Ending welfare as we know it: A reform still in progress

Political Science Quarterly

Volumn 116, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 525-560

  Caraley, Demetrios James ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347608685     PISSN: 00323195     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/798220     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. In exact numbers, the total fell by 5,441,000, from 12,644,000 to 7,203,000; the number of adults fell by 1,884,000, from 3,973,000 to 2,089,000, while the number of children receiving cash assistance fell by 3,557,000 from 8,671,000 to 5,114,000. Committee on Ways and Means, 2000 Green Book (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office [hereafter GPO], 2000), Table 7.4, Historical Trends in AFDC/TANF Enrollments, Fiscal Years 1970-1999, 376.
2. In exact numbers, the total fell by 5,441,000, from 12,644,000 to 7,203,000; the number of adults fell by 1,884,000, from 3,973,000 to 2,089,000, while the number of children receiving cash assistance fell by 3,557,000 from 8,671,000 to 5,114,000. Committee on Ways and Means, 2000 Green Book (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office [hereafter GPO], 2000), Table 7.4, Historical Trends in AFDC/TANF Enrollments, Fiscal Years 1970-1999, 376.
3. The term was coined by Pamela Loprest, "Families Who Left Welfare: Who Are They and How Are They Doing?" (working paper prepared for The Urban Institute's Conference, Assessing New Federalism, February 1999).
4. The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is poor. The 2000 Poverty Threshold, as calculated by the Census Bureau, was $11,869 for a family with a single householder and one dependent child and $13,861 for a single householder and two dependent children.
5. U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States 1996 and 1999, vol. 60 of Current Population Reports no. 175 and 210 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1991).
6. Richard L. Berke, "Clinton: Getting People off Welfare," New York Times, 10 September 1992; a campaign ad initially broadcast on 9 September 1992, in which Clinton stated, "I have a plan to end welfare as we know it - to break the cycle of welfare dependency. Well provide education, job training and child care, but then those that are able must go to work, either in the private sector or in public service."
7. "Welfare Reform Takes a Back Seat," Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1994 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1995), 364.
8. Ibid. Clinton proposed to require an immigrant's sponsor to be financially responsible for the immigrant for five years. After the five years, if the sponsor's income was above the national median family income, the immigrant would have to become a citizen to be eligible for benefits.
9. "Welfare Reform Takes a Back Seat," 364.
10. HR 2491 passed in the Senate 52-47 (D 0-46, R 52-1) and in the House 235-192 (D 5-191, R 230-1).
11. HR 4 passed in the Senate 52-47 (D 1-45, R 51-2) and in the House 245-178 (D 17-174, R 228-4).
12. "Welfare Bill Clears under Veto Threat," Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1995 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1996), chap. 7, 52.
13. PRWORA, or HR 3734, Final passage: House 256-170 [D 30-165 (ND 16-122, SD 14-43) R 230-2], Senate 74-24, [D 23-23 (ND 16-20, SD 7-3) R 51-1]; Conference Report PRWORA: House 328-101 [D 98-98 (ND 62-76, SD 36-2 2), R 230-2, I 0-1], Senate 78-21 [D 25-21 (ND 17-20, SD 8-1), R 53-0].
14. See the 2000 Green Book, 352. Strictly speaking the entitlement was for states that had chosen to participate in AFDC to receive matching dollars for a proportion of what they spent. The proportion of the match varied according to the per capita income of the state, with "rich" states like New York, Connecticut, or California getting back 50 cents for every dollar they spent and poor states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and New Mexico getting back 80 cents for every dollar they spent.
15. The first action the bill took with regard to legal immigrants was to divide them into two groups: those who were in the country as of 22 August 1996 and those who came after preenactment and postenactment. Although most legal immigrants were originally barred from Food Stamps and SSI regardless of their date of entry into the United States, the date of entry distinction did matter for other programs. Most postenactment immigrants were barred from federal means-tested benefits, including SSI, Food Stamps, TANF, nonemergency Medicaid, and the state Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for their first five years in the United States. States were given the option to bar preenactment immigrants from TANF and nonemergency Medicaid programs. Since 1996, eligibility for SSI and Food Stamps has been restored to many preenactment children, elderly, and disabled persons, deepening the divide between the support available to the pre and postenactment groups. See Wendy Zimmerman and Karen C. Tumlin, "Patchwork Policies: State Assistance to Immigrants under Welfare Reform," The Urban Institute, May 1999. According to the 2000 Green Book, "The basic policy laid out by the 1996 welfare law remains essentially unchanged for noncitizens entering after its enactment." 2000 Green Book, 1372.
