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

This paper describes the welfare-to-work systems in 13 states and the nation just prior to implementation of federal welfare reform as background for tracking changes under PRWORA. It reviews the extent and sources of employment and training services for welfare recipients, the emphasis states placed on rapid workforce attachment and human capital development, integration of welfare-to-work and related employment and training systems at the state and local levels, and the financial resources devoted to welfare employment and training services.

The information in this report is critical to discussions about effective public policy responses needed to break the cycle of homelessness. As such, it provides an important baseline and foundation for future assessments of the nature and extent of homelessness. It also provides a valuable overview that will improve our understanding of the characteristics of homeless people who use services, the nature of homelessness, and how best to address it.

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.

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.

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