1) The Home Relief program originated in 1940 as a means through which the State could satisfy Article 17 of the New York Constitution requiring the State to care for the needy.

2) The official federal definition of poverty is based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey finding that families of three or more persons spend about one-third of their after-tax incomes on food. Consequently, the poverty threshold is set at three times the least costly of four food plans deemed nutritionally adequate by the Department. Adjustments are made for smaller families to compensate for their relatively larger fixed expenses. The poverty thresholds are increased each year by the same percentage as the annual average Consumer Price Index. See Gordon M. Fisher, "The Development and History of the Poverty Thresholds," Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 55 No. 4, Winter 1992. As of 1997 the federal poverty level for a family of three stood at $13,330, while for a family of one it stood at $7,890.
 
3) NYS Social Service Law, Section 158-B.

4) "Forecasting AFDC Caseloads, with an Emphasis on Economic Factors", Peskin, Janice, Congressional Budget Office Staff Memorandum, July 1993, in "Welfare Reform", by Dave M. O’Neil and Jude Ellenoff O’ Neil, 1997.

5) "Accounting for the decline in AFDC caseloads: Welfare reform or economic growth", Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, November 1997.

6) The ES-202 employment series, used in Figure 1, underwent major revisions prior to 1980 thus we restricted our series from 1980 to the present for consistency reasons.

7) See New York State Assembly Ways and Means Committee Staff New York State Economic and Revenue Report, 1994-95 & 1995-96, March 1995, pp. 14-16.

8) The statistical approach to forecasting offers an objective set of standards by which to evaluate the goodness of fit of a model, as well as the accuracy of the forecast. Methods such as ex post simulation and the construction of such measures as the root mean squared error permit tests of the model’s performance by assessing how closely the model can reproduce the historical data series. How well the turning points in the data are captured is another important standard by which to judge a projection method. On the importance of these criteria for the purposes of forecasting, see, for example, Robert S. Pindyck and Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, third edition, McGraw Hill, 1991.

9) Plotnick, Robert C. and Russell M. Lidman, "Forecasting Welfare Caseloads: A Tool to Improve Budgeting." Public Budgeting & Finance, Autumn 1987, p. 72.

10) Under extraordinary circumstances, the period of time during which beneficiaries can collect benefits may be extended.

11) Another set of factors often thought to affect the number of people needing public assistance are demographic factors. For example, many argue that the rise in the number of single parents is a significant factor causing caseloads to rise. A rigorous effort to examine the effects of such factors produces no consistent support for such claims. This may be due to the slow movement of demographic factors relative to the magnitude of the growth and decline which we observe in the caseload.

12) More technically, we have estimated a two-equation econometric model. To account for the fact that both regions are vulnerable to common shocks, such as a national recession, we estimate the regional equations simultaneously using a method known as seemingly unrelated regression. This method takes into account the cross-equation error covariances, thereby increasing the precision of the estimates. The more precise the estimates, the more confidence one can have in the accuracy of the forecast. A rigorous process of model selection was applied, governed by well-accepted selection criteria. A more detailed discussion can be found in the previously cited econometrics text by Pindyck and Rubinfeld.

13) The industries identified were food and kindred products from the Manufacturing sector, general merchandise stores, food stores, apparel and accessory stores, home furniture, and eating and drinking places from the Retail trade sector, hotel-camps-and other lodging places, personal services, private households, miscellaneous services, from the Services sector.

14) These growth rates reflect the changes implemented under the Welfare Reform Act of 1997 that allow for the move of recipients from the Safety Net Assistance program to the Family Assistance program. Under the prior public assistance regulations (constant policy) caseload would have declined by 12.8 percent during State fiscal year 1997-98, and a projected decline of 14.6 percent for State fiscal year 1998-99.

15) NYS Department of Labor, Welfare to Work Division, Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (formerly Department of Social Services), December 1997.

16) "New York City’s Unemployment Picture", Current Issues in Economics & Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, December 1997.

17) Under constant policy caseload would have declined by 14.0 percent during State fiscal year 1997-98 and a projected decline of 14.2 percent during State fiscal year 1998-99.

18) Under constant policy caseload would have declined by 15.1 percent during State fiscal year
1997-98, followed by a projected decline of 18.2 percent during State fiscal year 1998-99.

19) Under constant policy caseload is estimated to drop by 14.2 percent during State fiscal year
1997-98, followed by a projected decline of 16.0 percent during State fiscal year 1998-99.

20) The Committee staff does not independently forecast the monthly average payments. The State Division of the Budget estimates that each Family Assistance recipient will receive an average of $203 per month for the 1998-99 fiscal year. The precise value of the grant varies by family size, county, and season. Home Relief recipients are estimated to receive an average of about $308 per month.