Does it pay to move from welfare to work?

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act requires welfare recipients to look for work and has made it more difficult for nonworking recipients to remain on the welfare rolls. In addition, the economic boom of the 1990s and changes in federal and state policies have raised the net income gain associated with moving from welfare to work. This paper analyzes data from a panel survey of single mothers, all of whom received welfare in February 1997. In 1999, those who left welfare and were working had a higher household income and lower poverty rate, experienced a similar level of material hardship, engaged in fewer activities to make ends meet, and had lower expectations of experiencing hardship in the near future than did nonworking welfare recipients. Estimations of fixed‐effect regressions of income that control for both observable and unobservable time‐invariant characteristics show that monthly net income increases by $2.63 for every additional hour of work effort. About 60 percent of the observed monthly income difference between wage‐reliant and welfare‐reliant mothers can be attributed to differences in their work effort. Thus, after welfare reform, it does pay to move from welfare to work. © 2002 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

The dissemination and utilization of welfare‐to‐work experiments in state policymaking

Abstract This paper reports the results of a telephone survey of state‐level officials as to the influence of evaluations of three state welfare innovations: California's GAIN, New York's CAP, and Florida's Project Independence. The three experiments were known to those interviewed, yet they did not have dramatic, decisive effects on policymaking. However, GAIN and CAP appear to have influenced policymaking in less dramatic and more subtle respects. Much more important than empirical findings about the effects of tested programs was information about how these programs actually operated in the field along with evidence that the policies tested in welfare‐to‐work experiments were logically consistent (that is, there was no obvious reason to think that they would be unsuccessful), could clear federal waivers, and would not encounter major political resistance. © 2000 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

The price of local discretion: Inequalities in welfare spending within texas

Discretion at the local level in the administration of state or federal programs may generate inequalities in spending among the different localities within a state. Among the counties of Texas, inequalities in welfare programs—Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps—prove substantial, mainly because of variations in rates of participation among the counties. While variables that reflect differences in the conditions for eligibility account for a significant part of the variation, various barriers to participation—including political attitudes, access to welfare offices, and local staffing—are also important. The results suggest that centralized regulation must be retained and strengthened if federal welfare programs are to retain some degree of uniformity within each state.     

Deciding to Provide: Local Decisions on Providing Social Welfare

Fiscal federalism predicts local governments will avoid social welfare expenditures, owing to capital mobility across local jurisdictions. Yet Census of Governments data consistently show that many local governments provide one or more social welfare functions, and moreover many jurisdictions provide these functions without federal or state intergovernmental support. This article finds evidence that, while local expenditures are largely driven by fiscal capacity and federal and state assistance, local decisions on providing social welfare functions and participating in intergovernmental revenues are primarily affected by degree of capital mobility and by local political factors. Consequently, local governments exercise much greater autonomy over social welfare policymaking than fiscal federalism suggests.     

Comment on Jill Khadduri's “should the housing voucher program become a state‐administered block grant?” A housing voucher block grant is a bad idea

Abstract

Khadduri argues for a well‐designed voucher block grant, phased in over several years. But proposals under consideration are more likely to undermine the effectiveness of vouchers than address their limitations. The most important advantage of housing vouchers is that they give recipients the freedom to choose the kind of housing and the location that best meet their needs. Although the current program is not living up to its potential, strategies for making it work better can be implemented without a block grant. Supporters of block grants claim welfare reform as a model, but none of the factors that contributed to declining caseloads under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families apply to housing. The single biggest problem with the housing voucher program is that federal spending for affordable housing is woefully inadequate. Instead of addressing this issue, a block grant would make housing hardship a state rather than a federal problem.     

