The Welfare Reform Legislation of 1996 is often cited as one of President Clinton’s most notable achievements, as this law was followed by sizable reductions in states’ welfare loads. Did this policy devolution lead to lower state poverty—as was suggested by reform advocates? We re-examine the effects of the new welfare regime on state-level poverty and welfare enrollment between 1996 and 2012. This is important to complement existing studies of individual-level experience with the welfare system. Our analysis confirms that the federal-to-state welfare transition eased the states’ caseload burden and poverty rate. We also find evidence that the relationship between welfare restrictiveness and caseload burden was strongest in the period before the recession, and with the inclusion of post-recession years, higher level restrictiveness may have little to no effect on reducing caseload. While state decisions to increase welfare restrictiveness did reduce poverty, our results show no added benefit to those with the highest levels of welfare restrictions. These findings reinforce the need to match policy goals to social outcomes, rather than relying on output measures such as caseload reduction.
BerryWDFordingRCHansonRL (2003) Reassessing the ‘Race to the Bottom’ in State Welfare Policy. Journal of Politics65(2): 327–349.
5.
BerryWDRingquistEJFordingRCet al. (1998) Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American States, 1960–93. American Journal of Political Science42(1): 327–348.
6.
Berry WD, Ringquist EJ, Fording RC, et al. (2010) Measuring citizen and government ideology in the US States: A reappraisal. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10: 117–135.
7.
BlankR (1997) It Takes a Nation: A New Agenda for Fighting Poverty, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
BlankR (2002) Evaluating welfare reform in the United States. Journal of Economic Literature40(4): 1105–1166.
9.
BlankRBlinderAS (1986) Macroeconomics, income distribution, and poverty. In: DanzigerSWeinbergD (eds) Fighting Poverty: What Works and What Doesn’t, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 180–208.
10.
BrodkinEZMujmundarM (2010) Administrative exclusion: Organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20(4): 827–848.
11.
BruecknerJK (2000) Welfare reform and the race to the bottom: Theory and evidence. Southern Economic Journal66(3): 505–525.
12.
Cancian M, Hayeman R, Meyer DR, et al. (2002) Before and After TANF: The Economic Well-Being of Women Leaving Welfare. IRP Discussion Paper No. 1244-02. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
13.
CelliniRMcKernanS-MRatcliffeC (2008) The dynamics of poverty in the United States: A review of data, methods, and findings. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management27(3): 577–605.
14.
ChoC-LKelleherCAWrightDSet al. (2005) Translating National Policy objectives into local achievements across planes of governance and among multiple actors: Second-order devolution and welfare reform implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(1): 31–54.
15.
CoelliMBGreenDAWarburtonWP (2007) Breaking the cycle? The effect of education on welfare receipt among children of welfare recipients. Journal of Public Economics91(7): 1369–1398.
16.
DuncanGRogersW (1991) Has children’s poverty become more persistent?American Sociological Review56(4): 538–550.
17.
EllwoodDT (2000) Anti-poverty policy for families in the next century: From welfare to work and worries. Journal of Economic Perspectives14(1): 187–198.
18.
EwaltJAJenningsET (2004) Administration, governance, and policy tools in welfare policy implementation. Public Administration Review64(4): 449–462.
19.
FellowesMCRoweG (2004) Politics and the New American Welfare States. American Journal of Political Science48(2): 362–373.
20.
FilindraA (2013) Immigrant social policy in American States: Race politics and state TANF and Medicaid Eligibility Rules for Legal Permanent Residents. State Politics and Policy Quarterly13(1): 26–48.
21.
FordingRCBerryWD (2007) The historical impact of welfare programs on poverty: Evidence from the American States. The Policy Studies Journal35(1): 37–60.
22.
FremstedSParrottSShermanA (2004) Unemployment Insurance Does Not Explain Why TANF Caseloads Are Falling as Poverty and Need Are Rising, Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
23.
GujaratiD (1995) Basic Econometrics, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
HandlerJFHasenfeldY (2007) Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HavemanRSchwabishJ (2000) Has macroeconomic performance regained its antipoverty bite?Contemporary Economic Policy18(4): 415–427.
27.
