National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies:

Do Mandatory Welfare-to-Work Programs
Affect the Well-Being of Children?

Appendix A
Two-Year Child Outcome Measures

Child outcomes in the NEWWS Evaluation two-year follow-up are based on the two-year client survey and the Child Outcomes Study (COS) survey component, which was added to the client survey given to mothers with children aged 3 to 5 at baseline in three sites. Both components of the two-year follow-up included measures of children's development in three broad areas: behavioral and emotional adjustment, cognitive functioning and academic achievement, and health and safety. Some measures from each of these areas are available for all children of all parents in the two-year client survey sample in the seven evaluation sites; additional, more detailed measures in each area are available for randomly selected preschool-age children of the mothers in the COS sample (these children are identified as the "focal" children).

Measures of Behavioral and Emotional Adjustment

All Children

• Behavioral and emotional problems questions. Parents were asked if any of their children were currently getting help for any emotional, mental, or behavioral problem and if any of them were going to a special class or school or getting special help for behavioral or emotional problems. Parents were also asked if, at any point since study entry, they had felt, or someone had suggested, that any of their children needed help for any emotional, mental, or behavioral problem.
• Suspended or expelled from school question. Parents were asked if, since study entry, any of their children had ever been suspended, excluded, or expelled from school.

Focal Child

• Behavior Problems Index (BPI). Parents were asked to indicate whether series of statements are not true, sometimes true, or often true of the focal child. Statements describe behavior such as: the child is high strung, tense, or nervous; the child cheats or tells lies; the child has trouble getting along with other children. Total BPI scores are examined, as well as subscale scores for externalizing behavior problems (such as arguing, bullying, breaking things, lying, and cheating) and internalizing behavior problems (such as feeling unhappy, sad, depressed, unloved, or worthless).
• Positive Behavior Scale/Social Competence Subscale (PBS/SCS). The PBS assesses positive social behaviors, such as self-esteem, self-control, obedience, and persistence. Parents were asked to indicate whether behaviors are not true, somewhat true, or often true of the focal child. Examples of the behavioral descriptions in the subscale are: the child is helpful and cooperative; the child shows concern for other people's feelings; the child is admired and well liked by other children.

Measures of Cognitive Functioning and Academic Achievement

All Children

• Academic problems questions. Parents were asked if, since study entry, any of their children had repeated any grade for any reason and if any of them were currently going to a special class or school or getting special help in school for learning problems.

Focal Child

• The Bracken Basic Concept Scale/School Readiness Composite (BBCS/ SRC). The Bracken scale is a well-established and widely used measure of children's cognitive school readiness. The 61 items used in the COS consist of 5 subtests that assess children's knowledge of colors, letters, numbers and counting, comparisons, and shapes. (The full scale consists of 11 subtests.)

Measures of Health and Safety

All Children

• Accident or injury questions. Parents were asked if, since study entry, any of their children had had an accident, injury, or poisoning requiring a visit to a hospital emergency room or clinic, and if, during the same time frame, any of their children had been removed from their care because they could not care for or handle them.

Focal Child

• Child health rating. Parents rated the focal child's overall health in response to the following question: "Would you say that your child's health in general is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?"

[ Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D ]

Appendix B
Impacts on Average Total Welfare Payments Received in Years 1 and 2

[ Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D ]

Appendix C
A Comparison of National Samples of Children and Control Group Children Two Years After Study Entry

Throughout this document, comparisons are made between children of parents in control groups and children of parents who were subject to welfare-to-work programs. In contrast, the following compares the developmental status of children in national samples with children whose parents were in control groups.

Behavioral and Emotional Adjustment

The focal children in the Child Outcomes Study (COS) sample control groups, who were 5 to 7 years old at the two-year follow-up point, were reported by mothers to have more frequent behavior problems than children of the same age in a national sample. Behavior Problems Index (BPI) scores indicate that control group focal children in the COS sample tended, on average, to have more frequent total, externalizing, and internalizing behavior problems at the two-year follow-up point than children in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth—Child Supplement (NLSY—CS) sample.

