This study examines states' experimentation with time-limited Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits prior to the passage of the 1996 welfare reform
legislation. The data reveal substantial variation in states' definitions of time-limited
benefits adopted under the federal waivers. Some states adopted a "2 years and
you're out" policy (i.e., AFDC cash benefits would be cut off), whereas others
interpreted time limits much more leniently. Next, this study examines the economic,
social, and political characteristics of states most likely associated with their
adoption of this policy, both broadly and narrowly defined. The findings suggest that
ability to pay, willingness to pay and political climate are among the factors that
distinguish "reform-minded" states from others. These same factors are likely to be
importantfollowing the 1996 legislation, as states assume much greater control than
in the past m designing their welfare plans.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
President Clinton Moves Forward on Welfare Reform. 1995. U.S. Newswire Report, April 19.
2.
Administration for Families and Children.1996. Update on Welfare Reform: Section 11S Waiver Activity . Availablefrom:www.acf.dhhs.gov/ACFNews/news/welfaredemo .
3.
Besharov, Douglas J., and Amy A. Fowler.1993. The end of welfare as we know it?Public Interest111:95-108.
4.
Blank, Rebecca.1994. Proposals for time-limited welfareJournal of Economic Perspectives8(4):183-93.
5.
—. 1997. Policy watch: The 1996 welfare reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives11(1):169-78.
6.
Boehnen, Elisabeth, and Thomas Corbett.1996. Welfare waivers: Some salient trends . Focus18(1):34-37.
7.
Council of Economic Advisers.1997. Technical report: Explaining the decline in welfare receipt, 1993-1996. Washington, DC: Council of Economic Advisers.
8.
DeParle, Jason.1994. States' eagerness to experiment on welfare jars administration . The New York Times, 14 April.
9.
Federal register. (1994, September 27). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
10.
Federal register. (1995, August 16). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
11.
Feigenbaum, Susan.1980. The case of income redistribution: A theory of government and private provision of collective goodsPublic Finance Quarterly8(1):3-22.
12.
Gottschalk, Peter, Sara McLanahan, and Gary D. Sandefur .1994. The dynamics and intergenerational transmission of poverty and welfare participation. In Confronting poverty: Prescriptions for change, edited by Sheldon H. Danziger, Gary D. Sandefur, and Daniel H. Weinberg, 85-108. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Haveman, Robert, and John Karl Scholz .1994. Transfers, taxes, and welfare reformNational Tax Journal47(2):417-34.
14.
Jencks, Christopher.1992. Can we put a time-limit on welfare?American Prospect Fall:32-40.
15.
Maddala, G.S.1986. Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometricsCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Martini, Alberto, and Michael Wiseman .1997. Explaining the recent decline in welfare caseloads: Is the council of economic advisers right?Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
17.
McMahon, Walter W., and Shao-Chung Chang.1991. Geographical cost of living differences: Interstate and Intrastate, update 1991Normal, IL: Illinois State University, Center for the Study of Educational Finance.
18.
Moffitt, Robert.1990. Has state redistribution policy grown more conservative?National Tax Journal43(2):123-42.
19.
—. 1992. Incentive effects of the US welfare system: A review. Journal of Economic Literature30(1):1-61.
20.
Murray, Charles.1994. Does welfare bring more babies?Public Interest115:17-30.
21.
Pavetti, LaDonna.1996. Who is affected by time limits? In Welfare reform: An analysis of the issues, edited by Isabel V. Sawhill. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
22.
Pear, Robert.1996. Welfare changes, while big, will be taking shape slowly . The New York Times, 6 August, A9.
23.
Petersen, Carol D.1995. Female-headed families on AFDC: Who leaves welfare quickly and who doesn'tJournal of Economic Issues29(2):619-28.
24.
Peterson, Paul, and Mark Rom.1990. Welfare magnets: A new case for a national standard. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
25.
Plotnick, Robert, and Richard Winters .1985. A politico-economic theory of income redistribution. American Political Science Review79(2):458-73.
26.
Sander, William, and J. Fred Giertz.1986. The political economy of state level welfare benefits. Public Choice51:209-19
27.
Sawhill, Isabel V., ed. 1996. Welfare reform: An analysis of the issues.Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
28.
Sorrentino, Constance1990. The changing family in international perspective. Monthly Labor Review113:41-58.
29.
Strawn, Julie, Sheila Dacey, and Linda McCart.1994. Final report: The National Governors' Association Survey of State Welfare ReformsWashington, D.C.: National Governors' Association.
30.
U.S. House of Representatives.1996. 1996 green book. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
31.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.1996. HHS fact sheet: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of Health and Human Services.
32.
—. 1997. Setting the baseline: A report on state welfare waivers . Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of Health and Human Services.
33.
Wetzstein, Cheryl.1995. Virginia in top three for welfare reform; Massachusetts, Wisconsin, also leaders. The Washington Times , 13 March, A4.
34.
Winkler, Anne E.1995. Does AFDC-UP encourage two-parent families?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management14 (1):4-24.
35.
Wiseman, Michael.1993. Welfare reform in the states: The Bush legacy. Focus15(1): 18-36. (Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty).
36.
—. 1995. "Evaluation: Lessons from the welfare waiver demos" from Welfare Reform in the 104th Congress, Congressional Form Special Report #61. (Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty)
