Welfare Reform: More Research Needed on TANF Family Caps and
Other Policies for Reducing Out-Of-Wedlock Births (11-SEP-01,
GAO-01-924).
To reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies among welfare recipients,
some states have imposed family caps on welfare benefits. One
factor that determines the amount of cash benefits a family
receives is the family's size--larger families receive more
benefits. In states with a family cap policy, however, no
additional cash benefits are provided when the birth of a child
increases the size of a family. Twenty-three states have
implemented some variation of a family cap, breaking the
traditional link between a family's size and the amount of its
monthly welfare check. Generally, these states implemented family
cap policies as part of their welfare reforms to reduce
out-of-wedlock births and to encourage self-sufficiency. During
an average month in 2000, 20 of the 23 family cap states reported
that about 108,000 families received less in cash benefits than
they would have in absence of state-imposed family cap policies.
In an average month, about 9 percent of welfare families in these
states had their benefits affected by the family cap. The actual
differences between a family's welfare benefits before and after
having its benefits subject to the cap are affected by several
factors, including earnings and receipt of child support.
Therefore, states were not able to report the precise effect of
the family cap on benefits. Because of limitations of the
existing research, GAO cannot conclude that family cap policies
reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births, affect the number
of abortions, or change the size of the welfare caseload.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-924
ACCNO: A01529
TITLE: Welfare Reform: More Research Needed on TANF Family Caps
and Other Policies for Reducing Out-Of-Wedlock Births
DATE: 09/11/2001
SUBJECT: Welfare benefits
Welfare recipients
Abortions
Pregnancy
Program evaluation
HHS Aid to Families with Dependent
Children Program
HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families Block Grant
HHS Abstinence Education Program
National Strategy to Prevent Teen
Pregnancy
******************************************************************
** 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-01-924
Report to Congressional Requesters
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
September 2001 WELFARE REFORM More Research Needed on TANF Family Caps and
Other Policies for Reducing Out- ofWedlock Births
GAO- 01- 924
Page i GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Many States Have Policies That Cap Cash
Benefits, but Some
Provide Other Supports to Capped- Benefit Families 7 In an Average Month in
2000, About 108,000 Families Received an
Estimated 20 Percent Less in Cash Assistance Due to the Cap 13 Existing
Studies Cannot Be Used to Cite Conclusive Evidence
About the Impact of the Family Cap on Out- of- Wedlock Births 20 HHS?
Research Focuses on Employment Goal of TANF, With
Limited Information Available on Goal of Reducing Out- OfWedlock Pregnancies
22 Conclusion 24 Recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services 25 Agency Comments 26
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 29
Appendix II Studies on Family Cap Effect 33
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 36
Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 39
Bibliography 40
Related GAO Products 41 Contents
Page ii GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies Tables
Table 1: Average Monthly Number of Families Whose Benefits Were Capped as a
Percentage of the State?s TANF Population in 2000 15 Table 2: Number of
Capped- Benefit Families by Family Size and
State in an Average Month in 2000 16 Table 3: Estimated Effect on TANF Cash
Benefits for a CappedBenefit Family in an Average Month, by State 18 Table
4: HHS Research Funding for Fiscal Year 2000 23 Table 5: Estimated Cash
Benefit Not Received by a Capped- Benefit
Family in an Average Month, by State 30 Table 6: Studies on Family Cap
Effect on Births, Abortions, and/ or
Family Planning Outcomes 33 Table 7: Studies on Family Cap Effect on TANF
Caseloads 35
Figures
Figure 1: Types of Family Cap Policies by State, 2000 9 Figure 2: Exemptions
to the Family Cap, 2000 11
Abbreviations
AFDC Aid to Families With Dependent Children HHS Department of Health and
Human Services PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Page 1 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
September 11, 2001 The Honorable Donald M. Payne The Honorable Charles B.
Rangel The Honorable Christopher H. Smith House of Representatives
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA) made sweeping changes to national welfare policy, repealing the Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and creating the block
grant Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Under TANF,
states receive up to $16. 5 billion in federal funds each year through
fiscal year 2002. States have increased flexibility to design and implement
programs to achieve the TANF goals, including reducing the dependence of
needy families on government aid, and preventing and reducing the incidence
of out- of- wedlock pregnancies. During discussions on welfare reform, the
proportion of births that were out- of- wedlock in the United States began
to decline after rising for over half a century. The potential negative
consequences of out- of- wedlock births are numerous, including increasing
the probability of dependence on welfare and also increasing the amount of
time on assistance once enrolled.
In an effort to reduce the incidence of out- of- wedlock pregnancies among
welfare recipients, some states have imposed family caps on welfare
benefits. One factor that determines the amount of cash benefits a family
receives is the family?s size- larger families receive more benefits. In
states with a family cap policy, however, no additional cash benefits are
provided when the birth of a child increases the size of the family. To
provide you with information on family cap policies and their effects, you
requested that we (1) identify the states that have family caps as a part of
their TANF programs and describe how the caps are implemented; (2) determine
the number of families whose benefits have been affected by the family cap
and estimate the amount by which the family cap has altered a family?s cash
benefits; and (3) using existing studies, determine what is known about the
effect of the family cap on out- of- wedlock births, abortions, and poverty.
In conducting this work, we also reviewed HHS? research agenda to assess
whether it supported the TANF goal of preventing and reducing out- of-
wedlock pregnancies.
To identify states with family caps on TANF benefits, we obtained a list of
such states from the Regional Directors of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), which oversees TANF at the federal level, and
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
then conducted a phone survey with these states to discern how they
implemented the family cap. To determine the impact of the family cap on
benefits, we gathered data from TANF data specialists in these states. To
assess the impact of the family cap on out- of- wedlock births, we
identified and reviewed studies that examined family caps. In our review, we
assessed the extent to which each study provided evidence for an effect of
the family cap on out- of- wedlock births and other outcomes. In addition,
we spoke with and collected information from HHS officials on the
Department?s TANF- related research efforts. We conducted our work from July
2000 through September 2001, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. (See app. I for a more detailed discussion of
our scope and methodology.)
Twenty- three states, representing approximately one- half of the nation?s
TANF caseload, have implemented some variation of a family cap, breaking the
traditional link between a family?s size and the amount of its monthly
welfare check. 1 Generally, these states implemented family cap policies as
part of their welfare reforms designed to reduce out- of- wedlock births and
to encourage self- sufficiency. Key features of family cap policies differ
from state to state. For example, 19 states provide no cash benefit
increase- called a full family cap- when a mother on welfare gives birth and
two states allow a partial increase in benefits, called a partial family
cap. In addition, two states have a flat grant benefit structure that acts
as an implicit family cap because cash benefit amounts are not adjusted due
to family size or the birth of an additional child. In implementing the
family cap, the states have fairly similar policies for exempting some
families from caps on benefit amounts. For example, most family cap states
make exemptions to the cap in the case of children born as the result of
sexual assault, rape, or incest. In addition, 4 of the 23 states have
adopted income support policies designed specifically for capped- benefit
families, such as vouchers for the purchase of goods for the newborn child.
During an average month in 2000, 20 of the 23 family cap states reported
that about 108,000 families received less in cash benefits than they would
have in the absence of state- imposed family cap policies. Overall, in an
average month, about 9 percent of TANF families in these states had their
benefits affected by the family cap. The actual differences between a
family?s TANF benefits before and after having its benefits subject to the
1 We gathered information about the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
cap are affected by several factors, including earnings and receipt of child
support. Therefore, states were not able to report the precise effect of the
family cap on TANF benefits. However, we estimated that these TANF families
were generally receiving about 20 percent less in cash assistance each month
because of the family cap - ranging from $20 less in Wyoming to $121 less in
California. 2 In addition, on average, states reported that 12 percent of
capped- benefit families had additional children after their TANF benefits
were affected by the family cap. Therefore, in the case of these particular
families, the cash assistance not received is likely to be greater than the
estimated 20 percent.
Due to limitations of the existing research, we cannot conclude that family
cap policies reduce the incidence of out- of- wedlock births, affect the
number of abortions, or change the size of the TANF caseload. While we
identified five studies that assessed the effectiveness of the family cap in
reducing the incidence of out- of- wedlock births, these studies generally
were not able to overcome the inherent difficulties involved in evaluating
the family cap policy, and thus do not provide clear and convincing evidence
of the family cap?s effectiveness. One of these difficulties is that several
major policy and program changes took place simultaneously under state and
federal welfare reforms, making it difficult to determine the extent to
which any one specific policy or program change- the family cap, in this
instance- made a difference. Another major difficulty involves controlling
adequately for broader social and cultural changes that may also affect
women?s childbearing decisions. Methodological limitations in the studies we
reviewed on the effect of the family cap on abortion rates and caseload size
also do not allow us to draw conclusions. We did not identify any studies
that evaluated the impact of the family cap on poverty.
