Our objectives are to describe the policies adopted after PRWORA, which vary across states, to test for common underlying policy concepts, demonstrating how these policies are interrelated, and to examine whether policy stringency diffused to neighboring states results in greater policy stringency across all states over time. We convert textual TANF welfare guidelines into empirically derived policy dimensions and use the derived quantitative scores to describe variation and change in welfare policy dimensions across status during the 1996-2003 post-welfare-reform period. Copyright (c) 2006 by the Southwestern Social Science Association.

This research compares the likelihood of exiting TANF with and without employment and the effects of important state TANF rules on welfare exits in more disadvantaged (large Rustbelt cities and poor southern nonmetro) and less disadvantaged (other metro and other nonmetro) areas during the 1996–2003 post‐welfare reform period. Hierarchical competing risk models using individual‐level data from the 1996–99 and 2001–03 Panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation merged with state‐level data from various sources show that female TANF participants in poor southern nonmetro areas are the least likely to exit TANF with work, and participants in large Rustbelt cities are less likely to exit TANF with work than those in other metro areas. Non‐work TANF exits are more likely to occur in other nonmetro areas than in other metro areas. Importantly, the effects of state welfare rules on TANF exits differ across places of residence. For example, stringent time limit policies promote work exits in large Rustbelt cities but promote non‐work exits in poor southern nonmetro areas. More lenient earned income disregards are significantly related to remaining on TANF in poor southern nonmetro areas but promote work exits in all other places. Findings from this paper imply that states should not take a “one‐size‐fits‐all approach” to reduce welfare caseloads.

Encouraging multidisciplinary scholarship on important social science issues has been a hallmark of the Social Science Quarterly for many decades.Nearly every year over the past six years this journal has conducted an invited forum based on what is considered to be a salient topic addressed by a research paper selected for publication. We are honored that the editor selected our research as a basis for a forum on the measurement and spatial patterns of state Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) eligibility policies following welfare reform. As population scientists, we welcome the comments of Professor Danziger and his economist colleagues and Professors Allard, Volden, and Soss et al., all political scientists, who provide their disciplinary perspectives on the scientific research of TANF policy. Their shared, as well as individual, concerns continue an interdisciplinary dialogue on TANF policy research and set the stage for needed additional research. Their criticisms regarding the utility of Welfare Dimensions Summary Scores (WDSS) measures warrant careful reflection on the science of measurement, as well as on the measure of scientific endeavor.We suggest that current and future scientific research agendas related to state variation in TANF policy involve at least four types of studies.1. Categorization and measurement of types of state welfare policies. 2. Description and modeling of the spatial variation in welfare policies across states and over time. 3. Tests of competing theory-based explanations for the patterns of postreform welfare policies adopted by states. 4. Analysis of the impact of state welfare policy variation on a variety of human behavior and governmental outcomes.The clearly stated objectives of our research were the first two of the above scientific agendas, although our inattention to the third objective is among n Direct correspondence to Deborah Roempke Graefe, 505 Oswald Tower, Population