Appendix. Synthesis of Findings
(Grants to States and Localities to Study Welfare Reform Outcomes, with an
Emphasis on TANF Applicants and Diversion)
Contents
Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (PRWORA), there has been a significant drop in the federal cash
assistance caseloads. During this period, a large number of families have
left welfare, leading to great interest among researchers and policymakers
in studying the circumstances of welfare "leavers." However, much of the
caseload decline may be due to changes in entries onto welfare, so it is
also important for researchers to look at individuals and families who have
applied for cash assistance.
To this end, ASPE funded ten different studies that have either focused
exclusively on applicants and/or potential applicants to the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) program or included an applicant component within
the study. Six of these ten studies were funded through a request for
applications from states and large counties in April 1999 with an emphasis
on the study of applicants and potential applicants to the TANF program,
including those who were formally or informally diverted from TANF.
The ten ASPE grantees with an applicant component to their projects included:
Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Washington,
Milwaukee County in Wisconsin, and two consortia of counties in the Bay Area
of California (Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and San Mateo, Santa Clara,
and Santa Cruz Counties). Eight of these grantees have released final reports
detailing their findings, allowing us to develop this brief synthesis of
the studies of TANF applicants and diversion. New York and Washington are
expected to release final reports in Summer 2002. In addition, researchers
at the Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison will be releasing the Wave Two survey report of the applicant
study in Milwaukee County in Summer 2002.
As with the ASPE-funded studies of welfare "leavers," each of the grantees
include both administrative and survey data, with some of the surveys including
multiple waves. ASPE provided technical assistance to grantees while allowing
them to determine the cohorts to be studied, the administrative data measures
to be used, and the surveys to be administered. This synthesis of ASPE's
applicant and diversion studies has many of the same inherent difficulties
as previous syntheses of ASPE's leavers studies. These include variations
in the time period studied by the grantees, as well as the period of time
between the application period and the administration of the survey. Further,
each survey was developed by a separate set of researchers in each state
or locality, leading to differences in measured outcomes.
In addition to these issues, it became apparent from the beginning of the
project that it would much more difficult to facilitate cross-study comparisons
across the applicant grantees than it was for the "leavers" grantees. In
both sets of studies, grantees had significant discretion over their research
questions and construction of their surveys. However, while studies of TANF
leavers used a common definition of leaver (as those who left TANF and remained
off the rolls for at least two months), it was not possible to use a common
definition of "applicant" or "diverted" populations because of the significant
differences in states' application procedures and availability of administrative
data on applications that are only partially completed.
While the definitions of the populations of applicants and divertees vary
significantly across grantees, they can be divided into five general categories,
as described below and summarized in Table 1:
-
Participating in the state or county's formal diversion program.
Many states have implemented formal programs to divert TANF applicants
from entering cash assistance. The most well-known of these programs are
those that pay grantees a one-time lump-sum payment in lieu of enrolling
them in the TANF cash assistance program. Several of the states and counties
receiving grants in FY 1998 and FY 1999 to study diversion have implemented
a formal diversion program. However, only one of the ASPE grantees included
here, Texas, decided to study formal diversion programs, specifically
participants in the state's one-time lump-sum payment program. Others did
not study this population, partially because of low participation in the
programs.
-
Begin the application process but fail to complete it. Many
states have the ability, either by administrative data or through intercept
interviews within the welfare office, to begin collecting data on individuals
as soon as they enter the welfare office and provide contact information
to an intake worker. If researchers are able to begin tracking applicants
at this point, then those individuals who do not complete their applications
for whatever reason are often considered diverted applicants. This was a
popular method for defining divertees among the ASPE grantees included in
this synthesis; six of the eight chose to include this population of applicants
in their sample of diverted applicants.
-
Complete the application process and determined to be eligible for
TANF but do not enroll in TANF. Some individuals may complete their
application process but decide not to enroll in TANF, even after being found
eligible to receive cash benefits. At this point, the completed application
is often already in many states' administrative data systems, making tracking
of these individuals possible. Four of the ASPE grantees that have released
findings included these individuals in their sample.