While HHS? research efforts cover a broad range of issues, most of these
efforts have focused on TANF?s goal of reducing welfare dependence through
employment with much less emphasis on the goal of reducing outof- wedlock
pregnancies. As a result, while HHS has recently taken steps to improve
information and research related to this key TANF goal, we are recommending
that the Secretary of HHS review its research agenda and take steps to
identify, encourage, and support additional studies, where deemed
appropriate, that would increase the availability of information on how best
to prevent and reduce out- of- wedlock pregnancies. We are also
2 Many states have policies related to the treatment of earnings or child
support payments or alternative forms of assistance that could offset to
some extent the financial impact of the family cap. However, these policies
would not affect most families whose benefits were subject to the family
cap.
Page 4 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
recommending that the Secretary submit HHS? research agenda, with estimated
resource needs, to the Congress to provide it with useful information as it
considers the reauthorization of the TANF legislation, which expires at the
end of fiscal year 2002.
In ending the AFDC program and establishing TANF block grants to states,
PRWORA built upon and expanded state- level reforms and significantly
changed welfare policy for low- income families with children. The
legislation ended the legal entitlement to cash assistance for eligible
needy families with children and focused on helping needy families move
toward economic independence. As specified in PRWORA, the goals of TANF are
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. PRWORA
places a 5- year time limit (or less at state option) on federal cash
assistance for most families- and requires states to impose federally
established work and other program requirements on most adults receiving
aid. Otherwise, the Act gives states broad flexibility to establish their
own eligibility rules and the types of services provided. In fiscal year
2000, total TANF expenditures equaled almost $23.6 billion, more than half
in federal dollars. 3 About 5.8 million recipients received TANF cash
assistance in September of that year.
In addition to establishing a key TANF goal related to reducing out-
ofwedlock pregnancies, the Congress, through PRWORA, established a
?Bonus to Reward Decrease in Illegitimacy Ratio? so that HHS could reward
states that showed the greatest reduction in out- of- wedlock births while
decreasing their abortion rates. States win this bonus based on these
reductions for the general population, not just the welfare population. In
each of fiscal years 1999 through 2002, up to $100 million is available to
3 PRWORA includes a ?maintenance of effort? provision that requires states
to maintain a significant portion of their own historic financial commitment
to their welfare programs as a condition of receiving their full TANF grant.
States may use their own funds to provide cash assistance to families who
reach the 5- year federal time limit. Background
PRWORA Emphasizes Reducing the Incidence of Out- of- Wedlock Childbearing
Page 5 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
the five states that achieve the largest reductions. 4 HHS also requires
states to set goals to reduce out- of- wedlock pregnancies. Each state has
to submit a TANF plan that includes the state?s strategy for preventing and
reducing the incidence of out- of- wedlock pregnancies. This plan must also
include an explanation of how the state intends to establish numerical goals
for reducing out- of- wedlock births. 5 PRWORA also authorized the National
Strategy to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and the Abstinence Education Grant
Program to help meet the TANF goal of reducing out- ofwedlock births. PRWORA
authorized federal expenditures of $50 million annually, beginning in fiscal
year 1998, to support state efforts promoting abstinence education. 6
PRWORA?s emphasis on reducing out- of- wedlock childbearing, among other
goals, results from congressional concerns about the negative consequences
of out- of- wedlock births on the mother, the child, and the family. The
percentage of out- of- wedlock births among the total population 7 has
increased dramatically, from 3.8 percent in 1940 to 32.6 percent in 1994,
although from 1994 to 1999 it remained around 33 percent. While there are
still questions about the extent of the consequences of outof- wedlock
childbearing, research shows that children born out of wedlock are much more
likely to be poor and receive welfare than children born to married parents.
More specifically, among children living with single mothers, children born
outside of wedlock are 1.7 times more likely to be poor than are those born
to married parents. 8 In addition, research shows that women aged 17 and
under who give birth outside of
4 The first round of bonuses was awarded in 1999 to Alabama, California, the
District of Columbia, Massachusetts and Michigan. The second year?s bonuses
were awarded to Alabama, Arizona, the District of Columbia, Illinois and
Michigan. Among recipients in 2000, decreases in births to unmarried mothers
ranged from 4.13 percent in the District of Columbia to 0. 022 percent in
Illinois.
5 HHS does not have the authority to approve or disapprove a state?s TANF
plan. HHS only determines whether the plan is complete and then the state
may receive TANF funds. The statute does not set forth criteria for
determining the completeness of a plan nor steps HHS should take if it
determines a state?s plan is incomplete nor how HHS should respond to an
incomplete plan.
6 The Abstinence Education Grant Program is funded under Section 510 of
Title V of the Social Security Act. 7 Data on the percent of out- of-
wedlock births among welfare recipients are not available over time. 8 Ariel
Halpern, Poverty among Children Born Outside of Marriage: Preliminary
Findings from the National Survey of America?s Families (Washington, D. C.:
Urban Institute, 1999).
Page 6 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
marriage are more likely to go on public assistance and spend more years on
assistance once enrolled. For example, over three- quarters of all unmarried
teenage mothers began receiving cash benefits from the AFDC program within
five years of the birth of their first child. 9
The potential link between welfare receipt and non- marital childbearing has
been of interest to policymakers and researchers for several years,
particularly as the number of never- married mothers receiving welfare has
increased, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all families on
welfare. Studies have been conducted to understand what role, if any, the
amount of welfare benefits plays in a woman?s decision to have a child. The
results of studies examining the effects of various welfare benefit amounts
on fertility and marriage have been mixed. A recent summary of this research
found that a slight majority of studies have concluded that receiving
welfare has led to a decrease in marriage and an increase in childbearing.
10
In the early to mid- 1990s, before federal welfare reform, some states
responded to concerns about links between welfare and childbearing by
seeking waivers from federal AFDC rules to implement their own policies to
eliminate increased cash welfare grants for families who have additional
children while on welfare. This ?capping? of cash grants became known as the
family cap. 11 During the 2 years of debate over how to reform welfare and
address the issue of rising rates of out- of- wedlock births, one version of
the welfare legislation contained a family cap. PRWORA, the final welfare
reform legislation passed in 1996, emphasized decreasing out- ofwedlock
birth rates but remained silent on the family cap, leaving implementation
decisions regarding family cap policy to the states.
9 G. Adams and R. C. Williams, Sources of Support for Adolescent Mothers
(Washington, D. C.: Congressional Budget Office, 1990). See Richard
Wertheimer and Kristin Moore,
Childbearing by Teens: Links to Welfare Reform (Washington, D. C.: Urban
Institute, n. d.). 10 Welfare Reform Research: What Have We Learned Since
the Family Support Act of 1988
(Washington D. C.: Congressional Research Service, 2000). See Robert
Moffitt, ?The Effect of Welfare on Marriage and Fertility,? Welfare, the
Family, and Reproductive Behavior: Research Perspectives (Washington, D. C.:
National Academy Press, 1998).
11 While the family cap can apply to single- parent and two- parent
families? cash benefits and covers births to married parents, it typically
relates to an out- of- wedlock birth because a majority of the families on
welfare are single mother families.
Page 7 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Although PRWORA devolved considerable authority to the states to design and
implement their own welfare programs, HHS retains some program oversight and
research responsibilities. Generally, the law narrowed HHS? regulatory
authority, as compared to its authority under AFDC. For example, PRWORA
specifically limits HHS from regulating the conduct of states, except as
expressly provided in the law. HHS is responsible for administering
statutory penalties for states? noncompliance with the law, and for
developing and administering the high performance bonuses and Bonus to
Reward Decrease in Illegitimacy Ratio established in PRWORA to reward states
that achieve certain goals of the law. In addition, HHS is responsible and
receives funding for conducting research on the benefits, effects, and costs
of state TANF programs and for disseminating information among states and
localities. This research role differs from the one HHS played in the past,
when a state wishing to experiment with any departure from federal AFDC
rules had to request a waiver from HHS, and HHS had to ensure that the
waiver request included plans for a rigorous evaluation of the state?s
experiment. In fact, some of the effectiveness studies of the family cap
that we reviewed in this report were conducted as required evaluations of
policies implemented under waiver of AFDC rules. Because of the increased
flexibility states have under TANF, states no longer need to apply for
waivers from federal rules.
Twenty- three states, representing about half of the nation?s TANF caseload,
have implemented a family cap policy, with most of these states providing no
cash increase when a mother on welfare gives birth. States implement the
family cap in one of three ways: a full family cap on benefits, a partial
family cap on benefits, or a flat grant that applies to all TANF families.
States implemented the family cap policy to reduce out- ofwedlock births and
encourage self- sufficiency, with 15 states implementing the family cap
policy under a waiver to the AFDC program and eight states implementing the
policy after welfare reform. Most states with a family cap policy exempt
families from the cap if special circumstances exist. For example, children
born as the result of sexual assault, rape, or incest are exempt from the
family cap in 18 states. Several states have additional support policies
designed specifically for cappedbenefit families, such as vouchers for food
and diapers in lieu of the cash benefit increase they would have received
without the family cap policy. PRWORA Specifies a
Research Role for HHS in the New Devolved Welfare System
Many States Have Policies That Cap Cash Benefits, but Some Provide Other
Supports to CappedBenefit Families
Page 8 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Twenty- three states, covering approximately 52 percent of the TANF caseload
nationwide, have adopted the family cap policy in some form. As Figure 1
shows, 19 states employ a full family cap. In these states a family?s cash
grant is not increased by any amount with the birth of an additional child.
