In , only 23 families in poverty received assistance for every such families nationwide. And in an average month in , about 1 percent of the total population received TANF cash assistance.
The cash support available to families and the conditions under which they can receive it largely depend on where they live. TANF gives states the flexibility to determine the mission, design, and benefits of their programs, and states are under no legal obligation to provide cash assistance to families living in poverty. Consequently, state TANF policies vary widely in their generosity e.
Looking at what drives variation in state TANF programs, we considered the following questions: Do states with more generous TANF benefits have less restrictive requirements and benefit duration? Or do states with more generous benefits counterbalance that generosity by having more restrictive requirements and benefit duration? We also observed the effects of state differences on selected racial groups. We conclude with our overarching observations and suggestions for further research, which are based on the following findings:.
Race and ethnicity shape our modern social welfare system. Furthermore, racial differences have been observed in several aspects of TANF, including sanctions, receipt of work support services such as child care, and access to education and training. Research Report. Heather Hahn. Download PDF. Secondary tabs Overview active tab Full Report. Skip to content. Marketplace Staff Jul 23, Listen Now.
Share Now on:. President Bill Clinton discusses welfare reform, Stories You Might Like The legacy of welfare reform, 20 years later. Why do welfare funds go to marriage counseling? Twenty years after welfare reform, we return to West Virginia. Do work requirements for welfare recipients work? As a result, many of the sub-districts in the initial control group were left out, and have not received the program yet.
Upon re-surveying the 14, households in the original treatment and control groups, we found several interesting outcomes. The first concerns stunting, or impaired growth, which is one of the most serious child health problems in Indonesia. Research has shown a correlation between stunting, lower IQs, and poorer socioeconomic outcomes later in life.
At the two-year mark, PKH had no impact on child stunting. And yet, because height is a measure of health that expresses itself cumulatively over time, it was possible that stunting would start to be reversed only after continued assistance from the program. That was precisely what happened.
We found similar effects with respect to education. At the two-year mark, PKH had increased school enrollment for children aged , but not for those aged At the time, we reasoned that older children who had dropped out prior to the program would have a harder time returning to school than would their younger counterparts, even if their family resources had recently improved.
But we suspected that if families could benefit from sustained access to the program, their kids would not drop out at an earlier age, with enrollment among those in the age bracket thus improving over time. Again, this turned out to be the case. The importance of these improvements in health and education can hardly be overstated.
Leaving aside the obvious moral arguments for guaranteeing children access to nutrition and schooling, these investments in low-income households will likely translate into far-reaching economic benefits, including increased labor-market participation and productivity.
And that, in turn, could lead to reduced participation in social programs themselves. More to the point, these gains were made possible by a cumulative investment in children over the course of six years.
Most likely, these results would not have been achieved under a program providing temporary or sporadic benefits. In the case of PKH, children who grow up healthier and more educated will arguably be better positioned to earn higher incomes and work longer into the future. Of course, to confirm this empirically, we would need to follow the original sample population into adulthood as they enter the workforce and develop careers. In the meantime, critics will doubtless argue that the program creates dependency for able-bodied adults today.
Yet here it is worth taking a step back and exploring where the idea of welfare dependency comes from in the first place. We know that beliefs about dependency, laziness, and voluntary unemployment among the poor are pervasive. But why is that?
0コメント