Carl Vinson

PP
RS
����������� � �����������������������

The Quality of Life of Single Mothers on Welfare in Georgia
The Carl Vinson Institute of Government
University of Georgia
© 2005 by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
Opinions expressed in the Public Policy Research Series papers are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government or the University of Georgia.

v

iv

In recent years, the Carl Vinson Institute of Government has been engaged in research on two important issues that affect the lives of many
Georgians: persistent poverty in rural areas and the well-being of children and their families. The Vinson Institute worked with the Georgia
Rural Development Council and many other partners to provide information on the extent and causes of persistent poverty in rural areas of the Southeast, including Georgia. Following up on this research, the
University of Georgia (UGA) is undertaking the “Initiative on Poverty and the Economy,” which is being led by the offi ce of the Vice President for Public Service and Outreach. A key goal of the initiative is to promote scholarly research that will identify public policies to improve both individual economic well-being and community prosperity.
A related activity is the “Child and Family Policy Initiative” of UGA and the Andrew Young School of Public Policy at Georgia State University. The UGA initiative partners include the Carl Vinson Institute of
Government, the College of Family and Consumer Sciences, the School of Social Work, and the College of Education. These partners work together to undertake interdisciplinary research that will provide community and state leaders with the information they need to make more informed decisions regarding child well-being.
This policy paper contributes to these two initiatives. It presents key research from a dissertation written in 2002 by Mónica María Alzate for her Ph.D. in social work. Dr. Alzate is now a faculty member at the
University of Oklahoma. Her dissertation, titled “The Quality of Life of
Single Mothers on Welfare in Georgia and the 1996 Welfare Reform,” is available at faculty-staff.ou.edu/A/Monica.M.Alzate-1/Disertacion
Text.pdf.
This policy paper provides information on the quality of life of single mothers on welfare in Georgia. It compares their quality of life with the rest of Georgia’s residents, examines the quality of life of women on welfare who live in urban areas compared with those living in rural and suburban areas, and shows the quality of life of women on welfare by county. The policy paper measures quality of life using the Human
Development Index (HDI) created by the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP). Each year, the UNDP uses the HDI to show the relative living standards of people in every nation.
This paper is part of the Public Policy Research Series of the Carl
Vinson Institute of Government. The series strives to present objective and systematic research fi ndings on complex policy issues confronting the

vi state of Georgia and its local governments. The research in this policy paper provides new insights into the lives of mothers in Georgia who are on welfare and provides information on the locations where these women have relatively better and worse situations. This report points out the fact that, while parts of Georgia have experienced tremendous growth in the last decade, some residents of the state face hardship and limited economic prospects. We hope that this report brings needed visibility to these issues and leads to consideration of policies that will improve those prospects.
James L. Ledbetter
Director
Carl Vinson Institute of Government
May 2005

T his policy paper reports research on the quality of life of single mothers on welfare in Georgia. It addresses three questions:
1. What is the quality of life of single mothers on welfare in Georgia and how do they fare compared with the rest of Georgia’s residents?
2. What are the differences in the quality of life of single mothers on welfare based on their location? Does the quality of life of these women differ in urban areas compared with rural and suburban areas?
3. How does the quality of life of single mothers on welfare differ by county? In which counties is the quality of life of these women the best? In which counties is it the worst?
The research methodology is adapted from work done by the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP), which in 1990 created the Human Development Index (HDI), a measure of quality of life that can be used for comparison across nations and between subpopulations within a country. Each year, the UNDP publishes the Human Development
Report that shows the relative quality of life of people in every nation based on the HDI. This paper used the HDI to compare the quality of life of single mothers on welfare (also referred to as women on welfare) with that of the black and white populations in the state of Georgia.
The HDI is composed of three dimensions: health, education, and standard of living. For comparisons between subpopulations within a country, each dimension has several indicators that vary according to the level of development of each country. The dimensions and indicators of the HDI used in this study can be found in Table 1. These dimensions are calculated through indices that standardize the measures so that the quality of life of different populations within Georgia can be determined.
The study finds that, in Georgia, women on welfare have a lower quality of life, as ranked on the HDI, than both the white population and black population. These differences are statistically significant.
The quality of life of women on welfare differs by type of county.
They have the highest average quality of life in suburban counties. Women on welfare in rural counties with a declining population have the lowest average quality of life, as measured by the HDI. The quality of life of women on welfare in urban areas does not differ statistically from the quality of life of women in rural areas with a declining population.

Public Policy Research Series
Only 19 percent of women on welfare in Georgia live in suburban counties; 54 percent live in urban counties and rural counties with a declining population. Thus, more than half of women on welfare live in counties in which they have a lower quality of life than their counterparts elsewhere.
The paper identifies the 10 counties in Georgia in which women on welfare have the best quality of life and the 10 counties with the worst quality of life, as measured by the HDI. The counties in which women on welfare have the worst quality of life are rural counties. Seven of the
10 counties in which the quality of life is best for women on welfare are suburban counties, and 3 are rural areas with a growing population.
When considering these findings, it is important to remember that the concept of human development goes beyond the indicators and dimensions of the HDI. Nevertheless, the HDI is a valuable tool to compare development by gender and racial groups and thereby identify inequalities in a given society.
2

