APPENDIX A
Leaver Studies



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work APPENDIX A Leaver Studies

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work TABLE A-1 Fourteen ASPE Leaver Study Grantees: Summary Description of Proposals and Plans (as of 7/8/99) Study Characteristics Arizona Outcomes   Adults Employment, earnings, recidivism, other program and private assistance receipt, child support, reason for leaving TANF, health and health care coverage, and barriers to self-sufficiency Children Child care receipt and quality, use of child welfare services Population   Study population Former recipients of cash assistance Definition of leavers Case closed for at least 2 months; also sample of 1-month leavers Divertees/applicants No; Arizona's diversion program not implemented yet Eligible, not participating No Child-only cases No Unit of observation Closed case Methodology   Cohort definitions TANF closed cash assistance cases 10/96–12/96; similar 2nd cohort 1/98–3/98 (after EMPOWER—Track I program began) Comparison groups Reason for case closure, across local economic conditions, urban/rural, education level, age, and marital status Administrative Data   Sources Cash assistance, food stamp, Medicaid, UI, JOBS, child care, child support, child protective services, emergency assistance Years/time covered Both cohorts tracked for 12 months; data as far back as 1990 Linkages Cohort II data linked with survey data Survey Data   Sample population Random sample of all Cohort II closed cases Design Stratified by reason for closing (2 strata); mixed mode survey Number of observations Hope to have 400 completed surveys from each strata; will sample 1,200 cases Response rate Aiming for 67% Timing Surveyed approximately one year after case closed Subcontractor Currently none Special Features  

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics Cuyahoga County, OH Outcomes   Adults Employment, earnings, recidivism, other program and private assistance receipt, household composition, material well-being, health and health care coverage, income, and barriers to self-sufficiency Children Child care arrangements, child living arrangements, and child health Population   Study population Former recipients of TANF Definition of leavers Case closed for at least 2 months Divertees/applicants Not as part of this grant, but may for another project Eligible, not participating No Child-only cases Not in survey but may track ''true'' child-only cases with administrative data Unit of observation Closed case Methodology   Cohort definitions Cohort I: left AFDC/TANF 3rd quarter of 1996; Cohort II: left TANF 3rd quarter of 1998 Comparison groups Cohort I vs. Cohort II; by welfare history (long vs. short term), work experience, reason for leaving, earnings, age of parents, number of kids, marital status, race; Cohort II, education level and public housing usage Administrative Data   Sources UI and welfare administrative records, food stamps, Medicaid 750 randomly selected from each cohort; reports results on all of cohort I Years/time covered 1 year pre-and post-leaving Linkages Cohort II data linked with survey data Survey Data   Sample population Random sample of single parent households from Cohort II Design Mixed mode, 30 minute interviews Number of observations Hope to have 300 completed surveys Response rate MDRC committed to 78% response rate Timing Surveyed 1 year after case closed Subcontractor Part of MDRC Urban Change Project, Case Western Reserve Special Features  

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics District of Columbia Outcomes   Adults Employment, earnings, barriers to self-sufficiency, sources of public and private income, family well-being, recidivism, and health care coverage Children Child care situation Population   Study population TANF leavers Definition of leavers Case closed for at least 2 months Divertees/applicants No divertees; DC diversion program not yet implemented Eligible, not participating No Child-only cases   Unit of observation Closed case, family Methodology   Cohort definitions Cohort I: left TANF 3rd quarter of 1997; Cohort II: left TANF 4th quarter of 1998; administrative data and focus groups for Cohort I; survey data for Cohort II Comparison groups Reason for leaving, whether return to TANF or not, by education level and whether or not receive other assistance Administrative Data   Sources TANF, food stamps, general assistance, SSI, Medicaid, foster care Years/time covered As far back as 1992; will track leavers for 1 year Linkages Not linked with survey data Survey Data   Sample population TANF leavers between October and December 1998 Design Mixed mode survey; $20 incentive payment Number of observations Random sample of 500; survey will draw on NSAF Response rate Assumes a 75% response rate Timing 6 months after left TANF Subcontractor Urban Institute Special Features Linking with unemployment insurance data not as useful because many work in Virginia or Maryland or for the federal government

