GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2001 WELFARE REFORM

Data Available to 

Assess TANF’s 

Progress

GAO-01-298

Page 1 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 40

Appendix II: Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies Reviewed 47

Appendix III: Scope and Type of Analyses for Which Waiver and 

Demonstration Data Can Be Used 58

Appendix IV: Comments From the Department of Health and Human 

Services 61

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 62

Tables Table 1: Overall Sample Sizes for National Data Sources 23

Table 2: Attrition Rates for National Data Sources That Collect

Data Over Time 25

Table 3: Response Rates for National Surveys 26

Table 4: Number of Waiver and Demonstration Data Sets With

Acceptable Response Rates 30

Table 5: National Data Sources 47

Table 6: Sources of Waiver, Demonstration, Leavers, Metropolitan

and Community-Based, and Other Welfare Reform Data 47

Table 7: Other Studies Examined 54

Figures Figure 1: TANF’s Legislative Goals, Research Questions, and Data 

Categories Associated With Those Goals 14

Figure 2: National Data That Address TANF’s Goals and Related 

Data Categories 16

Figure 3: National Survey and HHS Administrative Data on TANF

Groups 19

Figure 4: State and Local Data That Address TANF’s Goals and

Related Data Categories 21

Figure 5: Data Sources That Collect Information at One Point in 

Time and Across Time 24

Figure 6: Leavers Data From Statewide Samples 32

Figure 7: Years Covered by Data Available for Metropolitan and 

Community Areas 34

Figure 8: Six Major Critiques of Welfare Reform Research 41
Contents

Page 2 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families

AFDC Aid to Families With Dependent Children

ASPE Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

CPS Current Population Survey

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training

LA FANS Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Study

NLSY National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

NSAF National Survey of America’s Families

OBRA Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981

PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

Act of 1996

PSID Panel Study of Income Dynamics

RDD random digit dialing

SIPP Survey of Income and Program Participation

SPD Survey of Program Dynamics

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Page 3 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548 Letr

February 28, 2001

The Honorable Walter W. Herger

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives

The Honorable Nancy L. Johnson

House of Representatives

Over 4 years have passed since federal welfare reform legislation was 

enacted, replacing the legal entitlement to cash assistance under the Aid to 

Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the promotion of 

work and personal responsibility.1

 The policy and research community has 

been asking what has happened to low-income families since the Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 

(PRWORA) created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

block grant, replacing the federal entitlement to assistance and 

institutionalizing reforms that had been initiated by many states. Overseen 

by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at the federal 

level, TANF makes $16.8 billion in federal funds available to states each 

year through 2002. While TANF delegates wide discretion to the states to 

design and implement the program, it does specify four broad program 

goals that focus on children and families:

• providing assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for 

in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;

• ending the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by 

promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;

• preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; 

and

• encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

As TANF has been implemented by the states, the Congress has asked 

questions about a broad range of issues concerning welfare reform’s 

consequences. Several issues—for example, the circumstances of those 

who have left TANF and the characteristics of those currently receiving 

cash assistance—relate to what has happened to low-income families since 

1

Title I of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 

104-193, established the TANF block grant program.
Page 4 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

TANF has been in effect. The Congress also has asked about the extent to 

which any changes that have occurred in low-income families’ life 

circumstances, such as TANF recipients’ increases in employment and 

earned income and decreases in births, can be attributed to TANF rather 

than to other factors, such as changes in economic conditions. These 

questions will be especially important when the program is considered for 

reauthorization in 2001.

To determine what data will be available from planned and existing 

research to address these and other questions, you asked us to examine (1) 

the type of data that will be available from national surveys and studies of 

welfare reform to help assess progress towards TANF’s goals and (2) the 

usefulness of the data for assessing TANF’s progress nationwide. Our major 

objective was to examine data already collected by national surveys of lowincome families and for major studies of welfare reform to identify data 

available for use in a comprehensive assessment of TANF for the 

reauthorization debate. We did not examine study findings; rather, we 

examined the data that have been collected or will be collected as part of 

the considerable body of research about TANF that is accumulating.2

 The 

focus on data also addresses issues raised by several critiques of this work 

that have emerged. The critiques that examine the methodology of this 

research agree that, for welfare reform research, the quality and 

comprehensiveness of the existing data are cause for concern. Two 

critiques in particular question whether the major national survey designed 

to provide information to assess TANF at the national level—the Survey of 

Program Dynamics (SPD)—has “a sufficient number of observations” for 

an analysis of TANF’s effects in individual states.3

To determine what data will be available, we considered all of the national 

surveys and welfare reform studies discussed in six major critiques of 

2

See Christine Devere, Gene Falk, and Vee Burke, Welfare Reform Research: What Have We 

Learned Since the Family Support Act of 1988? (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research 

Service, Oct. 20, 2000) for a summary of findings about the effects of welfare reform 

initiatives.

3

The Census Bureau conducts the SPD, a longitudinal survey of a nationally representative 

sample of families, with emphasis on eligibility for and participation in welfare programs, 

employment, earnings, the incidence of out-of-wedlock births, and family well-being. The 

provision in PRWORA that authorized the SPD specified that the sample be drawn from the 

1992 and 1993 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) samples. However, the 

original samples for the SIPP were designed to be nationally representative, not to be 

representative of any state.
Page 5 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

welfare reform research, as well as surveys and studies available through 

the Research Forum and the Welfare Information Network, the major 

clearinghouses for welfare reform research.4

 We also interviewed HHS 

officials about their perspective on welfare reform data and asked welfare 

experts to nominate key pieces of work in the field for inclusion in our 

review. We selected a sample of surveys and studies that resulted in 187 

individual data sets related to TANF reauthorization issues.5

 For each data 

set, we analyzed the content of the data to determine (1) the range of 

TANF-related data topics covered; (2) the level of detail the data offer; (3) 

the data’s quality, including, where relevant, the sampling method, sample 

size, response rate, and attrition rate; and (4) how the data could be used to 

provide the Congress with an understanding of what has happened under 

TANF. Appendix I provides additional details about our methodology and 

its limitations. We conducted our work between January 2000 and January 

2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.

Results in Brief National, state, and local data will be available to help assess progress 

toward TANF’s goals, but these data address the goals to differing degrees. 

National data, which include data collected in national surveys and 

information that all states report to HHS, include extensive information 

related to TANF’s two goals of providing assistance to needy families and 

ending dependency on government benefits but have limited information 

about TANF’s goals of preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and 

promoting family formation. The data pertain to such issues as changes in 

the TANF caseload, use of noncash assistance by current and former TANF 

recipients, recipients’ participation in work activities, employment status 

and earnings, and family well-being. Although there are national data on the 

incidence of out-of-wedlock births and marriage among TANF recipients 

and other low-income families, these data include only very recently 

available information on states’ strategies to prevent out-of-wedlock 

pregnancies or promote family formation. Data from studies of welfare 

reform at the state and local levels contain the same kind of information as 

national data, but they also include information about areas very recently 

4

See fig. 8 in app. I for a list of the major critiques.

5

A data set is a body of data gathered for analysis by a single data collection method, such as 

by survey or from welfare case records or the administrative records of programs such as 

the Unemployment Insurance or federal income tax systems. 
Page 6 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

covered by national data. For example, data are available about the 

birthrates and marriage patterns of individuals who participated in 

programs, some of which had provisions intended to foster marriage and 

discourage out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Much of these data come from 

waiver evaluations—evaluations conducted in states that experimented 

with their welfare program, under a waiver from HHS, prior to TANF. 

The usefulness of existing data for assessing TANF’s progress varies. 

National data can be analyzed to develop a descriptive picture of TANF for 

the nation as a whole. However, of the seven national data sets we 

reviewed, only two can be used to describe the lives of families receiving 

TANF within individual states. To gain information about TANF’s effects in 

the states, data from waiver evaluations and demonstrations can be used 

instead. In many cases, these data were collected by randomly assigning 

welfare recipients to groups subject to different welfare provisions, 

allowing employment, earnings, and well-being of the groups to be 

attributed to the provisions. However, most waiver and demonstration data 

were collected in localities and so cannot be used to assess state-level 

effects. We examined nearly 40 data sets that could be analyzed for 

information about the circumstances of former recipients. However, only a 

subgroup of these data sets met criteria that allowed the sample to be 

generalized statewide. These data sets represented 15 states. In some 

cases, the value of survey data collected from those who left welfare was 

limited because few former recipients actually responded to the surveys. In 

general, the need for information about TANF’s progress will have to be 

balanced against the challenges of rigorous data collection from the lowincome population.

Background PRWORA overhauled the nation’s welfare system by abolishing the 

previous welfare program, AFDC, and creating the TANF block grant. 

PRWORA established four broad goals for TANF, which included (1) 

providing assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in 

their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) ending dependence of 

needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, 

and marriage; (3) preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock 

pregnancies; and (4) encouraging the formation and maintenance of twoparent families. Unlike the previous program, TANF gives states great 

flexibility to design programs that meet these goals. However, while states 

have flexibility, the programs they design must meet several federal 

requirements that emphasize the importance of work and the temporary 

nature of TANF. For example, PRWORA requires that parents receiving 
Page 7 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

assistance engage in work, as defined by the state, after receiving 

assistance for 24 months, or earlier, at state option. In exercising their 

option, 28 states require immediate participation in work, and 9 other 

states require participation in work within 6 months of receiving cash 

assistance, resulting in great interstate variation in program provisions. 

Further, despite the programmatic flexibility authorized by TANF, states 

must meet federal data reporting requirements by submitting quarterly 

reports that include information from administrative records about those 

receiving welfare and those terminated from assistance, as well as an 

annual report, to HHS. The annual report contains information about 

program characteristics, such as states’ activities used to prevent out-ofwedlock pregnancy. 

In 1995, we reported6

 that the block grants enacted as part of the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA) carried no uniform federal 

information requirements.7

 We found that the program information states 

collected was designed to meet individual states’ needs and that, as a 

result, it was difficult to aggregate states’ experiences and speak from a 

national perspective on the block grant activities or their effects. Without 

uniform information definitions and collection methodologies, it was 

difficult for the Congress to compare state efforts or draw meaningful 

conclusions about the relative effectiveness of different strategies. In a 

second examination of federal block grant programs, we reported that 

problems in information and reporting under many block grants—the 

Education Block Grant, the Community Services Block Grant, and the 

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services Block Grant—have 

limited the Congress’ ability to evaluate them.8

 However, for the TANF 

Block Grant, the regulations require that states submit the quarterly TANF 

Data Report and the TANF Financial Report or be subject to statutory 

penalties. For these reports, HHS provides data reporting specifications 

including timing, format, and definitions for such data topics as family 

composition, employment status, and earned and unearned income. These 

6

Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions (GAO/AIMD-95-226, Sept. 1, 

1995).

7

OBRA created nine block grants: Community Services; Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental 

Health Services; Primary Care; Social Services; Maternal and Child Health; Preventive 

Health and Health Services; Education (ch. 2); Low-Income Home Energy Assistance; and 

Community Development (small cities).

8

Block Grants: Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons Learned (GAO/HEHS-95-74, Feb. 9, 

1995).
Page 8 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

specifications facilitate the use of HHS’ TANF administrative data for 

welfare reform research by improving the data’s comparability from state 

to state. Several national surveys and data collected for state and local 

studies of welfare reform also are potential sources of data for an 

assessment of TANF.

