WELFARE REFORM AND CHILD WELL-BEINGLoren Gauzza

http://www.thecuriousmindsmontessori.org/http://i2.wp.com/vicksburgdailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TANF.jpg?resize=250%2C250

Research Question

How has welfare reform affected the well-being of our country’s children?

More specifically, how do the intended outcomes of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (increasing child support enforcement and decreasing out-of-wedlock births) compare with other indicators of child well-being (poverty rates, maltreatment rates, and Food Stamp usage)?

Literature Review

Child Support Enforcement and Out-of-Wedlock Births:

With its focus on promoting the “personal responsibility” of low-income parents, the PRWORA of 1996 contained relatively few goals that focused directly on children alone. Instead, many of the Act’s stated objectives focused on improving child well-being through more indirect means. Two objectives meant to indirectly impact children included: 1)“reduc[ing] the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies” (SEC. 401. PURPOSE) and 2) “operat[ing] a child support enforcement program” in each state (SEC. 402. ELIGIBLE STATES; STATE PLAN). Since states were offered grants for fulfilling these aims (SEC. 304. GRANTS TO STATES), and were threatened with fiscal penalties if they should fail (SEC. 409. PENALTIES), I expect my data to reveal that states were successful in achieving these goals.

Literature Review cont.Child Poverty:

In order to truly understand the effects of welfare reform on children’s well-being, however, we must analyze indicators beyond these stated objectives. For example, although reducing child poverty is not an explicit goal of the Act (Slack et al., 2007), social welfare experts would undoubtedly be interested in the effect of reform on child poverty rates, as childhood poverty is a significant social problem; research has shown that child poverty is associated with lower cognitive performance, behavior problems (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, 2005), and poorer health in children (Montgomery, Kiely, & Pappas, 1996), and poor children are 3.5 times more likely to be poor in adulthood (Musick & Mare, 2006). Given that national poverty rates declined from 23 percent to 18 percent between 1993 and 2005 (Slack et al., 2007), I expect to find a similar decrease when examining the change in child poverty rates between 1995 and 2008.

Literature Review cont.Child Maltreatment and Food Stamp Participation:

The impact of reform on child maltreatment is similarly important to examine, as maltreated children exhibit social and emotional difficulties (Éthier, Lemelin, & Lacharité, 2004) and diminished academic achievement (Leiter & Johnsen, 1994). Moreover, patterns of abuse and neglect tend to be intergenerational (Henschel, Bruin, & Möhler, 2014). Unfortunately, since “parental aggravation” among recent welfare recipients “tripled between 1992 and 2004” (Urban Institute, 2006, p.4) and since parental stress is a known contributor to maltreatment (Kotch et al., 1995), I expect to find that child maltreatment rates increased after reform.

Lastly, it is also worthwhile to determine the impact of reform on children’s receipt of Food Stamp benefits. National Food Stamp participation decreased by 7.5 million between 1994 and 1998 (Currie &Grogger, 2001), so I expect to find that children’s Food Stamp participation rate decreased as well. However, this decrease is not necessarily encouraging, because Currie and Grogger (2001) found that it is at least partly due to the challenges of accessibility brought on by welfare reform. As a result, if I find a reduction, this may indicate that less children are receiving the nutritional support that they need.

Works CitedCurrie, J., & Grogger, J. (2001). Explaining recent declines in Food Stamp Program participation. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs,

203-229.

Éthier, L. S., Lemelin, J. P., & Lacharité, C. (2004). A longitudinal study of the effects of chronic maltreatment on children’s behavioral and emotional problems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(12), 1265-1278. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.07.006

Henschel, S., Bruin, M., & Möhler, E. (2014). Self-control and child abuse potential in mothers with an abuse history and their preschool children. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 23(5), 824-836. doi: 10.1007/s10826-013-9735-0

Kotch, J. B., Browne, D. C., Ringwalt, C. L., Stewart, P. W., Ruina, E., Holt, K.,…Jung, J. (1995). Risk of child abuse or neglect in a cohort of low-income children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(9), 1115-1130. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(95)00072-G

Leiter, J., & Johnsen, M. C. (1994). Child maltreatment and school performance. American Journal of Education, 102(2), 154-189. http://0-dx.doi.org.library.lemoyne.edu/10.1086/444063 

Montgomery, L. E., Kiely, J. L., & Pappas, G. (1996). The effects of poverty, race, and family structure on US children’s health: Data from the NHIS, 1978 through 1980 and 1989 through 1991. American Journal of Public Health, 86(10), 1401-1405.

