. NSAF has samples large enough to allow state- level analyses in 13
    states, 21 representing 58 percent of the fiscal year 1999 national TANF
    caseload; this is not the case in the 37 remaining states. For example, the
    number of low- income children surveyed for the 1997 NSAF ranged from a

    low of 760 to a high of 1,813 in each of the 13 states where NSAF collected
    samples large enough to permit state- level analysis. However, the number of
    low- income children surveyed in the 37 remaining states averaged 35 per
    state, a number too small to allow reliable conclusions about the children
    of TANF recipients in any of these states.

    Even if the issue of sample sizes within states were resolved, obstacles to
    using the national data to analyze TANF's effects within states would still
    20 It should be noted that Census will expand the sample of the CPS in 2001.
    The sample size will be doubled, which will increase sample sizes in
    individual states and allow improved state- level estimates. 21 Alabama,
    California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
    Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.

    exist. The lack of information about the choices states have made about TANF
    policies and program rules has been identified as one of the challenges to
    using national data to analyze TANF's effects. However, research
    organizations have collected this information. The Center for Law and Social
    Policy has worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to
    document policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the
    Urban Institute has developed a state database that documents state program
    rules. Yet, even with this information, using national data to

    measure state- level effects poses challenges. The first challenge is
    deciding with whom TANF recipients should be compared. To test TANF's
    effects, the employment, earnings, and wellbeing of individuals in the
    program must be compared with those of individuals who are not in the
    program. In the case of TANF, it would be difficult to determine what group
    should provide the point of comparison. 22 Because waivers introduced TANF-
    like policies and program rules while

    AFDC was still in effect, it would be difficult to select a group of welfare
    recipients whose experiences with welfare were not influenced by TANF.

    The second challenge is determining the effect of any single welfare
    provision given the multiple provisions that make up states' TANF programs.
    For example, TANF recipients are required to work, and states must impose
    penalties or sanctions when recipients do not comply with work requirements.
    In such cases, it would be difficult to separate the

    combined effects of work requirements and any penalties or sanctions that
    were imposed into the individual effects of each. A third challenge is
    detecting the long- term effects of state programs that have been recently
    implemented. Although PRWORA was enacted in 1996, states implemented their
    TANF programs at different points in time. Some states were still refining
    their TANF programs at the beginning of 1998. Consequently, the long- term
    effects of TANF may not yet be realized. Finally, state- level analyses may
    not be the best way to measure TANF's effects in every state. Some states
    have further devolved TANF to localities, and different localities may
    implement a state's TANF provisions differently. In total, 17 states have
    given local governments responsibility for TANF program design and
    implementation.

    22 In program evaluation research, choosing a group with which participants
    in a program can be compared is referred to as “selecting the
    counterfactual.”

    Waiver and Demonstration The strength of the waiver and demonstration data
    is that they can be used Data Allow Assessment of

    to analyze TANF's effects, but with few exceptions these data were TANF
    Effects, but Only for collected from city and county samples rather than
    statewide samples. (See

    Localities app. II for the localities examined.) Most of the waiver and
    demonstration

    data were collected as part of experiments- studies that randomly assigned
    welfare recipients to groups that were subject to different welfare
    provisions. Experiments, when done correctly, are recognized as the most
    rigorous way of determining the extent to which an observed outcome can be
    attributed to the program itself, rather than to differences among the
    program participants. Over half of the waiver data sets and virtually all of
    the demonstration data sets we reviewed consisted of data from experiments.
    Of the waiver data sets, about half were collected from city and county
    samples, with the others being collected from statewide

    samples. All of the demonstration data sets were collected from city and
    county samples. Overall, 6 of the 54 waiver and demonstration data sets that
    could be used for analyses of effect were collected from statewide

    samples. 23 According to the project directors of two waiver evaluations,
    the high cost of conducting rigorous program evaluations may explain, in
    part, why data sets used to analyze TANF's effects tend to use samples from
    cities and

    counties and not entire states. Given limited resources, researchers may
    choose to conduct rigorous evaluations in selected cities or counties rather
    than sacrifice rigor to evaluate a program statewide. Data sources we
    reviewed for both the Vermont and Iowa waiver evaluations mentioned budget
    constraints as a factor that led researchers to limit their data collection
    efforts.

    Another limitation of the waiver and demonstration data is that most often
    they were collected prior to the implementation of TANF. This is not
    surprising given that in many cases the waiver provisions and the
    demonstration projects were intended to test provisions before they were
    adopted and implemented. However, the provisions tested may not have been
    those ultimately adopted by the state.

    Finally, in almost all cases in which waiver evaluations and demonstration
    projects collected survey data, response rates were above the 70- percent
    standard (see table 4).

    23 See app. III for a list of waiver and demonstration data sets showing the
    geographic scope of the sample and the type of analysis for which each data
    set could be used.

    Table 4: Number of Waiver and Demonstration Data Sets With Acceptable
    Response Rates

    Total waiver and demonstration data sets collected using surveys 24

    Data sets with response rate at or above 70 percent 14 Data sets with
    response rate below 70 percent 3 Note: In seven cases, the data source we
    reviewed did not report a response rate.

    State- Level Analyses of The strength of the leavers data is that in most
    cases, they were collected

    Leavers Data Are Possible in from statewide samples. However, in some cases,
    leavers data collected

    15 States; in Some Cases, using surveys may not be representative of a
    state's leaver population.

    Picture Is Incomplete Although we reviewed nearly 40 leavers data sets, on
    the basis of the type

    of data available, response rates, and the absence of significant
    differences between survey respondents and nonrespondents, we concluded that
    statelevel analyses could be done for 15 states using the data sets we
    examined. To be representative of a state's leavers population, survey data
    need to meet the 70- percent standard for response rates, or, through a
    comparison of survey respondents with nonrespondents, show that the two
    groups do not differ significantly. When a state has both administrative
    data and survey data available, the administrative data could be used in
    place of survey data that are not representative. As figure 6 shows,
    Arkansas,

    Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina have either survey data
    that meet the standard for response rates or data from survey respondents
    who were not significantly different from nonrespondents. Arizona, Colorado,
    the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Virginia, Washington,
    and Wisconsin have both administrative data and survey data. The response
    rate for the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Virginia, and Wisconsin
    was below 70 percent, but for Virginia, a comparison of respondents with
    nonrespondents revealed no significant differences between the two groups.
    Although New York has no survey data, its administrative data provide
    information about the state's leavers.

    California, Massachusetts, and Texas are the three states for which, given
    the available data, state- level analyses of leavers cannot be done. We
    previously reported that eight leavers studies covering seven states had
    collected adequate information to allow the study findings to be

    generalized to the states' welfare populations. 24 Thus 4 states- Indiana,
    Maryland, Oklahoma, and Tennessee- can be added to the list of 15 states we
    identify in figure 6 as having data that can be generalized statewide. 25 In
    appendix II we list all the sources we reviewed that provide data on those
    who have left welfare.