National Data Sources on 

TANF 

A number of national surveys that collect information about welfare receipt 

have been used in the past by researchers to analyze welfare reform or 

have been developed to assess current welfare reform. Four surveys—the 

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Current 

Population Survey (CPS), the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 

(NLSY), and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID)—have been used 

in past research on the AFDC program and the low-income population in 

general. Both the SIPP and the PSID have updated their questionnaires to 

include questions that pertain to welfare reform specifically, including 

questions about the work participation requirements and penalties for not 

complying with these and other program rules. Moreover, two national 

surveys are designed specifically to answer questions about welfare 

reform. The U.S. Census Bureau, at the direction of the Congress, is 

conducting a longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of 

families, with emphasis on eligibility for and participation in welfare 

programs, employment, earnings, the incidence of out-of-wedlock births, 

and adult and child well-being. This survey, the Survey of Program 

Dynamics, was designed to help researchers understand the impact of 

welfare reform on the well-being of low-income families and children. 

Similarly, the Urban Institute has been conducting a multiyear project 

monitoring program changes and fiscal developments, along with changes 

in the well-being of children and families. Part of this project includes a 

nationally representative survey of 50,000 people called the National 

Survey of America’s Families (NSAF) that is collecting information on the 

well-being of adults and children as welfare reform is implemented.9

With the change in the fundamental structure of the nation’s welfare 

program, there have been several efforts by private research organizations 

to document the policies states have adopted under TANF. The Center for 

Law and Social Policy and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in 

collaboration, have created the State Policy Documentation Project to 

9

Although valuable resources for assessing national programs, national surveys often are 

costly. For example, the 1997 NSAF cost $14 million to administer and process.
Page 9 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

document policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Available on 

the Web, the State Policy Documentation Project contains information 

about state policies contained in statutes, regulations, and caseworker 

manuals, but it does not describe state practices. In addition, the Urban 

Institute has developed and made available to the public a database that 

documents changes in state program rules since 1996.

State and Local Data From 

Welfare Reform Research

Prior to and since TANF’s implementation, a considerable body of research 

about the low-income population has been conducted to examine the 

circumstances of families affected by welfare reform, the effectiveness of 

welfare reform initiatives, and the implementation of TANF at the state 

level. HHS has played a major role in laying the foundation for this welfare 

reform research.10 During the early 1990s, HHS granted waivers to states 

that allowed them to test various welfare reform provisions. In return, 

states were required to evaluate the effectiveness of the waiver provisions 

by randomly assigning welfare recipients to either participate in the waiver 

program or not. With the passage of TANF, states were given the option to 

continue their waiver evaluations as originally designed or modify the 

evaluation design. Several states opted to continue with their original 

random assignment design, while others modified their evaluation designs 

to focus on examining the implementation of the waivers or describe 

participants’ employment, earnings, and well-being. Because some 

elements of the waivers granted to states were incorporated into many 

TANF programs, the waiver evaluations provide useful insights into issues 

and designs for research about TANF.

However, according to HHS, one aspect of waiver policies may mean that 

some waiver evaluations may not represent TANF requirements 

completely. TANF established work requirements for all adult recipients, 

but states could delay adhering to these requirements under their TANF 

program, in part or whole, if the requirements were inconsistent with state 

waiver policies. Under the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training 

(JOBS) program, work requirements were mandatory for a work-ready or 

able-bodied population, excluding a number of subgroups such as those 

caring for young children and the disabled. For the most part, states that 

continued the original random assignment design maintained some or all of 

10The Congress also has supported the use of rigorous evaluations. For example, in 1988, the 

Family Support Act authorized funding for research using random assignment that led to a 

major examination of welfare-to-work strategies that existed before TANF.
Page 10 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

the JOBS exemptions from work requirements and applied these 

exemptions in determining who was subject to time-limited assistance. 

Consequently, while these states’ waivers may incorporate other work 

policies prescribed under TANF, these policies would not be expected to 

affect the exempt population. In contrast, in states that do not claim JOBS 

exemptions from work requirements, all adults are subject to work 

requirements and time limits on assistance. Thus, while testing TANF-like 

policies, evaluations that continued the random assignment design may not 

fully reflect the experience, outcomes, or impacts of fully implemented 

TANF requirements. 

In addition to the waiver evaluations, HHS, as well as private foundations, 

has provided funding for demonstration programs across the country. The 

demonstration programs are pilot projects designed to measure the effects 

of a particular strategy, rather than an entire program, on welfare recipients 

or those eligible to receive welfare. Many of these demonstration programs 

were intended to increase employment, decrease out-of-wedlock 

pregnancy, or promote marriage. For example, in the late 1980s, several 

demonstration programs aimed at decreasing teen pregnancy among 

welfare recipients were developed. One program, the New Chance 

Demonstration, randomly assigned teen mothers receiving welfare to 

participate in a program that offered education or training classes and 

other support services and then compared the accomplishments of these 

teen mothers with those of teen mothers who did not participate in the 

program. 

Given states’ greater responsibility for welfare programs under PRWORA 

and the larger number of people leaving the welfare rolls, there has been 

general interest among program administrators and state and local 

policymakers about the condition of those who are no longer receiving 

TANF, otherwise known as “leavers.” In response to this concern, a 

growing body of research about leavers has been initiated at both the state 

and federal levels. Generally, researchers have found that once low-income 

families leave welfare, they become hard to keep track of. Moreover, we 

previously reported that studies of former TANF recipients’ status differ in 

important ways, including geographic scope, the time period covered, and 

the categories of families studied, which limits the comparability of the 

data across states.11 In order to facilitate cross-state study comparisons, the 

11See Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients’ Status (GAO/HEHS-99-48, Apr. 28, 

1999).
Page 11 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) 

within HHS has issued guidance to states and the research community on 

developing comparable measures for commonly reported outcomes and 

defined these outcomes. In fiscal year 1998, ASPE awarded approximately 

$2.9 million in grants to 10 states and three large counties to study leavers, 

followed by additional grants in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. ASPE also has 

encouraged the researchers to use comparable measures. 

Research is also being conducted to examine the effects of welfare reform 

in metropolitan areas or neighborhoods. This area of research is important 

because the caseload decline in urban areas has been substantially lower 

than in other areas of the country. Moreover, urban areas can have higher 

unemployment rates and a greater concentration of poverty than suburban 

or rural communities; thus, insights gathered from these studies will be 

useful in understanding the potential for the success of welfare reform in 

the event of an economic downturn. For example, one study—the Three 

City Study—will survey primarily low-income, single-mother families from 

poor and moderate-income areas in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio, 

with half of those surveyed being TANF recipients.12 The survey will collect 

information on adult and family well-being, employment, and welfare 

receipt three times within 4 years. 

Finally, a body of welfare reform research examines the implementation of 

TANF at the state and local levels. Since PRWORA has not only granted 

states greater responsibility for providing cash assistance but also changed 

the nature of cash assistance, it is important to learn how states and 

localities are coping with these changes. Much of the research about 

program implementation focuses on challenges faced by state, and in some 

cases local, administrators in implementing TANF. Typically, in this 

research qualitative data are collected by visiting state or local TANF 

agencies; reviewing program records; and interviewing agency officials, 

caseworkers, and clients. For example, the State Capacity Study conducted 

by the State University of New York, Rockefeller Institute of Government, 

is collecting data in 20 states about the implementation of TANF at the state 

level, such as the structure of government services and information 

systems used to track clients.

12Johns Hopkins University, in collaboration with the University of Texas at Austin, 

Pennsylvania State University, Northwestern University, and Harvard University, is 

conducting the Three City Study.
Page 12 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Framework for Assessing 

Data Availability

Because we expect much of the reauthorization debate to focus on TANF’s 

four legislative goals, the framework for our data assessment was based on 

those goals. To assess whether data exist to address the goals, we first 

created a list of “descriptive” and “effect” research questions relevant to 

each goal. Descriptive questions concern a low-income individual’s or 

family’s status or behavior, such as the receipt of TANF cash assistance or 

support services like transportation, housing, child care, or health services; 

an adult’s employment status and earnings; and a family’s reliance on nonTANF government benefits, such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, or the Earned 

Income Tax Credit. Effect questions concern the extent to which changes 

in an individual’s or family’s status or behavior, such as obtaining 

employment, earning income, avoiding out-of-wedlock births, or forming a 

two-parent family, are the result of the TANF program. These research 

questions represent the broad issues that the Congress will consider during 

TANF’s reauthorization. 

To summarize our findings, we identified data categories associated with 

TANF’s goals, some of which are more narrowly focused than the research 

questions. The data categories represent combinations of topics we found 

in the data, such as employment and earnings or family and child wellbeing, that were associated with the research questions. Figure 1 shows the 

relationships among TANF’s goals, the research questions, and the data 

categories, several of which are associated with more than one question. 

We then compared the data categories with the HHS administrative data, 

the data collected by national surveys, and the data derived from existing 

and planned studies.

Our assessment of the data’s usefulness for determining TANF’s progress is 

based on the data’s strengths and weaknesses, the design of the survey or 

study for which the data were gathered, and the topics to which the data 

related. The criteria we used in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of 

survey data included survey sample size, the attrition rate of respondents 

from whom data were collected over time, and survey response rate. For 

administrative data, we examined the geographic scope and the 

comparability of the data among states. The design features examined 

included what the data collection method was, whether the data were 

collected at one point in time or at different points in time, and whether the 

data were used for descriptive analysis of TANF or AFDC program 

recipients and their families or analysis of the program’s effects. Data that 

can be used for descriptive analysis are useful for research that addresses 

questions in the descriptive column of figure 1, and data that can be used 
Page 13 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

for analyses of effect are useful for questions in the effect column of the 

figure.
Page 14 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Figure 1: TANF’s Legislative Goals, Research Questions, and Data Categories Associated With Those Goals
Page 15 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

National, State, and 

Local Data Address 

Different TANF Goals

Together, national surveys, HHS administrative data, and data from state 

and local studies of welfare reform address TANF’s four legislative goals.13

The national data provide extensive information related to TANF’s goals of 

providing assistance to needy families and ending dependency on 

government benefits through job preparation, work, and marriage. State 

and local data not only address the same goals as the national data but in 

some cases also provide information related to the goals of preventing outof-wedlock pregnancies and promoting family formation. 

National Data Address Two 

TANF Goals but Provide 

Limited Information on Outof-Wedlock Pregnancy 

Prevention and Family 

Formation Strategies

National data provide detailed descriptive information related to two of 

TANF’s goals, but limited information related to TANF’s goals of preventing 

out-of-wedlock pregnancies and promoting family formation. HHS 

administrative data14 and the six national surveys we examined—the CPS, 

NLSY, NSAF, PSID, SIPP, and SPD—provide descriptive information related 

to TANF’s goal of providing assistance to needy families, including 

information about the change in size and composition of the TANF 

caseload and the use of noncash assistance by current and former TANF 

recipients (see fig. 2).15

13See app. II for a complete list of the national surveys and studies about welfare reform that 

we examined for data.

14HHS administrative data are data that states report to HHS on their AFDC and TANF 

caseloads.

15We reviewed only the CPS March Supplement.
Page 16 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Figure 2: National Data That Address TANF’s Goals and Related Data Categories

Note: We did not assess the American Community Survey, a national survey that will collect 

information about welfare receipt and other measures, because the data will not be available in time for 

the reauthorization debate. This survey was developed by the Census Bureau as a way to provide 

more timely demographic information for local, state, and federal governments. The Census Bureau is 

currently testing the data collection instrument and sampling strategy for this survey, and full-scale 
Page 17 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

implementation for a sample of 3 million households is scheduled for fiscal year 2003. We also did not 

assess the National Survey of Family Growth, which collects information on fertility, family formation, 

and other family characteristics, because its post-TANF data will not be available in time for 

reauthorization. The National Survey of Family Growth is administered by the National Center for 

Health Statistics.

a

Out-of-wedlock birthrates may be able to be constructed from such measures as date of marriage and 

child’s birthdate, which many of the national surveys collect.

b

HHS administrative data are data reported by the states about AFDC or TANF caseloads. 

c

Beginning in fiscal year 2000, each state must include this information in its annual report. The first 

fiscal year 2000 report was due December 31, 2000.

National data also address TANF’s goal of ending dependence on 

government benefits by describing the circumstances of those receiving 

TANF and those who are no longer receiving TANF. HHS administrative 

records and national surveys provide descriptive information about TANF 

recipients’ participation in work activities, employment status, earnings, 

and other family well-being measures. HHS administrative records contain 

information only about whether a recipient is working and how much 

income that individual earns, while national surveys collect more detailed 

employment and earnings data, such as the types of jobs held and the 

hourly wage. National data are also available about family well-being 

measures, which provide information about how TANF’s focus on work 

and marriage may be changing the lives of low-income families. For 

instance, national surveys have information about the amount of personal 

income spent on health and housing, whether recipients or former 

recipients rent or own housing, and the well-being of children of welfare 

recipients. Several of the national surveys provide information about 

children’s school attendance or developmental status, while SIPP and SPD 

also collect data about the number of births to teenagers. SIPP is the only 

national survey we examined that contains information about whether 

parents have had to terminate their parental rights or give a child up for 

adoption.

National data related to the goals of preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancy 

and promoting family formation are limited. While all the national data sets 

include information about recipients’ and nonrecipients’ marital status, 

only HHS administrative records contain information about out-of-wedlock 
Page 18 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

births among the TANF caseload.16 However, states did not begin reporting 

this information to HHS until fiscal year 2000.

Aside from information about welfare reform in general, national surveys 

and HHS collect information about several different groups of individuals 

affected by TANF, including those who remain on assistance, those who no 

longer receive TANF, those who are diverted from TANF,17 and those who 

are eligible but choose not to participate. HHS administrative data and all 

six national surveys collect data about current and former TANF recipients, 

but the type of information collected about these individuals differs. As 

figure 3 shows, only the NSAF and SIPP have data about those diverted 

from TANF, while the NLSY, NSAF, PSID, SIPP, and SPD have data about 

individuals who are eligible to receive TANF but do not.

16HHS has tracked changes in the number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in each state with 

data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics. HHS 

uses this information to award bonuses to states that have decreased their number of out-ofwedlock pregnancies.

17Under TANF, states may opt to offer cash diversion payments or job search services to 

families applying for TANF benefits. Diversion payments and services are intended to 

address an emergency situation and keep families from entering the welfare system.
Page 19 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Figure 3: National Survey and HHS Administrative Data on TANF Groups
Page 20 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

a

The actual year varies for each survey and HHS administrative data set reviewed.

b

SIPP collects information on total benefits received in a month.

c

As part of TANF reporting requirements, states must report this information to HHS beginning in fiscal 

year 2000. States also report information on non-TANF assistance to TANF recipients, such as 

Medicaid, housing, and Supplemental Security Income.

d

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

State and Local Data 

Complement and Fill Gaps 

in the National Data

The state and local data we reviewed can be classified into four categories 

that complement and, in some cases, fill in gaps not covered by the national 

data. Waiver data come from evaluations that tested the effects of 

programs implemented by states under waivers approved by HHS prior to 

TANF.18 Demonstration data come from studies that tested the 

effectiveness of particular strategies aimed at individuals either receiving 

welfare or eligible to receive welfare. Leavers data come from 

administrative records and surveys that describe the circumstances of 

those who left welfare. Finally, metropolitan and community-based data 

come from studies that, in general, describe the circumstances of lowincome families and TANF participants in specific metropolitan areas, 

neighborhoods, or communities. 

Waiver data have been used to examine the effects of TANF-like provisions 

on welfare recipients’ employment status, birth rates, and marital status, as 

shown in figure 4. Several states have been evaluating the waiver 

provisions in their welfare programs by randomly assigning welfare 

recipients to either the waiver program or AFDC. Waiver programs require 

participants to follow provisions that later were required or permitted 

under TANF, such as being required to work or risk losing eligibility for 

benefits or being allowed to receive welfare for only a limited time. Most of 

the waiver program evaluations collected data used to analyze the effect of 

waivers on welfare receipt, employment, and income. Data from several of 

the evaluations have also been used to analyze the effects of waivers on 

out-of-wedlock pregnancy or family formation. 

18Under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, HHS was authorized to grant states waivers 

of statutory requirements governing the AFDC program. This authority was intended to give 

states the flexibility to test innovations in their programs, such as limiting the length of 

benefit receipt or strengthening work requirements.
Page 21 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Figure 4: State and Local Data That Address TANF’s Goals and Related Data Categories

Note: A dot indicates that at least one data set provides information related to this issue.

a

Data related to these topics were collected from demonstration programs operated before enactment 

of PRWORA in 1996. 

With the passage of PRWORA, several states incorporated their waiver 

provisions into their TANF program and have been collecting data about 

the experiences of participants in the program. Some of these states chose 

not to continue their evaluations as originally designed, instead conducting 

modified evaluations that typically involved studies that will provide 

information on the experience of implementing the program. For example, 

Montana is surveying TANF participants to collect data about the duration 

of their welfare receipt, the types of noncash assistance they use, and their 

employment.

Demonstration data provide information on topics that are similar to those 

addressed by waiver data and have also been used to analyze the effects of 

programs on their participants, but demonstration data differ in two key 

ways. First, most demonstration data, including all data related to 

pregnancy prevention and family formation, were collected before 
Page 22 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

PRWORA was enacted. Second, demonstration data were collected for 

studies focused on how a particular approach affected program 

participants. In fact, many of the demonstration data we examined were 

used entirely to assess the effects of various strategies on participants’ 

employment status and earnings, which helps to distinguish the effects of 

particular provisions included in a program like TANF.

Leavers data provide descriptive information about those who have left 

welfare. This information includes the length of time an individual received 

TANF, reasons for leaving welfare, types of noncash assistance used, and 

employment and earnings information. In addition, some leavers data sets 

contain information about former recipients’ marital status, and a few have 

data about the number of pregnancies and births among former recipients. 

Metropolitan and community-based data cover some of the same issues as 

the other data categories, including information about TANF work 

requirements and time limits. Although the same issues are addressed, the 

data are collected in large cities or neighborhoods in order to examine the 

circumstances of welfare recipients in areas that may have high 

concentrations of poverty or limited access to jobs. In addition, 

metropolitan and community-based data provide information about groups 

other than TANF recipients and former recipients—including individuals 

diverted from TANF and those who are eligible to participate in TANF but 

do not.

Strengths and 

Weaknesses of Existing 

Data Affect Usefulness 

for Assessing TANF’s 

Progress

Although existing data provide rich information about the lives of families 

who are receiving or have received TANF, the strengths and weaknesses of 

these data affect their usefulness for understanding welfare under the 

TANF block grant. National data can be analyzed to gain a descriptive 

picture of what has happened under TANF for the nation as a whole. 

However, of the seven national data sets we reviewed, only two can be used 

to describe the well-being of families receiving TANF within individual 

states. Although waiver and demonstration data can be analyzed to gain 

information about TANF’s effects, these analyses can be done within only a 

limited number of states and disparate localities. We examined nearly 40 

data sets that could be analyzed for information about the circumstances of 

former recipients. However, only a subgroup of these data sets met criteria 

that allowed the sample to be generalized statewide. These data sets 

represented 15 states. In some cases, the value of survey data collected 

from those who left welfare was limited because few former recipients 

actually responded to the surveys: in some cases, former recipients could 
Page 23 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

not be located, and in other cases they chose not to answer the questions 

posed to them. Metropolitan and community-based data can be analyzed to 

describe changes over time in the lives of welfare recipients in urban 

centers. Much of this data collection will continue beyond 2001. 

National Survey Data 

Provide Descriptive 

Information About Nation, 

but Not Effects in Individual 

States

The strength of the national data is that they were collected from samples 

selected randomly from the nation’s population and include low-income 

families and TANF recipients in numbers sufficient to allow reliable 

estimates about these groups. In addition, most of the national data were 

collected for the same individuals over time, allowing changes in welfare 

recipients’ employment, earnings, and well-being to be tracked across 

programs implemented at different times. However, all the national surveys 

have participants who drop out of the survey sample over time, and this 

may limit how well the samples represent the nation’s welfare recipients. 

National data are collected from random samples that contain low-income 

families and TANF recipients. Because samples from national surveys are 

selected randomly, they are, at the time of selection, representative of the 

population at large, including the welfare population. In addition, all the 

national data sets we reviewed have sample sizes large enough to allow 

reliable estimates about the nation’s low-income and TANF populations—

as sample size increases, the degree of precision of the estimates made 

using that sample also increases (see table 1).

Table 1: Overall Sample Sizes for National Data Sources

a

Under the TANF data reporting system, states have the option to submit either sample data or data on 

their entire TANF caseload to HHS. For its fiscal year 1999 report to the Congress, HHS randomly 

selected approximately 200 to 400 cases each month from each state that submits data on its entire 

caseload. Thus, the total in column two combines data from states that submitted a sample and states 

that submitted data on the entire caseload.

National data sources Overall sample size

HHS administrative dataa 164,481

CPS 50,000

NLSY 12,686

NSAF 46,000

PSID 7,000

SIPP 36,800

SPD 37,000
Page 24 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

As shown in figure 5, two national data sources collect data on individuals 

at one point in time; others collect data on the same individuals across 

time. In both cases, the data can be used for comparisons between groups 

of individuals living under welfare provisions implemented at different time 

periods. 

Figure 5: Data Sources That Collect Information at One Point in Time and Across 

Time

a

The CPS rotates participants in the following way: a housing unit is interviewed at regular intervals for 

4 consecutive months; for the next 8 months, the housing unit is not part of the sample; the unit is then 

interviewed for the next 4 months and then retired from the sample. As a result, less than 50 percent of 

the sample can be linked across years.

Five national surveys—the CPS, NLSY, PSID, SIPP, and SPD—collect data 

from the same individuals over time. For the SIPP, the Census Bureau, after 

a specified period, changes the group of individuals from whom data are 

collected. For example, the 1993 SIPP panel followed a group of individuals 

through 1996. In 1996, a new group was randomly selected and followed 

through 2000. Data collected over time could be analyzed to describe how 

people cycle on and off TANF, how their use of benefits changes over time, 

and how their family well-being changes. In addition, comparisons could be 

made between groups covered by different welfare provisions. For 

example, AFDC recipients included in the 1993-96 SIPP panel could be 

compared with TANF recipients who were part of the 1996-2000 SIPP 

panel. The NSAF, as well as HHS administrative records, has collected data 
Page 25 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

from different samples of individuals in different years. For example, in 

1997 one group of people completed the NSAF; another group completed 

the survey in 1999. In cases such as these, the samples from different years 

can be compared with each other to look for changes across time.

For those national surveys that collect information about changes in 

welfare across time, the likelihood that survey participants will drop out 

over time increases, potentially affecting how well the data actually 

represent all members of the nation’s low-income and TANF populations. 

In general, the greater the attrition rate, the less likely a sample is to be 

representative of the larger population from which it was drawn. Those 

who have continued participating in the survey may be different from those 

who stopped or dropped out. As surveys that collect data over time, the 

NLSY, PSID, SIPP, and SPD all have experienced sample loss, as shown in 

table 2. Concerns about attrition are especially significant for the SPD, 

because it was designed specifically to track welfare recipients from AFDC 

through TANF. Census has tried mathematically adjusting available 

responses to compensate for the survey’s sample loss, but this adjustment 

has not sufficiently remedied the problem, according to a Census official. 