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics Florida Outcomes   Adults Employment, earnings, financial well-being, health care coverage and health, housing and transportation situations, emotional situation, family stability, recidivism, use of other programs, and barriers to self-sufficiency Children Child care situation, child abuse, and neglect Population   Study population Participants who left (plus groups below) Florida's WAGES program Definition of leavers Case closed for at least 2 months Divertees/applicants Yes; WAGES applicants who never enrolled (no formal program) Eligible, not participating Yes; those participating in food stamps and/or Medicaid but not TANF Child-only cases No Unit of observation Individuals who left and their families Methodology   Cohort definitions Three groups above: (1) Left in 2nd quarter of 1997 (n ≆ 30,000); (2) applied in 2nd quarter of 1997 (n ≆ 9,500); (3) received food stamps or Medicaid, had minor kids and income below limit, no participation 3rd quarter of 1997 (n ≆ 12,000) Comparison groups Compare outcomes across three groups and by regional coalitions, racial and ethnic groups, rural vs. urban Administrative Data   Sources TANF, food stamps, Medicaid, child support, and employment data Years/time covered Tracked for 1 year Linkages Linked with survey data Survey Data   Sample population State sample: 1,000 completed surveys for each of three study groups; four samples from regional coalitions, 1,000 in each study group in all four regions Design Telephone survey Number of observations Approximately 15,000 Response rate   Timing Surveys in field in March 1999 Subcontractor Florida State University will help with survey Special Features State board and 24 regional coalitions of public and private partnerships who manage program

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics Georgia Outcomes   Adults Employment, earnings, income, other supports, ratio of income to needs, self-sufficiency, health care coverage, mental health, and recidivism Children Child care, absent father involvement, and child well-being Population   Study population Women who have left welfare Definition of leavers No cash assistance for at least 2 consecutive months Divertees/applicants No Eligible, not participating No Child-only cases Yes, both "true" child-only and partially sanctioned child-only cases Unit of observation Closed case Methodology   Cohort definitions Phase 1: sample of 2,000 leavers from 1/97 to 10/97; administrative data only; Phase 2: telephone survey of 200 leavers each month from 7/98 to 6/01 Comparison groups Longitudinal study of 800 3rd quarter of 1998 sanctioned welfare recipients, Phase I vs. Phase II, rural/urban, race, education level, high/low poverty neighborhoods, length of time on welfare, and reason left welfare Administrative Data   Sources TANF database, food stamps, UI, new hires and child support enforcement Years/time covered Tracked for 1 year after leaving Linkages Linked with survey data from Phase 2 interviews Survey Data   Sample population Sample of 200 women leaving TANF each month for 36 months starting 7/98, longitudinal component interviews 6 months later Design Mixed mode survey Number of observations Approximately 7,200 Response rate   Timing Interviews conducted as soon as client determined to have left Subcontractor Georgia State University Special Features Seeks funding for longitudinal study of 800 women: Wave I of current TANF recipients; Wave II, 6 months later when some will be off TANF

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics Illinois Outcomes   Adults Health insurance, housing, recidivism, income, household composition, other supports, employment, earnings, deprivation, and self-sufficiency barriers Children Foster care, child abuse and neglect, child support, and child care Population   Study population TANF closed cases for any reason Definition of leavers No cash assistance for 2 consecutive months Divertees/applicants No Eligible, not participating No Child-only cases Yes, but only those converted from family cases to child-only cases Unit of observation Closed cases Methodology   Cohort definitions (1) Left 7/97 to 12/98; (2) stayed on TANF 7/97 to 12/98 Comparison groups Leavers vs. stayers; reasons for case closure; by employment status, by region, and by ethnicity Administrative Data   Sources TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, UI, JOBS program, job training and education, WIC, drug abuse treatment, child welfare and family services cases, child abuse and neglect, and child care assistance Years/time covered As far back as 10 years; at least 1 year after leaving Linkages Linked with survey data Survey Data   Sample population Survey 3 cohorts of leavers who left in 12/97, 6/98, and 12/98; stratified by Chicago vs. downstate; cluster sample of rural areas Design Mixed mode; $15 incentive for contact info; $35 for completed survey Number of observations Hope for 750 completed surveys Response rate Hope for 75% Timing Between 4 and 5 months after leaving welfare Subcontractor University of Illinois, Springfield; University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; and Chapin Hall Special Features Part of ongoing closed case study

