Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients' Status (Letter Report,
04/28/99, GAO/HEHS-99-48).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on
families no longer receiving welfare, focusing on: (1) the extent to
which states have reported information on the condition of families who
have left welfare in the following key areas: (a) economic status; (b)
family composition; and (c) family and child well-being; (2)
generalizable state studies on what is known about the status of former
welfare families in the key areas; and (3) federal and state efforts to
improve the usefulness of the data obtained through these state efforts.

GAO noted that: (1) 17 states have published information on the status
of their families who have left welfare; (2) each of these states
reported on the economic status of former welfare recipients, and the
majority reported on family composition and family and child well-being;
(3) the studies differed in important ways, including the categories of
families studied, geographic scope, the time during which families who
had left welfare were tracked, and the extent to which the families for
whom data were available are representative of all families in the
sample; (4) taking these factors into account, GAO determined that
studies from only 7 of the 17 states had enough information on a sample
of families to generalize findings to most families who had left welfare
in the state at the time of the study; (5) these seven states' studies
reported that most of the adults in families remaining off the welfare
rolls were employed at some time after leaving welfare, but significant
numbers of families also returned to the rolls; (6) in the three studies
that reported the information, from 19 to 30 percent of the families who
left welfare returned to the rolls at some time during the follow-up
period; (7) although the seven states' studies generally had limited
data on total household income, five reported that many families who had
left welfare subsequently received noncash public assistance, such as
Medicaid and food stamps, indicating that families' incomes were low
enough to keep them eligible for these forms of government assistance;
(8) none of the studies reported on changes in family composition
resulting from marriage or pregnancy after leaving welfare; (9)
regarding measures of well-being, six states' studies included data on
homelessness or separation of children from their parents and reported
no indication of increased incidence of these outcomes at the time of
the followup; (10) efforts are under way at both the federal and state
levels to improve the usefulness of the data being collected to assess
the status of former welfare families; (11) most states either are
studying or plan to study former welfare families, and the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) has recently funded 14 projects to track
and monitor families who have left welfare; (12) these projects will
receive technical assistance through HHS and from other states on
developing their tracking efforts; and (13) in the future, these ongoing
state efforts, many supported by HHS, should provide a more complete
picture of the status of families who have left welfare.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-48
     TITLE:  Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients' Status
      DATE:  04/28/99
   SUBJECT:  Quality of life
	     Welfare recipients
	     Welfare benefits
	     State-administered programs
	     Public assistance programs
	     Disadvantaged persons
	     Program graduation
	     Families
	     Data collection
	     Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER:  Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
	     HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
WELFARE REFORM: Information on Former Recipients' Status GAO/HEHS-
99-48 United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U. S. Senate,
and the Chairman,

Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives

April 1999 WELFARE REFORM Information on Former Recipients' Status

GAO/HEHS-99-48

  GAO/HEHS-99-48

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Health, Education, and Human Services
Division

B-281749 April 28, 1999 The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Finance United States Senate

The Honorable Nancy Johnson Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives

In recent years, states have reformed their welfare programs for
needy families with children by strengthening and strongly
enforcing work requirements for adults and imposing time limits on
the receipt of cash assistance. During the same time period, the
nation has experienced strong economic growth, and cash assistance
caseloads have declined by 40 percent from their peak of about 5
million families in 1994 to 3 million families as of June 1998.
Many of the reforms, begun as demonstrations under the Aid to
Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, were incorporated
into federal welfare legislation the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). PRWORA ended
the federal entitlement to assistance for eligible needy families
with children under AFDC and created the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) block grant, which makes $16.8 billion
available to states each year through 2002 and is overseen by the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at the federal
level. Specified goals of TANF include 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. To help states achieve TANF goals, PRWORA
gives the states increased flexibility over the design and
implementation of their welfare programs; however, states are
required to impose work requirements and enforce a 5- year
lifetime limit on the receipt of federal assistance.

These changes in welfare programs, designed to decrease
dependency, combined with the dramatic declines in welfare
caseloads, have generated interest among program administrators,
state and local policymakers, welfare advocates, and the public in
general about the condition of

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 1

B-281749

families no longer receiving cash assistance under AFDC or TANF. 1
Given the importance of knowing what has happened to the parents
and children of families who have left welfare, and to better
understand states' progress in meeting TANF goals, you asked us to
report on what is now known about families no longer receiving
welfare. Because there are no federal requirements for states to
report on the status of former welfare recipients, 2 the only
systematic data currently available on families who have left
welfare come from research efforts initiated by states to meet
their own information needs. As you requested, we (1) determined
the extent to which states have reported information on the
condition of families who have left welfare in the following key
areas: economic status, family composition, and family and child
well- being; (2) determined from generalizable state studies what
is known about the status of former welfare families in the key
areas; and (3) identified federal and state efforts to improve the
usefulness of the data obtained through these state efforts.

To do this work, we collected and examined reports published by
September 30, 1998 3 that were based on studies conducted or
sponsored by states of families who left the AFDC or TANF rolls
during or after 1995. We also spoke with state officials in the
states that had published reports and with HHS officials, and we
reviewed documents from several organizations that are monitoring
states' efforts to study former welfare families. We conducted our
work between July 1998 and April 1999 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. (See app. I for a more
detailed discussion of how studies were identified, assessed, and
compared.)

Results in Brief Seventeen states have published information on
the status of their families who have left welfare. 4 Each of
these states reported on the economic

status of former welfare recipients, and the majority reported on
family 1 For the purposes of this report, the term welfare refers
to cash assistance received under AFDC or TANF. 2 PRWORA makes $1
billion available over 5 years to reward states that achieve high
performance levels in meeting TANF goals. HHS has determined that
the fiscal year 1999 High Performance Bonus will be based in part
on job retention rates and the earnings gain rates of adults
leaving welfare, outcomes that require states that choose to
compete for the bonus to follow up with former welfare recipients
who obtained employment.

3 For the states that had published reports by this date, we
included additional information as it became available, including
more recent reports and data. 4 These states are Idaho, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 2

B-281749

composition and family and child well- being. The studies
differed, however, in important ways, including the categories of
families studied, geographic scope, the time during which families
who had left welfare were tracked, and the extent to which the
families for whom data were available are representative of all
families in the sample. Taking these factors into account, we
determined that studies from only 7 of the 17 states had enough
information on a sample of families to generalize findings to most
families who had left welfare in the state at the time of the
study.

These seven states' studies reported that most of the adults in
families remaining off the welfare rolls were employed at some
time after leaving welfare. However, significant numbers of
families also returned to the rolls. In the three studies that
reported the information, from 19 to 30 percent of the families
who left welfare returned to the rolls at some time during the
follow- up period. Although the seven states' studies generally
had limited data on total household income, five reported that
many families who had left welfare subsequently received noncash
public assistance such as Medicaid and food stamps, indicating
that families' incomes were low enough to keep them eligible for
these forms of government assistance. None of the studies reported
on changes in family composition resulting from marriage or
pregnancy after leaving welfare. Regarding measures of well-
being, six states' studies included data on homelessness or
separation of children from their parents and reported no
indication of increased incidence of these outcomes at the time of
follow- up.

Efforts are under way at both the federal and state levels to
improve the usefulness of the data being collected to assess the
status of former welfare families. Most states either are
currently studying or plan to study former welfare families, and
HHS has recently funded 14 projects to track and monitor families
who have left welfare. The projects will cover families who leave
welfare in 10 states, five counties in 2 other states, and the
District of Columbia. These jurisdictions, which include three of
the states whose studies are reviewed in this report, will receive
technical assistance through HHS and from other states on
developing their tracking efforts. State officials in many of the
states whose studies we reviewed said they plan to continue
studying former welfare families, in some cases with additional
HHS support, but also on their own. Maryland, for example, plans
to conduct a telephone interview of a sample of former welfare
families to get more in- depth information on such items as the
factors that helped families leave welfare, and Idaho is trying to
locate additional

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 3

B-281749

families who have left welfare in order to increase the ability of
the data to support conclusions about the population of families
leaving welfare in that state. In the future, these ongoing state
efforts, many supported by HHS, should provide a more complete
picture of the status of families who have left welfare.

Background Under the AFDC program, many states received waivers
from federal rules to strengthen work requirements for adults. In
addition, some states began

experiments with time limits on receiving cash assistance. Under
TANF, states generally must impose work and other program
requirements on most adults receiving aid and, when an adult does
not comply, reduce a family's benefit or, at state option,
terminate the benefit entirely. Moreover, families receiving TANF
face a lifetime limit of 5 years, or less at state option, of
federal assistance. These reforms represent significant departures
from previous state and federal policies for needy families with
children and have been accompanied by large declines in the number
of families receiving cash assistance, from an all- time high in
1994 of about 5 million families to just over 3 million as of June
1998.