Census will take steps to lessen attrition through intensive follow-up with 

survey dropouts to enlist their participation and through the use of 

monetary incentives for future respondents to the survey.

Table 2: Attrition Rates for National Data Sources That Collect Data Over Time

Note: Attrition rates vary depending on whether deceased respondents are included in the calculation.

a

The attrition rates for the four national surveys that collect data across time are not necessarily 

comparable. As the table shows, some surveys started tracking their samples earlier than others, 

increasing the potential for sample loss. In addition, surveys vary in when they begin counting attrition. 

Some start counting attrition only after the sample has been formed, while others include in the 

calculation those who were selected for the original sample but who could not be contacted or did not 

participate. See Daniel H. Weinberg and Stephanie S. Shipp, The Survey of Program Dynamics: A 

Mid-term Status Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, Feb. 2, 2000) for a more detailed 

discussion of attrition and a related measure, cumulative response rate, in the SPD, NLSY, and PSID.

Survey

Attritiona calculated from...

Percentage of

sample that

stopped

participating

Beginning of data

collection Through

NLSY79 1979 1996 36

PSID 1968 1993 47

SPD 1992 1998 50

SIPP 1996 2000 36
Page 26 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

For national surveys, the response rate—the number of people in the 

survey sample who actually responded, compared with those who were 

asked to respond but did not—has been large enough to allow the survey 

results to be generalized beyond those who completed the survey, with the 

exception of the 1999 NSAF. Most practitioners of survey research, 

including GAO, require at least a 70- to 75-percent response rate before 

survey data can be generalized beyond those who completed the survey. As 

table 3 shows, the response rate for all the national surveys except the 1999 

NSAF was at or above the 70-percent standard.19 Given the survey’s 

response rate, using the 1999 NSAF survey data would require determining 

whether patterns in who responded and who did not respond existed and 

what this means for how well respondents represent the original sample. 

For those surveys that collect data on the same individuals over time, 

response rates sometimes are considered in conjunction with rates of 

attrition.

Table 3: Response Rates for National Surveys

a

This rate represents only the most recent administration of the survey.

b

The typical response rate for the 1996 SIPP panel was in the high 80s to low 90s.

The major limitation of most existing national data is that they cannot be 

used for state-level analyses. In general, national data sources have state 

sample sizes that are too small to allow reliable generalizations about 

19The NSAF’s sample was gathered by a procedure known as random digit dialing (RDD). An 

RDD sample is drawn by randomly selecting entries from a list of telephone numbers for the 

general population. Depending on how recently the list was updated, many of the entries 

may not be for working telephones. Thus, the response rates of RDD samples tend to be 

lower.

National surveys

Response rate

(percentage)

CPS 84

NLSY 90a

NSAF 1997 70

NSAF 1999 64

PSID 92a

SIPP 90b

SPD 89a
Page 27 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

TANF recipients within individual states. The NLSY, PSID, SIPP, and SPD 

collect data not from states per se, but from regions that, in some cases, 

include more than one state. Thus, while these data can be analyzed to 

provide a descriptive picture of TANF for the nation, they cannot be used 

within states for descriptive analyses or to analyze the effects of states’ 

TANF provisions. This does not mean that researchers do not use these 

data sources for state-level analyses. For example, some researchers 

combine several years of CPS data to obtain adequate sample sizes within 

states for state-level analyses. However, Census, which administers the 

CPS, SIPP, and SPD, does not recommend using data from these surveys 

for state-level analyses, because doing so when sample sizes are small may 

produce findings that are not reliable.20

Two national data sources, HHS administrative records and the NSAF 

survey, can be used for state-level analysis, but with limitations. HHS 

administrative records provide data from all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. However, the reporting requirements for these data are not 

completely standardized across states, so that how a variable is defined 

may vary among states. For example, each state may define the work or 

work-related activities in which TANF recipients participate as they think 

appropriate to the state program. 

Like HHS administrative records, NSAF survey data can be used for statelevel analyses. NSAF has samples large enough to allow state-level analyses 

in 13 states,21 representing 58 percent of the fiscal year 1999 national TANF 

caseload; this is not the case in the 37 remaining states. For example, the 

number of low-income children surveyed for the 1997 NSAF ranged from a 

low of 760 to a high of 1,813 in each of the 13 states where NSAF collected 

samples large enough to permit state-level analysis. However, the number 

of low-income children surveyed in the 37 remaining states averaged 35 per 

state, a number too small to allow reliable conclusions about the children 

of TANF recipients in any of these states. 

Even if the issue of sample sizes within states were resolved, obstacles to 

using the national data to analyze TANF’s effects within states would still 

20It should be noted that Census will expand the sample of the CPS in 2001. The sample size 

will be doubled, which will increase sample sizes in individual states and allow improved 

state-level estimates.

21Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Page 28 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

exist. The lack of information about the choices states have made about 

TANF policies and program rules has been identified as one of the 

challenges to using national data to analyze TANF’s effects. However, 

research organizations have collected this information. The Center for Law 

and Social Policy has worked with the Center on Budget and Policy 

Priorities to document policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, 

and the Urban Institute has developed a state database that documents 

state program rules. Yet, even with this information, using national data to 

measure state-level effects poses challenges. 

The first challenge is deciding with whom TANF recipients should be 

compared. To test TANF’s effects, the employment, earnings, and wellbeing of individuals in the program must be compared with those of 

individuals who are not in the program. In the case of TANF, it would be 

difficult to determine what group should provide the point of comparison.22

Because waivers introduced TANF-like policies and program rules while 

AFDC was still in effect, it would be difficult to select a group of welfare 

recipients whose experiences with welfare were not influenced by TANF. 

The second challenge is determining the effect of any single welfare 

provision given the multiple provisions that make up states’ TANF 

programs. For example, TANF recipients are required to work, and states 

must impose penalties or sanctions when recipients do not comply with 

work requirements. In such cases, it would be difficult to separate the 

combined effects of work requirements and any penalties or sanctions that 

were imposed into the individual effects of each. 

A third challenge is detecting the long-term effects of state programs that 

have been recently implemented. Although PRWORA was enacted in 1996, 

states implemented their TANF programs at different points in time. Some 

states were still refining their TANF programs at the beginning of 1998. 

Consequently, the long-term effects of TANF may not yet be realized. 

Finally, state-level analyses may not be the best way to measure TANF’s 

effects in every state. Some states have further devolved TANF to localities, 

and different localities may implement a state’s TANF provisions 

differently. In total, 17 states have given local governments responsibility 

for TANF program design and implementation. 

22In program evaluation research, choosing a group with which participants in a program 

can be compared is referred to as “selecting the counterfactual.” 
Page 29 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Waiver and Demonstration 

Data Allow Assessment of 

TANF Effects, but Only for 

Localities

The strength of the waiver and demonstration data is that they can be used 

to analyze TANF’s effects, but with few exceptions these data were 

collected from city and county samples rather than statewide samples. (See 

app. II for the localities examined.) Most of the waiver and demonstration 

data were collected as part of experiments—studies that randomly 

assigned welfare recipients to groups that were subject to different welfare 

provisions. Experiments, when done correctly, are recognized as the most 

rigorous way of determining the extent to which an observed outcome can 

be attributed to the program itself, rather than to differences among the 

program participants. Over half of the waiver data sets and virtually all of 

the demonstration data sets we reviewed consisted of data from 

experiments. Of the waiver data sets, about half were collected from city 

and county samples, with the others being collected from statewide 

samples. All of the demonstration data sets were collected from city and 

county samples. Overall, 6 of the 54 waiver and demonstration data sets 

that could be used for analyses of effect were collected from statewide 

samples.23

According to the project directors of two waiver evaluations, the high cost 

of conducting rigorous program evaluations may explain, in part, why data 

sets used to analyze TANF’s effects tend to use samples from cities and 

counties and not entire states. Given limited resources, researchers may 

choose to conduct rigorous evaluations in selected cities or counties rather 

than sacrifice rigor to evaluate a program statewide. Data sources we 

reviewed for both the Vermont and Iowa waiver evaluations mentioned 

budget constraints as a factor that led researchers to limit their data 

collection efforts.

Another limitation of the waiver and demonstration data is that most often 

they were collected prior to the implementation of TANF. This is not 

surprising given that in many cases the waiver provisions and the 

demonstration projects were intended to test provisions before they were 

adopted and implemented. However, the provisions tested may not have 

been those ultimately adopted by the state.

Finally, in almost all cases in which waiver evaluations and demonstration 

projects collected survey data, response rates were above the 70-percent 

standard (see table 4). 

23See app. III for a list of waiver and demonstration data sets showing the geographic scope 

of the sample and the type of analysis for which each data set could be used.
Page 30 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Table 4: Number of Waiver and Demonstration Data Sets With Acceptable Response 

Rates

Note: In seven cases, the data source we reviewed did not report a response rate.

State-Level Analyses of 

Leavers Data Are Possible in 

15 States; in Some Cases, 

Picture Is Incomplete 

The strength of the leavers data is that in most cases, they were collected 

from statewide samples. However, in some cases, leavers data collected 

using surveys may not be representative of a state’s leaver population. 

Although we reviewed nearly 40 leavers data sets, on the basis of the type 

of data available, response rates, and the absence of significant differences 

between survey respondents and nonrespondents, we concluded that statelevel analyses could be done for 15 states using the data sets we examined. 

To be representative of a state’s leavers population, survey data need to 

meet the 70-percent standard for response rates, or, through a comparison 

of survey respondents with nonrespondents, show that the two groups do 

not differ significantly. When a state has both administrative data and 

survey data available, the administrative data could be used in place of 

survey data that are not representative. As figure 6 shows, Arkansas, 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina have either survey 

data that meet the standard for response rates or data from survey 

respondents who were not significantly different from nonrespondents. 

Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, 

Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin have both administrative data and 

survey data. The response rate for the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, 

Virginia, and Wisconsin was below 70 percent, but for Virginia, a 

comparison of respondents with nonrespondents revealed no significant 

differences between the two groups. Although New York has no survey 

data, its administrative data provide information about the state’s leavers. 

California, Massachusetts, and Texas are the three states for which, given 

the available data, state-level analyses of leavers cannot be done. We 

previously reported that eight leavers studies covering seven states had 

collected adequate information to allow the study findings to be 

Total waiver and demonstration data

sets collected using surveys 24

Data sets with response rate at or above 70 percent 14

Data sets with response rate below 70 percent 3
Page 31 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

generalized to the states’ welfare populations.24 Thus 4 states—Indiana, 

Maryland, Oklahoma, and Tennessee—can be added to the list of 15 states 

we identify in figure 6 as having data that can be generalized statewide.25 In 

appendix II we list all the sources we reviewed that provide data on those 

who have left welfare.

24GAO/HEHS-99-48, Apr. 28, 1999. 

25We examined more recent leavers data for three of the seven states in our review.
Page 32 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Figure 6: Leavers Data From Statewide Samples
Page 33 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

a

Leavers data can be used for state-level analyses.

b

Only survey data were available.

c

A comparison of respondents with nonrespondents showed no significant differences between the two 

groups.

d

Only administrative data were available.

Some researchers may wish to compare those who left TANF with those 

who left AFDC on outcomes such as employment, earnings, and well-being. 

