2 edition of AFDC caseload and benefit dynamics found in the catalog.
AFDC caseload and benefit dynamics
Charles B. Piper
|Statement||principal author, Charles Piper, with the assistance of Barry Bluestone ... [et al.]|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||v, 256 leaves :|
|Number of Pages||256|
effectiveness of employment and training programs. The book is orga nized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the AFDC program and examines trends in the size and composition of the welfare population. We exam ine the extent to which changes in the benefit structure may have shaped the changes in the size of the caseload and influenced the. She thoroughly analyzes the welfare system and its policies, examines trends in AFDC need and benefit standards, and compares California's AFDC program with those of other states. Albert then develops an analytic structure for investigating determinants of change in California's welfare caseload.
The benefit for such a family in the median state (North Dakota, whose maximum benefit ranked 26th among the 50 states and District of Columbia), was $, a benefit amount that represented 27% of monthly poverty-level income in TANF maximum benefits vary greatly by state; there is also a very apparent regional pattern to benefit amounts. This book presents research results relating to historical trends in the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) caseload, the personal characteristics and patterns of welfare participation in a nationally representative sample of young women followed over a year period, and an evaluative survey of the effectiveness of past education, training, and workfare programs in reducing the.
This brief depicts the diversity of state AFDC programs prior to passage of TANF. It concludes that states with low benefit levels under AFDC may have the hardest time implementing the new work requirements included in TANF. They will have fewer federal resources per family to prepare recipients for moving into jobs. States with relatively large shares of child-only cases may have an . In the presence of the AFDC caseload interactions, the interaction between the unemployment rate and the post-Welfare Reform Act variables becomes insignificant, while the positive retention effect of pre-Welfare Reform Act waivers increases slightly. Reform Act waiver Electronic Benefit Transfer program ABAWD waiver.
Pollen analyses from deposits of six upland tarns in the Lake District
The location of international firms in an enlarged E.E.C. an exploratory paper read 28th March, 1972
The seventeenth century
Retriever gun dogs
Land, law and politics in Africa
Soviet peace efforts on the eve of World War II
Digital communications techniques and equipment for law enforcement use ; prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, National Engineering Laboratory, Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory ; prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
Coins for pleasure and investment
The program was created under the name Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) by the Social Security Act of as part of the New was created as a means tested entitlement which subsidized the income of families where fathers were "deceased, absent, or unable to work".: 29 It provided a direct payment of $18 per month for one child, and $12 for a second child.
Effects of Child Support Payments on Benefit Levels 6 Welfare Spell Dynamics Length of Current Spells of AFDC Receipt Table Total AFDC Caseload by State, Selected Fiscal Years – 22 Table Total AFDC Benefit Expenditures by State in.
Table provides the distribution of the total number of months of AFDC benefit receipt for the full caseload overall and separately by the number of spells of receipt during the time frame.
(To abbreviate, we call this total-time-on, or TTO.) Column 1 shows TTO for the entire caseload. This column shows that a majority of the caseload in July received benefits for more than 2 years.
Inif all eligible single-parents families had participated in AFDC and food stamps, benefit payments would have been $ billion higher. View Show abstract. TANF benefit levels were not high in most states at the start of TANF, and most states have allowed their benefits to erode even further.
In all but three states, the real (inflation-adjusted) value of TANF cash benefits has fallen sinceand in the majority of states, TANF cash benefits are worth at least 30 percent less today than in AFDC/TANF can be used to simulate the time path of aggregate caseloads under various counterfactual histories of economic conditions and welfare reform implementation.
The organization of the remainder of this paper is as follows. In Section II the previous literature on the dynamics of AFDC/TANF participation and caseload. AFDC/TANF take-up behavior and the decision to continue receiving AFDC benefits. The only evidence on the relative contributions of entry and exit to AFDC caseload changes comes from Grogger et al.