12 For example, in Arizona, if a family of two receiving a monthly maximum
grant of $275 per month had an additional child, their cash benefit would be
capped at this amount. 13 The family would not receive the $72 increase in
benefits, which would have otherwise raised their grant amount to $347- the
maximum grant for three person families. Two states have a family cap that
is implemented as a partial increase in cash benefits with the birth of an
additional child. 14 For example, one state with the partial family cap
increases by 50 percent the cash benefits the family would have received
without the family cap for only the first child born to a family after they
enrolled in assistance; the benefit cap becomes a full family cap for any
subsequent children born into the family. Two other states use a flat grant
to provide cash benefits to families. This policy creates an implicit
benefit cap because cash benefits are the same for all families on
assistance regardless of family size or the birth of an additional child.
For example, in Wisconsin families receive either $628 or $673 per month.
Their benefit amount depends on the work program component to which they
have been assigned, rather than on family size. 15
12 Wyoming has a tiered benefit schedule for all TANF recipients. The tiered
schedule consists of identical maximum grants for three- and four- person
families, and five- and sixperson families. Therefore, families whose
benefits are subject to the family cap will not receive an increase in cash
benefits if they are a three- person or five- person family who has an
additional child.
13 The amounts represented here are based on the fiscal year 2000 maximum
allowable benefit, which assumes no counted income. The actual benefit
amount granted to families is dependent on factors such as earnings and
child support, among other things.
14 Florida imposes a partial family cap on benefits after the birth of the
first child while on assistance. The partial benefit increase is equal to 50
percent of what the family would have received had the family cap not been
implemented. Any subsequent children trigger a full family cap. Connecticut
has a partial family cap that increases a family?s benefit by $50 for each
additional child, which is less than the increase the family would have
received with the birth of an additional child if their benefits were not
subject to the family cap policy.
15 Wisconsin assesses a TANF recipient?s capacity to perform work and
assigns each recipient to one of four different work components of the
Wisconsin Works ?employment
ladder?: W- 2 Transition, Community Service Jobs, Trial Jobs, Unsubsidized
Employment. Families enrolled in the W- 2 Transition component receive a
benefit of $628 per month. Families enrolled in the Community Service Jobs
component receive a benefit of $673 per month. Families enrolled in the
remaining two components do not receive cash assistance. Almost Half of the
States
Have Some Type of Family Cap Policy; Goals of the Family Cap Policy Include
Reducing Out- of- Wedlock Births and Increasing SelfSufficiency
Page 9 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Figure 1: Types of Family Cap Policies by State, 2000
Source: GAO?s Survey and HHS data.
Page 10 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
States implemented the family cap policies before and after federal welfare
reform, often with the goals of decreasing out- of- wedlock births and
encouraging self- sufficiency. For example, one state implemented the family
cap based on the goal of encouraging parents to plan for security and assume
responsibility for their children. The family cap policy developed out of
state- based initiatives, starting with New Jersey in 1992. Fifteen states
implemented the family cap as a waiver to the AFDC program. Eight states
implemented the family cap policy following the passage of PRWORA as a part
of their TANF state plans.
In their policies, all states with a full or partial family cap include
exemptions to the family cap for families in specific circumstances. 16 Most
states have the same exemptions, as shown in figure 2. For example, to
account for a pregnancy that occurred before the family started receiving
assistance, 20 states exempt families with children born less than 10 months
after the family?s initial receipt of benefits. In addition, states commonly
exempt children not living with their biological parents. This exemption
typically occurs when the custody of the child is legally transferred or the
parent is deceased, incarcerated or incapacitated. Most states exempt
families who leave assistance for a specified period of time, give birth to
a child, and return to the rolls, that is, they become pregnant
?between spells.? Some state officials we spoke with expressed concern about
this exemption because of the potential that families are circumventing the
family cap on benefits by leaving assistance and reapplying once a new child
is born.
Six states have other exemptions to the family cap. For example, one state
exempts children conceived as a result of the failure of certain
contraceptive methods. Another state exempts children born with substantial
physical or mental disabilities.
16 States with a flat grant system do not offer exemptions since there is no
alternative benefit structure from which a family can be exempt. Most
States? Policies
Include Exemptions to the Family Cap
Page 11 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Figure 2: Exemptions to the Family Cap, 2000
Note: Wisconsin and Idaho are not included in this figure because TANF
benefits in flat grant states are not affected by family size and therefore
would not be able to be subject to these types of exemptions. a Fourteen
states require verification of sexual assault, rape, or incest from a
professional (i. e. doctor
or police officer) or from a relative or friend. Source: GAO Survey.
All 23 states with the family cap policy have procedures in place to enroll
eligible children in the Medicaid and food stamps programs even when their
families? benefits have been capped. Many states? documents- including
policy manuals, codes of regulations, personal responsibility agreements
that clients must sign, and TANF program brochures- explain to families and
caseworkers the availability of these services to newborn children. In
addition to written notification, one state told us they have an outreach
worker who is responsible for checking the Medicaid eligibility of all
children whose families are receiving TANF. All states told us that when the
birth of a child is reported to the TANF caseworker, there are procedures in
place to enroll the child in Medicaid and food stamps. One state official
expressed concern, however, that families whose benefits might be affected
by the family cap may not report a birth to a TANF caseworker, making it
less likely that the family would enroll the child in other support
services. Children From CappedBenefit
Families Still Eligible for Other Assistance Programs
Page 12 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Some states have tailored other welfare- related policies for families with
capped benefits. Almost all states in the nation have policies that ignore a
portion of a family?s earned income when determining the family?s
eligibility for benefits and the amount of benefits they will receive. These
policies increase the amount of cash income for the households with a
working adult. Three of the states with a family cap policy ignore an even
larger portion of a family?s income after the family?s benefits are capped.
In addition, some states make exceptions to their child support policies for
capped- benefit families. Typically, states keep any child support collected
on behalf of TANF families in order to reimburse the government for its
welfare costs. 17 Four states provide a portion, or the entire amount, of
any child support collected for a capped- benefit family to the family
instead of retaining it as they do for non- capped families. 18
Four states with a family cap on benefits give families vouchers equal to
the traditional cash benefit increase they would have received in the
absence of a cap. These vouchers can be used to purchase basic goods and
services for the newborn child, such as diapers and formula, from
participating vendors, although data on the extent to which families used
these vouchers were not readily available. Conditions under which states
provide the vouchers vary. For example, one state placed a time limit of
three years on the voucher, while another state provides a voucher only if
the family requests one each month. Another state provides alternative
resources by offering a cash payment to a third party in the amount of the
incremental increase that would have been paid on behalf of the child to
purchase goods or services for the newborn child. The third party can be a
non- profit organization offering such goods and services, a family member
not included in the assistance unit, or a caseworker not directly connected
to the family receiving the benefit.
17 PRWORA requires that families receiving TANF assign their right to any
child support collected on their behalf to the government to reimburse it
for its welfare costs. These retained child support payments are shared with
the federal government. PRWORA does not prohibit states from using their own
state maintenance of effort funds to provide an amount equal to the child
support received directly to the families while still paying the federal
government its required share. Nationwide, 19 states pass on some child
support to its TANF families.
18 A U. S. District Court in Indiana ruled unconstitutional Indiana?s
requirement that children subject to the cap assign their child support
payments to the state. Also, North Dakota recently passed legislation to
begin implementing the child support pass- through for capped- benefit
families. Additional Resources Are
Available to CappedBenefit Families in Some States
Page 13 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
During an average month in 2000, about 108,000 families received less in
cash assistance than they would have if their benefits had not been capped.
19 Capped- benefit families represented about 9 percent of the average
monthly TANF caseload in the 20 states that provided us data. The proportion
of the monthly caseload of families whose benefits were affected by the cap
varied from 1 to 20 percent across these states. The actual effect of the
family cap on cash benefits is difficult to determine because cash benefit
levels are influenced by other factors, including family earnings and child
support. We estimated, however, that in an average month, families whose
benefits were affected by the cap due to the birth of an additional child
received about 20 percent less than they would have received in the absence
of a cap; we based this estimation on two person families that had an
additional child while on welfare. 20 Additional data show that 12 percent
of families had more children after their TANF benefits were already
affected by the family cap. The percentage increase in benefits not received
by these particular families is likely to be greater than our estimate of 20
percent. Finally, families with capped benefits receive more in food stamps
than families of a comparable size whose benefits are not capped.
