Approaches to Evaluating Welfare Reform: Lessons from Five State Demonstrations. Notes


(1)A Medicaid waiver process also exists, and this is administered by the Health Care Financing Administration. In some instances Medicaid waivers were part of a comprehensive welfare reform package. In other cases, the Medicaid program has granted waivers for comprehensive Medicaid demonstrations. The new law does not eliminate or restrict the Medicaid waiver process.

(2)Because states typically submitted requests for Food Stamp waivers and AFDC waivers as part of an integrated package, DHHS worked closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to review and process those requests. The evaluations of these waivers also tended to be highly integrated, with DHHS and USDA again cooperatively monitoring the evaluations.

(3)Here and in the rest of this report (unless otherwise noted), federal government refers to DHHS, OMB, and USDA, and demonstrations refer to AFDC, Medicaid, and Food Stamp reform demonstrations approved under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act and Section 17(b) of the Food Stamp Act.

(4)This report uses the present tense to describe the welfare reform demonstration evaluations because, despite the passage and signing of the new welfare law, most of the evaluations of the previously approved waiver demonstrations were ongoing at the time of the writing of this report in September and October 1996.

(5)These data were collected in the first half of 1996, and reflect the status of the evaluations through June 1996.

(6)The advisory panel members were Daniel Friedlander of the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, Robert Moffitt of Johns Hopkins University, Larry Orr of Abt Associates Inc. (on leave at the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, DHHS), and Michael Wiseman of the University of Wisconsin.

(7)This objective was somewhat constrained by Objective 1, however. For instance, only one program testing time-limited welfare was included.

(8)Appendix B describes the material reviewed concerning each evaluation.

(9)The AFDC disregard of the first $90 in earnings per month (to offset work expenses) was not time limited. However, there were time limits of 12 months on the disregard of the next $30 of earnings and 4 months on the disregard of one-third of earnings in excess of $120.

(10)AFDC rules required all nonexempt adult AFDC recipients to participate in the state-administered JOBS employment and training program.

(11)Since most of the TSMF applicants who would be denied AFDC under control group rules but not under reform rules qualified for SFA (and therefore were included in the research sample), this exclusion is not expected to create serious problems for the evaluation.