-
Ineligible for TANF for non-financial reasons. Often TANF
applicants meet the income eligibility requirements of the TANF program but
are denied benefits for other reasons. These non-financial reasons for denial
may include: refusal or inability to participate in required job search or
job readiness programs, lack of cooperation with the child support enforcement
agency, and failure to meet particular requirements set in place by states
or localities. Five of the ASPE grantees included here targeted these individuals
as diverted applicants. There may have been some overlap between this population
and those who completed their application but did not enroll for unknown
reasons.
-
Receiving food stamps and/or Medicaid and appear to be eligible for
TANF but do not receive TANF. Two of the grantees included in this
synthesis - Florida and South Carolina - used administrative data from the
Medicaid and/or Food Stamp programs to help formulate a population of diverted
applicants. While the two grantees approached the task differently, the basic
theory was to use these data files to find a proxy for TANF divertees. If
an individual received Medicaid or food stamps, appeared to be income eligible
for TANF, and had not received TANF for a set period of time, then a reasonable
assumption was made that they were informally diverted from receiving TANF.
While there are many complicating issues surrounding this method, it is one
way to try and identify individuals who were diverted from TANF before ever
entering the welfare office to apply.
Despite the differences in the definitions of the study populations among
the ASPE grantees, some themes have emerged across the studies. Below are
cross-state findings in a number of number of different areas. First, there
are data on the characteristics of applicants across the various study area.
Next, outcomes of the applicants are synthesized in the areas of employment
and earnings, participation in government programs, and eventual receipt
of TANF cash assistance. Finally, the applicants' experiences with the TANF
application process in their state or county are cited.
Each of the studies contains information on the demographic characteristics
of applicants in the study area, including their age, race/ethnicity, educational
attainment, marital status, and the number of children in the household.
These characteristics varied greatly across the study areas, and no conclusions
can be made regarding the effects of varying demographic characteristics
on outcomes for applicants. However, the information is useful for descriptive
purposes.
-
The majority of case heads were in the 18-35 age range. However, some studies
had a significant number of older applicants (24 percent over age 35 in Contra
Costa County, 19 percent over age 35 in Arizona, and 24 percent over age
40 in South Carolina).
-
The race/ethnicity of the applicant population varied along with the natural
demographics of each of the various study areas. The percentage of
applicants/divertees who were African-American ranged from 6 percent in Arizona
to 76 percent in Milwaukee County, while the percentage of Latino/Hispanic
applicants ranged from 11 percent in Milwaukee County to 50 percent in Contra
Costa County. The percentage of TANF applicants who were white ranged from
10 percent in Milwaukee County to 51 percent in Arizona.
-
A few of the grantees collected information on the educational attainment
of the primary caretaker of the applicant unit. These grantees found that
between 37 and 58 percent of the TANF applicants/divertees had less than
a high school education, while 34 to 54 percent had either a high school
diploma or General Equivalency Degree (GED).
-
In the few areas that collected data on marital status of the applicants,
the largest percentage of respondents (44 to 80 percent) were never-married
single parents. In addition, a significant percentage of respondents were
divorced or separated. Fewer than one-fifth of the applicants were married
at the time of the surveys.
-
Most of the studies asked the respondents about the number of dependent children
living in the household. In each study area, between one-third and one-half
of respondents had only one children living in the household. The percentage
of applicants with three or more children in the household ranged from 18
percent in South Carolina to 38 percent in Milwaukee County.
Each of the grantees reported findings on the employment rates of applicants
and divertees in the period preceding and following their application for
TANF. Most of the studies included both administrative data from the Unemployment
Insurance (UI) data system and the results of survey questions about the
employment of applicants. In general, the data show either a steady employment
rate or slight decline in employment during the period just prior to application,
then a small but constant increase in employment in the months following
diversion from TANF.
Grantees also used both UI administrative data and survey data to report
on the earnings of TANF applicants. In general, there was a significant dip
in earnings in the period immediately prior to application/diversion. This
drop is very likely associated with applicants' decision to apply for TANF.
The period in which the application/diversion took place was followed by
a noticeable increase in earnings over the following year.
