Michael Perelman's question about the changes in welfare laws in reprinted below.
Actually, the welfare laws changed more in the summer of 1996 with the passage of
PROWRA
(I forget the exact name, something like personal responsibility and work recovery act)
than they have since welfare was instituted under the Roosevelt administration.
Basically, PROWRA set up a few loose federal guidelines within which states are
allowed to
pass their own welfare laws. The states receive block grants for welfare, and once
they
have followed the minimum federal guidelines, they get to keep the 'extra' money
(within
some limits) to use as they want. The basic rules are now:
1. There is a lifetime cap on cash benefits (now called TANF) of 5 years. Once you
have
collected 5 years of benefits, you are entitled to no more, no matter what the need.
2. You have to be working within two years to collect benefits.
3. All states must offer 'one=stop' shopping, i.e. benefit availability information
and
job counselling at the same location
That sounds pretty simple, but with every state passing its own laws, there simply is
no
nationwide welfare program any more. For instance:
** more than 2/3 of all states require work within less than two years, with 1/3
requiring
immediate work. (so, in NYC, if you don't push that broom for the parks department, you
don't get benefits)
** almost 1/4 of all eligible adults are now ineligible because of rules infractions,
so
you frequently have parents with children eligible for tanf where the adults are kicked
off the wlefare roles and where the state is paying the kids benefits to 3rd parties,
or
land lords -- and we all know how honest landlords are.
**About half of all states (including California with the largest caseload in the
nation)
have passed family caps. So recipients who have additional children are not entitled
to
benefits for those children.
To get a sense of the complexities, The Urban Institute has an excellent welfare rules
database which lists all the state by state permutations of the new rules.
Essentially,
the system is now so complex that hundreds of Ph Ds are studying them nationwide and
can't
make head nor tails out of who's collecting, who's eligible or what. So one of the
legacies of the Clinton administration is a perfect bureaucratic smokes screen which
completely covers the extent of poverty in this country.
Michael Perelman wrote:
> 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]
