Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

OP 402XXOP

Authors

OP 402XXOP

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "OP_402XXOP.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "100573" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(13361) "Public Policy Institute of California Welfare and Poverty Trends in California In 1996, Congress enacted the most sweeping welfare reform since the 1960s. In addition to allowing states more flexibility in designing their own welfare programs, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) eliminated Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and replaced it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF is currently authorized only through September 2002, and Congress will therefore review funding levels this year. In doing so, it is likely to reopen many welfare policy issues, including the goals of TANF. The reauthorization process provides a natural occasion for reviewing California’s welfare policies and caseload trends.Two factors in particular distinguish California’s policymaking challenges and priorities: the demographic characteristics of the state’s caseload, and its relatively generous program benefits and sanctions. Several PPIC and PPIC-sponsored publications have examined these and related issues, and some key findings are presented below.1 What has happened with welfare caseloads in California and the nation? Caseloads have dropped dramatically both in California and the rest of the nation (Figure 1). National welfare participation has declined 62 percent from its 1994 peak, and recipiency rates are lower than at any time since 1963. Since federal welfare reform 1 A complete list of sources appears at the end of this document. Some statistics cited in this document have been updated since these reports were published. Total caseload relative to 1989, % Figure 1. Welfare Caseloads in California and Rest of United States 160 150 California 140 Rest of United States 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Welfare caseloads have declined sharply since the mid-1990s. was enacted in 1996, California’s welfare caseload has dropped 46 percent, a decline that ranks 42nd among all states. Why is California’s caseload decline smaller than the national average? Since 1996, policy differences at the state level have been the most important factor in explaining caseload variations. California is one of the most generous states in terms of both benefits and sanctions. It offers large grants, has the highest income cutoffs, and allows children to continue receiving public assistance after their parents are sanctioned or have reached their time limits. Compared with the policies of other states, California’s are meant not only to encourage welfare recipients to work but to maintain a safety net for their children. PPIC research estimates that the state’s caseload decline would have topped 60 percent if California had adopted the welfare policies of the average state. Which kinds of families are most likely to receive welfare in California? Over half of California’s welfare caseload (55 percent) consists of single parents receiving aid with their children.Two-parent families account for 11 percent of the caseload, and the remaining 34 percent of cases are “child-only” cases in which no adult receives aid. The child-only caseload doubled between 1989 and 1995, fueled in part by a rapid increase in eligible families with citizen children and noncitizen (often undocumented immigrant) parents. Moreover, there are now more than 30,000 cases in which adults have been removed for noncompliance with program requirements while their children continue to receive aid. Unlike other case types, the child-only caseload has not Figure 2. Trends in California Caseloads, by Case Type (Relative to June 1989) Monthly cases per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, % dropped significantly in recent years (Figure 2). Which regions have the highest caseloads? 225 200 175 150 Child-only One-parent Two-parent California’s northern, mountain, 125 and farm regions have the highest proportions of welfare recipients (Figure 3). Los Angeles has the high- 100 75 est caseload of the state’s urban areas, and the San Francisco Bay Area has 50 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 the lowest percentage of residents on welfare. “Child-only” cases increased sharply in the mid-1990s and have not declined at the same rate as other case types. Public Policy Institute of California | 2 Welfare caseload per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 Do Californians receiving welfare have adequate job skills? One-fourth of all American adults have very low basic skills; that is, they cannot follow simple written directions for performing a single mathematical operation. In 1992, 41 percent of welfare recipients in California had very low basic skills compared with 24 percent for the rest of the nation. Figure 3. Aggregate Welfare Recipiency Rates, by Region 180 Farm North and Mountain Los Angeles 160 Southern California Bay Area 140 120 100 80 60 40 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Have employers been willing to hire welfare recipients seeking California’s farm, northern, and mountain regions have the highest welfare rates. work? Overall employer demand for workers leaving welfare has been strong, especially in the retail sector and among minority-owned businesses. Between 30 and 40 percent of Los Angeles employers surveyed in 1998 and 1999 said they had hired welfare recipients in the previous two years. These jobs paid an average wage of $7.83 per hour and generally provided 40 hours of work per week. Employers contributed to health insurance approximately two- thirds of the time. The employers also reported that the welfare recipients they had hired performed as well as or better than other workers in the same jobs. However, hiring was very sensitive to job vacancy rates, suggesting that the demand for these workers would diminish significantly during economic downturns. Do those leaving CalWORKs return to aid more or less often than previous welfare recipients? Compared with those who exited AFDC in 1993, those who left CalWORKs in 1998 were significantly less likely to receive welfare 18 months later. Among single-parent families, for example, 27 percent of those who left welfare in 1993 returned to aid within a year, whereas the comparable figure for 1998 was 17 percent. The difference between the two figures is probably not related to economic conditions alone; the recidivism rate for single-parent families in 1988, for example, was also significantly higher (25 percent) than in 1998, although the economy was strong in both years. Public Policy Institute of California | 3 Which families are among the least likely to leave assistance? Families with disabled children are much less likely to exit welfare programs than are poor families with only healthy children. Many families with disabled children have left welfare and turned to federal aid in the form of Supplemental Security Income (SSI). According to PPIC estimates, the presence of a severely disabled child reduces a family’s likelihood of leaving welfare by the same amount as a four-year reduction in the household head’s educational attainment. How does California’s poverty rate compare with those of other states? According to the official measure of poverty, 12.8 percent of Californians were poor in 2000 compared with 11 percent of those in the rest of the nation (Figure 4). However, this meas- ure both neglects cost-of-living differences and masks sharp variations Figure 4. Poverty Rates in California and the Rest of the United States, 1969–2000 across California’s regions and demographic groups. Between 1998 20 and 2000, for example, poverty rates for children, African Americans, 16 Percentage U.S.-born Hispanics, and residents 12 of San Joaquin Valley were closer to 20 percent. The California groups 8 with the highest poverty rates were foreign-born Hispanics (27 percent) 4 California Rest of United States and female-headed households (37 percent). 0 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Source: Calculations from the March CPS. How many poor families in Since 1989, California has had a higher poverty rate than the rest of the nation. California have an adult working regularly? In 2000, almost 41 percent of poor families in California had an adult working more than 1,500 hours per year.Another 25 percent had a worker employed at least 200 hours per year. Work participation rates among the poor have been substantially higher in California than in the rest of the nation. What are the major trends in California’s family and household poverty? Although overall poverty in California declined in the late 1990s, the state’s poverty rates have risen substantially since the late 1960s. The rise is mostly the result of changes in Public Policy Institute of California | 4 poverty rates within two types of households: married couples with children and families headed by single parents (Figure 5). Poverty rates for these households have increased sub- stantially in California even as they showed no change or declined in Figure 5. Poverty Rate by Household Type, 1997–1998 the rest of the nation. In California, higher poverty rates for both kinds of families can be attributed to the growing proportion of households 50 45 40 35 45.2 39.5 California Rest of United States Percentage headed by less-educated, often immigrant, adults. L 30 25 20 15 13.6 13.9 15.0 25.4 22.7 18.2 13.1 10 5 4.5 4.1 7.2 0 Married no children Married Single parent Other family with children with children Non-family Live alone Poverty rates for married adults with children are almost twice as high in California as in the rest of the United States. For live links to PPIC research and other reliable sources on welfare and poverty, visit our new web page, “At Issue . . . Welfare Reauthorization” at www.ppic.org. PPIC Sources Holzer, Harry J., and Michael A. Stoll, Employers and Welfare Recipients:The Effects of Welfare Reform in the Workplace (PPIC, 2001), www.ppic.org/publication/PPIC143/index.html. Johnson, Hans P., and Sonya M.Tafoya, “Trends in Family and Household Poverty,” California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles,Vol. 1, No. 3 (PPIC, May 2000), www.ppic.org/publications/ CalCounts3/calcounts3.pdf. Johnson, Hans P., and Sonya M.Tafoya, The Basic Skills of Welfare Recipients: Implications for Welfare Reform (PPIC, 1999), www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC118/PPIC118.pdf/index.html. Lieberman, Charles, and David Mancuso, “Are California’s Welfare Leavers Staying Off Public Assistance? Welfare Recidivism and Use of Non-Cash Aid Since Welfare Reform,” California Policy Review,Vol. 1, No. 2,The SPHERE Institute, Burlingame, California, October 2001, www.sphereinstitute.org/pdf/CPR_v1n2.pdf. Public Policy Institute of California | 5 MaCurdy,Thomas E., David C. Mancuso, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, Does California’s Welfare Policy Explain the Slower Decline of Its Caseload? (PPIC, 2002), www.ppic.publications/PPIC155/ index.html. MaCurdy,Thomas, David Mancuso, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, The Rise and Fall of California’s Welfare Caseload:Types and Regions, 1980–1999 (PPIC, 2000), www.ppic.publications/PPIC138/ PPIC138.pdf/index.html. Meyers, Marcia K., Henry E. Brady, and Eva Y. Seto, Expensive Children in Poor Families:The Intersection of Childhood Disabilities and Welfare (PPIC, 2000), www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC140/ index.html. Reed, Deborah, and Richard Van Swearingen, “Poverty in California: Levels,Trends, and Demographic Dimensions,” California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles,Vol. 3, No. 3 (PPIC, November 2001), www.ppic.org/publications/CalCounts10/calcounts10.pdf. Board of Directors Raymond L.Watson, Chair Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP David A. Coulter Vice Chairman J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Office of the City Attorney Los Angeles, California Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Cynthia A.Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M.Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP The Public Policy Institute of California is a private, nonprofit research organization established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute conducts independent, objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues affecting Californians. The Institute’s goal is to raise public awareness of these issues and give elected representatives and other public officials in California a more informed basis for developing policies and programs. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Occasional Papers" } ["___content":protected]=> string(106) "

OP 402XXOP

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(85) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/welfare-and-poverty-trends-in-california/op_402xxop/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8194) ["ID"]=> int(8194) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:35:37" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3332) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(10) "OP 402XXOP" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(10) "op_402xxop" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "OP_402XXOP.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "100573" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(13361) "Public Policy Institute of California Welfare and Poverty Trends in California In 1996, Congress enacted the most sweeping welfare reform since the 1960s. In addition to allowing states more flexibility in designing their own welfare programs, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) eliminated Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and replaced it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF is currently authorized only through September 2002, and Congress will therefore review funding levels this year. In doing so, it is likely to reopen many welfare policy issues, including the goals of TANF. The reauthorization process provides a natural occasion for reviewing California’s welfare policies and caseload trends.Two factors in particular distinguish California’s policymaking challenges and priorities: the demographic characteristics of the state’s caseload, and its relatively generous program benefits and sanctions. Several PPIC and PPIC-sponsored publications have examined these and related issues, and some key findings are presented below.1 What has happened with welfare caseloads in California and the nation? Caseloads have dropped dramatically both in California and the rest of the nation (Figure 1). National welfare participation has declined 62 percent from its 1994 peak, and recipiency rates are lower than at any time since 1963. Since federal welfare reform 1 A complete list of sources appears at the end of this document. Some statistics cited in this document have been updated since these reports were published. Total caseload relative to 1989, % Figure 1. Welfare Caseloads in California and Rest of United States 160 150 California 140 Rest of United States 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Welfare caseloads have declined sharply since the mid-1990s. was enacted in 1996, California’s welfare caseload has dropped 46 percent, a decline that ranks 42nd among all states. Why is California’s caseload decline smaller than the national average? Since 1996, policy differences at the state level have been the most important factor in explaining caseload variations. California is one of the most generous states in terms of both benefits and sanctions. It offers large grants, has the highest income cutoffs, and allows children to continue receiving public assistance after their parents are sanctioned or have reached their time limits. Compared with the policies of other states, California’s are meant not only to encourage welfare recipients to work but to maintain a safety net for their children. PPIC research estimates that the state’s caseload decline would have topped 60 percent if California had adopted the welfare policies of the average state. Which kinds of families are most likely to receive welfare in California? Over half of California’s welfare caseload (55 percent) consists of single parents receiving aid with their children.Two-parent families account for 11 percent of the caseload, and the remaining 34 percent of cases are “child-only” cases in which no adult receives aid. The child-only caseload doubled between 1989 and 1995, fueled in part by a rapid increase in eligible families with citizen children and noncitizen (often undocumented immigrant) parents. Moreover, there are now more than 30,000 cases in which adults have been removed for noncompliance with program requirements while their children continue to receive aid. Unlike other case types, the child-only caseload has not Figure 2. Trends in California Caseloads, by Case Type (Relative to June 1989) Monthly cases per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, % dropped significantly in recent years (Figure 2). Which regions have the highest caseloads? 225 200 175 150 Child-only One-parent Two-parent California’s northern, mountain, 125 and farm regions have the highest proportions of welfare recipients (Figure 3). Los Angeles has the high- 100 75 est caseload of the state’s urban areas, and the San Francisco Bay Area has 50 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 the lowest percentage of residents on welfare. “Child-only” cases increased sharply in the mid-1990s and have not declined at the same rate as other case types. Public Policy Institute of California | 2 Welfare caseload per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 Do Californians receiving welfare have adequate job skills? One-fourth of all American adults have very low basic skills; that is, they cannot follow simple written directions for performing a single mathematical operation. In 1992, 41 percent of welfare recipients in California had very low basic skills compared with 24 percent for the rest of the nation. Figure 3. Aggregate Welfare Recipiency Rates, by Region 180 Farm North and Mountain Los Angeles 160 Southern California Bay Area 140 120 100 80 60 40 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Have employers been willing to hire welfare recipients seeking California’s farm, northern, and mountain regions have the highest welfare rates. work? Overall employer demand for workers leaving welfare has been strong, especially in the retail sector and among minority-owned businesses. Between 30 and 40 percent of Los Angeles employers surveyed in 1998 and 1999 said they had hired welfare recipients in the previous two years. These jobs paid an average wage of $7.83 per hour and generally provided 40 hours of work per week. Employers contributed to health insurance approximately two- thirds of the time. The employers also reported that the welfare recipients they had hired performed as well as or better than other workers in the same jobs. However, hiring was very sensitive to job vacancy rates, suggesting that the demand for these workers would diminish significantly during economic downturns. Do those leaving CalWORKs return to aid more or less often than previous welfare recipients? Compared with those who exited AFDC in 1993, those who left CalWORKs in 1998 were significantly less likely to receive welfare 18 months later. Among single-parent families, for example, 27 percent of those who left welfare in 1993 returned to aid within a year, whereas the comparable figure for 1998 was 17 percent. The difference between the two figures is probably not related to economic conditions alone; the recidivism rate for single-parent families in 1988, for example, was also significantly higher (25 percent) than in 1998, although the economy was strong in both years. Public Policy Institute of California | 3 Which families are among the least likely to leave assistance? Families with disabled children are much less likely to exit welfare programs than are poor families with only healthy children. Many families with disabled children have left welfare and turned to federal aid in the form of Supplemental Security Income (SSI). According to PPIC estimates, the presence of a severely disabled child reduces a family’s likelihood of leaving welfare by the same amount as a four-year reduction in the household head’s educational attainment. How does California’s poverty rate compare with those of other states? According to the official measure of poverty, 12.8 percent of Californians were poor in 2000 compared with 11 percent of those in the rest of the nation (Figure 4). However, this meas- ure both neglects cost-of-living differences and masks sharp variations Figure 4. Poverty Rates in California and the Rest of the United States, 1969–2000 across California’s regions and demographic groups. Between 1998 20 and 2000, for example, poverty rates for children, African Americans, 16 Percentage U.S.-born Hispanics, and residents 12 of San Joaquin Valley were closer to 20 percent. The California groups 8 with the highest poverty rates were foreign-born Hispanics (27 percent) 4 California Rest of United States and female-headed households (37 percent). 0 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Source: Calculations from the March CPS. How many poor families in Since 1989, California has had a higher poverty rate than the rest of the nation. California have an adult working regularly? In 2000, almost 41 percent of poor families in California had an adult working more than 1,500 hours per year.Another 25 percent had a worker employed at least 200 hours per year. Work participation rates among the poor have been substantially higher in California than in the rest of the nation. What are the major trends in California’s family and household poverty? Although overall poverty in California declined in the late 1990s, the state’s poverty rates have risen substantially since the late 1960s. The rise is mostly the result of changes in Public Policy Institute of California | 4 poverty rates within two types of households: married couples with children and families headed by single parents (Figure 5). Poverty rates for these households have increased sub- stantially in California even as they showed no change or declined in Figure 5. Poverty Rate by Household Type, 1997–1998 the rest of the nation. In California, higher poverty rates for both kinds of families can be attributed to the growing proportion of households 50 45 40 35 45.2 39.5 California Rest of United States Percentage headed by less-educated, often immigrant, adults. L 30 25 20 15 13.6 13.9 15.0 25.4 22.7 18.2 13.1 10 5 4.5 4.1 7.2 0 Married no children Married Single parent Other family with children with children Non-family Live alone Poverty rates for married adults with children are almost twice as high in California as in the rest of the United States. For live links to PPIC research and other reliable sources on welfare and poverty, visit our new web page, “At Issue . . . Welfare Reauthorization” at www.ppic.org. PPIC Sources Holzer, Harry J., and Michael A. Stoll, Employers and Welfare Recipients:The Effects of Welfare Reform in the Workplace (PPIC, 2001), www.ppic.org/publication/PPIC143/index.html. Johnson, Hans P., and Sonya M.Tafoya, “Trends in Family and Household Poverty,” California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles,Vol. 1, No. 3 (PPIC, May 2000), www.ppic.org/publications/ CalCounts3/calcounts3.pdf. Johnson, Hans P., and Sonya M.Tafoya, The Basic Skills of Welfare Recipients: Implications for Welfare Reform (PPIC, 1999), www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC118/PPIC118.pdf/index.html. Lieberman, Charles, and David Mancuso, “Are California’s Welfare Leavers Staying Off Public Assistance? Welfare Recidivism and Use of Non-Cash Aid Since Welfare Reform,” California Policy Review,Vol. 1, No. 2,The SPHERE Institute, Burlingame, California, October 2001, www.sphereinstitute.org/pdf/CPR_v1n2.pdf. Public Policy Institute of California | 5 MaCurdy,Thomas E., David C. Mancuso, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, Does California’s Welfare Policy Explain the Slower Decline of Its Caseload? (PPIC, 2002), www.ppic.publications/PPIC155/ index.html. MaCurdy,Thomas, David Mancuso, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, The Rise and Fall of California’s Welfare Caseload:Types and Regions, 1980–1999 (PPIC, 2000), www.ppic.publications/PPIC138/ PPIC138.pdf/index.html. Meyers, Marcia K., Henry E. Brady, and Eva Y. Seto, Expensive Children in Poor Families:The Intersection of Childhood Disabilities and Welfare (PPIC, 2000), www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC140/ index.html. Reed, Deborah, and Richard Van Swearingen, “Poverty in California: Levels,Trends, and Demographic Dimensions,” California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles,Vol. 3, No. 3 (PPIC, November 2001), www.ppic.org/publications/CalCounts10/calcounts10.pdf. Board of Directors Raymond L.Watson, Chair Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP David A. Coulter Vice Chairman J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Office of the City Attorney Los Angeles, California Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Cynthia A.Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M.Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP The Public Policy Institute of California is a private, nonprofit research organization established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute conducts independent, objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues affecting Californians. The Institute’s goal is to raise public awareness of these issues and give elected representatives and other public officials in California a more informed basis for developing policies and programs. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Occasional Papers" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:35:37" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(10) "op_402xxop" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:35:37" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:35:37" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(52) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/OP_402XXOP.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }