The role of the economy and welfare policies in shaping welfare caseloads: The California experience

Social Work Research

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 197-209

  Albert, Vicky N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

Caseload; Economy; Time limits; Waivers; Welfare reform; Work incentives

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040971890     PISSN: 10705309     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/swr/24.4.197     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Albert, V. N. (1988). Welfare dependence and welfare policy: A statistical study. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
2. Albert, V., & King, W. (1999). The effect of a mandatory employment program on welfare terminations. Journal of Social Service Research, 25, 125-150.
3. Barnow, B. S. (1988). Estimating the New Jersey AFDC caseload. Washington, DC: ICF Incorporated.
4. Blank, R. (1997). What causes public assistance caseloads to grow? Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
5. Brazzell, J. F., Lefberg, I., & Wolfgang, O. (1989). The impact of population size and the economy on welfare caseloads: The special case of welfare reform. Applied Demography, 4(3), 1-7.
6. California Department of Social Services. (1998). California Department of Social Services Fact Sheet: California Welfare to Work Plan, CalWORKs [Online]. Available: www.sacto.org.
7. Congressional Budget Office. (1993). Forecasting AFDC caseloads, with an emphasis on economic factors [Staff memorandum]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
8. Garsky, S. (1989). Analyzing the effect of Massachusetts' ET Choices Program on the state's AFDC caseload (Technical Analysis Paper No. 39). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy.
9. Garsky, S. (1990). Analyzing the effects of Massachusetts' ET Choices Program on state's AFDC-Basic caseload. Evaluation Review, 14, 701-710.
10. Hoynes, H. (1996). Local labor market conditions and welfare spells: Do demand conditions matter? (Working paper 5643). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
11. Hutchens, R. (1981). Entry and exits transitions in government transfer programs: The case for Aid to Dependent Children. Journal of Human Resources, 16, 217-231.
12. Liu, J. C. (1997, May). Briefing. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
13. Martini, A., & Wiseman, M. (1997). Explaining the recent decline in welfare caseloads: Is the Council of Economic Advisers right? Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
14. O'Neill. J. (1990). Work and welfare in Massachusetts: An evaluation of the ET program. Boston: Pioneer Institute.
15. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.
16. Plotnick, R., & Lidman, R. (1987, Autumn). Forecasting welfare caseloads: A tool to improve budgeting. Public Budgeting and Finance, 7(3), 70-81.
17. U.S. Council of Economic Advisers. (1997). Technical report: Explaining the decline in welfare receipt, 1993 to 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
18. Wedel, J. M. (1987). An explanatory model for forecasting the New York City public assistance family caseload. In Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Proceedings: 27th national workshop on welfare research and statistics (pp. 605-617). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19. Ziliak, J. P., Figlio, D. N., Davis, E. E., & Connelly, L. (1997). Accounting for the decline in AFDC caseloads: Welfare reform or economic growth? (Discussion Paper No. 1151-97). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.