Adolescents' formal employment and school enrollment: Effects of state welfare policies

Variations in state welfare policies in the reform era may affect adolescents through two mechanisms: A competing labor market hypothesis posits that stringent state welfare policies may reduce adolescent employment; and a signaling hypothesis posits that stringent welfare policies may promote enrollment. To test these hypotheses, we use a dynamic joint model of adolescents' school enrollment and formal employment, separating state welfare policies from non‐welfare state policies, state labor market conditions, and unobserved state characteristics. Longitudinal data from the NLSY97 on adolescents aged 14 to 18 and various state data sources over the period 1994–1999 support the competing labor market effect but not the signaling effect. In particular, lower‐income dropouts suffer more severely from fewer labor market opportunities when state welfare policies are more stringent, which indicates that welfare reform may compromise work opportunities for lower‐income dropouts. © 2004 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Föderalismus und wohlfahrtsstaatliche Entwicklung. Österreich und die Schweiz im Vergleich

Starting from the stylised fact that federal institutions are held to be inimical to welfare state expansion, this paper examines the ways in which federalism has shaped the dynamics of welfare state development in Switzerland and Austria. A comparison of these different federal polities reveals that the welfare breaking effect attached to federalism crucially depends on the extent of vertical power separation. In both countries economic competition among constituent units did not fuel a race to the bottom in social standards. In Switzerland, the most important reason connected to federalism for why federal social policy was delayed and downsized was policy-preemption by the cantons and their considerable influence on the federal policymaking process. In contrast, the Austrian Länder neither had major social policy competencies nor an effective veto power which allowed them to block the centralisation of public policy. Instead, federalism is subordinate to the partisan arena at the central state level which itself is dominated by political parties quite favourable to welfare state expansion.     

Challenges confronting nonprofit housing organizations’ self‐sufficiency programs

Abstract

In recent years, interest has grown at the federal level in strategies to combine subsidized housing with programs promoting household self‐sufficiency. This article explores how nonprofit housing organizations conceptualize their self‐sufficiency programs for their residents. A broad definition of self‐sufficiency is presented—one that is not exclusively focused on the individual and, instead, also includes program strategies that are focused on changing the context in which individuals live and work.

The paper then analyzes the relationship between the self‐sufficiency strategies being implemented in the nonprofit housing world and how these organizations will be affected by welfare reform, the shrinking and restructuring of federally subsidized housing, the emergence of block grant job training and workforce development programs, and the general devolution of government programs into ever more fungible pots at state and local levels. These transformations in the domestic policy agenda will present challenges to nonprofit housing organizations and to the goal of promoting self‐sufficiency.     

FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SURFACE MINING POLICY

The federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 not only established national performance standards and permitting procedures for the coal industry, but also provided for stateprimacy. The principle of state primary is both simple and intuitively appealing: Because states do not have adequate resources to develop effective regulatory programs, the federal government would set up comprehensive procedures and criteria to guide the states in preparing their own plans. The obvious advantage of state primacy is that i t provides for flexibility in implementation.
Ultimately, state primacy is an experiment in cooperative federalism, a sharing of authority and responsibility between the states and the federal government to insure both the general welfare and sensitivity to local conditions. The history of surface mining regulation is instructive because i t points out the pitfalls and promise of cooperative federalism as well as the critical role of the courts in making state primacy work.     

Housing and the Welfare State in Norway

This article discusses housing and the welfare state in Norway in 1980 and 2005 by applying Esping‐Andersen's theories of welfare state regimes to this sector. How should Norwegian housing policy be understood in light of Esping‐Andersen's conceptual framework, and what is the impact of post‐industrial change? In 1980, Norwegian housing policy was mainly characterised by social‐democratic traits such as market regulation, substantial public expenditure and universal subsidies for both renters and a large owner‐occupied housing sector. The effects of post‐industrial changes, including deregulation of the credit and housing markets, marked a major turn in housing policy and the housing market in Norway. By 2005, Norwegian housing policy was mainly characterised by traits that are typical of a liberal welfare regime: market economics, low public expenditure and subsidies for small, targeted groups, while other segments of the Norwegian welfare state remain characterised by social‐democratic traits. Esping‐Andersen's claim that the effect of post‐industrial transformation was different in different welfare regimes is thus not supported by the case of the Norwegian housing sector.     

