ECONOMIC

given to the problems of poverty during the 1960's may have informedthe poor of their legal rights.Undoubtedly, the AFDG program became more financially attractiveduring the period. The basic cash benefit level per recipient increased by85 percent from 1960 to 1970; this may be compared to the increase inmedian earnings (full-time, year-round) in the same years amounting to67 percent for men and 63 percent for women. In addition, AFDC familieswere made automatically eligible for many in-kind benefits which were introducedor expanded in this period. According to estimates, by 1971 virtuallyall AFDC families were eligible for medicaid, 68 percent actually participatedin the food stamp or food distribution program, 59 percent benefitedfrom the Federal school lunch program, and 13 percent from subsidizedhousing. In 1972 a family in New York City consisting of three childrenand a mother who did not work, which received all of the benefits listedabove, would have received benefits which cost the government $5,912,of which $3,756 was cash income. Benefits vary widely, however, and inAtlanta the value of the same package of benefits for the same familywould have been $3,606, of which $1,788 would be cash income. Theseamounts do not include the value of other benefits received, such as childcare and manpower training.The recipients may not, of course, value the various in-kind benefits attheir actual cost. Benefits such as food stamps are similar to cash, and otherbenefits may subsidize basic goods and services. The value the recipientsplace on some programs, such as medicaid, would be more difficult toevaluate.As the AFDC program with its related benefits became more generous,more people may have decided that the return was worth the difficultiesand possible humiliation of applying. Much more study is needed before allthe factors underlying the increase in the AFDC case load are understood.AFDC and Family Formation and StabilityAnother issue of social importance is how the increase in AFDC benefitsaffects the formation of female-headed families. One recent study ofwhether higher levels of stipends in AFDC did result in a higher rate offemale headship used multivariate analysis to control for the effect of malewages and other relevant causal factors. The finding for 1960 was that acrossmetropolitan areas, holding constant the male wage, a 10 percent higherAFDC stipend in an area was associated with a nearly 4 percent higher rateof female headship. Holding constant the AFDC stipend, an increase in themale wage was associated with a decline in female headships. The analysiswas duplicated for 1970 with similar findings, although the relationshipswere somewhat weaker. By 1970, however, in-kind benefits would haveformed a much larger unmeasured addition to the stipend; results for thatyear may consequently be less reliable.From 1960 to 1970 women with children became more likely to headfamilies. The proportion increased from 6 to 8 percent for white women170