Division of Children and Family Services

"Nevada's Unprecedented
AFDC/TANF Caseload Decline
and State Welfare Reform Initiatives"

By
Diane E. Nassir,
Coordinator, Research & Statistics,
Nevada State Welfare Division

Nevada is one of only a very few states without a federal Department of Health and Human Services waiver granted to transform the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, yet the state has experienced an unprecedented 32 percent decline in caseload with the overwhelming majority of the drop occurring since the implementation of Governor Bob Miller's state welfare reform initiatives commencing January 1996. Additionally, beginning in July 1995, the Nevada State Welfare Division (NSWD) pioneered several new ideas to facilitate moving welfare recipients into the workplace.

The nature of Nevada's caseload past and present is examined in this paper within the context of the state's employment profile and welfare reform policies. Despite a strong economy and employment strength in the past, Nevada's assistance caseloads prior to 1996 did not conform to conventional wisdom, that is, the number of cases increased in robust as well as poor economic periods. Where previously a strong economy alone did not serve to drive caseload down, the present combination of a robust economy coupled with state welfare reform initiatives effects that pattern. These state welfare reform policies, some in place for two years, demonstrate impressive success in broad areas. Additionally, the division's public-private partnerships with the state's gaming industry can serve as a model for other states seeking to advance TANF's goals of self-sufficiency through work.⁽¹⁾

NOTE: The author wishes to thank Rota Rosaschi, Jeanette Hills, Patty Williams and Bob Reardon, all of the Nevada State Welfare Division, for their able and patient assistance in the preparation of this paper.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Title I of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), translates into federal law a cardinal shift on the nature of public assistance occurring within American society in the last two decades. A five-year experiment, TANF fundamentally alters its predecessor, AFDC, but at the same time reflects an underlying coherence. AFDC, a cornerstone of President Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 Social Security Act, established the notion of entitlement, that is, cash support for widows and children without obligation. With the goal of moving impoverished single mothers and their children off the welfare rolls, TANF abolishes the canon of entitlement replacing it with the twin principles of time limits and work requirements, rendering the non-exempt TANF adult accountable for work or work-related activities in return for temporary cash assistance.

While AFDC implicitly recognized the value of two parents for the well-being of children, that is, the loss of a husband and father by definition placed widows and children at risk necessitating federal relief, TANF explicitly frames this conclusion by declaring marriage and "responsible fatherhood and motherhood" as central to the well-being of children.⁽²⁾ In this fashion, the 104^th Congress responded in much the same manner as did the Supreme Court in its groundbreaking 1954 case, Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, by using social science data.

Census data provides some of the empirical basis for this conclusion. For the period 1970 - 1995, married couples with children under 18 experienced only single-digit poverty rates, from a low of 7 to a high of 9 percent. At the same time, poverty remains endemic for female householders with no spouse present and with children under the age of 18; overall poverty rates for this group never dropped below 42 percent and rose as high as 47 percent in 1991.⁽³⁾ Additionally, poverty is compounded by race; in 1994, 53 percent of African-American children under the age of 18 living with a female householder, no spouse present, lived in poverty.⁽⁴⁾

Earned income helps, but does not necessarily protect against poverty. While 3.6 percent of all those in the nation who work full time year-round reside below poverty, that number rises significantly for women and children. Compared to the national rate, 18 percent of full-time year-round employed women with children under the age of 6, no spouse present, live below poverty. For those employed part-time, that figure rises to 62 percent and to 90 percent for those who do not work at all. Again, poverty rates for the working poor are not only compounded by gender as shown above, but by race as well; 6.6 percent of African-Americans working full time year-round live in poverty, a rate more than 80 percent greater than for the nation as a whole.⁽⁵⁾ The chronically poor have been a part of every society; for example, in 1815, New York City provided public aid to one-fifth of its population, and it is estimated 40 percent of wage earners at the turn of the twentieth-century lived below poverty. It is the prevailing belief reflected in TANF, however, that much of the current 4 percent of the nation's population receiving welfare assistance can become economically independent.⁽⁶⁾

At the time President William J. Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, Nevada

was one of only five states without an AFDC welfare reform demonstration waiver.⁽⁷⁾ The existence of a contentious debate over welfare reform at the local, state and national levels demonstrated the passage of TANF was by no means monolithically embraced by American society. In the debate on assistance in President Clinton's first term, several of the congressional proposals did not contain either time limits or work-requirement provisions. The end of entitlement, however, is a Republican initiative. In 1994, upon winning a majority of both houses of Congress for the first time in forty years, the Republicans introduced their "Contract with America." The Personal Responsibility Act, the legislative expression of that contract, was "the first proposal to remove entitlement status from AFDC, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and a number of nutrition programs."⁽⁸⁾

TANF is a function of a decade of the AFDC waiver activity sanctioned by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); AFDC is a state-administered program subject to federal requirements under DHHS auspices. Since 1962 DHHS had the authority to grant waivers to states for "experimental or pilot programmatic changes that furthered the goals of the AFDC program." Waiver usage only became extensive during President George Bush's administration and expanded greatly in President Clinton's first administration.⁽⁹⁾

Welfare caseload decline precedes TANF and is a function of a robust economy and AFDC waiver activity. Since 1993, all states but three, Alaska, California and Hawaii, experienced a decline in welfare receipt. While the Wisconsin caseload dropped over 50 percent, and Wyoming's by two-thirds, another thirty states have declined 25 percent or more.⁽¹⁰⁾ Nevada, one of eight states to continue experiencing welfare caseload increases in 1995 (and in Food Stamps as well), one year after the national peak, now conforms to the national experience, having dropped an unprecedented 32 percent since March 1995, the state's high month.⁽¹¹⁾ The national decline is the largest in history and the current number of recipients, 10,969,000 as of April 1997, represents 4.1 percent of the total population, the lowest proportion since 1970.⁽¹²⁾

