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. ***