Based on responses of 20 states with family cap policies, about 108,000
families receiving TANF had their benefits affected by the family cap, in an
average month during 2000. This number represented about 9 percent of the
total number of TANF families in these 20 states, and is a minimum number of
families who may have been affected during 2000. 21 Table 1 shows the number
of families whose benefits were affected by the family cap in an average
month by state and the percentage of all TANF families whose benefits were
affected by the family cap in each state. The
19 Twenty of the 23 family cap states provided these data. Wisconsin and
Idaho, the two states with a flat grant policy, and Wyoming, which has a
tiered- benefit policy, were not able to provide the data needed to
determine the numbers of families who experienced a birth but did not
receive an increase in TANF benefit amount.
20 This is a weighted calculation across family cap states that could
provide us with information on three- person capped- benefit families.
Because not every family cap state could provide us with this information,
the calculation is based on data from 16 states.
21 The total number of families receiving TANF who were affected by family
cap policies during an entire year may be larger. Over the course of a year,
some capped- benefit families may leave the TANF rolls while other TANF
families may enter into capped- benefit status. While monthly data shows how
many families were affected in an average month of fiscal year 2000, it does
not provide a total of all the families who, when receiving TANF, had their
benefits affected by a cap. We were not able to obtain this information from
all of the states. In an Average Month
in 2000, About 108, 000 Families Received an Estimated 20 Percent Less in
Cash Assistance Due to the Cap
About 108,000 Families Had Their Cash Benefits Capped in an Average Month
Page 14 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
percentage affected by the family cap varies among the states, ranging from
about 1 percent in South Carolina and Tennessee to 20 percent in Illinois.
These variations could be caused by differences in state? various exemption
policies and practices, or whether states have their own timelimits for cash
assistance. Variations could also be due to differences in when states
implemented the family cap. For example, because California only recently
implemented a family cap policy, the number of TANF families with benefits
affected by the cap is likely to increase, according to California state
officials. 22
22 For information on the estimated impact of the family cap in California,
see Michael Wiseman, Welfare?s Children, Discussion Paper no. 1212- 00
(Madison, Wis.: Institute for Research on Poverty, 2000).
Page 15 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Table 1: Average Monthly Number of Families Whose Benefits Were Capped as a
Percentage of the State?s TANF Population in 2000
Family cap states Average monthly
number of cappedbenefit families
Capped- benefit families as a percentage of the state?s total
TANF families, in an average month Based on 20 states 107,554 8. 9 Arizona
662 1.9 Arkansas 451 4.0 California 53,417 9. 5 Connecticut 1,741 6.4
Delaware 382 7.8 Florida 1, 581 2.3 Georgia 3, 949 7.5 Idaho a a Illinois
17,137 19.6 Indiana 5,054 13.8 Maryland 848 3.2 Massachusetts 6,410 14.6
Mississippi 1,551 10.4 Nebraska 485 4.6 New Jersey 7,265 14.1 North Carolina
3, 675 7.6 North Dakota 130 4.5 Oklahoma 373 2.4 South Carolina 164 1.0
Tennessee 317 .6 Virginia 1,962 6.0 Wisconsin a a Wyoming a a a Not
available.
Source: GAO 2001 Survey and GAO analysis.
In general, families that have had their benefits capped are larger than
families whose benefits were not limited by the cap. 23 Three or four person
families make up about two- thirds of families whose benefits are affected
by a cap. Such families might consist, for example, of a parent with two or
23 Using state reported data, we calculated that the weighted average size
of families subject to the cap was 3. 8 persons, compared with 2. 9 persons
for all TANF families in these states. These averages are based on responses
from 16 states with respect to the family size of capped- benefit families
and responses from 17 states with respect to the family size of all TANF
families.
Page 16 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
three children, one of whom does not receive TANF benefits because of the
cap. Families with five members or more make up a little over onequarter of
families whose benefits are affected by a cap. Two person families and one
person families (child- only cases) make up the remaining families whose
benefits are affected by a cap. Table 2 below gives family size information
for capped- benefit families by state.
Table 2: Number of Capped- Benefit Families by Family Size and State in an
Average Month in 2000 Family cap states Family size a
1- 2- person 3- person 4- person 5- person 6- or
more person All family cap states 10,850 33,951 29,201 14,511 12,372 Arizona
b d dddd Arkansas 219 118 63 44 7 California 8, 507 15,695 14,823 6, 855
7,537 Connecticut b ddddd Delaware 43 141 102 51 45 Florida 0 772 508 211 90
Georgia b d dddd Idaho d dddd Illinois 0 6,169 5,312 3,085 2,571 Indiana 65
1,916 1,646 1,427 c d Maryland 75 334 236 110 93 Massachusetts 943 2,657
1,950 494 366 Mississippi 258 527 415 207 144 Nebraska 151 143 101 41 49 New
Jersey 111 3,002 2,154 1,114 884 North Carolina 435 1,570 1,023 413 234
North Dakota 6 53 36 18 17 Oklahoma 22 121 102 65 63 South Carolina 11 62 52
23 16 Tennessee b ddddd Virginia 4 671 678 353 256 Wisconsin d dddd Wyoming
d dddd
a Family size includes only members of the TANF assistance unit. b Arizona,
Connecticut, Georgia, and Tennessee did not have caseload information by
family size. c Indiana officials did not report the number of six person or
more families. Instead, they reported the number of families with five or
more persons. This number is included under the five person column. d Not
available.
Source: GAO 2001 Survey.
Page 17 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
We estimated that in a given month, the amount of cash assistance received
by families whose benefits had been capped was, on average, about 20 percent
less than it would have been in the absence of a cap. We estimated the cap?s
effect on benefits because states were unable to report the actual amount by
which families? benefits changed as a result of the cap. Several factors,
including family earnings and other resources, such as receipt of child
support, influence the amount of cash benefits a family receives. Our
estimate represented an average dollar amount of approximately $100 per
month 24 -representing a range from $20 in Wyoming to $121 in California.
These estimates may somewhat overstate the amount by which families benefits
are affected because the estimates are based upon the maximum cash benefit a
TANF family is eligible to receive, which is generally greater than the
average amount of cash assistance families actually receive. Overall, the
average level of cash assistance for three person families whose benefits
were affected by the family cap was $394 25 per month in federal fiscal year
2000. Depending on the state and based on maximum benefit levels, we
estimated that families received between six percent (in Wyoming) to 26
percent (in Illinois) less in cash assistance due to the family cap. Table 3
shows our calculations of the amount not received by three person capped-
benefit families across family cap states. For more information, see table 5
in appendix I.
24 These estimates are weighted averages based on data from the 16 family
cap states that could provide us caseload information for three person
families. The weighted average is greater than a non- weighted average
because states with larger numbers of capped- benefit families, such as
California and Illinois, have larger monthly TANF grant amounts than other
states. See table 3 for estimates for each family cap state.
25 This average is weighted by the family cap caseload across the 14 family
cap states that provided average benefit level and caseload information for
three- person capped- benefit families. Capped- Benefit Families
Received an Estimated 20 Percent Less in Cash Benefits
Page 18 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Table 3: Estimated Effect on TANF Cash Benefits for a Capped- Benefit Family
in an Average Month, by State
Based on a 2- person family that has an additional child on welfare (federal
fiscal year 2000)
States with family cap policies a Estimate of percentage of TANF cash
benefit not received under the family cap when additional child born to
parent Weighted average/ dollar difference across states b 20 ($ 100) b
Arizona 21 ($ 72) Arkansas 21 ($ 42) California 19 ($ 121) Connecticut 11 c
($ 73) Delaware 20 ($ 68) Florida 10 d ($ 31) Georgia 16 ($ 45) Illinois 26
($ 99) Indiana 20 ($ 59) Maryland 21 ($ 89) Massachusetts 16 ($ 102)
Mississippi 14 ($ 24) Nebraska 20 ($ 71) New Jersey 24 ($ 102) North
Carolina 13 ($ 36) North Dakota 21 ($ 94) Oklahoma 23 ($ 67) South Carolina
21 ($ 42) Tennessee 23 ($ 43) Virginia 17($ 66) Wyoming 6 ($ 20)
Note: Based on maximum monthly benefit information. These data are based on
the differences in benefits provided for a three person family (most
typically, a mother and two children) as compared with a two person family
(a mother with one child), if each family were receiving the maximum
allowable benefit. For data on maximum monthly benefits and the actual
average monthly benefit for capped- benefit families, see table 5 in app. I.
a Wisconsin and Idaho are not included in this table because cash benefits
in these states are not affected by family size or the birth of additional
children. b These figures are weighted by state family cap caseloads for
three person families. Only 16 states
could provide us with these caseload figures to compute the weighted average
and dollar amount across states. c Connecticut offers a partial increase ($
50) in cash benefits to families that have an additional child
while on assistance. Due to this partial increase, we compared the maximum
benefit for a three person family with a partial benefit cap to the maximum
benefit for a three person non- capped family. d Florida offers a partial
increase (50 percent) in cash benefits to the first born child while a
family is on assistance. Any subsequent children trigger a full family cap.
Due to this partial increase, we compared the maximum benefit for a three
person family with a partial benefit cap to the maximum benefit for a three
person non- capped family.
Page 19 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Source: Craig W. Abbey, Welfare Reform: Financial Eligibility Rules and Cash
Assistance Amounts Under TANF (Washington, D. C.: Congressional Research
Service, 2000), and GAO analysis.
While we were able to estimate how the family cap affects the monthly cash
benefit amount for a family, the family?s income may be affected in other
ways. Consequently, the cap?s total effect on household income is difficult
to determine. To some extent, the family cap?s financial impact is offset by
an increase in food stamp benefits. Because food stamp benefit calculations
take into account unearned income (i. e., TANF cash assistance) and family
size, capped- benefit families would receive more in monthly food stamp
benefits than they would if they were not capped. 26 In addition, a capped-
benefit family may receive more child support or retain more of its earnings
than it would without the cap, due to the state level policies specific to
capped- benefit families discussed previously. However, because the majority
of TANF families do not engage in work activities or receive child support,
the effect of the cap on their income is unlikely to be offset by the
benefits these policies offer.
While the majority of families receiving TANF have not had additional
children after their benefits were limited by the cap, about 12 percent of
capped- benefit families did. These families had more than one child whose
benefits were affected by the cap. 27 For these families, the estimated cash
increase not received is likely to be greater than our average estimate of
20 percent. For example, because of the family cap, a TANF recipient who
gives birth to two additional children while on TANF would receive from 21
percent in North Carolina to 38 percent in Oklahoma less in cash assistance.
28 As states have varying cash benefit amounts, the actual dollar amount
that would not have been received ranges from $48 a month in Mississippi to
$241 in California.
26 For example, in Arkansas in fiscal year 2000, a capped- benefit family of
a mother with two children would receive a smaller combined monthly amount
in TANF and food stamps than a similar non- capped family ($ 448 compared
with $478). This total includes less in TANF than the non- capped family ($
162 compared with $204) but more in food stamps ($ 286 compared with $274).
For more information, see Shirene Hansotia and Carmen Solomon- Fears,
Welfare Reform: Family Caps in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Program (Washington, D. C.: Congressional Research Service, July 1998).
27 Thirteen states provided us with information concerning the number of
families who had additional children after their benefits were limited by
the cap. 28 As with our other estimations, this estimation is based on
maximum benefit information for each state and excluded flat grant states,
partial family cap states, and Wyoming, as Wyoming has a tiered benefit
schedule. We estimated the difference in cash benefits for a two- person
family that had two additional children while receiving public assistance.
Twelve Percent of TANF
Families Had Additional Children After Their Benefits Were Affected by the
Cap
Page 20 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Due to limitations of the existing research, we cannot conclude that family
cap policies reduce the incidence of out- of- wedlock births, affect the
number of abortions, or change the size of the TANF caseload. There are
several major difficulties in obtaining conclusive evidence on the family
cap. These include appropriately measuring the number of out- of- wedlock
births and separating the impact of the family cap from the impact of other
major policy and program changes that took place simultaneously and from the
impact of broader social, cultural, or economic changes. We identified five
studies that examined the relationship between the family cap and the
incidence of out- of- wedlock births. Due to their methodological
limitations, none of these studies can be used to cite conclusive evidence
about the effect of the family cap on out- of- wedlock births. 29 The
studies we reviewed that examined the relationship between the family cap,
abortions, and caseloads also had limitations that precluded conclusions
about the effect of the family cap. (See a description of the studies and
their limitations in app. II).
One of the major difficulties in studying the effect of the family cap is
that major welfare policy changes at the state and federal levels have
occurred over the past decade. These changes make it difficult to
distinguish the effect of the family cap (or any other welfare policy) from
the effect of other reforms, or from the impact of major changes in messages
being sent to welfare recipients about self- sufficiency through welfare
reform. For example, PRWORA placed more emphasis on work requirements to
encourage recipients to be self- sufficient and also allowed states to have
more flexibility in implementing policies such as family caps, which also
encourage self- sufficiency through the goal of reducing out- of- wedlock
births. In such cases, it would be difficult to separate the combined
effects of the various policies into the individual effects of each on the
number of out- of- wedlock births.
Another major difficulty with studying the effects of family caps on the
number of out- of- wedlock births is separating the family caps? effect from
societal changes occurring between 1991 and 1997. Specifically, the birth
rate among teens declined and the birth rate for second children declined
among women ages 15 to 24. The period in which these declining birth rates
occurred overlapped with the period in which family caps were implemented.
Since this overall decline began before any family caps were
29 Three studies looked at the impact of the family cap on births in their
welfare population, but since the majority of welfare recipients are single
mothers, we discuss births under these family cap studies as out- of-
wedlock births. Existing Studies
Cannot Be Used to Cite Conclusive Evidence About the Impact of the Family
Cap on Out- ofWedlock Births
Multiple Difficulties in Assessing the Effect of the Family Cap
Page 21 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
in effect, we can safely assume that this trend began independent of family
cap implementation. Therefore, it is difficult to disentangle the true
effect that the family cap policies may have had on declining birth rates
from the effect of these national declines. 30
Another barrier to understanding the effects of the family cap is the
limited availability of needed information from national data sets for
studying specific welfare policies relating to out- of- wedlock births. HHS
only recently began collecting data on out- of- wedlock births for welfare
recipients. This data will be helpful for analyzing state- level effects of
particular welfare policies, such as the family cap.
None of the five studies we reviewed was conducted in a way that would
permit us to draw firm conclusions about the effect of the family cap on
childbearing. Four of the studies we reviewed could not isolate the effect
of the family cap from the effects of other welfare reform policies and had
other shortcomings. For example, in one study, the participants did not
understand whether their benefits were affected by the family cap. The fifth
study was more successful at isolating the effects of the family caps, but
had other limitations. 31
While this fifth study was strongest in terms of the methods it used to
examine the effects of the family cap, it was limited by the way it measured
the occurrence of non- marital births. This study?s strengths included
controlling for the effects of other factors- broader social and economic
changes, differences across states over time, and other welfare reforms
implemented at, or around, the same time as the family cap. However, this
study evaluated the effect of the family cap by using a ratio of non-
marital births to all births (marital and non- marital). Using this ratio is
problematic because even if the number of non- marital births remained
constant, the ratio could still decrease or increase because of changes in
the number of marital births. For example, the ratio would decrease if
marital births increased and non- marital births remained
30 While some of the studies in this review attempted to control for
unmeasured, underlying phenomena such as this generally declining birthrate
by entering variables for the effect of time, the control mechanisms used
may not have been adequate due to the similarity of how time and the family
cap itself were measured.
31 See Ann Horvath- Rose and H. Elizabeth Peters, ?Welfare Wiavers and
Nonmairital Childbearing,? For Better and For Worse: Welfare Reform and the
Well- Being of Children and Families (New York: Russell Sage, forthcoming
2001). Studies Do Not Provide
Conclusive Evidence on the Effect of the Family Cap
Page 22 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
constant. Because of this limitation, the study cannot conclusively show the
effect of the family cap on the number of non- marital births. 32
As was the case with studies examining non- marital births, other studies we
reviewed were not conducted in a way that would permit us to draw firm
conclusions about the effect of the family caps on abortions, family
planning, or the TANF caseload. The studies we reviewed had various
limitations. The most common were limitations involving the inadequate
measurement of family caps and the inability to isolate the effect of the
family cap from other concurrent welfare reforms. We did not identify any
studies that evaluated the impact of the family cap on poverty.
While HHS? research efforts cover a broad range of issues, including some
related to reducing out- of- wedlock pregnancies, most of the studies have
focused on TANF?s employment- related goal. Since the enactment of PROWRA,
HHS has used its research authority and resources to encourage and support
evaluations of various welfare program approaches and features. As described
in its Third Annual Report to the Congress on the TANF program, August 2000,
HHS? research agenda has two main goals: (1) to increase the probability of
success of welfare reform by providing timely, reliable data to inform
policy and program design, especially at the state and local level where
decision making has devolved; and (2) to inform the nation of policies
chosen and their effects on children, families, communities and social well-
being. Within this research agenda, as shown in table 4, in fiscal year
2000, HHS spent about $26 million on research and technical assistance
projects. 33 These projects include studies on the relative effectiveness of
various approaches to moving welfare recipients into employment, the well-
being of children of parents enrolled in welfareto- work programs, and the
effectiveness of job retention strategies for welfare recipients who become
employed.
32 The authors stated that their results also show that time variables which
capture unmeasured aspects, such as social and economic factors, play larger
roles in out- ofwedlock childbearing than do welfare policies, such as the
family cap.
33 Included in this total is $7 million in policy research funding earmarked
to study the outcomes of welfare reform. HHS? Research
Focuses on Employment Goal of TANF, With Limited Information Available on
Goal of Reducing Out- Of- Wedlock Pregnancies
Page 23 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Table 4: HHS Research Funding for Fiscal Year 2000 Research Area Description
Total Amount
Funded
TANF- Welfare Reform (General) Continuation of demonstrations states began
under waivers, evaluation of child wellbeing and special populations under
welfare reform, caseload dynamics and other
topical issues. Includes grants to states and localities to enhance studies
of welfarerelated outcomes, household behavior and use of services.