    24 GAO/ HEHS- 99- 48, Apr. 28, 1999. 25 We examined more recent leavers data
    for three of the seven states in our review.

    Figure 6: Leavers Data From Statewide Samples

    a Leavers data can be used for state- level analyses. b Only survey data
    were available. c A comparison of respondents with nonrespondents showed no
    significant differences between the two groups. d Only administrative data
    were available.

    Some researchers may wish to compare those who left TANF with those who left
    AFDC on outcomes such as employment, earnings, and well- being. Contrasting
    outcomes for these two groups would require deciding which

    AFDC leavers provide the best point of comparison. Many factors specific to
    the year in which recipients left the welfare rolls would influence their
    employment prospects, wages, and well- being. For example, labor markets and
    economic conditions in a given year would influence former recipients'
    employment opportunities. Historical influences such as these would
    complicate the issue of selecting a comparable group of AFDC leavers and
    TANF leavers. Metropolitan and

    The strength of the metropolitan and community- based data is that they
    Community- Based Data

    can be used in descriptive analyses that provide information about how the
    Cover Urban Centers; Data lives of low- income families and TANF
    participants have changed over

    Collection Will Continue time. Because data collection is occurring over
    time, in some cases it has

    yet to be completed. For example, the Los Angeles Family and Beyond 2001

    Neighborhood Study (LA FANS) is collecting data about participation in
    welfare programs from residents of 65 neighborhoods in Los Angeles County
    over a 4- year period. LA FANS began data collection in January 2000 and
    will continue data collection through 2004. Most of the materials we
    reviewed regarding metropolitan and community- based data sets did not
    report information about attrition rates. When response rates were reported,
    they were above the 70- percent standard. Figure 7 shows the time periods
    for which the data are or will be available for different metropolitan areas
    and communities.

    Figure 7: Years Covered by Data Available for Metropolitan and Community
    Areas

    a In total, data will be collected from 20 cities. b Information for the
    three data sets was collected from all four sites.

    Three of the metropolitan and community- based data sources have measures
    that can be used to analyze TANF's effects, even though the data

    were not collected as part of an experiment. 26 For example, data from the
    Fragile Families study can be used to examine TANF's effects by drawing
    comparisons between the 3,675 unmarried parents and the 1,125 married

    parents who compose the survey sample in cities with populations over
    200,000. Data collection for Fragile Families began in 1998 and will
    continue through 2004. The data have already been used to examine
    differences in relationship quality between married and unmarried couples,
    including whether a father gave money to or helped a mother in a nonmonetary
    way during pregnancy. Existing Data Are More The current body of research on
    TANF addresses many issues of interest to Adequate for State and

    the Congress but does not provide a comprehensive national picture of Local
    Descriptive Analyses TANF. However, existing national data and data from
    state and local studies Than for Analyses of Effect could be pieced together
    to develop a descriptive picture of what has happened to TANF participants
    in all 50 states. In addition, within a limited number of states and various
    cities and counties, existing data can be used

    to conduct analyses of TANF's effects. National survey data can be used with
    data from HHS administrative records for descriptive analyses of TANF's
    progress nationwide. HHS administrative data can be used for analyses within
    each of the 50 states, and national survey data can be analyzed for national
    trends. These analyses could be compared to examine the extent to which the
    employment experiences, for example, of current and former TANF recipients
    in individual states conform with or depart from the experiences of such
    individuals identified with national survey data. This comparison

    could be extended to the individual states and localities covered by the
    NSAF data, waiver and demonstration data, leavers data, and metropolitan and
    community- based evaluation data.

    While piecing the data together in this way would build on their strengths,
    each data type still has limitations. Specifically, national survey data
    provide national samples useful for comparing the lives of welfare
    recipients covered by welfare provisions implemented at different times. 26
    These three studies- the NICHD Study of Early Child Care, the Fragile
    Families and Child Well- Being Study, and the Project on Devolution and
    Urban Change- were designed to approximate experiments. Rather than being
    randomly assigned to a group, individuals were classified into groups
    because of some attribute they did or did not have. When studies

    are designed this way, having or not having the attribute is believed to be
    the cause of any difference in outcomes for each group.

    However, attrition or low response rates may affect the degree to which
    these samples represent all members of the nation's low- income and TANF
    population. Within each of the 50 states, HHS administrative data can be
    analyzed to gain insight into current recipients' use of noncash benefits,

    among other things, but the lack of standardized reporting requirements
    would complicate comparisons across states. Supplemental descriptive
    analyses for individual states can be done using NSAF survey data, leavers
    data, waiver and demonstration data, and metropolitan and communitybased
    data. In addition, like the national survey data, many of these data
    represent multiple measures over time. However, these analyses in many

    cases can be generalized only to cities and counties and not to entire
    states. Existing data can also be analyzed to gain information about TANF's
    effects. Although the 1997 and 1999 NSAF survey samples do not include pre-
    TANF welfare recipients, the samples do include other populations, such as
    low- income families who do not participate in TANF, whose employment,
    earnings, and well- being can be compared with those of TANF recipients,
    assuming adequate sample sizes for both groups.

    Moreover, because NSAF has sample sizes in 13 states large enough to allow
    state- level analyses, the employment, earnings, and well- being of TANF
    recipients in those states can be considered in relation to the state's TANF
    programs and policies. However, using the NSAF data for such analyses would
    require resolving the challenges to analyzing effects

    described earlier in this report. Similarly, although most of the
    metropolitan and community- based evaluation samples do not include preTANF
    welfare recipients, other populations represented in the study samples could
    be compared with TANF recipients. Finally, waiver and demonstration data can
    be analyzed to gain information about TANF's effects, keeping in mind that
    this information is about the effects of programs and provisions often
    implemented prior to TANF and

    implemented in cities and counties rather than entire states. Concluding The
    data available for addressing TANF's goals will provide useful Observations

    information, but with some limitations. Given the costs, some limitations
    may be difficult to overcome. Our examination of the data raised three
    issues. First, for a comprehensive assessment of TANF, it is important to
    have data for a representative sample of TANF recipients and nonrecipients
    that allow for analyses of effect at the state level. The federal government
    has made an investment in national surveys, which either in whole or in part

    are intended to gather information about the lives of TANF recipients. One
    of these, the SPD, was funded as a means to gather data about TANF
    recipients. For another, the SIPP, the Census Bureau added a special section
    of questions about welfare and reworded questions so that they would better
    capture respondents' participation in state programs. However, even with
    these efforts, none of Census' surveys currently being administered can be
    used for state- level analyses of TANF's effects because of small sample
    sizes within individual states. In addition, the SPD has a

    high attrition rate. The Census Bureau plans to take steps to improve
    response to the SPD through intensive follow- up with survey dropouts to
    enlist their participation and through monetary incentives for future

    respondents to participate in the survey. However, the issue of small sample
    sizes at the state level will remain unresolved. Second, HHS has encouraged
    state agencies to study the effects of their TANF programs through the AFDC
    waiver requirement for experimental studies and subsequent research
    initiatives. Moreover, our examination of

    data indicates that, because of the variability in TANF program provisions
    across states, analysis of TANF's effects at the state and local levels can
    be done with the greatest confidence. However, even when conducted at the

    state and local levels, studies designed to examine TANF's effects tend to
    be costly, time- consuming, and impractical to implement in every state. In
    some cases, conducting an evaluation for an entire state is determined to be
    so expensive that data collection is limited to a portion of the state. For
    example, the evaluation of Vermont's waiver program focused on 6 of 12
    welfare service districts. The evaluation's 42- month follow- up survey was
    administered to only these 6 district offices and, owing to cost
    constraints, included a subset of the sample for whom administrative
    records, rather

    than survey responses, were collected. Policymakers, federal and state
    officials, and the welfare reform research community will need to seek ways
    to balance the need for information about TANF's effects with the resource
    demands of rigorous studies.