School suspension rates, one measure of children's behavioral and emotional adjustment, were higher for children in control group families in the client survey sample with all school-age children at study entry than for those in a national sample of eighth graders. About one-fifth of all client survey sample members in the control groups reported that at least one of their children had been suspended from school at some point during the two-year follow-up period. (See the upper panel of Table D.1.) Note, however, that many of the client survey questions applied only to children of school age. Narrowing the client survey sample to only those who had all school-age children at study entry, about one-quarter of the control group parents reported that at least one of their children had been suspended from school since study entry. (See Table 5.) In comparison, 11 percent of 1988 eighth graders nationally had ever been suspended from school.⁽³⁰⁾

Cognitive Functioning and Academic Achievement

The focal children in the COS sample control groups were significantly less cognitively ready for school than children of the same age in a national sample. Using age-standardized scores on the Bracken Basic Concept Scale/School Readiness Composite (BBCS/ SRC), average scores for COS control group children in Atlanta and Grand Rapids corresponded to the 19th percentile of the national NLSY—CS sample; the average scores for Riverside COS control group children corresponded to the 21st percentile. Thus, they displayed less cognitive readiness for school than children in a national sample.

Grade repetition rates were generally higher for children in control group families in the client survey sample with all school-age children at study entry than for those in a national sample. The national average for repeating a grade is approximately 10 percent for children aged 5 to 18.⁽³¹⁾ Overall, 7 to 19 percent (depending on the site) of all client survey sample members in the control group reported that at least one of their children had repeated a grade in school during the two-year follow-up period. (See the upper panel of Table D.1.) The range for this same measure was 8 to 23 percent for those with all school-age children at baseline. (See Table 5.) Notably, in four of the seven evaluation sites (Atlanta, Columbus, Detroit, and Oklahoma City), these figures approached or exceeded 20 percent — double the national average.

Health and Safety

Focal children in the COS sample control groups were as likely to be rated by their mothers as being in very good or excellent health as children in a national sample. Between 77 percent (Atlanta) and 82 percent (Riverside) of control group mothers in the COS sample reported that their focal child was in very good or excellent health. In comparison, in 1993, mothers of 79 percent of children aged 5 to 7 in the National Health Interview Survey sample reported that their children were in very good or excellent health. As noted earlier, however, parents with a severely ill or disabled child were generally not mandated to participate in welfare-to-work programs in the early to mid 1990s. While the proportion of families exempted from the participation requirement for this reason was very small during this time period, such families would not have been included in the COS sample, whereas a national sample of children would include some severely and chronically ill children.

Similarly, children of control group members in the client survey sample did not appear to be at high risk on health and safety measures. A surprisingly high proportion of all control group members — up to 8 percent in a site — reported that a child had been removed from their care during the two-year follow-up period because they could not care for or handle the child.⁽³²⁾ (See the upper panel of Appendix D.) Between 18 and 37 percent of all control group members reported that during the previous two years at least one of their children had had an accident, injury, or poisoning requiring a visit to a hospital emergency room or clinic. In comparison, nationally, 12 percent of children under the age of 18 in 1988 had had an accident, injury, or poisoning in the previous year. It is not known, however, how many of these children required medical treatment for these incidents.⁽³³⁾

[ Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D ]

Appendix D
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies

[ Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D ]

References

Cooper, Harris, and Larry V. Hedges, editors. 1994. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Duncan, Greg, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Pamela Kato Klebanov. 1994. "Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development." Child Development 65(2): 296-318.

Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Freedlander, Gayle Hamilton, JoAnn Rock, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman, Amanda Schweder, and Laura Storto. 2000. Evaluating Alternative Welfare-to-Work Approaches: Two-Year Impacts for Eleven Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary and Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

Hamilton, Gayle. 1995. The JOBS Evaluation: Monthly Participation Rates in Three Sites and Factors Affecting Participation Levels in Welfare-to-Work Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

Hamilton, Gayle, and Thomas Brock. 1994. The JOBS Evaluation: Early Lessons from Seven Sites. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary and Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

Hamilton, Gayle, Thomas Brock, Mary Farrell, Daniel Friedlander, and Kristen Harknett. 1997. Evaluating Two Welfare-to-Work Program Approaches: Two-Year Findings on the Labor Force Attachment and Human Capital Development Programs in Three Sites. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary and Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

Haveman, Robert, and Barbara Wolfe. December 1995. "The Determinants of Children's Attainments: A Review of Methods and Findings." Journal of Economic Literature 33: 1829-1878.

McGroder, Sharon M., Martha J. Zaslow, Kristin A. Moore, and Suzanne M. LeMenestrel. 2000. Impacts on Young Children and Their Families Two Years After Enrollment: Findings from the Child Outcomes Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary and Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

McLoyd, Vonnie C., Toby Epstein Jayaratne, Rosario Ceballo, and Julio Borquez. 1994. "Unemployment and Work Interruption Among African-American Single Mothers: Effects on Parenting and Adolescent Socioemotional Functioning." Child Development 65(2): 562-589.

Moore, Kristin A., Martha Zaslow, Mary Jo Coiro, Suzanne Miller, and Ellen Magenheim. 1995. The JOBS Evaluation: How Well Are They Faring? AFDC Families with Preschool-Aged Children in Atlanta at the Outset of the JOBS Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary and Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

Pavetti, LaDonna A. 1992. "The Dynamics of Welfare and Work: Exploring the Process by Which Young Women Work Their Way Off Welfare." Prepared for the APPAM Annual Research Conference, October 29, Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Quint, Janet C., Johannes M. Bos, and Denise F. Polit. 1997. New Chance: Final Report on a Comprehensive Program for Young Mothers in Poverty and Their Children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Scrivener, Susan, Gayle Hamilton, Mary Farrell, Stephen Freedman, Daniel Friedlander, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman, and Christine Schwartz. 1998. Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Two-Year Impacts of the Portland (Oregon) Welfare-to-Work Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary and Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1997. The Condition of Education, 1997, NCES 97-388, by Thomas M. Smith, Beth Aronstamm Young, Yupin Bae, Susan P. Choy, and Nabeel Alsalam. Washington, DC.

Vital and Health Statistics: Health of Our Nation's Children. 1994. Series 10: Data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), No. 191, Figure 1.

Wilson, Julie Boatright, and David T. Ellwood. 1993. Welfare to Work Through the Eyes of Children: The Impacts on Children of Parental Movement from AFDC to Employment. Cambridge, MA: Malcolm Weiner Center for Social Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Wilson, Julie Boatright, David T. Ellwood, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 1995. "Welfare-to-Work Through the Eyes of Children." In P. Chase-Lansdale and J. Brooks-Gunn (eds.), Escape from Poverty: What Makes a Difference. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zaslow, Martha, Kristin Moore, Donna Ruane Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro. 1995. "The Family Support Act and Children: Potential Pathways of Influence." Children and Youth Services Review 17(1/2): 231-249.

Zaslow, Martha, Kathryn Tout, Sheila Smith, and Kristin Moore. 1998. "Implications of the 1996 Welfare Legislation for Children: A Research Prospective." Social Policy Report of the Society for Research in Child Development XII(3).

[ Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D ]

Footnotes:

¹  This synthesis is one of many papers and reports that have been issued as part of the NEWWS Evaluation, conducted by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) under contract to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), with support from the U.S. Department of Education. Child Trends, as a subcontractor, is conducting the analysis of outcomes for preschool-age children (the Child Outcomes Study). This document synthesizes results presented in two 2000 reports, both published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation) and the U.S. Department of Education: Impacts on Young Children and Their Families Two Years After Enrollment: Findings from the Child Outcomes Study, prepared by Sharon M. McGroder, Martha J. Zaslow, Kristin A. Moore, and Suzanne M. LeMenestrel (Child Trends); and Evaluating Alternative Welfare-to-Work Approaches: Two-Year Impacts for Eleven Programs, prepared by Stephen Freedman, Daniel Friedlander, Gayle Hamilton, JoAnn Rock, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman, Amanda Schweder, and Laura Storto (MDRC). This synthesis is very much indebted to the authors of these reports, who conducted the many analyses included here. In addition, certain concepts and language in this document reflect the joint efforts of the two research teams. Note, however, that because of differences in the data sources used for economic impacts and differences in the definition of the sample of children examined, which are explained in detail later in this document, some statements regarding economic impacts and young child impacts may differ somewhat between this synthesis and the above-cited report on impacts on young children.

²  Sample members were randomly assigned to research groups over approximately a two-year period in each site, starting in June 1991 in Riverside and ending in December 1994 in Portland. Thus, the results presented here cover the period between June 1991 (the first sample members' entry into the study) and December 1996 (the last month of the two-year follow-up for the last sample members who entered the study in Portland).

³  See Zaslow et al., 1998, and McGroder et al., 2000, for further discussion of these hypotheses.

⁴  See, for example, Wilson, Ellwood, and Brooks-Gunn, 1995; Zaslow et al., 1995; Zaslow et al., 1998; and McGroder et al., 2000. The conceptual model used here was developed by Child Trends early in the NEWWS Evaluation, and has undergone refinements over subsequent years.

⁵  See Haveman and Wolfe, 1995.

⁶  The primary sources for the pathways in this model are correlational studies of the relationships between income, employment, child care, and child outcomes; previous work by MDRC and others on interventions and their effects on income and employment; and the underlying theories about how welfare-to-work or employment policies might affect children. The model depicts the effects of parent actions on children, but not the effects of children on parents. This is likely an overly linear representation of the relationships between parents and children.

⁷  The nontargeted outcomes in box D include those that theoretically could affect child outcomes. Measurement of some of these nontargeted outcomes is difficult, if not impossible; as a result, not all of them were examined in the NEWWS Evaluation.

⁸  A subsample of these interviewees also took adult reading and math achievement tests.

⁹  These additional data were actually collected for 3,194 surveyed individuals, but 176 of the families were deemed inappropriate, for various reasons, for the in-depth Child Outcomes Study, resulting in a sample size of 3,018.

¹⁰  Additional data already collected include in-depth information on the implementation of the programs — the extent of individuals' participation in various program activities, the quality of the activities, and staff practices and opinions — as well as on the costs of different aspects of welfare-to-work programs.

¹¹  Note that parents with a severely ill or disabled child were generally not mandated to participate in welfare-to-work programs in the early to mid 1990s. While the proportion of families exempted from the participation requirement for this reason during this time period was very small, such families would not have been included in the samples examined in the NEWWS Evaluation.

¹²  The Oklahoma City sample included only welfare applicants (and not recipients), who were thus more likely to have more prior work experience and less prior welfare receipt.

¹³  Tests of statistical significance were not conducted on the differences in sample characteristics discussed in this paragraph.

¹⁴  In this section, as well as the following section on targeted outcomes, the benchmarks for characterizing the magnitude of program impacts are based on ranges of impact findings from previous experimental evaluations of welfare-to-work programs. The specific thresholds vary by outcome. Impacts on participation of 20 percentage points or more are considered "large," impacts of 10 to 20 points are "moderate," and impacts below 10 points are "small." For measures of high school diploma or GED attainment, welfare expenditures, and employment, impacts of 10 percentage points or more are considered "large," impacts of 5 to 10 points are "moderate," and impacts below 5 points are "small." Impacts on earnings or income of more than $900 per year (or $1,800 over two years) are considered "large," impacts of $300 to $900 per year (or double these amounts over two years) are "moderate," and impacts of less than $300 per year are "small."

¹⁵  Length of stay in the programs, and thus participation in program activities, was shorter than in voluntary programs, but not shorter than in typical mandatory welfare-to-work programs. This reflects the fact that people cycle off welfare frequently. In the studied programs, most people did not remain on welfare continuously, and thus most were not subject to the program participation requirements, for the full two years of follow-up. In the seven programs for which detailed participation statistics have been published so far, the length of time during the two-year follow-up period that program group members spent enrolled in the programs ranged, on average, from 11 months in the Riverside LFA and HCD programs to 17 months in the Atlanta HCD program. The average number of months of participation in program activities for only those who ever participated at all ranged from 3 months in the Riverside LFA program to 9 months in the Atlanta HCD program. (See Hamilton et al., 1997, and Scrivener et al., 1998.)

¹⁶  This section focuses on economic impacts as measured by the administrative records databases described in Section II. McGroder et al., 2000, Chapter 9, in presenting economic impacts for the adults in the Child Outcomes Study, primarily used client survey data. Each of these data sources has its advantages and disadvantages. Measures of income using administrative records data, for example, cover the entire two-year follow-up period, but include income only from cash welfare, Food Stamps, and Unemployment Insurance-reported earnings. Measures of income using client survey data include many more potential sources of income, but cover only one month (the last month of the two-year follow-up period). As a result of these differences, some summary statements about economic impacts in McGroder et al., 2000, differ somewhat from those in this document.

¹⁷  Impacts could differ for the samples for several reasons. First, the client survey sample includes individuals from all seven evaluation sites, while the COS sample was drawn from only three of the sites. Second, even within the three sites in which the COS is nested, there are demographic differences between sample members with preschool-age children and those with older or even younger children, as discussed in Section IV. Finally, in general, different data sources and response rates can produce different impacts for the client survey sample compared with the full sample. See Appendix E in Freedman et al., 2000, for a discussion of the reliability and generalizability of results based on the client survey and Appendix F for a comparison of impacts estimated from survey and unemployment insurance data.

¹⁸  As noted earlier, the two-year follow-up period for many of the programs predated significant expansions in the Medicaid program and the establishment of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

¹⁹  Both access to and allowable payments for child care were the same for control and program group members in the NEWWS evaluation. If a control group member enrolled on her own in a community education or training activity or become employed, she would have been entitled to the same type of child care assistance that a program group member would have received. If a state would only pay for licensed child care, for example, then only this type of care would be paid for either control or program group members. Program group members, however, probably heard messages about the importance of child care and the advantages of particular types of child care more frequently than did control group members, owing to program group members' increased exposure to caseworkers and other program-related staff.

