Women and the reform of the welfare system: An introduction

Douglas J. Besharov and Peter Germanis

Women and the Reform ofthe WelfareSystem: An Introduction

Between March 1994 and July 2001, welfare rolls fell an amazing 59 percentfrom their historic high of 5.1 million families. How much of this decline was theresult of welfare reform and how much was the result of other factors, such as thestrong economy? What were the effects of the decline on low-income families? Abouta quarter billion dollars is being spent on studies and surveys designed to answerthese and other questions. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to get more than a modestamount of the information sought.

This special issue of Gender Issues, one of a three-part series, examines thewelfare reform measures initiated a decade ago and their consequences for women.The issue covers a broad range of topics: child care, marital status, homelessness,and drug abuse.

Douglas J. Besharov is the Joseph J. and Violet Jacobs Scholar in Social Welfare Studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, wherehe directs its Welfare Reform Academy. Earlier, he was director of the U.S. National Center on ChildAbuse and Neglect. Amonghis publications are Rethinking WIC: An Evaluation ofthe Women, Infants,and Children Program (with Peter Germanis, 2001); America's Disconnected Youth (1999); EnhancingEarly Childhood Programs: Burdens and Opportunities (1996); and Recognizing Child Abuse: A Guidefor the Concerned (1990).

Peter Germanis is assistant director of the University of Maryland Welfare Reform Academy. Beforejoining the Academy, he was director of the Division of Program Evaluation, Office of Family Assistance,U.S. Department of Health arid Human Services. He also served in the White House under the Reaganand Bush administrations. Among his publications are Rethinking WIC: An Evaluation of the Women,Infants, and Children Program (with Douglas J. Besharov, 2001) and Evaluating Welfare Reform: AGuide for Scholars and Practitioners (with Peter H. Rossi and Douglas J. Besharov, 1997).

4

Mothers' Work and Child Care

Gender Issues / Summer 2006

W elfaIi.e reform could have its most immediate impact on child well-being throughchild care. If a mother works, someone needs to take care of her children.

What is known about the utilization of child care and early childhood developmentprograms and their impact on children?

In "Mothers' Work and Child Care," Julia B. Isaacs, director of the Division ofData and Technical Analysis ofthe Department ofHealth and Human Services (HHS)Office of Planning, discusses the main data sources that HHS uses to measure theavailability and quality ofchild care for low-income families: the Current PopulationSurvey (CPS); the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP); the NationalHousehold Education Survey (NHES); the National Survey of America's Families(NSAF); state administrative data collected by the federal government that includeaggregate numbers of children receiving subsidies as well as some of the characteristics of those subsidies, such as type of provider and age of child; and state studiesof those who have left the welfare rolls (leaver studies).

Isaacs describes the strengths and weakness of the child care data in the mainnational surveys. The SIPP provides information about child care utilization patternsand costs, but it is not released in a timely manner. For example, the child care datacollected in the spring of 1997 were not published until the summer of 2002, toolate to inform the welfare reform reauthorization debate. The CPS provides detailedinformation regarding the employment patterns of parents, but it does not providedirect information about child care arrangements. CPS data have been used by HHSto estimate the potential need for child care and child care subsidies. The NHES provides detailed information about child care for young children and about child careproviders, but it does not collect detailed data on family income. Finally, the NSAFprovides data on child care arrangements that can be linked to various measures ofchild well-being, but as Rossi observes, it is plagued by low response rates. Isaacsexplains that an obvious advantage of all four data sources is that they provide nationally representative data; unfortunately, they provide limited information at thestate and local level.

Isaacs then discusses federal and state administrative data that provide information on child care subsidized through various federal programs, primarily throughthe Child Care Development Fund (CCDF). In an average month in 2000, Isaacswrites, 1.75 million children up to age thirteen received subsidized child care. (Using the CPS data described above, she estimates that 9 to 10 million children wereeligible for subsidies, which would rise to between 15 and 16 million children if allstates set their income limits at the federal maximum of85 percent of state medianincome.) She indicates that the data can provide information on the characteristics of

Besharov and Germanis 5

children in child care and the setting of that care. A strength of the data is that theycover all children receiving subsidies, so small sample sizes are not a problem. But,the data can provide no information on unsubsidized child care or care provided byother state programs.

