1fAWAwx

work: in 2010, for example, unemployment insurance reduced poverty by
1.5 percentage points overall (Short 2012).
As noted, all of these estimates ignore the incentives to alter work
behavior created by government programs and are not definitive causal
estimates of the impact of the different programs on poverty. For example,
Social Security may affect market incomes by changing retirement and savings
incentives. Similarly, the estimates do not take into account the role
that UI plays in keeping people attached to the labor force, or that the EITC
plays in incentivizing additional hours of work and participation in the labor
force. The importance of these considerations is discussed below.
Even programs with a small impact on overall poverty rates may be
very effective in reducing poverty for certain populations or in alleviating
hardship without lifting individuals out of poverty. For example, SSI reduces
poverty rates by 1.1 percentage point overall, but this represents a large poverty
reduction concentrated among a relatively small number of low-income
recipients who are elderly or have a disability. TANF and General Assistance
(state programs which typically provide limited aid to very poor individuals
not qualifying for other aid) have only a small impact on the overall poverty
rate at 0.2 percentage points, as TANF benefits are generally insufficient to
bring people above the poverty level. However, by raising the incomes of
those in poverty these programs have a much greater impact on reducing
deep poverty.
Based on their historical estimates of SPM poverty rates, Wimer et al.
(2013) conduct similar analyses to those in Table 2 for each year since 1967
for different groups of safety net programs. Their results shed light on how
the safety net has changed over the past 50 years.
In aggregate, the antipoverty effects of three types of federal aid programs—support
through cash programs like Social Security, SSI, and TANF;
in-kind support like SNAP and housing assistance; and tax credits like the
EITC and CTC—all increase over time, driving down overall poverty rates.
The steady increase in the effect of each type of program masks some differences
across the populations served by each program. For the elderly, for
example, the trend is dominated by the growing real value of Social Security
payments steadily driving down the elderly poverty rate.
For children, however, there is a shift in importance of the safety net’s
different components. Figure 6-7 shows the effect of eliminating various
components of the safety net resources on the SPM poverty rate in three
years corresponding to recession-driven peaks of the poverty rate. In the
early 1970s recession, AFDC, and food stamps (now known as Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP) to a lesser extent, played the most
important role in alleviating childhood poverty; and the EITC had not yet
The War On Poverty 50 Years Later: A Progress Report | 247