While numerous efforts are planned or under way to assess welfare
reform nationally, currently little information is available on
the status of families who have left welfare. Although families
have always left welfare for a variety of reasons, including
increased household income due to employment or marriage, 5 once
their cases were closed and the families no longer received
assistance, they usually were not routinely tracked or monitored.
6 However, in the new environment in which eligible needy families
are no longer entitled to cash assistance and the emphasis is on
moving families off welfare into employment, concern about the
condition of families no longer receiving aid has increased. The
Congress and others are interested in the employment status of
former welfare recipients, changes in family composition resulting
from marriage and pregnancy, and the overall well- being of these
families and their children. While the Congress has earmarked $5
million for HHS to study the outcomes of welfare reform and has
taken other steps to monitor the status of poor families as
discussed below, states are not federally required to report on
the condition of former welfare families.

5 See, for example, Mary Jo Bane and David T. Ellwood, The
Dynamics of Dependence: The Routes to Self- Sufficiency
(Cambridge, Mass.: Urban Systems Research and Engineering, 1983)
and LaDonna Pavetti, The Dynamics of Welfare and Work: Exploring
the Process by Which Women Work Their Way Off Welfare (Cambridge,
Mass: Ph. D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1993).

6 Families have been tracked in the past if they were involved in
a program evaluation or other targeted research effort.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 4

B-281749

States' greater responsibility for welfare programs under PRWORA
has increased states' need for information to support program
management and decision- making, as well as to respond to the
information requests from a variety of interested parties, such as
service providers, advocacy groups, and the media. For example,
some state legislatures are requiring state welfare agencies to
report on outcomes from their reformed welfare programs, including
the status of former welfare families. Consequently, many states
have begun to track former welfare families. 7 The data these
states are reporting are the major source of information currently
available on the condition of families who have left welfare.

Only those families who actually become welfare recipients and
then leave the rolls are included in most state tracking studies.
However, the changes in welfare can also have the effect of
decreasing the number of families coming onto the welfare rolls.
For example, many states have diversion strategies designed to
prevent families from coming onto the welfare rolls by providing a
needed service, such as child care or transportation, providing a
one- time cash payment to overcome a barrier to employment, or
requiring that applicants conduct a job search before receiving
cash assistance. 8 As a result, a comprehensive assessment of the
postreform status of poor families with children would include
information on TANF- eligible families who did not become welfare
recipients as well as former welfare recipients.

To provide information on the postreform status of all low- income
families, not just former welfare families, the U. S. Census
Bureau at the direction of the Congress is conducting a
longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of
families, paying particular attention to eligibility and
participation in welfare programs, employment, earnings, out- of-
wedlock births, and adult and child well- being. Data from this
survey, called the Survey of Program Dynamics, will help
researchers and policymakers understand the impact of welfare
reform on the well- being of low- income families and children by
providing information on whether welfare recipients are finding
jobs, what their earnings are, and what types of support they need
to make the transition from welfare to work. In

7 In this report, we use the terms track and tracking to refer to
efforts to collect information on families who have left welfare,
regardless of whether data have been collected one time only or
over time.

8 See Welfare Reform: States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce
Welfare Dependence (GAO/HEHS-98-109, June 18, 1998); Richard P.
Nathan and Thomas L. Gais, Overview Report: Implementation of the
Personal Responsibility Act of 1996 (Albany, N. Y.: Federalism
Research Group, The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government,
Oct. 1998); and Kathleen Maloy and others, A Description and
Assessment of State Approaches to Diversion Programs and
Activities Under Welfare Reform (Washington, D. C.: The George
Washington University, Aug. 1998).

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 5

B-281749

addition, the Urban Institute is conducting a multiyear project
monitoring program changes and fiscal developments, along with
changes in the well- being of children and families. 9 As part of
this project, the Urban Institute has surveyed nearly 50,000
people to obtain comprehensive information on the well- being of
adults and children as welfare reform is being implemented in the
states. A second survey is planned for 1999. Full results from the
Census Bureau and Urban Institute surveys may not be available
until the year 2000. In addition, a plethora of studies are under
way that will be providing information in the future on various
aspects of welfare reform. 10

State Studies Reported Some Information on the Status of Families
Who Have Left Welfare

Seventeen states have collected data and reported on the status of
some former welfare families in the key areas of economic status,
family composition, or family and child well- being. The state
studies differed in important ways, such as categories of families
tracked, the length of time families were tracked, and the sources
of follow- up data. Some of the studies presented no information
on a substantial portion of the sample families, limiting the
usefulness of these studies for drawing conclusions about the
status of most former welfare families in the state. We determined
that studies in 7 of the 17 states had enough data on a sample of
families who had left welfare to generalize sample findings to the
population of former welfare families from which the sample was
drawn.

Seventeen States Reported Some Information on Economic Status,
Family Composition, or Family and Child Well- Being

We identified a total of 18 state- sponsored or -conducted studies
in 17 states 2 studies in Wisconsin and 1 in each of the other
states that reported on the status of families who left welfare in
1995 or later. The reports contain a broad range of information on
economic status, family composition, and family and child well-
being. Figure 1 summarizes the kinds of information reported in
each of the 17 states and classifies the information according to
the three major areas of interest. All of the studies reported
information on economic status, all but one reported on family and
child well- being, and most reported some information on family

9 The Urban Institute, a research organization located in the
District of Columbia, is conducting a multiyear project designed
to analyze the devolution of responsibility for social programs
from the federal government to the states, focusing primarily on
health care, income security, job training, and social services.
Initial results from the 1997 National Survey of America's
Families are available at the Urban Institute's Web site at www.
urban. org. The survey is representative of the nonelderly
population in the nation as a whole and in 13 states: Alabama,
California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, and
Wisconsin.

10 For a list of completed and ongoing studies of welfare reform,
see the Web site www. researchforum. org, created and maintained
by the Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New
Federalism, National Center for Children in Poverty, 154 Haven
Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10032- 1180.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 6

B-281749

composition. Overall, 15 of the 17 states reported information in
all three areas. (App. II lists the 17 states and their study
reports.)

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 7

B-281749

Figure 1: Categories of Information Reported in State Studies of
Former Welfare Families

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 8

B-281749

a The Louisiana study included information on families leaving
welfare in metropolitan New Orleans only. b Two studies were
conducted in Wisconsin. c Idaho measured this variable, but the
variable was not discussed in its report. d South Carolina
reported separately on this variable in Child Maltreatment Among
Former Clients of the South Carolina Family Independence Program,
Oct. 1998. e Tennessee performed an additional study of child
well- being for a nonrepresentative sample of children whose
parents had left the state's welfare program between Dec. 1996 and
Feb. 1997 that includes information on emotional, economic, and
motivational well- being.

Studies Differed in Coverage, Timing, and Data Sources

Because states generally initiated tracking studies to meet their
own information needs, the 18 studies in the 17 states differed in
a number of important ways, including the categories of families
tracked, geographic coverage, the time periods covered, and the
timing and frequency of follow- up. The studies also differed in
the sources of data used for tracking families who had left
welfare. Table 1 summarizes key information on the studies,
including the categories of families studied, the time periods
involved, the frequency of follow- up, the time between leaving
and follow- up, and the method of data collection.

Table 1: Key Ways in Which State Studies Differed Follow- up
Categories of families

and time periods involved Frequency Timing Data collection

method( s) Idaho

Families who left TANF July to Dec. 1997 Twice 6 to 12 and 13 to
24

months after exit Mail survey

Indiana

Families receiving AFDC May 1995 to May 1996 who subsequently left
AFDC

Once 12 to 18 months after enrollment Telephone survey

Iowa

AFDC families assigned to or who volunteered for the Limited
Benefit Plan a Nov. 1994 to Apr. 1995

Once 8 to 12 months into assignment Telephone survey,

in- person interviews, case studies, and review of administrative
data

Kentucky

Families who left TANF Jan. to Nov. 1997 Once 1 to 11 months after

exit Telephone survey (continued)

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 9

B-281749

Follow- up Categories of families and time periods

involved Frequency Timing Data collection method( s) Louisiana

Families in metropolitan New Orleans who left TANF Jan. to Mar.
1998

Once 1 to 4 months after exit Telephone survey

Maryland

Families who left TANF Oct. 1996 to Sept. 1997 Quarterly Up to 12
months after

exit Review of administrative data

Michigan

Families whose AFDC benefits were terminated in Apr. 1996 because
they did not comply with program rules

Biannually 3 and 6 months after exit In- home interviews

and review of administrative data

Montana

Families who received or left AFDC or TANF Mar. 1996 to Sept. 1997

Once (survey) or monthly (administrative data)