$9,236,081 TANF - Employment Interventions and Issues National evaluations
of sites testing interventions related to employment retention and
advancement, employment interventions for rural TANF recipients and the
hard- toemploy, and welfare to work strategies. Also includes evaluations of
earnings reporting, research on low- skill/ low- wage workers?
characteristics and employment patterns, and other employment issues for
low- income families.
6,850,065 Strengthening Families Projects related to strengthening family
relations including research on effects of
welfare reform on fragile families and family formation, low- income family
well- being and coping mechanisms. Also includes projects on fathers,
abstinence education and reducing domestic violence.
1,712,249 Child Care National study of Low- Income Child Care, research on
strategies for providing, and the
economics of, high quality child care and other projects. 2,259,071
Synthesis Studies, Dissemination and Technical Assistance
Includes syntheses of evaluations of welfare reform impacts, welfare
outcomes grants, state TANF policies, research on interventions being
tested, and data on low- income families? economic well- being. Also
includes annual welfare reform evaluation conference, other dissemination
activities and technical assistance to states.
3,482,261 Data Analysis Includes analyses of existing data sets across a
variety of topics. 559,662 Methodology Studies Includes support for existing
surveys and databases, feasibility studies, development
of new questions and uses of data, and administration of specific questions
of interest. Also includes funding for poverty centers. 1,515,254
Total FY 2000 $25,614,643
Note: Includes research under the Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which
oversee TANF. The dollars include funding authorized under Section 1110 of
the Social Security Act, as amended. Also includes research conducted by
HHS? Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) with funds
primarily from the Secretary?s Policy Research account.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services.
Although most of the studies and research focus on employment- related
issues, HHS does support some research related to the TANF goal of reducing
out- of- wedlock pregnancies. For example, some of the evaluations begun
under waivers as well as a few studies of families who have left welfare
have gathered some information relating to the family cap and out- of-
wedlock pregnancies among welfare recipients. In addition, HHS has been
involved with a significant initiative aimed at reducing teenage pregnancy
34 , has funded research projects related to helping young
34 For more information on research related to teen pregnancy, see Douglas
Kirby,
Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy
(Washington, D. C.: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001).
Page 24 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
adults avoid premature sexual activity and unintended pregnancies, and has
just recently begun a project involving interventions for unwed parents at
the time of their child?s birth. HHS is also involved in a major on- going
evaluation of abstinence education programs designed to strengthen the
research base and public knowledge about promoting abstinence among youth
and the benefits of various approaches. Moreover, in fiscal year 2000, HHS
has taken steps to increase the availability of information related to out-
of- wedlock childbearing activities by requiring states to include
information on their strategies for reducing out- of- wedlock pregnancies in
their TANF annual reports. HHS also requires states to report data on the
incidence of out- of- wedlock births among the TANF caseload. This new
information may help HHS, states, and researchers share information on
promising approaches to reducing out- of- wedlock pregnancies and contribute
to a state?s ability to qualify for the Bonus to Reward Decrease in
Illegitimacy Ratio.
Even with the research under way and the steps HHS has recently taken,
additional efforts may prove useful in, for example, improving data
availability, conducting implementation studies, and striving to improve
effectiveness studies. In our recently completed comprehensive review of the
data available to assess states? progress in meeting TANF?s goals, we found
limited information regarding the goal of reducing out- of- wedlock
pregnancies, particularly in comparison to the more widely available
information related to helping welfare parents reduce their dependence on
welfare through job preparation and employment. 35 In some ways this is not
surprising, given that states have focused their efforts on helping welfare
recipients find employment and become economically independent. One expert
said that states have focused their efforts on employment because much more
is known about effective strategies for moving welfare recipients into work
than is known about strategies for reducing births. Another expert believes
that states have focused more on employment goals because more consensus
exists about the role of government in helping welfare recipients become
employed than about its role in influencing people?s childbearing decisions.
HHS could play an important role in encouraging and supporting additional
research in this area to support states? efforts in meeting TANF goals.
In the new and evolving welfare environment created by PRWORA, states have
tremendous flexibility to design and implement strategies to meet
35 See Welfare Reform: Data Available to Assess TANF?s Progress (GAO- 01-
298, Feb. 2001). Conclusion
Page 25 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
four key TANF goals: providing assistance to needy families; ending
dependence on government aid through job preparation, employment, and
marriage; preventing and reducing out- of- wedlock pregnancies; and
promoting two- parent families. States have moved ahead with strategies
designed to move welfare recipients into employment, an area where much
research exists providing useful information about what works best and for
whom. While states have been much less active in implementing strategies to
reduce out- of- wedlock pregnancies, the use of family cap policies does
show interest among states in meeting this congressionallyestablished goal.
Yet, policymakers and program administrators have limited information
available to help in understanding the effectiveness of the family cap or to
aid in devising and implementing other strategies that may prove effective
in reducing out- of- wedlock births. While overcoming the inherent
difficulties in assessing the effectiveness of family cap policies and other
approaches in the new welfare environment may be challenging, taking steps
to improve data availability, conduct implementation studies, and improve
effectiveness studies would be useful. State, local, and federal program
administrators and policymakers would be well served by a stronger research
base upon which to draw information on a range of effective strategies for
reducing out- of- wedlock pregnancies.
Even though the new welfare system is highly decentralized, PRWORA
explicitly charged HHS with conducting research on state TANF programs, and
HHS has played an important role in identifying and disseminating
information on effective strategies for meeting welfare reform goals, with a
particular focus on TANF?s employment- related goal. HHS also has supported
some research that addresses effective strategies for accomplishing the goal
of reducing out- of- wedlock pregnancies. In addition, HHS has taken steps
to ensure that more data will be available from states on births to welfare
recipients and on strategies that states have implemented to reduce out- of-
wedlock pregnancies. Still, if HHS strengthened its efforts in this area and
improved the research base, it could enhance states? efforts to address this
TANF goal. Moreover, if HHS submits information on its research agenda and
efforts with estimated resource needs to the Congress, the Congress will
have useful information to use as it considers TANF reauthorization and
related research needs.
We recommend that the Secretary of HHS review its research agenda and, if
appropriate, take steps to identify, encourage, and support additional
studies that would increase the availability of information on how best to
prevent and reduce out- of- wedlock pregnancies and more fully support the
goals of TANF. This additional work could include improving the availability
of data to support studies, working with states to identify and
Recommendations to
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
Page 26 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
disseminate information on relevant promising practices, and supporting
rigorous evaluation studies. Having additional research in this area would
provide important information to administrators and policymakers and support
the Congress? efforts to reward states for strategies that succeed in
reducing out- of- wedlock births.
We also recommend that HHS provide its research agenda, with estimated
resource needs, to the Congress for its use as it considers TANF
reauthorization, including decisions about the role of HHS in conducting
research and the resources HHS needs to fulfill that role. This will help to
ensure that the key research and technical assistance needs of this $16.5
billion federal program are met.
We provided HHS with an opportunity to comment on the report. HHS agreed
with our conclusion that available research does not address the effect of
family cap policies and said that the report addressed an important topic. A
copy of HHS? response is in appendix III. We also incorporated technical
comments we received from HHS where appropriate.
Regarding our recommendation about the need for more research on effective
strategies for reducing out- of- wedlock births, HHS agreed that more
research is needed, but noted that additional detail in the report on the
methodological limitations of existing research would be helpful for
understanding the significance of the existing studies and for individuals
thinking about additional research. We believe the level of discussion on
limitations in the report, including the appendix, is sufficient to address
the focus of this report- what conclusions can be drawn about the
effectiveness of the family cap from existing research-- and to point to
ways to improve studies on the family cap. Regarding our second
recommendation that HHS provide its research agenda to the Congress for its
use as it considers TANF reauthorization, HHS noted that it already has in
place several mechanisms for keeping the Congress informed about its welfare
research activities. These include annual reports to the Congress on its
study of the outcomes of welfare reform with brief descriptions of welfare
outcomes projects planned for funding each year, a chapter describing its
research agenda in the annual TANF report to the Congress, and briefings to
interested congressional staff upon request. We are aware of these
information sources and believe they provide important information to the
Congress. However, we continue to believe that it would be useful for HHS to
provide its research agenda to the key authorizing committees for the TANF
program, with estimated resource Agency Comments
Page 27 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
needs, in a form designed specifically to aid the Congress in TANF
reauthorization would serve a useful purpose.
