Excluding the Poor: State-Level Disparities in Safety Net Program Access

Background.   State-level differences in safety net programs raise questions about equity and social inclusion.  Researchers have investigated both the sources of state policy disparities and their effects.  Studies testing a Racial Classification Model of social policy (Soss, et al., 2008) have found that states with relatively larger African-American populations have comparatively less generous safety net programs and more paternalistic program rules (Soss, et al., 2012).  Moreover, studies testing theories of policy feedback (Pierson, 1993) have found that safety net program participants in states with more paternalistic rules experience less social inclusion and civic participation (Burch, et al., 2010). 

Generosity and paternalism are important aspects of policy disparities, but states also vary considerably in the income thresholds that enable access to safety net programs.  This study builds on past studies of state-level safety net disparities by examining safety net access.  Consistent with the Racial Classification Model, we expect (1) less accessible safety net programs in states with relatively larger African-American populations.  Consistent with policy feedback theories, we expect that (2) states with less accessible safety nets will demonstrate less social inclusion.

Methods.  Data from a range of publically-available sources were merged into a state-level dataset.  The dataset includes current indicators of program characteristics reflecting generosity/adequacy, paternalism, and access for seven safety net programs.  It also includes indicators of health, well-being, social inclusion, and state-level demographic and political characteristics.  Hypotheses were tested with hierarchical linear regression models. 

Findings.  Access to safety net programs varies considerably among states.  For example, the TANF income eligibility threshold for a family of three ranges from 17% of the federal poverty line in Alabama to 95% of poverty in Hawaii.  Similarly, the Medicaid eligibility threshold for parents ranges from 13% of poverty in Alabama to 200% of poverty in Minnesota.  Regression models show that TANF eligibility thresholds are lower in states with relatively larger African-American populations, even when controlling for competing explanations, such as poverty rate and political orientation, indicating support for hypothesis 1.  Hypothesis 1 was not supported, however, in assessing access to Medicaid.  Regression models show that access to both TANF and Medicaid are associated with indicators of social inclusion, indicating support for hypothesis 2.  For example, even when controlling for competing explanations, states with less access to TANF and Medicaid also have higher imprisonment rates. 

Implications.  Previous studies have found that state-level safety net policies are less generous and more paternalistic in states with relatively larger African-American populations.  This study adds to past findings by showing that certain safety net policies are also harder to access in states with relatively larger African-American populations.  In addition, adding to growing evidence that policies have feedback effects on social participation and civic engagement, this study illustrates that access to safety net programs is associated with social inclusion.  Implications of these findings raise questions for future research.  For example, is social inclusion and civic participation hindered more by exposure to harsh, paternalistic rules of neo-liberal safety net programs, or by exclusion from safety net programs all together?