JencksC (1992) Rethinking Social Policy: Race, Poverty, and the Underclass, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
KalilASeefeldtKSWangH-C (2002) Sanctions and material hardship under TANF. Social Services Review76(4): 642–662.
29.
KennedyP (2008) A Guide to Econometrics, 6th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
30.
KimBFordingRC (2008) Second-order devolution and the implementation of TANF. In: Presentation at the annual meeting of the midwest political science association, Chicago, IL, 2008.
31.
Krause GA and Melusky BF (2012) Concentrated powers: Unilateral executive authority and fiscal policymaking in the American states. The Journal of Politics 74(1): 98–112.
32.
KristensenIPWawroG (2003) Lagging the dog? The robustness of panel corrected standard errors in the presence of serial correlation and observation specific effects. In: Presentation at the annual meeting of the society for political methodology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 2003.
33.
LeeBJSlackKSLewisDA (2004) Are welfare sanctions working as intended?Social Service Review78(3): 370–403.
34.
LichterDTCrowleyM (2002) Poverty in America: Beyond Welfare Reform. Population Bulletin57(2): 3–36.
35.
LowiTJ (1972) Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review32(4): 298–310.
36.
MarmorTRMashawJLHarveyPL (1990) America’s misunderstood welfare state: Persistent myths, enduring realities, New York, NY: Basic Books.
37.
MingioneE (2008) Urban Poverty and the Underclass, Cambridge, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
38.
MurrayC (1984) Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980, New York, NY: Basic Books.
39.
NiskanenWA (1996) Welfare and the culture of poverty. Cato Journal16(1): 1–15.
Pavetti LA, Derr MK, Kirby G, et al. (2004) The Use of TANF Work-Oriented Sanctions in Illinois, New Jersey, and South Carolina: Final Report. Report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (contract no. 100-01-0011). Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, DC.
42.
PetersonPE (1981) City Limits, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
43.
PetersonPE (1995) The Price of Federalism, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
44.
PetersonPERomMC (1989) American federalism, welfare policy and residential choices. American Political Science Review83(3): 711–728.
45.
Peterson PE and Rom MC (1990) Welfare Magnets: A New Case for a National Standard. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
46.
RiccucciNM (2005) Street-level bureaucrats and intrastate variation in the implementation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families policies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(1): 89–111.
47.
RodgersHRPayneLChervachidzeS (1996) State poverty rates: Do the new welfare policies make a difference?Review of Policy Research23(3): 657–679.
48.
RomMC (1999) Transforming State Health and Welfare Programs. In: GrayVJacobsH (eds) Politics in the American States, Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 117–131.
49.
ScholzJKLevineK (2001) The evolution of Income Support Policy in recent decades. In: DanzigerSHavemanR (eds) Understanding Poverty, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 193–228.
50.
SchramS (1991) Welfare spending and poverty: Cutting back produces more poverty, not less. American Journal of Economics and Sociology50(2): 129–141.
51.
SchramSNitzLKruegerG (1998) Without cause or effect: Reconsidering welfare migration as a policy problem. American Journal of Political Science42(1): 210–230.
52.
SossJSchramSF (2007) A public transformed? Welfare Reform as policy feedback. American Political Science Review101(1): 111–127.
53.
SossJFordingRCSchramSF (2011) Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
54.
TieboutC (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64(5): 416–424.
55.
VoldenC (2002) The politics of competitive federalism: A race to the bottom in welfare benefits?American Journal of Political Science46(2): 352–363.
56.
WilmerCFoxLGarfinkelIet al. (2016) Progress on poverty? New estimates of historical trends using an anchored supplemental poverty measure. Demography53: 1–12.
57.
WuC-F (2008) Severity, timing, and duration of welfare sanctions and the economic well-being of TANF families with children. Children and Youth Services Review30: 26–44.
58.
WuC-FCancianMWallaceG (2014) The effect of welfare sanctions on TANF exits and employment. Children and Youth Services Review36: 1–14.
59.
ZedlewskiSClarkSMeierEet al. (1996) Potential Effects of Congressional Welfare 49 Reform Legislation on Family Incomes, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
60.
ZiliakJPFiglioDNDavisEEet al. (2000) Accounting for the decline in AFDC caseloads. Journal of Human Resources35(3): 570–586.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