I n Georgia in the year 2000, 53,323 single mothers were on welfare.
These women, who had at least one child, received cash assistance for themselves and their children under the Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF) program. On average, they had two children and were
28 years old. The racial distribution of the group was 79.3 percent non-
Hispanic black and 19.4 percent non-Hispanic white; the remainder were
Hispanic, Asian, and Native American
Welfare has long been a controversial subject in the United States.
Some people believe that the welfare system is self-perpetuating and that it rewards behavior that should be discouraged. Others believe that the welfare system is inadequate at best and punitive at worst.
In 1996 Congress enacted legislation to reform the welfare system.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, or welfare reform act of 1996, replaced Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) with TANF, eliminating “the federally guaranteed national entitlement to public assistance” (Gilbert 1998, 105). In the words of Eitzen and Zinn (2000, 67), “a major concern with the 1996 welfare legislation is the abdication of federal responsibility for welfare.”
Under TANF, the federal government has allocated an annual fixed block grant to the states of $15.3 billion a year, plus a $2 billion contingency fund, which is based on what states spent on AFDC in 1994.
Although all states must follow a number of stringent regulations, TANF gives states the freedom to establish certain eligibility requirements to receive public assistance and to set maximum lifetime assistance not greater than the federal mandate of the 60-month limit. Thus, the welfare reform devolved responsibility to the states to provide public assistance.
A comparative analysis of welfare legislation before and after 1996
(Ginsberg 1999) showed that the welfare reform act imposed new requirements on eligibility for food stamps, supplemental security income
(SSI), and participation in child nutrition programs. Exceptions to the new requirements were made through the Family Violence Option for women who are victims of domestic violence.
1
The 1996 legislation established stricter work requirements, made a smaller provision for education, and introduced a family cap (i.e., children born during the time a parent is receiving cash assistance are not counted when calculating the amount of cash assistance). It provided no funds for family planning services. It also took away the federally guaranteed child-care and Medicaid benefits (it is now up to each state to

Public Policy Research Series provide such benefits) and focused on abstinence as the solution to outof-wedlock births, especially among at-risk populations (usually teenaged women). In 1990, 7.7 percent of recipients were under 20 years of age, and in 1999 only 6 percent of recipients were teenagers (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families 2000).
From a historical perspective, the reduction in benefits resulting from the 1996 legislation is not a completely new trend in the welfare system of some states, particularly in the South. For example, in 1952 several restrictions were imposed on the eligibility of welfare applicants.
These restrictions included the termination of benefits during harvest seasons, which particularly affected black applicants, who tended to be employed seasonally. The requirements were predicated on the belief that out-of-wedlock births raised questions about the suitability of the home in which the children were to be raised; mothers were required to
“seek financial support from the fathers of their children, stepfathers, or ‘substitute fathers’ (i.e., live-in boyfriends)” (Reese 2001, 91). The
Georgia legislature tried to deny benefits to women who had more than one child out of wedlock, but federal officials intervened and “claimed it was unconstitutional because it discriminated against children based on their birth status” (Abramovitz 2000, 89).
The TANF program was scheduled to end on September 30, 2002, unless reauthorized by the federal government. Congress extended the deadline for the end of TANF as it considered changes to the law. As of
January 2005, TANF had not been replaced by new legislation.
2
This policy paper is not intended to evaluate the 1996 legislation or present explicit arguments concerning its revision. Instead, the policy paper summarizes research on the main targets of this legislation: single mothers on welfare, also referred to in this paper as “women on welfare.”
The paper examines their quality of life compared with citizens of the state. The paper seeks to answer the following three questions:
1. What is the quality of life of single mothers on welfare in Georgia, and how do they fare compared with the rest of Georgia’s residents?
2. What are the differences in the quality of life of single mothers on welfare based on their location; that is, does quality of life differ in urban compared with rural and suburban areas?
3. How does the quality of life of single mothers on welfare differ by county? In which counties is the quality of life of single mothers the best, and in which counties is it the worst?
4

T he Human Development Index (HDI) of the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) was used to answer these questions. The HDI is composed of three dimensions: health, education, and standard of living and is calculated as an average of these three dimensions. In its studies, the UNDP has ranked countries using this index. Also, it has classified them into categories (low, medium, and high development) according to their rankings. Typically, the United
States has ranked high on the HDI. For example, the United States ranked third in human development among 174 countries in the world in 2000 (UNDP 2000).
However, the national rankings do not tell the entire story. In 1993,
UNDP applied the HDI separately to the white, black, and Hispanic populations of the United States. The white population ranked 1st in the world on the index, ahead of Japan; however, the black population ranked
31st, similar to that of Trinidad and Tobago, and the Latino population ranked 35th, as did the population of Estonia.
For this study, the HDI described in the 2001 Human Development Report of the UNDP was employed. The HDI creates a summary measure of human development by measuring the average achievements in a country on the following weighted dimensions:
• a long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth;
• knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (two-thirds weight) and the percentage of combined primary, secondary, and tertiary education gross enrollment ratio (one-third weight) 3 and
;
• a decent standard of living, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and purchasing power parity (PPP, in U.S. dollars), which allows cross-country comparisons to be made.
Before the HDI itself is calculated, an index for each of these dimensions is created by assigning minimum and maximum values called goalposts.
These values “need to be fixed if the HDI is to be comparable over time”
(Anand and Send, cited in UNDP 1993, 109). The goalposts for each dimension have changed since the first human development report was published in 1990 because calculations have been refined (UNDP 1993;
1999). Performance in each dimension of the HDI is expressed as a value between 0 and 1 by applying the following general formula:
Index dimension = actual value – minimum value / maximum value – minimum value,