To answer the question as to the nature of the decline, the Urban Institute attributes the drop not only to the continuing strength of the economy but suggests welfare reform's high profile in the national public life "'may reduce the number of people applying for benefits.'"⁽¹³⁾ The Council of Economic Advisors recently conducted a rigorous statistical analysis and concluded well over 40 percent of the national decline is attributable to a falling unemployment rate driven by economic expansion, another 31 percent is indeed a function of the statewide welfare reform waivers, and the remaining decline can be charged to other factors, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and increased federal and state dollars for child care.⁽¹⁴⁾

The Council, however, studied only those states with federal waivers in place by June 1996; they did not study states without such waivers, of which Nevada is one. Nevada, too, has experienced not only a significant caseload decline, but an ahistorical one at that. Prior to this decline, Nevada's caseload did not conform to conventional wisdom. Nevada's peculiar industrial based employment profile is intimately tied to the state's aberrant caseload trends; the profile is instructive.

Nevada has never enjoyed a true industrial period. While other western mining states made the transition from mining to agriculture and manufacturing, Nevada went directly from a mining economy to a gaming economy upon the signing of the wide open gambling bill of 1931 by Governor Fred Balzar. Still lacking a significant number of manufacturing jobs at the end of the twentieth century, fewer than 5 percent compared to the national average of 16 percent, Nevada leads the nation in service employment, 44 percent of all jobs, compared to the national average of 28 percent.⁽¹⁵⁾ In this way, Nevada serves as a window onto the nation's twenty-first century employment profile, much as California portends the nation's demographic future.

At the end of the twentieth-century, post-modern economies in the Western world are partially characterized by a progressive decline in industrialization. One of the many effects of this systemic shift is the bifurcation of labor into a small core of educated workers and a large mass of marginalized people with few skills and little education. Such deindustrialization was apparent in the United States in the recession of the early 1990s. Many of the industrial jobs lost to the recession, and to the simultaneous movement known as downsizing, were replaced by service jobs in the recovery period.

Part of the shift to a service economy is propelled by a rise in tourism world-wide. While tourism has been central to the Nevada economy for almost seven decades, it has only recently begun to supplant economic bases in other states to become one of America's largest employers.⁽¹⁶⁾ In this manner, Nevada's manufacturing poor, service-dominated tourist-driven employment profile presaged the nation by well over half a century.

Where jobs are, people follow; since mid-century, Nevada has led the nation in rate of population growth. For almost the last decade, Nevada has either led the nation or been one of the leaders in the number of newly created jobs each year. The enigma of rising caseloads within the midst of economic prosperity and national leadership in the number of newly created jobs can be better understood by examining the nature of those jobs; job strength by itself is not enough to provide a vigorous economic atmosphere. The paradoxical nature of Nevada's employment profile is revealed not only in unconventional caseload patterns during robust economic periods, but in some of the state's economic indicators in the last recession.

The casino industry is labor-intensive with many low-wage, low-skilled jobs. In the past, this has worked unconventionally against a declining caseload. In the context of welfare reform, however, the existence of an uncommonly large body of low-wage, low-skilled jobs can greatly enhance the implementation of TANF, and in light of new studies discussed below, can mitigate poverty for a substantial number of people.

Since the early 1980s, Hotel, Gaming and Recreation (HGR) jobs, a sub-category of the service sector, accounted for 29 percent of all jobs, dropping slowly to 25 percent by 1996. HGR jobs are often low in wage and benefits, seasonal, and require little education or experience. The large number of jobs available serves as a magnet for job seekers from outside and inside the state, driving up not only population, but, in poor economic periods, unemployment. In addition, pressures are brought to bear upon the infrastructure, increasing the need for additional housing, roads, schools, hospitals, police, fire protection, welfare assistance and taxes. In an economic downturn, public assistance becomes the only safety net available for many casino workers and other low-wage earners, who, by definition, have fewer resources than those employed in other sectors.⁽¹⁷⁾

Retail trade, another large area of employment in Nevada, is defined by many of the same characteristics as HGR: low wages and benefits, with few skills and little education required. Additionally, persons employed in such sectors are more vulnerable to the inherent seasonal shifts of a tourist-based economy, and random shocks to employment which are driven by the economy as well as by natural and man-made disasters.

Wage structure is one measure by which the health of a particular employment sector can be discovered. While these two large sectors of employment, HGR and retail trade, provide 42 percent of the state's jobs, they receive just 32 percent of the total payroll, averaging 86 and 63 percent of the state annual average wage, respectively. When indexed to the annual poverty scale for a family of three, these employment categories offer wages which rank at 181 and 133 percent of poverty, respectively.⁽¹⁸⁾

One indication of the attenuated nature of the state's employment profile is the fact that Nevada foreshadowed the national increase in AFDC and Food Stamp caseloads in the 1990 recession. The national caseload noticeably began to increase in July 1990 while Nevada's growth was demonstrably strong a full eighteen months before, in the midst of an economic boom.

Another indication of the tenuous nature of the economic well-being of the state is through an examination of Food Stamp benefits. As Food Stamp eligibility determination is standardized for the forty-eight contiguous states, relative need can be established through state-by-state comparisons: again Nevada leads or is at the forefront of the average benefit per person, demonstrating greater need. When Nevada's average Food Stamp benefit per person is placed within the national context, Nevada led the nation in the highest benefit from federal fiscal years 1988 through 1994, with the exception of 1992 when Nevada was second to Illinois by $0.12. Nevada's benefit per person averaged almost $59 in 1988 to almost $76 in 1995. In 1995, Nevada dropped to third, $2.01 less than highest ranking New York.⁽¹⁹⁾

Regarding poverty, while all states experienced increases in the poverty rate between 1990 and 1992, only four realized a statistically significant rise, that is a true rise; Nevada was one of the four. Further, whereas the national poverty rate declined for 1995 over 1994, Nevada's remained constant. In the proportion of medically uninsured persons, Nevada, at 23 percent in 1992, was second only to Texas at 23.1 percent. Nevada continues to have a relatively high medically uninsured rate: the 1995 rate at 19 percent reflects an increase over 1994 and is higher than the national average of over 15 percent. The Census Bureau, however, urges caution in making inter-state comparisons for poverty rates.

Contrary to the preceding indicators, Nevada's median income continually outpaced the national average throughout the 1990s. This is partially dictated by the twenty-four hour nature of the gaming economy necessitating a high number of jobs per capita in the state.⁽²⁰⁾

Because Nevada's caseload increased during robust as well as poor economic periods, the recent ahistorical, almost free-fall decline since March 1995 of 32 percent (84 percent of that decline occurred since January 1996), calls for closer scrutiny. Not only did the state have an unconventional pattern of growth, but that growth consistently outpaced the national rate each year from 1985 through 1995.⁽²¹⁾

The driving force for the state's unprecedented decline must be located elsewhere, that is, in addition to a necessarily strong economy. While a strong economy is essential for state welfare reform and TANF, a strong economy in the past did not serve to make Nevada's caseload conform to conventional wisdom. The unique pattern of Nevada's caseload growth serves, then, as a control factor when assessing the nature of the state's dramatic decline. This leads to a discussion of the only other change in the dynamic within Nevada: the state's welfare reform initiatives crafted within the spirit which ultimately informed TANF. When placed within the necessarily sound economy TANF demands, Nevada's unemployment rate is currently an enviable 4.4 percent, down from 5.1 percent in January 1996.⁽²²⁾ The impetus for the state's caseload decline, then, can be found in these initiatives. Additionally, and not known at this point, is the degree to which the shift in the national climate of opinion as expressed in TANF, and to which the Urban Institute alludes, has played in assistance decline within Nevada and throughout the nation.

A rigorous statistical modeling of Nevada's caseload decline of the nature conducted by the Council of Economic advisors is unavailable. An empirically driven analysis, however, follows.

Nevada's current state welfare reform program under the aegis of Governor Bob Miller began in the 1995 state biennial legislative session (January - July 1995) with initiatives scheduled for implementation throughout the 1996-97 biennium. Work requirements in the form of an applicant job search (AJS), implemented in January 1996, was part of the 1995 reform, however, time limited assistance was not. Additionally, an enhanced earnings disregard, also part of the governor's reform policy, began in February 1997.

Along with the governor's applicant job search and earnings disregard initiatives, NSWD pioneered other ideas to assist clients in attaining self-sufficiency. The division recognized the change occurring in the culture of welfare assistance was not limited to client acceptance of mutual responsibility and accountability; rather, it involved all human services employees and the types of services they were providing. To that end, the division obtained Department of Health and Human Services grant funding to plan and develop initiatives to change the welfare system to one which promotes work and economic independence rather than one which processes "paper" to determine eligibility. Nevada was one of eight states to receive such a grant in state fiscal year 1996, and one of three to receive a second year cultural change continuation grant.⁽²³⁾

The renaming of the division's Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program to New Employees of Nevada (NEON) in July 1995 signified a greater outreach to more effectively assist clients in obtaining employment. The policy shift in the NEON program included: involving social worker undergraduate and graduate students from the University of Nevada in the Supporting Teens Achieving Real-Life Success (STARS) program; cultural change training for Nevada State Welfare Division (NSWD) employment and training eligibility workers; initiating an intensive job search requirement for AFDC applicants; formulating public and private partnerships resulting in employment for public assistance heads of households; integrating program services for cash assistance, child support, and employment and training to provide a more coherent service to the clientele; and, a non-custodial parent employment and training program to aid the parent out of the household in getting a job and supporting their children.⁽²⁴⁾

Six months after NEON was instituted, the AJS program began in which applicants were required to complete 10 job contacts per week, for a maximum of 4 weeks , while their assistance grant application was pending. At this point, the division's caseload began an almost free-fall drop without historical precedent. Each AJS applicant diverted represents 2.5 fewer grant recipients. The results thus far are more than modestly successful. From March 1996 (the first month results were obtained) through June 1997: 912 applicants, or 2,280 persons, were diverted due to finding a job during the AJS process; 126 applicants, 315 persons, voluntarily terminated benefits after learning of AJS requirements; and, 128 applicants, 320 persons, changed their application to the Child Health Assurance Program (CHAP), a medical coverage only category, upon learning of AJS. Due to this work requirement alone, over 2,900 persons have not joined the welfare rolls in Nevada.⁽²⁵⁾

The NEON initiatives demonstrate success on broad fronts. Prior to NEON, the number of JOBS participants beginning employment averaged 122 per month in state fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year 1996, the year NEON initiatives began, that monthly average rose to 144. In 1997, the monthly average increased by 70 percent compared to 1995, to 245 monthly. ⁽²⁶⁾

The average monthly number of NEON eligibles served by the division has steadily increased as well. In 1995, the division served a monthly average of 1,440 NEON eligibles, rising to 1,772 in 1995, and climbing to 1,883 in 1997. In the face of rapidly declining caseloads, this represents impressive proportional growth.⁽²⁷⁾

When total grant cases with earnings are examined within this same time period, equally impressive gains have been achieved. Prior to NEON and state welfare reform, grant cases with earnings accounted for about 4.25 percent of total grant cases; by June 1997, that figure rose to almost 14 percent. When only NEON mandatory cases are analyzed, that proportion rises from about 15 percent prior to NEON and state welfare reform, to over 31 percent by June 1997. The 31 percent includes 32 percent of NEON mandatory single parent cases and 27 percent of NEON mandatory two-parent cases. In this manner, Nevada has already surpassed TANF's 25 percent work requirements for 1998 single parent cases, but falls far short of the 75 percent mandated for two-parent families.⁽²⁸⁾

