On the assumption that poor people migrate to obtain better welfare benefits, the magnet hypothesis predicts that a state's poverty rate increases when its welfare benefit rises faster than benefits in surrounding states. The benefit competition hypothesis proposes that states lower welfare benefits to avoid attracting the poor from neighboring states. Previous investigations, which yield support for these propositions, suffer from weaknesses in model specification and methodology. We correct these deficiencies in a simultaneous equation model including a state's poverty rate and its benefit level for AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) as endogenous variables. We estimate the model using pooled annual data for the American states from 1960 to 1990, and find that a state's poverty rate does not jump significantly when its welfare payments outpace benefits in neighboring states. Neither is there any evidence of vigorous benefit competition among states. States respond to decreases in neighboring states.

Graph and download economic data for Income Before Taxes: Public Assistance, Supplemental Security Income, SNAP by Race: Black or African American (CXUWELFARELB0905M) from 1984 to 2023 about supplements, assistance, social assistance, public, SNAP, food stamps, African-American, tax, food, income, and USA.

In the 3 years to March 2021, white British families were the most likely to receive a type of state support.

Stata dataset and do file for all analysis tables and figures presented in manuscript, including appendices. (Appendix tables displaying descriptive statistics were created manually.)

This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. It was fielded January 11-15, 2001, just prior to the end of the Bill Clinton presidency. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President Bill Clinton and his handling of the economy, foreign affairs, race relations, the welfare system, crime, and the health care system. A series of questions focused on Clinton and his presidency, including whether Clinton was honest and trustworthy, possessed high personal moral and ethical standards, understood the problems of the American people, had kept the economy strong, had been a strong leader, how he would go down in history, whether the House of Representatives was right to impeach him, and whether he should be charged with a crime for giving false testimony in 1999 regarding his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Respondents were asked which of the following issues should be given the highest priority by incoming president George W. Bush and Congress: maintaining a strong economy, protecting the Social Security system, holding down the costs of health care/health insurance, keeping the federal budget balanced, reducing the use of illegal drugs, reforming campaign finance laws, reducing political partisanship in Washington, DC, raising pay and benefits for military personnel, improving opportunities for women and minorities, cutting taxes, improving education, expanding health care coverage, helping the elderly pay for prescription drugs, protecting the environment, upgrading military systems and equipment, banning partial-birth abortions, establishing uniform standards for presidential elections, and improving race relations. A series of questions focused on the incoming Bush administration. Respondent views were sought on Bush's nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general, Bush's nomination of Gale Norton for secretary of the interior, whether Bush was legitimately elected as president, whether Bush had a mandate to carry out his campaign promises, what type of president Bush would be, and Bush's handling of the presidential transition. Those queried were also asked whether they thought Bush would work for or against the following interest groups: labor unions, large corporations, the poor, the wealthy, the middle class, women's rights groups, the military, environmental groups, religious conservatives, Blacks or African-Americans, Hispanics, other racial and ethnic minorities, and white males. A series of questions on the economy covered whether the economy was headed toward a recession, respondent stock investments, whether stock investments were safe, whether the market would go up or down next year, whether changes in the stock market personally affected the respondent, and what type of tax cut they would prefer. Additional topics covered respondent views on homosexuals serving in the military, gun control laws, abortion, school voucher programs, the construction of a missile defense system, drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, energy conservation vs. finding new energy sources, preferential treatment of minorities and women, tobacco companies, and mad cow disease. Background information on respondents includes age, gender, political party, political orientation, voter participation history, education, race, Hispanic origin, labor union membership, household income, and whether the respondent ate beef.

This statistic shows the share families that have received income-related benefits in the United Kingdom (UK) in the period from 2015 to 2018, by ethnic group of household head. In this period, ** percent of the families with head of the family being black/African black/Caribbean or British black received some form of income-related benefit.