Musick, K., & Mare, R. D. (2006). Recent trends in the inheritance of poverty and family structure. Social Science Research, 35(2), 471-499. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.11.006

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Duration and developmental timing of poverty and children’s cognitive and social development from birth through third grade. Child Development, 76(4), 795-810. http://0-dx.doi.org.library.lemoyne.edu/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00878.x

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 42 U. S. C. §§ 101-913 (2006).

Slack, K. S., Magnuson, K. A., Berger, L. M., Yoo, J., Coley, R. L., Dunifon, R.,…Osborne, C. (2007). Family economic well-being following the 1996 welfare reform: Trend data from five non-experimental panel studies. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(6), 698-720. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.12.002

The Urban Institute. (2006). A decade of welfare reform: Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900980_welfarereform.pdf

Data Sources UsedChildren’s Defense Fund Data:o The CDF’s annual reports provide state-by-state data on a multitude of child well-being

indicators. I used the following CDF publications as data sources:• The State of America’s Children Yearbook 1996

Data on number of children receiving Food Stamps in 1994 Children’s Defense Fund. (1996). The state of America’s children yearbook 1996 [PDF]. Retrieved from http://

diglib.lib.utk.edu/cdf/data/0116_000050_000211/0116_000050_000211.pdf

• The State of America’s Children Yearbook 1997 Data on rates of child maltreatment and child support enforcement in 1994 Children’s Defense Fund. (1997). The state of America’s children yearbook 1997 [PDF]. Retrieved from http

://diglib.lib.utk.edu/cdf/data/0116_000050_000220/0116_000050_000220.pdf

• The State of America’s Children Yearbook 1999 Data on child poverty rates in 1995 Children’s Defense Fund. (1999). The state of America’s children yearbook 1999 [PDF]. Retrieved from http://

diglib.lib.utk.edu/cdf/data/0116_000050_000225/0116_000050_000225.pdf

• The State of America’s Children 2010 Report Data on child poverty, child maltreatment, child support enforcement, and Food

Stamp participation in 2008 Children’s Defense Fund. (2010). The state of America’s children 2010 report [PDF]. Retrieved from http://

www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-of-americas-children.pdf

KIDS COUNT Data Center Data:o Their data table generator provided me with 1994, 1995, and 2008

child population data, as well as birth data (unmarried and total) for 1995 and 2008.• Data table generator available at http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data#USA/1/0

Data Analysis• To analyze the impact of welfare reform on various indicators of child well-being, I

primarily employed the “Pretest-Posttest” method of program analysis.

• This method was described in Lab 3.

• Using this method, I created pivot tables and column graphs to examine the national averages of each variable before (pretest) and after (posttest) welfare reform.

• Additionally, I created graphs to analyze the change in each variable that each state experienced between the pretest and posttest measures (e .g., By what percent did the child poverty rate change in each state between 1995 and 2008?).

To create the charts displaying the national averages before and after reform:1) Calculate the percent of children in each state to whom the particular variable applied

for both the pretest and the posttest year (e.g., the percent of children in poverty in 1995 and 2008)a) Type =.b) Select cell showing raw number of children to whom the variable applied in that state. c) Type /.d) Select cell showing the total child population for the state.e) Hit enter. Drag bottom right corner of this cell down to calculate percentages for

remaining states.2) Create a pivot table to calculate the national average for each year.

a) Highlight all data.b) Click Insert tab, choose Pivot Table, choose New Worksheet.c) In Field List, drag the label of both columns created in Step 1 into the Values box.d) Right click one of the numbers in the table. e) Choose Value Field Settings, choose Average.