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics Los Angeles County, CA Outcomes   Adults Employment, earnings, recidivism, income, other public and private assistance, self-sufficiency barriers, health care, household composition, and well-being Children Child care arrangements; child well-being Population   Study population AFDC/TANF leavers Definition of leavers Case closed for at least 2 months Divertees/applicants Los Angeles does not have diversion program Eligible, not participating No Child-only cases May track "true" child-only cases with administrative data, not with survey data Unit of observation Closed cases Methodology   Cohort definitions Cohort I: left welfare between July and September 1996; Cohort II: left welfare between July and September 1998; 750 from each cohort chosen randomly from administrative data Comparison groups Two cohorts above, long-vs. short-term welfare use, earnings before and after leaving, age of parents, number of kids, marital status, race, ethnicity, reason for leaving, by whether returned to welfare or not, and education level Administrative Data   Sources Cash benefits, food stamps, general assistance benefits, Medicaid, UI wage data Years/time covered 1 year pre-and post-leaving welfare Linkages Cohort II linked with survey data Survey Data   Sample population Single-parent households from Cohort II Design Mixed mode survey Number of observations Hope for 300 completed surveys Response rate MDRC committed to 78% Timing 1 year after exiting, 1999 Subcontractor MDRC Special Features A second phase of this project (not funded by this ASPE grant) will look at eligible nonparticipants

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics Massachusetts Outcomes   Adults Employment, earnings, family income and debt, other income and support, housing, food security, and transportation Children Child support, medical coverage, child care, child school attendance and child development Population   Study population Recipients leaving TANF Definition of leavers Case closed for at least 2 months Divertees/applicants No Eligible, not participating No Child-only cases   Unit of observation Closed cases and their families Methodology   Cohort definitions Cohort I: 20,000 cases who left 1/97 to 6/97; Cohort II: 15,000 cases estimated to leave 12/98 to 2/99; both are full population of leavers in that quarter Comparison groups Time-limit closings vs. other reason close, English speaking or not, age and number of kids, urban vs. rural, work history, welfare history, education level, disability status, ethnicity, and marital status Administrative Data   Sources Transitional assistance, child support, wage and earnings from Department of Revenue, food stamps, Medicaid, child abuse and neglect, and child care Years/time covered As far back as 1990 for some sources Linkages Both cohorts linked with survey data Survey Data   Sample population All leavers in both Cohort I and II Design Longitudinal, mixed mode, stratified by reason case closed Number of observations 350 from Cohort I; 600 from Cohort II (400 of whom reached time limit) Response rate Hope for 75% Timing Cohort I: surveyed four times over course of 1 year; Cohort II: survey 6 months after leaving Subcontractor Chapin Hall did administrative data, survey by University of Massachusetts, Boston Special Features Survey of 350 Cohort I leavers is completed; offering $50 incentive for survey participation

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics Missouri Outcomes   Adults Income, earnings, employment, recidivism, private and public sources of assistance, barriers to self-sufficiency, and household composition Children Child care, child abuse, and neglect Population   Study population Universe of TANF leavers and subset of TANF applicants in 1 county Definition of leavers Case closed for at least 2 months Divertees/applicants Yes, TANF applicants in Jackson County enrolled in job placement program Eligible, not participating No Child-only cases Yes, but only those converted from family cases to child-only cases Unit of observation Closed case Methodology   Cohort definitions Cohort I: 4th quarter 1996 leavers; Cohort II: 4th quarter 1997 leavers; Cohort III: TANF applicants enrolled in Jackson County (KC) Work First program last quarter 1996 and 1997 Comparison groups By employment and job services received; by geographic region Administrative Data   Sources Education (GED, vocational education, higher education), child care assistance, child welfare, emergency assistance records (private sources), employment security records, food stamps, UI, TANF, JOBS, and JTPA Years/time covered As far back as 1990 Linkages Linked with survey data Survey Data   Sample population Represents Cohorts I and II Design Stratified by geography and "success," meaning left for at least 6 months Number of observations 20-minute telephone surveys Response rate 1,200 from each cohort selected for interview Timing Fall 1998 and 1999, 2 years after leaving Subcontractor University of Missouri, Midwest Research Institute Special Features Unique data set on usage of emergency assistance in Jackson County

