Premium
Measuring State Welfare Policy Changes: Why Don't They Explain Caseload and Employment Outcomes? *
Author(s) -
Cadena Brian,
Danziger Sheldon,
Seefeldt Kristin
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
social science quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.482
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1540-6237
pISSN - 0038-4941
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00436.x
Subject(s) - welfare reform , welfare , sanctions , current population survey , public economics , work (physics) , cash , social policy , population , economics , demographic economics , state (computer science) , welfare state , single mothers , actuarial science , political science , psychology , sociology , finance , politics , demography , mechanical engineering , developmental psychology , algorithm , computer science , law , market economy , engineering
Objectives. Since the implementation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, many analysts have attempted to measure the effects of new state welfare policies, particularly work requirements, sanctions, and time limits, on the Act's key goals—reducing cash assistance caseloads and increasing employment among single mothers. De Jong et al. present new measures of state policy variations, but they do not attempt to evaluate the relationships between these measures and welfare reform outcomes. For their analysis to be meaningful, it should contribute to a better understanding of cross‐state variations in caseload declines and increased employment among single mothers. Methods. We first raise conceptual questions about the extent to which their measures are meaningful in a policy sense. We then present analyses of Current Population Survey data. Results. We find that differences in the De Jong et al. stringency measures (factor scores) are not significantly correlated with differences in welfare reform outcomes by state.