The terms and conditions under which the federal government granted waivers to the states to implement welfare reform demonstration programs included specifications for evaluating the demonstrations. These specifications encompassed the basic design for the evaluations, data collection activities, outcome measures, and types of analyses. From these specifications, we can infer that the federal objectives for the evaluations were to answer the following questions:
- What was the process by which the demonstration program was designed and implemented? What problems were encountered during implementation? How did the demonstration as implemented differ from (1) the pre-reform program and (2) the demonstration as planned? The process analysis was intended to answer these questions.
- Did the demonstration satisfy the requirement of being cost neutral to the federal government? If not, what was the level of additional costs incurred or savings achieved? The cost neutrality analysis was intended to answer this question.
- What were the impacts of the reform program, relative to the pre-reform program, on a wide range of outcomes? The outcomes states were required to examine generally included:
- Participation in the AFDC and Food Stamp programs and associated benefit levels
- Employment and earnings
- Participation in the JOBS program
- Family structure and stability
- Child well-being
Other outcomes, such as child school attendance and child inoculations also were specified in the terms and conditions if specific provisions of a demonstration program were designed to influence those outcomes. The impact analysis was intended to generate estimates of the impacts of the demonstration on these outcomes.
· Did the benefits derived from the reforms exceed the costs, as assessed from the perspectives of the program participants, various levels of government, and society as a whole? The cost-benefit analysis was intended to answer this question.
The terms and conditions specified requirements for the impact analysis that supplemented the core objectives noted here. For example, they required impact estimates for subgroups of the AFDC population. At a minimum, this included separate estimates of impacts by a case's AFDC applicant/recipient status in the month of random assignment and the characteristics of age and race. The terms and conditions posed two additional objectives for the impact analysis as feasibility assessments rather than as required analyses: (1) to determine the effects of the demonstration on entry into AFDC (that is, effects on applications, approved applications, and caseloads), and (2) to estimate impacts of discrete components of the overall waiver package. Most of the designs for the evaluations were not conducive to the estimation of either entry effects or the impacts of separate components of a waiver package.
Although states undertook the waiver evaluations in response to the requirement to do so in the terms and conditions, they also had their own objectives for the evaluations. For example, a state may have an especially strong interest in one or more outcome measures not emphasized (or not even mentioned) in the terms and conditions. In addition, states seeking to fine-tune their programs may have given great importance to estimating the impacts of discrete components of a waiver package. The state may have been most concerned about obtaining process information concerning program implementation and client experiences and have had much less interest in the impact evaluation. States may also have had objectives for the evaluations that could best be addressed through analyses other than the four types discussed earlier. For example, some states sought frequent feedback from welfare participants on their perceptions of welfare reform and how well it was meeting their needs. Responding to these objectives in some instances required periodic customer satisfaction surveys or focus group discussions with welfare clients.
A large number of objectives for a welfare reform evaluation can imply that an evaluation will have difficulty addressing all of them well. Efforts to do so may lead to design changes or shifts in resources that result in less reliable estimates of central outcomes such as employment and welfare participation. One example of this in the waiver context is the design and fielding of client surveys on a wide array of topics, but only after it was too late to obtain the contact information at sample intake needed to ensure a high response rate. Such dilution of effort and the resulting reduction in the quality of research can be avoided if all organizations involved work together from the start to set clear priorities. The priorities should reflect the policy importance of outcomes and the accuracy with which they can be measured.