Contrasting outcomes for these two groups would require deciding which 

AFDC leavers provide the best point of comparison. Many factors specific 

to the year in which recipients left the welfare rolls would influence their 

employment prospects, wages, and well-being. For example, labor markets 

and economic conditions in a given year would influence former recipients’ 

employment opportunities. Historical influences such as these would 

complicate the issue of selecting a comparable group of AFDC leavers and 

TANF leavers. 

Metropolitan and 

Community-Based Data 

Cover Urban Centers; Data 

Collection Will Continue 

Beyond 2001

The strength of the metropolitan and community-based data is that they 

can be used in descriptive analyses that provide information about how the 

lives of low-income families and TANF participants have changed over 

time. Because data collection is occurring over time, in some cases it has 

yet to be completed. For example, the Los Angeles Family and 

Neighborhood Study (LA FANS) is collecting data about participation in 

welfare programs from residents of 65 neighborhoods in Los Angeles 

County over a 4-year period. LA FANS began data collection in January 

2000 and will continue data collection through 2004. Most of the materials 

we reviewed regarding metropolitan and community-based data sets did 

not report information about attrition rates. When response rates were 

reported, they were above the 70-percent standard. Figure 7 shows the time 

periods for which the data are or will be available for different 

metropolitan areas and communities.
Page 34 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Figure 7: Years Covered by Data Available for Metropolitan and Community Areas 

a

In total, data will be collected from 20 cities.

b

Information for the three data sets was collected from all four sites.

Three of the metropolitan and community-based data sources have 

measures that can be used to analyze TANF’s effects, even though the data 
Page 35 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

were not collected as part of an experiment.26 For example, data from the 

Fragile Families study can be used to examine TANF’s effects by drawing 

comparisons between the 3,675 unmarried parents and the 1,125 married 

parents who compose the survey sample in cities with populations over 

200,000. Data collection for Fragile Families began in 1998 and will 

continue through 2004. The data have already been used to examine 

differences in relationship quality between married and unmarried couples, 

including whether a father gave money to or helped a mother in a 

nonmonetary way during pregnancy. 

Existing Data Are More 

Adequate for State and 

Local Descriptive Analyses 

Than for Analyses of Effect

The current body of research on TANF addresses many issues of interest to 

the Congress but does not provide a comprehensive national picture of 

TANF. However, existing national data and data from state and local studies 

could be pieced together to develop a descriptive picture of what has 

happened to TANF participants in all 50 states. In addition, within a limited 

number of states and various cities and counties, existing data can be used 

to conduct analyses of TANF’s effects. 

National survey data can be used with data from HHS administrative 

records for descriptive analyses of TANF’s progress nationwide. HHS 

administrative data can be used for analyses within each of the 50 states, 

and national survey data can be analyzed for national trends. These 

analyses could be compared to examine the extent to which the 

employment experiences, for example, of current and former TANF 

recipients in individual states conform with or depart from the experiences 

of such individuals identified with national survey data. This comparison 

could be extended to the individual states and localities covered by the 

NSAF data, waiver and demonstration data, leavers data, and metropolitan 

and community-based evaluation data.

While piecing the data together in this way would build on their strengths, 

each data type still has limitations. Specifically, national survey data 

provide national samples useful for comparing the lives of welfare 

recipients covered by welfare provisions implemented at different times. 

26These three studies—the NICHD Study of Early Child Care, the Fragile Families and Child 

Well-Being Study, and the Project on Devolution and Urban Change—were designed to 

approximate experiments. Rather than being randomly assigned to a group, individuals 

were classified into groups because of some attribute they did or did not have. When studies 

are designed this way, having or not having the attribute is believed to be the cause of any 

difference in outcomes for each group.
Page 36 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

However, attrition or low response rates may affect the degree to which 

these samples represent all members of the nation’s low-income and TANF 

population. Within each of the 50 states, HHS administrative data can be 

analyzed to gain insight into current recipients’ use of noncash benefits, 

among other things, but the lack of standardized reporting requirements 

would complicate comparisons across states. Supplemental descriptive 

analyses for individual states can be done using NSAF survey data, leavers 

data, waiver and demonstration data, and metropolitan and communitybased data. In addition, like the national survey data, many of these data 

represent multiple measures over time. However, these analyses in many 

cases can be generalized only to cities and counties and not to entire states.

Existing data can also be analyzed to gain information about TANF’s 

effects. Although the 1997 and 1999 NSAF survey samples do not include 

pre-TANF welfare recipients, the samples do include other populations, 

such as low-income families who do not participate in TANF, whose 

employment, earnings, and well-being can be compared with those of 

TANF recipients, assuming adequate sample sizes for both groups. 

Moreover, because NSAF has sample sizes in 13 states large enough to 

allow state-level analyses, the employment, earnings, and well-being of 

TANF recipients in those states can be considered in relation to the state’s 

TANF programs and policies. However, using the NSAF data for such 

analyses would require resolving the challenges to analyzing effects 

described earlier in this report. Similarly, although most of the 

metropolitan and community-based evaluation samples do not include preTANF welfare recipients, other populations represented in the study 

samples could be compared with TANF recipients. Finally, waiver and 

demonstration data can be analyzed to gain information about TANF’s 

effects, keeping in mind that this information is about the effects of 

programs and provisions often implemented prior to TANF and 

implemented in cities and counties rather than entire states. 

Concluding 

Observations

The data available for addressing TANF’s goals will provide useful 

information, but with some limitations. Given the costs, some limitations 

may be difficult to overcome. Our examination of the data raised three 

issues. 

First, for a comprehensive assessment of TANF, it is important to have data 

for a representative sample of TANF recipients and nonrecipients that 

allow for analyses of effect at the state level. The federal government has 

made an investment in national surveys, which either in whole or in part 
Page 37 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

are intended to gather information about the lives of TANF recipients. One 

of these, the SPD, was funded as a means to gather data about TANF 

recipients. For another, the SIPP, the Census Bureau added a special 

section of questions about welfare and reworded questions so that they 

would better capture respondents’ participation in state programs. 

However, even with these efforts, none of Census’ surveys currently being 

administered can be used for state-level analyses of TANF’s effects because 

of small sample sizes within individual states. In addition, the SPD has a 

high attrition rate. The Census Bureau plans to take steps to improve 

response to the SPD through intensive follow-up with survey dropouts to 

enlist their participation and through monetary incentives for future 

respondents to participate in the survey. However, the issue of small 

sample sizes at the state level will remain unresolved.

Second, HHS has encouraged state agencies to study the effects of their 

TANF programs through the AFDC waiver requirement for experimental 

studies and subsequent research initiatives. Moreover, our examination of 

data indicates that, because of the variability in TANF program provisions 

across states, analysis of TANF’s effects at the state and local levels can be 

done with the greatest confidence. However, even when conducted at the 

state and local levels, studies designed to examine TANF’s effects tend to 

be costly, time-consuming, and impractical to implement in every state. In 

some cases, conducting an evaluation for an entire state is determined to 

be so expensive that data collection is limited to a portion of the state. For 

example, the evaluation of Vermont’s waiver program focused on 6 of 12 

welfare service districts. The evaluation’s 42-month follow-up survey was 

administered to only these 6 district offices and, owing to cost constraints, 

included a subset of the sample for whom administrative records, rather 

than survey responses, were collected. Policymakers, federal and state 

officials, and the welfare reform research community will need to seek 

ways to balance the need for information about TANF’s effects with the 

resource demands of rigorous studies.

Third, both qualitative and quantitative data may be needed to understand 

what has happened to former TANF recipients. Leavers are a difficult 

population to track, and, in some cases, using multiple methods of 

quantitative data collection has not necessarily increased the number of 

former recipients who could be located or who responded to surveys. In 

fact, in some of the studies we reviewed, the low rate of success in 

gathering data from these individuals makes the data’s usefulness 

questionable. Surveys that used only one mode of data collection, such as 

telephoning former TANF recipients, generally had the lowest response 
Page 38 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

rates. Some leavers’ studies followed telephone surveys with personal 

interviews of those who could not be reached by phone or who did not 

respond. However, even the use of multiple modes of data collection did 

not always ensure high response rates. Given the difficulties inherent in 

collecting quantitative data from this group, other data collection strategies 

that use local communication networks to identify families as well as 

interviews of respondents in their homes may be needed to gain 

information about the lives of TANF leavers.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS said that the report will be of 

help to the Congress and other interested parties. In its technical 

comments, HHS expressed concern that in highlighting the importance of 

statewide samples, we understated the value of data from local samples. In 

response to this concern, we have noted in the report not only that findings 

from local samples are important but also that, in some cases, they provide 

data only recently available from national surveys. We concur with HHS 

that a sample need not be statewide in order for findings to be useful. 

However, we have emphasized the value of data that can be generalized to 

the state level because of the Congress’ interest in a picture of TANF’s 

progress nationwide. HHS’ comments appear in appendix IV.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable Tommy G. 

Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services; appropriate 

congressional committees; and other interested parties. We also will make 

copies available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

on (202) 512-7202 or David D. Bellis on (415) 904-2272. Another GAO 

contact and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.

Cynthia M. Fagnoni

Managing Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Page 39 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress
Page 40 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidxeiIs

This appendix discusses in more detail our scope and methodology for 

identifying, selecting, and assessing studies and surveys that might provide 

data to help researchers as they seek to describe what has happened to 

recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and to 

estimate the effect of welfare reform on them.

Sample Design Because no comprehensive list of data sources for welfare reform research 

exists, we used a judgmental sampling method for our assessment of data 

resources. We began our work by examining six key critiques of welfare 

reform research that had been issued, in draft or final form, by the fall of 

1999. The six critiques listed in figure 8 both gave us insight into issues that 

will probably arise in assessing TANF and identified studies that may be 

potential sources of data for an assessment of TANF.1

1

The critiques we reviewed are critical examinations of ongoing and planned research on 

issues arising from the welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). The critiques were conducted by 

an individual or representative of a research organization known for work on social policy 

issues, and they considered the methodological issues involved in designing an evaluation of 

the welfare reform law’s provisions, research issues that merit investigation, or both. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Figure 8: Six Major Critiques of Welfare Reform Research

We started the development of a list of data sources from three of the 

critiques—the Research Forum’s report and its related on-line database, 

the National Research Council’s interim report, and Peter Rossi’s paper. To 

ensure that this list was comprehensive, we consulted with officials at the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about important bodies 

of work in the welfare reform research field. We also conducted follow-up 

interviews with HHS project officers and experts in the welfare reform 

research community to ensure that we had identified the most relevant 

national surveys and studies, particularly those that might have data about 

family, marriage, and pregnancy issues. As a result of these discussions and 

an examination of the original list, we designed a judgmental sample of 

potential data sources for welfare reform research that included the 

following categories:

• national surveys and HHS’ TANF administrative data;
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

• studies that collected data about the major TANF subpopulations in 

three or more states or municipalities;

• studies of TANF leavers;

• HHS’ waiver evaluations; and

• studies listed on the websites of HHS’ Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF), HHS’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation (ASPE), and the Welfare Information Network of the Finance 

Project.2

We then began to develop lists of the surveys and studies in each of the 

sample’s categories.

The national surveys included in our list were the Current Population 

Survey (CPS), the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), the 

National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF), the Panel Study of Income 

Dynamics (PSID), the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 

and the Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD). We used information from 

ASPE and from the National Conference of State Legislatures to identify 

leavers studies sponsored by HHS or states. Similarly, we used information 

from ACF to ensure that our list contained the body of research funded by 

ACF that focused on waivers implemented by state welfare agencies prior 

to TANF’s authorization. As we added items to the list, we continually 

checked to avoid any duplication. This comparison involved our judgment, 

as some lists were of projects or studies and others were of study reports. 