    Third, both qualitative and quantitative data may be needed to understand
    what has happened to former TANF recipients. Leavers are a difficult
    population to track, and, in some cases, using multiple methods of
    quantitative data collection has not necessarily increased the number of

    former recipients who could be located or who responded to surveys. In fact,
    in some of the studies we reviewed, the low rate of success in gathering
    data from these individuals makes the data's usefulness questionable.
    Surveys that used only one mode of data collection, such as telephoning
    former TANF recipients, generally had the lowest response

    rates. Some leavers' studies followed telephone surveys with personal
    interviews of those who could not be reached by phone or who did not
    respond. However, even the use of multiple modes of data collection did not
    always ensure high response rates. Given the difficulties inherent in
    collecting quantitative data from this group, other data collection
    strategies that use local communication networks to identify families as
    well as interviews of respondents in their homes may be needed to gain
    information about the lives of TANF leavers.

    Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS said that the
    report will be of help to the Congress and other interested parties. In its
    technical comments, HHS expressed concern that in highlighting the
    importance of statewide samples, we understated the value of data from local
    samples. In response to this concern, we have noted in the report not only
    that findings from local samples are important but also that, in some cases,
    they provide

    data only recently available from national surveys. We concur with HHS that
    a sample need not be statewide in order for findings to be useful. However,
    we have emphasized the value of data that can be generalized to the state
    level because of the Congress' interest in a picture of TANF's progress
    nationwide. HHS' comments appear in appendix IV.

    As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
    earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
    its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable Tommy G.
    Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services; appropriate congressional
    committees; and other interested parties. We also will make copies available
    to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions about this
    report, please contact me on (202) 512- 7202 or David D. Bellis on (415)
    904- 2272. Another GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are listed in
    appendix V.

    Cynthia M. Fagnoni Managing Director Education, Workforce, and Income
    Security Issues

    Appendi Appendi xes x I

    Scope and Methodology This appendix discusses in more detail our scope and
    methodology for identifying, selecting, and assessing studies and surveys
    that might provide data to help researchers as they seek to describe what
    has happened to recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
    and to estimate the effect of welfare reform on them.

    Sample Design Because no comprehensive list of data sources for welfare
    reform research exists, we used a judgmental sampling method for our
    assessment of data resources. We began our work by examining six key
    critiques of welfare reform research that had been issued, in draft or final
    form, by the fall of 1999. The six critiques listed in figure 8 both gave us
    insight into issues that will probably arise in assessing TANF and
    identified studies that may be potential sources of data for an assessment
    of TANF. 1 1 The critiques we reviewed are critical examinations of ongoing
    and planned research on issues arising from the welfare reform law (P. L.
    104- 193). The critiques were conducted by an individual or representative
    of a research organization known for work on social policy issues, and they
    considered the methodological issues involved in designing an evaluation of
    the welfare reform law's provisions, research issues that merit
    investigation, or both.

    Figure 8: Six Major Critiques of Welfare Reform Research

    We started the development of a list of data sources from three of the
    critiques- the Research Forum's report and its related on- line database,
    the National Research Council's interim report, and Peter Rossi's paper. To
    ensure that this list was comprehensive, we consulted with officials at the

    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about important bodies of work
    in the welfare reform research field. We also conducted follow- up
    interviews with HHS project officers and experts in the welfare reform
    research community to ensure that we had identified the most relevant
    national surveys and studies, particularly those that might have data about
    family, marriage, and pregnancy issues. As a result of these discussions and

    an examination of the original list, we designed a judgmental sample of
    potential data sources for welfare reform research that included the
    following categories:

    ? national surveys and HHS' TANF administrative data;

    ? studies that collected data about the major TANF subpopulations in three
    or more states or municipalities; ? studies of TANF leavers; ? HHS' waiver
    evaluations; and ? studies listed on the websites of HHS' Administration for
    Children and

    Families (ACF), HHS' Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
    Evaluation (ASPE), and the Welfare Information Network of the Finance
    Project. 2 We then began to develop lists of the surveys and studies in each
    of the sample's categories.

    The national surveys included in our list were the Current Population Survey
    (CPS), the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), the National Survey
    of America's Families (NSAF), the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the
    Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP),

    and the Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD). We used information from ASPE and
    from the National Conference of State Legislatures to identify leavers
    studies sponsored by HHS or states. Similarly, we used information from ACF
    to ensure that our list contained the body of research funded by ACF that
    focused on waivers implemented by state welfare agencies prior to TANF's
    authorization. As we added items to the list, we continually checked to
    avoid any duplication. This comparison involved our judgment, as some lists
    were of projects or studies and others were of study reports. Because we
    relied on multiple reviews of the body of work undertaken in the welfare
    reform research community, we believe that the list of 443

    entries we compiled included the key sources of data. Sample Selection We
    selected surveys and studies systematically from this list within each

    sample category. We were interested in surveys or studies that were as
    comprehensive as possible in geographic coverage and topics addressed. Thus,
    we selected all of the national surveys and the HHS administrative data. We
    also selected all studies on the original list that by their description
    appeared to have produced data concerning the major subpopulations affected
    by TANF in three or more states, municipalities, or counties. This resulted
    in 55 studies and surveys. 2 The Finance Project is a nonprofit research,
    technical assistance, and information organization created to improve
    outcomes for children, families, and communities nationwide.

    We then selected studies that pertained to individual states in the
    following way. First we selected all leavers studies financed by ASPE. Of
    the leavers studies listed by the National Conference of State Legislatures
    and those mentioned in an article authored by Brauner and Loprest, 3 we
    included

    only those that had not been included in our previous report 4 or were not
    from a state that already had an ASPE- funded study. In states that had
    issued multiple reports for their leavers studies for people who left
    welfare in different years, we selected the most recent study. When a state
    had no ASPE- funded study or any listed by the National Conference of State
    Legislatures or Brauner and Loprest, but did have a report available on its
    Web site, we selected the Web report. Waiver studies generally produced
    several reports. We selected for review the most recently issued waiver
    report because the data topics examined were similar in the initial and
    later reports.