The earnings disregard policy, part of the governor's 1995 welfare reform program, began in February 1997. For the first three months, the recipient is allowed to retain 100 percent of their earnings in addition to their grant, followed by 50 percent for another 9 months. As expected, the grant caseload increased the following month while employed recipients chose to retain their grants thereby deferring Assistance with Child Care for the Employed (ACE) eligibility to a later date. This new initiative simultaneously affects two caseloads: grants, which have now leveled off after a consistent thirteen month precipitous drop, and ACE, which dropped in the first three months, as expected, from about 250 monthly eligibles to 8 in April, has increased again to about 150 by June.⁽²⁹⁾

The division's child support enforcement (CSE) program, under the same administrative leadership as NEON, has demonstrated equally significant gains. It is universally acknowledged that child support from the non-custodial parent is imperative to improving the well-being of children in this nation. A recent Urban Institute study concludes that uncollected child support from non-custodial fathers is as much as $34 billion, if all cases had court orders and these orders were fully paid. ⁽³⁰⁾ The proportion of fully paid cases with court orders has hovered at about 50 percent since the CSE program began in 1976.⁽³¹⁾

Regarding total collections, the Nevada CSE program has increased collections 139 percent in the last five years. Intercepts of unemployment benefits and internal revenue service tax refunds, and the use of a private agency for collection services have served to enhance collections. This reflects a 55 percent increase in the average dollars collected per CSE case (in-state and out-of-state, AFDC and non-AFDC), from $592 in 1991 to $922 in 1996. During the same period, the division's CSE program has increased the number of parentages established by 44 percent and child support orders by 37 percent.⁽³²⁾ Additionally a "Ten Most Wanted" media campaign has allowed for the collection of large caches of unpaid child support. Such a program can have the added dimension of contributing to a greater predisposition on the part of the public to impose further legal sanctions on delinquent non-custodial parents.

In the just ended 1997 Nevada legislative session, two bills were passed and signed into law by the governor to enhance the division's ability to address parents who do not pay their child support obligations. Under Senate Bill 356, architects, doctors and lawyers, and contractors and plumbers, and hunters and fishermen who refuse to meet their child support obligations could lose their professional, occupational and recreational licenses. Those who apply for or renew such licenses or permits must declare if they are required to pay child support and whether those payments are current. Though federally required, this policy is an extension of a successful 1995 state initiative allowing for drivers' license revocation for non-payment of child support. Under that provision, more than 200 licenses were revoked and significant support collections recovered. The 1997 law is far-reaching and includes withholding licenses of, for example, horse-racing participants, motorcyclists, auto wreckers, well drillers, fur dealers, crane operators, and barbers. ⁽³³⁾

Assembly Bill 401 is the state's welfare reform bill signed into law by the governor on July 16, 1997, and brings Nevada into compliance with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. AB401 establishes Nevada's policy wherever PRWORA allows for state flexibility.

With AB401, Nevada opted for a more restrictive interpretation of the five year time limit on receiving cash benefits. The federal plan provides for a maximum of five years of cash benefits without regard to continuous eligibility, after which the individual is terminated for life. In contrast, the Nevada plan requires the person make some progress toward self-sufficiency, allowing only 24 months of continuous eligibility before the individual must spend at least 12 months off public assistance before once again returning to the program. Additionally, AB401 contains sanctions for cheating including the potential loss of any future welfare benefits.

AB 401 provides for the expedited attachment of income of out-of-state delinquent parents, a new-hire registry, and greater interstate enforcement opportunities. The bill also provides for a state registry of all support orders entered and amended after October 1, 1998 which will be sent to a federal child support order case registry.

Additionally, the Nevada legislature, dominated in equivalent proportions by Democrats in the Assembly and Republicans in the Senate, demonstrated a non-partisan show of support for state welfare reform by increasing the 10 social workers requested in Democratic Governor Bob Miller's biennial budget for the division, by an additional 12. While the primary emphasis will be on the NEON population, the social workers will also assist with the STARS program, and crisis intervention in cases with domestic violence and/or substance abuse, cases with mental and physical health problems and all other cases with the most severe barriers to self-sufficiency. Counselors, present before welfare reform, assist the the less difficult to serve cases.

Completing a three-tiered approach to moving welfare recipients into the workplace, that is, in addition to social workers and counselors, the 1997 legislature appropriated sufficient dollars to the division to employ 10 non-state, contract employees to serve as job retention specialists. They will be stationed on-site at places of employment like the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. The MGM and the Stratosphere, both in Las Vegas, and the Silver Legacy and Eldorado Hotel and Casinos in Reno, have previously demonstrated a substantial commitment to public-private partnerships with various public assistance entities wishing to place people into the workplace, of which the division was one.

As the MGM was scheduled to open in late 1993 with 7,000 new HGR jobs, the MGM's human resource department established an employment outreach program which hired, by year's end, over 1,450 economically disadvantaged persons (those at 125 percent of poverty) from the community. One year later, of the 828 state welfare recipients hired, all but 18 were still employed by the MGM. Over 56 percent of the welfare recipients earned from $8.75 - 9.02 per hour. The 1994 poverty guideline for a family of two is $9,840, and $12,320 for a family of three. Full-time employment at this wage scale places a family of two at over 150 percent of poverty and a family of three at over 167 percent of poverty, measurably altering their economically disadvantaged status.⁽³⁴⁾

The auspicious 1997 legislative support in funding the division's job retention specialists who are an integral part in the continuation of the already successful public-private policy established statewide in 1993 and 1994 between public assistance entities and the state's gaming industry, is supported by recent empirically driven studies which demonstrate that poverty is a revolving door and can be escaped by substantial numbers of people in the short term. Legislative support for state welfare reform, such as that exhibited in favor of the division's 1998-99 biennial budget, bodes well for Nevada's future.