Because we relied on multiple reviews of the body of work undertaken in 

the welfare reform research community, we believe that the list of 443 

entries we compiled included the key sources of data. 

Sample Selection We selected surveys and studies systematically from this list within each 

sample category. We were interested in surveys or studies that were as 

comprehensive as possible in geographic coverage and topics addressed. 

Thus, we selected all of the national surveys and the HHS administrative 

data. We also selected all studies on the original list that by their 

description appeared to have produced data concerning the major 

subpopulations affected by TANF in three or more states, municipalities, or 

counties. This resulted in 55 studies and surveys.

2

The Finance Project is a nonprofit research, technical assistance, and information 

organization created to improve outcomes for children, families, and communities 

nationwide.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 43 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

We then selected studies that pertained to individual states in the following 

way. First we selected all leavers studies financed by ASPE. Of the leavers 

studies listed by the National Conference of State Legislatures and those 

mentioned in an article authored by Brauner and Loprest,3

 we included 

only those that had not been included in our previous report4

 or were not 

from a state that already had an ASPE-funded study. In states that had 

issued multiple reports for their leavers studies for people who left welfare 

in different years, we selected the most recent study. When a state had no 

ASPE-funded study or any listed by the National Conference of State 

Legislatures or Brauner and Loprest, but did have a report available on its 

Web site, we selected the Web report. Waiver studies generally produced 

several reports. We selected for review the most recently issued waiver 

report because the data topics examined were similar in the initial and later 

reports. 

After selecting these types of studies and surveys, we removed from our list 

studies that did not appear to contain data that could answer our research 

questions or that used data from one of the national surveys on our list. In 

summary, we excluded literature searches, reviews of research on state 

policies or programs, technical assistance projects focused on improving 

or evaluating information systems or databases, and studies based on data 

from a national survey that we had included in our list. A list of 239 studies 

remained. Finally, we obtained advice from five welfare experts about 

which of these 239 studies we should include. Ultimately, we selected 17 of 

these studies. 

In all, we judgmentally selected 141 national surveys and studies that 

yielded 187 data sets to review. A complete list of the national surveys and 

studies that we examined for data is provided in appendix II.

Data Assessment Identifying data resources for a comprehensive assessment of TANF 

required criteria that could be used to assess data sets. The first step in this 

process was to express each of TANF’s goals as a research question. In 

looking at the goals themselves, it is evident that some express expected 

results—for example, that work and marriage will improve the well-being 

3

Brauner, Sarah, and Pamela Loprest, Where Are They Now? What States’ Studies of People 

Who Left Welfare Tell Us (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, May 1999.) 

4

GAO/HEHS-99-48, Apr. 28, 1999.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 44 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

of low-income families. Assessing TANF’s progress toward these expected 

results required, in part, questions about TANF’s effects. However, some of 

TANF’s goals focus on its general purpose—for example, providing 

assistance to needy families. In this case, assessing TANF’s progress 

required research questions that are descriptive, that is, questions that ask 

what public assistance looks like under TANF. To translate TANF’s goals 

into research questions, we considered the nature of each of TANF’s goals 

and formulated questions to represent key issues the Congress will 

consider at reauthorization. As shown in figure 1, we created 

corresponding questions that asked for descriptions of what has happened 

under TANF, the effects of TANF, or both. 

We then specified the information, or data topics, necessary to address our 

research questions. We developed a data collection instrument that listed 

the data topics associated with each question and used the instrument to 

record the data topics found in each data set examined. It is important to 

note that what we identified as data topics were not equivalent to specific 

measures. In other words, our coding captured the fact that a certain data 

source collected measures on employment. It did not capture the specific 

manner in which employment was measured. In addition to data topics, we 

collected such pertinent information as the unit of analysis, population, 

sampling method, sample size, dates covered by data collection, and design 

of the study for which data were gathered. We recorded response rates and 

attrition rates when they were relevant given the method of data collection. 

We also looked to see if data had been or were being collected for a 

comparison or control group.

To summarize our findings, we identified data categories related to TANF’s 

goals, some of which represented the research questions and others of 

which were more narrowly focused. The narrowly focused data categories 

represented combinations of data topics, such as employment and earnings 

or family and child well-being, that were associated with the research 

questions. We took this approach for a variety of reasons. First, in making a 

judgment that data were available to address particular questions, we 

required that certain data topics be present in combination and, for effect 

questions, that the data were collected using control groups or comparison 

groups. However, a data source could provide relevant data topics, even 

though the data topic could not be used to address the particular question 

we had posed. Rather than discount the value of these data topics, we 

decided to note their availability. Second, in many cases, the same data 

topics and data categories were being used to address different questions. 

For example, as figure 1 shows, the data categories associated with 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 45 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

employment were related to 5 of our 11 questions. Presenting our findings 

in terms of data categories allowed us to report on all of the data topics, 

including those that were not available in the combinations needed to 

address a research question. 

Finally, to assess how the data might be used for an assessment of TANF, 

we considered three attributes of the data. We considered the geographic 

scope of the sample; the data topics included in the data set; and whether 

or not the data could be used for descriptive analyses or analyses of effect, 

given the design of the study. In determining the geographic scope of the 

sample, we looked at the sampling method and sample size, as well as at 

response rates and attrition rates, since both affect how well a sample 

represents a population. We relied on the design of the study, the data 

topics included in a data set, and how researchers had used the data to 

make a judgment about whether the data could be used for descriptive 

analyses or analyses of effect. We coded data as being useable for analyses 

of effect when they came from a study that made comparisons between 

groups, one of which served as the treatment group and the other as the 

absence of the treatment, or the comparison group. In deciding whether a 

study included a treatment and a comparison group, we recognized that 

such groups could be formed through experimental designs, quasiexperimental designs, or statistical modeling.

Study Limitations Because this assessment is based on a judgmental sample and the data 

needs of an assessment of TANF’s progress are derived from TANF’s 

legislative objectives, several study limitations should be considered. First, 

while every attempt was made to be comprehensive in sample design and 

selection, some relevant data sources may have been omitted. Second, 

framing the data needs for an assessment of TANF’s progress around 

TANF’s objectives, which focus on the behavior and well-being of lowincome children and families, excluded from consideration the bodies of 

welfare reform research concerned with institutions, including studies of 

TANF’s implementation at the state and local levels and descriptions of 

TANF program policies and practices. Third, the study’s focus on 

identification of quantitative data resulted in our eliminating data from 

most studies that used qualitative data collection methods. Fourth, because 

our bibliographic sources for surveys and studies included both existing 

and planned surveys and studies, complete documentation for data sets 

was not always available. Finally, because our coding focused on whether a 

certain data source collected measures on specific topics, but not on the 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 46 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

precise measures used, we did not assess whether measures were 

comparable across studies.
Page 47 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed ApendxiI

Table 5: National Data Sources

Table 6: Sources of Waiver, Demonstration, Leavers, Metropolitan and Community-Based, and Other Welfare Reform Data

Source Sponsor

HHS administrative data HHS

CPS Census Bureau

NLSY Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor

NSAF The Urban Institute

PSID University of Michigan, Institute for Social 

Research

SIPP Census Bureau

SPD Census Bureau

Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location

Waiver data

Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER 

Welfare Reform Demonstration: Impact 

Study, Interim Report

Abt Associates Local Administrative and 

survey

Three sites in Phoenix 

and one site on a Navajo 

reservation, Arizona

Jobs First: Implementation and Early Impacts 

of Connecticut’s Welfare Reform Initiative 

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Administrative and 

survey

New Haven and 

Manchester, Connecticut

The Family Transition Program: 

Implementation and Three-Year Impacts of 

Florida’s Initial Time Limited Welfare 

Program 

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Administrative and 

survey

Escambia County, Florida

Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Program 

Implementation and Economic Impacts After 

Two Years 

Abt Associates, The Urban 

Institute

State Administrative and 

survey

Indiana 

Iowa’s Family Investment Program: Impacts 

During the First Three-and-a-Half Years of 

Welfare Reform 

Mathematica Policy 

Research

Local Administrative Nine counties in Iowa—

five urban and four rural 

Iowa’s Limited Benefit Plan Mathematica Policy 

Research

State Administrative Iowa

Iowa’s Limited Benefit Plan Mathematica Policy 

Research

Local Survey and case 

study

Three PROMISE JOBS 

service delivery areas, 

Iowa

Second Assignments to Iowa’s Limited 

Benefit Plan 

Mathematica Policy 

Research

State Administrative, 

survey, and case 

study

Iowa 

Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: 

Final Report on the Minnesota Family 

Investment Program 

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Administrative and 

two surveys

Three urban and four 

rural counties in 

Minnesota
Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed

Page 48 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Achieving Change for Texans Evaluation: Net 

Impacts Through December 1997

University of Texas at 

Austin, Center for the 

Study of Human 

Resources

Local Administrative 10 counties in Texas

Recipients of the Texas One-Time Benefit 

Payment: An Interim Report

University of Texas at 

Austin, Center for Social 

Work Research

Local Survey Hidalgo and Cameron 

counties, Texas

Forty-Two-Month Impacts of Vermont’s 

Welfare Restructuring Project

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Administrative and 

survey

6 of 12 welfare district 

offices, Vermont

Wisconsin Self-Sufficiency First/Pay for 

Performance Program: Results and Lessons 

From a Social Experiment

University of WisconsinMadison, Institute for 

Research on Poverty

Local Administrative Dane, Dodge, Jefferson, 

and Waukesha counties 

in Wisconsin

Year Three Progress Report: Customer 

Characteristics and Employment Patterns

University of Maryland, 

Baltimore, School of Social 

Work

State Administrative Maryland

Interim Report for the Enhancement to the 

Process and Impact Analysis of the Youth 

Employment and Training Initiative 

Illinois State University, 

Department of Social Work

Local Administrative and 

survey

Chicago, Illinois

Montana FAIM Evaluation: Evaluation 

Designa

Abt Associates State Administrative and 

survey

Montana

A Proposal to Complete the Evaluation of 

Employment First, Nebraska’s Welfare 

Reform Programa

Mathematica Policy 

Research

State Survey Nebraska

Evaluation of Welfare Reform in New 

Hampshire: Mid-Evaluation Summary Report

University of New 

Hampshire

State Administrative and 

two surveys

New Hampshire

Evaluation of the North Carolina Work First 

Program: Initial Analysis of Administrative 

Data

Maximus State Administrative North Carolina

Evaluation of North Dakota’s Training, 

Education, Employment, and Management 

Program: Final Report

Berkeley Planning 

Associates

Local Administrative Seven counties in North 

Dakota

Early Impacts of the Virginia Independence 

Program: Final Report

Mathematica Policy 

Research

Local Administrative Lynchburg, Petersburg, 

and Portsmouth; and 

Prince William and Wise 

counties, Virginia

An Overview and Synthesis of the Project of 

State Level Child Outcomes

Child Trends State and 

local

Survey Indiana; New Haven and 

Manchester, Connecticut; 

Alachua and Escambia 

counties, Florida; nine 

counties in Iowa; and 

seven counties in 

Minnesota

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location
Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed

Page 49 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Final Impact Report: The Evaluation of “To 

Strengthen Michigan Families”

Abt Associates Local Administrative Four local service offices: 

