Show simple item record

A Review of U.S. Federal and State Means-Tested Programs

dc.contributor.authorMoffitt, Robert
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-22T13:30:52Z
dc.date.available2018-03-22T13:30:52Z
dc.date.issued2018-02
dc.identifier.citationMoffitt, Robert. 2018. “A Review of U.S. Federal and State Means-Tested Programs,” Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Retirement Research Center (MRRC) Working Paper, WP 2018-376. http://mrrc.isr.umich.edu/wp376/en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/142798
dc.description.abstractThis report presents a review of the major U.S. federal and state means-tested programs, including a review of how they operate, common features, and rules governing eligibility. The review covers the nature of the target recipient population, the nature of the benefits (cash or in-kind), whether the program is an entitlement, as well as financial and nonfinancial eligibility rules and benefit determination. Each of the features is compared to that of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The review reveals that SSI has many common features with other transfer programs, and that many other differences follow naturally from its particular goals and aims. However, large differences between SSI and other programs exist in financial eligibility rules. The current upper income limits for SSI are in the approximate range of 75 to 80 percent of the poverty line for single and married-couple recipients, respectively, below the 100- to 130-percent of the poverty line income limits for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the 130- to 185-percent limits for school food programs, the 185 percent limits for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the 138-percent limits for Medicaid, and the 100-percent limits for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Another significant difference is in resource and asset tests in SSI, which have been held constant in nominal dollars since 1989 and hence have been becoming more restrictive in real terms over time. Most other transfer programs have been moving in the opposite direction, reducing the restrictiveness of their asset tests, exempting additional items from countable assets, and in many cases eliminating asset tests entirely.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSocial Security Administration, RRC08098401-09, R-UM17-Q1en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherMichigan Retirement Research Center, University of Michigan, P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48104en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesWP 2018-376en_US
dc.subjectmeans testing, federal program, state program, eligibility, Supplemental Security Incomeen_US
dc.titleA Review of U.S. Federal and State Means-Tested Programsen_US
dc.title.alternativeWP 2018-376en_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPopulation and Demography
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciences
dc.contributor.affiliationotherJohns Hopkins Universityen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampusAnn Arboren_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142798/1/wp376.pdf
dc.description.filedescriptionDescription of wp376.pdf : Working paper
dc.owningcollnameRetirement and Disability Research Center, Michigan (MRDRC)


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.