Up to 22 months after exit Telephone survey and

review of administrative data

New Jersey

Families whose TANF benefits were terminated Jan. to Feb. 1998
because of failure to comply with program rules

Once 1 to 2 months after exit Telephone survey

New Mexico

Families who left AFDC July 1996 to June 1997 Once b Mail survey

Oklahoma

Families who left or were denied TANF Oct. 1996 to Nov. 1997

Once 2 to 18 months after exit or denial Telephone survey

Pennsylvania

Families who left TANF Mar. 1997 to Jan. 1998 Once 1 week to 11
months

after exit Telephone survey

South Carolina c

Families with a household member required to seek employment who
left TANF July to Sept. 1997 and had not returned at time of
follow- up

Once 9 to 14 months after exit i Telephone survey and

some in- person nterviews

(continued)

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 10

B-281749

Follow- up Categories of families and time periods

involved Frequency Timing Data collection method( s) Tennessee

Families who lost TANF benefits Jan. to Oct. 1997 because they did
not comply with program rules and TANF families whose head was
employed fullor part- time Feb. to Oct. 1997

Once Approximately 3 months after exit Telephone survey

Washington c

Single- parent families who left TANF Apr. to July 1998 Once 2 to
4 months after exit Telephone survey and

review of administrative data

Wisconsin

Single, female- headed families who left AFDC July 1995 to July
1996

Five times Quarterly for 5 quarters after family left welfare

Review of administrative data

Families who left AFDC/ TANF Jan. to Mar. 1998 and did not return
prior to survey

Once 5 to 10 months after exit Telephone survey and

in- person interviews

Wyoming

Families who left TANF Dec. 1996 to Feb. 1998 Once 1 to 15 months
after

exit Telephone survey a The Limited Benefit Plan was part of
Iowa's welfare reform initiated under waiver. It was a short- term
alternative assistance program for AFDC recipients who did not
comply with program rules and for some volunteers. Families in the
Limited Benefit Plan received reduced cash benefits that were
subsequently terminated for a fixed period of time, after which
the family could reapply for benefits.

b Information not provided in report. c South Carolina and
Washington reported on groups of families who had left welfare
earlier. We included the most recent sample in our summary.

Source: GAO analysis of state studies.

Fourteen of the studies reported data on a statewide sample of
families who left welfare for a range of reasons, and one study
reported on a sample of families who left welfare in the state's
major city. The remaining three studies focused primarily on
families who left welfare because of an adult recipient's failure
to comply with program requirements. These three studies were
conducted, at least in part, because of concerns about the
potential impact on family well- being of the loss of the entire
cash benefit,

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 11

B-281749

rather than just a reduction in benefits, as was typically
required under AFDC for noncompliance.

None of the studies reported specifically on families who had left
welfare because of time limits. While there is great interest in
the status of these families, in most states few families have
reached their time limits, and in states where they have, few
families have lost benefits as a result of the time limits. 11
However, as states' programs mature and more families reach the
federal 5- year time limit on TANF benefits or state- established
time limits of shorter duration, more of these families will be
included in the tracking studies. 12

The studies also differed in the time period during which families
left welfare and the length of time between the family's exit and
the study follow- up. The time at which states initiated a study
of families who had left welfare depended in part upon when
states' reforms were implemented and when they needed information
on the status of families affected by the reforms. The time
periods of the 18 state studies ranged from as early as 1995
(before federal welfare reform) to as late as 1998 (after TANF was
implemented in most states). The amount of time between leaving
welfare and the follow- up also varied, ranging from 1 to 24
months. There were also differences in the frequency of follow-
up. At least one state, Maryland, has been tracking families who
have left welfare for a number of years and plans to track monthly
samples of families for 2 years after they leave the rolls,
whereas other states planned a one- time follow- up effort.

In addition, the studies used different sources of data to locate
and track families. The Maryland study and the first Wisconsin
study relied solely on administrative data, while other states'
studies were based on surveys of the former recipients using in-
home visits, the telephone, or the mail. Some states' studies used
both survey and administrative data. Administrative data are case-
specific information from the files of various programs, services,
or agencies, including state unemployment insurance, food stamps,
Medicaid, child welfare, child support enforcement, and

11 As part of its overall evaluation of Florida's Family
Independence Program, the Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation conducted interviews with 25 families 6 months after
the families lost benefits because of time limits. At least half
of the 25 families reported that since their benefits had expired
it had become more difficult to make ends meet. In general,
however, there was no evidence of major changes in housing status
or living arrangements, nor was there evidence that most
respondents lacked the means to buy food.

12 The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation is also
conducting a cross- state study of welfare time limits in Florida,
Vermont, and Wisconsin.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 12

B-281749

criminal and education agencies. Since administrative data are
limited to data collected for program management purposes, they
may not be as focused on the questions of interest as are the
survey data. On the other hand, administrative data may be less
expensive to collect and more accurate than the self- reported
data and can more readily than a survey provide information on
large numbers of individuals.

Findings From Most State Studies Were Not Generalizable to the
Population of Former Welfare Families in the State

We determined that eight tracking studies, covering seven states,
(1) were designed to include most families who left welfare in the
state at the time of the study and (2) had sufficient data on the
sample of families tracked for the sample to be considered
representative of families studied. 13 These studies were designed
to include families who left welfare for a range of reasons,
although the studies varied in the specific category of families
covered. For example, the Maryland study included all families who
had left welfare, while the South Carolina study included only
families with a household member required to seek employment who
subsequently left welfare and had not returned at the time of
follow- up.

Although none of the 18 studies were able to locate all families
included in the samples to be tracked, eight studies had
sufficient data on a sample of families to conclude that the
sample represented the population from which it was taken. The
nonresponse rates ranged from 15 to 88 percent for the state
surveys. For the two studies using administrative data only,
information about 8 percent and 18 percent of the families being
tracked could not be found in the data being used. (See app. I for
the proportion of families located in all 18 studies.)

Missing information for some members of a sample raises concerns
about the representativeness of the remaining sample and whether
findings can be generalized to the population from which the
sample was drawn. Families who left welfare and subsequently
responded to a survey and families about whom information was
available in administrative data may be different in important
ways from families for whom no information is available; thus,
results based on such families are not generalizable to the entire
population of families who left welfare in a state. Some
policymakers and researchers are concerned that families who do
not answer surveys or whose current status is no longer reflected
in administrative data might be worse off than families for whom
there are

13 While the Iowa study had an 85- percent response rate, results
could only be generalized to families assigned to Iowa's Limited
Benefit Plan, and not to families leaving welfare for other
reasons.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 13

B-281749

data. 14 While the families who were not located may have fared
quite well in terms of employment or family formation, some
missing families may be experiencing hardship. For the purpose of
summarizing findings, we either included only those studies that
had data on at least 70 percent of the sample of families from the
population of interest in the state or included a nonresponse
analysis that showed no important differences between respondents
and nonrespondents.

The seven states that we determined to have studies with results
generalizable to their welfare populations are Indiana, Maryland,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. We
estimated that these seven states accounted for about 8 percent of
the number of families who left welfare nationwide between October
1993 and June 1997. Figure 2 highlights these 7 states, along with
the 10 other states that reported information on former welfare
recipients.

14 In five states, follow- up was done by telephone with no
provision for families without telephones. In one of these
studies, only families for which the state had telephone numbers
were included in the sample to be tracked. Since it is reasonable
to assume that families without telephones could differ in
important ways from families with telephones, findings based on a
sample of families with telephones are unlikely to be the same as
findings based on a sample that includes families that have no
telephones.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 14

B-281749

Figure 2: States That Have Reported Data on Families Who Have Left
Welfare

Studies in the seven states had either (1) data on a high enough
percentage of the sample to reasonably generalize the results to
the population from which the sample was drawn or (2) an analysis
showing that the

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 15

B-281749

nonrespondents had some of the same key characteristics as the
respondents, providing greater assurance that the results from the
limited sample could be generalized to the population from which
the sample was drawn. (See app. I for a more detailed discussion
of our assessment.)

Most Adults in Former Welfare Families Were Employed at Some Time
After Leaving Welfare; Little Else Is Known About Family Well-
Being

Because the seven states' studies differ in several ways, as
discussed above, the results are not completely comparable across
states. However, the studies provide an indication of the status
of families who had left welfare in these states at the time of
the studies and, to the extent that the results are consistent,
suggest a pattern of what is happening to these families. The
studies had consistent findings on employment and earnings. Most
former welfare families had an adult who was or had been employed
since leaving welfare. Although the studies indicated that former
recipients often worked at low- wage jobs, little information was
available on families' total household incomes, which could
include child support or earnings from a second worker. Some
studies also reported that significant proportions of the families
had returned to welfare. In general, the studies provided little
information on family and child well- being.

