Abstract
Objectives: Welfare reform (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) resulted in dramatic policy changes, including health-related requirements and the administrative separation of cash assistance from Medicaid. We were interested in determining if changes in welfare and health policies had had an impact on state MCH services and programs. Methods: We conducted a survey in fall 1999 of state MCH Title V directors. Trained interviewers administered the telephone survey over a 3-month period. MCH directors from all 50 states, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico participated (n = 52; response rate = 100%). Results: Among the most noteworthy findings is that similar proportions of respondents reported that welfare policy changes had either helped (46%) or hindered (42%) the agency's work, with most of the positive impact attributed to increased funding. MCH data linkages with welfare and other social programs were low. Despite welfare reform's emphasis on work, limited services and exemptions were available for mothers with CSHCN. Almost no efforts have been undertaken to specifically address the needs of substance abusers in the context of new welfare policies. Conclusions: Few MCH agencies have developed programs to address the special needs of women receiving TANF who either have health problems themselves or have children with health problems. Recommendations including increased MCH and family planning funding and improved coordination between TANF and MCH to facilitate linkages and services are put forth in light of reauthorization of PRWORA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Final rule: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program [Summary]. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, 1999.
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Pub L No. 104-193, 110 Stat 2105-2355, 1996.
Chavkin W, Wise PH, Elman D. Topics for our times: Welfare reform and women's health. Am J Public Health 1998;88(7):1017–8.
Welfare Law Center. Federal court finds New York City illegally deters and denies food stamps, Medicaid, and cash assistance applications and bars expansion of “job centers.” New York, NY: Welfare Law Center, 1999.
US General Accounting Office. Medicaid enrollment: Amid declines, state efforts to ensure coverage after welfare reform vary. Washington, DC: Health, Education, and Human Services Division, 1999.
Pear R. States told to restore improperly cut medicaid benefits. New York Times 2000; p. 10.
Klein R, Fish-Parcham C. Losing health insurance: Unintended consequences of welfare reform. Washington, DC: Families USA, 1999.
Primus W, Rawlings L, Larin K, Porter K. The initial impacts of welfare reform on the incomes of single-mother families. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1999.
Bernstein N. Medicaid rolls have declined in last 3 years: Officials cite economy and welfare reform. New York Times 1998; pp. B1, B4.
Families USA. One step forward, one step back: Children's health coverage after CHIP and welfare reform. Washington, DC: Families USA, 1999.
Chavkin W, Romero D, Wise PH. State welfare reform policies and declines in health insurance. AJPH 2000;90(6):900–8.
Polner R. A welfare “mess”: Fed report, state official fault city's food stamp policy. Newsday 1999; p. 3.
deMause N. Food stamp probe spurs Fed probe. In TheseTimes 1998; p. 8.
Food and Nutrition Services Budget Division. Food stamp program actual participation, december.Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, 1999:2.
Dion M, Pavetti L. Access to and participation in Medicaid and the food stamp program.Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Adminstration for Children and Families, 2000.
Donovan P. The “illegitimacy bonus” and state efforts to reduce out-of-wedlock births. Fam Plann Perspect 1999;31(2):94–7.
US Department of Health and Human Services. HHS awards $100 million bonuses to states achieving largest reduction in out-of-wedlock births. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.
Siegel R. N.J. Supreme Court strikes down abortion law requiring parental notification. The Associated Press August 15, 2000.
Ellwood M, Ku L. Welfare and immigration reforms: Unintended side effects for Medicaid. Health Affairs 1998;17(3):137–51.
Hernandez R. Surplus puts new york at center of a debate. New York Times August 29, 1999; p. 30.
US General Accounting Office. States are restructuring pograms to reduce welfare dependence. Washington, DC: Health, Education, and Human Services Division, 1998.
Lazere E, Kim L. Welfare balance in the states: Unspent TANF funds in the middle of federal fiscal year 1999.Washington,DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1999:19.
Lewin T. Study finds welfare changes lead a million into child care. New York Times 2000; p. 17.
Hart J. Child care costs forcing reliance on unlicensed. The Boston Globe 2000; p. 1.
Eskenazi M. Fighting chance: Why we need enriching childcare to give our kids a fair start. The Washington Monthly April 2000;32(4):9.
Long S, Kirby GG, Kurka R, Waters S. Child care assistance under welfare reform: Early responses by the states.Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 1998:21.
Schumacher R, Greenberg M. Child care after leaving welfare: Early evidence from state studies.Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, 1999.
Wise P, Chavkin W, Romero D. Assessing the effects of welfare reform policies on reproductive and infant health. Am J Public Health 1999;89(10):1514–21.
Donovan P. Falling teen pregnancy: What's behind the declines? Guttmacher Rep Public Policy 1998;1(5):7.
Chavkin W, Draut TA, Romero D, Wise PH. Sex, reproduction, and welfare reform. Georgetown J Poverty Law Policy 2000;11(2):379–93.
Ullman F, Hill I, Almeida R. CHIP: A look at emerging state programs.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1999.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. State coverage initiatives. State of the states. Washington, DC: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2000:25.
Pear R. 40 states forfeit health care funds for poor children. New York Times 2000; pp. 1, 26.
Families USA. Go directly to work, do not collect health insurance: Low-income parents lose Medicaid.Washington, DC: Families USA, 2000:43.
Health Care Financing Administration. SCHIP annual enrollment report (fiscal year 1999). Washington, DC: Health Care Financing Administration, 1999.
Du J, Fogarty D, Hopps D, Hu J. A study of Washington state TANF leavers and TANF recipients. Olympia, WA: Department of Social and Health Services, 2000:59.
Guyer J. Health care after welfare: An update of findings from state-level leaver studies.Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2000.
Garrett B, Holahan J. Welfare leavers, Medicaid coverage, and private health insurance. Washington, DC: Urban Inst 2000;B(13):6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Romero, D., Chavkin, W., Wise, P.H. et al. State Welfare Reform Policies and Maternal and Child Health Services: A National Study. Matern Child Health J 5, 199–206 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011352118970
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011352118970