-
Three of the grantees reporting administrative data on employment in the
quarter of application to or diversion from TANF report rates similar to
those of the ASPE "leavers" studies - around 60 percent. Three report somewhat
lower employment rates of between 31 and 45 percent. Some possible reasons
for the differences in employment rates include policy differences within
the individual states, difference in the definition of diversion, and varying
definitions of the quarter of exit.
-
Grantees reporting survey data found slightly lower employment rates,
particularly at the time of application. For example, 12 percent of respondents
to a survey at the time of application in Milwaukee County said that they
were currently employed, while 28 percent in Arizona reported being employed
in a similar survey. One explanation for the lower employment rates from
survey data might be that administrative data report employment at any time
within a quarter, and the surveys show employment at one point in time. Thus,
an individual might lose her job and choose to apply for TANF, but still
be recorded by administrative data as employed in that quarter.
-
As mentioned above, employment rates generally increased in the period following
diversion from TANF, according to both administrative and survey data.
Administrative data showed a steady but small increase (less than 5 percentage
points) in employment across most grantees in the year following diversion.
The exception was Florida, where the increase in the employment rate between
the study quarter and 15 months after diversion was 14 percentage points
(from 38 percent to 52 percent). Increases in employment were also shown
in survey data findings reported in Arizona, Illinois, and San Mateo County.
-
Administrative data from each of the studies showed a sudden drop in applicants'
earnings in the quarter of TANF application, followed by a steady gain in
earnings over the year following diversion. Mean earnings in the quarter
before application ranged from about $1,800 to $2,500 in the non-California
areas - this range fell to about $1,500 to $2,000 in the application quarter.
Earnings then steadily increased over the next year; in the fourth quarter
after application, the range of earnings was approximately $2,200 to $3,000.
Earnings in the five counties in California were higher than those in the
other study areas, possibly due to higher standards of living in the Bay
Area of California. (1)
-
Of those TANF applicants who were employed in the period following
application/diversion, many worked in the service or clerical field . Median
hourly earnings varied greatly across studies but generally were above the
minimum wage. Those individuals who were not employed generally cited illness
or injury, child care, or a preference to stay home with the child as a major
reason for their unemployment.
Government programs such as Medicaid and food stamps are important supports
for low-income families not receiving cash assistance as they move toward
self-sufficiency. Each of the ASPE grantees studying TANF applicants and
diversion collected administrative and survey data on the receipt of these
programs. While the level to which applicants were enrolled in these programs
varied across the different sites, the data show that program receipt declined
across each of the study areas in the year following TANF application/diversion.
-
State administrative data from five of the applicant studies reveal that
between 15 and 35 percent of the population receive food stamps in the first
quarter after application for TANF. In three of the study areas, receipt
of food stamps fell gradually over the next three
quarters. (2)
-
Survey data from the two California studies show a decline in food stamp
receipt between surveys administered at six and twelve months after diversion.
However, Illinois survey data show an increase in receipt of food stamps
between the time of application and the administration of the survey six
to nine months later (from 49 to 66 percent).
-
Five applicant studies used administrative data to determine the number of
TANF applicants and divertees enrolled in the Medicaid program. Medicaid
enrollment among family heads in the fourth quarter following
application/diversion ranged from 23 percent to 56 percent. South Carolina
was the only site in which more than half of the applicants received Medicaid
in any one of the four quarters following their application.
-
Survey data collected by a few of the grantees also showed varying levels
of enrollment in the Medicaid program. Twelve months after diversion from
TANF, 41 percent of those interviewed in Contra Costa County were receiving
Medicaid benefits, compared to 55 percent of respondents in Arizona.
-
Researchers in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin interviewed individuals at the
time they applied to the TANF program. They found that 61 percent of the
applicants surveyed were receiving food stamps in the month prior to applying
for TANF, while 77 percent of the respondents were enrolled in Medicaid in
the preceding month.