Recent Data Trends Show Welfare Reform to Be a Mixed Success: Significant Policy Changes Should Accompany Reauthorization

The conventional wisdom is that the 1996 federal welfare reform law has been a stunning success. Welfare caseloads have declined significantly and employment among disadvantaged single mothers has increased more than anticipated. Also, more low‐income children were living with married couples in the late 1990s. However, welfare reform was enacted in the midst of exceptional economic, demographic, and other policy changes and it is impossible to disentangle the impact of federal welfare reform from these other factors. This article describes these factors and puts the income gains and losses among families with children between 1996 and 2000 into the historical context of the past twenty‐five years. This analysis provides substantial evidence that welfare reform may have “worked” for many low‐income families with children while failing other low‐income families. Furthermore, despite recent increases in poverty following the 2001 recession, welfare caseloads continued to decline, indicating a fundamental flaw in what has traditionally been a countercyclical program. Data also suggest that the significant increase over the 1990s in the share of low‐income children living with married couples has been reversed following the recent recession. These findings suggest that the 1996 welfare law needs to be considerably retooled.     

Understanding State Rulemaking Processes: Developing Fracking Rules in Colorado,New York,and Ohio

Rulemaking is an integral component of environmental policy at both the federal and state level; however, rulemaking at the state level is understudied. With this research, we begin to fill that gap by focusing on rulemaking regarding the issue of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in three states: Colorado, New York, and Ohio. This policy issue is well suited to begin exploring state‐level rulemaking processes because the federal government has left fracking regulation to the states. Through semistructured interviews with a range of actors in the rulemaking process across these states, we establish a foundation from which future research in this area may build. This exploratory research yields some valuable insights into the roles different stakeholders are playing in regulating fracking in these three states, and our findings may be useful for explaining state‐level rulemaking more generally.     

A lesson from the JOBS program: Reforming welfare must be both dazzling and dull

The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program created by the Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988 made considerable progress in expanding opportunities for welfare recipients to go to school, train for employment, and seek work. Yet federal and state officials sought further welfare reform because they were impatient with a program that was costly and produced little evidence of positive outcomes; they realized that the FSA did not address perverse incentives in the AFDC program; and they saw political gains to be reaped from reform itself. It concludes that successful reform requires leaders who can articulate a vision of welfare that dazzles enough to motivate many layers of actors and who can pay attention to the dull management details of implementing it.     

The effects of state R&D tax credits in stimulating private R&D expenditure: A cross‐state empirical analysis

This is a cross‐state empirical study which examines the effects of state research and development (R&D) tax credits on private R&D expenditure in the states. Other explanatory variables include federal R&D subsidies, public services in higher education and R&D‐targeted programs as well as other control variables. The statistical result shows that the establishment of state R&D credit programs is effective in stimulating more industrial R&D expenditure. In addition, state services in higher education and R&D‐targeted programs also matter in private decision of R&D investment. This policy assessment sends a positive message to state policymakers because it shows the great potential in using R&D policy instruments to promote innovation‐based economic development. © 2005 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management     

Welfare reforms,family resources,and child maltreatment

This paper examines the impact of welfare reforms on several measures of child maltreatment. The authors use state‐level data from 1990 to 1998 to examine whether recent welfare reforms have increased or reduced the incidence of reported and substantiated cases of maltreatment, the incidence of specific types of substantiated maltreatment—physical abuse and neglect—and the number of children living in out‐of‐home care. The welfare reforms considered are the imposition of: family caps, lifetime limits, work requirements, sanctions for non‐compliance, and the restriction of welfare benefits to immigrants. How welfare benefit levels and changes in state Earned Income Tax Credit programs affect reports and substantiated cases of maltreatment are also considered. Evidence strongly indicates that reductions in states' welfare benefit levels increase the number of children in out‐of‐home care, and some evidence indicates that strict lifetime welfare limits and tougher sanctions for noncompliance are related to higher levels of substantiated maltreatment. The evidence on family caps is mixed: family caps appear to be associated with fewer instances of substantiated maltreatment, but more children in out‐of‐home care. Because most of the welfare reforms examined have been in effect for only a short time, these results should be considered preliminary. Overall, however, they provide some evidence that the recent welfare reforms in the United States may have increased child maltreatment. © 2003 by the Association for Public Policy and Analysis and Management.     

