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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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) |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
|
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 |
|
|
? |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
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. |
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. |