1 Child Support Demonstration Evaluation Cost-Benefit Analysis, September 1997-December 2004 Emma Caspar and Steven Cook Institute for Research on Poverty University of Wisconsin Madison March 2006 Report to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development Bureau of Child Support This is the second report of Project C in Contract C-1980 between the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development and the Institute for Research on Poverty. Any views expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the sponsoring institutions.
2 Executive Summary This analysis estimates the cost of a full pass-through policy (where both federal and state shares of child support are paid to families) compared to a partial pass-through policy (where only the state share of child support is paid to families) for the population of W-2 cases subject to child support pass-through policy in Wisconsin. By comparing full and partial pass-through group averages for costs and benefits that vary between the two groups, we can estimate net costs or savings attributable to the full passthrough policy in Wisconsin from the perspectives of the state and federal governments. This analysis demonstrates that for Wisconsin, the majority of the net cost to the federal government is attributable simply to the loss of the federal share of child support that is passed through. To the state, the full pass-through policy results in a net savings, largely because of lower child care subsidies for those in the full pass-through group. We estimate the total cost savings to the state government over 23 quarters to be approximately $7.7 million. Total net costs to the federal government over the same period are approximately $9.8 million. From the perspective of government in general, the net cost of the full pass-through policy over the entire follow-up period amounts to just over $2 million, or around $90,000 per quarter. Previously reported results for the Child Support Demonstration Evaluation have shown that the full pass-through policy increases child support payments and has other beneficial effects. This cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that these positive outcomes are associated with relatively low governmental costs. There are several reasons why a cost-benefit analysis for Wisconsin may not reflect the experience that other states would have under a full pass-through policy. In other states, custodial parents may exit TANF at a different rate, and the relative socioeconomic disadvantage of TANF participants may be different. The Wisconsin data only allow a comparison of the full pass-through policy to the state s partial pass-through policy, and thus may not reflect the experience of other states moving from a no pass-through policy or from a different partial pass-through policy.
3 Cost-Benefit Analysis, Second Report The purpose of this report is to estimate the cost of a full pass-through policy (where both the federal and state shares of child support are paid to families) compared to a partial pass-through policy (where only the state share of child support is paid to families) for the population of W-2 cases subject to child support pass-through policy in Wisconsin. The Child Support Demonstration Evaluation allows us to compare cases subject to a full pass-through policy (experimental group) to cases subject to a partial pass-through policy (control group). The amount of child support paid to cases subject to the full passthrough policy is clearly a cost to the federal government, since that amount represents the federal share of child support. By comparing experimental- and control-group averages for other child support and other government payments and receipts, we can estimate net costs or savings attributable to the full passthrough policy in Wisconsin from the perspectives of the state and federal governments. This report shows total costs and benefits for two cohorts of cases through the most recent quarter for which data are available for all cases, the 22 nd quarter after entry. Quarterly net costs are also shown through the 26 th quarter after entry (costs for the four quarters for which we have no data are estimated). Since both cohorts include a control group, we can compare outcomes under a full and partial passthrough policy. Cohort 1 consists of cases that entered W-2 between September 1997 and July 8, Because of an inadvertent random assignment error affecting Milwaukee County, cases entering in the rest of 1998 (Cohort 2) were not included in the experiment and are not included here. Cohort 3 consists of cases that entered W-2 from January through June This is the second of two cost-benefit reports. This report adds one analysis not included in the first report, an assessment of per-case costs for cases entering after the end of random assignment. Average public assistance and child support payments were estimated with a regression model (see Appendix A for an explanation of the regression procedure). All dollar amounts are shown in constant December 2004 dollars.
4 2 Net state costs are calculated by adding state costs and subtracting state benefits. State costs are the state share of W-2 payments, Medicaid and BadgerCare payments, child care subsidies, and the estimated state share of administrative costs per case. 1 State benefits are the state share of medical support (payments made by noncustodial parents to reimburse the state for Medicaid expenses associated with a birth), and the federal incentive payment for those reimbursements. For each cost and benefit, the experimental-control difference shows the state cost or savings associated with the full pass-through policy. Since both control and experimental group members receive the state share of current child support payments, that figure is not included in cost calculations. The calculations for the federal government are similar to those for the state. Federal costs are Food Stamp benefits, the federal share of Medicaid and BadgerCare benefits and administrative costs, and medical support incentive payments. Federal benefits are the federal share of medical support and the federal share of current child support payments. Although this analysis focuses on benefits and costs to the state and federal governments, there are also benefits that accrue to individuals (such as child support payments to the custodial parent), as well as costs borne by individuals (such as child support paid by the noncustodial parent). This report does not explicitly consider individual-level benefits and costs. The first panel of Table 1 shows the calculation of per-case and total costs to the state government for each cohort over the first 23 quarters of the evaluation. As the table shows, costs to the state are higher for those in the control group than for those in the experimental group. Thus, there is a net savings to the state when the cost of the full pass-through is compared to that of the partial pass-through. This savings is $371 per case through the 22 nd quarter after entry for Cohort 1, and $691 per case for 1 Because we were not able to obtain 2004 and 2005 Medicaid administrative cost data from DHFS, we used 2003 cost data (in combination with administrative data) to estimate Medicaid administrative costs. Because net Medicaid administrative costs are so small, we expect that using the correct cost data would have resulted in very small or no change to the results shown in Table 1 and the Figures.