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics New York Outcomes   Adults Reason case closed, employment, earnings, transitional services use, income, recidivism, health care coverage, self-sufficiency barriers, and household composition Children Child welfare outcomes, child care Population   Study population Sanctioned and closed cases (see Special Features, below) Definition of leavers No limit on length of closure, but will do analysis with 2-month definition Divertees/applicants No Eligible, not participating No Child-only cases Both "true" child-only and partially sanctioned cases with administrative data Unit of observation Closed cases and individuals in each case Methodology   Cohort definitions Cohort I: All cases closed/sanctioned in the 1st quarter of 1997 (administrative data only); Cohort II: All cases closed in the 1st quarter of 1999 (administrative and survey data) Comparison groups Rural vs. Urban, by previous work experience, and employment rates Administrative Data   Sources Public assistance, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid, foster care and child welfare, child support, employment, wage reporting from Department of Taxation Years/time covered 1 year after sanctioned or closure Linkages Linked with Cohort II closed and sanctioned cases survey Survey Data   Sample population Full Cohort II population Design Stratified random sample by local district and by reason of closure; mixed mode survey Number of observations Target of 900 completed surveys Response rate Hope for 75% rate, will sample 1,200 Timing 1 year after leaving (early 2000) Subcontractor Contract out survey; Richard Nathan at Rockefeller Institute is an advisor Special Features NY still has a safety net for families who reach time limit (basically making them partially sanctioned cases)

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties, CA Outcomes   Adults Employment, earnings, sources and level of income and other support, family structure, deprivation, self-sufficiency barriers, and recidivism Children Child care, child well-being, and child abuse and neglect Population   Study population All TANF leavers and eligible nonparticipants Definition of leavers Case closed for at least 2 months; will check for "false" exits Divertees/applicants Too few divertees; will study applicants denied for nonmonetary reasons Eligible, not participating Only applicants who never enrolled but appear eligible Child-only cases Yes, but only those converted from family cases to child-only cases Unit of observation Individual client and family Methodology   Cohort definitions Cohort I: left last quarter of 1996; Cohort II: left last two quarters of 1998; administrative data for both cohorts, survey data for Cohort II Comparison groups Leavers vs. different types of applicants, reason left, by recidivism and by other demographics Administrative Data   Sources TANF Case Data System, food stamps, Medical, general assistance, Q5, GAIN, Public Housing Authority, UI data, child welfare services Years/time covered At least 1 year after leaving; as far back as 1988 for some sources Linkages Linked with Cohort II survey data Survey Data   Sample population Cohort II population Design Stratified random sample, first by county and then by leaver category; mixed mode survey; 30-minute interview Number of observations 900–950 completed surveys but considering a smaller sample Response rate Hope for 80–95% response rate Timing Surveyed 6 and 12 months after left Subcontractor SPHERE Institute; survey will be contracted out too Special Features Survey contains questions from SPD, SIPP, NSAF, and NLSY; $10 payment for each interview

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics South Carolina (Grant is part of an ongoing project with previous grant) Outcomes   Adults Marital events, employment, and earnings Children Child abuse and neglect; low birth weight, infant mortality Population   Study population Cash assistance leavers Definition of leavers Not yet determined Divertees/applicants No official diversion program; will study applicants who never enrolled Eligible, not participating Yes, with survey and food stamp records will identify nonparticipants Child-only cases No Unit of observation Closed case Methodology   Cohort definitions Cohort I: left January to June 1997; Cohort II: left January to June 1999 Comparison groups Reason for leaving cash assistance Administrative Data   Sources TANF Client History Information Profile, work support system, Medicaid, foster care, child support, UI, JOBS, CHIP Years/time covered As far back as 1986; followed for 2 years Linkages Linked with survey data for both cohorts Survey Data   Sample population Nonparticipating eligibles and leavers by each of 3 reasons for leaving Design Mixed mode, 30-minute survey; exploring possible oversampling of cases in high-risk neighborhoods Number of observations Approximately 1,000 cases, 250 from each of the four groups Response rate Estimate 75% Timing Interview 1 year and 2 years after exiting Subcontractor Under negotiation Special Features Part of continuing project begun prior to other studies and funded by ACF