Economic mobility in America is less understood than inequality of wealth or income distribution. Recent studies, however, demonstrate relative mobility does exist at the end of the twentieth century for substantial numbers of persons; again, the degree of movement is unfavorably compounded by factors of gender and race and marital status. Movement is both up and down and the reasons for it vary. Further, mobility determines the degree to which inequality in the short term translates into inequality in the long term.⁽³⁵⁾

In the early 1990s, the Census Bureau's pathbreaking data collection led to the conclusion that poverty is a revolving door and is not necessarily a persistent condition. In 1995, in a typical month, over one in seven in the nation lived in poverty, but Census Bureau data demonstrated that in 1992, from 17 to 30 percent, depending on the demographic group, that is, gender, race, marital status, escaped poverty from the year before. Of those who did not escape within one year, "poverty was an especially persistent situation," concluded the Bureau.⁽³⁶⁾

The 1997 Nevada legislature, also in the spirit of non-partisan welfare reform, passed Assembly Bill 429 and Senate Bill 275⁽³⁷⁾ to give additional support to child care in the state of Nevada for the next biennium. Child care, like child support, is an essential pillar in the foundation of a healthy society for children and single mothers, as many, including the Council of Economic Advisors have concluded.

The importance of child care in Nevada cannot be overstated. While the national labor force participation by women increased from 43 percent to 58 percent from 1970 to 1990, the proportion of female labor force participation (the percentage of those 16 years and older in the labor force) in Nevada rose from 47 percent in 1970 to 63 percent in 1990. Both figures are well above the national average. Additionally, 63 percent of women in Nevada with children under the age of six are in the labor force. For the last half century, women have participated at a high rate in the Nevada labor force; in 1950, the figure was 32 percent.⁽³⁸⁾

Although AB429 was not a welfare division bill, it contributes to the mission of the division by providing $319,000 to train persons to become child care providers, refurbish or expand existing child care facilities and establish new ones.

SB275, also not a welfare division bill, requires any employer who employs at least 300 persons in private employment at one location to conduct a feasibility study to determine the desirability of and need for child care either at the location of employment or at another location that is conveniently accessible. Even though the bill does not require these employers provide child care at this time, it is hoped that in the process of studying such a program, the usefulness of such a policy will become evident.⁽³⁹⁾

TANF is a dynamic social experiment; its attributes will be subject to change based on insights derived from studies of the coming national linkage of state administrative data. Within this perspective, and given Nevada's singular experience, the state can provide an arena for thoughtful consideration about the ability of TANF to enable people to achieve self-sufficiency through work.

As most welfare mothers work in low-wage jobs, Nevada is well positioned to meet TANF work requirements. In fact, Nevada has recently been ranked first in the nation in its ability to absorb welfare recipients in the work force.⁽⁴⁰⁾ Recent studies in Minnesota, Los Angeles and Nevada have been conducted to assess the impact of welfare job-seekers on non-welfare job-seekers. In Los Angeles, due to the immense proportions of the caseload, analysts are estimating 250,000 welfare recipients will be expected to find work and competing for fewer than 75,000 jobs alongside 362,900 officially unemployed workers. In a county in which recovery has been slow, the authors conclude Los Angeles County could suffer direct losses ranging from $127 million to $1.5 billion per year. Additionally job losses due to cutbacks in consumer spending could approach 50,000, mostly in retail trade and service industries, virtually canceling out the 55,000 new jobs created in the county in 1996.⁽⁴¹⁾ In April, the Los Angeles City Council passed a Living Wage Ordinance, explicitly acknowledging the dynamic of wages in a healthy economy. Whereas the national minimum wage is currently $4.75 an hour, and will rise to $5.15 in September, the Living Wage Ordinance requires city contractors to pay their workers $7.50 an hour with benefits, or $9.50 without.⁽⁴²⁾ Again, Nevada's experience is more hopeful: The MGM wage, cited above, paid to over 56 percent of the welfare recipients hired in 1993, already exceeded the living wage established by LA's 1997 ordinance.

A more sanguine picture emerges in the Silver State where caseloads are on a manageable scale and casino construction will proceed apace throughout this biennium creating thousands of HGR jobs. A 1997 study on job availability in Nevada in light of TANF work-requirements has recently been completed by the Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation using Nevada State Welfare Division administrative caseload data. During an average month in 1997, for the estimated 534 non-welfare job seekers per job opening, the authors concluded TANF work requirements will add another 5 persons, raising the competitive factor by less than 1 percent.⁽⁴³⁾

The role of unions in wage support is universally acknowledged. With specific regard to the employment fortunes of African-American women in the Nevada gaming industry, Claytee D. White of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, has documented how membership in the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Las Vegas in the 1970s assisted them in moving up the occupational ladder in "'back-of-the-house'" jobs, that is, as maids and kitchen help. In their rise to supervisory positions, White documents how union membership assisted these women in overcoming gender and race obstacles.⁽⁴⁴⁾ In this tradition, the division is working with southern Nevada unions and the Las Vegas Housing Authority to place welfare recipients in non-traditional jobs for women,⁽⁴⁵⁾ which by definition, will provide higher wages to welfare women than can be obtained in more traditional employment sectors.

As the state's caseload declines, longitudinal studies are required to assess the long range effects of TANF on the lives of the individuals most affected: welfare recipients, largely women and children. Currently, exit variables with associated economic and demographic data do not exist. Where former recipients are, is largely, if not wholly, unknown. Finally, the most "difficult to serve" remain. Thus far, very little is known about this group at either the national, state, or local level. Their needs become TANF's next chapter.