Can the hidden hand of the market be an effective and legitimate regulator? The case of animal welfare under a labeling for consumer choice policy approach

In Australia, labeling for consumer choice, rather than higher government regulation, has become an important strand of the policy approach to addressing food animal welfare. This paper illustrates the usefulness of “regulatory network analysis” to uncover the potentials and limitations of market‐based governance to address contentious yet significant issues like animal welfare. We analyzed the content of newspaper articles from major Australian newspapers and official policy documents between 1990 and 2014 to show how the regulatory network influenced the framing of the regulatory problem, and the capacity and legitimacy of different regulatory actors at three “flashpoints” of decisionmaking about layer hen welfare in egg production. We suggest that the government policy of offering consumers the choice to buy cage free in the market allowed large‐scale industry to continue the egg laying business as usual with incremental innovation and adjustment. These incremental improvements only apply to the 20 percent or so of hens producing “free‐range” eggs. We conclude with a discussion of when and how labeling for consumer choice might create markets and public discourses that make possible more effective and legitimate regulation of issues such as layer hen welfare.     

Americanising Brexit Britain's Welfare State?

Will the British welfare state revert to an Americanisation trajectory or retain features of the European model after April 2019? After a period of historically prolonged austerity and substantial working age welfare reform, with the UK facing yet another renegotiation of the social contract in a post‐Brexit world, the question of whether there remains space for an alternative to the ‘American’ model is of crucial importance. We argue that there has been a blurring of differences across the American and European welfare states in terms of working age benefits, as most countries have adopted aspects of work‐based conditionality reforms, which attach the receipt of benefits to the active pursuit of work and, to varying extents, the underlying politics of US welfare reform, where there are large coalitions supportive of more punitive policies towards low‐income adults and minorities. These trends are taking place against the backdrop of a second major shift: increasing restrictions on benefits for immigrants. This double narrowing of the welfare state, making benefits conditional for citizens and excluding those who are not citizens, seemingly sets the agenda for a more restrictive post‐Brexit welfare state. The experience of the last two decades suggests, however, that the adoption of the American model has not been wholesale; steering a middle path between punitive conditional American benefits and more traditionally generous universal benefits is on the agenda across advanced welfare states.     

State strategies for welfare reform: The Wisconsin story

Wisconsin is commonly cited as exemplar of the capability of states for reforming welfare. Wisconsin's welfare and caseload declined 22.5 percent between 1986 and 1994. I argue that the decline resulted from restriction of eligibility and benefits, a strong state economy, and large expenditures on welfare-to-work programs encouraged by an exceptional fiscal bargain with the federal government. Continued reduction of welfare utilization by means other than denying access are jeopardized by proposed changes in federal cost-sharing, a prospective state deficit, and the growing share of the caseload accounted for by residents of Milwaukee. Wisconsin Works, the state's plan for public assistance in a post-block grant world, continues benefit reduction and eligibility restriction but expands emphasis on employment. The special circumstances enjoyed by Wisconsin are unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere.     

The economic theory of regulation and trucking deregulation: Shifting to the state level

Federal deregulation of the trucking industry in 1980 created a general gain in economic welfare at the expense of the monopoly rents of powerful interests, leading some scholars to ponder the limitations of the economic theory of regulation. However, analyzing only the federal changes excludes evidence from the significant intrastate sector of the trucking industry, regulation of which remains largely unchanged from that prior to 1980. This paper argues that after a decade of clear federal policy success, truckers continue to capture most state regulators, sustaining monopoly rents in what would otherwise be an inherently competitive industry. Using data from the fifty states, we demonstrate the extent to which the economic theory is in fact consistent with trucking industry evidence.     

Interstate Competition and Welfare Policy

In 1996, the federal government terminated the Aid to Familieswith Dependent Children (AFDC) program and replaced it withthe Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF).Many powers once held by the federal government are now beingused by state governments. Will welfare assistance be redesignedand expanded or will states "race to the bottom?" This issueis investigated by examining state welfare policy choices duringthe latter years of AFDC(1976–1994). Because each stateunder AFDC had the authority to set the level of its welfareguarantee for families that had no income, it is possible toestimate the effects of interstate competition on AFDC guaranteelevels. By estimating a spatial autocorrelation coefficientwhile controlling for theoretically relevant variables and statefixed effects, this study finds evidence that states are sensitiveto the welfare policies of their competitors.