INEQUALITY ACROSS THE US
STATES
Geographic Inequality in Social Provision and Redistribution
Sarah K. Bruch - University of Iowa
Inequality Workshop
The Graduate Center, CUNY
June 5, 2015
Motivation
Leveraging variation but also normative concerns.
Subnational variation in social provision and redistribution is
a form of inequality.
State inequalities in social provision results in unacceptably
different social contracts for economically vulnerable families.
Why do we have subnational variation in
provision and redistribution?
Part of the answer is about policy design – the degree of
decentralization.
Unequal by Design: Social Provision in the US Welfare State
Key Dimensions of Safety Net Policies
Adequacy of benefits = what recipients receive on average.
Direct expenditures for recipient benefits
Program caseload or recipients
Adjusted for inflation (in constant $2012)
Adjusted for cost-of-living differences across states.
Value add of measure: vs. max benefit or aggregate spending
Key Dimensions of Safety Net Policies
Inclusiveness of receipt = proportion of potentially needy that
get assistance.
Program caseload or recipients
Potentially needy population
Potentially needy population estimated with the Annual Social and
Economic Supplement (March CPS).
Adjusted for cost of living differences across states.
Value add of measure: vs. caseloads
Defining the State-Level Safety Nets
Include programs in which states have some policymaking
authority, or financial or administrative responsibility.
Program Funding
• Partial/joint funding of programs & block grant structure
• Implication = Variation in availability and stability of funding
Program Administration
• Flexibility in administering programs
• Implication = Variation in outreach, application, and accessibility.
Policymaking Authority
• Authority to make rules regarding eligibility and benefits
• Implication = Variation in eligibility criteria and benefit levels.
State-Level Safety Net
11 programs that provide support for economically vulnerable
families with children.
CA: cash assistance (AFDC/TANF)
FS: food assistance (Food Stamps/SNAP)
HI: health insurance (Medicaid and SCHIP)
CS: child support (enforcement and collections)
CC: child care (subsidies – CCBG/CCDF and TANF)
ECE: early childhood education (Head Start and public pre-k)
UI: unemployment insurance
WA: work support (JOBS w/ AFDC and TANF work support)
SS: disability assistance (SSI for disabled children)
HS: housing assistance (Section 8)
ST: state income taxes (liability threshold and credits)
SNAPSHOT OF CURRENT
SOCIAL PROVISION
Adequacy of Safety Net Benefits (2013)
Average Yearly Benefit in Median State - 2013
8,000
10,000
$13,660
$7,529
2013 Poverty
thresholds:
2p/1k = $16,057
3p/2k = $18,769
4p/2k = $23,624
$7,224
6,000
$5,981 $6,153
4,000
$5,018
$3,962
$3,525
$2,934
2,000
$2,301
0
$0
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
WA
CC
HS
Inclusiveness of Safety Net Benefits (2013)
Proportion Potentially Needy Receiving Benefits in Median State - 2013
CA
.194
FS
1.21
CS
.819
UI
.428
SS
.7
ST
.453
EC
.206
HI
1.19
WA
.162
CC
.141
HS
.244
0
.5
1
1.5
INEQUALITY ACROSS STATES
SOCIAL PROVISION
Inequality in the Adequacy of Safety Net Benefits
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Adequacy of Social Provision - Extent of State Variation - 2013
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
CC
HS
Note: Colored box indicates IQR (25th & 75th percentiles), w/ median highlighted; the length of the whiskers are at 1.5 times
the IQR; values outside of that range are represented by dots.
Inequality in the Adequacy of Safety Net Benefits
10,000
Adequacy of Social Provision - Extent of State Variation - 2013
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
Cash Assistance
25th = $3,162
75th = $5,020
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
CC
HS
Note: Colored box indicates IQR (25th & 75th percentiles), w/ median highlighted; the length of the whiskers are at 1.5 times
the IQR; values outside of that range are represented by dots.
Inequality in the Adequacy of Safety Net Benefits
10,000
Adequacy of Social Provision - Extent of State Variation - 2013
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
Food Assistance
25th = $3,071
75th = $3,728
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
CC
HS
Note: Colored box indicates IQR (25th & 75th percentiles), w/ median highlighted; the length of the whiskers are at 1.5 times
the IQR; values outside of that range are represented by dots.
