Journal of Family and Economic Issues

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 198–211 | Cite as

Welfare-to-Work Programs and the Dynamics of TANF Use

  • Jeounghee Kim
Original Paper


This study examines the effects of participation in Welfare-to-Work programs on the dynamics of TANF recipients’ welfare use. Using the Survey of Program Dynamics and the Welfare Rules Database, the study analyzes how participation in Human Capital Development and Labor Force Attachment programs affects the probabilities of TANF exit and re-entry, while holding the effects of the state economy and various TANF rules constant. The analyses reveal that LFA programs are not associated with a higher probability of TANF exit than HCD programs. Instead, TANF recipients’ employment status and the local labor market conditions are more important predictors of TANF exit. It also reveals that, for TANF leavers, severe poverty and economic insecurity are significantly related to their welfare recidivism.


Human capital development Labor force attachment Survey of Program Dynamics Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Welfare-to-Work 


  1. Blank, R. (1999). What goes up must come down? Explaining recent changes in public assistance caseloads (Working paper no. 78). Chicago, IL: Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.Google Scholar
  2. Bok, M., & Simmons, L. (2004). Post-welfare reform, low-income families and the dissolution of the safety net. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23(3), 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Council of Economic Advisors (1999). The effect of welfare policy and the economic expansion on welfare caseloads: An update. Washington, DC: A Report by the Council of Economic Advisor (August). Retrieved August 25, 2005, from
  4. Curtis, K. (2002). Financial penalties under the temporary assistance for needy families program: Policy discourse and strategies for reform. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23(2), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forry, N. (2009). The impact of child care subsidies on low-income single parents: An examination of child care expenditures and family finances. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Greenberg, D., Cebulla, A., & Bouchet, S. (2005). Report on meta analysis of welfare-to-work programs (Discussion paper no. 1312-05), Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.Google Scholar
  7. Greenberg, D., Meyer, R., Michalopoulos, C., & Wiseman, M. (2003). Explaining variation in the effects of welfare-to-work programs. Evaluation Review, 27(4), 359–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grogger, J. (2003). The effects of time limits, the EITC, and other policy changes on welfare use, work, and income among female-headed families. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 394–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grogger, J. (2004). Time limits and welfare use. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grogger, J., Karoly, L., & Klerman, J. (2002). Consequences of welfare reform: A research synthesis (Document no. DRU-2676-DHHS). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from
  11. Grogger, J., & Michalopoulos, C. (2003). Welfare dynamics under time limits. Journal of Political Economy, 111(3), 530–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton, G., Freedman, S., Gennetian, L., Michalopoulos, C., Walter, J., Adams-Ciardullo, D., et al. (2001). How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year adult and child impacts for eleven programs. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from
  13. Hoefferth, S. (2002). Exiting welfare in the 1990s: Did public policy influence recipients’ behavior? Population Research and Policy Review, 21, 433–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hofferth, S., Stanhope, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Remaining off welfare in the 1990s: The influence of public policy and economic conditions. Social Science Research, 34(2), 426–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holzer, H. (1999). Employer demand for welfare recipients and the business cycle: Evidence from recent employer surveys (Discussion paper No. 1185-99). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from
  16. LaLonde, R. (2003). Employment and training programs. In R. Moffit (Ed.), Means-tested transfer programs in the U.S. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, B., Slack, K., & Lewis, D. (2004). Are welfare sanctions working as intended? Welfare receipt, work activity, and material hardship among TANF recipient families. Social Service Review, 78(3), 370–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mammen, S., Lass, D., & Seiling, S. (2009). Labor force supply decisions of rural low-income mothers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30(1), 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mazzolari, F. (2007). Welfare use when approaching time limit. Journal of Human Resources, XLII(3), 596–618.Google Scholar
  20. Meyer, M. (1997). Cracks in the seams: Durability of child care in JOBS welfare-to-work programs. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 18(4), 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitnik, O. (2005). Differential effects of welfare to work programs: Identification with unknown treatment status (Working paper). Coral Gables, FL: Department of Economics, University of Miami.Google Scholar
  22. O’Neill, J., & Hill, A. (2001). Gaining ground: Measuring the impact of welfare reform on welfare and work (Civic report no. 17). New York, NY: Manhattan Institute. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from
  23. Pandey, S., & Kim, J. (2008). Path to poverty alleviation: Marriage or postsecondary education? Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(1), 166–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parrott, S., & Sherman, A. (2007). TANF’s results are more mixed than is often understood. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(2), 374–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2000). Work first: Workfare and the regulation of contingent labor market. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24, 119–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pepper, J. (1995). Dynamics of the intergenerational transmission of welfare receipt in the United States. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 16(2–3), 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pingle, J. (2003). What if welfare had no work requirements? The age of youngest child exemption and the rise in employment of single mothers (Finance and Economics Discussion Series Working paper no. 2003-57). Washington, DC: Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from SSRN:
  28. Rector, R., & Youssef, S. (1999). The determinants of welfare caseload decline. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Ribar, D. (2005). Transitions from welfare and the employment prospects of low-skilled workers. Southern Economic Journal, 71(3), 514–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers, W. (1993). Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints, 3, 88–94.Google Scholar
  31. Rowe, G., & Versteeg, J. (2005). Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies As of July 2003. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from
  32. Sandefur, G., & Cook, S. (1997). Duration of public assistance receipt: Is welfare a trap? (Discussion paper no. 1129-97). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
  33. Schoeni, R., & Blank, R. (2000). What has welfare reform accomplished: Impacts on welfare participation, employment, income, poverty, and family structure? (Working paper No. w7627). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved May 27, 2004, from
  34. Son, S., & Bauer, J. (2010). Employed rural, low-income, single mothers’ family and work over time. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(1). doi: 10.1007/s10834-009-9173-8.
  35. Swann, C. (2005). Welfare reform when recipients are forward-looking. Journal of Human Resources, 40(1), 31–56.Google Scholar
  36. Urban, J., & Olson, P. (2005). A comprehensive employment model for low-income mothers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26(1), 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1998). Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program: First annual report to congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  38. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2007). Welfare reform reauthorized. News in Release, Wednesday, Feb 8, 2006, Retrieved May 25, 2007, from
  39. Wallace, G., & Blank, R. (1999). What goes up must come down? Explaining parental changes in public assistance caseloads (Working paper no. 78). Chicago, IL: Joint Center for Poverty Research.Google Scholar
  40. Ziliak, J., Figlio, D., Davis, E., & Connolly, L. (1997). Accounting for the decline in AFDC caseloads: Welfare reform or economic growth (Discussion paper. no. 1151-97). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social Work, RutgersThe State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations