How Did the Canada Child Benefit Affect Household Spending?

We assess how the July 2016 increase in the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) affected household spending with respect to total current expenditure and its seven constituent categories: clothing, food, health care, household operations, recreation, shelter, and transportation. The increase in the CCB was large: for most recipient households, it increased by more than $2,000 per child per year. We consider households below the median income level and find statistically significant effects of the policy change only for spending on clothing, food, and shelter and only for rental-tenure households. We find that rental-tenure households with children that fell below the median income level increased their annual expenditure by about $3,400 in response to the CCB increase. Spending on food increased by roughly $700; spending on shelter, by nearly $1,400. Spending on clothing increased by roughly $350, but spending mainly increased on children’s clothing, not on adults’ clothing.

Can Computers Automate Welfare?

Information-driven automated systems that deliver services proactively to citizens in need are heralded as the next level of digital government. There is, however, concern that such systems make welfare services less accessible to some citizens. This study uses the case of Norway’s child benefit system to discuss the general obstacles to having welfare policies implemented by proactive digital systems. Norway’s automated child benefit system uses data from Norway’s national resident register to award this benefit to eligible parents whom the system identifies. As such, it is representative of many government systems that use registry data to perform tasks previously done by caseworkers. While the eligibility rules for child benefits are simple, and the register has sufficient data to automate most cases, many parents are not awarded the benefit automatically. This article argues that when developing automated digital services, public administrators are faced with a trilemma. Ideally, proactive automation should be (1) precise in its delivery, (2) inclusive of all citizens, and (3) still support welfare-oriented policies that are independent of the requirements of the digital system. However, limitations with each requirement prevent all three from being realized at the same time. Only two can be simultaneously realized: a public administrator must decide which of them to forego. Consequently, automated services cannot meet all the expectations of policymakers regarding the benefits of digital government. Instead, governments need to find ways of utilizing the benefits of public digitalisation without infringing on citizens’ right to be treated equally and fairly by the government.

Can Targeted Child Benefits Affect Fertility? Evidence from a Natural Experiment

This paper contributes to the literature on whether targeted cash child benefits can affect fertility and, specifically, induce families to have more than two children. We exploit the introduction of a monthly non-means tested cash child benefit paid only to families with at least four children. We apply a quasi experimental methodology since the reform is expected to have increased births of fourth child relative to births of third child or higher than four. We find robust evidence that the reform increased significantly the treated family’s probability to have a (fourth) child by about 5% and had no effect on births greater than four. In the post reform period, the control group’s probability to have a (third) child was not significantly different than before the reform. In particular, the finding that the probability of birth among parities greater than four was not affected by the reform supports that what we are estimating is a response of the targeted family to the introduction of the child benefit and not a change in the fertility preferences of families with many children. Other changes (besides the reform) had a negative effect on the probability to have a child that was reversed only for the birth of fourth child among treated families due to the economic incentives created by the reform.

21. Welfare Benefits

This chapter discusses the main types of welfare benefits that are available to family law clients. It explains the importance of welfare benefits in relation to areas of family law, and that a family lawyer must have a working knowledge of these areas in particular with regards to financial remedy. The eligibility of benefits and what the client will receive is discussed. The chapter explains that the main benefit which is now in place is universal credit, but also mentions the ‘legacy benefits’, including income support, jobseeker’s allowance, tax credits, employment and support allowance, housing benefit, council tax reduction, and child benefit.

The effect of child benefit on female labor supply

In 2016, the Polish government introduced a large child benefit, called “Family 500+”, with the aim to increase fertility and reduce child poverty. It is universal for the second and every further child and means-tested for the first child. We study the impact of the new benefit on female labor supply, using Labor Force Survey data. Based on a difference-in-differences methodology, we find that the labor market participation rates of women with children decreased after the introduction of the benefit compared to that of childless women. The labor force participation rate of mothers showed a drop of 2–3 percentage points by mid-2017 as a result of the “Family 500+” program. The effect was higher among women with lower levels of education and among women living in small towns.

Maximizing the impact of the Canada Child Benefit: Implications for clinicians and researchers

Child poverty remains a persistent problem in Canada and is well known to lead to poor health outcomes. The Canada Child Benefit (CCB) is a cash transfer program in effect since 2016, which increased both the benefit amount and number of families eligible for the previous child benefit. While the CCB has decreased child poverty rates, not all eligible families have participated. Clinicians can play an important role in screening for uptake of the program and helping families navigate the application process through several free resources. While prior research on past programs has shown benefit of similar cash transfer programs to both child and parental outcomes (both health and social), the CCB has not yet been extensively studied. Research would be valuable in both assessing the cost effectiveness of the program, especially across different income groups, and improving implementation in hard-to-reach populations.