Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 23, Issue 5–6, pp 475–511

Family cap provisions and changes in births and abortions

  • Ted Joyce
  • Robert Kaestner
  • Sanders Korenman
  • Stanley Henshaw
Article

Abstract

As part of welfare reform efforts in the 1990s, 23 states implemented family caps, provisions that deny or reduce cash assistance to welfare recipients who have additional births. We use birth and abortion records from 24 states to estimate effects of family caps on birth and abortion rates. We use age, marital status, and completed schooling to identify women at high risk for use of public assistance, and parity (number of previous live births) to identify those most directly affected by the family cap. In family cap states, birth rates fell more and abortion rates rose more among high-risk women with at least one previous live birth compared to similar childless women, consistent with an effect of the family cap. However, this parity-specific pattern of births and abortions also occurred in states that implemented welfare reform with no family cap. Thus, the effects of welfare reform may have differed between mothers and childless women, but there is little evidence of an independent effect of the family cap.

Abortions Births Welfare reform 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acs, G. (1996), The impact of welfare on young mother's subsequent childbearing decisions, Journal of Human Resources 31(4): 898–915.Google Scholar
  2. Argys, L.M., Averett, S.L. & Rees, D.I. (2000), Welfare generosity, pregnancies and abortions among unmarried AFDC recipients, Journal of Population Economics 13: 569–594.Google Scholar
  3. Bertrand, M., Duflo, E. & Mullainathan, S. (2002), How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. Working Paper 8841.Google Scholar
  4. Blank, R. (2002), Evaluating welfare reform in the United States, Journal of Economic Literature XL(4): 1105–1166.Google Scholar
  5. Blank, R.M., George, C.C. & London, R.A. (1996), State abortion rates: The impact of policies, providers, politics, demographics, and economic environment, Journal of Health Economics 15: 513–553.Google Scholar
  6. Camasso, M.J., Harvey, C., Jagannathan, R. & Killingsworth, M. (1998a), A final report on the impact of New Jersey's family development program: Results from a pre-post analysis of AFDC case heads from 1990–1996, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  7. Camasso, M.J., Harvey, C., Jagannathan, R. & Killingsworth, M. (1998b), A final report on the impact of New Jersey's family development program. State of New Jersey Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
  8. Camasso, M.J., Harvey, C., Killingsworth, M. & Jagannathan, R. (1999), New Jersey's family cap and family size decisions: Some findings from a five-year evaluation, unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  9. Camasso, M.J., Jagannathan, R., Harvey, C. & Killingsworth, M. (2003), The use of client surveys to gauge the threat of contamination in welfare reform experiments, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22(2): 207–223.Google Scholar
  10. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (1999), Vital statistics of the United States: Natality, 1997. Technical Appendix.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, P.J., Parnell, A., Moore, M. & Pagnini, D. (1999), The effect of short-term variation in abortion funding on pregnancy outcomes, Journal of Health Economics 18(2): 241–258.Google Scholar
  12. Council of Economic Advisors (1997), Technical Report: Explaining the decline in welfare receipt, 1993–1996.Google Scholar
  13. Dye, J.L. & Presser, H.B. (1999), The state bonus to reward a decrease in ‘illegitimacy': Flawed methods and questionable effects, Family Planning Perspectives 31(3): 142–147.Google Scholar
  14. Dyer, W. & Fairlie, R. (2004), Do family caps reduce out-of-wedlock births? Evidence from Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey and Virginia, Population Research and Policy Review 23(5–6): 441–473 (this issue).Google Scholar
  15. Fairlie, R.W. & London, R.A. (1997), The effect of incremental benefit levels on births to AFDC recipients, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16(4): 575–597.Google Scholar
  16. Fein, D.J. (1999), Will welfare reform influence marriage and fertility? Evidence from the ABC demonstration, Abt Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Grogger, J. (2002), The behavioral effect of welfare time limits, American Economic Review 92(2): 385–389.Google Scholar
  18. Grogger, J. (2003), Welfare transitions in the 1990s: The economy, welfare policy, and the EITC. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 9472.Google Scholar
  19. Grogger, J. & Bronars, S.G. (2001), The effect of welfare payments on the marriage and fertility behavior of unwed mothers: Results from a twins experiment, Journal of Political Economy 109(3): 529–545.Google Scholar
  20. Grogger, J., Karoly, L. & Klerman, A. (2002), Consequences of welfare reform: A research synthesis (DRU-2676-DHHS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  21. Hechman, J. & Smith, J. (1995), Assessing the case for social experiments, Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2): 85–110.Google Scholar
  22. Henshaw, S. (1998), Unintended pregnancy in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives 30(1): 24–29. 46.Google Scholar
  23. Henshaw, S. (2000), Birth and abortion data. Available from http://www.welfareacademy. org/pubs/dataneeds/dataneeds-henshaw.pdf.Google Scholar
  24. Henshaw, S. & Kost, K. (1996), Abortion patients in 1994–1995: Characteristics and contraceptive use, Family Planning Perspectives 28(4): 140–147.Google Scholar
  25. Horvath-Rose, A.E. & Peters, E.H. (2001), Welfare waivers and nonmarital childbearing. For better and worse, in: pp.222-224, Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of Children and Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Jagannathan, R. & Camasso, M.J. (2003), Family cap and nonmarital fertility: The racial conditioning of policy effects, Journal of Marriage and the Family 65(1): 52–71.Google Scholar
  27. Jagannathan, R., Camasso, M.J. & Killingsworth, M. (2004), New Jersey's family cap experiment: Do Fertility impacts differ by racial density? Journal of Labor Economics (in press).Google Scholar
  28. Jones, R.K., Darroch, J.E. & Henshaw, S. (2002). Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000–2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 34(5): 226–235.Google Scholar
  29. Joyce, T, Kaestner, R. & Korenman, S. (2003), Welfare reform and non-marital fertility in the 1990s: Evidence from birth records, Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 3(1): Article 6. Available from http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/advances/vol3/iss1/art6.Google Scholar
  30. Kaushal, N. & Kaestner, R. (2001), From welfare to work: Has welfare reform worked? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(4): 699–719.Google Scholar
  31. Kearney, M., (2004), Is there an effect of incremental welfare benefits on fertility behavior? A look at the family cap, Journal of Human Resources (in press).Google Scholar
  32. Klerman, J. (1998), Welfare reform and abortion, pp. 97–133, in: R. Moffitt (ed.), Welfare, the Family, and Reproductive Behavior: Research Perspectives. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Koonin L.M., Strauss, L.T., Chrisman, C., Montalbano, M., Bartlett, L.A. & Smith, J. (1999), Abortion surveillance – United States, 1996, in: CDC Surveillance Summaries (July 30), MMWR 48 (No. SS4).Google Scholar
  34. Levine, P. (2002), The impact of social policy and economic activity throughout the fertility decision tree. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 9021.Google Scholar
  35. Levine, P. & Staiger, D. (2002), Abortion as insurance. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 8813.Google Scholar
  36. Loury, G. (2000), Preventing subsequent births to welfare recipients. Available from <http://www.welfareacademy.org/eval/loury.html>.Google Scholar
  37. Lundberg, S. & Plotnick, R. (1995), Adolescent premarital childbearing: Do economic incentives matter? Journal of Labor Economics 13: 177–201.Google Scholar
  38. Mach, T. (2001), Measuring the impact of family caps on childbearing decisions, unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, State University of New York at Albany.Google Scholar
  39. Matthews, S., Ribar, D. & Wilhelm, M. (1997), The effects of economic conditions and access to reproductive health services on state abortion rates and birthrates, Family Planning Perspectives 29(2): 52–60.Google Scholar
  40. Mills, G., Kornfeld, R., Porcari, D. & Laliberty, D. (2001), Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Demonstration. Final report to the Arizona Department of Economic Security, Abt Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  41. Moffitt, R.A. (1998), The effect of welfare on marriage and fertility, pp. 50–97, in: R. Moffitt (ed.), Welfare, the Family, and Reproductive Behavior: Research perspectives. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. Moffitt, R.A. (2003a), The temporary assistance for needy families program, pp. 291–363, in, R.A. Moffitt (ed.), Means-tested transfer programs in the United States. Chicago: NBER/Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Moffitt, R.A. (2003b), The role of randomized field trials in social science research: A perspective from evaluations of reforms of social welfare programs. DP 1264-03, IRP, University of Wisconsin. New York City Department of Health (1999), Summary of Vital Statistics 1998: The City of New York.Google Scholar
  44. O'Neill, J.E. & Hill, M.A. (2001), Gaining ground? Measuring the impact of welfare reform on welfare and work. The Manhattan Institute, No. 17.Google Scholar
  45. Rector, R. & Youssef, S. (1999), The determinants of welfare caseload decline. Center for Data Analysis Report #99-04. Washington, D.C: Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. Rossi, P. (2000), New Jersey's family development program: An overview and critique of the Rutgers evaluation. Available from <http://www.welfareacademy.org/eval/ toc.cfm>.Google Scholar
  47. Schoeni, R.F. & Blank, R.M. (2000), What has welfare reform accomplished? Impacts on welfare participation, employment, income, poverty and family structure. NBER Working Paper 7627.Google Scholar
  48. Ventura, S.J. & Bachrach, C.A. (2000), Nonmarital childbearing in the United States, 1940–1999. National Vital Statistics Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ted Joyce
    • 1
  • Robert Kaestner
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sanders Korenman
    • 1
    • 3
  • Stanley Henshaw
    • 4
  1. 1.Baruch College and NBERNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.The National Bureau of Economic ResearchCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.The Alan Guttmacher InstituteUSA

Personalised recommendations