Yes, but the effect of the rule changes and the effect of an
expansionary economy play out on different sectors of the welfare
population. Since we don't know what has happened to one half of the
leavers, I think it is fair to say that the economy helped to get jobs
for those who were employed, while many of those who have vanished have
ended up at food banks. The U.S. Conference of Mayors does an annual
report on this subject. The last one in December did show a increasing
reliance on emergency food.
Joel Blau
Max Sawicky wrote:
> But aren't the number of foodbanks and other supplements to welfare
> growing? Are the rules for eligibility more stringent?
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> I don't know how or if the # of foodbanks has
> changed.
>
> Eligibility rules are now left to the states,
> and caseload has gone down over 40% since before
> the 'reform.' As important as the rules for
> eligibility are those for sanctions, which is
> one way people leave the caseload. These also
> are up to the states.
>
> It is possible that some supplements have grown
> alongside the shrinkage of 'welfare' (TANF,
> formerly AFDC). The EITC has definitely grown.
> Some states such as Wisconsin (which has reduced
> its caseload more than any other state) may have
> expanded some social services like child care.
> The common element to expansions is that they
> tend to be conditional on work.
>
> The new paradigm means work in the home, particularly
> child care, is disadvantaged relative to other work.
> The main handle on this, as Randy Albelda pointed out
> in her talk at the AEA meetings, is family leave
> policy. Paid family leave is a way to subsidize
> work in the home. The Clinton Administration deserves
> some credit for opening this crack in the wall.
>
> mbs