3) Create graph to represent this table.a) Highlight the pivot table. b) Click Insert tab, choose 2-D Column Chart. c) Right click columns, click Add Data Labels. d) Choose Layout 1 to add title. Add year labels by choosing Horizontal Axis Titles

in Layout Menu.

Data Analysis cont.

To create graphs to analyze percent change for each state:1. Calculate percent change for each state.

a) Type =.b) Select the cell showing the percent of children to whom the variable applied in the posttest year.c) Type -.d) Select the cell showing the percent of children to whom the variable applied in the pretest year.e) Hit enter. Drag the bottom right corner of this cell down to calculate the percent

change for the remaining states.

2. Create graph to represent the percent changes calculated in Step 1.a) Click Insert tab. Choose 2-D Column Chart (or Scatter ,etc.).b) Choose Select Data in upper menu. For Series Name, select the column label of the column created in Step 1. For Series Data, highlight all numbers below that column label.c) To label bars with state names: Choose Edit under Horizontal Axis Labels. Highlight all state names. Click OK.

Data Analysis cont.

Findings: Child Support Enforcement

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

20.86%

55.31%

National Child Support Collection RatesBefore and After Welfare Reform

Average Percent of Cases with Payment 1994

Average Percent of Cases with Payment 2006

1994 2006

Average Percent of Cases with Payment 1994 Average Percent of Cases with Payment 200620.86% 55.31%

Expectation: After learning that states would be penalized financially for failing to institute successful child support enforcement programs, I expected child support collection rates to increase between 1994 and 2006.

Findings: Between 1994 and 2006, national child support collection rates increased by an average of approximately 34%. Thus, it appears that this objective was successfully executed (and my expectation was confirmed).

Findings: Child Support Enforcement Al

abam

aAl

aska

Arizo

naAr

kans

asCa

lifor

nia

Colo

rado

Conn

ectic

utDe

law

are

Dist

. Of C

...Fl

orid

aGe

orgi

aHa

wai

iId

aho

Illin

ois

Indi

ana

Iow

aKa

nsas

Kent

ucky

Loui

siana

Mai

neM

aryl

and

Mas

sach

us...

Mich

igan

Min

neso

taM

ississ

ippi

Miss

ouri

Mon

tana

Nebr

aska

Neva

daNe

w H

amp.

..Ne

w Je

rsey

New

Mex

icoNe

w Y

ork

Nort

h Ca

r...

Nort

h Da

...O

hio

Okl

ahom

aO

rego

nPe

nnsy

lv...

Rhod

e Is.

..So

uth

Car..

.So

uth

Da...

Tenn

esse

eTe

xas

Utah

Verm

ont

Virg

inia

Was

hing

ton

Wes

t Virg

...W

iscon

sinW

yom

ing

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

58.95%

-2.28%

Change in Percent of Child Support Cases with Payment between 1994 and 2006

Consistent with my expectations, almost every state saw a dramatic increase in child support payment rates. In most states, the percent of cases with payment increased by anywhere between 20% and 55% between 1994 and 2006. Colorado had the largest percent increase (58.95%). Hawaii was the only state in which the percent of child support cases with payment decreased (by 2.28%).

Findings: Unmarried Births

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

31.32%

39.94%

National Rates of Births to Unmarried WomenBefore and After Welfare Reform

Average Rate of Un-married Births 1995

Average Rate of Un-married Births 2008

1995 2008

Average Rate of Unmarried Births 1995 Average Rate of Unmarried Births 2008

31.32% 39.94%

Expectation: Since states were offered grants in exchange for reducing the prevalence of out-of-wedlock births, I expected to find a decrease in births to unmarried women between 1995 and 2008.

Findings: Contrary to my expectations, the average national rate of unmarried births actually increased by about 9%. Therefore, the nation did not meet the goal stated in the Act (and my expectation was refuted).

Findings: Unmarried BirthsAl

abam

aAl

aska

Arizo

naAr

kans

asCa

lifor

nia

Colo

rado

Conn

ectic

utDe

law

are

Dist

. Of C

olum

bia

Flor

ida

Geor

gia

Haw

aii

Idah

oIll

inoi

sIn

dian

aIo

wa

Kans

asKe

ntuc

kyLo

uisia

naM

aine

Mar

ylan

dM

assa

chus

etts

Mich

igan

Min

neso

taM

ississ

ippi

Miss

ouri

Mon

tana

Neb

rask

aN

evad

aN

ew H

amps

hire

New

Jers

eyN

ew M

exico

New

Yor

kN

orth

Car

olin

aN

orth

Dak

ota

Ohi

oO

klah

oma

Ore

gon

Penn

sylv

ania

Rhod

e Isl

and

Sout

h Ca

rolin

aSo

uth

Dako

taTe

nnes

see

Texa

sUt

ahVe

rmon

tVi

rgin

iaW

ashi

ngto

nW

est V

irgin

iaW

iscon

sinW

yom

ing

-10.00%

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

-8.02%

Change in Rate of Births to Unmarried Women between 1995 and 2008

This state-by-state chart further disproves my expectation. Every state saw an increase in unmarried births, with most states experiencing an increase of over 5% between 1995 and 2008. Only the District of Columbia experienced a decrease in unmarried births between 1995 and 2008 (a decrease of 8.02%).

Findings: Child PovertyAverage Percent of Children in Poverty in 1995 Average Percent of Children in Poverty in 2008

19.43% 16.94%

Expectation: Because poverty in general declined by 5% between 1993 and 2005, I expected to find a similar decrease in child poverty rates between 1995 and 2008.

Findings: Child poverty did decrease between 1995 and 2008. However, the national child poverty rate only decreased by 2.5%; this change is half the size of the reduction observed in general poverty between 1993 and 2005. So, while welfare reform did not increase child poverty, it does not appear to have brought about as large of a reduction as was observed in general poverty rates.

*NOTE: The 2007-2009 recession could play a role in the smaller decline in poverty.

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

19.43%

16.94%

National Rates of Child PovertyBefore and After Welfare Reform

Average Percent of Children in Poverty in 1995

Average Percent of Children in Poverty in 2008

1995 2008

Findings: Child PovertyAl Al Ar

iAr

kCa

li... Co Con De Dis

Flo

Geo Ha

Idah

oIll

i...

Ind

Iow

a Ka Ken

Lou M Ma

Mas Mic Mi

Miss

...M

isM

o Ne Ne NeNe

w Ne Ne Nor

Nor

Ohi

o Ok Or

Pen

Islan

dSo

uSo

uTe

nTe

xas

Utah Ve

Virg

...W

aW

esW

isW

y0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

14.87%

7.52%

32.39%30.01%Percent of Children in Poverty in 1995

Alab

ama

Alas

kaAr

izona

Arka

nsas

Calif

orni

aCo

lora

doCo

nnec

ticut

Dela

war

eDi

st. o

f Col

umbi

aFl

orid

aGe

orgi

aHa

wai

iId

aho

Illin

ois

Indi

ana

Iow

aKa

nsas

Kent

ucky

Loui

siana

Mai

neM

aryl

and

Mas

sach

usett

sM

ichig

anM

inne

sota

Miss

issip

piM

issou

riM

onta

naNe

bras

kaNe

vada

New

Ham

pshi

reNe

w Je

rsey

New

Mex

icoNe

w Y

ork

Nort

h Ca

rolin

aNo

rth

Dako

taO

hio

Okl

ahom

aO

rego

nPe

nnsy

lvan

iaIsl

and

Sout

h Ca

rolin

aSo

uth

Dako

taTe

nnes

see

Texa

sUt

ahVe

rmon

tVi

rgin

iaW

ashi

ngto

nW

est V

irgin

iaW

iscon

sinW

yom

ing

-10.00%

-8.00%

-6.00%

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%2.71%

1.22%

-9.10%

-7.72%

Change in Child Poverty Rates between 1995 and 2008

While the national child poverty rate decreased between ‘95 and ‘08, it is important to note that some states (IN, NH, OR) saw an increase in child poverty (albeit a small one). For NH, this increase may simply reflect a regression to the mean. IN’s increase, however, appears meaningful.

Findings: Child Maltreatment

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

4.50%

5.00%

4.44%

1.02%

National Prevalence of Child Abuse and NeglectBefore and After Welfare Reform

Average Percent of Children Reported Abused/Neglected in 1994

Average Percent of Children Reported Abused/Neglected in 2008

1994 2008

Average Percent of Children Reported Abused/Neglected in 1994

Average Percent of Children Reported Abused/Neglected in 2008

4.44% 1.02% Expectation: Since parental aggravation tripled between 1992 and 2004, and given that parental stress is associated with child maltreatment, I expected rates of child abuse and neglect to increase between 1994 and 2008.

Findings: Fortunately, my expectation was incorrect; the national prevalence of child abuse and neglect decreased by almost 3.5% between 1994 and 2008.

Findings: Child Maltreatment

-12.00%

-10.00%

-8.00%

-6.00%

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

Dist. of Columbia; -8.36%

Idaho; -9.53%

Pennsylvania; -0.67%

Change in Prevalence of Child Abuse/Neglect between 1994 and 2008

In this case, the observed national decrease in child maltreatment does not mask individual state increases; every state saw a decrease in the prevalence of child abuse and neglect between 1994 and 2008. Idaho had the largest decline, experiencing a decrease of 9.53%.

Findings: Children receiving Food StampsAverage Percent of Children receiving FS 1994 Average Percent of Children receiving FS 2008

19.31% 18.13%

Expectations: Because national Food Stamp participation dropped significantly right around the time that welfare reform was implemented, I expected to find that the percentage of children receiving Food Stamp benefits declined between 1994 and 2008.

Findings: The national percentage of children receiving Food Stamp benefits did decline between 1994 and 2008, but the reduction was very small (1.18%).

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

19.31%

18.13%

National Percent of Children Receiving Food Stamp Benefits

Before and After Welfare Reform

Average Percent of Children receiving FS 1994Average Percent of Children receiving FS 2008

1994 2008

Findings: Children receiving Food StampsAl

abam

aAl

aska

Arizo

naAr

kans

asCa

lifor

nia

Colo

rado

Conn

ectic

utDe

law

are

Dist

Colu

mbi

aFl

orid

aGe

orgi

aHa

wai

iId

aho

Illin

ois

Indi

ana

Iow

aKa

nsas

Kent

ucky

Loui

siana

Mai

neM

aryl

and

Mas

sach

usett

sM

ichig

anM

inne

sota

Miss

issip

piM

issou

riM

onta

naN

ebra

ska

N e

vada

New

Ham

pshi

r eN

ew Je

rsey

New

Mex

icoN

ew Y

ork

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Nor

th D

akot

aO

hio

Okl

ahom

aO

rego

nPe

nnsy

lvan

iaRh

ode

Islan

dSo

uth

Caro

lina

Sout

h Da

kota

Tenn

esse

eTe

xas

Utah

Verm

ont

Virg

inia

Was

hing

ton

Wes

t Virg

inia

Wisc

onsin

Wyo

min

g

-15.00%

-10.00%

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

-10.18%

10.77%

Change in Percent of Children Receiving Food Stamp Benefitsbetween 1994 and 2008

Although an examination of national averages before and after welfare reform reveals a very small decline in children’s receipt of Food Stamp benefits, an analysis of state-by-state data demonstrates that several states saw much larger decreases in children’s Food Stamp participation than the national-level data would suggest. This is important to note because, as Currie and Grogger (2001) pointed out, these states may have experienced reductions in participation as a result of the fact that welfare reform made gaining access to Food Stamps more difficult for many families.

SummaryVariable Expectation Confirmed?

Child Support Enforcement

I expected the percentage of cases with payment to increase after welfare reform.

Unmarried Births

I expected the rate of unmarried births to decrease after welfare reform.

Child PovertyI expected child poverty to decrease after welfare reform.

Child MaltreatmentI expected child maltreatment rates to increase after welfare reform.

Children’s Food Stamp Participation

I expected Food Stamp participation among children to decrease after welfare reform.

(For the most part)

This is a positive finding!

This is not necessarily a good sign.

PRW

OR

A

Objectives