...from financial maintenance to supported work. Most able-bodied adult recipients are now fast-tracked into the job market. To promote establishment in the workforce, many recipients, ex-recipients, and potential recipients are provided support services such as childcare, transitional or even long-term health-care coverage, transportation aid, and employment preparation, search, and training assistance. To promote financial independence and shrink the poverty pipeline, the PRWORA requires the states to hold both parents responsible for the support of their children, and establishes policies designed to reduce out-of-wedlock births, especially among unwed teens.

Several years before the formal adoption and early implementation of the PRWORA, welfare caseloads and poverty rates had begun to decline (Fording, 2003). In the early 1990s, 5.5 percent of the population (some 37 million people) was receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). By 2002, only 1.8 percent of the population (some 15 million people) was receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), the program that replaced the AFDC (Bell, 2001; Blank, 2000, 2001; DHHS, 2004a; Figlio & Ziliak, 1999; Hoynes & MaCurdy, 1994). Poverty rates began to decline in 1993 and continued downward until 2000 when the economy began to struggle. Since 2000, the national poverty rate has been increasing. In 2004, the poverty rate was 12.7 percent, only slightly lower than the 1997 rate of 13.3 percent (Bureau of the Census, 2005, figure 3).

Child Poverty Rates by State

As Figure 1 shows, the poverty rate for children followed a similar pattern. In 1993, the national child poverty rate was 22.7 percent. In 1994, rates began a seven-year decline, dropping to 16.2 percent in 2000. But progress stalled in 2001 and child poverty started increasing. By 2004, poverty among the nation's children had climbed to 17.8 percent; with a mean of 16.4 percent. Individual state poverty rates for children often varied greatly from the national mean. Figure 2 shows child poverty rates by state. New Hampshire had the lowest rate with 7.4 percent, while 27.3 percent of all children in the District of Columbia were poor. Eleven states had rates of 12 percent or lower, while 11 states and the District of Columbia had rates of 20 percent or higher. The obvious question, which is the focus of this article, is why do state child poverty rates vary so greatly?

States not only differ in their rate of child poverty, but also in their experience in lowering child poverty over time. Figure 3 shows the percentage change in child poverty rates by state from the early 1990s to 2004. Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia have seen reductions in their child poverty rates. In 14 states the decline has been 25 percent or greater. In 14 states child poverty has increased. In most of these states the increase has been small, but four states have suffered increases of 20 percent or more. Wisconsin, a leader in welfare reform, Indiana, Utah, and Alaska have suffered very substantial increases in child poverty.

Explaining Differences in Child Poverty Rates

The Impact of Welfare Reform

Under the PRWORA the states have been given significant discretion in designing and implementing welfare policies. The literature has documented a great deal of variation in the policy choices that states have made to implement welfare reform. (Gais & Weaver, 2002; Mead, 2004; Mettler, 2000; Meyers, Gornick, & Peck, 2002; Rodgers, Payne, & Chervachidze, 2006; Schram, 1999; Soss, Schram, Varanian, & O'Brien, 2001). States vary, for example, in the generosity of their cash benefits, the percentage of their poor who receive assistance, time limits, sanctioning policies, quality of support services, and earning disregards. One of the best documented findings is that states with the largest black populations and the highest rates of welfare use by blacks tend to adopt the most restrictive rules, provide the least generous welfare benefits, and the poorest support services (Brown, 1999; Gilens, 1999; Fording, 2001, 2003; Rodgers & Tedin, 2006; Schram, Soss, & Fording, 2003; Soss et al., 2001; Volden, 2003; Wright, 1976).

Soss et al. (2001) found that states that adopted the "toughest" welfare policies were generally those states with the more conservative public philosophies and the largest percentage of their AFDC/TANF rolls made up of minorities. Gais and Weaver (2002) found that the racial composition of TANF caseloads and state conservatism were associated with state adoption of stronger sanctions, shorter time limits, and immediate work requirements.

The question we address is have these policy decisions by states made a difference in child poverty rates? Have states with the most progressive and comprehensive welfare policies had more success in reducing child poverty? Our first task is to rank the states by the characteristics and quality of their welfare reform plan. We have collected and coded a variety of data. Meyers et al. (2002) provide a very useful variable. They scored each state's welfare reform plan on three major criteria: (i) adequacy or generosity of benefits; (ii) inclusiveness: the extent to which benefits are made available to those in need; and (iii) state policy commitment: A series of measures of the quality, accessibility and availability of assistance programs for families. The scoring system was based on a detailed analysis of AFDC/TANF, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), tax policies, and unemployment insurance policies in each state. Table 1 shows Meyers et al.'s classification of 48 state plans (the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Alaska were not coded). They clustered the state plans into five categories. The least generous, inclusive, and supportive plans were found in nine Southern and border states. These plans are labeled "minimal." In 10 states the plans were found to be "limited," and in another nine to be "conservative." Thirteen states were classified as having "generous" plans, and at the highest end of the scale, seven state plans were classified as "integrated." We coded each of the states ("1" low to "5" high) on their reform plan.

Our expectation is that states that have adopted the most generous and comprehensive plans will have made the most progress in reducing child poverty. There are two major reasons. First, the research literature is mixed but primarily finds that states that pay the highest benefits and include larger percentages of their poor in programs have less poverty (Gallaway & Vedder, 1986; Gunderson & Ziliak, 2004; Peterson & Rom, 1989; DHHS, 2004c). In contrast, Schram, Turbett, and Wilken (1988) found a negative relationship. Second, the evidence is clear that work pays better than welfare (Danziger et al., 2002; Rodgers, 2005a, p. 181). States that have adopted the most effective plans for moving able-bodied adults into the workforce should have more financially viable family heads and therefore fewer poor children.

Scholars have used some other methodologies to classify or evaluate state reform plans. A straightforward approach is to code the states on how much of their TANF spending is for nonassistance. States that spend the largest percentage of their funds for nonassistance focus their spending on job training and placement, and for the support services that clients need to become established in the workforce (Mead, 2004, pp. 157-66). Another measure is the percentage of adults on TANF who are employed. States that help the largest percentage of their TANF recipients find employment are thought to have the most sophisticated reform plans (Mead, pp. 193-204). TANF recipients or ex-recipients who have successfully made the transition into the job market have higher yearly incomes and thus may have lower poverty rates (Danziger, 2002; Rodgers, 2005a, p. 181).

Next, we scored the states on four policy decisions that Soss et al. (2001) have identified as indications that jurisdictions have adopted a "tough" response to welfare recipients. States adopting these policies have decided to hold recipients to stricter performance and compliance standards. We coded the states on these "tough" measures to determine if any of these policies, individually or collectively, have an impact on poverty rates. We...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.