16. The first action the bill took with regard to legal immigrants was to divide them into two groups: those who were in the country as of 22 August 1996 and those who came after preenactment and postenactment. Although most legal immigrants were originally barred from Food Stamps and SSI regardless of their date of entry into the United States, the date of entry distinction did matter for other programs. Most postenactment immigrants were barred from federal means-tested benefits, including SSI, Food Stamps, TANF, nonemergency Medicaid, and the state Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for their first five years in the United States. States were given the option to bar preenactment immigrants from TANF and nonemergency Medicaid programs. Since 1996, eligibility for SSI and Food Stamps has been restored to many preenactment children, elderly, and disabled persons, deepening the divide between the support available to the pre and postenactment groups. See Wendy Zimmerman and Karen C. Tumlin, "Patchwork Policies: State Assistance to Immigrants under Welfare Reform," The Urban Institute, May 1999. According to the 2000 Green Book, "The basic policy laid out by the 1996 welfare law remains essentially unchanged for noncitizens entering after its enactment." 2000 Green Book, 1372.
17. Peter Kilborn and Sam Howe Verhovek, "Clinton's Welfare Shift Ends Tortuous Journey," New York Times, 2 August 1996.
18. Calculated from the 2000 Green Book, tab. 7.4, 376.
19. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (stats.bls.gov/blshome.htm), 6 June 2001.
20. Pamela Loprest, "How Are Families That Left Welfare Doing? A Comparison of Early and Recent Welfare Leavers," New Federalism: National Survey of America's Families 36 (April 2001).
21. Loprest, "Families Who Left Welfare: Who Are They and How Are They Doing?"
22. Describing people or families as having incomes above the official poverty line does not necessarily mean that they have the means for adequate self-support. The federal poverty line is not adjusted for regional cost-of-living differences and therefore often falls dramatically short of what a family actually needs for self-sufficiency.
23. David Kocieniewski. "Study Finds Mixed Results in Reducing Welfare Rolls," New York Times, 22 October 1999.
24. John H. Bishop, "Is Welfare Reform Succeeding?" Working Paper Draft, 12 August 1998.
25. Tamar Lewin, "Study Finds Welfare Changes Lead a Million Into Child Care," New York Times, 4 February 2000.
26. H.R. 3734 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, part A, sec. 410, (a) (1).
27. Jason DeParle, "As Welfare Rolls Shrink, Burden on Relatives Grows," New York Times, 21 February 1999.
28. For more information on family homelessness, see Ralph da Costa Nunez, The New Poverty: Homeless Families in America (New York: Insight Books, 1996).
29. "Study Says Welfare Changes Made the Poorest Worse Off," New York Times, 23 August 1999.
30. Ibid. The average yearly income in this group fell to $8,047. The situation was worse for the poorest 10 percent, who lost an average of $814 a year.
31. Pamela Loprest, "Current and Former Welfare Recipients: How Do They Differ?" Discussion Paper 99-17, Urban Institute, November 1999.
32. City of New York Independent Budget Office, Inside the Budget, no. 82, 4 May 2001.
33. Following the Congressional Quarterly's, categorization, the Midwest includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin; the Northeast includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia; the South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia; and the West includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.
34. "The State of Welfare Caseloads in America's Cities" (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution - Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 1999).
35. See Somini Sengupta, "In Rural Counties, the Squeeze of Poverty Can Be Stronger," New York Times, 29 April 2001.
36. Testimony of Sylvia Ruff in "Welfare as They Know It," Harper's Magazine, November 1997, 24-29.
37. Alan Weil, "Assessing the New Federalism" (Urban Institute's Conference, February 1999). These strategies are also discussed by the Department of Health and Human Services in their "Third Annual Report to Congress," August 2000 (www.acf.dhhs.gov), 24 August 2001.
38. Alan Weil, "Assessing the New Federalism" (Urban Institute's Conference, February 1999). These strategies are also discussed by the Department of Health and Human Services in their "Third Annual Report to Congress," August 2000 (www.acf.dhhs.gov), 24 August 2001.
39. Thomas L. Gais et al., "The Implementation of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996: Commonalities, Variations, and the Challenge of Complexity" (conference paper prepared for The New World of Welfare: An Agenda for Reauthorization and Beyond, Washington, DC, 1-2 February 2001), 13.
40. Ibid., 12.
41. Ibid., 12.
42. See 2000 Green Book, 353.
43. Ed Lazere and Lana Kim, "Welfare Balances in the States: Unspent TANF Funds in the Middle of Federal Fiscal Year 1999" (Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12 January 2000).
44. Annia Ciezaldo, "Inside the New State Budget: A Welfare Slush Fund," City Limits Weekly, no. 224, 17 April 2000.
45. Virginia Know, Cynthia Miller, and Lisa Gennetian. "Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: A Summary of the Final Report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program," MDRC, 2000. All data on MFIP and its outcomes were obtained from this MDRC report.
