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

A hallmark of the administration of social assistance under the socialist regimes in Eastern Europe and the USSR was the universal nature of eligibility for benefits, either to all citizens or to categories of deserving citizens, e.g., the physically handicapped. During the transition period since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has taken limited steps to improve the targeting of benefits. The challenge to improvement is acute because the administration of the great majority of programs rests with agencies of local government. The question addressed here is how amenable local program administration is to improved targeting and more progressive program administration in general.

There are nearly 5 million able-bodied adults age 25 to 49 without dependents in America with incomes at or near poverty. More than half lack health insurance, and almost none receive government assistance. New data show this group to be trying as hard as anyone to get ahead, through both work (almost 80 percent hold jobs, 60 percent full time) and training (20 percent each year), yet failing. Non-custodial fathers - a quarter of the men in the group-work even harder but remain equally strapped, even without considering child support payments.

This report finds that General Assistance has contracted considerably over the past decade. During this period, states shrank their GA programs by restricting assistance to some groups, especially able-bodied adults without dependent children, and by holding benefits to pre-1989 levels. Many of the cutbacks to GA were enacted in the early part of the decade when states' budgets were tight as a result of the poor economy. As the fiscal situation of states improved, however, none have made substantial restorations. Although GA programs exist to provide income support to populations ineligible for federal cash assistance, the paper concludes that states have limited the capacity of their programs to provide such support.

There are two Highlights for each state. The Highlights that focus on health cover Medicaid, other public insurance programs, the health care marketplace, and the role of public providers. The Highlights capture policies in place and planned in 1996 and early 1997.

General Assistance (GA) programs are cash and in-kind assistance programs financed and administered entirely by the state, county, or locality in which they operate. This report, based on a survey of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, provides an overview of states' GA programs as of the summer of 1998. Tables describe policy choices made by states and counties. In addition, this report provides caseload and expenditure data where available and addresses major changes in GA programs since the passage of federal welfare reform in the summer of 1996.

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.

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-by-state descriptions of cash assistance programs show that states have used the flexibility TANF granted to take very different approaches to major decisions surrounding welfare reform in areas such as program eligibility and benefits, time limits, and work requirements. Easy-to-read charts simplify making cross-state comparisons on many features of state welfare reform plans. These include asset limits, income eligibility limits, diversion assistance payments, eligibility of two-parent families, time limits, exemptions to time limits, extensions of time limits, work sanctions, work exemptions, work requirement time limits, benefit amounts, earnings disregards, family caps, and child-support pass-throughs. Especially hospitals, to continue to provide care to the uninsured. Nine findings relating to changes to Medicaid, HIPAA, employer-sponsored coverage, and long-term care dominate the study's portrait of state health policy.

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.

General Assistance (GA) programs share two defining characteristics. They are funded and administered entirely by the state, county, and/or locality in which the program operates. And they provide benefits to low-income people who are not eligible for federal assistance. The Policy Brief provides an overview of the nation's GA programs. Although 42 states have GA programs in at least some localities, only 12 of these states provide GA to all low-income people who fall through the gaps in the federal safety net. In addition, GA coverage is more restricted and its benefit levels were almost universally lower than in 1992.

Return to list of authors