Public Policy Research Series where minimum and maximum values are the fixed goalposts established by the UNDP. The closer to 1, the better the quality of life. The following ranges are used to interpret any given HDI or HDI dimension scores: low level, 0–0.499; medium level, 0.5–0.799; and high level, 0.8–1.0. It is vital to consider that the HDI is an ordinal measure, not a cardinal index to be maximized, and that the indicators of the health and education dimensions change very slowly over time, particularly in industrialized countries. Thus, it would be inappropriate to use the HDI to measure quality of life a few years before and a few years after the welfare reform, for example.
Because the level of development varies greatly across countries, com- ponents reflecting a given country’s priorities and problems are added, thereby enhancing “the usefulness and versatility of the HDI as an analytical tool” when examining national and subnational levels or groups
(Doraid 1997, 4). (See the suggestions by Anand and Sen [cited in UNDP
1993, 112] in Table 1.) HDIs for both single mothers on welfare in
Georgia and for the general population of Georgia by county and by
Table 1. Suggested Special Human Development Indices for Countries with
Different Levels of Development
HDI Indicator Low
Level of Country Development
Medium High
Health
Education
Life expectancy
Adult literacy
Life expectancy
Under-five-years- old mortality
Adult literacy
Life expectancy
Under-five-years- old mortality
Maternal mortality
Adult literacy
Secondary school Secondary school enrollment enrollment
Tertiary-level enrollment
Standard of Log per capita GDP Log per capita GDP Log per capita GDP up living up to international up to international to international poverty poverty line (mod- poverty line (mod- line (modified in 1999 ified in 1999 to log ified in 1999 to log to log GDP per capita
GDP per capita PPP) GDP per capita PPP) PPP)
Incidence of poverty
Incidence of poverty
Gini-corrected mean national income
(abolished after refinements in 1999)
Note: The suggested HDIs are from Anand and Sen (in UNDP 1993, 112). GDP = gross domestic product. PPP = purchasing power parity (in U.S. dollars).
6

Quality of Life of Single Mothers on Welfare in Georgia race were included in this analysis. These indicators are more sensitive to policy changes than are simply life expectancy or adult literacy and reflect great differences between subgroups within U.S. society
(UNDP 1993; Wyn et al. 2001). One indicator was not included and two were modified following Agostini and Richardson’s measurement of quality of life in 25 U.S. cities (1997). The final calculation follows the formula explained earlier, and each indicator within each dimension has the same weight.
Details on the latest methodology used to calculate the HDI can be found in the technical notes of the Human Development Reports
(UNDP 1993; 1999) or online at www.undp.org/hdro. Table 2 summarizes the HDI dimensions, indicators, and goalposts used in this study.
Table 2 . HDI Dimensions, Indicators, and Goalposts
Value a
HDI Dimension
Health
Education
Indicator
Life expectancy at birth (years)
(for women only)
Child mortality rate
Maternal mortality rate
(per 100,000 live births)
Mean years of schooling
High school graduation rate (percent)
College and post-college graduates
(percent)
Maximum Minimum
85.0
87.5
0
0
15
100
100
25.0
27.5
56
0
0
0 b
430 c
Standard of
Living
Log personal income (dollars)
Incidence of poverty (percent)
40,000
0
100
100 a Maximum value = desired state of affairs; minimum value = global average or lower end of a range.
b Latest global average (1999).
c Latest global average (1998).
Notes : Information on the indicators of the HDI dimensions that relate to the population in Georgia as a whole was obtained from the Regional Economic Information System, the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Georgia Department of Human Resources, Georgia Health Department, Georgia County
Guides, Georgia Data Center, and databases (e.g., www.georgiastats.uga.edu and wonder.cdc.gov).
Also used were national and state reports from the 1990 U.S. Bureau of the Census, the National
Center for Health Statistics, Statistical Guide of the United States, and unpublished data from the
School of Public Health, Harvard University. Data also came from the Web pages of the World Health
Organization, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Population Reference Bureau, as well as from e-mail communications with staff from the Centers for Disease Control and National Center for
Health Statistics experts. Data at the county level used to calculate indicators of the HDI for the Georgia population by race are from the U.S. 1990 census or have been calculated based on 1990 census figures. These were the latest available data at the county level at the time of the study.
7

T he data used to calculate the HDI came from different sources. The information on the variables that pertain directly to single women on welfare in Georgia, such as education and income, was obtained from existing data from the Division of Family and Children Services of the
State of Georgia (DFCS) for the year 2000. It included women on welfare in all 159 counties who were aged 18 years and over, had at least one minor child living with them, and were receiving cash assistance (TANF) for themselves and their children. These conditions are referred to as a family case (i.e., at least one child and one adult are both TANF recipients in the same household), as opposed to a child-only case in which only a child or children are beneficiaries (Risler et al. 1999). The 2000 data are for 53,323 women, with a median monthly income of $287.61.
4

T he average values on the HDI used to measure the quality of life of women on welfare appear in Table 3. Women on welfare rank lower on the HDI (0.604) compared with both the white population (0.735) and the black population (0.631) of Georgia. The differences between the quality of life of women on welfare and the white population and between women on welfare and the black population are statistically significant.
Also, the average quality of life of the white population is higher than the average quality of life of the black population. The difference is statistically significant.
5
By comparison, the HDI for the entire population in the United
States—the third highest-ranking country in terms of quality of life in
174 countries—was 0.929 in the year 2000 (UNDP 2000). Lebanon, a country with a medium level of development, ranked 82, and its HDI was 0.735; Namibia’s HDI was 0.632 and ranked 115; and Botswana, a country with a similar HDI to that of women on welfare in Georgia, ranked 122, with an HDI of 0.593.
On all dimensions of the HDI, women on welfare have lower average values than the white population. However, although the differences in the average values of the health and standard-of-living dimensions are statistically significant, the difference in values of the education dimension is not statistically significant at the 0.95 confidence interval.
Compared with the black population of Georgia, women on welfare have a statistically significant higher average value on the health dimen-
Table 3 . Average HDI Values by Measure of Quality of Life and
Type of Population
Measure of
Quality of Life
Women on
Welfare
Human Development Index .604 (.031)
Health dimension
Education dimension
.827 (.046)
.390 (.032)
Standard-of-living dimension .594 (.061)
Note : Standard deviations are in parentheses.
Type of Population
White
.735 (.022)
.890 (.021)
.411 (.031)
.903 (.034)
Black
.631 (.040)
.805 (.040)
.346 (.031)
.741 (.078)

