IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v14y2000i4p165-188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Welfare Reform Waivers under Section 1115

Author

Listed:
  • Carol Harvey
  • Michael J. Camasso
  • Radha Jagannathan

Abstract

Beginning in 1962, Section 1115 of the Social Security Act allowed the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive specific provisions of the act within individual states, allowing them to implement welfare experiments or demonstration projects to reduce welfare recipiency, ease transitions into the labor market for welfare clients, or otherwise advance the objectives of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The period between 1987 and 1996 was an especially active time for welfare reform waiver applications. Each Section 1115 waiver application required a plan for evaluating the effects of the proposed changes in the AFDC program. This period of active welfare reform and experimentation, accompanied by a rigorous evaluation component, held the promise of an unparalleled opportunity to examine and document the effects of proposed welfare reform measures. In this paper we review the Section 1115 welfare reform and evaluation activity conducted by states during the Bush and Clinton administrations, ending in August 1996 when the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was passed by Congress. We base the review on publicly available data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and on interviews we conducted with both state project managers and evaluators from each of the 44 states that had received Section 1115 welfare reform waivers between 1992 and the passage of the 1996 welfare reform act.

Suggested Citation

  • Carol Harvey & Michael J. Camasso & Radha Jagannathan, 2000. "Evaluating Welfare Reform Waivers under Section 1115," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 165-188, Fall.
  • Handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:14:y:2000:i:4:p:165-188
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/jep.14.4.165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.14.4.165
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 604-620, September.
    2. David Greenberg & Mark Shroder & Matthew Onstott, 1999. "The Social Experiment Market," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 157-172, Summer.
    3. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1995. "Assessing the Case for Social Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 85-110, Spring.
    4. Irwin Garfinkel & Sara McLanahan & Kristen Harknett, 1999. "Fragile Families and Welfare Reform," JCPR Working Papers 113, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    5. Gary Burtless & Larry L. Orr, 1986. "Are Classical Experiments Needed for Manpower Policy," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 21(4), pages 606-639.
    6. Erica B. Baum, 1991. "When the witch doctors agree: The family support act and social science research," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 603-615.
    7. Gary Burtless, 1995. "The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and Policy Research," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 63-84, Spring.
    8. Thomas M. Fraker & Lucia A. Nixon & Jonathan E. Jacobson & Anne R. Gordon & Thomas J. Martin, 1998. "Iowa's Family Investment Program Two-Year Impacts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a417759948f94d9cb2429ca08, Mathematica Policy Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael J. Camasso & Radha Jagannathan & Carol Harvey & Mark Killingsworth, 2003. "The use of client surveys to gauge the threat of contamination in welfare reform experiments," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2), pages 207-223.
    2. Lemieux, Thomas & Milligan, Kevin, 2008. "Incentive effects of social assistance: A regression discontinuity approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 807-828, February.
    3. Wagner, Ulrich & Volkert, Jürgen, 2002. "Beschäftigungshemmende Reformstaus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und wie man sie auflösen könnte / Flexibilisierung durch Kombi-Einkommen? Die Perspektive der Neuen Politischen Ökonomie," Beiträge der Hochschule Pforzheim 102, Pforzheim University.
    4. Michael J. Camasso, 2004. "Isolating the Family Cap Effect on Fertility Behavior: Evidence From New Jersey's Family Development Program Experiment," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(4), pages 453-467, October.
    5. John M. Fitzgerald & David Ribar, 2001. "The Impact of Welfare Waivers on Female Headship Decisions," JCPR Working Papers 247, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    6. Andreas Bernecker, 2014. "Divided We Reform? Evidence from US Welfare Policies," CESifo Working Paper Series 4564, CESifo Group Munich.
    7. Fitzgerald, John M. & Ribar, David C., 2003. "Transitions in Welfare Participation and Female Headship," IZA Discussion Papers 895, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    8. Bernecker, Andreas, 2016. "Divided we reform? Evidence from US welfare policies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 24-38.
    9. Jagannathan, Radha & Camasso, Michael J., 2011. "Message and price components of Family Caps: Experimental evidence from New Jersey," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 292-302, August.
    10. John Fitzgerald & David Ribar, 2004. "Welfare reform and female headship," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 41(2), pages 189-212, May.
    11. Kevin Milligan, 2005. "Subsidizing the Stork: New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(3), pages 539-555, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:14:y:2000:i:4:p:165-188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael P. Albert). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.