HHS also expressed concern that readers might get an unnecessarily narrow
view of the strategies available to address the goal of reducing outof-
wedlock pregnancies because the report focuses solely on family cap policies
and research. As HHS noted, the TANF goal of preventing and reducing out-
of- wedlock pregnancies addresses the overall population, not just welfare
families, and only a modest portion of out- of- wedlock births is
attributable to the welfare population. Yet, family cap policies focus by
definition on welfare families. We agree that this is an important point and
that other strategies can address the goal of reducing out- of- wedlock
pregnancies, such as the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which
we mentioned in the report. While a comprehensive review of the research
related to strategies to reduce out- of- wedlock pregnancies was not the
focus of this report, we did look beyond research on the family cap to
assess whether HHS? welfare- related research agenda supported the broad
goal of preventing and reducing out- of- wedlock pregnancies and concluded
that more research on strategies for addressing this goal, including those
beyond the family cap, could play an important role in encouraging states
efforts in this area. As suggested by HHS, we added a reference to the
recently completed review of evaluation research related to reducing teen
pregnancy.
We also provided the draft report to two experts on welfare research, who
agreed with our findings and overall conclusions. They also provided
technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
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 of this report to the
Honorable Max Baucus, Chairman, and the Honorable Charles Grassley, Ranking
Minority Member, Senate Committee on Finance; the Honorable Bill Thomas,
Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means; the Honorable Wally Herger,
Chairman, and Honorable Benjamin Cardin, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Human Resources, House Committee on Ways and Means; the
Honorable Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services;
appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. We will
also make copies available upon request.
Page 28 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-
7215. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix
IV.
Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Managing Director Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 29 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap
Policies
This appendix provides more detail on how we (1) assessed the number of
families whose benefits were affected by the family cap in an average month
and the amount of cash benefits not received by capped- benefit families and
(2) identified studies on the impact of the family cap and analyzed the
content of those studies. We conducted our work between July 2000 and
September 2001, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
To determine the number of families whose benefits were affected by the
family cap in an average month, we requested federal fiscal year 2000 data
from TANF programs in all states with family cap policies. Twenty states
provided us with the information that was used to determine the average
monthly number of families in 2000 whose benefits were affected by the
family cap in these states. Not all states were able to give us this
information by family size. We requested the same caseload data for all TANF
families in the family cap states.
In order to estimate the monthly amount of cash assistance capped- benefit
families did not receive due to the family cap, we used information provided
by the Congressional Research Service. We estimated how much less families
would receive because of the family cap policy by calculating the difference
between the maximum benefit for two and three person families. (See table
5.)
To determine the average monthly cash benefit for three person cappedbenefit
families, we asked states for the average monthly cash benefit level for
families affected by the cap by family size. We then weighted this average
number for three person families by the three person family cap caseload in
each state. Not all states were able to provide benefit levels for families
affected by the cap, nor were all states able to provide information by
family size. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Assessing the Number of Capped- Benefit Families in an Average Month and the
Amount of Cash Benefits Not Received by CappedBenefit Families
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 30 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap
Policies
Table 5: Estimated Cash Benefit Not Received by a Capped- Benefit Family in
an Average Month, by State Based on a 2- person family that has an
additional child on welfare (FY 2000)
Family cap states a Maximum monthly
benefit for 2- person families
Maximum monthly benefit for 3- person
families Estimate of cash benefit
not received with additional child
Average monthly cash benefit for 3- person capped- benefit families Weighted
figures b 20% b ($ 100) $394 b
Arizona 275 347 21% ($ 72) c Arkansas 162 204 21% ($ 42) 147 California 505
626 19% ($ 121) 467 Connecticut 563 636 11% d ($ 73) 425 Delaware 270 338
20% ($ 68) c Florida 272 303 10% e ($ 31) 272 Georgia 235 280 16% ($ 45) c
Illinois 278 377 26% ($ 99) c Indiana 229 288 20% ($ 59) 156 Maryland 328
417 21% ($ 89) 279 Massachusetts 535 637 16% ($ 102) 488 Mississippi 146 170
14% ($ 24) 138 Nebraska 293 364 20% ($ 71) 283 New Jersey 322 424 24% ($
102) 329 North Carolina 236 272 13% ($ 36) 228 North Dakota 363 457 21% ($
94) 332 Oklahoma 225 292 23% ($ 67) 208 South Carolina 162 204 21% ($ 42)
147 Tennessee 142 185 23% ($ 43) c Virginia 323 389 17% ($ 66) 216 Wyoming
320 340 6% ($ 20) c
Note: Based on maximum monthly benefit information. These numbers represent
the change in benefits from two person to three person families- also the
difference between a three person capped- family and a three person non-
capped family -if a family were to receive an increase in the maximum
allowable benefit. We include data on the actual average monthly benefit for
reference, as most families do not receive the maximum benefit. a Wisconsin
and Idaho are not included in this table because in these states cash
benefits are not
affected by family size or the birth of an additional child. b These figures
are weighted by state family cap caseloads for three person families. Not
all states could provide us with three person capped- benefit caseloads or
average cash benefits for three person capped- benefit families. Therefore,
the weighted average not received is based on data from 16 states and the
weighted average benefit is based on data from 14 states. c Not available.
d Connecticut offers a partial increase ($ 50) in cash benefits to families
that have an additional child while on assistance. Due to this partial
increase, we listed the maximum benefit for a three person capped benefit
family under the maximum two person family benefit column. e Florida offers
a partial increase (50%) in cash benefits to the first child born while a
family is on assistance. Any subsequent children trigger a full family cap.
Due to this partial increase, we listed the maximum benefit for a three
person capped benefit family under the maximum two person family benefit
column.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 31 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap
Policies
Source: Craig W. Abbey, Welfare Reform: Financial Eligibility Rules and Cash
Assistance Amounts Under TANF (Washington, D. C.: Congressional Research
Service, 2000), GAO 2001 Survey, and GAO analysis.
Many states were able to give us estimates based on the twelve months of
state TANF data from federal fiscal year 2000, however some were only able
to give us data for state fiscal year 2000. Most states collected data on
the universe or population to respond to our request, while a few states
used a sampling methodology.
We collected, reviewed, and analyzed information from available published
and unpublished research on the effect of the family cap. To identify the
literature, we followed three procedures:
1. interviewing experts to find out what studies were completed or in the
process of being completed on the impact of the family cap;
2. conducting library and internet searches; and 3. reviewing bibliographies
of studies that focused on family cap issues. Our final list consisted of
nine studies, as listed in the bibliography, which evaluated the impact of
the family cap on the incidence of out of wedlockbirths and abortions and
the impact on TANF caseloads. We were unable to identify any studies
evaluating the effect of the family cap on poverty.
For the studies in our review, we recorded the quantitative results,
summarized the methodologies used, and summarized the authors? conclusions
about the effect of the family cap. We used social science research
principles to assess the methodological adequacy of these studies, and to
assess the degree to which the study was able to isolate the effect of the
family cap from other, concurrent welfare reform initiatives. At least two
social scientists or statisticians with specialized training in evaluation
research methodology reviewed each study. Conclusions in this report are
based on our assessment of the evidence presented in these studies.
We sent the list of research articles and summaries of our reviews of the
studies to several experts who have conducted, or been involved in
summarizing, extensive research in the field of welfare reform to confirm
the comprehensiveness of our list of articles and the thoroughness of our
reviews. We also conducted a second search in June 2001 to ensure that no
new research articles or reviews had been published since our original
search. We identified one new article on the effect of the family cap and
Identifying Family Cap
Evaluations and Reviewing the Studies
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 32 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap
Policies
other variables on child maltreatment. 1 We did not have adequate time to
incorporate an analysis of this study into our final report.
1 See Christina Paxson and Jane Waldfogel, ?Welfare Reforms, Family
Resources, and Child Maltreatment,? The Incentives of Government Programs
and the Well- Being of Families,
eds. Bruce Meyer and Greg Duncan, prepared for the Joint Poverty Center
Conference on Incentive Effects of Tax and Transfer Policies (Washington, D.
C.: Dec. 7- 8, 2000).
Appendix II: Studies on Family Cap Effect Page 33 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF
Family Cap Policies
Table 6: Studies on Family Cap Effect on Births, Abortions, and/ or Family
Planning Outcomes Findings Limitations
Does the study isolate the impact of the family cap?
Degree to which the study provides evidence for an effect of the family cap
Camasso, Michael J. and others. A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey?s
Family Development Program: ExperimentalControl Group Analysis. October
1998.
The experimental group that was exposed to the Family Development Program
(FDP), including the family cap, had the following outcomes when compared to
the control or comparison group:
A 9- 12 percent lower birth rate for ongoing and new cases For ongoing
cases:
No differences for abortion rates
10 percent higher use of family planning services
28 percent more sterilizations For new cases:
A 14 percent higher abortion rate
21 percent higher use of contraception drugs and devices
No statistically significant differences in family planning utilization or
sterilization
Confusion among experimental and control group members as to whether or
not their benefits were affected by the family cap (contamination).
Subject attrition. No Weak evidence
that caps decreased the number of births and increased the number of
abortions.
Camasso, Michael J. and others. A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey?s
Family Development Program: Results from a Pre- Post Analysis of AFDC Case
Heads from 1990- 1996. July 1998.
