I was under the impression that it was not so much changes in the law, but
changes in the interpretation and the implementation of the law -- as well
as misperception on the part of people who might have otherwise been on
welfare. Am I off base?
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:29:27AM -0500, Joel Blau wrote:
> 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 came and presented an unpublished paper to us census dweebs about a month ago.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 off financially than they were before leaving the welfare rolls.
> > > Evidence from State studies indicates that, at least initially, few leavers
> > > are significantly better off. . .
> > >
> > > . . . For 44 percent of leavers, household income plus food stamps in the
> > > year following exit was more than $50 per month higher than in the months
> > > before; for 49 percent it was at least $50 lower. . . . "
> > >
> > > . . . Enrollment in the food stamp program has fallen dramatically since
> > > 1994, from a high of 27.5 million participants to 18.2 million in 1999, in
> > > part because of the strong economy. Of concern, however, is the fact that
> > > the participation rate for eligible families declined from 71 percent in
> > > September 1994 to 62 percent in September 1997. This decline is particularly
> > > marked for families with children. In 1999 only 51 percent of children in
> > > families with incomes below the poverty line received food stamps. Even
> > > among the very poorest children�those in families with incomes less than 50
> > > percent of the poverty line�data indicate that only 58 percent received food
> > > stamps in 1999, down from 76 percent in 1993. . . .
> > >
> > > Chapter 5, Economic Report of the President, 2001
> > >
> > > [note: a "leaver" is someone who joins the caseload of Temporary Assistance
> > > for Needy Families (formerly AFDC) and separates from the program, either
> > > voluntarily or otherwise. It does not include those who never enter the
> > > program, who might have under other circumstances.]
>
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
