Welfare, Children, and Families:

Results from a Three City Study 

   The briefing focused on a multidisciplinary study underway that examines the impact of the 1996 law on low-income communities in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio.  A particular focus of the project is the impact of the reforms on children and families.  The study, so far, has involved two waves of interviews and an ethnography of selected families from the surveys.   There are four distinct groups in the study: "stayers" -- those still on welfare; "leavers" -- those who have left the welfare rolls in the past two years; those who got off welfare earlier; and those who were never on the rolls.  Information about the study is available at www.jhu.edu/~welfare.

Impact on 'Leavers' and 'Stayers'  

   Robert Moffitt, an economist from Johns Hopkins University, discussed how welfare leavers and stayers are doing.   Examining the leavers, Moffitt reported that 63 percent are employed, but their average income is only about $1,000 a month, less than the poverty line.  The poverty rate is 91 percent for less educated leavers.  Both Food Stamp and Medicaid participation have declined substantially.  Sanctioned leavers, those forced off the rolls for violating various rules (about 20 percent of the sample), have lower incomes and employment rates (only 40 percent) than average.  The bottom line, according to Moffit, is that leavers are a very diverse group.  Some have done quite well and others not; assistance off the rolls is needed for the latter. 

   Stayers, those who remain on welfare, Moffitt noted, are a very disadvantaged group.  About one-quarter has severe health problems, which limit or prevent work.  Many have high levels of depression, domestic violence, and weaker support systems than women not on welfare.  However, Moffitt explained, that women who work while still on the rolls do much better.  In the tradeoff between income and benefits, the latter do not fall as much as the former rises.  Therefore, women achieve most income gains by working while on the rolls; additional income gains from leaving welfare are modest. 

   Looking at the other two groups, Moffitt reported that the study clearly indicated that those low-income women who have not been on TANF have seen the greatest increases in income.  Was this due to the booming economy at the end of the 1990s?  Follow-up surveys since the downturn could help determine the answer, he indicated. 

Impact on Cognitive and Behavioral Development

    In examining the impact on children, Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, a developmental psychologist from Northwestern University, suggested that having a mother on welfare puts children and adolescents at risk, both in their cognitive and behavioral development.  The study tested preschoolers aged four and adolescents aged ten to fourteen.  For preschoolers, mothers= current or recent welfare participation is linked with poor cognitive achievement and high levels of problem behavior.  This is accounted for, according to Chase-Lansdale by the mother's marital, educational, mental, and physical health status, as well as parenting practices. 

   Focusing on sanctioned families, Chase-Lansdale also reported that young children whose mothers were penalized for not following the rules had lower scores on problem solving tests and they also showed more behavior problems.  However, adolescents of both sanctioned and non-sanctioned welfare recipients, as well as those who had recently left the welfare rolls demonstrated similar literacy/reading scores and analytic skills.   With regard to behavior, those younger children whose mothers were forced to leave the rolls because of sanctions exhibited significant problems, which can lead to future troubles down the road.   Chase-Lansdale suggested these problems for the very young children can be tied to the large stresses associated with leaving welfare, when mothers are trying to balance child care, employment, and parenting responsibilities.   

   To alleviate some of these stresses, she suggested that states should provide assistance to mothers so that they can avoid sanctions.  She also called for the closer monitoring of sanctioned families and the provision of additional supports, such as psychological services, academic enrichment after-school programs, and other family support services. 

Impact on Marriage Promotion

    Andrew Cherlin, sociologist and demographer at the Johns Hopkins University, examined children's living arrangements in low-income families and the implications for promoting marriage.   The Bush administration has made the promotion of marriage one of its centerpieces of what it wants from the reauthorization of welfare reform.

    From the three-city study, Cherlin reported that the percentage of children living with two adults had gone up slightly from interview one (34 percent) to interview two 16 months later (38 percent).  This mirrors national data.  However, Cherlin pointed out that nearly all the increase found in the three-city study involved the addition of men who were not the biological fathers of the children in the study.  In addition, more of the increase occurred through cohabitation than through marriage.  The percentage of children living with two biological parents did not increase. 

   The most interesting thing, Cherlin noted, was the instability of the living arrangements.  From the first interview to the second, 42 percent of the mothers who were cohabiting had ended their relationship.  Eighteen percent of the mothers who were married at the first interview had separated by the second interview.  Overall, in only a 16-month period, 22 percent of children experienced a change in living arrangements.   

   With regard to the promotion of marriage initiative, Cherlin pointed out that those welfare mothers who do get married generally do not marry the biological fathers of their children.   Interviews with unmarried mothers giving birth to a child suggest these mothers believe they are still romantically involved with the biological father and hope to marry them.  However, the reality is that a very small percentage (5 percent in one study) actually marries the father. 

Impact on Health

      Ron Angel, sociologist from the University of Texas at Austin, looked at the health insurance status of children and caregivers.   He reported that the three-city study found that Medicaid remains a core component of the social welfare safety net.  Parents value it highly and go to great lengths to obtain it for their children.  Health problems are common among the low-income population and seriously interfere with parents= employment.  Employer-based private insurance covers a minority of poor children, even after they leave the cash assistance rolls.  The longer families are off the cash assistance rolls, the less likely they are to be covered by health insurance of any kind.

    Furthermore, Angel noted, a larger fraction of Mexican-American children lack coverage than children in other groups.  Poor dual-parent households are less likely than single-parent households to be covered and relatively few caregivers are covered by Medicaid once their families leave the cash assistance rolls.  The more children there are in a household, the more likely it is that some will not be covered by any form of health insurance.  In addition, Angel discovered from the ethnographic data that there is a great deal of "churning" during which, depending on the employment and marital status of the caregiver as well as lapses in Medicaid coverage, there are periods when the child is not covered at all. 

   COSSA will prepare edited transcripts of the session, which included a lively question and answer period.  These should be available by the end of the summer.  If you would like a copy, please e-mail cossa@cossa.org.

HOME