Kalamazoo (Kalamazoo 

County), Madison Heights 

(Oakland County), 

McNichols/Goddard, and 

Schaeffer/Six Mile 

(Wayne County), 

Michigan

A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey’s 

Family Development Program

Rutgers University Local Administrative 10 counties in New 

Jersey

A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey’s 

Family Development Program: Results From 

a Pre-Post Analysis of AFDC Case Heads 

From 1990-1996

Rutgers University State Administrative New Jersey 

Ohio Works First Evaluation Plana Macro International State Administrative and 

survey

Ohio

California Welfare Reform Impact Evaluation University of California, 

Berkeley

bb b

Findings From Year Two of the Minnesota 

Work First—MFIP Evaluation

Maximus bb b

Process Study of South Carolina Family 

Independence Program

Urban Institute bb b

Demonstration data

Struggle to Sustain Employment: The 

Effectiveness of the Post-Employment 

Services Demonstration

Mathematica Policy 

Research

Local Administrative and 

survey

Chicago, Illinois; 

Riverside, California; 

Portland, Oregon; and 

San Antonio, Texas

National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work 

Strategies: Evaluating Alternative Welfare-toWork Approaches: Two-Year Impacts for 

Eleven Programs

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Administrative and 

survey

Atlanta, Georgia; 

Columbus, Ohio; Detroit 

and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan; Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma; Portland, 

Oregon; and Riverside, 

California

National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work 

Strategies: Impacts on Young Children and 

Their Families Two Years After Enrollment: 

Findings From the Child Outcomes Study

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Survey Atlanta, Georgia; Grand 

Rapids, Michigan; and 

Riverside, California

New Hope for People With Low Incomes: 

Two-Year Results of a Program to Reduce 

Poverty and Reform Welfare

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Administrative Milwaukee, Wisconsin

The New York State Child Assistance 

Program: Five-Year Impacts, Costs and 

Benefits 

Abt Associates Local Administrative Niagara, Monroe, and 

Suffolk counties, New 

York

Building Opportunities, Enforcing 

Obligations: Implementation and Interim 

Impacts of Parents’ Fair Share

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Administrative Dayton, Ohio; Grand 

Rapids, Michigan; and 

Memphis, Tennessee 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location
Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed

Page 50 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Teenage Parent Demonstration Mathematica Policy 

Research

Local Administrative and 

survey

Camden and Newark, 

New Jersey; Chicago, 

Illinois

Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Prenatal 

and Infancy Home Visitation by Nurses

University of Colorado, 

Cornell University, 

University of Rochester, 

and University of Denver

Local Administrative and 

survey

Memphis, Tennessee; 

Elmira, New York

New Chance: Final Report on a 

Comprehensive Program for Young Mothers 

in Poverty and Their Children

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Survey 16 locations in California, 

Colorado, Florida, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Michigan, 

Minnesota, New York, 

Oregon, and 

Pennsylvania

The National Evaluation of the Welfare-toWork Grants ProgramMathematica Policy 

Research, The Urban 

Institute, and Support 

Services International

Local c 8 to 10 localities 

nationwide

Leavers data

Evaluation of the North Carolina Work First 

Program: Status of Families Leaving Work 

First After Reaching the 24-Month Time Limit 

Maximus State Survey North Carolina

Arizona Cash Assistance Exit Study: First 

Quarter 1998 Cohort Final Report

Arizona Department of 

Economic Security, Office 

of Evaluation

State Administrative and 

survey

Arizona

Arkansas Well-Being Survey Berkeley Policy Associates State Survey Arkansas

Los Angeles County Post-TANF Tracking 

Study 

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Survey Los Angeles County, 

California

Bay Area Family Well-Being Survey: A Study 

of Welfare Leavers in Alameda and Contra 

Costa Counties 

The Sphere Institute Local Administrative and 

survey

Contra Costa and 

Alameda counties, 

California

Examining the Circumstances of Individuals 

and Families Who Leave TANF: Assessing 

the Validity of Administrative Data 

The Sphere Institute Local Administrative and 

survey

San Mateo County, 

California

Evaluation of the Colorado Works Program: 

First Annual Report 1999

Berkeley Planning 

Associates 

State Administrative and 

survey

Colorado

The Status of TANF Leavers in the District of 

Columbia: Interim Report 

The Urban Institute State Administrative and 

survey

District of Columbia

After Leaving WAGES Florida State University State Survey Florida

Georgia Welfare Leavers Study: Initial 

Results 

Georgia State University, 

Applied Research Center

State Survey Georgia

When Families Leave Welfare Behind: First 

Survey Findings for Illinois Families in 

Transition 

University of Illinois at 

Springfield, Institute for 

Public Affairs, and 

University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign, 

School of Social Work

State Administrative and 

survey

Illinois

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location
Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed

Page 51 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

A Survey of Kansas Households Leaving the 

Temporary Assistance for Families Program: 

Final Report

Kansas Department of 

Social and Rehabilitation 

Services

State Administrative and 

survey

Kansas

How Are They Doing? A Longitudinal Study 

Tracking Households Leaving Welfare Under 

Massachusetts’ Reform

Massachusetts 

Department of Transitional 

Assistance

State Survey Massachusetts

Tracking of TANF Clients, First Report of a 

Longitudinal Study (Mississippi’s TANF 

program)

Millsaps College, Center 

for Applied Research

Local Survey Eight counties in 

Mississippi

Preliminary Outcomes for 1996 Fourth 

Quarter AFDC Leavers: Revised Interim 

Report

Missouri Department of 

Social Services and 

University of Missouri, 

Department of Economics

State Administrative Missouri 

Missouri Leavers Project: Three Chapter 

Report 

Midwest Research Institute State Survey Missouri 

After Welfare: A Study of Work and Benefit 

Use in New York State After Case Closing, 

December 1999 

State University of New 

York, Rockefeller Institute 

of Government

State Administrative New York

Employment and Return to Public Assistance 

Among Single Female-Headed Families 

Leaving AFDC in Third Quarter 1996, 

Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Case Western Reserve 

University, Center on 

Urban Poverty and Social 

Change, and Manpower 

Demonstration Research 

Corporation 

Local Administrative Cuyahoga County, Ohio

How Are They Managing? A Six-Month 

Retrospective of Cuyahoga County Families 

Leaving Welfare: Fourth Quarter 1998 and 

First Quarter 1999 

Case Western Reserve 

University, Center on 

Urban Poverty and Social 

Change

Local Survey Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Survey of Former Family Independence 

Program Clients: Cases Closed During April 

Through September 1998 

South Carolina 

Department of Social 

Services

State Survey South Carolina

Texas Families in Transition: The Impacts of 

Welfare Reform Changes in Texas: Early 

Findings 

Texas Department of 

Human Services

State Survey Texas

The Virginia Closed Case Study: 

Experiences of Virginia Families One Year 

After Leaving Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families

Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State 

University and 

Mathematica Policy 

Research

State Administrative and 

survey

Virginia

Experiences of Virginia Time Limit Families 

in the Six Months After Case Closure: 

Results for Early Cohort: Final Report, 

November 1999 

Mathematica Policy 

Research

Local Administrative and 

survey

Virginia districts 2,6,7, 

and 9

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location
Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed

Page 52 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

A Study of Washington State TANF Leavers 

and TANF Recipients: Findings From the 

April-June 1999 Telephone Survey: Final 

Report 

Washington Department of 

Social and Health 

Services, Economic 

Services Administration, 

Office of Planning and 

Research

State Administrative and 

survey

Washington 

A Study of Washington State TANF 

Departures and Welfare Reform: TANF Exit 

Study April 1999 

Washington Department of 

Social and Health 

Services, Economic 

Services Administration, 

Management Reports and 

Data Analysis

State Administrative Washington 

Before and After TANF: The Economic WellBeing of Women Leaving Welfare University of WisconsinMadison, Institute for 

Research on Poverty

State Administrative Wisconsin 

Wisconsin Works (W-2): First Quarter 1998 

Leavers Study: Preliminary Process Report

Wisconsin Department of 

Workforce Development

State Survey Wisconsin 

Connecticut’s Post-Time-Limit Tracking 

Study: Six-Month Survey Results 

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Survey Department of Social 

Services offices in 

Bridgeport, Hartford, 

Manchester, New Haven, 

Norwich, and Waterbury, 

Connecticut

CalWORKS Leavers Survey: A Statewide 

Telephone Survey of Former CalWORKS 

Recipients 

California Department of 

Social Services

State Survey California

Metropolitan and community-based data

The Fragile Families and Child Well-Being 

Study

Princeton University and 

Columbia University

Local Adminstrative

and survey

Austin, Texas; Baltimore, 

Maryland; Detroit, 

Michigan; Newark, New 

Jersey; Oakland, 

California; Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; and 

Richmond, Virginia

Los Angeles Families and Neighborhood 

Survey (LA FANS)

RAND Local Survey Los Angeles 

neighborhoods

Welfare Children and Families: A Three City 

Study

Brandeis University, 

University of Chicago, 

University of Illinois, 

University of North 

Carolina at Chapel Hill, 

University of Texas at 

Austin, Johns Hopkins 

University, Pennsylvania 

State University, and 

Harvard University

Local Survey Boston, Massachusetts; 

San Antonio, Texas; and 

Chicago, Illinois

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location
Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed

Page 53 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

a

This document is an evaluation design plan. 

b

We were unable to obtain a copy of either the report or a design plan.

c

This information was missing from the documents we reviewed.

Growing Up in Poverty Project: Remember 

the Children: Mothers Balance Work and 

Child Care Under Welfare Reform

University of CaliforniaBerkeley and Yale 

University

Local Survey San Francisco and Santa 

Clara, California; Tampa, 

Florida; and New Haven, 

Connecticut

Big Cities and Welfare Reform: Early 

Implementation and Ethnographic Findings 

From the Project on Devolution and Urban 

Change

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation

Local Administrative and 

survey

One county each in Ohio, 

California, Florida, and 

Pennsylvania

Impact of Welfare Reform on Families University of WisconsinMadison, Institute for 

Research on Poverty

Local Survey Milwaukee, Wisconsin

National Institute of Child Health and 

Development Study of Early Child Care

National Institute of Child 

Health and Development

Local Ethnographic and 

survey

In or near Little Rock, 

Arkansas; Morganton, 

North Carolina; Seattle, 

Washington; Madison, 

Wisconsin; Philadelphia 

and Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania; Boston, 

Massachusetts; 

Lawrence, Kansas; Irvine, 

California; and 

Charlottesville, Virginia

Other welfare reform data

Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) Evaluation: 

How WFNJ Clients Are Faring Under Welfare 

Reform: An Early Look

Mathematica Policy 

Research

State Administrative and 

survey

New Jersey 

Barriers to the Employment of Welfare 

Recipients

University of Michigan, 

School of Social Work

Local Survey One urban Michigan 

county

Florida’s Project Independence: Benefits, 

Costs, and Two-Year Impacts of Florida’s 

JOBS Program

Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation 

Local Administrative and 

survey

Nine counties in Florida

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study title Principal investigator Scope Data source Location
Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed

Page 54 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Table 7: Other Studies Examined

Study or project title Principal investigator or author

What Has Welfare Accomplished? 

