Poverty, Income, and Assets

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. Methodology

As noted in Section II.C., Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and West Virginia were selected for further analysis using a three-step process that examined measures of state fiscal capacity and need for social welfare services. Staff from the Rockefeller Institute of Government and The Lewin Group spent approximately thre

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. Fiscal Capacity and Need Measures

Per capita personal income data suggest that the six states selected for analysis have less potential to raise revenue than most states. As noted in Exhibit Appendix B-1, Mississippi and West Virginia rank the lowest in ability to raise revenue in 1995 and 2001, 50 and 49 respectively, using per capita personal income as the measure of fiscal capa

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. Field Visit Documentation

The study "Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States" examined the policies, institutions, and processes of six states with low fiscal capacity and high social needs to better understand how these states make decisions in funding social welfare programs, and to identify factors that influence their social welfare spending. The si

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. Appendix B: Field Visit Documentation

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. Appendix A

[This appendix is only available in a PDF version (Adobe's Portable Document Format). If you want a printed copy or need help with accessibility, please contact us .]

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. References

Barrilleaux, C. J., & Miller, M. E. (1988). The political economy of state Medicaid policy. American Political Science Review, 82, 1089 107. Boyd, D., Billen, P., Rockefeller Institute of Government, Dearborn, P., & Brookings Institution. (2003). The fiscal effects of welfare reform: State social service spending before and after welf

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. Chapter V: Final Observations and Conclusions

Our econometric analyses and case studies of six poor states led us to several conclusions regarding state fiscal capacity and state spending on social welfare:

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. Endnotes

30 In 2004, after the case studies were completed, Mississippi enacted program changes that may eliminate eligibility for 65,000 Medicaid recipients, mostly elderly and disabled people. Although most of these recipients were eligible for Medicare benefits, some estimates indicated that about 5,000 were not. However, the strong political reaction

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. F. Conclusions

Our analyses of estimated state effects and site visits to poor states suggest several basic conclusions:

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. E. Non-health Social Services

A third mode of decision-making was prominent when we examined choices about non-health social services in these states, including TANF non-assistance, child care subsidies, and child welfare. Although decisions about Medicaid funding were strongly affected by provider interests and state funding needs and decisions about the critical parameters i

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. D. Cash Assistance

We found a different type of decision-making in TANF cash assistance programs. Medicaid was a high visibility program that sometimes commanded the attention of governors and often drew the attention of legislators and organized lobbyists, but TANF cash assistance programs drew attention only sporadically from legislators and from few others outsid

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. C. Medicaid

The site visits indicated that decisions about Medicaid were more likely than other social program areas to involve active and highly organized constituencies, especially service providers, and to engage the attention of elected officials, including legislators and sometimes governors and their staff or top appointees. Medicaid budgets and policie

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. 5. Influences on Spending and Explanations of State Differences

These six states varied in their spending patterns, both before and after FY 2000, though we found that some regional differences in spending patterns of poor states before 2000 have declined in strength in recent years. For the most part, spending trends evident among the poor states before 2000 continued after that year: medical assistance expan

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. 4. Changes in Non-health Social Services: TANF "Non-assistance," Child Care, Child Welfare, and Others

Because Medicaid spending was not cut substantially in these states and, in fact, continued to grow in most states and because spending on cash assistance programs remained essentially flat, offering few opportunities for savings, fiscal pressures during state budget crises fell mostly on non-health social services programs. This outcome was espec

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. 3. Recent Changes in Spending: TANF Benefits

Spending on cash assistance has declined sharply in most states over the last several years, especially since the implementation of welfare reform (Boyd et al., 2003). As noted above, the declines in cash assistance spending through 2000 were steep for wealthy states but smaller for poor states.

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. 2. Recent Changes in Spending on Health Care: Medicaid

The site visits largely indicated that the spending trends and state differences found before 2000 continued even through the recession. Perhaps the clearest example was the continued growth of Medicaid in these states. In most of the six poor states, the growth in spending on Medicaid before 2000-indicated by increases in the Census Bureau's Vend

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. 1. The State Fiscal Crisis and Low Fiscal Capacity States

At the time of our site visits, all six states were experiencing difficult fiscal problems. Yet these problems varied between rich and poor states as well as among these six states. The crisis was driven largely by a sharp drop in revenues in 2001 and 2002 (Boyd 2003). The declines were greatest among the comparatively wealthy states in the Northe

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. B. Recent State Spending Patterns and State Fiscal Crises

Although we have no Census data after 2000, we can draw from the site visits and administrative spending data on selected programs to determine whether these six poor states continued or departed from prior trends and differences. Subsection IVB examines recent changes in spending among the six states and finds, for the most part, that the state t

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. A. Differences Among the Six Poor States Selected for Case Studies

The division among the poor states we noted in section III was also found among the six poor states selected for site visits. Exhibit IV-1 shows the estimated state effects for cash assistance, Medicaid, non-health social services, public hospitals, and non-social welfare. Again, these state effect scores were scaled to equal zero for the mean sta

Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States. Final Report.. Chapter IV: A Closer Look at Poor States

The econometric models support the claim that state fiscal capacity exerts positive effects on total spending for social programs as well as spending for major components of social welfare budgets, such as cash assistance, medical assistance, and other public welfare programs. However, the models raise two sets of new questions:

Content by Keyword: Poverty, Income, and Assets