46. Jeff Thompson, letter to New York Times, 20 June 2000.
47. California Budget Program, Welfare Reform Update, Calworks Community Service: How Can Counties Make it Work? (www.calib.com/peerta/policies/employ.htm), November 2000.
48. In order to qualify for Medicaid, persons must be either elderly and low-income, disabled and low-income, medically needy (with a moderate income hut extremely high medical bills), a member of a low-income family with dependent children, or a pregnant woman and have countable assets (determined by the states) that are valued below federal limits.
49. Robert Pear, "A Million Parents Lost Medicaid, Study Says," New York Times, 20 June 2000.
50. Families USA, "The Heath Care Safety Net: Millions of Low-Income People Left Uninsured," July 2001 (www.familiesusa.org), 3 August 2001.
51. Ibid.
52. Pear, "A Million Parents Lost Medicaid."
53. 2000 Green Book, 931.
54. Ibid.
55. Families USA, "The Health Care Safety Net."
56. The federal government requires that food stamp recipients have an income and assets below a set level and that they register for work or job training; the PRWORA requires that adults without dependent children work at least half-time or enroll in a job training program to receive Food Stamps for longer than 3-6 months. Many TANF, SSI, and General Assistance recipients automatically qualify for Food Stamps, while most strikers, noncitizens, post-secondary students, and institutionalized persons do not. Families without a permanent address may not qualify for Food Stamps.
57. Parke Wilde, et al., "Food Assistance and Nutrition Report No. 7: The Decline in Food Stamp Participation in the 1990's" (Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division [www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr7/], 21 June 2001). Another 12 percent was attributed to "program reform and political variables," and only 28 percent of the decline was accounted for by a decrease in the number of people with low incomes.
58. "Study Says Welfare Changes Made the Poorest Worse Off," New York Times, 23 August 1999.
59. Nina Bernstein, "Bingo, Blood and Burial Plots in the Quest for Food Stamps." New York Times, 12 August 2000. See also, Food Resource and Action Center at www.farc.org and Mathematical Policy Research at www.fns.usda.gov, August 2000.
60. Nina Bernstein, "Bingo, Blood and Burial Plots in the Quest for Food Stamps." New York Times, 12 August 2000. See also, Food Resource and Action Center at www.farc.org and Mathematical Policy Research at www.fns.usda.gov, August 2000.
61. Nina Bernstein, "Bingo, Blood and Burial Plots in the Quest for Food Stamps." New York Times, 12 August 2000. See also, Food Resource and Action Center at www.farc.org and Mathematical Policy Research at www.fns.usda.gov, August 2000.
62. Remarks made by President Clinton to the National Governors Association, 28 July 1997, Las Vegas, Nevada.
63. State legislatures have missed out on this new power, partially because state legislative bodies have nowhere near the amount of influence vis à vis a governor as Congress has toward the president.
64. Thomas L. Gais, "Concluding Comments: Welfare Reform and Governance" in Carol S. Weissert ed., Learning from Leaders: Welfare Reform Politics and Policy in Five Midwestern States (Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press, 2000), 173-189.
65. See Demetrios Caraley, "Dismantling the Federal Safety Net: Fictions Versus Realities," Political Science Quarterly 111 (Summer 1996): 250-51. As could easily have been predicted, governors have in fact gained power as a result of the block granting of cash assistance, as well as the devolution of much of the policy-making authority around welfare.
66. See the 2000 Green Book, tabs. 7-14.
67. Letter from Nancy Johnson to governors, 16 March 1999 (www.fiscalpolicy.org/johnson99.htm), 26 July 2001.
68. Letter from Nancy Johnson to governors, 15 March 2000 (www.mncn.org/bp/johnson.htm), 26 July 2001.
69. Following Congressional Quarterly's categorization, Southern Democrats are those elected in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. For this comparison, Northern Democrats are those representing the other thirty-seven states.
70. See Demetrios Caraley, "Congressional Politics and Urban Aid," Political Science Quarterly 91 (Spring 1976): 19-45; Caraley, "Congressional Politics and Urban Aid: A 1978 Postscript," Political Science Quarterly 93 (Fall 1978): 411-18; and Caraley, "Congress and Reagan's New Federalism," (with Yvette Schlussel), Publius: The Journal of Federalism 16 (Winter 1986): 49-79.
71. See Demetrios Caraley, "Congressional Politics and Urban Aid," Political Science Quarterly 91 (Spring 1976): 19-45; Caraley, "Congressional Politics and Urban Aid: A 1978 Postscript," Political Science Quarterly 93 (Fall 1978): 411-18; and Caraley, "Congress and Reagan's New Federalism," (with Yvette Schlussel), Publius: The Journal of Federalism 16 (Winter 1986): 49-79.