Isaacs also summarizes the findings from a series of HHS-funded leaver studiesthat examined child care utilization patterns and subsidy usage for families that leftwelfare. She reports that 41 to 65 percent ofemployed leavers who used nonparentalchild care relied on relatives and siblings as the primary providers, while just 8 to36 percent relied on center-based care. Only about half of leavers reported payingfor care, and only about 15 to 25 percent reported receiving a government subsidy.Isaacs explains that the low utilization of subsidized care may reflect the "heavyuse of unpaid care, problems posed by applications procedures and administrativepaperwork, and lack of knowledge of subsidy eligibility." She also cautions that thedata should be viewed as suggestive, since some studies had low response rates andthe studies generally did not focus on child care.

Isaacs concludes that the quality ofchild care data has improved in recent yearsbut that "many unanswered questions" remain. Among the biggest challenges areobtaining good data on informal arrangements, the quality of child care settings, andrepresentative state and local data.

Cohabitation and Child Well-Being

Co-residency (living with relatives, boyfriends, and other adults) is an important source of support for low-income, female-headed families, as described byBesharov and Germanis. How extensive is eo-residency? According to Bavier, inMarch 2000, 32 percent of single mothers with children under age eighteen had otheradults living with them, 15 percent lived in a relative's home, and 4 percent lived in anonrelative's home. Less than one-half lived with no other adults.' In fact, between1994 and 2000 cohabitation among couples with children under fifteen seems tohave risen by at least a third, or another 400,000 couples.' (There is no detectableincrease in marriage rates.) This support helps explain why so many mothers havebeen able to leave welfare without working and without becoming homeless. Whatare the economic, social, and developmental consequences of this change in singlemothers' living arrangements?

In "Cohabitation and Child Well-Being," Wendy D. Manning, an associateprofessor in Bowling Green State University's Department of Sociology, summarizeswhat is known about cohabitation and its effects on children. She describes how somepeople view "cohabiting-couple" households (that is, unmarried couples cohabitingwith a biological child of at least one of the adults) as a two-parent family form and

6 Gender Issues / Summer 2006

that one of the major goals of the 1996 welfare reform law was to encourage theformation and maintenance of two-parent families. The main sources ofdata she usesare the CPS, the Decennial Census, the SIPP, the National Survey of Families andHouseholds (NSFH), and the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG).

Manning reports that, according to the 1990 Decennial Census, 2.2 millionchildren (3.5 percent of all children) were in a cohabiting-couple household. Thisestimate is only a point-in-time estimate,however. According to other estimates,about 38 percent of all children will spend some part of their childhood in a cohabiting-couple household. For African-American families, the estimate is even higher:55 percent. Manning points out that 54 percent of the children in cohabiting-couplehouseholds live with just one biological parent, which she calls cohabiting-partnerhouseholds. In many cases, these families are more akin to stepfamilies than to twoparent families with two biological parents.

Manning discusses the positive and negative aspects of cohabitation for children. The most obvious benefits are that a child has two potential caregivers andincome providers. Indeed, the poverty rate for children living in such relationshipsfalls dramatically once the income of the cohabitor is included. Many children borninto a cohabiting relationship remain in a stable union (either subsequent marriageor continued cohabitation). According to Manning, however, children in cohabitingpartner households are more likely to have lower levels of academic performanceand greater behavioral problems than those in intact families.

Manning summarizes the mixed effects of cohabitation as follows: "Cohabitationmay be advantageous for children by providing two potential caretakers and incomeproviders, but it may be disadvantageous for children because of the relatively shortduration, informal nature of cohabiting unions, and other factors." She concludesthat a great need exists for additional data and recommends further study of patternsof cohabitation and their impact on children. She particularly recommends moreresearch on income-sharing among cohabiting-couple households, on the effects oftransitions into and out of cohabiting relationships on child well-being, and on theway that cohabiting families are treated under the new welfare reform law.

Housing Conditions and Homelessness

Another concern expressed by critics of welfare reform was that homelessnesswould increase-particularly among families that lost their welfare benefits as aresult of a sanction or time limit. Even if families do not become homeless, it wasfeared that a decline in income might increase the risk that they live in substandard orovercrowded housingconditions or spend a larger share of their income on housing,at the expense of meeting other needs.


In "Housing Conditions and Homelessness," John C. Weicher, AssistantSecretary for HousinglFederal Housing Administration Commissioner at the D.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development, discusses trends in homelessnessand housing conditions. His main sources of data are the American Housing Survey(AHS) and special surveys on homelessness. Because of the dearth of post-1996 data,he focuses on trends before welfare reform.

In regard to homelessness, Weicher explains that few reliable data are available, so that estimates of the total number of homeless people are problematic. Heestimates that about 600,000 people are homeless in an average week, and that theestimate can vary over the course of a year. The most recent national data are for1996 and serve as a baseline from.which to observe trends. At present, virtually noevidence indicates that homelessness has increased (or decreased) since the passageof welfare reform.

Weicher addresses changes in housing conditions that might affect child wellbeing: adequacy, overcrowding, and affordability. Using data from the AHS, he findsthat "by almost every objective measure, housing quality steadily improved through1995 for virtually every identifiable demographic group of interest" since 1974.

Weicher reports that according to the AHS, in 1995, 2 percent of very.low-income renter households (127,000) lived in housing with severe physical problems,down from 7 percent in 1978. Furthermore, Weicher points out, the incidence ofovercrowding (defined as more than one person per room in a housing unit) was8 percent (527,000) in 1995, down from 11 percent in 1978. Although housingquality seems to have improved steadily for low-income renters,Weicher notesthat affordability has decreased. In 1995,30 percent of low-income renters withchildren (1.9 million) paid more than half their incomes for rent (up from 28 percentin 1978).

Weicher notes that the apparent decline in affordability is not large (two percentage points between 1978 and 1995) and that there may be problems with thedata. The data on affordability reveal a different trend from the data on quality andspace. The increased rent burden may reflect improvements in housing quality, buteven if so, low-income families may have little left over for other purchases afterpaying the rent.

Nutrition, Food Security, and Obesity

If welfare reform results in less income to current and former recipients, theymight compensate by cutting back on food, especially healthy foods (which tend tobe more expensive). In addition, if program differences make it more difficult foreligible families to receive food stamps.the children may suffer. What have been the


trends in food stamp receipt, hunger, nutrition, and related health outcomes since thepassage of welfare reform?

In "Nutrition, Food Security, and Obesity," Harold S. Beebout, a senior fellowat Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., and chief information officer at the Child andFamily ServicesAgency, District of Columbia, reviews what is known about nutrition,food security, and obesity. He relies on the following data sources: the ContinuingSurvey of Food Intake for Individuals (CSFII), the CPS, the National Health andNutritional Examination Survey (NHANES), and state administrative data reportedto the U.S. Department ofAgriculture.

Beebout first examines the forces behind the dramatic decline in food stamp roUs,which dropped by 9.1 million (35 percent) between August 1995 and July 2000. Hedescribes how the welfare reform law (PRWORA) restricted eligibility, particularlyfor able-bodied adults who have no children and who work less than twenty hoursper week. He adds that many legal immigrants were disqualified under the legislation as well. But, he notes, these changes explain only about 20 percent of the foodstamp decline. Most of the decline occurred among households with children, manyof which still appear to be eligible for benefits. He suggests two possibilities for thelarge impact on this group:

• Efforts to divert families from welfare have also caused them to leave the food stampprogram, perhaps because families do not realize that they remain eligible.

• The relatively low benefit amounts for working families have discouraged many of themfrom applying for benefits.

Beebout concludes that if families know that they are eligible for the FoodStamp Program but choose not to participate, "current policies and program operations may be appropriate," but because participation rates vary substantially fromstate to state, he concludes that the data do "give rise to concern that some states areoffering greater access to food assistance than others."

