July 2004
DHHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
This study was conducted for the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, DHHS. It addresses how a state’s fiscal capacity affects its spending on social welfare, how states differ in their "packaging" of services for low-income populations, how economic conditions affect state spending on social welfare, and how the poorest states have adjusted to their relative economic austerity. The study also looks at factors in addition to fiscal capacity and federal grants that might influence state spending, including state needs for social welfare spending, as measured by poverty and unemployment rates and political and institutional factors, including state budget processes. .
Client Area: Federal Government
Expertise Area: Income Security
November 2003
US Department of Agriculture
This study considers the role that the dynamics of household income plays in determining Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation. In particular, many nonparticipant households have had a short-term drop in income. Other nonparticipants, however, have had long-term low income and are often very disadvantaged. Many households may not participate because the same conditions that limit their incomes, such as low literacy levels or physical or mental disability, also limit their ability to participate in the FSP. Many poor nonparticipants are receiving other benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income or Medicaid, suggesting an avenue by which agencies can reach eligible nonparticipants. The two main objectives of this study are to (1) determine the extent to which nonparticipation can reasonably be attributed to temporary low income, and (2) assess why some households that appear to have long-term low income do not participate.
Client Area: Federal Government
Expertise Area: Income Security
October 2003
DHHS, Administration for Children and Families
Since 1975, the federal government has paid incentives to state child support enforcement programs to encourage improvement in collections through efficient establishment and enforcement techniques. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop a performance-based incentive funding system through which the federal government would award payments to state child support enforcement (CSE) programs. The 1998 Child Support Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA) created the new structure to reward states that operated effective CSE programs. The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) implemented the new incentive formula over the Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 to 2002 period. Policymakers called for the gradual phase-in so that state officials would have time to perfect their measurement of performance and identify factors that affect the determination of incentives. CSPIA requires HHS to produce interim and final reports that detail the implementation of this new system and offer recommendations for its improvement. This interim Report to Congress describes the development of the new incentive system, components of the system, and initial program results.
Client Area: Federal Government
Expertise Area: Income Security
August 2003
DHHS, Administration for Children and Families
In 1998, Congress enacted the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA), to revise the incentive structure to reward states for performance on a larger number of their establishment and enforcement practices. In addition to other studies of the new incentive system, CSPIA required a report on how various demographic and economic variables affect state performance.
Client Area: Federal Government
Expertise Area: Income Security
April 2003
DHHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
Welfare and child support programs have long been intertwined. Given the common populations served and the role that child support payments play in self-sufficiency and cost recovery, understanding the interaction between child support and welfare is important. The Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) funded a study to examine this interaction. This literature review is the first report from this important study. A future report will present findings from analyses of several datasets examining the extent of child support receipt among current and former welfare clients and the contribution of payments to self-sufficiency.
Client Area: Federal Government
Expertise Area: Income Security
July 2002
DHHS, Administration for Children and Families
While the federal government has mandated the use of a number of enforcement techniques, states and localities still have considerable flexibility in designing the processes by which they establish child support. States have discretion in terms of shaping and running their child support programs. In many states, courts play a key role in child support order establishment, as well as other aspects of the program. In others, executive-branch agencies establish orders administratively. Despite the widespread use of the terms "judicial" and administrative," no study has tried to define each process -- or a range of quasi-judicial processes. The 50 states and the District of Columbia each has its own order establishment process and its own set of "players." This study addressed the following questions: What key characteristics define administrative and judicial processes? Is it possible to classify state processes into four or five key categories or types? Are there similarities, as well as differences, between the processes? How do cases progress through each of the process types? Are there differences in the number of people or agenies involved? Do clients perceive the processes as fair and accessible? Do cases appear to move quickly through one process or another? In order to answer the study questions, the project team developed a taxonomy of judicial and administrative processes; reviewed processes in nine states; and conducted site visits in five states.
Client Area: Federal Government
Expertise Area: Income Security
July 2002
US Department of Health and Human Services
Few features of the 1990s welfare reforms have generated as much attention and controversy as time limits on benefit receipt. Time limits first emerged at the state level and subsequently became a central feature of federal welfare policy in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which imposed a 60-month time limit on federally funded assistance for most families.
To inform discussions about the reauthorization of PRWORA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services contracted with the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) to conduct a comprehensive review of what is known about time limits. As part of this project, The Lewin Group conducted a survey of all 50 state welfare agencies.
Client Area: Federal Government
Expertise Area: Income Security
December 2001
Annie E. Casey Foundation
With welfare reform, millions of families with children have shifted from reliance on cash assistance from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to reliance on earnings. Increases in programs providing support to low-wage workers and their families have facilitated this shift from welfare to work. Key work support programs include the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, medical insurance under the State Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid, and subsidized childcare. By "making work pay," these work support programs have helped families move from welfare to work and have improved family well-being. This paper presents innovative policy options for improving access to the Food Stamp Program (FSP). It presents background on the current programs and the rationale for why a new approach is needed; suggests principles to serve as a guide in designing a new approach; presents options for making the benefits available under the FSP readily accessible to eligible working families; and discusses where to go from here and lays out first steps.
Client Area: Foundations
Expertise Area: Income Security
April 2001
DHHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Office of Child Support Enforcement
In recent years, federal and state governments have taken a number of actions to strengthen the nation's child support system. One chief policy concern is that child support awards, over time, may not keep pace with non-custodial parent earnings or the cost associated with raising a child. Given the cost and complexity of traditional review and adjustment procedures, a number of states are considering, or have implemented, one of the two new approaches authorized in the Personal Responsibilty and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996: Cost-of-living (COLA) adjustments that alter orders periodically without reviews, and An automated method to identify orders eligible for review and to apply the appropriate adjustment. This report focuses primarily on COLA adjustments and reviews the COLA policies in two states: Minnesota, and New York. The study reviewed the processes involved in passing COLA legislation, the stakeholders who were involved, the steps the states took to implement their COLA systems, the fiscal outcomes for both the parents and the states, and assessments of the pros and cons of a COLA system. In addition, the study examined a proposed automated method for reviewing and adjusting orders in Vermont.
Client Area: Federal Government
Expertise Area: Income Security
March 2001
Social Security Administration
This report provides findings from the project team's review of SSA's quality assurance system for disability determinations and options for improvement. The report finds that SSA's QA system reflects the end-of-line inspection type of system that was prominent in the health care industry and other industries when it was developed, and needs to be transformed to a more advanced, state-of-the-art quality management system. This will require a sustained effort over many years. Program leadership will play a critical role. Options are presented for improving leadership, developing a culture of quality, improving pre-effectuation reviews, improving measurement of quality in initial determinations, improving SSA's relationship with the state Disability Determination Services, continuously improving the disability determination process, and improving the quality of appellate decisions.
Client Area: Federal Government
Expertise Area: Income Security
Showing 31 to 40 of 47 item(s)