72. See Demetrios Caraley, "Congressional Politics and Urban Aid," Political Science Quarterly 91 (Spring 1976): 19-45; Caraley, "Congressional Politics and Urban Aid: A 1978 Postscript," Political Science Quarterly 93 (Fall 1978): 411-18; and Caraley, "Congress and Reagan's New Federalism," (with Yvette Schlussel), Publius: The Journal of Federalism 16 (Winter 1986): 49-79.
73. U.S. Census Bureau, "Poverty in the United States," 1999.
74. Demetrios Caraley, "Carter, Congress, and the Cities" in Dale Rogers Marshall, ed., Urban Policy Making (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1979).
75. 1996 CNN exit poll (www.cnn.com), 28 May 2001.
76. Calculated from the U.S. Census Bureau, Congressional Apportionment Homepage (www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment.html), 23 May 2001.
77. Jon F. Hale, "The Making of the New Democrats," Political Science Quarterly 110 (Summer 1995): 216.
78. Ibid., 224.
79. th Congress: SENATE 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, 1 Independent; HOUSE: 212 Democrats, 221 Republicans, 2 Independents.
80. See Robert Y. Shapiro and John T. Young, "Public Opinion and the Welfare State: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Political Science Quarterly 104 (Spring 1989).
81. Kent Weaver, Ending Welfare As We Know It (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2000), 24-25. See also Shapiro and Young. "Public Opinion and the Welfare State."
82. Kent Weaver, Ending Welfare As We Know It (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2000), 24-25. See also Shapiro and Young. "Public Opinion and the Welfare State."
83. See 1935 Social Security Act: HR 7620. House: recommit - failed 149-253: D 46-252 (N 39-151, S 7-101), R 94-1; bill - passed 372-33, D 289-13 (N 187-6, S 102-107), R 76-18. Senate: bill - passed 75-7, D 60-1 (N 39-1, S 21-0), R 15-5. For a detailed discussion of this topic, see Demetrios Caraley, "Congressional Politics and Urban Aid," Political Science Quarterly 91 (Spring 1976).
84. Unpublished data collected by the author.
85. With the exception of Senators James M. Jeffords (VT, now Independent) and Lincoln Chafee (RI), and less often Olympia Snowe (ME) who sometimes vote with the Democrats. They, however, are offset by several Democrats like John Breaux (LA) and Robert Byrd (WV) who also cross party lines and vote with the Republicans. For data that this solidarity on safety net items continued, see relevant votes in Congressional Roll Call, 1997-1999. For example, amendments to allow states to continue noncash/voucher benefits to children whose parents had reached lifetime limits were brought to the floor many times in both the House and Senate and were rejected each time, largely along party lines. SENATE: 1996 roll call vote 205 on S1956, an amendment to provide vouchers to children whose parents had reached lifetime limits, rejected 51-47 (R 6-47; D 45-0). Roll call vote 223 on S1956, an amendment to provide noncash assistance to children whose parents had reached lifetime limits, rejected 48-51 [R 2-50, D 46-1 (ND 37-0, SD 9-1)]. HOUSE: 1996 roll call vote 329 on HR 3734, amendment to require states to provide vouchers to children whose parents had reached lifetime limits, rejected 168-258 [R 9-221, D 159-36 (ND 110-28, SD 49-8)]. Roll call vote 330 on HR 3734, amendment to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to allow states to provide noncash vouchers to children whose parents had reached lifetime limits, rejected 203-220 [R 7-220, D 195-0].
86. See Frank Bruni, "Bush Pushes Private Sector Role in Aiding Poor," New York Times, 21 May 2001.
87. For a prediction that such a tax cut would occur and the safety net not be strengthened if budget surpluses materialized, see Caraley "Dismantling the Federal Safety Net," 256-8.
88. CNN's November 2000 exit polls failed to include questions on poverty or welfare. When participants were asked what they thought should be done with the federal surplus, they were provided with only three conservative responses: social security (35 percent); tax cut (28 percent); and debt reduction (24 percent).
89. 2000 Green Book, 356.
90. Ron Haskins, Isabel Sawhill, and Kent Weaver, "Welfare Reform Reauthorization: An Overview of Problems and Issues" (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, Welfare Reform and Beyond Brief #1, January 2001).
91. 2000 Green Book, 808-812.
92. See Homeless in America: A Children's Story, Part One (New York: The Institute for Children and Poverty, 1999).
93. See Caraley. "Dismantling the Federal Safety Net." fig. 6.