Graph and download economic data for Income Before Taxes: Public Assistance, Supplemental Security Income, SNAP by Race: Asian (CXUWELFARELB0904M) from 2003 to 2023 about supplements, assistance, asian, public, social assistance, SNAP, food stamps, tax, food, income, and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Income Before Taxes: Public Assistance, Supplemental Security Income, SNAP by Hispanic or Latino Origin: Not Hispanic or Latino: White and All Other Races, Not Including Black or African American (CXUWELFARELB1004M) from 2003 to 2023 about supplements, assistance, social assistance, public, SNAP, food stamps, tax, white, food, latino, hispanic, income, and USA.

What are the relative contributions of stereotypes about the race and deservingness of welfare recipients to Americans’ opinions on welfare? A recent study employing a conjoint-experimental method finds that Americans’ stereotypes of welfare recipients as undeserving drive negative attitudes towards welfare, while stereotypes of welfare recipients as Black have little effect. However, this finding may be produced by the measure of welfare attitudes that includes questions implicating deservingness. We implement a conceptual replication of that study using different measures of welfare policy opinions that directly ask respondents about spending, both on welfare generally and on specific welfare programs. We show that when support for welfare is measured using the spending questions, stereotypes about race are significantly associated with opposition to welfare. These results have important implications for the debate on Americans’ opposition to welfare programs, as well as for the measurement of policy opinions in surveys.

This dataset includes the ethnicity of applicants for Insurance Affordability Programs (IAPs) who identified their ethnicity as Hispanic with the ethnic origin as Guatemalan, Mexican/Mexican American/Chicano, Other, Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, Mixed, or Cuban, Hispanic with ethnic origin not reported, not Hispanic, or ethnicity not reported by reporting period. The ethnicity data is from the California Healthcare Eligibility, Enrollment and Retention System (CalHEERS) and includes data from applications submitted directly to CalHEERS, to Covered California, and to County Human Services Agencies through the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) eHIT interface. This dataset is part of public reporting requirements set forth by the California Welfare and Institutions Code 14102.5.

In 2023, **** percent of Black people living in the United States were living below the poverty line, compared to *** percent of white people. That year, the total poverty rate in the U.S. across all races and ethnicities was **** percent. Poverty in the United States Single people in the United States making less than ****** U.S. dollars a year and families of four making less than ****** U.S. dollars a year are considered to be below the poverty line. Women and children are more likely to suffer from poverty, due to women staying home more often than men to take care of children, and women suffering from the gender wage gap. Not only are women and children more likely to be affected, racial minorities are as well due to the discrimination they face. Poverty data Despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the United States had the third highest poverty rate out of all OECD countries in 2019. However, the United States' poverty rate has been fluctuating since 1990, but has been decreasing since 2014. The average median household income in the U.S. has remained somewhat consistent since 1990, but has recently increased since 2014 until a slight decrease in 2020, potentially due to the pandemic. The state that had the highest number of people living below the poverty line in 2020 was California.

Graph and download economic data for Income Before Taxes: Social Security, Private & Government Retirement by Race: White and All Other Races, Not Including Black or African American (CXURETIRINCLB0903M) from 2003 to 2023 about social, retirement, social assistance, tax, white, government, private, income, and USA.

In 2023/24, 57 percent of households in Northern Ireland were receiving a type of state benefit, the highest in the United Kingdom in that reporting year. By comparison, 39 percent of households in London were receiving benefits, the lowest in the UK.

As of 2019, approximately 18 million South Africans vulnerable to poverty or in need of state support received social grants, relief assistance or social relief paid by the government. The largest group that received social grants were Black and Coloured South Africans.

The DSS Payment Demographic data set is made up of:

Selected DSS payment data by

• Geography: state/territory, electorate, postcode, LGA and SA2 (for 2015 onwards)

• Demographic: age, sex and Indigenous/non-Indigenous

• Duration on Payment (Working Age & Pensions)

• Duration on Income Support (Working Age, Carer payment & Disability Support Pension)

• Rate (Working Age & Pensions)

• Earnings (Working Age & Pensions)

• Age Pension assets data

• JobSeeker Payment and Youth Allowance (other) Principal Carers

• Activity Tested Recipients by Partial Capacity to Work (NSA,PPS & YAO)

• Exits within 3, 6 and 12 months (Newstart Allowance/JobSeeker Payment, Parenting Payment, Sickness Allowance & Youth Allowance)

• Disability Support Pension by medical condition

• Care Receiver by medical conditions

• Commonwealth Rent Assistance by Payment type and Income Unit type have been added from March 2017. For further information about Commonwealth Rent Assistance and Income Units see the Data Descriptions and Glossary included in the dataset.