    After selecting these types of studies and surveys, we removed from our list
    studies that did not appear to contain data that could answer our research
    questions or that used data from one of the national surveys on our list. In
    summary, we excluded literature searches, reviews of research on state
    policies or programs, technical assistance projects focused on improving or
    evaluating information systems or databases, and studies based on data from
    a national survey that we had included in our list. A list of 239 studies

    remained. Finally, we obtained advice from five welfare experts about which
    of these 239 studies we should include. Ultimately, we selected 17 of these
    studies. In all, we judgmentally selected 141 national surveys and studies
    that yielded 187 data sets to review. A complete list of the national
    surveys and studies that we examined for data is provided in appendix II.
    Data Assessment Identifying data resources for a comprehensive assessment of
    TANF

    required criteria that could be used to assess data sets. The first step in
    this process was to express each of TANF's goals as a research question. In
    looking at the goals themselves, it is evident that some express expected
    results- for example, that work and marriage will improve the well- being 3
    Brauner, Sarah, and Pamela Loprest, Where Are They Now? What States' Studies
    of People Who Left Welfare Tell Us (Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute,
    May 1999.) 4 GAO/ HEHS- 99- 48, Apr. 28, 1999.

    of low- income families. Assessing TANF's progress toward these expected
    results required, in part, questions about TANF's effects. However, some of
    TANF's goals focus on its general purpose- for example, providing assistance
    to needy families. In this case, assessing TANF's progress required research
    questions that are descriptive, that is, questions that ask what public
    assistance looks like under TANF. To translate TANF's goals into research
    questions, we considered the nature of each of TANF's goals

    and formulated questions to represent key issues the Congress will consider
    at reauthorization. As shown in figure 1, we created corresponding questions
    that asked for descriptions of what has happened under TANF, the effects of
    TANF, or both.

    We then specified the information, or data topics, necessary to address our
    research questions. We developed a data collection instrument that listed
    the data topics associated with each question and used the instrument to
    record the data topics found in each data set examined. It is important to

    note that what we identified as data topics were not equivalent to specific
    measures. In other words, our coding captured the fact that a certain data
    source collected measures on employment. It did not capture the specific
    manner in which employment was measured. In addition to data topics, we
    collected such pertinent information as the unit of analysis, population,
    sampling method, sample size, dates covered by data collection, and design

    of the study for which data were gathered. We recorded response rates and
    attrition rates when they were relevant given the method of data collection.
    We also looked to see if data had been or were being collected for a
    comparison or control group.

    To summarize our findings, we identified data categories related to TANF's
    goals, some of which represented the research questions and others of which
    were more narrowly focused. The narrowly focused data categories represented
    combinations of data topics, such as employment and earnings or family and
    child well- being, that were associated with the research

    questions. We took this approach for a variety of reasons. First, in making
    a judgment that data were available to address particular questions, we
    required that certain data topics be present in combination and, for effect
    questions, that the data were collected using control groups or comparison

    groups. However, a data source could provide relevant data topics, even
    though the data topic could not be used to address the particular question
    we had posed. Rather than discount the value of these data topics, we
    decided to note their availability. Second, in many cases, the same data
    topics and data categories were being used to address different questions.
    For example, as figure 1 shows, the data categories associated with

    employment were related to 5 of our 11 questions. Presenting our findings in
    terms of data categories allowed us to report on all of the data topics,
    including those that were not available in the combinations needed to
    address a research question.

    Finally, to assess how the data might be used for an assessment of TANF, we
    considered three attributes of the data. We considered the geographic scope
    of the sample; the data topics included in the data set; and whether or not
    the data could be used for descriptive analyses or analyses of effect, given
    the design of the study. In determining the geographic scope of the sample,
    we looked at the sampling method and sample size, as well as at response
    rates and attrition rates, since both affect how well a sample represents a
    population. We relied on the design of the study, the data topics included
    in a data set, and how researchers had used the data to make a judgment
    about whether the data could be used for descriptive

    analyses or analyses of effect. We coded data as being useable for analyses
    of effect when they came from a study that made comparisons between groups,
    one of which served as the treatment group and the other as the absence of
    the treatment, or the comparison group. In deciding whether a study included
    a treatment and a comparison group, we recognized that such groups could be
    formed through experimental designs, quasiexperimental

    designs, or statistical modeling. Study Limitations Because this assessment
    is based on a judgmental sample and the data needs of an assessment of
    TANF's progress are derived from TANF's legislative objectives, several
    study limitations should be considered. First, while every attempt was made
    to be comprehensive in sample design and

    selection, some relevant data sources may have been omitted. Second, framing
    the data needs for an assessment of TANF's progress around TANF's
    objectives, which focus on the behavior and well- being of lowincome
    children and families, excluded from consideration the bodies of welfare
    reform research concerned with institutions, including studies of TANF's
    implementation at the state and local levels and descriptions of TANF
    program policies and practices. Third, the study's focus on

    identification of quantitative data resulted in our eliminating data from
    most studies that used qualitative data collection methods. Fourth, because
    our bibliographic sources for surveys and studies included both existing and
    planned surveys and studies, complete documentation for data sets was not
    always available. Finally, because our coding focused on whether a certain
    data source collected measures on specific topics, but not on the

    precise measures used, we did not assess whether measures were comparable
    across studies.

    Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies

    Appendi x II

    Reviewed Table 5: National Data Sources Source Sponsor

    HHS administrative data HHS CPS Census Bureau NLSY Bureau of Labor
    Statistics, Department of Labor NSAF The Urban Institute PSID University of
    Michigan, Institute for Social

    Research SIPP Census Bureau SPD Census Bureau

    Table 6: Sources of Waiver, Demonstration, Leavers, Metropolitan and
    Community- Based, and Other Welfare Reform Data Study title Principal
    investigator Scope Data source Location Waiver data

    Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER Abt Associates Local Administrative and
    Three sites in Phoenix

    Welfare Reform Demonstration: Impact survey and one site on a Navajo Study,
    Interim Report reservation, Arizona

    Jobs First: Implementation and Early Impacts Manpower Demonstration

    Local Administrative and New Haven and of Connecticut's Welfare Reform
    Initiative Research Corporation survey Manchester, Connecticut The Family
    Transition Program:

    Manpower Demonstration Local Administrative and

    Escambia County, Florida Implementation and Three- Year Impacts of

    Research Corporation survey Florida's Initial Time Limited Welfare Program
    Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Program Abt Associates, The Urban State
    Administrative and

    Indiana Implementation and Economic Impacts After

    Institute survey Two Years Iowa's Family Investment Program: Impacts
    Mathematica Policy Local Administrative Nine counties in Iowa- During the
    First Three- and- a- Half Years of Research five urban and four rural
    Welfare Reform Iowa's Limited Benefit Plan Mathematica Policy