1. While success has been documented in the Nevada State Welfare Division's public-private collaboration with the MGM Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, this alliance appears to be an exception thus far in the nation. The Associated Press reported that in their survey of the nation's 100 largest corporations, three-quarters of them, despite President Clinton's plea, have no programs to employ the poor. Laura Meckler, "No Help Wanted Off Public Dole," Reno Gazette Journal (25 May 1997), 2A.

2. Public Law 104-193-Aug. 22, 1996, Sec. 101.Findings.(3); hereafter cited as Public Law 104-193-Aug. 22, 1996.

3. Census and You, (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census), November 1992, November 1993, November 1994, 10; November/December 1995, 12; November 1996, 10.

4. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census), Table No. 736, 475, "Persons Below Poverty Level, by Race and Family Status: 1979 to 1994." Hereafter cited as Statistical Abstract, 1996.

5. "Working Mothers May Still Be Poor," Census and You, (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, May 1997), 5. The figures come from the March 1996 Current Population Survey. For African-American working poor, see Statistical Abstract 1996, Table No. 739, "Families Below Poverty Level, by Selected Characteristics: 1994," 476.

6. For historical data, see Robert Kelley, The Shaping of the American Past, 5^th edition, (Prentice Hall, 1990), 621-622. The current, that is April 1997, percentage of welfare recipients is calculated from welfare recipients obtained from "Change in Welfare Caseloads," (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Family, Website, revised July 1997, downloaded July 11, 1997), 1, hereafter cited as "Change in Welfare Caseloads," and from July 1, 1997 national estimated populations, from Paul R. Campbell, Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025, PPL-47 (U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census October 1996), Table 1, "Projections of the Total Population of Regions, Division, and States: 1995 to 2025 - Series A (Preferred Series), 52, hereafter cited as Population Projections for States, 1995 - 2025.

7. National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices, "Summary of Selected Elements of State Plans for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)" as of June 30, 1997, (National Governor's Association Website, downloaded July 17, 1997), 1. Under PRWORA, states may choose to continue or terminate their 1115 Social Security Act Department of Health and Human Services approved waiver; thus far, thirty-three states intend to continue some or all of their waivers. According to Rick Weaver, Program Specialist, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Region IX, generally those states which elect to continue wish to retain more restrictive elements of their welfare reform not found in TANF. Author's telephone conversation with Rick Weaver, July 17, 1997.

8. American Public Welfare Association, "The Race to Welfare Reform: A Recent History, 1993 - 1996," (American Public Welfare Association Website, downloaded April 9, 1997), 1-4.

9. Council of Economic Advisers, "Explaining the Decline in Welfare Receipt, 1993-1996," (Council of Economic Advisors Website, May 9, 1997, downloaded May 23, 1997), 1-3; hereafter cited as "Explaining the Decline."

10. Wisconsin, the most famous of waiver states with a waiver history of ten years and the fifteenth largest caseload in 1993, has demonstrated a proportionately greater decline than any other state with the exception of Wyoming, the smallest caseload in the nation. "Change in Welfare Caseloads," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Website, revised July 1997, downloaded July 11, 1997) 1-2; hereafter cited as "Change in Welfare Caseloads."

11. In 1995, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico and New York continued to increase while all other states declined. "Time Trends, Fiscal Years 1986 - 1995: AFDC," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance, AFDC Information and Measurement Branch. The nation's welfare caseload peaked in March 1994 at 14,398,286 persons and 5,098,288 cases. Telephone conversation with Betty McClure, Program Specialist, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Family Assistance. She derived her information from DHHS, ACF, Office of Program Research and Evaluation, Division of Data Collection and Analysis. The nation's Food Stamp caseload hit its historic high in March 1994 as well at 27,965,172 persons (10.7 percent of the population), while Nevada peaked in March 1995 with 101,556 persons. See "Program Information Report," March 1995, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, Data Base Monitoring Branch, Table 2. Nevada caseload information from AFDC and Food Stamp caseload histories. By April 1997, Alaska, California, and Hawaii continued to experience caseload increases; see "Change in Welfare Caseloads," 1-2. In the last recession, a non rust-belt state led the nation in unemployment for the first time; that state was California. The state's recovery from the recession of the early 1990s was hindered by a simultaneous reduction in national military spending, paralyzing southern California's lucrative post-war, half-century economic boom. Alaska's economy at the end of the twentieth century is one of the slowest growing in the nation. As Hawaii's tourist driven economy is heavily dependent on Japanese visitors, the state's economic health is inextricably linked to the fluctuations in the world's currencies; when the yen is weak compared to the American dollar, as it has been recently, the purchasing power of Japanese tourists is reduced and Hawaii's economy suffers. For Alaska and Hawaii, see Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Western Economic Developments, (San Francisco, May 1997), 6, 8.

12. For greatest decline, see "President Clinton Announces Progress on Moving People From Welfare to Independence, July 5, 1997," text of the July 5^th radio address from the President, (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Family Services, Office of Public Affairs, updated July 7, 1997, Website, downloaded July 11, 1997), 1. For historic and current monthly number of recipients and families, see "Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): 1960-1996," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, as of April 21, 1997, Website, downloaded July 15, 1997), 1-2. 1997 percentage computed from caseload figures on the above document divided by the July 1, 1997 estimate of the national population from Population Projections for States by Age, 1995 to 2025, Table 1, previously cited. 1970 percentage computed from caseload figures cited on the above document divided by the April 1, 1970 national population from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, 116^th edition, (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October 1996), 28.

13. "Nation's Welfare Rolls Drop 20 Percent in Five Years," Welfare to Work, Volume 6, No. 8 (21 April 1997) n.p.

14. The Council cites "six broad categories of waivers that potentially might have had an observable effect in reducing state welfare caseloads:" time limits, work-requirements, reduced JOBS exemptions, increased JOBS sanctions, family cap, and increased earnings disregard; "Explaining the Decline," 1 -3. Indeed, the first two categories, time limits and work requirements appear in 70 to 80 percent of the forty-one states with approved waivers as of June 1996; twenty-eight states contained time limits as part of their waiver and thirty-three had work requirements. Michael Wiseman, Welfare Reform: Finding the Bridge from Dream to Reality, (Robert M. LaFollette Institute, 1996), passim.

15. Nevada 1995 industrial based employment data from "1995 Nevada Industrial Employment Summary," revised February 1997, Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, Research and Analysis Bureau; U.S. seasonally adjusted 1995 annual average data from "Bureau of Labor Statistics Data: National Employment, Hours, and Earnings," U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Website, downloaded July 21, 1997, hereafter cited as "Bureau of Labor Statistics Data."

16. In 1995, tourism directly employed 6.6 million people and indirectly employs 8.9 million people for a total of 15.5 million, out of 117.2 million employees (13 percent). Tourism is the nation's third largest retail sales industry with $440 billion in total expenditures, offering $64 billion in tax revenue for federal, state and local governments. 1995 total employees from "Bureau of Labor Data;" tourism figures from Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority , Las Vegas Marketing Bulletin, Third Quarter 1996 Summary, Volume 24, Number 99, 11. See also, "Worldwide Tourism Continues to Expand," Nevada Appeal (31 March 1995), 6. The article, drawn from Duetsche Presse Agentur, the press service of origin, states worldwide tourism, according to a report by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), "continued to expand last year and is likely to show more growth for 1995." For example, the Mediterranean countries, Ireland and Scandinavia demonstrated increases of from 10 to 18 percent over the previous year. See also Joel Simon, "Mexico Betting on a Tourist Boom," San Francisco Chronicle (8 June 1996), A1. The number of foreign visitors to Mexico rose 21 percent in 1995 while spending increased 4 percent. Tourism is one of the few Mexican industries, according to this article, to attract significant investment since the devaluation of the peso. In early 1996, the New York investment bank Morgan Stanley, announced the creation of a $200 million fund to buy or construct new hotels. On the home front, Hawaii, Florida and Nevada have been joined by Utah as significant tourist destinations. In 1994, tourism surpassed mining and agriculture combined, traditionally the biggest parts of Utah's economy according to the Utah Division of Travel Development. In fact, tourism has increased by 6 percent per year for the previous five years. "Industry: Tourism in Utah Replaces Agriculture, Mining," Nevada Appeal (17 October 1995), A7.

17. In the summer of 1989, the author investigated the relationship between Nevada's rising caseload within the context of an economic boom and the state's lead in job creation. The author created an explanatory employment HGR forecasting variable, HGR for AFDC, Food Stamps and various Medicaid programs. The variable had a conventional relationship with caseload, that is, when jobs declined, caseload increased. Due to the unconventional proportions of such jobs in Nevada in comparison to the weakness in the number of higher paying jobs, the statistical effect of HGR jobs on caseload is evident. See Diane E. Nassir, "Nevada Welfare Assistance Caseloads and Gaming: A Cautionary Tale," Nevada Historical Society Quarterly, Summer 1994, 115-141.

18. Employment data from "Summary Data," 1992-1995 (the latest available information), Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, Bureau of Research and Analysis; poverty data from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Register, February 12 1993, 8288; February 10, 1994, 6277; February 9, 1995, 7774. Nevada's average household size as of July 1, 1994, is one of the lowest in the nation at 2.56 persons compared to the national average of 2.64; see Census and You, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Volume 30, No. 7 (July 1995), 6. Retail jobs grow fastest where the population is growing fastest. Las Vegas was the fastest growing metropolitan area in the nation in growth of retail employment, growing over 98 percent from 1986-96. Nationwide, average earnings fell (in 1995 dollars) from $244 weekly in 1986 to $222 in 1995. Diane Crispell, analysis by Berna Miller, "Retailing's Next Decade," American Demographics (May 1997), 7. The authors derived earnings data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and employment information from NPA Data Services, Inc., Washington, D.C.

19. Nevada State Welfare Division, "AFDC Caseload History" and "Food Stamp Caseload History;" "Food Stamp Program State Activity Report," for federal fiscal years 1988 - 1995, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, (FNS source is FNS-388/250). Based on correlation analysis of 1994 data, two characteristics drove Nevada's number one position: recipient need and food stamp household size. In federal fiscal year 1994, Nevada ranked next to the lowest in food stamp household size at 2.17 persons. New York had the smallest at 2.15; the national average was 2.48 and New Mexico was the highest at 2.82. When average food stamp household size and average food stamp benefits per person are statistically correlated, they are found to be, as expected, inversely related; as household size drops, average benefits rise. This relationship is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. The correlation analysis demonstrates 29 percent of Nevada's number one ranking in average benefits per person is attributable to household size while the remaining 71 percent devolves upon Nevada's recipients exhibiting greater need than those in other states. For a fuller discussion, see Diane E. Nassir, "Food Stamps, Nevada and the Nation: FFY1988-FFY1995," (14 January 1997), Nevada State Welfare Division, Research & Statistics section.

20. The four states were California, Nevada, North Carolina and Rhode Island, see Poverty in the United States: 1992, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P60-185, xiii; for 1992 medically uninsured, see "Health Insurance Coverage," Statistical Brief, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, SB/94-28, October 1994; for 1995 see Robert L. Bennefield, "Health Insurance Coverage: 1995," Current Population Reports: Household Economic Studies, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, P60-195, 1, 4; for 1994-1995 poverty, see Poverty in the United States: 1995, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P60-194, vii and ix; for median income U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, CPS-1994, Table E. "Median Income of Households."

