But aren't the number of foodbanks and other supplements to welfare
growing? Are the rules for eligibility more stringent?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: Joel Blau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 10:29 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:6934] Re: Re: Welfare Reform, from the Horse's Mouth
These outcomes are perfectly consistently with a 1997 special report by the
Council
of Economic Advisors on this issue.. That study reported that economic
growth
accounted for 44 percent of the decline, while 31 percent of the decline
derived
from changes in the law. An appendix to the report, however, admits that
changes in
the law could account for as little as 13 percent. Hiliary Williamson
Hoynes at
Berkeley has done some useful work on this issue. She concludes that a 10
percent
increase in employment growth combined with a 5 percent increase in real
earnings
would lead to a 16 percent decline in the welfare caseload.
Joel Blau
Margaret Coleman wrote:
> A couple of comments on the excerpts Max sent us from the prez report....
> 1. Mathematica (a fairly conservative (imho) think tank/number crunching
group)
> came and presented an unpublished paper to us census dweebs about a month
ago.
> They compared the effect of the reduction of caseload under afdc (old cash
> benefits) and tanf (new cash benefits) rules during the recessionary late
80s
> and the expansion of the 90s. Their main conclusion was that the new
rules
> explain less than 10% of the reduction in case load, while the
expansionary
> economy explains about 40-50%. The rest is unknown.
> 2. I suspect that a huge portion of the non-collection of benefits like
food
> stamps is due to a lack of information as states rush to reduce case load
so
> they can keep the block grant monies to spend on 'other' items.
> 3. Mathematica and the Urban Institute have both sent people to the field
in
> different states and the administration of new rules is tremendously at
odds
> with the rules as written -- in short, no one actually has any real clue
at all
> as to how many people are eligible, how many people are collecting, and
what has
> happened to leavers.
> 4,,,,, factoids: There is a provision in prowra (new rules) which gives
> additional block grant money to the states which reduce unwed births the
most
> WITHOUT use of abortion (perhaps an aspirin held tightly between the
knees?).
> Personally, I read this as an incentive to discourage legal abortions.
AND in a
> study about school enrollment (which I am authoring, though it is not
'official'
> yet), using the survey of income and program participation (SIPP), there
has
> been a small, but clear increase in the number of people not receiving
benefits
> but living at the lowest end of the income spectrum between March, 1996
and
> March, 1998. maggie coleman
>
> Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> > "Two of the most impressive achievements of the past 8 years have been
the
> > reduction in the number of Americans receiving welfare, and the increase
in
> > the numbers of current and former welfare recipients who are working. .
.
> >
> > . . . The 1996 reforms have undeniably been successful in reducing the
> > number of people receiving welfare. But reductions in caseloads are not
the
> > only measure by which to judge the reforms: the well-being of the
millions
> > of former welfare recipients is at least as important. Much of what we
know
> > about outcomes for welfare leavers comes from studies undertaken in
> > individual States. . . .
> >
> > . . . Welfare leavers are unlikely to thrive in the workplace if they
are no
> > better