Impacts on Welfare Participation, 

Employment, Income, Poverty, and Family 

Structure

Robert F. Schoeni and Rebecca M. Blank, 

National Bureau of Economic Research

National Study of Child Care for LowIncome FamiliesAbt Associates

Children and Welfare Reform: A Guide to 

Evaluating the Effects of State Welfare 

Policies on Children

Child Trends

Patterns and Growth of Child Care 

Voucher Use by Families Connected to 

Cash Assistance in Illinois and Maryland

National Center for Children in Poverty, 

Columbia University

National Survey of Child and Adolescent 

Well-Being

Research Triangle Institute

The Role of Intermediaries in Linking 

TANF Recipients With Jobs

Mathematica Policy Research

Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies: 

Research Synthesis

Macro International

Mecklenburg County Linked Database Mecklenburg County Department of 

Social Services, South Carolina

South Carolina Child Link South Carolina Department of Social 

Services

Policy Evaluation of the Overall Effects of 

Welfare Reform on SSA Programs

The Lewin Group

Temporary Assistance for Low-Wage 

Workers: Evolving Relationships Among 

Work, Welfare, and Unemployment 

Insurance

National Governors’ Association

Welfare Time Limits: An Interim Report 

Card

Manpower Demonstration Research 

Corporation 

Parenting Behavior in a Sample of Young 

Mothers in Poverty: Results of the New 

Chance Observational Study

Manpower Demonstration Research 

Corporation 

Approaches to Evaluating Welfare 

Reform: Lessons From Five State 

Demonstrations

Mathematica Policy Research

Expanding Health Insurance Coverage for 

Low-Income People: Experiments in Five 

States

Mathematica Policy Research

Helping Young People in High-Poverty 

Communities: Lessons From Youth Fair 

Chance

Mathematica Policy Research
Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed

Page 55 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Working Out of Poverty: Employment 

Retention and Career Advancement for 

Welfare Recipients 

National Governors’ Association

Welfare Reform in California: State and 

County Implementation of CALWORKS in 

the First Year 

RAND

Welfare Reform in California: Results of 

the 1998 All-County Implementation 

Study

RAND

State Capacity Study

Field Research Report Form 1997

State University of New York, The Nelson 

A. Rockefeller Institute of Government

Building Bridges: States Respond to 

Substance Abuse and Welfare Reform

National Center on Addiction and 

Substance Abuse, Columbia University

Big Cities Confront the New Politics of 

Child and Family Policy 

Columbia University School of Social 

Work

A Description and Assessment of State 

Approaches to Diversion Programs and 

Activities Under Welfare Reform 

Center for Health Policy Research, 

George Washington University

Diversion as a Work-Oriented Welfare 

Reform Strategy and Its Effect on Access 

to Medicaid: An Examination of 

Experiences of Five Local Communities

Center for Health Policy Research, 

George Washington University

An Unfair Head Start: California Families 

Face Gaps in Preschool and Child Care 

Availability

Berkeley-Stanford Pace Center, Yale 

University, and California Child Care 

Resource and Referral Network

The Infant Health and Development 

Program: Interim Summary

IHDP Research Group

National Impact Evaluation of the 

Comprehensive Child Development 

Program: Final Report

Abt Associates

Illegal Aliens: Extent of Welfare Benefits 

Received on Behalf of U.S. Citizen 

Children

U.S. General Accounting Office

Implementing Welfare Reform 

Requirements for Teenage Parents: 

Lessons From Experience in Four States

Mathematica Policy Research

Medicaid Managed Care: Does It 

Increase Primary Care Services in 

Underserved Areas?

Mathematica Policy Research

New Immigrant Survey RAND

Welfare Reform Project Ohio University and Joyce Foundation

Study of the Employment Patterns of 

Young Women and the Implications for 

Welfare Mothers

The Urban Institute

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study or project title Principal investigator or author
Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed

Page 56 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Alameda County CalWORKS Needs 

Assessment: A Look at Potential HealthRelated Barriers to Self-Sufficiency

Public Health Institute

The Study of Families Formerly Receiving 

Aid to Families With Dependent Children, 

Interim Report: 1999 Survey

Midwest Research Institute

New Mexico TANF Longitudinal Study 

Results of First-Year Follow-up Surveys: 

Final Report 

Maximus

Welfare Reform After Two Years: 

Technical Report on Former Welfare 

Recipients in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Department of Public 

Welfare

Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: 

Identifying and Serving the Most 

Dependent Cases

Abt Associates

A Study of Washington State TANF 

Leavers and TANF Recipients: Welfare 

Reform and Findings From Administrative 

Data: Final Report 

Washington Department of Social and 

Health Services

Post-Exit Earnings and Benefit Receipt 

Among Those Who Left AFDC in 

Wisconsin

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute 

for Research on Poverty

Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER 

Welfare Reform Demonstration: Process 

Study, Interim Report

Abt Associates

Work and Welfare: Iowa Families Tell 

Their Stories

Mathematica Policy Research

Process Evaluation of Achieving Change 

for Texans: Welfare Reform Waiver 

Evaluation, First Interim Report

Texas Department of Human Services

Will Welfare Reform Influence Marriage 

and Fertility? Early Evidence From the 

ABC Demonstration 

Abt Associates

The Next Generation: The Effects of 

Welfare Reform and Employment Policies 

on Children and Families 

Manpower Demonstration Research 

Corporation 

The Effect of Welfare on Marriage and 

Fertility

Robert Moffitt in Welfare, the Family, and 

Reproductive Behavior: Research 

Perspectives

New Research Findings on the Effects of 

the Earned Income Tax Credit

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

When Low-Income Mothers Go to Work: 

Implications for Children

Child Trends

Work, Earnings, and Well-Being After 

Welfare: What Do We Know?

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute 

for Research on Poverty

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study or project title Principal investigator or author
Appendix II

Surveys and Welfare Reform Studies 

Reviewed

Page 57 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Note: These studies were examined for data and were found to include (1) data that could not be used 

to answer our research questions, (2) data that represented a secondary analysis, or (3) data that 

duplicated what was found in other studies reviewed. 

Monitoring the Impact of Welfare Reform 

on Women’s Health

Johns Hopkins University Women’s and 

Children’s Health Policy Center

Monitoring the Impact of Welfare Reform 

on Immigrant Women, Infants, and 

Children: Access to Health Care, HealthSeeking Behaviors, and Health Outcomes

New York City Department of Health, 

Bureau of Maternity Services and Family 

Planning

Building an Employment-Focused Welfare 

System: Work First and Other WorkOriented Strategies in Five States

The Urban Institute

Welfare Waivers and Non-Marital Child 

Bearing

Ann Horvath and H. Elizabeth Peters, 

Cornell University

Marriage and Economic Incentives: 

Evidence From a Welfare Experiment 

Wei-Yin Hu, University of California at Los 

Angeles

Welfare Benefits and Female Headship in 

the United States

Robert Moffitt in American Economic 

Review, Vol. 90, No. 2 (2000), pp. 373-77.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study or project title Principal investigator or author
Page 58 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Appendix III

Scope and Type of Analyses for Which Waiver 

and Demonstration Data Can Be Used ApendxiI

Study or project title Descriptive analyses

Analyses of 

effect

Statewide sample

Indiana Welfare Reform Evaluation: Program Implementation and Economic 

Impacts After Two Years 

• Administrative

• Survey

X

Iowa’s Limited Benefit Plan

• Administrative

X

Second Assignments to Iowa’s Limited Benefit Plan

• Administrative

• Survey

• Case study

X

Year Three Progress Report: Customer Characteristics and Employment Patterns

• Administrative

X

Montana FAIM Evaluation: Evaluation Design 

• Administrative

• Survey

X

A Proposal to Complete the Evaluation of Employment First, Nebraska’s Welfare 

Reform Program

• Survey

X

Evaluation of Welfare Reform in New Hampshire: Mid-Evaluation Summary Report

• Administrative

• Surveys (2)

X

Evaluation of the North Carolina Work First Program: Initial Analysis of 

Administrative Data

• Administrative 

X

An Overview and Synthesis of the Project on State-Level Child Outcomes

• Survey 

X

A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey’s Family Development Program: 

Results From a Pre-Post Analysis of AFDC Case Heads From 1990 to 1996

• Administrative 

X

Ohio Works First Evaluation Plan

• Administrative

• Survey

X

Local sample

Evaluation of Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Demonstration: Impact Study, 

Interim Report

• Administrative

• Survey 

X

Jobs First: Implementation and Early Impacts of Connecticut’s Welfare Reform 

Initiative 

• Administrative

• Survey

X
Appendix III

Scope and Type of Analyses for Which Waiver 

and Demonstration Data Can Be Used

Page 59 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

The Family Transition Program: Implementation and Three-Year Impact of Florida’s 

Initial Time-Limited Welfare Program 

• Administrative

• Survey

X

Iowa’s Family Investment Program: Impacts During the First 3-1⁄2 Years of Welfare 

Reform 

• Administrative

X

Iowa’s Limited Benefit Plan 

• Survey

• Case study 

X

Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: Final Report on the Minnesota Family 

Investment Program 

• Administrative

• Surveys (2)

X

Achieving Change for Texans Evaluation: Net Impacts Through December 1997 

• Administrative

X

Recipients of the Texas One-Time Benefit Payment: An Interim Report

• Survey 

X

Forty-Two-Month Impacts of Vermont’s Welfare Restructuring Project

• Administrative 

• Survey 

X

Wisconsin Self-Sufficiency First/Pay for Performance Program: Results and 

Lessons From a Social Experiment

• Administrative

X

Interim Report for the Enhancement to the Process and Impact Analysis of the 

Youth Employment and Training Initiative 

• Administrative

• Survey

X

Evaluation of North Dakota’s Training, Education, Employment, and Management 

Program: Final Report

• Administrative

X

Early Impacts of the Virginia Independence Program: Final Report

• Administrative

X

Final Impact Report: The Evaluation of “To Strengthen Michigan Families”

• Administrative 

X

A Final Report on the Impact of New Jersey’s Family Development Program

• Administrative

X

Struggle to Sustain Employment: The Effectiveness of the Post-Employment 

Services Demonstration

• Administrative 

• Survey

X

National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies: Evaluating Alternative Welfareto-Work Approaches: Two-Year Impacts for Eleven Programs

• Administrative 

• Survey 

X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study or project title Descriptive analyses

Analyses of 

effect
Appendix III

Scope and Type of Analyses for Which Waiver 

and Demonstration Data Can Be Used

Page 60 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies: Impacts on Young Children and 

Their Families Two Years After Enrollment: Findings From the Child Outcomes 

Study

• Survey

X

New Hope for People With Low Incomes: Two-Year Results of a Program to 

Reduce Poverty and Reform Welfare

• Administrative 

X

The New York State Child Assistance Program: Five-Year Impacts, Costs, and 

Benefits

• Administrative 

X

Building Opportunities, Enforcing Obligations: Implementation & Interim Impacts of 

Parents’ Fair Share

• Administrative 

X

Teenage Parent Demonstration

• Administrative

• Survey

X

Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation by Nurses

• Administrative

• Survey

X

New Chance: Final Report on a Comprehensive Program for Young Mothers in 

Poverty and Their Children

• Survey

X

The National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program

• Survey

X

An Overview and Synthesis of the Project on State-Level Child Outcomes

• Survey

X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Study or project title Descriptive analyses

Analyses of 

effect
Page 61 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Health 

and Human Services ApendxiIV
Page 62 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress

Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

GAO Contacts David D. Bellis, (415) 904-2272

Sara E. Edmondson, (202) 512-8516

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made 

important contributions to this report: Patrick DiBattista designed the data 

collection instrument used to assess the 187 data sets reviewed, oversaw 

data collection, and designed and conducted the analysis of the data's 

strengths and weaknesses; Andrea Sykes played a major role in data 

collection and developed the analysis of the data's availability to address 

TANF's goals; Stephen Langley III also played a major role in data 

collection, provided consultation on multivariate analysis issues, and 

prepared the report's methodology appendix; James Wright provided 

guidance on study design and measurement; and Gale Harris, Kathryn 

Larin, and Heather McCallum provided consultation on TANF policy and 

implementation issues. 

(116038) Letr
Page 63 GAO-01-298 Data for Assessing TANF’s Progress
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00