PRWOAPersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Before the inception of the PRWOA, a number of states, including California, were granted waivers by the federal government to experiment with a variety of innovative approaches to end welfare dependence.
This study determined the extent to which earlier waivers and PRWOA as implemented by CalWORKs affected the size of the welfare caseload in California.
From 1993 until the passage of PRWOA in 1996, the Clinton administration strongly supported state flexibility and innovation in welfare programs.
Type Elements of CalWORKs under PRWOA Time Limits Statewide (January 1998): Benefits are limited to a life-time maximum of five years.
Nationwide PRWOA meant that states were given some latitude on setting work requirements and providing work incentives.
Finally, researchers grapple with the problem of specifying the effects of waivers that the federal government granted to the states before the inception of the PRWOA. Some waivers were implemented statewide and others in only a part of a given state.
The data showed that waivers granted before the passage of PRWOA played a modest role in changing national AFDC caseloads and that the decline in the caseload is attributable largely to economic growth.
CalWORKs(t) = California's welfare reform program under PRWOA which began in January 1998, at month t.
The other dummy variable began on January 1998 when PRWOA was implemented in California under CalWORKs.
Presently, many states, including California, allow working participants to keep a larger portion of their benefits as their earnings increase than was the case before the inception of the PRWOA. In California the benefit reduction rate is 50 percent, rather than the 67 percent it was before CalWORKs.
In part, concerns about long-term welfare dependency provided the primary reason for the recent and dramatic provisions under the federal PRWOA. Most state and local efforts have been concerned with reduction of welfare caseloads and not necessarily with the elimination of barriers to employment, which are prevalent among people on welfare for a long time.
She begins by illuminating the conflicting, imbedded values of the program: the work ethic and the traditional family, which, together, "condemn the 'dependence' of poor women and children on the state and celebrate their dependence on miserly employers and men." (35) Most Americans, and most TANF workers, are unaware that the preamble to the PRWOA includes a congressional edict on family.