From December 2022, the "DSS Expanded Benefit and Payment Recipient Demographics – quarterly data" publication has introduced expanded reporting populations for income support recipients. As a result, the reporting population for Jobseeker Payment and Special Benefit has changed to include recipients who are current but on zero rate of payment and those who are suspended from payment. The reporting population for ABSTUDY, Austudy, Parenting Payment and Youth Allowance has changed to include those who are suspended from payment. The expanded report will replace the standard report after June 2023.

Additional data for DSS Expanded Benefit and Payment Recipient Demographics – quarterly data includes:

• A new contents page to assist users locate the information within the spreadsheet

• Additional data for the ‘Suspended’ population in the ‘Payment by Rate’ tab to enable users to calculate the old reporting rules.

• Additional information on the Employment Earning by ‘Income Free Area’ tab.

From December 2022, Services Australia have implemented a change in the Centrelink payment system to recognise gender other than the sex assigned at birth or during infancy, or as a gender which is not exclusively male or female. To protect the privacy of individuals and comply with confidentialisation policy, persons identifying as ‘non-binary’ will initially be grouped with ‘females’ in the period immediately following implementation of this change. The Department will monitor the implications of this change and will publish the ‘non-binary’ gender category as soon as privacy and confidentialisation considerations allow.

Local Government Area has been updated to reflect the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) 2022 boundaries from June 2023.

Commonwealth Electorate Division has been updated to reflect the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) 2021 boundaries from June 2023.

SA2 has been updated to reflect the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) 2021 boundaries from June 2023.

From December 2021, the following are included in the report:

• selected payments by work capacity, by various demographic breakdowns

• rental type and homeownership

• Family Tax Benefit recipients and children by payment type

• Commonwealth Rent Assistance by proportion eligible for the maximum rate

• an age breakdown for Age Pension recipients

For further information, please see the Glossary.

From June 2021, data on the Paid Parental Leave Scheme is included yearly in June releases. This includes both Parental Leave Pay and Dad and Partner Pay, across multiple breakdowns. Please see Glossary for further information.

From March 2017 the DSS demographic dataset will include top 25 countries of birth. For further information see the glossary.

From March 2016 machine readable files containing the three geographic breakdowns have also been published for use in National Map, links to these datasets are below:

• Statistical Area 2 - SA2

• Commonwealth Electoral Division - CED

• Local Government Area - LGA

Pre June 2014 Quarter Data contains:

Selected DSS payment data by

• Geography: state/territory; electorate; postcode and LGA

• Demographic: age, sex and Indigenous/non-Indigenous

Note: JobSeeker Payment replaced Newstart Allowance and other working age payments from 20 March 2020, for further details see: https://www.dss.gov.au/benefits-payments/jobseeker-payment

For data on DSS payment demographics as at June 2013 or earlier, the department has published data which was produced annually. Data is provided by payment type containing timeseries’, state, gender, age range, and various other demographics. Links to these publications are below:

• Statistical Paper series

Concession card data in the March and June 2020 quarters have been re-stated to address an over-count in reported cardholder numbers.

28/06/2024 – The March 2024 and December 2023 reports were republished with updated data in the ‘Carer Receivers by Med Condition’ section, updates are exclusive to the ‘Care Receivers of Carer Payment recipients’ table, under ‘Intellectual / Learning’ and ‘Circulatory System’ conditions only.

