X hits on this document

PDF document

Institute for American Values Institute for Marriage and Public Policy - page 33 / 44

107 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

33 / 44

Notes to Table A.1

The numbers at the beginning of each paragraph correspond to the sub-calculations listed in table A.1.

1. This calculation is adapted from a similar calculation by Harry Holzer and his colleagues (see endnote 37). Jens Ludwig estimates that federal, state, and local taxpayers spent $200 billion on the justice system—prisons, police, courts, etc.—in 2003 (see “The Costs of Crime” testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on September 19, 2006, http://judiciary.senate.gov/ testimony.cfm?id-2068&wit_id-5749). If taxpayer expenditures on the justice system increased at the rate of inflation indicated by the CPI-U, then taxpayers spent $222.8 billion on the justice system in 2007. Holzer and his colleagues use what they believe to be a conservative estimate that 24 percent of crime is due to childhood poverty. Combined with the estimate that 36.1 percent of childhood poverty is caused by family fragmentation, then the taxpayer cost of family fragmentation to the jus- tice system is $222.8 billion times 0.24 times 0.361, which equals approximately $19 billion. (In the tables, an asterisk denotes the multiplication function.)

2. We use FY 2005 data on TANF cash assistance expenditures that comes from the National Association of State Budget Officers FY 2005 State Expenditure Report (Washington, DC: NASBO, 2006). We did not inflate the expenditure data for inflation because TANF expenditures seem to be leveling off in recent years.

3. The expenditure on Food Stamps was retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd /fssummar.htm and excludes $2.7 billion in administrative costs. Thus, we assume that administrative

costs would not decrease

due to a caseload decline.

4.

The

FY

2006

expenditure

on

federal

housing

assistance

was

retrieved

from

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/budget/hud.pdf. In FY 2006, HUD spent about $23 bil- lion on homeless programs, rental assistance, and public housing. Thus, the calculation excludes expenditures on other housing programs such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. We did not inflate FY 2006 expenditure data for inflation because expenditures on housing programs have oscil- lated in the past few years.

5. FY 2005 Medicaid expenditure data comes from NASBO FY 2005 State Expenditure Report and includes federal and state expenditures. The FY 2005 expenditure for Medicaid was inflated using the CPI-U to make an estimate of FY 2007 expenditures. Since Medicaid expenditures tend to grow faster than the rate of inflation, this FY 2007 estimate is cautious. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2008 (see http://www.statehealthfacts.org/medicaid.jsp), 40 percent of Medicaid expenditures are for the disabled, while another 26 percent are for the elderly. Non-elderly adults and children receive 29 percent of Medicaid expenditures. (The uses of the remaining Medicaid expenditures are reportedly unknown.) For this analysis, we use the cautious assumption that family fragmentation leads to no Medicaid costs for the elderly or the disabled. Thus, only 29 percent of total Medicaid expenditures are potentially impacted by family fragmentation under this assumption.

6. FY 2006 federal and state expenditures on SCHIP were retrieved from the Kaiser Family Foundation website (see http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind-235&cat-4). Given the uncertainty surrounding SCHIP reauthorization, we did not inflate expenditures to 2007 dollars.

  • 7.

    An estimate of FY 2004 federal and state expenditures on the child welfare system came from

    • C.

      A. Scarcella et al., The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children (Washington, DC: Urban Institute,

  • 2006)

    . We inflated their FY 2004 estimate for 2007 dollars using the CPI-U. Scarcella and colleagues

label the following government programs as “child welfare” programs: services for children and fam- ilies to prevent abuse and neglect, family preservation services, child protective services, in-home serv- ices, out-of-home placements such as foster care, and adoption services.

8. Information on FY 2003 federal WIC expenditures came from the U.S. House Committee on Ways & Means Green Book (see http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmprints/green/index.html) and was esti- mated for FY 2007 using the CPI-U.

9. Information on FY 2003 federal LIHEAP expenditures came from the U.S. House Committee on Ways & Means Green Book (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmprints/green/index.html) and was estimated for FY 2007 using the CPI-U.

10. Information on FY 2003 federal Head Start expenditures came from the U.S. House Committee on Ways & Means Green Book (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmprints/green/index.html) and was esti- mated for FY 2007 using the CPI-U.

Page 33

Document info
Document views107
Page views107
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 00:38:28 UTC 2016
Pages44
Paragraphs1536
Words18187

Comments