Social Welfare II: Public Assistance - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

paul
social welfare ii public assistance l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Social Welfare II: Public Assistance PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Social Welfare II: Public Assistance

play fullscreen
1 / 56
Download Presentation
Social Welfare II: Public Assistance
372 Views
Download Presentation

Social Welfare II: Public Assistance

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Social Welfare II: Public Assistance Wilson, Chapter 5 (cont’d) Articles Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram, “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy,” American Political Science Review, June, 1993. “Race Coding” and White Opposition to Welfare,” Martin Gilens. The American Political Science Review Vol. 90, No. 3 (Sep., 1996), pp. 593-604. “Assessing the New Federalism: Eight Years Later,” Section 1 (Introduction and Section 1) (Debate Background Material) Debate: Has welfare reform (PWORA 1996) helped the poor? (Feb. 7)

  2. Social Welfare Programs in the United States • Social Insurance • universal in coverage; eligibility based on contribution • Public Assistance • categorical; eligibility based on need (“means-tested”)

  3. Social Welfare Programs in the United States • Social Security Act of 1935 • Social Insurance • Old Age Insurance (OAI) (“Social Security”) • Unemployment Insurance(UI) • Public Assistance • Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC) • Old Age Assistance (OAA) • Aid to the Blind (AB)

  4. The War on Poverty, and the Expansion of Public Assistance (1965-80) • Sources of the War on Poverty (Katz): • rediscovery of poverty (amidst affluence of the 60’s) • growing urban “pathologies” (OWB’s, delinquency) • social movements

  5. The War on Poverty, and the Expansion of Public Assistance (1965-80) • Social movement pressure came from: • radicalization of the civil rights movement • radical student organizations • the welfare rights movement (NWRO)

  6. The War on Poverty, and the Expansion of Public Assistance (1965-80) • Social movement pressure came from: • radicalization of the civil rights movement • radical student organizations • the welfare rights movement (NWRO)

  7. Public Assistance Programs • Cash benefits • TANF • SSI • In-Kind benefits • Medicaid • Food Stamps • Misc. other (housing, nutrition, etc.)

  8. Food Stamps • 1964 Food Stamp Act • 1973 – all communities req’d to adopt • federal gov’t pays all benefits and shares administrative costs • about 26.5 million recipients (2007) • avg. monthly benefit is about $96 per person (2007) (overview of FSP)

  9. Food Stamp Recipients, 2004

  10. Food Stamp Recipients, 2004

  11. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) • Purpose: To provide cash assistance to the aged, blind and disabled who are poor • Historical Origins: • Social Security Act of 1935 (OAA & AB) • ATPD (1950) • Nixon consolidated and “federalized” OAA, AB and ATPD in 1974

  12. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) • Administration and Financing: • Administered by SSA • Financed by federal government (general revenue) • States have an option to supplement

  13. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) • Eligibility: • All recipients must pass income test/assets test • Aged: 65 years old • Blind: “no better than 20/200 vision, or tunnel vision of 20 degrees or less in the better eye with a corrective lens” • Disabled: “Adults are considered disabled if they cannot work because of a ‘medically determined physical or mental impairment expected to result in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.’”

  14. Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

  15. Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

  16. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) • Historical Development • Social Security Act 1935 (ADC) • Numerous attempts to reform AFDC (including FSA of 1988) • PRWORA - TANF(1996) – “welfare reform”

  17. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) • Population potentially eligible: • Originally poor children (1935-50) • Children + single parent (1950-67) (AFDC) • Children + parent(s) (1967-88) • Children + parents (1988-2007)

  18. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) • Calculation of Payments: • income test, assets • Payment = Max. benefit level - net family income • Allowed deductions from income (e.g. work expenses, child care, and some earnings) • No minimum benefit level • No COLA’s

  19. Significant Features of TANF (Compared to AFDC) • Block grants (based on 1994-1995 spending) • 75% MOE • Time limits • lifetime limit 60 months • Work req’s • Must be enforced after 2 years • can’t enforce if no child care provided • Some recipients may be exempted • Work participation rates (all families) • 2002+ = 50% • Unwed mothers <18 must live with guardian • Allows “Family Cap” • Benefits denied based on felony drug conviction (possession, use, distribution)

  20. Welfare Reform: Good or Bad for the Poor? • “Positive” consequences of welfare reform • Caseloads declined (?) • Work participation rates increased • Poverty declined (?)

  21. The U.S. Poverty Threshold • figure used by the Census Bureau to determine (count) who is poor • conceptually defined as the annual budget for a family/individual that is needed to maintain a “minimally adequate standard of living”

  22. The U.S. Poverty Threshold • 1965: Mollie Orshansky (SSA) • Methodology: Based on cost($) of “economy food plan” (1955 Household Food Consumption Survey by USDA) • Poverty threshold = Food cost * 3 • Updated each year using the CPI • Poverty statistics are calculated based on pre-tax, post-transfer cash income.

  23. Poverty Thresholds 2007

  24. Aggregation in Studies of Welfare Leavers: What happens to sanctioned recipients?

  25. Aggregation in Studies of Welfare Leavers: What happens to sanctioned recipients? • Sanctioned families more likely to report: • Less earnings • Other forms of hardship • Utility shutoff • Inability to pay rent • Etc.

  26. Welfare Reform and Devolution • What is devolution? • What are the consequences for welfare provision and the poor?

  27. Welfare Reform and Devolution Federal Government State Governments

  28. Welfare Reform and Devolution Federal Government State Governments Local Governments/Actors

  29. What is the “Race to the Bottom” ? • “Welfare Magnet” Hypothesis: • Predicts that poor persons will migrate from states with low welfare benefits to those with more generous welfare policies

  30. What is the “Race to the Bottom” ? • Benefit Competition Hypothesis: • Predicts that states regularly compete with surrounding states to offer the least generous welfare assistance to try to discourage poor people from moving to their state (and thus avoid becoming “welfare magnets)

  31. What is the “Race to the Bottom” ? • Benefit Competition Hypothesis: • Potentially explains differences between U.S. welfare state compared to other Western democracies • Leads to less than “desirable” benefit levels • Used to justify call for uniform benefit levels set be federal government • What about decline in welfare generosity over time within U.S.?

  32. What is the “Race to the Bottom” ? • Residency requirements • The race to the bottom began in earnest after the 1969 Supreme Court decision which declared residency requirements unconstitutional

  33. Shapiro vs. Thompson

  34. AFDC/TANF Benefits Have Declined Relative to other Cash Assistance Payments Soc. Sec. (individual) SSI (individual) AFDC/TANF

  35. The Racial Politics of Welfare Retrenchment • Schneider and Ingram – Policy outputs a function of two important characteristics of the target population: • The social construction of the target population (Deserving vs. Undeserving) • The political power of the target population (weak vs. strong)

  36. The Racial Politics of Welfare Retrenchment

  37. The Racial Politics of Welfare Retrenchment • Social Constructions • Not all groups have a clear s.c. • Much of the politics of agenda setting concerns efforts to define and re-define prevailing social constructions of target populations • Often through re-defining the target population (example: Aids)

  38. Race and Support for Welfare:The Individual Level • Evidence suggests that two racial attitudes among whites interact to affect attitudes about welfare: • Race of the target • Stereotypes about black work ethic

  39. Race and Support for Welfare:The Individual Level • Evidence suggests that perceptions of the target population for welfare programs have changed over the last few decades • Negative stereotypes of black/minority work ethic remain widespread

  40. The Increasing Salience of Race Over Time (Gilens 2003)

  41. Survey Experiments and Race of the Target • Avery and Peffley (2003)

  42. Survey Experiments and Race of the Target • Avery and Peffley (2003) • The results consistently showed that respondents who viewed the black image were more likely to: • Blame the woman for her condition • Think that she is less likely to look for a new job. • Believe that most people could get by without welfare.

  43. Gilens (APSR 1996)