Exposure to the Family Development Program, including the family cap,
resulted in a projection of 14,057 fewer births and 1,429 more abortions
among AFDC recipients of childbearing age.
Statistical modeling choice not appropriate to the data.
Pre- post design with no control group.
Inadequate control variables. No Weak evidence
that caps increased the number of abortions. No evidence of an effect on the
number of births.
Turturro, Carolyn, Brent Benda, and Howard Turney. Arkansas Welfare Waiver
Demonstration Project: Final Report, 1997.
There were no statistically significant differences between families whose
benefits were affected by the family cap policy and those that were not.
Confusion among experimental and control group members as to whether or
not their benefits were affected by the cap (contamination).
Subject attrition. No a No evidence of
any effect on births.
Appendix II: Studies on Family Cap Effect
Appendix II: Studies on Family Cap Effect Page 34 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF
Family Cap Policies
Findings Limitations Does the
study isolate the impact of the family cap?
Degree to which the study provides evidence for an effect of the family cap
Horvath- Rose, Ann and H. Elizabeth Peters. ?Welfare Waivers and Nonmarital
Childbearing,? For Better and For Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well- Being
of Children and Families. Forthcoming 2001.
The family cap is associated with a 9 percent decrease in out- of- wedlock
births for all teens and a 12 percent decrease for post- teens. They also
found that changes in variables such as social stigma and unmeasured aspects
of socioeconomic factors used in the analysis play a larger role than
changes in welfare policy.
The dependent variable is sensitive to changes in marital births, which
may confound the measurement of effects on non- marital births.
It is unclear how the model controls for the effect of time, yet the study
found that time trends had the largest effect on nonmarital births.
Yes Weak evidence that the caps decreased the number of births.
Mach, Traci. Measuring the Impact of Family Caps on Childbearing Decisions.
Cited Mar. 2001.
Having one?s benefits affected by a family cap has reduced fertility among
welfare recipients by 10 percent.
Possible selection bias because people were omitted from the sample who
may be systematically different from those who remained (people who moved
from one year to another are excluded from the analysis).
Lack of adequate control variables.
Use of Current Population Survey data may result in a small state samples
of welfare recipients.
Does not address ?lead? (? advertising?) effects. b
No Weak evidence that caps decreased the number of births.
a The only intervention implemented besides the family cap was increased
family planning.
b ?Lead? or ?advertising? effects refer to the idea that welfare recipients
may hear about, and react to, potential welfare policy changes that are
advertised through popular media but have not yet actually taken effect.
Appendix II: Studies on Family Cap Effect Page 35 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF
Family Cap Policies
Table 7: Studies on Family Cap Effect on TANF Caseloads Findings Limitations
Does the study isolate the impact of the family cap?
Degree to which the study provides evidence for an effect of the family cap
Blank, Rebecca M. What Causes Public Assistance Caseloads to Grow? Cited
Oct. 2000.
Significant negative (decrease in caseloads) effect for the family cap
Minor issues on the measurement of family cap.
Much of the family cap effect occurs
before the cap is actually approved or implemented.
No a Weak evidence that the cap decreased caseload size.
Council of Economic Advisers. The Effects of Welfare Policy and the Economic
Expansion on Welfare Caseloads: An Update. 1999.
Significant positive (increase in caseloads) effect for the family cap
?Lead? (? advertising?) effects discussed but conclusions not reported. b
Questions about measurement of waiver policies over appropriate time
frames (were states under waivers long enough to measure effects?)
No a Weak evidence that the cap increased caseload size.
Moffitt, Robert A. The Effect of Pre- PRWORA Waivers on AFDC Caseloads and
Female Earnings, Income and Labor Force Behavior. 1999.
Significant negative effect for family cap Models not robust (results from
different analyses are sensitive to changes in variables included or years
of data included in the data set. E. g., when 1996 data is included, there
are no significant effects, but when 1996 is dropped, there is an effect).
?Lead? (? advertising?) effects not controlled for. b
No a Weak evidence that the cap decreased caseload size.
Stapleton, David, Gina Livermore and Adam Tucker. Determinants of AFDC
Caseload Growth. 1997.
Significant negative effect for family cap on parent caseloads, no
significant effect on two parent caseloads, significant increase of average
monthly benefits
single
Study produces national estimates of the effect of the family cap, yet only
three of the 50 states and the District of Columbia had implemented family
caps during the study time frame.
Authors felt their measurement of the family cap was confounded with
measuring administrative changes toward decreasing caseloads in those 3
states.
No a Weak evidence that the cap decreased caseload size and increased
average monthly benefits.
a The authors themselves suggest that separate effects of the various
waivers were not correctly captured by the variables used to measure the
family cap. b ?Lead? or ?advertising? effects refer to the idea that welfare
recipients may hear about, and react to, potential welfare policy changes
that are advertised through popular media but have not yet actually taken
effect.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
Page 36 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
Page 37 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
Page 38 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments Page 39 GAO- 01- 924
State TANF Family Cap Policies
Sigurd Nilsen (202) 512- 7003 Gale Harris (202) 512- 7235 Katrina Ryan (202)
512- 3214
In addition to those named above, the following individuals made important
contributions to this report: Sara Schibanoff, Mary Abdella, and Shannah
Wallace. Wendy Ahmed, Doug Sloane, Rudy Chatlos, Laura Shumay, Jim Wright,
and Patrick DiBattista also provided key technical assistance. Appendix IV:
GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgments
Bibliography Page 40 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Blank, Rebecca M. What Causes Public Assistance Caseloads to Grow?
Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, December 1997.
http:// www. nber. org/ papers/ w6343 (cited Oct. 17, 2000).
Camasso, Michael J. and others. A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey?s
Family Development Program: Experimental- Control Group Analysis. Trenton,
N. J.: New Jersey Department of Human Services, Oct. 1998.
Camasso, Michael J. and others. A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey?s
Family Development Program: Results from a Pre- Post Analysis of AFDC Case
Heads from 1990- 1996. Trenton, N. J.: New Jersey Department of Human
Services, July 1998.
Council of Economic Advisers. The Effects of Welfare Policy and the Economic
Expansion on Welfare Caseloads: An Update. Washington, D. C., 1999.
Horvath- Rose, Ann and H. Elizabeth Peters. ?Welfare Waivers and Nonmarital
Childbearing,? For Better and For Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well- Being
of Children and Families. Edited by Greg Duncan and P. Lindsay Chase-
Lansdale. New York: Russell Sage, forthcoming 2001.
Mach, Traci. Measuring the Impact of Family Caps on Childbearing Decisions.
Albany, N. Y.: University at Albany- SUNY Working Paper 00- 04 (cited Mar.
2001).
Moffitt, Robert A. The Effect of Pre- PRWORA Waivers on AFDC Caseloads and
Female Earnings, Income and Labor Force Behavior. Baltimore, Md.: Johns
Hopkins University, 1999.
Stapleton, David, Gina Livermore and Adam Tucker (The Lewin Group).
Determinants of AFDC Caseload Growth. Washington, D. C.: the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, July 1997.
Turturro, Carolyn, Brent Benda, and Howard Turney. Arkansas Welfare Waiver
Demonstration Project: Final Report. Little Rock, Ark.: The University of
Arkansas, 1997. Bibliography
Related GAO Products Page 41 GAO- 01- 924 State TANF Family Cap Policies
Welfare Reform: Moving Hard- to- Employ Recipients Into the Workforce
(GAO- 01- 368, Mar. 15, 2001).
Welfare Reform: Progress in Meeting Work- Focused TANF Goals (GAO01- 522T,
Mar. 15, 2001).
Welfare Reform: Data Available to Assess TANF?s Progress (GAO- 01- 298, Feb.
28, 2001).
Welfare Reform: Work- Site- Based Activities Can Play an Important Role in
TANF Programs (GAO/ HEHS- 00- 122, July 28, 2000).
Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated
Federal Effort (GAO/ HEHS- 00- 48, Apr. 27, 2000).
Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families Affected
(GAO/ HEHS- 00- 44, Mar. 31, 2000).
Welfare Reform: Assessing the Effectiveness of Various Welfare- to- Work
Approaches (GAO/ HEHS- 99- 179, Sep. 7, 1999).
Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients? Status (GAO/ HEHS99- 48,
Apr. 28, 1999).
Welfare Reform: States? Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance to
TANF Clients (GAO/ HEHS- 99- 22, Feb. 26, 1999).
Welfare Reform: Status of Awards and Selected States? Use of Welfare- toWork
Grants (GAO/ HEHS- 99- 40, Feb. 5, 1999).
Welfare Reform: Child Support an Uncertain Income Supplement for Families
Leaving Welfare (GAO/ HEHS- 98- 168, Aug. 3, 1998).
Welfare Reform: States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce Welfare
Dependence (GAO/ HEHS- 98- 109, June 18, 1998).
Welfare Reform: HHS? Progress in Implementing Its Responsibilities
(HEHS- 98- 44, Feb. 2, 1998). Related GAO Products
(116045)
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 also accepted.
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 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013
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 email
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
Contact one:
Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***