This study sought to understand how state fiscal capacity affected spending on social welfare programs. It found that low fiscal capacity states spent less on social welfare programs than did high fiscal capacity states and that these differences were greater for cash assistance and non-health social services than for health-related programs.
Study findings emerged from several methods and data sources, including analyses of spending trends, econometric models of state spending on different types of social welfare functions, and the case studies of the six poor states (Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and West Virginia). Five of the six case study states wer
Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. What Is Social Welfare Spending? And What Is State Fiscal Capacity?
For the purposes of the study, we defined social welfare spending as programs that supported lower-income households, typically, though not exclusively, programs with means tests.
How does a state’s fiscal capacity affect its spending on social welfare programs? Do “poor states” (i.e., states with low fiscal capacity as measured by per capita personal income) differ from richer states in how much they spend on social welfare programs or how they allocate expenditures across cash assistance, Medicaid, and social servic
1 Because we are interested in the effects of state fiscal capacity on social welfare spending, we consider only spending that goes through the budgets of state and local governments, not direct expenditures by the federal government. Thus, we do not analyze the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Food Stamp Program (FSP), or, with some
Several important findings emerged from the project:
Conducted over 21 months, the study involved two major activities:
Social welfare programs strive to improve the well-being of needy and vulnerable populations. The fact that states spend different amounts on these programs is well known, but why they do so is less understood, including the extent to which differences are affected by states' relative fiscal capacity, defined as their ability to raise revenue thro
Final Report July 2004 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Prepared by: The Lewin Group and its subcontractor The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government Contract No.: 282-98-0016; Task Order 34
Contents Data Sets Identified and Criteria for Assessment Primary Data Sources for Holdings of Low-Resource Households' Assets Survey of Income and Program Participation Panel Study of Income Dynamics Survey of Consumer Finances Means for Improving Asset Data General Means for Improving Asset Data
Contents Background and Methods Findings: Data Availability and Gaps, By Policy Area and Population Groups Findings: Strategies and Current/Planned Initiatives for Improving AI/AN/NA Data Availability Summary and Conclusions Background and Methods
Contents The Rural Context Review of Existing Research on the Three Focal Topics Data Sources Available to Conduct Research on the Focal Topics Implications of Study Findings Enhancing Rural Human Services Information
Content The Study What We Found Endnote
Content The Value of Hardship Measures Defining and Measuring Hardship Material Hardship Indexes Measuring Hardship Using the SIPP Unanswered Questions for Future Research
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The brief summarizes findings from the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure report for 2013. The brief highlights SPM levels for the most recent year, changes from the previous year and historical trends. SPM estimates are compared to estimates of the official poverty measure. The brief also presents the anti-poverty effects of select s