Inequality in the Adequacy of Safety Net Benefits
10,000
Adequacy of Social Provision - Extent of State Variation - 2013
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
Unempl. Ins.
25th = $4,131
75th = $5,758
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
CC
HS
Note: Colored box indicates IQR (25th & 75th percentiles), w/ median highlighted; the length of the whiskers are at 1.5 times
the IQR; values outside of that range are represented by dots.
Inequality in the Adequacy of Safety Net Benefits
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Adequacy of Social Provision - Extent of State Variation - 2013
0
State Prek/HS
25th = $6,124
75th = $8,143
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
CC
HS
Note: Colored box indicates IQR (25th & 75th percentiles), w/ median highlighted; the length of the whiskers are at 1.5 times
the IQR; values outside of that range are represented by dots.
Inequality in the Adequacy of Safety Net Benefits
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Adequacy of Social Provision - Extent of State Variation - 2013
0
Child Care
25th = $4,620
75th = $6,752
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
CC
HS
Note: Colored box indicates IQR (25th & 75th percentiles), w/ median highlighted; the length of the whiskers are at 1.5 times
the IQR; values outside of that range are represented by dots.
Inequality in the Inclusiveness of Safety Net Benefits
0
.5
1
1.5
Inclusiveness of Social Provision - Extent of State Variation - 2013
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
WA
CC
HS
Note: Colored box indicates IQR (25th & 75th percentiles), w/ median highlighted; the length of the whiskers are at 1.5 times
the IQR; values outside of that range are represented by dots.
Inequality in the Inclusiveness of Safety Net Benefits
.5
1
1.5
Inclusiveness of Social Provision - Extent of State Variation - 2013
0
Cash Assistance
25th = 0.10
75th = 0.25
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
WA
CC
HS
Note: Colored box indicates IQR (25th & 75th percentiles), w/ median highlighted; the length of the whiskers are at 1.5 times
the IQR; values outside of that range are represented by dots.
Inequality in the Inclusiveness of Safety Net Benefits
.5
1
1.5
Inclusiveness of Social Provision - Extent of State Variation - 2013
0
Unempl. Ins.
25th = 0.36
75th = 0.49
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
WA
CC
HS
Note: Colored box indicates IQR (25th & 75th percentiles), w/ median highlighted; the length of the whiskers are at 1.5 times
the IQR; values outside of that range are represented by dots.
Variation in the Inclusiveness of Safety Net Benefits
1
1.5
Inclusiveness of Social Provision - Extent of State Variation - 2013
0
.5
Child Care
25th = 0.11
75th = 0.21
CA
FS
CS
UI
SS
ST
EC
HI
WA
CC
HS
Note: Colored box indicates IQR (25th & 75th percentiles), w/ median highlighted; the length of the whiskers are at 1.5 times
the IQR; values outside of that range are represented by dots.