Public Policy Research Series sion. However, they have a much lower average value on the standardof-living dimension. Although the black population has a slightly higher average value on the education dimension, the difference in the average values is not statistically significant.
Georgia’s white population has average scores on both the health dimension and the standard-of-living dimension that are higher than the average scores of the black population of the state. These scores are statistically significant. The white population also has a higher average score on education, but the difference is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
The second research question asks whether the quality of life of women on welfare differs by type of area (urban, suburban, or rural) in which they live. To answer this question, the HDI was calculated for women on welfare, the white population, and the black population in each county in
Georgia for which data were available (159 counties for the white population and 150 counties for the black population).
6 Then, the counties were classified using categories developed by Doug Bachtel, editor of the serial publication Georgia County Guide (Tifton: Rural Development
Center, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia). This classification is based on income, employment, education, population migration, and housing characteristics from 1980 to 1990. According to this classification, there are 7 urban, 36 suburban, 77 rural growth, and
39 rural decline counties (Risler et al. 1999), defined as follows:
Urban counties are part of metropolitan areas. They have cities with populations over 50,000 inside a county with a population of 100,000 or more. They typically include concentrations of both high-income and low-income households.
Suburban counties are also part of metropolitan areas because one-third or more of their residents commute to a core city to work. These areas are typically characterized as being predominately white and affluent, with many residents having high educational attainment and income levels.
Rural growth counties lie outside metropolitan areas. They gained population from 1980 to 1990. These counties are located across Georgia but tend to be concentrated in the northern section of the state.
Rural decline counties are counties outside metropolitan areas that are characterized by long-term population loss, lack of employment opportunities, and low levels of educational attainment. These counties often suffer from out-migration.
10

Quality of Life of Single Mothers on Welfare in Georgia
Using these classifications, the average HDI was calculated for women on welfare, the white population, and the black population for the counties in each category (see Table 4). Women on welfare have the highest average quality of life (i.e., highest HDI values) in suburban counties and the lowest in rural decline counties, although their quality of life in rural decline counties was not significantly worse than in urban counties. The pattern is the same for the black population but not the white population, for which urban areas have the highest average HDI values. However, there was no statistical significance between the HDI in urban and suburban areas for the white population. The white population scored higher than both women on welfare and the black population on every dimension of the HDI within each type of county. The greatest disparities can be observed in the standard-of-living dimension of the population groups across types of counties.
Although suburban counties seem to offer a better quality of life for women on welfare, only 19 percent (10,172) of all women on welfare in Georgia (53,323) in the year 2000 lived in this kind of county, while roughly 43 percent lived in urban counties. The remaining 38 percent lived in rural counties; 26 percent lived in rural growth counties, and 11 percent lived in rural decline counties. Thus, 54 percent of women on welfare live in the worst two areas in terms of quality of life: rural decline and urban counties.
Table 5 presents the differences in HDI dimensions for women on welfare by type of county. Women on welfare who live in suburban counties have higher average scores on the health and standard-of-living dimensions than do those who live in other types of counties. The average score on standard of living in rural decline counties is substantially below scores for the same dimension in other types of counties. Likewise, the standard-of-living scores are substantially lower than those for the health dimension.
Statistically significant differences were found among types of counties on the health and standard-of-living dimensions but not on the edu-
Table 4 . Average HDI Values by Type of Population and County
Type of Population Urban
Type of County
Suburban Rural Growth Rural Decline
Women on welfare .594 (.012) .629 (.037) .603 (.027) .584 (.025)
White population .762 (.016) .754 (.023) .726 (.017) .728 (.020)
Black population .642 (.013) .668 (.040) .629 (.034) .601 (.025)
Note : Standard deviations are in parentheses.
11

Public Policy Research Series
Table 5 . Average HDI Values by Type of County and HDI Dimension
Type of County
Urban
Health
.806 (.013)
Suburban .849 (.041)
Rural growth
Rural decline
.828 (.046)
.809 (.045)
Note : Standard deviations are in parentheses.
HDI Dimension
Education Standard of Living
.388 (.020) .588 (.022)
.388 (.033)
.388 (.032)
.397 (.033)
.649 (.060)
.594 (.049)
.546 (.043) cation dimension for women on welfare. Moreover, the health dimension is significantly higher for women on welfare in rural growth counties than in urban counties, and the standard-of-living dimension in urban counties is significantly higher than in rural decline counties. No statistically significant difference was found in the health dimension between suburban and rural growth counties or between urban and rural decline counties, although the score was slightly higher in rural decline counties.
County rankings on the HDI, individual dimensions of the HDI, and median household income do not necessarily correlate. For example, some counties rank high on the health dimension but rank low on standard of living and income. Some counties with high rankings on standard of living have low rankings on health and/or education. In other words, higher levels of income and standard of living do not necessarily imply an equal position in health, education, or quality of life. It is also possible to achieve better positions in health, education, and quality of life despite lower positions in income and standard of living. For a complete list of the HDI and HDI dimensions of each county, as well as the ranking of each county for women on welfare and the black and white populations, see the appendix.
Tables 6 and 7 present the highest-ranking 10 and lowest-ranking 10 counties in terms of quality of life (according to HDI values) for women on welfare, the white population, and the black population.
Table 8 shows the highest-ranking 10 counties for women on welfare and their corresponding rank on the HDI dimensions and on median household income, as well as the percentage of black population within each county as of 1990.
All of the counties included in the lowest-ranking 10 for each group
(black, white, and women on welfare) are rural decline or rural growth areas (see the appendix). The lowest-ranking 10 counties for women
12