While those applicants who are diverted do not, by definition, receive TANF
at the time of application, many eventually reapply for TANF and receive
cash assistance. In fact, those studies that also followed TANF entrants
show that equal numbers of those who were originally diverted from TANF cash
assistance and those who entered the program in the application quarter are
receiving TANF cash assistance at 12 months after the study quarter.
-
The six studies that used information from their state or county's TANF
administrative data base to report findings in the area of TANF recidivism
had a wide range of findings. The percentage of applicants or divertees who
were receiving TANF three months after applying and being diverted from the
program varied from 22 percent in Contra Costa County to virtually none in
South Carolina. A reason for this discrepancy might be South Carolina's
definition of their diverted population, described above.
-
Three studies asked applicants/divertees about receipt of TANF in their surveys.
At twelve months after diversion from the cash assistance rolls, receipt
of TANF ranged from 13 percent to 36 percent.
Participants in four of the studies - Arizona, Illinois, South Carolina,
and Contra Costa County - reported findings about applicants' experiences
with the TANF application process in their state or county. As these questions
were all asked in a slightly different way, it is difficult to synthesize
these findings across the studies.
-
Both Arizona and Contra Costa County were able to discern from administrative
data the reasons for denial of TANF application among so-called "diverted"
applicants. In both locations, nearly half of the applications were denied
because of a failure to complete the interview process. Other reasons included
a failure to comply with program rules or a voluntary withdrawal of the
application by the applicant herself.
-
Contra Costa County compared its administrative data on the reason for denial
with the results of a survey question in which applicants were asked to give
the reason they thought their application was denied. Two out of five respondents
said their application was denied due to "administrative hassles", while
another 19 percent listed employment as the reason for not finishing the
application process.
-
Arizona found that, among diverted applicants, 39 percent did not complete
the application process because of issues related to income, such as finding
a job or making too much money. However, 32 percent of respondents cited
issues related to the application process (too many hassles or having to
provide too much documentation) as the major reason they did not complete
the process.
-
In Illinois, 20 percent of those respondents whose applications were denied
or who withdrew their applicants felt that they did not go onto TANF because
they had too much income or assets, while another 19 percent did not provide
the paperwork that was required. The majority of these individuals reported
receiving job search and job assistance services while their application
was being considered.
-
South Carolina asked those who were receiving food stamps and were
income-eligible for TANF, but not receiving TANF, why they had not gone on
welfare. The majority of this population - 59 percent - said that they only
wanted food stamps and did not want to be on welfare. An additional 16 percent
said they did not know that people could get cash assistance, while another
12 percent said they had not applied for TANF because they did not think
they would be eligible.
Overall, the population of TANF applicants and divertees is difficult to
define, and thus a hard population for whom to determine outcomes. However,
some generalizations can be made across the ASPE-funded studies of TANF
applicants and diversion. First, there appears to be a significant dip in
earnings just prior to application to TANF - this dip and the decision to
apply for TANF might be related somewhat. The drop in the employment rate
during this time is much less pronounced than the dip in earnings. In addition,
there is moderate use of food stamps and Medicaid among this population,
decreasing gradually in the year following the application to or diversion
from TANF. Finally, a fair number of application reapply for TANF and eventually
receive cash assistance in the year following the initial diversion.
Table 1:
Definitions of Applicant/Diversion Populations Studied by ASPE Grantees Included
in this Synthesis
| Study population |
Arizona |
Florida |
Illinois |
South Carolina |
Texas |
Milwaukee Co. |
Contra Costa Co. |
San Mateo Co. |
Total |
Formally diverted |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
1 |
Failed to complete application |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
6 |
Completed but not enrolled |
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
4 |
Ineligible for non-financial reasons |
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
5 |
Appear to be eligible |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Endnotes
1. The range of earnings in the two California study
areas in the fourth quarter after application/diversion was approximately
$4,100 to $6,200.
2. South Carolina is not included in this range,
as food stamp receipt there was significantly higher than in the other study
areas. This is likely due to South Carolina's definition of their diverted
population as families who entered food stamps in a particular quarter, were
income eligible for TANF, but did not receive TANF cash assistance.
Where to?
Top of Page | Contents
Main Page of Report | Contents
of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)