STATE CHANGE OVER TIME
SOCIAL PROVISION
State Change Over Time in Safety Net Benefits
Absolute Value Change in Cash Assistance Adequacy 1994 to 2013
AK
HI
VT
RI
MA
CA
MN
WI
WA
CT
MI
NH
NY
ME
ND
OR
IA
PA
KS
MT
UT
NM
NE
OH
SD
NJ
OK
CO
WY
IL
AZ
MO
ID
DE
NV
MD
IN
GA
WV
FL
VA
NC
KY
AR
SC
TN
LA
TX
AL
MS
2000
4000
6000
8000
Benefit Change 1994 to 2013
10000
State Change Over Time in Safety Net Benefits
Absolute Value Change in Food Assistance Adequacy 1994 to 2013
AK
HI
LA
KY
SD
TX
NM
AL
MS
WV
SC
IN
MO
AZ
GA
WY
OK
AR
OH
FL
ND
TN
MT
IL
DE
UT
KS
NC
IA
ID
CO
MI
WI
NE
NV
WA
RI
PA
OR
MD
ME
NJ
VA
CA
MN
NY
NH
MA
VT
CT
2500
3000
3500
Benefit Change 1994 to 2013
4000
4500
State Change Over Time in Safety Net Benefits
Change in Food Assistance Adequacy 1994 to 2004
HI
AK
LA
KY
SD
TX
NM
AL
MS
WV
SC
IN
MO
AZ
GA
WY
OK
AR
OH
FL
ND
TN
MT
IL
DE
UT
KS
NC
IA
ID
CO
MI
WI
NE
NV
WA
RI
PA
OR
MD
ME
NJ
VA
CA
MN
NY
NH
MA
VT
CT
States Ordered by 1994 Benefit Level
HI
AK
LA
KY
SD
TX
NM
AL
MS
WV
SC
IN
MO
AZ
GA
WY
OK
AR
OH
FL
ND
TN
MT
IL
DE
UT
KS
NC
IA
ID
CO
MI
WI
NE
NV
WA
RI
PA
OR
MD
ME
NJ
VA
CA
MN
NY
NH
MA
VT
CT
2000
Change in Food Assistance Adequacy 2004 to 2013
2500
3000
3500
4000
Benefit Change 1994 to 2004
4500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Benefit Change 2004 to 2013
4500
State Change Over Time in Safety Net Benefits
Absolute Value Change in Cash Assistance Inclusion 1994 to 2013
AK
RI
ME
OH
DE
MI
GA
WI
IA
MO
IL
CT
CA
MN
PA
MD
VT
NJ
HI
NC
MA
TN
WA
NY
CO
NE
WV
VA
FL
NV
NH
KY
ND
MT
UT
KS
AZ
IN
OR
WY
NM
LA
MS
OK
SC
TX
SD
AR
AL
ID
0
.2
.4
.6
Coverage Change 1994 to 2013
.8
State Change Over Time in Safety Net Benefits
Absolute Value Change in Food Assistance Inclusion 1994 to 2013
GA
ME
MO
NE
VT
CO
VA
TX
TN
WV
DE
RI
OH
MD
IA
LA
AL
MI
PA
MS
ND
MN
UT
NV
HI
AZ
AR
OK
NC
NJ
IL
WI
IN
OR
FL
AK
NM
KY
CA
MA
SC
WA
KS
MT
CT
WY
NY
NH
SD
ID
.6
.8
1
1.2
Coverage Change 1994 to 2013
1.4
1.6
State Change Over Time in Safety Net Benefits
Change in Food Assistance Inclusion 1994 to 2004
GA
ME
MO
NE
VT
CO
VA
TX
TN
WV
DE
RI
OH
MD
IA
LA
AL
MI
PA
MS
ND
MN
UT
NV
HI
AZ
AR
OK
NC
NJ
IL
WI
IN
OR
FL
AK
NM
KY
CA
MA
SC
WA
KS
MT
CT
WY
NY
NH
SD
ID
States Ordered by 1994 Coverage
GA
ME
MO
NE
VT
CO
VA
TX
TN
WV
DE
RI
OH
MD
IA
LA
AL
MI
PA
MS
ND
MN
UT
NV
HI
AZ
AR
OK
NC
NJ
IL
WI
IN
OR
FL
AK
NM
KY
CA
MA
SC
WA
KS
MT
CT
WY
NY
NH
SD
ID
.6
.8
1
1.2
1.4
Coverage Change 1994 to 2004
Change in Food Assistance Inclusion 2004 to 2013
1.6
.6
.8
1
1.2
1.4
Coverage Change 2004 to 2013
1.6
CURRENT SNAPSHOT
REDISTRIBUTION
Data
Annual Social and Economic Supplement (March CPS)
Household level income measures: adjusted for household
size (square root of hh size) inflation (CPI-U-RS), and cost of
living differences across states (BEA all items RPP).
Dollar figures reported are per equivalized person in the
household in 2012 dollars.
