Citation URL: http://www.urban.org/KimuraFlores

There are two Highlights for each state. The income support and social services Highlights look at basic income support programs, employment and training programs, child care, child support enforcement, and the last-resort safety net. The Highlights capture policies in place and planned in 1996 and early 1997.

There are two Highlights for each state. The income support and social services Highlights look at basic income support programs, employment and training programs, child care, child support enforcement, and the last-resort safety net. The Highlights capture policies in place and planned in 1996 and early 1997.

The state reports describe the safety net and health care programs in place for low-income people on the eve of welfare reform. The reports also analyze the particular circumstances that are shaping the state's response to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The state reports are based on case studies in the respective state.

The state reports describe the safety net and health care programs in place for low-income people on the eve of welfare reform. The reports also analyze the particular circumstances that are shaping the state's response to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The state reports are based on case studies in the respective state.

In 1995, states spent an average of about eight percent of their general fund on programs designed to benefit low-income children prior to the enactment of federal welfare reform. On average, 37 percent of expenditures were for health, followed by cash assistance and training for their parents at 30 percent. The report provides detailed data on total children's spending, and illustrates how spending on children's programs varies in each of the 13 states studied.

Although the federal government's funding mechanisms do substantially narrow spending differences across states for non-education children's programs, major differences in states' spending continue to exist. A state's number of children in poverty, ability to raise revenue, and willingness to spend all play a role in creating these spending differences. This paper examines steps that the federal government could take to further reduce spending differences.

Return to list of authors