Beebout explores the question of whether welfare reform has affected foodinsecurity and hunger. He recognizes that the relationship between these measuresand health status is uncertain. According to Beebout, "These food security measureshave been criticized because they are based on the perceptions of respondents andthus have an unclear relationship to more objective measures of nutrition or healthstatus." Nevertheless, he points out, "Between 1995 and 2001, no appreciablechange occurred in these measures for low-income households or for householdsas a whole."

Beebout also describes troubling trends in overweight and obesity amongadolescents in low-income families, calling it "a high-priority problem with seriouslong-term consequences." Low-income adolescents have double the rate of obesity


than the rest of the adolescent population, making them vulnerable to diabetes, highblood pressure, and other health problems.

Beebout recommends additional research, including: (1) conducting case studiesto determine how highly vulnerable families-those with little or no income-arefaring; (2) examining why some states have high levels of food stamp participationfor welfare leavers while others do not; (3) expanding state-level samples in surveysto measure child well-being at the state level; (4) examining how food insecurity relates to other measures of well-being; and (5) directing more attention to the dietaryand health behaviors of children.

Drug Use

Drug use can hamper welfare reform efforts by making it more difficult forwelfare recipients to go to work and leave welfare. Drug use can also interfere witheffective parenting and adversely affect child well-being. What is known about theextent of drug use among welfare mothers and its impact on dependency?

In "Drug Use," Peter Reuter, a professor at the University of Maryland Schoolof Public Affairs and Department of ,Criminology, examines substance abuse andaddiction among welfare and low-income mothers. His main data sources are theArrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), Monitoring the Future (MTF), and the National Household .Surveyof Drug Abuse (NHSDA).

Reuter describes the changing patterns of drug use in the general population.He explains that drug use increased rapidly in the late 1970s, declined in the 1980s,and remained relatively flat in the 1990s. The patterns, however, are driven largelyby changes in marijuana use. The pattern of frequent use of more dangerous drugs,such as cocaine, is somewhat different. The heavy use of cocaine--especially crackcocaine-peaked during the late 1980s. By the early 1990s, the number of new addicts had fallen dramatically, although not many heavy users discontinued their use.As a result, the stock of frequent users held constant through much of the 1990s andonly recently began to decline as more users discontinued their use or died.

Reuter also explores the patterns of drug use among welfare families, beforeand after PRWORA. He observes that before PRWORA, a widespread perceptionexisted that substance abuse was a major factor contributing to welfare dependency.He notes that one influential report asserted that 27 percent of AFDC mothers weresubstance abusers (including alcohol), three times the rate for mothers not receivingAFDC. But, other studies, including several that used the same data source, reportedmuch lower levels of substance abuse, generally under 10 percent. The likely reasonfor the disparity in estimates is differences in definitions, with the highest estimate


based on a broad definition that classified anyone who had used marijuana in the pastmonth as a drug abuser or drug dependent.

Since the passage of PRWORA, Reuter explains, the focus of research has beenon the role of drug use as a barrier to leaving welfare. The research suggests thatthe prevalence of drug use is even lower than suggested by earlier estimates, withboth national and state data pointing to estimates that less than 5 percent of welfarerecipients are drug dependent. Reuter concludes, "the weight of the very imperfectevidence is that abuse of illicit drugs affects only a modest share of welfare clients,even after the sharp declines post PRWORA." Nevertheless, he adds, "welfare participation provides an important venue for identifying and helping poor mothers withdrug problems."

Notes

1. Special tabulations from the March 2000 Current Population Survey provided by RichardBavier. See Besharov, Douglas J., ed. 2003. Family and Child-Well-Being after Welfare Reform. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 89-112.

2. U.S. Census Bureau, "Unmarried-Couple Households, by Presence of Children: 1960 toPresent," Jure29,2001,available from: http://www.census.gov/populationlsocdemolhh-famltabUC-l.txt,accessed October 16, 2002.

Women and the reform of the welfare system: An introduction

Documents

Transcript of Women and the reform of the welfare system: An introduction