Project:
Economic Downturns and Welfare Reform: An Exploratory County-Level Analysis
Year: 1999
Research Center: Southern Rural Development Center, Mississippi State University
Investigator: Goetz, Stephan J., Fisseha Tegegne, Julie N. Zimmerman, David L. Debertin, Surendra P. Singh, Safdar Muhammed, and Enefiok Ekanem
Institution: Pennsylvania State University
Project Contact:
Stephan J. Goetz, Professor and Director of NERCRD
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
7 E Armsby Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802-5602
814-863-4656, fax 814-863-0586
sgoetz@psu.edu
Summary:
Over the past 20 years, the U.S. economy has experienced
remarkable growth. The combination of rising
incomes, low and declining rates of unemployment,
low interest rates, and rapid GDP growth have led to a
booming stock market. Since new firms are being created
and many old firms are expanding, job creation
has been rapid. While the strong economy makes it
easier for individuals to move off welfare, problems
remain. First, not all areas of the United States are
sharing equally in the growing economy. Second, certain
welfare recipients, primarily younger and less-educated
workers, face different and often more limited
employment prospects than those of most workers.
Third, past welfare recipients still face a variety of barriers
to employment that are beyond their control.
In this study, the authors examine the relationship
between recipients’ characteristics, local economic
conditions, and the decline in welfare program participation
in Kentucky counties. They develop a statistical
model to quantify the effect of an economic downturn
on welfare caseloads, and to separate the effects of
welfare recipients’ characteristics from the effect of
local economic conditions on changes in welfare caseloads.
Their dependent variable is a function of the
reduction in county-level adult caseloads between June
1997 and January 1998.
County economic conditions affecting caseload reductions
include the unemployment rate, recent job
growth, and the number of retail sector jobs per adult
welfare recipient. Other factors that may affect transitions
into the workforce—and that are beyond the control
of individuals—include availability of daycare for
children and the presence of Family Resource Youth
Service Centers. Whether a welfare recipient lives
adjacent to a metro area should also affect the likelihood
of transitions. The authors use five variables to
capture individual characteristics of adult welfare
recipients that affect transitions into the workforce,
independent of local county conditions: age of the
recipients, average number of children per recipient,
previous amount of time on assistance, educational
attainment, and previous work experience.
Their results show that an increase in the unemployment
rate, a decrease in the availability of retail sector
jobs, and rural status of a county each reduce the rate
at which caseloads decline. The directions of these
effects match theoretical expectations, and the effects
are statistically significant. The proportion of recipients
who are young, who have been on welfare rolls
for longer periods, who have less prior work experience,
and who have low levels of educational attainment
all had negative effects on caseload decline,
everything else being equal. The average education of
recipients and the unemployment rate in a county were
the most important factors affecting caseload reductions.
Thus, the authors suggest that a combination of
policies targeted at raising the education attainment of
former recipients and stimulating job growth would be
more effective than other policies in maintaining caseload
reductions during a recession. Overall, they found
recipients’ individual characteristics “explained” 33
percent more of the variation in caseload reductions
than did county-level economic conditions, even
though more variables were included for economic
conditions than for individual characteristics.