Adults Had Employment Rates of 61 to 87 Percent, but Little Is
Known About Household Income

Employment rates ranged from 61 to 87 percent for adults in the
families who left welfare in the seven states; however, these
employment rates were measured in different ways. Studies
measuring employment at the time of follow- up reported employment
rates from 61 to 71 percent. Studies measuring whether an adult in
a family had ever been employed since leaving welfare reported
employment rates from 63 to 87 percent. In the four studies
reporting both employment measures, the percentage employed at
some time since leaving welfare was considerably higher than the
percentage reporting employment at the time of follow- up. (Table
2 summarizes employment and earnings data in seven states.) These
employment rates generally exclude families who returned to
welfare, which can be a substantial portion of the families who
leave welfare. In the three studies for which such data were
available, the percentage of the families who initially left
welfare and then returned to the rolls ranged from 19 percent
after 3 months in Maryland to 30 percent after 15 months in
Wisconsin. Removing families who return to welfare from the
employment rate calculations results in higher employment rates
than

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 16

B-281749

when they are included, since many former recipients who return to
the welfare rolls are not employed. 15

15 For example, if 2,000 families leave welfare and, at a 3- month
follow- up, 1,000 are employed, 500 remain off welfare but are not
employed, and 500 have returned to welfare and are not working,
the 3- month employment rate is 50 percent for the entire 2,000
families and 67 percent if only the 1,500 families remaining off
welfare are included in the calculation.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 17

B-281749

Table 2: Employment and Earnings Data From Studies in Seven States
State and period during which families studied left welfare a
Employed at time

of follow- up Ever employed since leaving welfare Average hourly

wage rate b Average number of

hours worked per week Average earnings

per quarter c

Indiana, 1995- 96 d 64.3% 84.3% $6.34 32 $2,637 Maryland, 1996- 97
e 63.0 f e e 2,384 f Oklahoma, 1996- 97 64.5 e 6.51 34 2,877 South
Carolina, 1997 61.8 85.6 6.45 36 3,019 Tennessee, 1997 g 61.0 e
5.67 37 2,727 Washington, 1998 71.0 87.0 8.09 36 3,786 Wisconsin,
1995- 96 h e 82.1 e e 2,378 i Wisconsin, 1998 j 62.0 83.0 7.42 36
3,473 i

Note: Except where noted, these data include only families who did
not return to welfare. a The year indicates the period during
which the families studied left welfare. For more detailed
information on the different time periods and frequency and length
of follow- up in these studies, see table 1.

b These figures represent the mean wage. While the mean wage tends
to be higher than the median wage, we did not have the median wage
for all studies. c For all studies except Maryland's and the first
Wisconsin study, we had to estimate quarterly earnings on the
basis of reported average hourly wage and average number of hours
worked per week. Because it is unlikely that all members of the
sample worked all 13 weeks in a quarter, most of these estimates
are likely to be somewhat higher than the actual average earnings
per quarter.

d Wage and earnings data for Indiana include those of recipients
with earned income who were also on welfare. Because Indiana did
report that average wage rates were significantly higher for
former welfare recipients than for those combining work and
welfare, the average wage rate for the combined groups may
underestimate the wage rate for former recipients who are no
longer on welfare.

e Data were not available. f This figure also includes individuals
who returned to welfare. g The Tennessee study reported separately
for families who left welfare because of noncompliance and for
those who were employed, whether on or off welfare. Employment
rates presented here are for both groups, whereas wage data and
earnings estimates are for the employed group only.

h These data are based on a study using administrative data for
families leaving welfare from July 1995 to July 1996. i Caution
must be used in comparing these earnings figures because the
earlier study used administrative data and the later one used
survey responses. The administrative data may underestimate
earnings because not all earnings were included. The survey data
may be more inclusive of earnings but, because the data were self-
reported, they could understate or overstate earnings.

j These data are based on interviews with families who left
welfare from Jan. 1998 to Mar. 1998.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 18

B-281749

While all eight studies reported some information on former
recipients' earnings or wages, the studies did not provide a
complete story on hourly wages or number of hours worked. 16
Average quarterly earnings for former recipients ranged from
$2,378 to $3,786 in the studies that either reported quarterly
earnings or for which we estimated quarterly earnings.
Extrapolating these quarterly earnings to a year results in
average annual earned incomes ranging from $9,512 to $15,144.
These amounts of annual earned income are greater than the maximum
annual amount of cash assistance and food stamps that a three-
person family with no other income could have received in these
states. 17 However, if these earnings were the only source of
income for the families after they left welfare, many of them
would remain below the federal poverty level. 18

The question of whether a family is economically better off after
leaving welfare than when receiving cash assistance is quite
complex. The answer depends on many factors, including the amount
of the cash benefit while on welfare, which varies by state,
family size, and earnings while on welfare; family earnings and
other sources of income; and aid after leaving welfare, as well as
any work- related expenses. For example, the 1995- 96 Wisconsin
study that tracked families for more than 15 months after they
left welfare compared postwelfare earnings of these families to
the maximum benefit they could have received under AFDC to see if
families were economically better off after leaving welfare. The
study found that whether postwelfare earnings exceeded the maximum
AFDC benefit depended in part upon the number of children in the
family. Postwelfare earnings exceeded the maximum AFDC cash
benefit for 54 percent of the families with one child and for 41
percent of the families with three or more children. The study
also noted that because some families combine welfare and work,
the combination of the cash benefit and earnings could result in
some families on welfare having more cash income than families
with earnings only. The study showed that during their first year
off welfare, less than half of the families had cash incomes
higher than their incomes had been while on AFDC, including both
benefits and earnings.

16 For another study of employment and earnings of families
leaving welfare, see Sharon Parrott, Welfare Recipients Who Find
Jobs: What Do We Know About Their Employment and Earnings?
(Washington, D. C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Nov.
1998).

17 In these seven states, for a single- parent, three- person
family with no income, the maximum annual amount of cash
assistance and food stamps combined ranged from $6,000 in
Tennessee to $9,744 in Washington, as of Jan. 1997.

18 For 1998, the federal poverty level for a family of three was
$13,650. We estimated the average annual earnings from the studies
of the seven states as follows: Indiana$ 10,548; Maryland$ 9,536;
Oklahoma$ 11,508; South Carolina$ 12,076; Tennessee$ 10,908;
Washington$ 15,144; and Wisconsin$ 9,512 and $13,892. In two of
the studies estimated earnings were above the federal poverty
level.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 19

B-281749

While the tracking studies provide information on individuals'
earned incomes, much remains unknown about families' total
household income. For example, the studies generally do not
provide information on whether others in a household have earnings
or on other sources of household income, such as child support
payments or financial assistance from relatives and friends.
Moreover, most of the studies do not include comprehensive
information on the receipt of other noncash benefits, such as food
stamps, Medicaid, and child care or transportation assistance, or
what employment- related expenses, including child care and
transportation, households may have. Only three of the eight state
studies had some information on household income. In the Oklahoma
study, 57 percent of the former welfare families reported
household incomes at or below the official poverty level. In the
Indiana study, 57 percent of the families off welfare at follow-
up reported monthly household income below $1,000. In contrast,
Washington reported average total family income, including child
support payments, equal to 130 percent of the federal poverty
level for a family of three. According to the Washington study, 35
percent of the families who left welfare and had children received
some child support, and 36 percent had at least one worker in the
family other than the respondent to the survey. The 1995- 96
Wisconsin study found that the proportion of families who had left
and remained off welfare for at least 1 year who had earnings
above the official poverty level varied by family size. While 35
percent of the families with one child and 24 percent of the
families with two children had earnings above the poverty level,
only 11 percent of the families with three or more children did.

Although these studies do not provide a comprehensive picture of
families' financial situations, they consistently indicated that
many of the families leaving welfare were employed at fairly low-
paying jobs. Our recent report on TANF implementation in seven
states and other studies indicate that many states and localities
are providing support services, such as case management services
and financial assistance with child care, to help former welfare
recipients maintain their employment. Several states and
localities have also undertaken efforts to help these low- wage
workers upgrade their job skills to improve their job prospects.
19 Moreover, the recently expanded earned income credit can
increase the incomes of

19 See Rebecca Brown and others, Working Out of Poverty:
Employment Retention and Career Advancement for Welfare Recipients
(Washington, D. C.: National Governors' Association and HHS,
1998); Mark Elliott, Don Spangler, and Kathy Yorkievitz, What Next
After Work First? (Philadelphia: Public/ Private Ventures, spring
1998); and Brandon Roberts and Jeffrey D. Padden, Welfare to
Wages: Strategies to Assist the Private Sector to Employ Welfare
Recipients (Chevy Chase, Md.: Brandon Roberts and Associates, Aug.
1998).