5 Table 1 Government Costs for Cohorts 1 and 3, Through the Twenty-Second Quarter after Entry Cohort 1 Cohort 3 Experimental Control Net Costs Experimental Control Net Costs Costs to the State W-2 payments (and AFDC) $8,504 $8,536 -$32 $6,278 $6,356 -$77 Medicaid benefits (state share) 10,501 10, ,685 8, Child care subsidies 16,232 16, ,313 16, Food Stamp administrative cost (state share) Medicaid administrative cost (state share) 1,080 1, Benefits to the State a Medical support (state share) b Medical support incentive payment b Total Cost per W-2 Case 36,573 36,944 -$371 32,369 33,061 -$691 Number of Experimental, Nonexperimental, and Control Cases 12,918 3,542 1,140 1,122 Total State Costs $-6,103,170 $-1,564,157 Costs to the Federal Government Food Stamp benefits $12,659 $12,705 -$46 $8,683 $8,676 $7 Medicaid benefits (federal share) 14,904 14, ,347 12, Food Stamp administrative cost (federal share) Medicaid administrative cost (federal share) 1,542 1, ,423 1,420 2 Medical support incentive payment b Benefits to the Federal Government: Medical support (federal share) b Federal share of current child support (paid to federal government) c Total Cost per W-2 Case 29,587 29,057 $531 22,723 22,270 $453 Number of Experimental, Nonexperimental, and Control Cases 12,918 3,542 1,140 1,122 Total Federal Costs $8,734,685 $1,024,619 a Medical support is lying-in costs and other medical expenses, reimbursed by the noncustodial parent to the state. The federal government pays the state a 15 percent incentive payment for these collections. b An additional benefit to the state and cost to the federal government that is not shown is the child support incentive payment, made by the federal government to states and based on the amount of child support collected. This is now distributed on the basis of a state s collections relative to other states, and cannot be easily attributed to individuals. Because collections are higher for those in the experimental group, the experimental-control difference in the incentive payment, if shown in this table, would slightly decrease the per-case cost to the state, and slightly increase the per-case cost to the federal government. c The federal share of current child support varied annually between percent and percent. This share applies to payments made when a mother in the control group is in a lower tier. Note that only current support is included in this calculation, and in the calculation of the child support incentive.
6 4 Cohort 3. The per-case difference is largely driven by the experimental-control difference in child care subsidies, which is $391 lower for the Cohort 1 experimental group, and $681 lower for Cohort 3. Net state savings for the two cohorts combined over the period are about $7.7 million. The largest contributor to the state s savings under the full pass-through treatment is savings in the child care subsidies program. 2 Since child support does not have any direct impact on eligibility for the child care program or on the amount of any child care subsidy, any effect of the full pass-through on child care outlays by the state must be indirect. It may be that the additional income that mothers receive through the full pass-through is enough to allow at least some of them to not participate in the child care program (even though this additional income does not directly affect their eligibility). There are no waiting lists for child care subsidies, and should be no difference in access to the program between the partial and full pass-through groups. We should note however, that while the absolute value of the difference in the amount of child care subsidy is quite large compared to that for other programs, this is largely due to the large amounts of subsidy that mothers receive over the period. Full pass-through mothers in Cohort 1 receive only 2.4 percent less in child care subsidies than do partial pass-through mothers. This is consistent with our findings in the CSDE Phase I Final Report, which showed full pass-through mothers receiving 2.1 percent less than partial pass-through mothers in 1999, an effect which was too small to be significant. Since the child care subsidies are so much larger than other programs, and the total differences are summed up over nearly 6 years, this small percentage difference adds up to a fairly large absolute difference. The second panel of Table 1 shows costs and benefits to the federal government. Federal costs are similar in magnitude to those for the state, but in the opposite direction. From the federal government s perspective, net costs are higher for those in the experimental group. This difference is largely driven by 2 The child care subsidy is paid by the state to the child care provider. The amount of the subsidy varies by provider and reflects reimbursement rates set in each county and tribal area minus an income-dependent parent copayment.