Quality of Life of Single Mothers on Welfare in Georgia
Table 6. Highest-Ranking 10 Counties for Women on Welfare,
White Population, and Black Population
9
10
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
HDI Rank Women on Welfare
Towns
Fayette
Lumpkin
Forsyth
Douglas
Cherokee
Oconee
Gwinnett
Habersham
Catoosa
White Population
DeKalb
Fulton
Fayette
Cobb
Gwinnett
Columbia
Oconee
Rockdale
Houston
Chattahoochee
Black Population
Lumpkin
Gwinnett
Fayette
Clayton
Cobb
DeKalb
Banks
Cherokee
Douglas
Oconee
Table 7. Lowest-Ranking 10 Counties for Women on Welfare,
White Population, and Black Population
HDI Rank Women on Welfare White Population HDI Rank Black Population
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
Coffee
Randolph
Atkinson
Johnson
Colquitt
Lanier
Worth
Burke
Turner
Quitman
Emanuel
Meriwether
Glascock
Fannin
Chattooga
Heard
Atkinson
Treutlen
Lanier
Clinch
N = 159 counties for women on welfare and white population.
N = 150 counties for black population.
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
Early
Worth
Crisp
Bacon
Clay
Webster
Colquitt
Randolph
Turner
Quitman on welfare are equally divided between rural growth and rural decline counties. Nevertheless, the statistical analysis shows that the quality of life of women on welfare is significantly worse in rural decline counties than in rural growth counties, and no significant difference was found between the quality of life of women on welfare in rural decline and urban counties. Table 9 presents the lowest-ranking 10 counties for women on welfare and their corresponding rank on the HDI dimensions and on median household income, as well as the percentage of black population within each county as of 1990.
Five of the 10 counties rank among the worst in terms of quality of life for both women on welfare and blacks (Colquitt, Quitman, Randolph,
Turner, and Worth). Also among the worst counties for women on welfare are Atkinson, Burke, Coffee, Johnson, and Lanier. Bacon, Clay, Crisp,
13

Public Policy Research Series
Table 8. Highest-Ranking 10 Counties for Women on Welfare, by Demographic Variable
County
Type of HDI
County Rank
Towns rural growth
1
Fayette
Lumpkin suburban 2 rural growth
3
Forsyth suburban 4
Douglas suburban 5
Cherokee suburban 6
Oconee suburban 7
Gwinnetts uburban
Habersham rural growth
8
9
Catoosa suburban 10 a Based on 2000 U.S. census.
67
6
10
26
18
12
51
5
3
Standard- Household Population
Health Education of-Living Income in County
Rank Rank Rank
Percent
Median Black
Rank a (1990)
20 11 8 2 0.0
2
62
131
20
73
57
46
104
145
2
16
1
7
5
19
3
24
17
133
1
33
72
131
25
89
126
86
5.4
1.6
0.0
7.9
1.9
7.5
5.2
5.6
0.8
Early, and Webster Counties are among the worst for the black population.
In all counties except Bacon County, the percentage of the black population was 24 percent or more of the total county population, which was near and above the total average black population in the entire state of Georgia in 1990 (27 percent). The quality of life of both the black population and women on welfare tends to be worse the greater the percentage of the black population in a given county. This finding is congruent with Agostini and Richardson’s study of quality of life in 25 U.S. cities, which found that “the percentage of the city population that is African-American and the percentage of the population that engaged in blue collar occupations appear to negatively influence the city HDI” (1997, 37). The percentage of county population that is black does not seem to have the same effect among the lowest-ranking 10 counties of the white population.
Seven of the highest-ranking 10 counties for women on welfare are suburban counties, and 3 are rural growth counties. Six of the 10 counties
(Cherokee, Douglas, Fayette, Gwinnett, Lumpkin, and Oconee) have the best quality of life for both the black population and women on welfare. For these primarily suburban counties (all except Lumpkin), as for the other 4 highest-ranking counties (Forsyth, Catoosa, Habersham, and Towns), 7 the black population was less than 8 percent of the entire county population as of 1990.
14

Quality of Life of Single Mothers on Welfare in Georgia
Table 9. Lowest-Ranking 10 Counties for Women on Welfare, by Demographic Variable
County
County
Type of HDI
County Rank
Coffee rural growth
Randolph rural decline
Atkinson rural growth
Johnson rural decline
Colquitt rural growth
Lanier
Worth
Burke
Turner rural decline rural growth rural growth rural decline
Quitman rural decline a Based on 2000 U.S. census.
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
137
151
116
124
145
158
Standard- Household Population
Health Education of-Living Income in County
Rank Rank Rank
Percent
Median Black
Rank a (1990)
131 146 121 134 25.4
143
140
146
78
136
159
151
131
82
147
99
52
57.9
26.7
34.1
137
112
134
143
123
58
141
146
153
150
157
159
64
78
107
42
122
141
24.2
26.6
30.6
52.3
40.6
50.1
For the black population, 4 of the 10 highest-ranking counties in terms of quality of life were Banks, Cobb, Clayton, and DeKalb. Banks and Cobb also had black populations of less than 8 percent, although it was 23.8 percent in Clayton County and 42.2 percent in DeKalb County.
Overall, 8 of the 10 highest-ranking counties for the black population had less than 8 percent black population.
Within the white population, 4 of the 10 highest-ranking counties were the same as for the black population and women on welfare, with black populations of less than 8 percent (DeKalb, Fayette, Gwinnett, and Oconee). In the other 6 counties (Chattahoochee, Cobb, Columbia,
Fulton, Houston, and Rockdale), there was no clear pattern in the percentage of the black population. Three counties had 11 percent or less,
2 had between 20 percent and 31 percent, and 1 had over 40 percent.
However, of the highest-ranking 10 counties for whites, 7 had a black population of 11 percent or less.
15

