Welfare-to-Work Programs and the Dynamics of TANF Use
- 353 Downloads
This study examines the effects of participation in Welfare-to-Work programs on the dynamics of TANF recipients’ welfare use. Using the Survey of Program Dynamics and the Welfare Rules Database, the study analyzes how participation in Human Capital Development and Labor Force Attachment programs affects the probabilities of TANF exit and re-entry, while holding the effects of the state economy and various TANF rules constant. The analyses reveal that LFA programs are not associated with a higher probability of TANF exit than HCD programs. Instead, TANF recipients’ employment status and the local labor market conditions are more important predictors of TANF exit. It also reveals that, for TANF leavers, severe poverty and economic insecurity are significantly related to their welfare recidivism.
KeywordsHuman capital development Labor force attachment Survey of Program Dynamics Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Welfare-to-Work
- Blank, R. (1999). What goes up must come down? Explaining recent changes in public assistance caseloads (Working paper no. 78). Chicago, IL: Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.Google Scholar
- Council of Economic Advisors (1999). The effect of welfare policy and the economic expansion on welfare caseloads: An update. Washington, DC: A Report by the Council of Economic Advisor (August). Retrieved August 25, 2005, from http://www.clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/welfare.
- Greenberg, D., Cebulla, A., & Bouchet, S. (2005). Report on meta analysis of welfare-to-work programs (Discussion paper no. 1312-05), Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.Google Scholar
- Grogger, J., Karoly, L., & Klerman, J. (2002). Consequences of welfare reform: A research synthesis (Document no. DRU-2676-DHHS). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/drafts/DRU2676/.
- Hamilton, G., Freedman, S., Gennetian, L., Michalopoulos, C., Walter, J., Adams-Ciardullo, D., et al. (2001). How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year adult and child impacts for eleven programs. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/NEWWS/5yr-11prog01/index.htm.
- Holzer, H. (1999). Employer demand for welfare recipients and the business cycle: Evidence from recent employer surveys (Discussion paper No. 1185-99). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp118599.pdf.
- LaLonde, R. (2003). Employment and training programs. In R. Moffit (Ed.), Means-tested transfer programs in the U.S. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Mazzolari, F. (2007). Welfare use when approaching time limit. Journal of Human Resources, XLII(3), 596–618.Google Scholar
- Mitnik, O. (2005). Differential effects of welfare to work programs: Identification with unknown treatment status (Working paper). Coral Gables, FL: Department of Economics, University of Miami.Google Scholar
- O’Neill, J., & Hill, A. (2001). Gaining ground: Measuring the impact of welfare reform on welfare and work (Civic report no. 17). New York, NY: Manhattan Institute. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/Cr_17.pdf.
- Pingle, J. (2003). What if welfare had no work requirements? The age of youngest child exemption and the rise in employment of single mothers (Finance and Economics Discussion Series Working paper no. 2003-57). Washington, DC: Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from SSRN: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=483562.
- Rector, R., & Youssef, S. (1999). The determinants of welfare caseload decline. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Rogers, W. (1993). Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints, 3, 88–94.Google Scholar
- Rowe, G., & Versteeg, J. (2005). Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies As of July 2003. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411183_WRD_2003.pdf.
- Sandefur, G., & Cook, S. (1997). Duration of public assistance receipt: Is welfare a trap? (Discussion paper no. 1129-97). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp112997.pdf.
- Schoeni, R., & Blank, R. (2000). What has welfare reform accomplished: Impacts on welfare participation, employment, income, poverty, and family structure? (Working paper No. w7627). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved May 27, 2004, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w7627.
- Son, S., & Bauer, J. (2010). Employed rural, low-income, single mothers’ family and work over time. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(1). doi: 10.1007/s10834-009-9173-8.
- Swann, C. (2005). Welfare reform when recipients are forward-looking. Journal of Human Resources, 40(1), 31–56.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1998). Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program: First annual report to congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2007). Welfare reform reauthorized. News in Release, Wednesday, Feb 8, 2006, Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060208.html.
- Wallace, G., & Blank, R. (1999). What goes up must come down? Explaining parental changes in public assistance caseloads (Working paper no. 78). Chicago, IL: Joint Center for Poverty Research.Google Scholar
- Ziliak, J., Figlio, D., Davis, E., & Connolly, L. (1997). Accounting for the decline in AFDC caseloads: Welfare reform or economic growth (Discussion paper. no. 1151-97). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.Google Scholar