    State Administrative Iowa Research Iowa's Limited Benefit Plan Mathematica
    Policy

    Local Survey and case Three PROMISE JOBS Research study service delivery
    areas, Iowa

    Second Assignments to Iowa's Limited Mathematica Policy State
    Administrative, Iowa Benefit Plan Research survey, and case study Reforming
    Welfare and Rewarding Work:

    Manpower Demonstration Local Administrative and

    Three urban and four Final Report on the Minnesota Family Research
    Corporation two surveys rural counties in Investment Program Minnesota

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location

    Achieving Change for Texans Evaluation: Net University of Texas at Local
    Administrative 10 counties in Texas Impacts Through December 1997 Austin,
    Center for the

    Study of Human Resources

    Recipients of the Texas One- Time Benefit University of Texas at Local
    Survey Hidalgo and Cameron Payment: An Interim Report Austin, Center for
    Social counties, Texas Work Research Forty- Two- Month Impacts of Vermont's

    Manpower Demonstration Local Administrative and

    6 of 12 welfare district Welfare Restructuring Project Research Corporation
    survey offices, Vermont Wisconsin Self- Sufficiency First/ Pay for
    University of Wisconsin Local Administrative Dane, Dodge, Jefferson,
    Performance Program: Results and Lessons

    Madison, Institute for and Waukesha counties From a Social Experiment

    Research on Poverty in Wisconsin

    Year Three Progress Report: Customer University of Maryland, State
    Administrative Maryland Characteristics and Employment Patterns Baltimore,
    School of Social Work

    Interim Report for the Enhancement to the Illinois State University, Local
    Administrative and

    Chicago, Illinois Process and Impact Analysis of the Youth

    Department of Social Work survey Employment and Training Initiative Montana
    FAIM Evaluation: Evaluation Abt Associates State Administrative and Montana
    Design a survey A Proposal to Complete the Evaluation of

    Mathematica Policy State Survey Nebraska Employment First, Nebraska's
    Welfare Research Reform Program a

    Evaluation of Welfare Reform in New University of New State Administrative
    and

    New Hampshire Hampshire: Mid- Evaluation Summary Report Hampshire two
    surveys Evaluation of the North Carolina Work First

    Maximus State Administrative North Carolina Program: Initial Analysis of
    Administrative Data

    Evaluation of North Dakota's Training, Berkeley Planning Local
    Administrative Seven counties in North Education, Employment, and Management

    Associates Dakota Program: Final Report

    Early Impacts of the Virginia Independence Mathematica Policy Local
    Administrative Lynchburg, Petersburg, Program: Final Report Research and
    Portsmouth; and Prince William and Wise counties, Virginia

    An Overview and Synthesis of the Project of Child Trends State and

    Survey Indiana; New Haven and State Level Child Outcomes local Manchester,
    Connecticut; Alachua and Escambia counties, Florida; nine counties in Iowa;
    and seven counties in Minnesota

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location

    Final Impact Report: The Evaluation of “To Abt Associates Local
    Administrative Four local service offices: Strengthen Michigan
    Families” Kalamazoo (Kalamazoo

    County), Madison Heights (Oakland County), McNichols/ Goddard, and
    Schaeffer/ Six Mile (Wayne County),

    Michigan A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey's

    Rutgers University Local Administrative 10 counties in New Family
    Development Program Jersey A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey's

    Rutgers University State Administrative New Jersey Family Development
    Program: Results From a Pre- Post Analysis of AFDC Case Heads From 1990-
    1996 Ohio Works First Evaluation Plan a Macro International State
    Administrative and

    Ohio survey California Welfare Reform Impact Evaluation University of
    California, b b b

    Berkeley Findings From Year Two of the Minnesota

    Maximus b b b Work First- MFIP Evaluation Process Study of South Carolina
    Family Urban Institute b b b

    Independence Program Demonstration data

    Struggle to Sustain Employment: The Mathematica Policy Local Administrative
    and Chicago, Illinois; Effectiveness of the Post- Employment

    Research survey Riverside, California; Services Demonstration Portland,
    Oregon; and San Antonio, Texas

    National Evaluation of Welfare- to- Work Manpower Demonstration

    Local Administrative and Atlanta, Georgia; Strategies: Evaluating
    Alternative Welfare- to Research Corporation survey Columbus, Ohio; Detroit
    Work Approaches: Two- Year Impacts for

    and Grand Rapids, Eleven Programs

    Michigan; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Portland, Oregon; and Riverside,
    California

    National Evaluation of Welfare- to- Work Manpower Demonstration

    Local Survey Atlanta, Georgia; Grand Strategies: Impacts on Young Children
    and Research Corporation Rapids, Michigan; and Their Families Two Years
    After Enrollment: Riverside, California Findings From the Child Outcomes
    Study

    New Hope for People With Low Incomes: Manpower Demonstration Local
    Administrative Milwaukee, Wisconsin Two- Year Results of a Program to Reduce
    Research Corporation Poverty and Reform Welfare

    The New York State Child Assistance Abt Associates Local Administrative
    Niagara, Monroe, and Program: Five- Year Impacts, Costs and Suffolk
    counties, New Benefits York

    Building Opportunities, Enforcing Manpower Demonstration

    Local Administrative Dayton, Ohio; Grand Obligations: Implementation and
    Interim Research Corporation Rapids, Michigan; and Impacts of Parents' Fair
    Share

    Memphis, Tennessee

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location

    Teenage Parent Demonstration Mathematica Policy Local Administrative and
    Camden and Newark, Research survey New Jersey; Chicago, Illinois

    Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Prenatal University of Colorado, Local
    Administrative and Memphis, Tennessee;

    and Infancy Home Visitation by Nurses Cornell University, survey Elmira, New
    York

    University of Rochester, and University of Denver New Chance: Final Report
    on a

    Manpower Demonstration Local Survey 16 locations in California,
    Comprehensive Program for Young Mothers Research Corporation Colorado,
    Florida, Illinois, in Poverty and Their Children

    Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania

    The National Evaluation of the Welfare- toWork Mathematica Policy Local c 8
    to 10 localities Grants Program Research, The Urban

    nationwide Institute, and Support Services International

    Leavers data

    Evaluation of the North Carolina Work First Maximus State Survey North
    Carolina Program: Status of Families Leaving Work First After Reaching the
    24- Month Time Limit

    Arizona Cash Assistance Exit Study: First Arizona Department of State
    Administrative and

    Arizona Quarter 1998 Cohort Final Report Economic Security, Office survey of
    Evaluation

    Arkansas Well- Being Survey Berkeley Policy Associates State Survey Arkansas
    Los Angeles County Post- TANF Tracking Manpower Demonstration

    Local Survey Los Angeles County, Study Research Corporation California

    Bay Area Family Well- Being Survey: A Study The Sphere Institute Local
    Administrative and Contra Costa and of Welfare Leavers in Alameda and Contra
    survey Alameda counties, Costa Counties California

