Images (50)
Document
| id |
id
565354685
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 50"luenplishments
Julie- pls do set up atimifor
CC:MW descussion Thouts.
Breat Boning
DRAFT FOR
DISCUSSION-
5-3114
Overview
AK
I CAN CALL HIM
TO SET A TIME
We were asked to provide an estimate of the number of individuals who transitioned from
TO TALK@
welfare to work since the start of the TANF program. In this memo we present a crude estimate THIS
obtained by combining data from several different sources. We also outline some reasons why
this estimate might be inaccurate.
NEXT
already have something similar at least from for
WEEK-
Approach
HeB data 1998
LET ME
we were
Our goal is to estimate the number of people who are likely to have transitioned from welfare to
KNOW.
acholly
work within a single year. In effect, loosely speaking we are considering a transition for a year
JB
looking and
to be a valid transition; we will count a second leave a year later as another valid transition
are thing @ off frayear?
CC:
To estimate the number of people who left welfare, we begin by looking at the number of
welfare cases closed. We then omit the number that are administrative ("false") closings and
MARGY
#
repeat closings. Then we look at the percent of leavers who are working. We present alternative
estimates based on different definitions of work, and a comparison using survey data from a non-
what
government source.
IV
a
does
8/96
Case closure data
this
mean
The case closure data are obtained from HHS TANF reports covering July 1997 through
September 1999. Though TANF programs do not have a single start date, we include data from
Q4 FY97 (Jul-Sep 1997) since 38 states had begun TANF, and other states were operating under
"waivers" that were similar to welfare reforms enacted later. didn't theyall begin in july '97'
"True" closures representing welfare leavers
actually
This case closure data contains all cases closed. Cases close for a variety of reasons. Often
cases are closed for administrative purposes only-individuals fail to meet requirements for
continuation of benefits (such as reporting income or attending employment training), or
possibly to close and reopen a case when a child changes custody. We will refer to these as false
have
closure data, because they did not really leave welfare. Iwald not consider indinavals sonchened
from.
for fahure to actend employment training as a falor clos me
is
To determine which of the closed cases are cases where the recipients have truly left welfare,
several studies have used a "two-month" rule. This rule is that the change in status must be
because just churry
maintained two consecutive months; otherwise the closure is a "false exit." To obtain this
number, we refer to a draft paper by Richard Bavier (OMB). By applying the two month rule,
his data indicates that only 74% of closed cases are true exits¹. By comparison, researchers using
Illinois administrative data found about 56% of the closures are true exits². Researchers using
Wisconsin data screened out about 6% as false closures (child only cases?; if 25% child only,
WI didn't have child only ass until this year.
1 While his data are based on national survey data, they. are also based on data from 1996 and early 1997, before
TANF, and thus might not be representative of the "true" rate under TANF (How are child only cases handled?
Tutsness
Just as part of household?)
sume high
L shald back Mex at, Though may
2 25% of the case closings were child only cases; of the remaining 75%, 25% of the case closings were screened out aren't
by the two-month. The cumulative screen out is 44%.
closing at a
very nic fast
Relations
belongs_to