1. “Unintended Pregnancy in the United States,”;Henshaw;Family Planning Perspectives,1998
2. 33 Costs for contraceptive supplies alone (not including medical visits) are approximately $360 per year for oral contraceptives, $180 per year for Depo-Provera, $450 for Norplant, and $240 for an IUD. I also estimate $120 per year for supplies for the 28 percent of recipients using condoms or some other method. Applying the NSFG data regarding what proportion of welfare recipients use each method yields $240 as the per-user cost of supplies. I estimate $160 per year for medical visits. The $400 estimate is consistent with data from the California Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care and Treatment) evaluation, which calculated the average fiscal year 1997/1998 reimbursement for each client served in the comprehensive reproductive-health program to be $153. Personal communication from Diana Greene, Family PACT evaluation researcher, to author (June 17, 2002). Given that many program clients received services that were less costly than a full year of contraception, an estimate of $400 for a full year of contraception and associated medical care seems reasonable.
3. “Growth, Development, and Behavior in Early Childhood Following Prenatal Cocaine Exposure: A Systematic Review,”;Frank;JAMA,2001
4. 24 The effect of the family cap rule has been evaluated in New Jersey and in Arkansas. The Arkansas policy had no effect. See Turturro, C. Benda, B. Turney, H. , Arkansas Welfare Waiver Demonstration Project, Final Report (July 1994 though June 1997), study conducted by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Social Work, June 15, 1997, cited in Falk, G. Devere, C. , Analysis Of Evaluations Of The New Jersey Family Development Program, memo from the authors to Ron Haskins of the House Ways and Means Committee, July 9, 1998, available at . The New Jersey policy appeared to decrease births (and also increase both contraceptive use and abortions), but methodological flaws lead reviewers to be divided on the validity of this conclusion. See Levin-Epstein, J. , Open Questions: New Jersey's Family Cap Evaluation, report published by the Center for Law and Social Policy, February 1999, available at ; Falk, Devere, , supra. If the policy has reduced unplanned births it will have certainly raised overall social utility; if its main effect has been to cut incomes to children conceived on welfare who do not have the resources they need, it might have lowered overall social utility.