T his study found that the quality of life as measured by the HDI is lower for women on welfare than for the white population and the black population in Georgia. This study identified a gap in the quality of life between women on welfare and the black and white populations in Georgia. Significant differences in the quality of life and in two of the three dimensions of the HDI (i.e., health and standard of living) were found across the three groups. No significant differences were found in the education dimension of the HDI. The health of women on welfare is significantly better than that of the entire black population in Georgia, though not better than that of the white population.
The quality of life of women on welfare differs by type of county.
Women on welfare and the black population have higher quality-of-life scores in suburban counties than in the other types of counties. Seven of the highest-ranking 10 counties for women on welfare are suburban counties. However, only 19 percent of women on welfare in the year
2000 were living in suburban counties. Additionally, the highest-ranking
10 counties have small black populations (much less than the percentage of blacks in the state).
The counties in which women on welfare have the highest qualityof-life scores are as follows: Towns, Fayette, Lumpkin, Forsyth, Douglas, Cherokee, Oconee, Gwinnett, Habersham, and Catoosa. Of these,
Towns, Lumpkin, and Habersham are rural growth counties, and the others are suburban.
Women on welfare have the lowest average quality of life (i.e., lowest HDI value) in rural decline and urban counties. In the year
2000, 54 percent of all women on welfare were living in these types of counties. Rural decline counties make up half of the lowest-ranking 10 counties for women on welfare. One characteristic of rural decline counties is that they have a percentage of black population that is much greater than the percentage of black population in the state.
The lowest quality-of-life scores for women on welfare were in Coffee,
Randolph, Atkinson, Johnson, Colquitt, Lanier, Worth, Burke, Turner, and Quitman Counties. All of these counties are classified as rural decline counties.
This study also determined that the health dimension of the HDI for women on welfare has a higher score than the two other dimensions
(i.e., education and standard of living). This outcome may be the result of this population’s eligibility for medical services under Medicaid.

Quality of Life of Single Mothers on Welfare in Georgia
In terms of differences per county classification, there were no significant differences in women’s health between suburban and rural growth counties, but the health of women on welfare in rural growth areas was significantly better than in urban and rural decline counties.
The health status of women in rural growth counties might be better than in urban areas due to two combined factors. First, there are simply many more women on welfare in urban counties than in rural growth counties (or in any other area). Second, because this number is greater in urban counties, the effect of the infant mortality rate and maternal mortality ratio is greater in urban counties. The standard-of-living dimension may explain the difference in health status of women on welfare in rural growth and rural decline counties. Because the income of women on welfare is approximately the same across counties, the incidence of poverty (see Table 1) in rural decline counties may account for infant and maternal mortality, suggesting the intimate connection of the dimensions of the HDI.
It is important to remember that the concept of human development goes beyond the indicators and dimensions of the HDI, but they are an invaluable tool to make public the racial and gender inequalities of a given society. In this study, the HDI allowed identification of inequalities across and within the black and white populations and women on welfare in Georgia.
17

1. This exception allows states to waive certain work requirements, enforces child support, and increases services to recipients (Sachs 1999).
2. The TANF program was scheduled to end on September 30, 2002, unless reauthorized by the U.S. government. Since then, Congress has approved several short-term extensions for TANF and child care block grants (Fremstad and Parrot 2004). The latest extension, from October 1, 2004, to March
31, 2005, was approved on September 30, 2004. Therefore, new legislation reauthorizing TANF is needed prior to March 31, 2005 (Finance Project
Information 2005).
3. This measure is the number of students enrolled in primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education, regardless of age, as a percentage of official school age for the three levels.
4. The shortcomings of this study stem from two sources. First, the data for the Georgia population by race (black/white) and county were from 1990, the latest available data at the time of the study. The data for women on welfare were from the year 2000, when more detailed information about women on welfare was available by race at the county level. Some of the differences found between the three population groups (i.e., women on welfare, black population, and white population) may be because of this time gap. Nevertheless, considering that the indicators of the education and health dimensions change very slowly over time in industrialized nations, it is expected that possible differences in these dimensions because of the time gap would not be significant. Additionally, if the standard-of-living dimension scores for the black and white populations were significantly better using data from later years rather than 1990 data, which is possible because of the economic boom in the U.S. during the mid 1990s, the findings would show an even greater inequality in this dimension, and thus in the overall HDI score, between the three population groups. The second source of possible shortcomings stems from those of the HDI itself, which are beyond the scope of this paper. The HDI has received criticism from several scholars and researchers, which has contributed to refinements and improvements of the index (details may be found at www.undp.org/hdro).
However, despite the criticism, Ivanova, Arcelus, and Srinivasan (1999, 157) affirm that the HDI “is the most widely used yardstick of human development.” Likewise, its indicators are less misleading than income per capita, and any increase in any human indicator benefits the entire community, unlike increases in income alone (Streeten,1993).
5. Statistical significance of the differences of the means was tested using independent sample t tests with a 0.95 confidence interval.
6. Because of small black population counts (i.e., less than 1 percent from the mid-1980s to 1990), quality of life for the black population was not measured in 9 of the 159 Georgia counties. These counties are Dade, Dawson,
Fannin, Forsyth, Gilmer, Murray, Rabun, Towns, and Union.
7. Towns County was one of the nine counties not included in the study for the black population.

Abramovitz, M. 2000. Under attack: Fighting back. Women and welfare in the
United States . New York: Monthly Review Press.
Agostini, S. J., and S. J. Richardson. 1997. A human development index for
U.S. cities: Methodological issues and preliminary findings. Real Estate
Economics 25:13–41.
Doraid, M. 1997. Analytical tools for human development. www.undp.org/ hdro/anatools.htm.
Eitzen, D. S., and M. Baca Zinn. 2000. The missing safety net and families:
A progressive critique of the new welfare legislation.
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 27:53–72.
Finance Project Information. 2005. TANF reauthorization. www.finance projectinfo.org/TANF/default.asp.
Fremstad, S., and S. Parrot. 2004. The Senate Finance Committee’s TANF reauthorization bill. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. May 12. www.cbpp.org/9-9-03tanf.htm.
Gilbert, N. 1998. From service to social control: Implications of welfare reform for professional practice in the United States. European Journal of Social Work 1:101–8.
Ginsberg, L. 1999. Understanding social problems, policies and programs . 3rd ed. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Ivanova, I., F. J. Arcelus, and G. Srinivasan. 1999. An assessment of the measurement properties of the human development index. Social Indicators
Research 46:157–79.
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). 1998. U.S. decennial life tables for 1989–91. www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/lftbls/decenn/
1991-89.htm.
—————. 2001. Health, U.S. Urban and rural health chart book . Hyattsville,
MD: NCHS.
Population Reference Bureau. 2002. Women of our world data sheet. www.prb.org/template.cfm?section=PRB&template=/content/content groups/datasheets/2002_women_of_our_world.htm.
Reese, E. 2001. The politics of motherhood: The restriction of poor mothers’ welfare rights in the United States, 1949–1960. Social Politics
18:65–112.
Risler, E., L. Nackerud, C. Larrison, R. Rdesinski, R. Glover, and L. Lane-
Crea. 1999. The Georgia Welfare Reform Research Project. The remaining TANF recipients: A research based profile. Report #2. Athens:
School of Social Work, University of Georgia.
Sachs, H. 1999. Domestic violence as a barrier to women’s economic selfsufficiency. www.welfareinfo.org/domesticviolence.htm.
Streeten, P. 1993. Human development: The debate about the index. International Social Science Journal 143: 25–37.

Public Policy Research Series
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 1990–2001. Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press. www.undp.org.
—————. Human development report. Technical notes. http://www.undp.
org/hdro.
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 2002. Glossary of selected terms. www.unfpa.org/mothers/terms.htm.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. Poverty thresholds: 1990. www.census.
gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh90.html.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 2000. Characteristics and financial circumstances of
TANF recipients. Fiscal year 2001. Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) Program. www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/
FY2001/characteristics.htm.
World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Reduction of maternal mortality.
A joint WHO/UNFPA/UNICEF/World Bank statement. www.who.int/ reproductive_health/publications/reduction_of_maternal_mortality/ reduction_of_maternal_mortality_contents/htm.
Wyn, R., B. Solís, V. D. Ojeda, and N. Pourat. 2001. Falling through the cracks: Health insurance coverage of low-income women . Menlo Park, CA:
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
20

Quality of Life of Single Mothers on Welfare in Georgia
Appendix. Ranking of Georgia Counties for Women on Welfare
County
Appling
Atkinson
Bacon
Baker
Baldwin
Banks
Barrow
Bartow
Ben Hill
Berrien
Bibb
Bleckley
Brantley
Brooks
Bryan
Bulloch
Burke
Butts
Calhoun
Camden
Candler
Carroll
Catoosa
Charlton
Chatham
Chattahoochee
Chattooga
Cherokee
Clarke
Clay
Clayton
Clinch
Cobb
Coffee
Colquitt
Columbia
Cook
Coweta
Crawford
Crisp
Median
Household
HDI Rank Income Rank
136
60
108
27
59
92
41
80
157
29
51
95
152
123
40
74
14
56
28
21
125
11
150
154
13
57
115
54
6
100
127
107
45
114
135
70
61
38
10
81
61
65
76
3
71
11
77
91
42
23
4
30
146
145
101
51
99
15
41
48
136
138
86
110
47
120
122
134
64
82
35
96
157
131
53
38
40
125
88
12
Health
Rank
126
40
136
60
2
68
28
78
124
102
50
98
140
75
72
141
1
34
37
59
132
27
3
19
64
44
73
131
137
32
111
57
22
18
79
135
105
53
155
108
Education
Rank
113
128
77
7
158
93
56
45
143
61
10
22
136
68
9
59
124
154
122
80
3
125
145
86
36
118
32
146
137
28
27
72
139
73
130
55
107
69
14
108
Standard- of-Living
Rank
114
55
86
45
104
93
77
100
150
18
101
109
131
147
74
47
25
37
14
83
92
39
17
142
11
145
4
121
141
15
66
138
60
5
70
127
88
42
105
135
Type of
County rural growth rural growth rural growth rural decline rural growth rural growth suburban suburban rural growth rural growth urban rural decline rural growth rural growth suburban rural growth rural growth rural growth rural decline rural growth rural growth suburban suburban rural growth urban suburban rural growth suburban urban rural decline suburban rural decline suburban rural growth rural growth suburban rural growth suburban rural growth rural growth
21

Public Policy Research Series
Appendix. Ranking of Georgia Counties for Women on Welfare ( continued )
County
Fayette
Floyd
Forsyth
Franklin
Fulton
Gilmer
Glascock
Glynn
Gordon
Grady
Greene
Gwinnett
Habersham
Hall
Hancock
Haralson
Harris
Hart
Heard
Henry
Houston
Irwin
Jackson
Jasper
Jeff Davis
Dade
Dawson
Decatur
DeKalb
Dodge
Dooly
Dougherty
Douglas
Early
Echols
Effingham
Elbert
Emanuel
Evans
Fannin
Median
Household
HDI Rank Income Rank
66
15
65
121
9
35
99
86
34
44
104
49
128
12
47
106
71
120
8
2
85
4
52
73
36
144
48
33
83
79
89
37
19
75
109
26
113
147
130
5
126
129
43
93
94
111
44
130
66
127
144
46
114
140
85
150
67
68
89
133
80
33
128
84
154
28
153
69
116
119
137
142
156
139
18
63
13
113
105
72
Health
Rank
5
42
101
138
36
70
92
31
112
134
154
96
123
4
61
157
120
118
51
67
147
10
56
94
14
117
38
23
109
80
62
17
130
114
106
26
9
21
93
69
Education
Rank
104
119
19
48
47
85
75
63
83
23
120
16
141
96
67
135
21
52
46
2
76
131
44
90
121
74
147
33
37
43
51
148
31
155
111
94
89
115
126
20
Standard- of-Living
Rank
24
22
118
63
49
32
61
9
46
129
31
62
85
36
40
20
80
122
3
2
41
1
69
67
53
154
21
81
94
99
107
29
90
149
123
7
64
84
91
10
22
Type of
County suburban rural growth suburban rural growth urban rural growth rural decline rural growth rural growth rural growth rural growth suburban rural growth rural growth rural decline rural growth suburban rural growth rural growth suburban suburban rural decline rural growth rural growth rural growth suburban rural growth rural growth suburban rural growth rural decline urban suburban rural decline rural growth suburban rural growth rural decline rural growth rural growth

Quality of Life of Single Mothers on Welfare in Georgia
Appendix. Ranking of Georgia Counties for Women on Welfare ( continued )
County
Marion
McDuffie
McIntosh
Meriwether
Miller
Mitchell
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Murray
Muscogee
Newton
Oconee
Oglethorpe
Paulding
Peach
Pickens
Pierce
Pike
Polk
Pulaski
Putnam
Quitman
Rabun
Randolph
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson
Jones
Lamar
Lanier
Laurens
Lee
Liberty
Lincoln
Long
Lowndes
Lumpkin
Macon
Madison
Median
Household
HDI Rank Income Rank
7
96
53
145
23
102
46
103
90
88
159
32
151
30
64
25
24
111
76
138
77
50
62
98
149
63
31
146
119
3
117
22
140
132
153
68
43
155
131
69
25
121
73
74
155
75
115
135
31
9
141
158
147
7
8
124
143
106
132
54
29
95
70
16
100
32
112
17
10
1
34
21
123
78
20
50
27
26
52
57
Health
Rank
12
30
25
144
7
103
49
149
71
125
158
13
143
87
48
41
16
128
77
156
43
85
91
142
81
84
39
121
99
6
76
54
119
86
146
122
97
151
152
129
Education
Rank
57
150
156
117
157
49
60
99
30
91
58
140
78
17
71
12
152
64
133
40
98
1
82
50
151
5
25
65
129
62
105
24
106
132
159
18
6
112
95
103
Standard- of-Living
Rank
19
79
35
130
27
103
51
44
116
50
159
38
151
33
89
43
12
96
48
125
98
111
57
71
144
115
52
155
95
16
110
23
133
128
82
76
68
146
102
30
Type of
County rural growth suburban rural growth rural growth rural decline rural decline rural growth rural growth rural growth rural growth urban suburban suburban rural growth suburban suburban suburban rural growth rural growth rural growth rural decline rural growth rural decline rural growth rural decline rural decline rural decline rural decline suburban rural growth rural decline rural growth suburban rural growth rural growth rural growth
Rural growth rural growth rural decline suburban
23

Public Policy Research Series
Appendix. Ranking of Georgia Counties for Women on Welfare ( continued )
County
Walker
Walton
Ware
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Wheeler
White
Whitfield
Wilcox
Wilkes
Wilkinson
Worth
Taylor
Telfair
Terrell
Thomas
Tift
Toombs
Towns
Treutlen
Troup
Turner
Twiggs
Union
Upson
Richmond
Rockdale
Schley
Screven
Seminole
Spalding
Stephens
Stewart
Sumter
Talbot
Taliaferro
Tattnall
Median
Household
HDI Rank Income Rank
39
105
94
133
110
134
139
137
17
16
122
58
55
156
141
148
129
116
142
124
1
67
72
158
143
20
42
91
84
82
126
78
18
97
87
118
93
101
112
118
98
36
6
56
102
148
103
151
159
104
39
19
107
14
92
2
45
87
37
24
90
117
22
109
58
97
60
152
108
149
55
83
62
5
49
79
59
81
Health
Rank
33
63
127
148
100
55
159
95
8
29
47
52
46
116
66
139
153
89
133
113
20
45
107
145
115
15
35
88
104
24
83
65
110
82
150
90
74
11
58
Education
Rank
138
153
42
38
102
144
15
26
127
54
35
81
92
134
114
142
53
100
109
97
11
34
87
123
110
8
116
41
101
79
13
84
39
88
4
66
29
149
70
Standard- of-Living
Rank
26
59
78
140
97
132
56
158
28
13
156
72
65
153
152
117
120
106
124
112
8
108
58
157
148
75
34
73
6
143
136
113
54
87
139
126
119
137
134
Type of
County suburban suburban rural decline rural decline rural growth rural growth rural decline rural decline rural growth rural growth rural decline rural decline rural decline rural growth urban suburban rural growth rural decline rural decline suburban rural growth rural decline rural growth rural decline rural decline rural decline rural decline rural decline rural decline rural growth rural growth rural growth rural growth rural decline rural growth rural decline suburban rural growth rural growth
24

The Carl Vinson Institute of Government has served as an integral part of the University of Georgia for over 75 years. A public service and outreach unit of the university, the Institute has as its chief objective assisting public officials in achieving better government and communities, particularly in
Georgia. To this end, it draws upon the resources and expertise of the university to offer an extensive program of governmental instruction, research and policy analysis, technical assistance, and publications.
Collectively, Vinson Institute staff design and conduct more than 850 programs a year in which more than 25,000 public officials participate. Technical assistance takes many forms, including evaluation of existing facilities and methods, provision of information for decision makers, and assistance in establishing new programs.
Research with wide general application is made available through the publications program. Publications include handbooks for specific governmental offices, compilations of Georgia and federal laws in specific areas, research studies on significant issues, classroom teaching materials, and reports on practical methods for improving governmental operations.
www.vinsoninstitute.org