7 5 the mechanical factor that the federal share of current child support is paid to the federal government only for those in the control group; for those in the experimental group, that amount is instead passed through to the family. Thus, the experimental-control difference in the federal share of child support will always be a net cost to the federal government. For Cohort 1, the child support difference is similar to the net cost per case. For Cohort 3, the child support difference is augmented by higher Food Stamp and Medicaid benefit payments to the experimental group, and also by lower medical support payments by the experimental group. Net federal costs for the two cohorts combined over the period are about $8.7 million. Figure 1 shows per-case net costs for Cohort 1 cases separately for each quarter from the quarter of entry through the 26 th quarter after entry. State costs (the dark bars) generally follow the pattern of the total costs shown in Table 1; except for the quarter of entry and the 19 th through 21st quarters after entry, there is a net savings to the state in each quarter, ranging from $7 in the ninth quarter after entry to $53 in the 15 th quarter after entry. The change in the later quarters is notable; in the 20 th quarter after entry, there is a net state cost per case of $33. However, by the 22 nd quarter after entry, state costs again show a net savings. Net state costs for Cohort 1 are largely driven by the experimental-control difference in child care payments. After the first few quarters, child care payments to control-group cases are consistently higher than payments to those in the experimental group, and this difference is primarily responsible for the net cost savings to the state government. This pattern continues except for the three quarters where higher W-2 and Medicaid and Badger Care payments to the experimental group outweighed only slightly higher child care payments to the control group, or where average child care payments were higher for the experimental group. Examination of the child care data shows some cyclical annual trends, but no obvious data patterns signaling a data error or nonrandom change in how child care payments are made. The lighter bars in Figure 1 show per-case net costs to the federal government for Cohort 1. In this case, the net costs are consistently positive, between $3 and $61 per case, depending on the quarter.
8 24th Q after Entry 25th Q after Entry 26th Q after Entry 23rd Q after Entry Figure 1 Cohort 1 Federal and State Cost per Case, by Relative Quarter Dotted bars include estimated data. 6th Q after Entry 7th Q after Entry 8th Q after Entry 9th Q after Entry 10th Q after Entry 11th Q after Entry 12th Q after Entry 13th Q after Entry 14th Q after Entry 15th Q after Entry 16th Q after Entry 17th Q after Entry 18th Q after Entry 19th Q after Entry 20th Q after Entry 21st Q after Entry 22nd Q after Entry Federal State 5th Q after Entry 4th Q after Entry 3rd Q after Entry 2nd Q after Entry 1st Q after Entry Entry
9 7 The bars for the 9 th through 13 th quarters after entry in Figure 1 are dotted to indicate that these quarters include some estimated data. During the last two quarters of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001, some control-group cases incorrectly received a full pass-through. Since this error makes the controlgroup outcomes during that period unreliable, we estimated the control-group means during those three calendar quarters by assuming that the experimental-control difference in those quarters would be proportional to the difference in the quarter prior to the error. Comparing child support payment trends before and after the period affected by the error, we find no indication that the effects of this error continued, and thus use unadjusted data for all quarters following the error. Figure 2 shows the same information for Cohort 3. The per-case cost patterns are more varied than those for Cohort 1. There is a net cost to the state for five of the first six quarters, and then again in the 12 th and 18 th quarters after entry. The highest net cost to the state is $33 per case in the second quarter after entry. The highest net savings to the state is $119 per case in the 14 th quarter after entry. Net costs to the federal government range from $2 to $91 per case, but in four quarters there was a net savings to the federal government, ranging from $4 to $32 per case. There are two sets of dotted bars in Figure 2. The first set, in the 5 th through 8 th quarters after entry, reflects the same error-correction estimation described above for Cohort 1. The second set, in the 23 rd through 26 th quarters after entry, reflects projection of results for a period for which we do not yet have follow-up data (since cases in Cohort 3 entered W-2 at a later date). This projection was done using a linear trend based on the three years immediately preceding the projection period. Because this trend generally shows that federal costs for Cohort 3 were decreasing and then becoming net savings, we project small net federal savings for this cohort in the last four quarters. We also used three alternate projection methods in addition to the one shown in Figure 2: a linear trend based on all of the Cohort 3 data prior to the projection period, an exponential function based on all of the Cohort 3 data, and an exponential function based on data for both cohorts for the first 17 quarters. See Appendix A for more detail on projection methods.
10 25th Q after Entry 26th Q after Entry 24th Q after Entry 23rd Q after Entry Figure 2 Cohort 3 Federal and State Cost per Case, by Relative Quarter Dotted bars include estimated data. 6th Q after Entry 7th Q after Entry 8th Q after Entry 9th Q after Entry 10th Q after Entry 11th Q after Entry 12th Q after Entry 13th Q after Entry 14th Q after Entry 15th Q after Entry 16th Q after Entry 17th Q after Entry 18th Q after Entry 19th Q after Entry 20th Q after Entry 21st Q after Entry 22nd Q after Entry Federal State 5th Q after Entry 4th Q after Entry 3rd Q after Entry 2nd Q after Entry 1st Q after Entry Entry
11 9 From the state government perspective, these alternate methods all incorporate a stronger trend of movement from net costs to net savings, and thus result in larger net savings estimates for each of the four quarters. The largest additions of net savings, ranging from $17 to $25 additional per-case savings per quarter, result from the first alternate method, a linear trend using all 23 quarters of Cohort 3 data. From the federal government perspective, the first alternate method again results in net cost savings that are higher, in this case by about $5 in each quarter. The second results in similar results to that used for Figure 2, and the third results in approximately zero net costs per case in each quarter. Table 2 shows per-case costs for full pass-through cases in each of the four cohorts. The purpose of this table is to compare per-case costs for the two later cohorts to those for the two earlier cohorts. The table shows that per-case costs in Cohorts 4 and 5 are very similar to those in Cohort 3. Because there is no control group for Cohorts 4 and 5, we could not calculate net costs as shown in Table 1. The bottom line for the cost-benefit calculations is shown in Table 1. We estimate total cost savings to the state government to be $6,103,170 for Cohort 1 and $1,564,157 for Cohort 3, for a total across the two cohorts of $7,667,327. We estimate total net costs to the federal government of $8,734,685 for Cohort 1 and $1,024,619 for Cohort 3, for a total across the two cohorts of $9,759,304. There are several reasons that a benefit-cost analysis for Wisconsin may not represent the experience of other states with a full pass-through policy. There could be differences in the speed with which custodial parents move off TANF and in the relative socioeconomic disadvantage of TANF participants in other states. The Wisconsin data only allow a comparison of the full pass-through policy to a particular partial pass-through policy, and thus may not reflect the experience of other states moving from a no pass-through policy or from a different partial pass-through policy. This analysis does show that the majority of net federal costs are attributable simply to the loss of the federal share of child support that is instead passed through in full. This is particularly true for the first, largest, cohort of cases, where all the other federal costs and savings largely cancel each other out. For the later cohort, some additional federal costs result from higher public assistance payments and
12 Table 2 Government Costs For Full Pass-Through Cases Through the Sixth Quarter after Entry, Including Later Cohorts Cohort 1 Full Pass-Through Cohort 3 Full Pass-Through Cohort 4 Cohort 5 Number of cases 12,918 1,140 18,940 7,355 Costs to the State W-2 payments (and AFDC) $5,001 $3,351 $3,469 $3,826 Medicaid benefits (state share) 3,382 2,723 2,744 2,852 Child care subsidies 4,357 4,226 4,419 4,290 Food Stamp administrative cost (state share) Medicaid administrative cost (state share) Benefits to the State a Medical support (state share) b Medical support incentive payment 12,740 10, Total State Cost per W-2 Case 13,267 10,761 11,009 11,287 Costs to the Federal Government Food Stamp benefits $4,050 $2,725 $2,810 $3,076 Medicaid benefits (federal share) 4,835 3,891 3,929 4,008 Food Stamp administrative cost (federal share) Medicaid administrative cost (federal share) Medical support incentive payment Benefits to the Federal Government: Medical support (federal share) b Total Federal Cost per W-2 Case 9,669 7,316 7,323 7,582 a Medical support is lying-in costs and other medical expenses, reimbursed by the noncustodial parent to the state. The federal government pays the state a 15 percent incentive payment for these collections. b An additional benefit to the state and cost to the federal government that is not shown is the child support incentive payment, made by the federal government to states and based on the amount of child support collected. This is now distributed on the basis of a state s collections relative to other states, and cannot be easily attributed to individuals. Because collections are higher for those in the experimental group, the experimental-control difference in the incentive payment, if shown in this table, would slightly decrease the per-case cost to the state, and slightly increase the per-case cost to the federal government.
13 11 lower medical support payments for those in the experimental group, but child support still accounts for two-thirds of net federal costs in that cohort. To the state, the full pass-through policy results in a net savings, largely because of lower child care subsidies for those in the experimental group. From the perspective of government in general, the net cost of the full pass-through policy for both cohorts of cases over the entire follow-up period amounts to just over $2 million, or around $91,000 per quarter. Previously reported results for the Child Support Demonstration Evaluation have shown that the full passthrough policy increases child support payments and has other positive effects. The current analysis shows that these beneficial outcomes are associated with relatively small governmental costs.
14 12 Appendix A - Methodology The costs and benefits presented in this report were estimated using data collected from the state of Wisconsin administrative data management systems used for public assistance programs (W-2, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and child care benefits are managed through the CARES system) and for child support enforcement (managed through the KIDS system). We extracted data on the program participation and child support history of mothers who entered the W-2 program during two time periods: Cohort 1 cases entered between September 1997 and July 9, 1998 (the first three quarters of the W-2 program) and Cohort 3 cases entered January-June During these time periods cases entering W-2 were assigned to one of two treatments: either a control treatment, under which the state retained any child support payments above the greater of $50 or 41 percent, or an experimental treatment under which all child support payments were passed through to the families. 3 Some cases which entered W-2 during these time periods were not included in the estimation procedure for these reports. Full details of the data selection procedures can be found in the CSDE Phase II Final Report (Appendix 1); in short, we only included cases in which the resident parent was the mother, we excluded cases that were not subject to experimental or control assignment (because of some errors in the assignment process or regulations which limited assignment for cases with good cause exemptions or children receiving SSI), and we excluded some cases which appeared to be subject to various bureaucratic irregularities (e.g., cases that entered the AFDC program after that program was supposed to be closed to new entrants, cases that experienced long delays between experimental assignment and entry into W-2, multiple W-2 cases for a single entrant, or cases that experienced incorrect treatments for their assignment). 3 A full analysis of the effects of this experiment can be found in the CSDE Phase II Final Report.