They attribute 40 percent of the decline in SIPP AFDC participation rates to declining entry. Table 3 also examines the association between Medicaid benefits, welfare dependency, and work, after stratifying by three levels of Medicaid benefits, in which those families in high-AFDC-benefit areas and those in low-AFDC-benefit areas are considered separately.
This table shows that for females with a medium Medicaid valuation, 54 percent of. An important finding of this study is that modeling food stamp caseload dynamics has implications for the estimated effects of policy changes and economic factors—when dynamic models are employed, we observe substantially reduced welfare-reform effects but significantly increased effects of the macroeconomy on food stamp caseloads.
The TANF Cash Assistance Caseload. The following figure and tables provide information on the cash assistance caseload under TANF and its predecessor program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Figure Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance. Table Trends in the Cash Assistance Caseload: to Table Downloadable (with restrictions). O'Neill and O'Neill compile and analyze data that identifies historical trends in the AFDC caseload, the personal characteristics of recipients, and broad patterns of welfare participation.
They also offer an evaluative survey on the effectiveness of past education, training and workfare programs in reducing the AFDC caseload. (3) The job market has a measurable effect on the welfare decision. (4) Benefit levels have only a minor influence on migration.
(5) Administrative policy causes an important part of the dynamic behavior found in the AFDC caseload, but it does not offset the evidence that welfare dependency is essentially an economic decision.
49 pp. Bibliog. NATIONAL CASELOAD TRENDS. Caseload growth rates have varied substantially since Exhibit shows changes in AFDC caseload growth from throughwhich is the period for this analysis.
While absolute changes in participation have been much greater for the Basic program than for the much smaller Unemployed Parent (UP) program, relative changes have been greater for the. Effects on the AFDC-basic caseload of providing welfare to two-parent families. The Social Science Journal: Vol.
32, No. 3, pp. THE DYNAMICS OF AFDC, MEDICAID, AND FOOD STAMPS: Illinois is near to the median on all. 8 Illinois has the fourth largest AFDC caseload, behind were or were not receiving AFDC benefits for. Inwhen the national AFDC caseload peaked, million families were receiving cash assistance; inmillion families were on the welfare rolls, a 37 percent decline.
Almost all states or regions experienced a decline from toalthough some states experienced a more rapid decline than others did (see ExhibitColumns (A) and (D)).
She thoroughly analyzes the welfare system and its policies, examines trends in AFDC need and benefit standards, and compares California's AFDC program with those of other states. Albert then develops an analytic structure for investigating determinants of change in California's welfare caseload.
Income assistance (AFDC/TANF) Fiscal Year Average Monthly Caseload 25, 26, 28, 31, 35, 42, 48, 54, 65, 64, 56, 50, 51, 55, 57, 55, 54, 55, 54, 58, 67, Compared to Population Under Age 18 With the implementation.
Green Book describes relevant SSI eligibility as follows: Individuals cannot receive both SSI payments and AFDC benefits and, if eligible for both, must choose which benefit to receive. Therefore, SSI participation in a family that is receiving AFDC is limited to receipt through the children.
Children may. Welfare benefits then contribute 19 percent to the caseload decline whereas minimum wage claims 2 percent. When the coefficient for EITC is multiplied by the average increase of $ over the study period, EITC is responsible for 16–31 percent of caseload decline.
caseload and business-cycle dynamics (with the exception of Food Stamps in Oregon). in excluding them from calculation of the family’s AFDC benefit. Wiseman (, p. Downloadable! We use state-level panel data for federal fiscal years – to estimate the impacts of welfare reform and the business cycle on food stamp caseloads.
The model we employ is a dynamic function of past caseloads, economic factors, AFDC and Food Stamp Program policies, political factors, AFDC caseload levels, and unobserved fixed and trending heterogeneity.Eligibility and benefit amounts for FANF depends upon the family’s income, resources, living arrangements, and the dependent children must lack parental support or care due to death, continued absence or because at least one parent in a two-parent home is disabled.
Services are provided for eligible families with dependent children through.