Ask the Scholar
Page 59 of 104
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Changes in State Spending on Social Services Since the Implementation of Welfare Reform
Detailed findings
Finding 1: Trends in total social services spending have varied from state to state.
As Table 1 shows, in Missouri total social services spending grew fairly substantially, in
Wisconsin it declined, and in California and Georgia spending remained fairly flat, with
California's spending increasing 4% and Georgia's decreasing 1%.¹¹ In all states except Wisconsin,
federal and state spending rose or fell together at roughly the same rate. In California, for example,
federal spending rose by $280 million, or 6%, while state spending and local spending rose $265
million, or 3%. In Wisconsin, federal spending rose by $20 million, or 4%, while state spending
declined by $122 million or 14%.
Table 1
Changes in Total Social Services Spending
State FY 95 to State FY 99
(Dollars in Thousands)
Federal
State (State/Local)
Total
Change
% Change
Change
% Change
Change
% Change
California
279,540
6%
265,341
3%
544,881
4%
Georgia
(13,652)
(2%)
(5,451)
(1%)
(19,103)
(1%)
Missouri
60,960
14%
115,625
17%
176,585
16%
Wisconsin
20,507
4%
(121,704)
(14%)
(101,196)
(8%)
Finding 2: Spending on social services has declined as a percent of the total budget.
As Figure 1 shows, state social services spending as a percent of state general fund spending
declined in each of the states studied. We saw in Table 1 that total social services spending declined
only in Wisconsin. But in all states, social services spending has not kept up with the overall growth
in spending. This finding is not surprising in economic good times when state revenues tend to grow
and social service needs tend to diminish.
Finding 3: Cash assistance spending has declined significantly in all four states.
The biggest change in absolute spending was the decline in cash assistance. All four states had
large drops in TANF caseloads over the period examined. 12 Wisconsin has had especially large
caseload declines. For the most part these caseload changes reflect changes in families receiving
cash assistance, suggesting similar changes in cash assistance spending absent changes in benefit
levels or in the kinds of families receiving benefits.
Table 2 shows that all four states had dramatic declines in both federal and state (or state and
local) cash assistance spending, with total cash assistance spending roughly consistent with
caseload declines. The biggest absolute drop in spending - $2.67 billion from state fiscal year
1994-95 to state fiscal year 1998-99 - was in California, the most populous state and the one with
the largest budget of all the states in this study. The largest percentage decline in spending — 77%
- was in Wisconsin, which has experienced the largest caseload decline of the states in this study.
11 These data have not been adhjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation dampens the increases and heightens the
decreases.
12 Nationally, caseloads declined by 49 percent over the same period. Caseload declines are measured from January
1995 through June 1999, as these data are available in convenient form from the Administration on Children and
Families and are reasonably consistent with the period for which we examined spending. January 1995 is
three-quarters of the way through the 1995 state fiscal year, and June 1999 is at the end of the 1999 state fiscal year.
10
Page data
- Page
- 59
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 0ba4342d91b24449
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 565376738
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "565376738",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] Supplantation",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Margy Waller's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 104,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "565376738",
"label": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] Supplantation",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "565376738",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] Supplantation",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Margy Waller's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 104,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"naId": 565376738,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"otherTitles": [
"7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025"
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 59,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-059.jpg",
"mediaId": "0ba4342d91b24449",
"ocrText": "Changes in State Spending on Social Services Since the Implementation of Welfare Reform\nDetailed findings\nFinding 1: Trends in total social services spending have varied from state to state.\nAs Table 1 shows, in Missouri total social services spending grew fairly substantially, in\nWisconsin it declined, and in California and Georgia spending remained fairly flat, with\nCalifornia's spending increasing 4% and Georgia's decreasing 1%.¹¹ In all states except Wisconsin,\nfederal and state spending rose or fell together at roughly the same rate. In California, for example,\nfederal spending rose by $280 million, or 6%, while state spending and local spending rose $265\nmillion, or 3%. In Wisconsin, federal spending rose by $20 million, or 4%, while state spending\ndeclined by $122 million or 14%.\nTable 1\nChanges in Total Social Services Spending\nState FY 95 to State FY 99\n(Dollars in Thousands)\nFederal\nState (State/Local)\nTotal\nChange\n% Change\nChange\n% Change\nChange\n% Change\nCalifornia\n279,540\n6%\n265,341\n3%\n544,881\n4%\nGeorgia\n(13,652)\n(2%)\n(5,451)\n(1%)\n(19,103)\n(1%)\nMissouri\n60,960\n14%\n115,625\n17%\n176,585\n16%\nWisconsin\n20,507\n4%\n(121,704)\n(14%)\n(101,196)\n(8%)\nFinding 2: Spending on social services has declined as a percent of the total budget.\nAs Figure 1 shows, state social services spending as a percent of state general fund spending\ndeclined in each of the states studied. We saw in Table 1 that total social services spending declined\nonly in Wisconsin. But in all states, social services spending has not kept up with the overall growth\nin spending. This finding is not surprising in economic good times when state revenues tend to grow\nand social service needs tend to diminish.\nFinding 3: Cash assistance spending has declined significantly in all four states.\nThe biggest change in absolute spending was the decline in cash assistance. All four states had\nlarge drops in TANF caseloads over the period examined. 12 Wisconsin has had especially large\ncaseload declines. For the most part these caseload changes reflect changes in families receiving\ncash assistance, suggesting similar changes in cash assistance spending absent changes in benefit\nlevels or in the kinds of families receiving benefits.\nTable 2 shows that all four states had dramatic declines in both federal and state (or state and\nlocal) cash assistance spending, with total cash assistance spending roughly consistent with\ncaseload declines. The biggest absolute drop in spending - $2.67 billion from state fiscal year\n1994-95 to state fiscal year 1998-99 - was in California, the most populous state and the one with\nthe largest budget of all the states in this study. The largest percentage decline in spending — 77%\n- was in Wisconsin, which has experienced the largest caseload decline of the states in this study.\n11 These data have not been adhjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation dampens the increases and heightens the\ndecreases.\n12 Nationally, caseloads declined by 49 percent over the same period. Caseload declines are measured from January\n1995 through June 1999, as these data are available in convenient form from the Administration on Children and\nFamilies and are reasonably consistent with the period for which we examined spending. January 1995 is\nthree-quarters of the way through the 1995 state fiscal year, and June 1999 is at the end of the 1999 state fiscal year.\n10"
}