Welfare Reform in Persistent Rural Poverty: Dreams, Disenchantments, and Diversity

2. Welfare Caseloads: Changes in Public Assistance Program Use

The implicit goal of ending welfare as we “knew” it was the elimination of the federal entitlement to cash assistance benefits for working-age adults with children. From this perspective, reductions in the number of tanf cases are the ultimate measure of welfare reform success. Since passage of prwora in 1996, nationally there has been a 60 percent decline in the tanf caseload (Besharov 2003, 5–6). One avenue of research has explored whether or not these declines can be attributed to changes in welfare policy, and whether those who leave tanf end up in the workforce, as policymakers assume, or somewhere else. If success for welfare reform is equated with caseload declines, then the success is dramatic, not only for the nation as a whole, but even in these pockets of persistent rural poverty. The economy of the United States from 1996 to 2000 was a best-case scenario for the implementation of welfare reform, given the strong demand for workers and other favorable macroeconomic conditions (Finegold and Staveteig 2002, 213). Looking at the pre-tanf state waivers under afdc, James P. Ziliak and his colleagues conclude that caseload declines between 1993 and 1996 were largely caused by robust state economic activity, not federal welfare policy waivers (2000, 583). According to Douglas J. Besharov, welfare reform can account for about 25 to 35 percent of the caseload decline, the national economy for a more important 35 to 45 percent, and expanded aid to low-income working families, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, for another 20 to 30 percent (2003, 9). Rebecca Blank concurs that virtually all research agrees that state economies had a significant effect on caseloads, but that economic changes alone cannot explain the majority of caseload movements over the 1990s, indicating that policy variables also matter (Blank 2002, 1134–35). For the TWO Welfare Caseloads: Changes in Public Assistance Program Use eight counties in this study, there were substantial drops in tanf/afdc caseloads after welfare reform, the number of food stamp recipients generally fell over the 1992–2002 period, and the number of ssi recipients generally increased between 1992 and 1996 and leveled off or fell thereafter (Figures 1 through 4). With the exception of Starr County, caseloads fell after peaking between 1993 and 1994. The rate of decrease generally accelerated after 1996, likely reflecting implementation of tanf. The percentage changes 40 Welfare Reform in Persistent Rural Poverty Fig. 1 tanf/afdc cases, Kentucky Fig. 2 tanf/afdc cases, South Dakota in caseloads in the Kentucky and South Dakota counties did not differ notably from the changes in their respective states. State-level data for Mississippi and Texas were not available for 1996 to 2002. In several counties, caseloads increased nominally in the early 2000s, likely reflecting the weaker national economy. Table 3 shows the change in caseloads before and after implementation of welfare reform. After welfare reform caseloads fell dramatically. Between 1992 and 1996 caseloads fell in six of the eight counties. The largest decrease Welfare Caseloads: Changes in Public Assistance Program Use 41 Fig. 3 tanf/afdc cases, Texas Fig. 4 tanf/afdc cases, Mississippi was in McCreary County with 28 percent, while most declines were between zero and ten percent. Between 1996 and 2002 caseloads fell in all counties. The smallest decrease was in Starr County with 29 percent, while fully onehalf of the counties had declines greater than 50 percent. Prior to implementation of welfare reform, observers were concerned that people who were removed from federal welfare rolls would believe that they had also lost their eligibility for food stamps. The result would be a drop in the number of food stamp recipients that was greater than any decrease in food stamp eligibility. The number of food stamp recipients in the eight counties generally fell between 1992 and 2002, with the greatest decreases between 1996 and 2000. Figure 5 provides insights into changes in the number of food stamp recipients across the states. Because the movements of changes in recipients tended to be the same for the pairs of counties in each state, while differing across the states, Figure 5 identifies the changes in recipients for one county in each state. The changes in food stamp recipients in the Kentucky and South Dakota counties tended to be nominal. The number of recipients generally fell between 1992 and 2000 and then increased slightly between 2000 and 2002, potentially reflecting the...