15 13 The resulting samples included 16,460 mothers and their families in Cohort 1 and 2,262 in Cohort 3. We then tracked their usage of various state-run assistance programs and their child support history through December 2004, using data extracted from the CARES and KIDS systems in January and February of USING REGRESSION MODELS TO ESTIMATE DIFFERENCES While the experimental method used in the CSDE project should control for most differences in initial characteristics between the two treatment groups, it is possible that random differences may exist between the two groups or that there may be some small differences in the chances that cases did not enter W-2 after learning of their assignment. 4 For this reason, we present regression-adjusted means, rather than simple means, in the analysis of experimental effects. This approach has a number of advantages. First, even if random assignment worked perfectly, there will be some chance difference in the initial characteristics of the experimental and control groups. Regression-adjusted means adjust for this chance variation. The regression-adjusted difference reflects the estimated effect of experimental status (i.e., the coefficient on the indicator for experimental or control status) after accounting for differences in characteristics at entry into W-2. This approach also adjusts for any nonrandom differential assignment based on observable characteristics among the control variables. Finally, to the extent control variables account for the variance in the outcome of interest, we are more likely to be able to discern the effect of the experiment. The analyses in this report use a standard set of control variables, including time period of assignment, mother s age and race, amount of child support payments, mother s AFDC and employment history, initial W-2 tier, location, education, and family structure. A full list of the variables and details of their specifications are included in Table A Our previous analysis do not show any of these diversion effects to be significant in the overall samples.
16 14 The regression-adjusted means were generated as follows. First, the outcome was estimated as a function of the set of control variables, with an indicator variable for experimental status separately for each cohort. All observations from experimental and control groups were included in the regression analysis. Second, weighted mean values for each control variable were calculated for each cohort, and a predicted value for the outcome variable was generated by evaluating the estimated regression coefficients at these means. Administrative costs for each case were generated using estimates for the monthly cost of administering food stamps and Medicaid benefits provided by the state of Wisconsin. These costs varied on an annual basis. The costs and benefits shared by the federal and state governments included Medicaid benefits, Food Stamp and Medicaid administrative costs, and payments by noncustodial parents to reimburse the state for Medicaid costs associated with a birth. These were divided between the two governments using a specific federal share percentage which varied annually between percent and percent. PROJECTION METHODS FOR SEPTEMBER 2000-FEBRUARY 2001 TREATMENT ERROR From September 2000 to February 2001 because of a programming error in the CARES data system, most control cases that received W-2 cash grants were treated as if they had not received a grant and therefore received a full pass-through of their child support. Since this error affects our ability to properly estimate experimental-control differences during this time period we instead chose to interpolate values for levels of child support and public assistance programs during this time period. For Cohort 1 the time period corresponds with the 9 th through 13 th quarters after entry; for Cohort 3 we interpolated values for the 5 th through 8 th quarters after entry. To interpolate these values we used the values for child support payments and public assistance program amounts for the four calendar quarters before the quarters with errors (July 1999-June 2000) and for the four calendar quarters after the quarters with errors (April 2001-March 2002) and calculated the linear trend across these values to interpolate the values for three calendar quarters with the error (3Q-4Q
17 and 1Q 2001). For example, for Cohort 1 experimental cases we took the values of W-2 grants from July 1999-June 2000 and from April 2001-March 2000 and used least squares to predict a line across these data points; the values on the line which corresponded with intervening quarters are used as the projection. Using a linear trend across one year before and one year after the error has the advantage of only using data from the time period closest to the data we are trying to predict, but it does provide enough data to account for any annual cyclicality which may appear in child support payments or public assistance receipt. PROJECTION METHODS FOR 23 TH -26 TH QUARTERS AFTER ENTRY FOR COHORT 3 We also wished to project values to reflect the expected differences for Cohort 3 in the 23 rd through the 26 th quarters after entry, since not enough time had elapsed for these cases to have experienced this time period. We could not use the same method as the interpolation above (as there are no data available from after the time period we are trying to predict); we therefore used four methods to extrapolate these values. The first (used for Figure 2) used a method similar to that used for the treatment error time period, but bases its linear trend projection on the 3 years of data before the 23 rd quarter after entry. The second method replicated the linear method of the first method, but based the least squares projection on all 23 quarters. The third used an exponential projection based on the 23 preceding quarters. An exponential function allows the change in the values over time to slow down or speed up. Finally, the fourth used an exponential projection based on all quarter of both Cohort 1 and Cohort 3 data. There were some small differences in the results depending on the projection method used (discussed in the text of the report), but none were big enough to affect our overall conclusions.
18 16 TABLE A1.1 List of Control Variables Used in Regression Models All control variables are dummy variables. Time Period of Assignment Aug March 16, 1998 when 80% of cases were assigned to full pass-through (omitted) March 17 May 8, 1998 when 70% of cases were assigned to full pass-through May 9 July 8, 1998 when half of cases were assigned to full pass-through and half to partial Child Support history; amount paid on behalf of the mother in the one-year period before mother entered W-2 $0 (omitted) $1 $999 $1,000 or more Mother s age 25 or younger (omitted) years 31 or older Mother s race/ethnicity White (omitted) African American Other Months of AFDC receipt during the 24-month period before mother entered W-2 0 months (omitted) 1 18 months months Region Milwaukee County Other urban counties Rural counties (omitted) Initial W-2 tier Upper tier (omitted) Lower tier Caretaker of Newborn Age of youngest child 0 2 years (omitted) 3 5 years 6 or older Mother s education Grade 11 or less High school diploma or equivalent Post high school (omitted) Average annual earnings of the highest-earning father during the two-year period before mother entered W-2; $0 $14,999 (omitted) $15,000 or more
19 17 Mother s employment history; number of quarters employed during the two-year period before mother entered W-2 0 quarters (omitted) 1 6 quarters 7 8 quarters
Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2011 Current Population Reports By Timothy Grall Issued October 2013 P60-246 IntroductIon This report focuses on the child support income that custodial
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE Percent 70 The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009 60 50 Before-Tax Income Federal Taxes Top 1 Percent 40 30 20 81st
Review of Child Support Policies for Multiple Family Obligations: Five Case Studies Emma Caspar Institute for Research on Poverty University of Wisconsin Madison September 2006 This report has been prepared
Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper no. 1289-04 Extending Health Care Coverage to the Low-Income Population: The Influence of the Wisconsin BadgerCare Program on Insurance Coverage Barbara
Supplemental Security Income Informational Paper 46 Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau January, 2015 Supplemental Security Income Prepared by Sam Austin Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau One East Main,
Work-exempt TANF participants Marci Ybarra Marci Ybarra is Assistant Professor in the School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Wisconsin Works (W-2) Applicant Study: Analysis of W-2 Application-Process Dropouts Marci Ybarra and Jennifer L. Noyes with the assistance of Yiyoon Chung Institute for Research on Poverty University of
COLORADO I. Introduction to the State A. Highlights Relative to other states, Colorado has many different social services data systems, almost one for each program. However, all these systems run on the
United State Senate Finance Committee Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:00 A.M. Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building Welfare Reform: Building on Successes Testimony of Howard H. Hendrick Director, Oklahoma
Your Guide to Setting Support Amounts WI BUREAU OF CHILD SUPPORT $ % Percentage of Income Standard Income for child support Guidelines Serial family parents Low-income payers High-income payers Shared-placement
LDSS-4882A (7/12) GENERAL INFORMATION If you need language assistance, please visit the local Child Support Enforcement Unit so that language translation and/or interpretation services can be provided.
Evaluation of Wisconsin s BadgerCare Plus Health Care Coverage Program Report #4 Wisconsin's Lessons about the Potential of Medicaid Auto-Enrollment Submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services
OLR RESEARCH REPORT November 9, 2012 2012-R-0486 FLORIDA S PREPAID TUITION PLAN By: Terrance Adams, Legislative Analyst II You asked for a description of Florida s prepaid tuition plan. SUMMARY Prepaid
Selected Analyses of Families Experiences with CAP Cambridge, MA Lexington, MA Hadley, MA Bethesda, MD Washington, DC Chicago, IL Cairo, Egypt Johannesburg, South Africa The New York State Child Assistance
Delaware Commissioners: Todd Hanks Ken O'Brien Tommy Thompson Alum Creek Lake, Delaware. Photo: Phoenix Department of Job and Family Services Public Children Services Agency Mona Reilly, Director 140 N.
Miami Commissioners: Jack Evans John O Brien Ron Widener Department of Job and Family Services Child Support Enforcement Agency Carol Morgan, Director 24 North Road 25-A Troy, Ohio 45373-131 CDJFS Phone:
Ottawa Commissioners: Steve Arndt James Sass Mark Stahl Department of Job and Family Services Public Children Services Agency Child Support Enforcement Agency Stephanie Kowal, Director 843 West Route 163,
Demographic Analysis of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Using 2010 Census and 2010 American Community Survey Estimates Completed for: Grants & Contract Office The Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: to Population Estimates and Projections Current Population Reports By Sandra L. Colby and Jennifer M. Ortman Issued March 15 P25-1143 INTRODUCTION
SECTION I: Current Michigan Policies on Postsecondary Education for Low-income Parents Receiving Public Assistance 10 Current Michigan Policies The survey and this report focus on the policies and practices
How much would it cost to cover the uninsured in Minnesota? Preliminary Estimates Minnesota Department of Health, Health Economics Program July 2006 Executive Summary This background paper, prepared by
Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S.: By Marina Vornovitsky, Alfred Gottschalck, and Adam Smith Household net worth, or wealth, is an important indicar of economic well-being in the United States.
71% of online adults now use video sharing sites Kathleen Moore, Pew Internet Project 7/25/2011 http://pewinternet.org/reports/2011/video sharing sites.aspx Pew Research Center 1615 L St., NW Suite 700
Paper originally prepared for Generations United s Second National Symposium on Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children July 2004 Financial Assistance for Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising
24% of internet users have made phone calls online Lee Rainie, Director May 30, 2011 http://pewinternet.org/reports/2011/13--internet-phone-calls--skype.aspx Pew Research Center s Internet & American Life
The 2006 Earnings Public-Use Microdata File: An Introduction by Michael Compson* This article introduces the 2006 Earnings Public-Use File (EPUF) and provides important background information on the file
Social Security Eligibility and the Labor Supply of Elderly Immigrants George J. Borjas Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research Updated for the 9th Annual Joint Conference of the Retirement
TRENDS AND ISSUES SEPTEMBER 2015 FACULTY RETIREMENT PLANS: THE ROLE OF RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE Robert L. Clark Zelnak Professor Poole College of Management North Carolina State University Retiree health
Not Perfect, But Still Pretty Good: How the Earned Income Tax Credit Supports Low-Income Working Families By John Karl Scholz T he Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is the country s largest cash income support
STATE OF INDIANA STATE BUDGET AGENCY 212 State House Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2796 317-232-5610 Michael R. Pence Governor Brian E. Bailey Director December 2014 Revenue Forecast Methodology Technical
Supplemental Security Income Eligibility In 1972, Congress replaced the categorical Federal-State programs for the needy aged, blind, and disabled with the Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program,
Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income for Undergraduates with Disabilities: An Analysis of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS 2000) By Hugh Berry & Megan
The Role of Child Support in the Current Economic Safety Net for Low-Income Families with Children May 31, 2012 Kristen S. Slack, Lawrence M. Berger, Bomi Kim, Mi Youn Yang University of Wisconsin Madison
Economic inequality and educational attainment across a generation Mary Campbell, Robert Haveman, Gary Sandefur, and Barbara Wolfe Mary Campbell is an assistant professor of sociology at the University
VI. PARTICIPATION STATUS AMONG VERY POOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS As established in the previous chapter, while non-participants might not be participating because they are only temporarily poor,
Child Support Computation 03EN025I Purpose of form The purpose of the Child Support Computation form is to calculate a child support obligation pursuant to 43 O.S. Sections 118A 118I, effective July 1,
July 2013 Maryland Child Care Choices Study: Study and Sample Description Samantha Goldhagen, Vanessa Harbin, Amy Blasberg, & Nicole Forry Introduction to the Maryland Child Care Choices Research Brief
Analysis of School Finance Equity and Local Wealth Measures in Maryland Prepared for The Maryland State Department of Education By William J. Glenn Mike Griffith Lawrence O. Picus Allan Odden Picus Odden
The dynamics of disconnection for low-income mothers Pamela Loprest and Austin Nichols Pamela Loprest is Director of the Income and Benefits Policy Center at The Urban Institute; Austin Nichols is Senior
UNINSURED ADULTS IN MAINE, 2013 AND 2014: RATE STAYS STEADY AND BARRIERS TO HEALTH CARE CONTINUE December 2015 Beginning in January 2014, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has
Family Rewards: A Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Pilot Program in NYC Fighting Poverty with Cash Incentives: Can It Work? June 2011 1 Program Design 2 International CCT programs Goals of CCT programs:
ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONS E1: What are the current eligibility criteria under the primary eligibility provision (which replaces the 70% provision) that must be met in order to serve individuals with WtW funds?
Legislative Fiscal Bureau One East Main, Suite 301 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 266-3847 Fax: (608) 267-6873 June 4, 2001 Joint Committee on Finance Paper #476 Treatment of Irrevocable Burial Trusts under MA
Mode and Patient-mix Adjustment of the CAHPS Hospital Survey (HCAHPS) April 30, 2008 Abstract A randomized Mode Experiment of 27,229 discharges from 45 hospitals was used to develop adjustments for the
Enrollment Projections for Nebraska s Medicaid Insurance for Workers with Disabilities (Medicaid Buy-In Program) Mary G. McGarvey, Ph.D. March, 2003 1. Introduction Many persons with significant disabilities
Child Health Assurance Program (CHAP) 300 THE CHAP provides medical assistance to children under the age of 19 and pregnant women. 315 ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES - PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN 315.1 Pregnant Women
IWPR Publication #D451 September 2002 Children in Single-Parent Families Living in Poverty Have Fewer Supports after Welfare Reform By Deanna M. Lyter, Melissa Sills, and Gi-Taik Oh Since welfare reform,
Chapter 4 Poisson Models for Count Data In this chapter we study log-linear models for count data under the assumption of a Poisson error structure. These models have many applications, not only to the
Jersey Household Income Distribution 2014/15 Statistics Unit: www.gov.je/statistics @JsyStats Key statistics Average (mean) household weekly income: 860 per week before, and 720 after, housing costs an
Cash Flow Equivalence Introduction This document is intended to demonstrate the level of cash flow equivalence between an Eris credit futures contract and a cleared or un-cleared OTC swap contract referencing
How Social Security Benefits Are Computed: In Brief Noah P. Meyerson Analyst in Income Security February 4, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43542 Summary With about $900 billion
New Jersey Automobile Insurance Risk Exchange P.O. Box 712, Stockholm, New Jersey 07460 (973) 209-4781 September 8, 2010 NJAIRE ANNUAL CASH SETTLEMENT Dear NJAIRE Member Company, I have enclosed your company's
Using Incentives in Welfare Reform: The New York State Child Assistance Program Cambridge, MA Lexington, MA Hadley, MA Bethesda, MD Washington, DC Chicago, IL Cairo, Egypt Johannesburg, South Africa February
The Impact of Medicare Part D on the Percent Gross Margin Earned by Texas Independent Pharmacies for Dual Eligible Beneficiary Claims Angela Winegar, M.S., Marvin Shepherd, Ph.D., Ken Lawson, Ph.D., and
www.pewresearch.org AUGUST 26, 2013 Home Broadband 2013 Some 70% of American adults have a high-speed broadband connection at home; an additional 10% of Americans lack home broadband but do own a smartphone.
Work Incentives For Individuals Receiving SSDI or SSI Payments SSDI Work Incentives * Continuation of Benefits While in a Rehabilitation Program * Continuation of Medicare Coverage * Exemption of Scholarships
Student Loans: Do College Students Borrow Too Much (or Not Enough)? A. Processing of March CPS Data Appendix: Data and Methods We use the March CPS from the 1964 through 2009 (1963 through 2008 earnings
Americans and their cell phones Mobile devices help people solve problems and stave off boredom, but create some new challenges and annoyances Aaron Smith, Senior Research Specialist 8/15/2011 http://pewinternet.org/reports/2011/cell-phones.aspx
Policy Reforms are Needed to Increase Child Support from Poor Fathers by Elaine Sorensen and Helen Oliver April 2002 Views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions
TENANT CERTIFICATION PROCESS Topics to be covered Tenant Certification General Information Timeframes Top 10 Tenant Cert Issues (Common Errors): Income Deductions Supporting Documentation & Verification
Research Summary Expenditures of college-age students nonstudents Geoffrey D. Paulin As the U.S. workforce comes to rely increasingly on computer technology, including the Internet, higher levels of education
Florida Study of Career and Technical Education Final Report Louis Jacobson, Ph.D. Christine Mokher, Ph.D. 2014 IRM-2014-U-008790 Approved for Distribution Unlimited This document represents the best opinion
The Research SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2010 Consumer Income Issued November 2011 P60-241 INTRODUCTION The current official poverty measure was developed in the early 1960s, and only a few minor changes
Examining Early Preventive Dental Visits: The North Carolina Experience Jessica Y. Lee DDS, MPH, PhD Departments of Pediatric Dentistry & Health Policy and Administration University of North Carolina at
Spouse/Divorced Spouse Annuity United States of America Railroad Retirement Board Visit our Web site at www.rrb.gov Form RB-30 (05-09) INTRODUCTION This is important information regarding your spouse or
Bring it Back to Texas Pilot: Evaluating the Promotion of Free Tax Preparation Services to Noncustodial Parents with Child Support Arrears Office of the Attorney General Child Support Division Family Initiatives
Update February 2010 No. 2010-05 Affected Programs: BadgerCare Plus Standard Plan, BadgerCare Plus Benchmark Plan, Medicaid To: Nursing Homes, HMOs and Other Managed Care Programs Reimbursement and Claims
NECC Northern Essex Community College NECC College Math Tutoring Center Results Spring 2011 The College Math Tutoring Center at Northern Essex Community College opened its doors to students in the Spring
Poverty: Facts, Causes and Consequences Joe Tiao Lecture, Kansas State University Hilary Hoynes University of California, Davis April 2012 In 2010, more than 1 in 5 children lived in poverty and 15.1 percent
Research Results from Linked Program Participation Administrative Data and American Community Survey Data Mark A. Leach, Ph.D. Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications (CARRA) U.S. Census
INFORMATION BRIEF Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department 600 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Amy Petschauer, Legislative Analyst 651-296-5808 January 2002 The 60-Month Time Limit
Economic Impacts of the DRS Program on Consumers with Significant Disabilities in West Virginia A Realistic Return-on-Investment Model for State-Federal VR Programs Department of Education and the Arts
www.pewresearch.org SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 Cell Phone Activities 2013 50% of cell owners download apps to their phones; 48% listen to music services; video calling has tripled since 2011; texting remains a
Online Appendix for Limited Life Expectancy, Human Capital and Health Investment Authors: Emily Oster, E. Ray Dorsey, Ira Shoulson Appendix A: Incentive Calculations In section 6 we calculate the elasticity
A Primer on Forecasting Business Performance There are two common approaches to forecasting: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative forecasting methods are important when historical data is not available.