²⁰  For more information on the methods of making child care payments, reimbursement rates, and child care allowances to assist welfare recipients who had earned income in the Atlanta, Grand Rapids, Riverside, and Portland sites, see Hamilton et al., 1997, and Scrivener et al., 1998.

²¹  For example, parents with no school-age children would have to respond "no" when asked if any of their children had been suspended from school. As mentioned earlier, approximately 49 percent of the parents in the client survey sample had all school-age children.

²²  In presenting results for young children, this section discusses impacts on the "focal" child in the COS families in the three sites in which this study was embedded, not impacts on the focal child's siblings, most of whom were older. Here, impacts on these siblings are included with those of all school-age children or with those of children of all ages across the seven evaluation sites (depending on the child outcome measure). McGroder et al., 2000, presents child impacts for the focal child as well as the focal child's siblings. Summary statements of child impacts in that report often combine all children in the COS families and thus may differ somewhat from the "young child" summary statements in this document.

²³  This does not necessarily mean that the child was placed in the foster care system; an unruly teenager, for example, could have been sent to live temporarily with a relative.

²⁴  It is not clear what might have led to this child impact, the only one found in Oklahoma City. For families with all school-age children in the Oklahoma City sample, there were no impacts on two-year employment, earnings, or income. There was, however, a decrease in reported health care coverage, a decrease in the proportion of parents married and living with their spouse, and an increase in the proportion of parents who were single and living only with their children. (See Tables 2 and 3.) There are no clear connections between these findings and the increase in children's receiving help for behavioral or emotional problems.

²⁵  The results of two quite conservative tests — the Tippet test and the Fisher test, developed in the literature on research synthesis (Cooper and Hedges, 1994) — indicate that at least one of these two impacts is, in fact, statistically significant in view of the large number of programs examined.

²⁶  At a 42-month follow-up point, New Chance had increased the proportion of mothers living without any of their children as well as without at least one of their children. In addition, a higher proportion of children were in foster care. (See Quint et al., 1997, pp. 138-144.) New Chance researchers could not identify a clear reason for this finding, but hypothesize that increased exposure to program staff, resulting in a higher likelihood of identifying child welfare issues among program group mothers than control group mothers, might have played a role. In addition, program group mothers were more likely to have moved out of their parents' home, a situation that might have placed them more at risk for child neglect if there were no older family members around to help watch the children. Finally, the program did increase maternal depression, and this may have increased childrearing problems.

²⁷  It is possible that the provision of "on-site" child care centers in these programs, where mothers could drop off their children, played a role in this finding. In both Grand Rapids and Columbus, some of the providers of job club and education activities (e.g., the public school system in Grand Rapids) operated such child care centers in the same building as the activities took place, staffed by well-trained child care workers, that mothers could use while they were participating in job club or attending education classes. Program administrators in Grand Rapids remember at least a few cases where child care workers from these centers, knowing that most of the mothers of the children under their care were welfare recipients, alerted the welfare department to possible cases of child neglect or abuse. Although these centers would have been open to individuals in the Grand Rapids LFA as well as HCD programs, and to those in the Columbus Integrated as well as Traditional programs, length of stay in the programs (and on welfare) was longer in the Grand Rapids HCD program than in the LFA program, and longer in the Columbus Traditional program than in the Integrated program, thus increasing the length of time that children could have been in these child care centers and thereby the chances that a case of neglect or abuse would be identified and brought to the attention of the welfare department. The impacts on child removal from the home, however, are larger in the Grand Rapids HCD and Columbus Traditional samples that consist of families with all school-age children (who would have had less use of these child care centers), compared with the samples that consist of families with children of all ages, suggesting that while this particular hypothesis may explain part of these impacts, it is not a complete explanation.

²⁸  Note that statistical tests were not applied to the within-site differences in child impacts for the employment-focused programs as compared with the education-focused programs in this analysis. In addition, this analysis compared, for most of the subgroups in the Riverside site, individuals in the education-focused program — all of whom lacked a high school diploma or GED, had low literacy levels, or had limited English skills — with individuals in the employment-focused program, who may or may not have had these credentials or skills.

²⁹  See Freedman et al., 2000, p. 193.

³⁰  U.S. Department of Education, 1997.

³¹  U.S. Department of Education, 1997.

³²  As noted earlier, this does not necessarily mean that the child was placed in the foster care system.

³³  Vital and Health Statistics: Health of Our Nation's Children, 1994.

Where to Now?

Top of Page
Full Table of Contents

Home Pages:
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Last updated February 6, 2004