    Examining the Circumstances of Individuals The Sphere Institute Local
    Administrative and San Mateo County, and Families Who Leave TANF: Assessing
    survey California the Validity of Administrative Data

    Evaluation of the Colorado Works Program: Berkeley Planning State
    Administrative and

    Colorado First Annual Report 1999 Associates survey The Status of TANF
    Leavers in the District of The Urban Institute State Administrative and

    District of Columbia Columbia: Interim Report survey After Leaving WAGES
    Florida State University State Survey Florida

    Georgia Welfare Leavers Study: Initial Georgia State University, State
    Survey Georgia Results Applied Research Center When Families Leave Welfare
    Behind: First

    University of Illinois at State Administrative and Illinois

    Survey Findings for Illinois Families in Springfield, Institute for survey
    Transition Public Affairs, and

    University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, School of Social Work

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location

    A Survey of Kansas Households Leaving the Kansas Department of State
    Administrative and

    Kansas Temporary Assistance for Families Program: Social and Rehabilitation
    survey Final Report

    Services How Are They Doing? A Longitudinal Study

    Massachusetts State Survey Massachusetts Tracking Households Leaving Welfare
    Under

    Department of Transitional Massachusetts' Reform

    Assistance Tracking of TANF Clients, First Report of a Millsaps College,
    Center Local Survey Eight counties in Longitudinal Study (Mississippi's TANF

    for Applied Research Mississippi program)

    Preliminary Outcomes for 1996 Fourth Missouri Department of State
    Administrative Missouri Quarter AFDC Leavers: Revised Interim

    Social Services and Report

    University of Missouri, Department of Economics Missouri Leavers Project:
    Three Chapter

    Midwest Research Institute State Survey Missouri Report After Welfare: A
    Study of Work and Benefit State University of New State Administrative New
    York Use in New York State After Case Closing, York, Rockefeller Institute
    December 1999

    of Government Employment and Return to Public Assistance Case Western
    Reserve Local Administrative Cuyahoga County, Ohio Among Single Female-
    Headed Families University, Center on Leaving AFDC in Third Quarter 1996,

    Urban Poverty and Social Cuyahoga County, Ohio Change, and Manpower
    Demonstration Research Corporation

    How Are They Managing? A Six- Month Case Western Reserve Local Survey
    Cuyahoga County, Ohio

    Retrospective of Cuyahoga County Families University, Center on

    Leaving Welfare: Fourth Quarter 1998 and Urban Poverty and Social First
    Quarter 1999 Change

    Survey of Former Family Independence South Carolina State Survey South
    Carolina

    Program Clients: Cases Closed During April Department of Social Through
    September 1998 Services

    Texas Families in Transition: The Impacts of Texas Department of State
    Survey Texas Welfare Reform Changes in Texas: Early

    Human Services Findings The Virginia Closed Case Study: Virginia Polytechnic

    State Administrative and Virginia Experiences of Virginia Families One Year

    Institute and State survey After Leaving Temporary Assistance for University
    and

    Needy Families Mathematica Policy Research

    Experiences of Virginia Time Limit Families Mathematica Policy Local
    Administrative and

    Virginia districts 2, 6,7, in the Six Months After Case Closure: Research
    survey and 9 Results for Early Cohort: Final Report, November 1999

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location

    A Study of Washington State TANF Leavers Washington Department of

    State Administrative and Washington and TANF Recipients: Findings From the
    Social and Health survey April- June 1999 Telephone Survey: Final Services,
    Economic Report

    Services Administration, Office of Planning and Research

    A Study of Washington State TANF Washington Department of State
    Administrative Washington Departures and Welfare Reform: TANF Exit Social
    and Health

    Study April 1999 Services, Economic Services Administration, Management
    Reports and Data Analysis

    Before and After TANF: The Economic Well University of Wisconsin State
    Administrative Wisconsin Being of Women Leaving Welfare Madison, Institute
    for Research on Poverty Wisconsin Works (W- 2): First Quarter 1998 Wisconsin
    Department of State Survey Wisconsin Leavers Study: Preliminary Process
    Report Workforce Development Connecticut's Post- Time- Limit Tracking

    Manpower Demonstration Local Survey Department of Social Study: Six- Month
    Survey Results Research Corporation Services offices in

    Bridgeport, Hartford, Manchester, New Haven, Norwich, and Waterbury,
    Connecticut

    CalWORKS Leavers Survey: A Statewide California Department of State Survey
    California Telephone Survey of Former CalWORKS

    Social Services Recipients Metropolitan and community- based data

    The Fragile Families and Child Well- Being Princeton University and

    Local Adminstrative Austin, Texas; Baltimore, Study Columbia University and
    survey Maryland; Detroit, Michigan; Newark, New Jersey; Oakland, California;
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Richmond, Virginia

    Los Angeles Families and Neighborhood RAND Local Survey Los Angeles Survey
    (LA FANS) neighborhoods Welfare Children and Families: A Three City Brandeis
    University,

    Local Survey Boston, Massachusetts; Study University of Chicago, San
    Antonio, Texas; and

    University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois University of North Carolina at
    Chapel Hill, University of Texas at Austin, Johns Hopkins

    University, Pennsylvania State University, and Harvard University

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location

    Growing Up in Poverty Project: Remember University of CaliforniaBerkeley
    Local Survey San Francisco and Santa

    the Children: Mothers Balance Work and and Yale Clara, California; Tampa,
    Child Care Under Welfare Reform University

    Florida; and New Haven, Connecticut Big Cities and Welfare Reform: Early

    Manpower Demonstration Local Administrative and

    One county each in Ohio, Implementation and Ethnographic Findings Research
    Corporation survey California, Florida, and From the Project on Devolution
    and Urban Pennsylvania Change

    Impact of Welfare Reform on Families University of Wisconsin Local Survey
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty

    National Institute of Child Health and National Institute of Child Local
    Ethnographic and In or near Little Rock, Development Study of Early Child
    Care Health and Development survey Arkansas; Morganton,

    North Carolina; Seattle, Washington; Madison, Wisconsin; Philadelphia and
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Boston, Massachusetts;

    Lawrence, Kansas; Irvine, California; and Charlottesville, Virginia

    Other welfare reform data

    Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) Evaluation: Mathematica Policy State
    Administrative and

    New Jersey How WFNJ Clients Are Faring Under Welfare Research survey Reform:
    An Early Look Barriers to the Employment of Welfare

    University of Michigan, Local Survey One urban Michigan Recipients School of
    Social Work county Florida's Project Independence: Benefits, Manpower
    Demonstration

    Local Administrative and Nine counties in Florida Costs, and Two- Year
    Impacts of Florida's

    Research Corporation survey JOBS Program a This document is an evaluation
    design plan. b We were unable to obtain a copy of either the report or a
    design plan.

    c This information was missing from the documents we reviewed.

    Table 7: Other Studies Examined Study or project title Principal
    investigator or author

    What Has Welfare Accomplished? Robert F. Schoeni and Rebecca M. Blank,
    Impacts on Welfare Participation, National Bureau of Economic Research

    Employment, Income, Poverty, and Family Structure National Study of Child
    Care for LowIncome Abt Associates

    Families Children and Welfare Reform: A Guide to Child Trends Evaluating the
    Effects of State Welfare Policies on Children Patterns and Growth of Child
    Care National Center for Children in Poverty, Voucher Use by Families
    Connected to Columbia University Cash Assistance in Illinois and Maryland
    National Survey of Child and Adolescent Research Triangle Institute Well-
    Being The Role of Intermediaries in Linking Mathematica Policy Research

    TANF Recipients With Jobs Rural Welfare- to- Work Strategies: Macro
    International Research Synthesis Mecklenburg County Linked Database
    Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, South Carolina

    South Carolina Child Link South Carolina Department of Social Services
    Policy Evaluation of the Overall Effects of

    The Lewin Group Welfare Reform on SSA Programs Temporary Assistance for Low-
    Wage National Governors' Association

    Workers: Evolving Relationships Among Work, Welfare, and Unemployment
    Insurance Welfare Time Limits: An Interim Report Manpower Demonstration
    Research Card Corporation Parenting Behavior in a Sample of Young

    Manpower Demonstration Research Mothers in Poverty: Results of the New
    Corporation Chance Observational Study

    Approaches to Evaluating Welfare Mathematica Policy Research

    Reform: Lessons From Five State Demonstrations Expanding Health Insurance
    Coverage for

    Mathematica Policy Research Low- Income People: Experiments in Five States

    Helping Young People in High- Poverty Mathematica Policy Research
    Communities: Lessons From Youth Fair Chance

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Study or project title Principal investigator or author

    Working Out of Poverty: Employment National Governors' Association Retention
    and Career Advancement for Welfare Recipients

    Welfare Reform in California: State and RAND County Implementation of
    CALWORKS in the First Year

    Welfare Reform in California: Results of RAND the 1998 All- County
    Implementation Study

    State Capacity Study State University of New York, The Nelson Field Research
    Report Form 1997 A. Rockefeller Institute of Government Building Bridges:
    States Respond to

    National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse and Welfare Reform
    Substance Abuse, Columbia University

    Big Cities Confront the New Politics of Columbia University School of Social
    Child and Family Policy Work

    A Description and Assessment of State Center for Health Policy Research,

    Approaches to Diversion Programs and George Washington University

    Activities Under Welfare Reform Diversion as a Work- Oriented Welfare Center
    for Health Policy Research, Reform Strategy and Its Effect on Access George
    Washington University to Medicaid: An Examination of Experiences of Five
    Local Communities

    An Unfair Head Start: California Families Berkeley- Stanford Pace Center,
    Yale Face Gaps in Preschool and Child Care University, and California Child
    Care Availability Resource and Referral Network

    The Infant Health and Development IHDP Research Group Program: Interim
    Summary National Impact Evaluation of the

    Abt Associates Comprehensive Child Development Program: Final Report

    Illegal Aliens: Extent of Welfare Benefits U. S. General Accounting Office
    Received on Behalf of U. S. Citizen Children

    Implementing Welfare Reform Mathematica Policy Research Requirements for
    Teenage Parents: Lessons From Experience in Four States

    Medicaid Managed Care: Does It Mathematica Policy Research Increase Primary
    Care Services in Underserved Areas?

    New Immigrant Survey RAND Welfare Reform Project Ohio University and Joyce
    Foundation Study of the Employment Patterns of The Urban Institute Young
    Women and the Implications for Welfare Mothers

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Study or project title Principal investigator or author

    Alameda County CalWORKS Needs Public Health Institute Assessment: A Look at
    Potential HealthRelated Barriers to Self- Sufficiency

    The Study of Families Formerly Receiving Midwest Research Institute Aid to
    Families With Dependent Children, Interim Report: 1999 Survey

    New Mexico TANF Longitudinal Study Maximus Results of First- Year Follow- up
    Surveys: Final Report Welfare Reform After Two Years:

    Pennsylvania Department of Public Technical Report on Former Welfare Welfare
    Recipients in Pennsylvania Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Abt Associates
    Identifying and Serving the Most Dependent Cases

    A Study of Washington State TANF Washington Department of Social and Leavers
    and TANF Recipients: Welfare Health Services Reform and Findings From
    Administrative Data: Final Report

    Post- Exit Earnings and Benefit Receipt University of Wisconsin- Madison,
    Institute Among Those Who Left AFDC in for Research on Poverty Wisconsin
    Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER Abt Associates Welfare Reform
    Demonstration: Process Study, Interim Report

    Work and Welfare: Iowa Families Tell Mathematica Policy Research Their
    Stories Process Evaluation of Achieving Change Texas Department of Human
    Services

    for Texans: Welfare Reform Waiver Evaluation, First Interim Report Will
    Welfare Reform Influence Marriage Abt Associates and Fertility? Early
    Evidence From the ABC Demonstration

    The Next Generation: The Effects of Manpower Demonstration Research Welfare
    Reform and Employment Policies Corporation on Children and Families The
    Effect of Welfare on Marriage and

    Robert Moffitt in Welfare, the Family, and Fertility Reproductive Behavior:
    Research Perspectives New Research Findings on the Effects of Center on
    Budget and Policy Priorities the Earned Income Tax Credit When Low- Income
    Mothers Go to Work:

    Child Trends Implications for Children Work, Earnings, and Well- Being After

    University of Wisconsin- Madison, Institute Welfare: What Do We Know? for
    Research on Poverty

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Study or project title Principal investigator or author

    Monitoring the Impact of Welfare Reform Johns Hopkins University Women's and
    on Women's Health Children's Health Policy Center

    Monitoring the Impact of Welfare Reform New York City Department of Health,
    on Immigrant Women, Infants, and

    Bureau of Maternity Services and Family Children: Access to Health Care,
    Health- Planning Seeking Behaviors, and Health Outcomes

    Building an Employment- Focused Welfare The Urban Institute System: Work
    First and Other WorkOriented Strategies in Five States

    Welfare Waivers and Non- Marital Child Ann Horvath and H. Elizabeth Peters,
    Bearing Cornell University

    Marriage and Economic Incentives: Wei- Yin Hu, University of California at
    Los Evidence From a Welfare Experiment Angeles Welfare Benefits and Female
    Headship in Robert Moffitt in American Economic the United States Review,
    Vol. 90, No. 2 (2000), pp. 373- 77. Note: These studies were examined for
    data and were found to include (1) data that could not be used to answer our
    research questions, (2) data that represented a secondary analysis, or (3)
    data that duplicated what was found in other studies reviewed.