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 20

B-281749

qualified low- income families by as much as $2,271 for families
with one child and $3,756 for families with two or more children.
20 Information on total household income and receipt of government
supports is key to understanding the condition of former welfare
recipients and the extent to which they continue to rely on
government aid rather than becoming economically self- sufficient.
21

The studies in five states reported on the extent to which former
welfare families say they receive noncash public assistance. 22 As
shown in table 3, in these states, between 44 and 83 percent of
the families who left welfare received Medicaid benefits, and
between 31 and 60 percent received food stamps. The Wisconsin
study that tracked families who left welfare between July 1995 and
July 1996 for 15 months found significant decreases in the use of
noncash public assistance over time. Forty- six percent of the
former recipients who remained off welfare for at least 1 year
received both Medicaid and food stamps in the first quarter after
leaving welfare, and 28 percent received both in the fifth quarter
after leaving cash assistance. Four studies had information on the
receipt of child care subsidies.

20 The earned income credit is a refundable tax credit for
qualified working people who have earned incomes below certain
specified levels. 21 Research conducted in 1996 by Cancian and
Meyer using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to trace
welfare use, poverty status, and primary sources of income in the
5 years following an exit from welfare reports that although 40
percent of the AFDC exiters do not return to AFDC within the first
5 years, only 20 percent went the entire 5 years without using
AFDC, food stamps, or Supplemental Security Income. See Daniel
Meyer and Maria Cancian, Life After Welfare: The Economic Well-
Being of Women and Children Following an Exit from AFDC (Madison,
Wis.: Institute for Research on Poverty, discussion paper no.
1101- 96, Aug. 1996).

22 While food stamp and Medicaid caseloads have declined recently,
the reasons for these changes are not fully understood. We do not
know, for example, how many former welfare families that are
eligible for these benefits actually receive them. There is
concern that some needy families no longer receiving cash
assistance may be unaware that they are still entitled to Medicaid
and food stamps. While a strong economy may also partially explain
recent declines in food stamp and Medicaid caseloads, the relative
contributions of this and other such factors to these trends are
unclear.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 21

B-281749

Table 3: Percentages of Families Reporting Receipt of Public
Assistance After Leaving Welfare Percentage receiving State and
period during which families studied left welfare a Medicaid

coverage Food stamps Supplemental

Security Income benefits

Women, Infants, and Children

benefits Child care subsidies

Indiana, 1995- 96 53 38 11 25 b Oklahoma, 1996- 97 c 70 50 17 b 23
d South Carolina, 1997 80 60 13 27 18 Washington, 1998 64
children; 44

adults 45 b b 38 e Wisconsin, 1995- 96 83 in first quarter

after leaving welfare; 56 in fifth quarter after leaving

49 in first quarter after leaving welfare; 31 in fifth quarter
after leaving

b b b Wisconsin, 1998 71 49 17 38 17

Note: Unless specified, the percentage is of all families in the
sample. Except for the earlier Wisconsin study, all data are from
surveys in which respondents self- reported their receipt of aid.

a For more detailed information on the different time periods and
frequency and length of follow- up in these studies, see table 1.
b This information was not reported. c Data include families that
returned to work. d For respondents who are employed or in
training and whose households include children, the percentage
reporting the receipt of a child care subsidy increases to 34. e
Families with children under 13 whose parent is at work.

While receiving AFDC or TANF, families generally also receive
Medicaid benefits to cover their health expenses. However, whether
Medicaid benefits are retained after a family has left welfare
depends on many factors, and health insurance coverage after
leaving welfare varied in the states with these data. 23 For
example, about 9 percent of the children in families who left
welfare in South Carolina, about 20 percent in Oklahoma, and 35
percent in Indiana did not have health insurance at the time of
follow- up. For adults who left welfare in these states, 24
percent in Oklahoma, 32 percent in Washington, 48 percent in South
Carolina, and 54 percent in Indiana did not have health insurance.

23 To ensure continued Medicaid coverage for low- income families,
PRWORA generally preserves the Medicaid entitlement, setting
eligibility standards at AFDC levels in effect on July 16, 1996.
In addition, under certain conditions, families that leave TANF
for employment may continue Medicaid for 12 months. Medicaid
coverage is also available for many low- income children, even if
their parents are not eligible. For more information, see Welfare
Reform: Early Implications of Welfare Reform for Beneficiaries and
States (GAO/HEHS-98-62, Feb. 24, 1998).

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 22

B-281749

While much attention is paid to welfare recipients who become
employed and stay off the rolls, there is also interest in how
those who are not employed and have not returned to welfare are
faring. The South Carolina and Wisconsin surveys asked nonworking
former recipients what stopped them from working for pay. In both
states, the most frequently mentioned reason was their own
physical or mental illness, followed by the inability to find a
job, lack of transportation, and lack of child care. The Wisconsin
study attempted to determine how these families were supporting
themselves. Of the 142 former recipients not currently working, 18
percent were living with employed spouses or partners. Sixty- five
percent of the families of the remaining nonworking former
recipients were receiving Social Security, state unemployment
insurance, child support, or foster care payments; 23 percent were
not receiving cash assistance but were receiving noncash
assistance, such as free housing, rent subsidies, Medicaid, or
food stamps.

Studies in Seven States Provided Limited Information on Family
Composition and the Well- Being of Children and Families

The studies in seven states provided limited information on the
family composition and well- being of former welfare families and
the children in these families. Although a major goal of welfare
reform was the promotion of two- parent families and the reduction
of out- of- wedlock pregnancies, the tracking studies report only
minimal information on family composition at the time of data
collection, and no information on changes that may have occurred
just before or after leaving welfare. The studies with surveys
asked questions regarding family composition; however, these
surveys did not provide information on changes in the number of
children in a family, changes in marital status, or the formation
of other two- parent families since a family left the welfare
rolls.

Further, beyond any inferences that could be drawn from the
employment and earnings of parents, the studies provided little
information on how former welfare children and families were doing
relative to housing, health, education, food security, substance
abuse, crime, and victimization. 24 While some of the studies
provided limited information on some of these factors, there are
no comprehensive data on family and child well- being.

Three studies from Maryland, Oklahoma, and Washington reported on
the number of children in former recipient families that had ever
been involved with child protective services. These studies found
few cases in

24 These and other factors are considered indicators of well-
being. Fig. 1 lists a number of these items reported in the state
studies.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 23

B-281749

which children had been involved with child protective services
since leaving welfare. 25 For example, the Maryland study reviewed
state data from its foster care program to determine the number of
children placed in foster care after their families left welfare.
This study reported that less than one- half of 1 percent of the
children studied entered foster care after their families left
cash assistance.

Two studies, South Carolina's as well as Wisconsin's recent survey
of families leaving welfare during the first quarter of 1998,
asked former recipients to compare several aspects of their
general well- being after leaving welfare with their situation
when they were on welfare. Because Wisconsin used a modified
version of the interview schedule developed in South Carolina, the
data are comparable, even though the programs that the recipients
experienced are not. Table 4 shows the results from the two
states' surveys. Former welfare recipients in both states were
more likely to experience some deprivations after leaving welfare
than while on welfare. At the same time, in South Carolina and
Wisconsin, 76 and 68 percent, respectively, disagreed or strongly
disagreed with the statement that life was better when you were
getting welfare. Regarding housing status, an important aspect of
well- being, the limited information from the studies did not
suggest increased incidence of homelessness at the time of follow-
up.

25 South Carolina, in separate analyses, compared the number of
incidents of maltreatment reported to the Child Protective
Services' Central Registry for a sample of families who had left
welfare with the number of incidents for families still on
welfare; it also compared the number of incidents of maltreatment
in a sample of former welfare families before and after leaving
welfare. The differences were not statistically significant for
either comparison.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 24

B-281749

Table 4: Recipients' Comparisons of Deprivations While on and
After Being on Welfare

South Carolina a (percentage responding

yes) Wisconsin b

(percentage responding yes)

Question On welfare Off welfare On welfare Off welfare

Did you ever get behind in rent or house payments? 13 15 30 37 c

Did you ever get behind on a utility bill? 16 18 49 47

Was there ever a time when you could not buy food? 6 9 22 32 c

Was there ever a time when you could not afford child care when
needed in order to work? 11 9 22 33 c

Did somebody in your home ever get sick or hurt when you could not
get medical care? 1 7 c 8 11

Did you have to go to a homeless shelter? 2 1 5 3 a Based on a
sample of 403 former welfare recipients.

b Based on a sample of 375 former welfare recipients. c These
differences are statistically significant at the .05 level.
Source: South Carolina's Survey of Former Family Independence
Program Clients: Cases Closed During July Through Sept. 1997 and
Wisconsin's Survey of Those Leaving AFDC or W- 2 Jan. to Mar.
1998, preliminary report.