21. See "AFDC Time Trends," federal fiscal years 1985 -1995, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance.

22. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for Nevada from the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, Research and Analysis Bureau. Some of the current low unemployment rate can be attributed to a now statewide recovery in California, as the number of out-of-state job seekers has substantially subsided from the height of the recession. Southern California, which bore the brunt of California's lost jobs, has begun to recover with a current unemployment rate now under 7 percent.

23. Overview of Welfare Reform, Nevada State Welfare Division, January 1997, 3; hereafter cited as "Overview of Welfare Reform."

24. "Foreword," Annual Report: FY 96, Nevada State Welfare Division; hereafter cited as Annual Report: FY96.

25. "WL00770A," codes DP, DX, CE, CX, DE, DS, monthly system report, Nevada State Welfare Division, Mar 1996 - June 1997.

26. "WL78R17A," code "EM," mid-monthly report, Nevada State Welfare Division, July 1994 - June 1997.

27. "WL78R12A, mid-monthly system report, Nevada State Welfare Division, July 1994 - June 1997.

28. "WL00469-15, WL78420, WLR7817A," quarterly and monthly system reports, Nevada State Welfare Division, July 1994 - June 1997.

29. "AFDC/TANF Caseload History and WL78600A, WL00770A," monthly history and system reports, Nevada State Welfare Division, July 1994 - June 1997.

30. Elaine Sorensen, "A National Profile of Noncustodial Fathers and Their Ability to Pay Child Support," The Urban Institute Website (November 1996, downloaded February 11, 1997), 1. This study is based on the 1990 Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP).

31. Of the national CSE caseload, only 18 percent has a collection. Public Law 104-193-Aug. 22, 1996, Sec.101.Findings(4).

32. Annual Report: FY96, Child Support Enforcement graphs.

33. Martha Bellisle, "Nevada To Call On Deadbeat Parents Now That Governor Has Signed Bills," Reno Gazette Journal (19 July 1997), 4B.

34. See Diane E. Nassir, "Public-Private Partnerships: Nevada's Gaming Industry and Welfare Client Employment," Proceedings, National Association of Welfare Research and Statistics, 35^th Annual Conference, September 10-13, 1995. For 1994 poverty guidelines, see "1994 Poverty Guidelines For All States (Except Alaska and Hawaii) and the District of Columbia," Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 28 (10 February 1994), 6277. Guidelines are issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

35. Isabel V. Sawhill and Daniel P. McMurrer, "How Much Do Americans Move Up and Down the Economic Ladder?" The Urban Institute website, downloaded July 15 1997, 1.

36. "Poverty--Long and Short Term," Statistical Brief, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, SB/94-34, December 1994, 1; see also "Poverty's Revolving Door," Statistical Brief, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, SB/95-20, August 1995, 1-2.

37. AB429 was sponsored by Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Democrat, Las Vegas; SB275 was sponsored by Senator Joe Neal, Democrat, Las Vegas.

38. Tables for Labor Force Participation by Sex, Marital Status, Race and Age, Census of the Population for 1950 and 1960, and 1970, and 1980, and 1990, U.S Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

39. The bills come from the Nevada State Assembly Daily History and the Senate Daily History.

40. "Welfare to Work: The Job Opportunities of AFDC Recipients," (Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) website, updated October 1995, downloaded May 15, 1997), 1. The data for the study were generated from the U.S. Bureau of the Census' Survey of Income and Program Participation (1984-1989), and covers two years in the lives of single mothers receiving AFDC; the sample represents 80 percent of all adult AFDC recipients. The study is based on the IWPR report, Welfare that Works: The Working Lives of AFDC Recipients, by Roberta Spalter-Roth, Beverly Burr, Heidi Hartmann, and Lois Shaw and was supported by a Ford Foundation grant. For ranking, see Regional Financial Review, (Regional Financial Associates (RFA), May 1997), 16. RFA computed the number of net new jobs divided by the 1998 TANF target reduction for each state equating to 369 percent for Nevada compared to the national average of 54. RFA, however, did not examine such issues as the nature of jobs nor of their spatial distribution in the state.

41. Jennifer Wolch and Heidi Sommer, "Los Angeles in an Era of Welfare Reform: Implications for Poor People and Community Well-being," The Southern California Inter-University Consortium on Homelessness and Poverty, April 9, 1997, 1-2, summary report.

42. "Living Wage March," Los Angeles Business Journal (30 June - 6 July 1997),3.

43. Gary Lungstrum and Jolie Daugherty, "Job Availability in Nevada in 1997," (Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation, Research and Analysis Bureau, July 1997), hereafter cited as "Job Availability in Nevada." A blurring of distinctions may occur between the welfare and employment bureaucracies to achieve TANF's cental goal. As Oren M. Levin-Waldman of the Levy Institute concludes, "To realize the goals of work and self-sufficiency involves no less than breaking down distinctions between welfare programs and other employment programs." Oren M. Levin-Waldman, "A New Path from Welfare to Work," Public Policy Brief, (The Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, June 1997), 1.

44. Claytee D. White, "The Roles of African-American Women in the Gaming Industry," paper delivered at the 5^th Biennial Conference on Nevada History, Nevada Historical Society, Reno, May 20-21, 1997.

45. Overview of Welfare Reform, 4.

Hard copies are available
Call Debra A. Shiell at (501) 682-1554 or
Email at Debbie.Shiell@State.AR.US
or
through a written request at
Debra A. Shiell
MIS Unit Division of Children and Family Services
P.O. Box 1437, Slot 650
Little Rock, AR 72203

Arkansas Department of Human Services
Donaghey Plaza West
Slot 3430
P.O. Box 1437
Little Rock, AR 72203-1437
(501) 682-8650