    Scope and Type of Analyses for Which Waiver

    Appendi x II I and Demonstration Data Can Be Used Analyses of Study or
    project title Descriptive analyses effect Statewide sample

    Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Program Implementation and Economic X
    Impacts After Two Years

    ? Administrative

    ? Survey Iowa's Limited Benefit Plan

    X

    ? Administrative Second Assignments to Iowa's Limited Benefit Plan X

    ? Administrative

    ? Survey

    ? Case study Year Three Progress Report: Customer Characteristics and
    Employment Patterns

    X

    ? Administrative Montana FAIM Evaluation: Evaluation Design X

    ? Administrative

    ? Survey A Proposal to Complete the Evaluation of Employment First,
    Nebraska's Welfare X Reform Program

    ? Survey Evaluation of Welfare Reform in New Hampshire: Mid- Evaluation
    Summary Report

    X

    ? Administrative

    ? Surveys (2) Evaluation of the North Carolina Work First Program: Initial
    Analysis of X Administrative Data

    ? Administrative An Overview and Synthesis of the Project on State- Level
    Child Outcomes X

    ? Survey A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey's Family Development
    Program: X Results From a Pre- Post Analysis of AFDC Case Heads From 1990 to
    1996

    ? Administrative Ohio Works First Evaluation Plan X

    ? Administrative

    ? Survey

    Local sample

    Evaluation of Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Demonstration: Impact Study, X
    Interim Report

    ? Administrative

    ? Survey Jobs First: Implementation and Early Impacts of Connecticut's
    Welfare Reform X Initiative ? Administrative

    ? Survey

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Analyses of Study or project title Descriptive analyses effect

    The Family Transition Program: Implementation and Three- Year Impact of
    Florida's X

    Initial Time- Limited Welfare Program ? Administrative

    ? Survey Iowa's Family Investment Program: Impacts During the First 3-�
    Years of Welfare

    X Reform ? Administrative

    Iowa's Limited Benefit Plan X

    ? Survey

    ? Case study Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: Final Report on the
    Minnesota Family X Investment Program ? Administrative

    ? Surveys (2) Achieving Change for Texans Evaluation: Net Impacts Through
    December 1997

    X

    ? Administrative Recipients of the Texas One- Time Benefit Payment: An
    Interim Report X

    ? Survey Forty- Two- Month Impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring
    Project X

    ? Administrative ? Survey Wisconsin Self- Sufficiency First/ Pay for
    Performance Program: Results and X Lessons From a Social Experiment

    ? Administrative Interim Report for the Enhancement to the Process and
    Impact Analysis of the

    X Youth Employment and Training Initiative ? Administrative

    ? Survey Evaluation of North Dakota's Training, Education, Employment, and
    Management

    X Program: Final Report

    ? Administrative Early Impacts of the Virginia Independence Program: Final
    Report

    X

    ? Administrative Final Impact Report: The Evaluation of “To Strengthen
    Michigan Families” X

    ? Administrative A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey's Family
    Development Program X

    ? Administrative Struggle to Sustain Employment: The Effectiveness of the
    Post- Employment X Services Demonstration

    ? Administrative ? Survey National Evaluation of Welfare- to- Work
    Strategies: Evaluating Alternative Welfare X

    to- Work Approaches: Two- Year Impacts for Eleven Programs ? Administrative
    ? Survey

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Analyses of Study or project title Descriptive analyses effect

    National Evaluation of Welfare- to- Work Strategies: Impacts on Young
    Children and X

    Their Families Two Years After Enrollment: Findings From the Child Outcomes
    Study

    ? Survey New Hope for People With Low Incomes: Two- Year Results of a
    Program to

    X Reduce Poverty and Reform Welfare

    ? Administrative The New York State Child Assistance Program: Five- Year
    Impacts, Costs, and X Benefits

    ? Administrative Building Opportunities, Enforcing Obligations:
    Implementation & Interim Impacts of X Parents' Fair Share

    ? Administrative Teenage Parent Demonstration X

    ? Administrative

    ? Survey Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Prenatal and Infancy Home
    Visitation by Nurses

    X

    ? Administrative

    ? Survey New Chance: Final Report on a Comprehensive Program for Young
    Mothers in X Poverty and Their Children

    ? Survey The National Evaluation of the Welfare- to- Work Grants Program

    X

    ? Survey An Overview and Synthesis of the Project on State- Level Child
    Outcomes X ? Survey

    Comments From the Department of Health Appendi x V I and Human Services

    Appendi x V

    GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts David D. Bellis, (415)
    904- 2272 Sara E. Edmondson, (202) 512- 8516 Staff

    In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
    Acknowledgments

    important contributions to this report: Patrick DiBattista designed the data
    collection instrument used to assess the 187 data sets reviewed, oversaw
    data collection, and designed and conducted the analysis of the data's
    strengths and weaknesses; Andrea Sykes played a major role in data
    collection and developed the analysis of the data's availability to address
    TANF's goals; Stephen Langley III also played a major role in data
    collection, provided consultation on multivariate analysis issues, and
    prepared the report's methodology appendix; James Wright provided guidance
    on study design and measurement; and Gale Harris, Kathryn Larin, and Heather
    McCallum provided consultation on TANF policy and implementation issues.

    (116038) Lett er

    Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
    copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
    the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
    accepted, also.

    Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
    discounted 25 percent.

    Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
    DC 20013

    Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
    U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

    Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
    receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
    days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
    will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

    Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
    Internet, send an e- mail message with “info” in the body to:

    info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
    gao. gov

    To Report Fraud,

    Contact one:

    Waste, or Abuse in

    ? Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

    Federal Programs

    ? e- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov ? 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering
    system)

    GAO United States General Accounting Office

    Page 1 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Contents

    Contents Page 2 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 3 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress United States General
    Accounting Office

    Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 3 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's
    Progress

    Page 4 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 5 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 6 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 7 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 8 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 9 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 10 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 11 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 12 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 13 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 14 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 15 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 16 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 17 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 18 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 19 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 20 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 21 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 22 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 23 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 24 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 25 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 26 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 27 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 28 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 29 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 30 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 31 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 32 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 33 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 34 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 35 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 36 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 37 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 38 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 39 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 40 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix I

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 41 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 42 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 43 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 44 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 45 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 46 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 47 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix II

    Appendix II Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed

    Page 48 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix II Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed

    Page 49 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix II Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed

    Page 50 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix II Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed

    Page 51 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix II Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed

    Page 52 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix II Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed

    Page 53 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix II Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed

    Page 54 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix II Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed

    Page 55 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix II Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed

    Page 56 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix II Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed

    Page 57 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 58 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix III

    Appendix III Scope and Type of Analyses for Which Waiver and Demonstration
    Data Can Be Used

    Page 59 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix III Scope and Type of Analyses for Which Waiver and Demonstration
    Data Can Be Used

    Page 60 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Page 61 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix IV

    Page 62 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    Appendix V

    Page 63 GAO- 01- 298 Data for Assessing TANF's Progress

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

    Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

    Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

    Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
    *** End of document. ***