State and Federal Efforts Are Under Way to Improve the Usefulness
of State Tracking Studies

The number of states conducting or sponsoring studies that track
the status of families leaving welfare has increased in recent
years, and state and federal efforts are under way to improve the
usefulness of the data being collected. Thirty- nine states,
including the 17 we identified in this report, and the District of
Columbia already are tracking or plan to track families leaving
welfare. In an attempt to improve the quality and comparability of
these studies, HHS has funded several states and other
jurisdictions to conduct tracking studies and is providing them
technical assistance in conducting these studies.

State Tracking Efforts Are Increasing in Number and Expanding in
Scope

We have identified 39 states and the District of Columbia that are
either planning to study former welfare families or are already
doing so. Most of the 17 states that we discuss in this report are
planning to continue their

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 25

B-281749

tracking and to enhance their efforts, in some cases with federal
funds and in other cases with state funds. Maryland, for example,
plans to survey former recipients to get the kind of detailed
information about families' lives that is not available in the
program data upon which state officials currently rely in their
ongoing longitudinal studies. Among the topics to be covered are
how former welfare families are able to make ends meet; what
enabled them to leave the welfare system; and, in the cases of
those who returned to welfare, what brought them back. Idaho is
trying to locate families that did not respond to its survey.
Maryland, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and
Mecklenburg County in North Carolina have received funds from HHS
to support their efforts to link administrative data systems for
purposes of studying the effects of welfare reform on other state
and federal public assistance programs. A South Carolina official
told us that by linking TANF data to state unemployment insurance
data, the state was able to locate many of the families that did
not respond to its survey.

Federal Efforts Are Helping States to Improve the Usefulness of
the Data Being Collected on Families Leaving Welfare

To increase the usefulness of state tracking efforts in providing
a more complete picture of the status of former welfare families,
HHS is supporting some states and counties with funds and
technical assistance. As part of its overall strategy to evaluate
welfare reform, HHS has awarded grants to 14 projects covering 16
jurisdictions 10 states, five counties in 2 other states, and the
District of Columbia to support efforts to track, through
administrative data, surveys, or other methods, former TANF
recipients' work transitions and receipt of other benefits,
including supportive services. 26 Each of these tracking efforts
plans to collect information on one or more of the following:
families diverted from welfare, eligible families who do not apply
for benefits, and families who have left welfare. All 14 grantees
will collect both administrative data and survey data on former
recipients. (See app. III for information on the 14 studies.)

In addition, HHS submitted its overall research plan for
evaluating welfare reform to the National Academy of Sciences for
guidance on research design and recommendations for further
research. 27 The National Academy has convened a panel of experts
on program evaluation methods, survey design, administrative
record analysis, state database

26 In May 1998, HHS announced the availability of funds and
requested proposals from states for research into the status of
individuals and families who leave the TANF program and eligible
families who are diverted or who fail to enroll. Of the proposals
received, 14 awards were made.

27 HHS has funded other related research efforts, including
assessments of the impacts of welfare reform on children and
immigrants.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 26

B-281749

development and analysis, and welfare policy and evaluation to
review data needs and methods. One of the panel's first activities
was to conduct a workshop to review and assess the HHS grantees'
study methodologies. The workshop provided a forum in which
representatives from states and counties that had been awarded
grants were able to talk with experts about their planned tracking
studies. The panel plans a 30- month study on a broad range of
issues related to evaluating welfare, with an interim report to be
ready in June 1999.

HHS expects to use data from the 14 funded projects to generate a
picture of what is happening to families exiting welfare and
families diverted from ever entering welfare. In recognition of
the need for high- quality research and comparable findings, HHS
is providing technical assistance to the states directly, and
through the National Academy panel, and is encouraging grantees to
share information with one another. The National Academy panel is
providing advice on issues of data quality and comparability as
well as policy relevance. Initially, the 14 grantees have agreed
to work toward increasing comparability across studies by using a
common definition of welfare leaver. 28 They have also agreed to
clarify which studies will be tracking only families with adults
and which will also track welfare cases that only include
children. Finally, with the encouragement of HHS and the National
Academy, the grantees will be sharing common approaches to
studying such areas as insecurity and deprivation, child well-
being, and changes in household composition. 29

Observations While we were able to learn about the status of
former welfare recipients in several states, we could conclude
little about the status of most families

that have left welfare nationwide. However, the limited
information on economic status of the families being tracked
indicates that many families who leave welfare find jobs that are
low- paying. The low wages of these jobs emphasize the importance
that income supports, such as subsidized medical and child care
and the earned income credit, can assume in these families' total
financial resources. As we noted in our earlier report on TANF
implementation in seven states, federal and state policies and
programs for assisting low- income working families are likely to
play a

28 The grantees have agreed to define a leaver as a family that
was off welfare for 2 months or longer. 29 In addition, HHS has
funded five states Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, and
Minnesota to assess the effects of different welfare reform
approaches on child well- being. The state agencies and research
organizations involved in these projects are attempting to ensure
compatibility of outcomes and measures to promote the ability to
compare outcomes among states.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 27

B-281749

critical role in helping these families remain off cash assistance
and move toward economic self- sufficiency.

But much remains unknown about most families leaving welfare
nationwide. In our attempt to describe the condition of former
welfare families, we were constrained by the data currently
available from these early state tracking studies. More
specifically, the high nonresponse rates in many state studies
limit the usefulness of the results because generalizations cannot
be made to all families of interest. Because those families who do
not respond to surveys, or who may not show up in administrative
data for other programs, may be the ones at greatest risk of
negative outcomes, some policymakers and program officials are
particularly concerned about not having enough information to
determine the status of these families. In addition, for
policymakers to better understand whether states are making
progress in meeting the goals of TANF, more comprehensive
information is needed on household income; receipt of government
assistance; and changes in family composition, including increases
in the number of two- parent families and additional births,
especially to teens. And, finally, the data often are not
comparable among the states. Consequently, even if each state had
collected generalizable data on a comprehensive range of topics,
it would often be difficult to generate a national picture from
such studies. More comparable data would also be useful to
individual states that want to understand how former welfare
families fare in their states as compared with those in other
states. In addition, comparable data among the states could help
policymakers and program administrators at all levels of
government identify promising approaches and practices for
assisting low- income families.

The limited nature of the information currently available
emphasizes the importance of additional state efforts, such as
those funded by HHS. The ongoing state efforts promise to provide
a more complete picture in the future. Many more states have
tracking studies in progress or planned and efforts are under way
at the state and federal levels to improve the usefulness of these
efforts. As HHS continues to work with states to support their
efforts to collect data on families who have left welfare, it has
an opportunity to help states develop more generalizable,
comprehensive, and comparable data.

Agency Comments We obtained comments on a draft of this report
from HHS, which stated that the report provides useful information
on the status of former welfare

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 28

B-281749

recipients and the varied efforts being made by states to follow
up on the impacts of welfare reform. HHS also noted, however, how
difficult it was to glean general results from such varied
studies. It expressed concern that, while the report appropriately
discusses the issues that preclude generalizing findings in many
of the studies to the state level, the report does not address
other factors, such as differences in the definitions of the
populations studied and in states' economic conditions, which make
it difficult to report general results from any of the studies.
HHS further suggested that rather than attempting to find areas of
comparability in the studies, we should focus on the crucial
differences between studies and emphasize the contribution that
the HHS- funded state studies of families leaving welfare will
make. Finally, HHS had concerns about our reliance upon studies
with low response rates.

We agree with HHS about the difficulties involved in discussing
general results from the varied studies. We did not suggest,
however, that results from the eight studies could be generalized
beyond the states from which the study samples were drawn. We also
pointed out that much remains unknown about most families who have
left welfare nationwide. In addition, we were not attempting to
report program impacts, which would require controlling for other
factors that could affect family status, such as varying economic
conditions. Rather, we focused on what is currently known about
the status of former welfare families given the extent to which a
particular state study was generalizable to the study population
within the state. We also agree with HHS' concern regarding low
response rates, and this was the reason most of the studies were
determined to not be generalizable and no data from them were
included in the report. Finally, the report had already noted that
we believe the HHS- funded state efforts will make an important
contribution toward improving the usefulness of future studies and
increase understanding of the condition of former welfare
families.

To address HHS' concerns, we revised the report to place greater
emphasis on the studies' differences by moving detailed
information on the studies' varied populations, time periods, and
methodologies from the appendix to the body of the report. We also
added an additional caveat to the discussion about employment and
earnings information, pointing out the lack of complete
comparability among the studies. In addition, where results from
several states were displayed, we added information on time
periods and references to more detailed information on the
studies' populations and methodologies. HHS also made technical
comments, which

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 29

B-281749

we incorporated where appropriate. (See app. IV for the text of
HHS' comments.)

We also provided copies of the draft report to the 17 states whose
studies we reviewed and to an expert on welfare reform issues. We
incorporated their technical comments where appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days from the date of this report. At that time, we will
send copies to the Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services; state TANF directors; and
other interested parties. We will also make copies available upon
request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me on (202) 512- 7215. Other staff who contributed to this
report are listed in appendix V.

Cynthia M. Fagnoni Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 30

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 31

Contents Letter 1 Appendix I Scope and Methodology

34 Appendix II Reports From States' Studies of Families Who Left
Welfare

38 Appendix III Information on Selected Grants Awarded by the
Department of Health and Human Services to Study Families Leaving
Welfare

41 Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Health and Human
Services

44 Appendix V Major Contributors to This Report

46 Related GAO Products 48 Tables Table 1: Key Ways in Which State
Studies Differed 9

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 32

Contents

Table 2: Employment and Earnings Data From Studies in Seven States

18 Table 3: Percentages of Families Reporting Receipt of Public

Assistance After Leaving Welfare 22

Table 4: Recipients' Comparisons of Deprivations While on and
After Being on Welfare

25 Table I. 1: Response Rates for State Studies 35 Table III. 1:
Selected Information on Grants Awarded 41

Figures Figure 1: Categories of Information Reported in State
Studies of Former Welfare Families

8 Figure 2: States That Have Reported Data on Families Who Have

Left Welfare 15

Figure III. 1: Administrative Data Sources Grantees Planned to Use

43

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

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 33

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

This appendix provides more detail on how we (1) identified state
studies of families who had left welfare, (2) assessed the extent
to which the studies could support statewide generalizations of
results, and (3) summarized the findings on employment and income
from the studies with results generalizable to each state's
welfare population.

Identifying and Assessing the Studies

To obtain information to answer this request, we searched for
state studies of families who left welfare during or after 1995
that had published results by September 30, 1998. We began with a
list of state tracking efforts prepared by a joint effort of the
staffs of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the
National Governors' Association, and the American Public Human
Services Association. 30 In addition, we talked to representatives
of the 10 states with the largest welfare caseloads (California,
Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington) and asked if they had any
studies of former welfare families for which results had been
published. We also talked to welfare experts and asked them if
they knew of any ongoing studies of former welfare recipients.
Finally, we talked to representatives of those states that we
identified as having published reports on the basis of their
tracking efforts and asked what additional plans, if any, they had
for tracking former welfare families and if they had updated their
work. If a state had more recent information available, we
included it in our analysis when possible, in some cases using a
report published after September 30, 1998.

Through this process, we identified 18 separate tracking efforts
in 17 states. 31 The 18 studies varied in degree of data
completeness and statewide generalizability. We were interested in
summarizing results that could reasonably be generalized to most
families who left welfare in the state at the time of the study.
We considered a study to be of an acceptable level of statewide
generalizability if the study successfully obtained data on at
least 70 percent of the sample of families for which it sought
such data, or if a nonresponse analysis of the data showed that
were no important differences between families represented in the
data and those

30 This list appears in a document called State Efforts to Track
and Follow Up on Welfare Recipients and is updated periodically as
additional studies are identified. The list we used was dated July
30, 1998. For the most recent list of state efforts to track
welfare recipients, see the Web site www. aphsa. org.

31 Wisconsin had two studies. The second surveyed a cohort of
welfare recipients that left the welfare rolls between Jan. and
Mar. 1998. The results of this survey were issued on Jan. 13,
1999.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 34

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

missing from the data. 32 Except for this assessment, we did not
independently verify the data included in the state studies. Using
this assessment, we identified eight studies representing seven
states. The proportion of families that responded to surveys or
for whom data were located in administrative databases in each
study is shown in table I. 1.

Table I. 1: Response Rates for State Studies

State Population of interest Number of respondents a Response rate

(percentage)

Idaho Families who left TANF July to Dec. 1997 447 17

Indiana Families receiving AFDC May 1995 to May 1996 who
subsequently left AFDC 1,589 71

Iowa AFDC families assigned to or who volunteered for the Limited
Benefit Plan Nov. 1994 to Apr. 1995 137 85

Kentucky Families who left TANF Jan. to Nov. 1997 560 17

Louisiana Families in metropolitan New Orleans who left TANF Jan.
to Mar. 1998 349 17

Maryland Families who left TANF Oct. 1996 to Sept. 1997 2,156 82 b

Michigan Families whose AFDC benefits were terminated in Apr. 1996
because they did not comply with program rules 67 53

Montana Families who received or left AFDC or TANF Mar. 1996 to
Sept. 1997 208 c

New Jersey Families whose TANF benefits were terminated Jan. to
Feb. 1998 because of failure to comply with program rules 453 45

New Mexico Families who left AFDC July 1996 to June 1997 617 12

Oklahoma Families who left or were denied TANF Oct. 1996 to Nov.
1997 292 53

(continued)

32 For other purposes, a different criterion may be more
appropriate. For example, some program administrators believe that
a major effort should be made to locate all families in the
sample, especially if the purpose of a study is to ensure that
families have not been adversely affected by program changes.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 35

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

State Population of interest Number of respondents a Response rate

(percentage)

Pennsylvania Families who left TANF Mar. 1997 to Jan. 1998 169 47

South Carolina d Families with a household member required to seek
employment who left TANF July to Sept. 1997 and had not returned
at time of follow- up 403 76

Tennessee Families who lost TANF benefits Jan. to Oct. 1997
because they did not comply with program rules, and TANF families
whose head was employed full- or part- time Feb. to Oct. 1997
2,436 51

Washington d Single- parent families who left TANF Apr. to July
1998 592 52

Wisconsin Single, female- headed families who left AFDC July 1995
to July 1996 54,518 92 b

Wisconsin Families who left AFDC/ TANF Jan. to Mar. 1998 and did
not return prior to survey 375 69

Wyoming Families who left TANF Dec. 1996 to Feb. 1998 200 32

a These are the families actually located for whom data are
reported in the study. b Represents the percentage of families
about whom information was located in program administrative data.
c Data not available. d Both South Carolina and Washington
reported on groups of families who left welfare earlier. We
included the most recent sample in our summary.

Source: GAO analysis of state studies.

Summarizing Data Related to Employment and Income

We summarized the results for the eight studies that we considered
could reasonably be generalized to the state level in the three
major areas of interest: economic status, family composition, and
family and child well- being. This effort was constrained by the
different sources of data used by the state studies, different
categories of families tracked, and different questions asked of
respondents in the surveys. The area for which each state study
had somewhat comparable data was economic

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 36

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

status. The state studies with surveys generally asked employment
status at the time of follow- up, hourly wage rate, number of
hours worked, and whether the respondent had ever worked since
leaving welfare. The two studies relying on state unemployment
insurance program data to track employment could report only
whether an individual had worked at some point during a 3- month
period and total earnings for the period. Further, since state
unemployment insurance programs do not cover some categories of
employed individuals, program data would not have information on
these individuals. For example, self- employed individuals and
certain agricultural workers are generally not covered.

The two studies reporting average quarterly earnings based on
state unemployment insurance program data did not report average
hourly wage or average number of hours worked. In order to make
earnings data comparable among the eight studies, we estimated
average quarterly earnings for the other studies for which we had,
or could calculate, average hourly wage rates and average number
of hours worked. We multiplied the average hourly wage in each of
these studies by the study's reported average number of hours
worked in a week and multiplied by 13 to estimate a quarterly
wage. This enabled us to compare estimated quarterly earnings with
the reported quarterly earnings. We also had to make some
adjustment to ensure that the employment rates were for comparable
categories of families. Although some of the studies reported
employment rates only for adults who left welfare and were still
off the rolls at the time of follow- up, others included all
families who left the rolls during the study period even those who
had returned to welfare at the time of follow- up. To estimate
comparable employment rates, we removed from the calculation data
on the individuals who returned to the rolls and assumed that
those who returned to the rolls were not employed.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 37

Appendix II Reports From States' Studies of Families Who Left
Welfare

Idaho Project Self- Reliance TAFI Participant Closure Study (II),
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, spring 1998.

Indiana The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Assessing Program
Implementation and Early Impacts on Cash Assistance, Abt
Associates,

Inc., Aug. 1997. The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Who Is On
and Who Is Off? Comparing Characteristics and Outcomes for Current
and Former TANF Recipients, Abt Associates, Inc., Sept. 1997.

The Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Program Implementation and
Economic Impacts After Two Years, Abt Associates, Inc., and The
Urban Institute, Nov. 1998.

Iowa Iowa's Limited Benefit Plan: Summary Report, Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., and the Institute for Social and Economic
Development,

May 1997. A Study of Well- Being Visits to Families on Iowa's
Limited Benefit Plan, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., June
1998.

Kentucky From Welfare to Work: Welfare Reform in Kentucky, Welfare
Reform Evaluation No. 1, Center for Policy Research and
Evaluation, Urban

Studies Institute, University of Louisville, Jan. 1998. Louisiana
Exiting Welfare: The Experiences of Families in Metro New Orleans,

School of Social Work, Southern University at New Orleans, June
1998. Maryland Life After Welfare: An Interim Report, University
of Maryland School of

Social Work, Sept. 1997. Life After Welfare: Second Interim
Report, University of Maryland School of Social Work, Mar. 1998.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 38

Appendix II Reports From States' Studies of Families Who Left
Welfare

Michigan A Study of AFDC Case Closures Due to JOBS Sanctions April
1996, Michigan Family Independence Agency, May 1997.

Montana Montana's Welfare Reform Project: Families Achieving
Independence in Montana FAIM, February 1998 Update, Montana
Department of Public

Health & Human Services, Feb. 12, 1998. New Jersey WFNJ (TANF)
Sanction Survey, New Jersey Department of Human Services,

July 2, 1998. New Mexico Survey of the New Mexico Closed- Case
AFDC Recipients July 1996 to

June 1997, Final Report, University of New Mexico, Sept. 1997.
Oklahoma Family Health & Well- Being in Oklahoma: An Exploratory
Analysis of TANF

Cases Closed and Denied October 1996 to November 1997, Oklahoma
Department of Human Services, Sept. 1998.

Pennsylvania TANF Closed- Case Telephone Survey, Pennsylvania
Department of Public Welfare, Mar. 1998.

South Carolina Survey of Former Family Independence Program
Clients: Cases Closed During January Through March 1997, South
Carolina Department of Social

Services, Division of Program Quality Assurance, Mar. 3, 1998.
Survey of Former Family Independence Program Clients: Cases Closed
During July Through September 1997, South Carolina Department of
Social Services, Division of Program Quality Assurance, Oct. 9,
1998.

Tennessee Summary of Surveys of Welfare Recipients Employed or
Sanctioned for Non- Compliance, University of Memphis, Mar. 1998.

Washington Washington's TANF Single Parent Families Shortly After
Welfare: Survey of Families Which Exited TANF Between December 7
and March 1998,

Washington DSHS Economic Services Administration, July 1998.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 39

Appendix II Reports From States' Studies of Families Who Left
Welfare

Washington's TANF Single Parent Families After Welfare, Washington
DSHS Economic Services Administration, Jan. 1999.

Wisconsin Post- Exit Earnings and Benefit Receipt Among Those Who
Left AFDC in Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty,
University of

Wisconsin- Madison, Aug. 17, 1998. Post- Exit Earnings and Benefit
Receipt Among Those Who Left AFDC in Wisconsin, Institute for
Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin- Madison, Oct. 30,
1998.

Survey of Those Leaving AFDC or W- 2 January to March 1998,
Preliminary Report, State of Wisconsin, Department of Workforce
Development, Jan. 13, 1999.

Wyoming A Survey of Former POWER Recipients (Personal
Opportunities With Employment Responsibilities), Western
Management Services, LLC, for

Wyoming Department of Family Services, May 1998.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 40

Appendix III Information on Selected Grants Awarded by the
Department of Health and Human Services to Study Families Leaving
Welfare

This appendix provides information on the study methodologies
planned by the jurisdictions receiving grants from HHS to study
families who have left welfare.

Table III. 1: Selected Information on Grants Awarded

Grantee Award amount Population of interest

Timing of survey (months after

exit)

Arizona $249,824 Families leaving welfare Oct. to Dec. 1996 and
Jan. to Mar. 1998

12 California Los Angeles County 250,000 Families leaving welfare

Oct. to Dec. 1996 and Jan. to Mar. 1998

12 California San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties

160,270 Families leaving or diverted from welfare Oct. to Dec.
1996 and July to Dec. 1998

6 and 12 District of Columbia 249,749 Families leaving welfare

July to Sept. 1997 and Oct. to Dec. 1998

6 Florida 274,719 Families leaving or diverted

from welfare Apr. to June 1997; families receiving food stamps or
Medicaid who were eligible for, but not receiving, welfare Apr. to
June 1997

18 to 20 Georgia 246,660 Families leaving welfare

Jan. to Oct. 1997 and July 1998 to June 2001

6 Illinois 250,000 Families leaving welfare

Oct. 1997 to June 1998 and Jan. to Mar. 1999

1 to 9 Massachusetts 206,294 Families leaving welfare

Jan. to June 1997 and Dec. 1998 to Feb. 1999

3, 6, 9, and 12 Missouri 250,000 Families leaving welfare

Oct. to Dec. 1996 and Oct. to Dec. 1997

15 New York 80,476 Families leaving welfare

Nov. 1997 to Mar. 1998 and Jan. to Mar. 1999

12 Ohio Cuyahoga County 250,000 Families leaving welfare

Oct. to Dec. 1996 and Jan. to Mar. 1998

12 South Carolina 200,000 Families leaving welfare

Jan. to Mar 1997 and Jan. to Mar. 1999

6 and 9 (continued)

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 41

Appendix III Information on Selected Grants Awarded by the
Department of Health and Human Services to Study Families Leaving
Welfare

Grantee Award amount Population of interest

Timing of survey (months after

exit)

Washington 244,965 Families leaving welfare Oct. to Dec. 1996,
Oct. to Dec. 1997, and Oct. to Dec. 1998

6 to 9 Wisconsin 204,200 Families leaving welfare

Oct. to Dec. 1996 and Jan. to Dec. 1998; families applying for
welfare in Milwaukee Oct. 1998 to Mar. 1999

5 to 10 Source: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and
Evaluation, HHS.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 42

Appendix III Information on Selected Grants Awarded by the
Department of Health and Human Services to Study Families Leaving
Welfare

Figure III. 1: Administrative Data Sources Grantees Planned to Use

a This category includes other data sources, such as sources of
tax, welfare- to- work, and health information.

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 43

Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Health and Human
Services

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 44

Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Health and Human
Services

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 45

Appendix V Major Contributors to This Report

Gale C. Harris, Assistant Director, (202) 512- 7235 Margaret
Boeckmann, Evaluator- in- Charge, (202) 512- 6992 Emily Loriso
Regina Santucci Jay Smale

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 46

GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page 47

Related GAO Products Welfare Reform: States' Experiences in
Providing Employment Assistance to TANF Clients (GAO/HEHS-99-22,
Feb. 26, 1999).

Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment
Among Welfare Recipients (GAO/HEHS-99-12, Nov. 24, 1998).

Welfare Reform: Early Fiscal Effects of the TANF Block Grant
(GAO/AIMD-98-137, Aug. 18, 1998).

Welfare Reform: Child Support an Uncertain Income Supplement for
Families Leaving Welfare (GAO/HEHS-98-168, Aug. 3, 1998).

Welfare Reform: Many States Continue Some Federal or State
Benefits for Immigrants (GAO/HEHS-98-132, July 31, 1998).

Welfare Reform: Changes Will Further Shape the Roles of Housing
Agencies and HUD (GAO/RCED-98-148, June 25, 1998).

Welfare Reform: States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce
Welfare Dependence (GAO/HEHS-98-109, June 18, 1998).

Welfare Reform: Transportation's Role in Moving From Welfare to
Work (GAO/RCED-98-161, May 29, 1998).

Medicaid: Early Implications of Welfare Reform for Beneficiaries
and States (GAO/HEHS-98-62, Feb. 24, 1998).

Welfare Reform: States' Efforts to Expand Child Care Programs
(GAO/HEHS-98-97, Jan. 13, 1998).

Welfare Reform: States' Early Experiences With Benefit Termination
(GAO/HEHS-97-74, May 15, 1997).

Welfare Waivers Implementation: States Work to Change Welfare
Culture, Community Involvement, and Service Delivery (GAO/HEHS-96-
105, July 2, 1996).

(116019) GAO/HEHS-99-48 Status of Former Welfare Recipients Page
48

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be
sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money
order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary.
VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for
100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted
25 percent.

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

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

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512- 6061, or 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.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send
an e- mail message with "info" in the body to:

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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

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

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100

*** End of document. ***