The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program was a randomized housing experiment administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that gave low-income families living in high-poverty areas the chance to move to lower-poverty areas. This Restricted Access Dataset (RAD) includes data from the 3,273 adults interviewed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation and is comprised of variables analyzed for the article "Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults" that was published in the journal Science on September 21, 2012. The article focused on subjective well-being, physical and mental health, social networks, neighborhoods, housing, and economic self-sufficiency. Families were tracked from the baseline survey (1994-1998) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-2010) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families from five United States cities. Households were randomly assigned to one of three groups: The low-poverty voucher (LPV) group (also called the experimental group) received Section 8 rental assistance certificates or vouchers that they could use only in census tracts with 1990 poverty rates below 10 percent. The families received mobility counseling and help in leasing a new unit. One year after relocating, families could use their voucher to move again if they wished, without any special constraints on location.The traditional voucher (TRV) group (also called the Section 8 group) received regular Section 8 certificates or vouchers that they could use anywhere; these families received no special mobility counseling.The control group received no certificates or vouchers through MTO, but continued to be eligible for project-based housing assistance and other social programs and services to which they would otherwise be entitled.The dataset contains all outcomes and mediators analyzed for the Science article, as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis. Demographic information includes age, gender, race/ethnicity, employment status, and education level.

Rate of first entries into foster care per 1,000 children under age 18, by race/ethnicity. Rates represent a three-year average of data. First entries into foster care are unduplicated counts of children under the supervision of county welfare departments and exclude cases under the supervision of county probation departments, out-of-state agencies, state adoptions district offices, and Indian child welfare departments. LNE (Low Number Event) refers to data that have been suppressed because there were fewer than 20 children with first entries. N/A means that data are not available. Data Source: Needell, B., et al. (May 2014). Child Welfare Services Reports forCalifornia, U.C. Berkeley Center for Social Services Research. As cited on kidsdata.org, a program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health. Retrieved on May 31, 2015.

Number of children under age 21 in foster care as of July 1 of each year, by race/ethnicity. This is a point-in-time, unduplicated count of children under the supervision of county welfare departments and excludes cases under the supervision of county probation departments, out-of-state agencies, state adoptions district offices, and Indian child welfare departments. The total by race/ethnicity may not add up to total number of children in foster care due to missing values. U.S. totals reflect children in foster care as of Sept. 30 each year. N/A means that data are not available. Data Source: As cited on kidsdata.org, Needell, B., et al. (May 2014). Child Welfare Services Reports forCalifornia, U.C. Berkeley Center for Social Services Research; U.S. data come from Child Trends analysis of Adoption and Foster CareAnalysis and Reporting System data available through the National DataArchive on Child Abuse & Neglect, as cited on KIDS COUNT (May 2014). Retrieved on May 31, 2015.

This dataset includes the race of applicants for Insurance Affordability Programs (IAPs) who reported their race as American Indian and/or Alaska Native, Asian Indian, Black or African American, Chinese, Cambodian, Filipino, Guamanian or Chamorro, Hmong, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Mixed Race, Native Hawaiian, Other, Other Asian, Other Pacific Islander, Samoan, Vietnamese, or White by reporting period. The race data is from the California Healthcare Eligibility, Enrollment and Retention System (CalHEERS) and includes data from applications submitted directly to CalHEERS, to Covered California, and to County Human Services Agencies through the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) eHIT interface. Please note the reporting category Other Asian option on the CalHEERS application was removed in September 2017. This dataset is part of public reporting requirements set forth by the California Welfare and Institutions Code 14102.5.

Work and situation in life of the American population.

Topics: Current employment; time worked each week; hourly wage; frequency of unemployment; attitude to women working, government responsibility for older people and amount of unemployment benefit; possibility of individual planning for the future; expectations of educational opportunities of the children; occupational mobility; achievement motivation; education difference between the spouses; family size; attitudes to the extended family; regional mobility; savings account; assessment of condition of health; party preference.

Demography: party preference; age (classified); race; marital status; religious denomination; religiousness; school education; occupation; professional position; employment; head of household; economic area; housing situation; party inclination; party identification; city size; membership.