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics Washington Outcomes   Adults Earnings, employment, support sources, well-being, recidivism, other public assistance usage, child support, housing, mental or physical disabilities, addiction, and household composition Children Child care, child welfare use, child abuse and neglect, child well-being Population   Study population Cash assistance leavers and stayers Definition of leavers Left cash assistance for at least 2 months Divertees/applicants Cohort II had diversion program; these divertees will be studied Eligible, not participating Yes; those enrolled in food stamps and/or Medicaid but not TANF Child-only cases No Unit of observation Closed case Methodology   Cohort definitions 3 Cohorts: Cohort I left or stayed last quarter 1996 (pre-TANF); Cohort II left or stayed last quarter 1997; Cohort III left or stayed last quarter of 1998 Comparison groups Across cohorts, leavers vs. stayers, rural/urban and east/west, those who return to TANF for a long term vs. those who return for only a short term and only tracked 1 year after leaving welfare Administrative Data   Sources UI, Medicaid, foster care and child welfare, child support, Basic Health for poor families, food stamps, Work First (TANF), child care Years/time covered 1 year pre-and 1 year post-exit Linkages Cohort III will be linked to survey data Survey Data   Sample population Welfare leavers exiting last quarter of 1998 Design Stratified by urban/rural and east/west; mixed mode design Number of observations A sample of 1,300 will be drawn Response rate Hope for 70% Timing Cases surveyed in mid-1999, 6–9 months after exit Subcontractor   Special Features Already has baseline administrative data on 3,200 recipients pre-TANF, including survey of 560 of these who left the pre-TANF program; will have lottery as incentive for survey completion

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work Study Characteristics Wisconsin (Grant is part of three research projects) Outcomes   Adults Employment, earnings, use of other private and public supports, health insurance, deprivation, household composition, recidivism, and barriers to self-sufficiency Children Child well-being, child care, child abuse and neglect Population   Study population AFDC leavers or nonparticipants in W-2; W-2 leavers Definition of leavers Case closed 2-6 months for administrative data, at least 6 months for survey data Divertees/applicants Milwaukee study looks at W-2 applicants not yet enrolled Eligible, not participating Only applicants who appear eligible but are not enrolled Child-only cases Yes Unit of observation Closed case (or applicant for Milwaukee study*) Methodology   Cohort definitions Cohort 1: leavers in quarter 4 of 1996; Cohort 2: leavers in 1998; Cohort 3: entrants and applicants 10/98 to 3/99 in Milwaukee Comparison groups By recidivism; by agency for profit or nonprofit, stayers vs. leavers vs. never enrolled, demographics, welfare history, receipt of other services Administrative Data   Sources AFDC, food stamps, child care, medical assistance, child support, foster care, some child abuse and neglect, SSI, UI, tax data Years/time covered 1988 for some sources through 1 year after leaving welfare Linkages Cohort's I and II linked to survey data Survey Data   Sample population Leavers in Cohorts I and II; entrants, divertees, and leavers in Cohort III Design Mixed mode survey Number of observations Cohort I: 1,200; Cohort II: 900; Cohort III: 1,200 Response rate 75% Timing Surveyed 1 year after leaving (or after application for Milwaukee study) Subcontractor Institute for Research on Poverty, MPR, Hudson Institute Special Features * Milwaukee study also plans a survey of applicants; it will be a two-wave panel survey of applicants (n = 1,200); wave 1 interviews 7–14 days after initial application visit; wave II, 1 year later

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work TABLE A-2 Outcomes Studied and Sources of Data Used by the Welfare Leaver Grantees   State/County Outcome and Data Sources AZ Cuyahoga County, OH DC FL GA IL Los Angeles County, CA MA MO NY San Mateo County, CA WA WI Outcomes Studied                             Employment and Earnings                           Employment status A,S A,S S A,S A,S A,S A,S S A A,S A,S A,S A,S Quarterly earnings A,S A,S S   A A A,S A A A,S A,S A,S A Hourly wage S S   A,S S S S S S S S A,S A,S Fringe benefits S S S A,S   S S S   S S S   Types of jobs/occupation A,S S S A,S S S S A,S A S A,S S A,S Hours worked S S S A,S S S S S S S S A,S S Education/training A S S   A,S A,S S S   S A,S S   Other   S S S     S   S S   A,S A Other Income Supports                           Food stamps A,S A,S A A,S A A A A,S A,S A A,S A,S A,S Child support A,S S S A,S A,S S S A,S S A S A,S A,S Family resources S S S S S S S S A,S S S S S SSI   S A   S S S S S A     A,S General assistance           S     S A A,S     Housing assistance ?   S   S S   S A,S S A,S S A,S Energy assistance ?     S       S A,S     S S EITC     S   S S S S S S S S A Other         S A       S     S

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work   State/County Outcome and Data Sources AZ Cuyahoga County, OH DC FL GA IL Los Angeles County, CA MA MO NY San Mateo County, CA WA WI Health Insurance                           Medicaid A,S A,S A A A,S A A,S A,S A,S A,S A,S A,S A,S CHIP           A       S S     Employer provided S S S S S S S S S S S S S Adult coverage ? S   S S   S     S S S S Child coverage ? S   S S   S S   S S S S Other       S             S S   Deprivations/Insecurity                           Health status ? S S S   S S   ? ? S   S Access to health care ? S S S S S S   ? ? S S S Hunger ? S S S S S S S A ? S S S Food pantries S S S   A S S S A ? S S S Doubling-up/living with relatives ?   S   S       A ? S S S Money to pay rent ? S S S   S     A ? S S S Periods of homelessness S S S S A S     A ? S A,S S Use of community agencies, general   S S S   S S   A S   S   Other   S S S S S S   A S     S Other Changes                           Change in residence ? S S A S S S S A   A,S A A Change in marital status ? S   S S S S   ? S A,S S A,S Change in household composition ? S S S S S S S A S A,S S S Other           S     ?        

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work   State/County Outcome and Data Sources AZ Cuyahoga County, OH DC FL GA IL Los Angeles County, CA MA MO NY San Mateo County, CA WA WI Child Care                           Arrangement/type A,S S S S S A S S A S S S S Subsidy A S S S A,S A,S S S A S A,S S A,S Cost A,S S S S A,S A S ? A S S S S Quality A,S     S S         S   S S Other   S     S   S       S S S Child Well-Being                           Abuse and neglect/foster care A     S A,S A,S   ? A A,S A,S A,S A,S Living arrangements/kinship care A S   S A,S S S ? A   S S S Cognitive/school   S     S   S S     A,S   S Behavioral         S     S     S S   Child health   S   S S   S     S S A,S S Other       S                 S Diversion                           Payments                 A   A A   Up-front job search                 A         Other       A                 A,S

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work   State/County Outcome and Data Sources AZ Cuyahoga County, OH DC FL GA IL Los Angeles County, CA MA MO NY San Mateo County, CA WA WI Awareness of Benefits                           Transitional child care S   S   A S   S S S S S S Transitional Medicaid S   S   A S     S S S   S Other benefits S             S S   S S S Recidivism                           Returns to TANF A A,S A A,S A,S A A,S A,S A A,S A,S A,S A,S Reason for return ? S S S S S S   ? S S A S Attitudes                           Toward work       S S         S     S Toward TANF S     S S       S   S   S other S S S                     Reasons for Case Closure A,S A,S A,S S A,S A,S A,S A A A,S A,S S S Barriers to Self-Sufficiency                           Disability/health problems ? S   S A,S S S   A,S ?   A,S A Illiteracy ?       A       A,S ?       Limited English proficiency ?     S A     A S ? S     Domestic Violence ?         S   S S ? S A,S A Maternal depression or other mental illness ?     S S     S S ? S S A Substance abuse ?     S   S   S S ? S A,S A,S Transportation S   S S   S   S S ? S S S Lack of child care S S S S S S S S S ? S S S Lack of education/skills ? S S   S   S S A,S ? A,S S S Other           S         S    

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work   State/County Outcome and Data Sources AZ Cuyahoga County, OH DC FL GA IL Los Angeles County, CA MA MO NY San Mateo County, CA WA WI Administrative Data Source To Be Used                           TANF X X X X X X X X X X X X X Food Stamps X X X X X X X X X X X X X Medicaid eligibility X X X X X X X X X X X X X Medicaid claims X     X   X     X   X X   JOBS or JOBS successor X     X   X     X   X     Child support X     X X     X   X   X X Child welfare X       X X     X X X X X Child care X         X     X       X SSI     X                   X General assistance           X X     X X     Emergency service X               X         Unemployment insurence X X     X X X   X X X X X State revenue or IRS               X         X Substance abuse           X           X   Education                 X         Other         X X     X   X X   NOTES: A = Administrative Data S = Survey Data ? = Proposal indicates the outcome will be studied, but the source of the data is not given. X = Indicates data source will be used.

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work ACRONYMS: CHIP Children's Health Insurance Program EITC Earned Income Tax Credit JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training SSI Supplemental Security Income TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families SOURCE: Data prepared by staff of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, for a presentation to the panel on February 19, 1999.

OCR for page 95
Evaluating Welfare Reform: A Framework and Review of Current Work This page in the original is blank.