Household type: working-aged households (head age 18-64)
with children
Market Inequality and Disposable Inequality for HHs w/ Kids 2012
WY
IA
ND
UT
SD
NH
NE
MN
VT
KS
AK
CO
MD
WI
SC
DE
VA
ID
HI
OH
OR
PA
IN
TN
MT
MI
WV
NV
OK
NC
ME
KY
MA
CT
NJ
RI
AR
WA
AZ
FL
TX
MO
GA
AL
LA
MS
IL
NY
CA
NM
0
.1
.2
.3
Gini Coefficient
.4
.5
.3
.4
Market and Disposable Inequality for HHs w/ Kids 2012
NM
.2
WY
IL
TX
NY
FL
WA
AL
GA
NJ
LA
CT
AZMO
NVMA
RI
MS
AK VA IN
PA
TN
MI OK
NC
AR
ME
KY
CO
MD HI OHMT
WV
WI
DE
KS
NHNE VT SC ID OR
ND SD MN
UT
IA
CA
.3
.35
.4
.45
Market Inequality
.5
.55
Inequality Reduction among Working-Aged HHs w/ Kids 2012
NM
CA
NY
IL
MS
LA
AL
GA
MO
TX
FL
AZ
WA
AR
RI
NJ
CT
MA
KY
ME
NC
OK
NV
WV
MI
MT
TN
IN
PA
OR
OH
HI
ID
VA
DE
SC
WI
MD
CO
AK
KS
VT
MN
NE
NH
SD
UT
ND
IA
WY
Centralized
transfers
overall reduction
Decentralized transfers
State taxes
Federal taxes
.3
.35
.4
.45
Inequality Reduction
.5
.55
Market Relative Poverty and Disposable Relative Poverty for HHs w/ Kids 2012
ND
NH
WY
IA
NE
MN
SD
VA
UT
MD
CT
CO
WI
VT
PA
AK
MO
MA
ME
OH
IL
NJ
KS
WA
OK
MI
IN
HI
OR
ID
RI
AL
FL
TN
WV
GA
NC
SC
NV
TX
MT
DE
LA
AR
MS
AZ
KY
CA
NY
NM
0
.1
.2
Relative Poverty
.3
.4
.1
.2
.3
.4
Market and Disposable Relative Poverty for HHs w/ Kids 2012
-.1
0
ND
CA NY
NM
AZ
TXDE
AR KY
NV
LA
NJ HI
SC
FLTN
AL
GA
MS
IN
NC
MT
IL
WV
RI
MI
AK
WA
MA
ME
PAMO
OH OKOR
CT
ID
KS
VA MDCO WI
VT
NH NE
SUT
D
MN
WY
IA
.1
.2
.3
Market Relative Poverty
.4
Relative Poverty Reduction among Working-Aged HHs w/ Kids 2012
NM
NY
CA
KY
AZ
MS
AR
LA
DE
MT
TX
NV
SC
NC
GA
WV
TN
FL
AL
RI
ID
OR
HI
IN
MI
OK
WA
KS
NJ
IL
OH
ME
MA
MO
AK
PA
VT
WI
CO
CT
MD
UT
VA
SD
MN
NE
IA
WY
NH
ND
Centralized
transfers
overall reduction
Decentralized transfers
State taxes
Federal taxes
.1
.15
.2
.25
Relative Poverty Reduction
.3
.35
Absolute Poverty Reduction among Working-Aged HHs w/ Kids 2012
NM
MS
KY
LA
AR
TN
AL
WV
SC
AZ
GA
NC
MT
TX
NY
MI
CA
MO
OH
IN
RI
DE
NV
FL
OK
ID
KS
OR
ME
WI
IL
PA
MA
WA
AK
HI
NJ
SD
CO
NE
VT
VA
CT
MN
IA
MD
WY
UT
ND
NH
.05
.1
.15
.2
Absolute Poverty Reduction
.25
.3
Conclusions
Social provision in the US is inadequate in terms of benefit levels and
the inclusiveness, and that this varies substantially across states.
States start out and end up in different places in terms of levels of
poverty and inequality – and these in part reflect policy choices.
The decentralized structure of the safety net is one of most crucial and
least carefully studied structural features of the U.S. welfare state.
Social provision that is inadequate and unequal hampers our ability to
address high and rising levels of inequality, insecurity, and poverty.