P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale

First findings from a $20-million “Three-City Study” of welfare reform in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio are similar to early results from the Illinois Families Study (see page 1) but dig deeper into the diversity of former and current recipients. Both studies report the majority of former TANF recipients are working and strongly support work requirements but are somewhat confused about rules. A sizable number have been cut off from benefits caused by noncompliance, and some are struggling with less than adequate incomes.

The Three-City Study is tracking 2,400 families over a four-year period to determine the consequences of welfare reform on the well-being of children and families. The six co-investigators, including IPR’s P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale (Education and Social Policy), have released three policy briefs in the past few months, which are summarized below. The full texts can be found online at www.jhu.edu/~welfare.

What recipients know about the new rules. Most current and former recipients were aware of time limits on cash assistance and a majority in two of the three cities knew how long it was. But when researchers pressed further, they found widespread uncertainty and inaccuracy about the details of the rules.

Large majorities in each city favored work requirements. Contrary to prevailing stereotypes, these welfare recipients share other Americans’ sense of the importance of the work ethic, even when they are required to go out and find jobs. However, opinion was mixed about time limits, although a plurality in each city felt they were a bad idea.

In response to questions about how people had changed their behaviors because of welfare reform, 14% of recipients said they had been forced to take jobs with less-desirable characteristics, such as lower wages or inconvenient hours. Yet only 5% said they had tried not to have a child in the past two years because of the rules, and less than1% reported marrying because of the rules.

The diversity of welfare leavers. Similar to findings in other state studies, women in this study who left TANF have an average employment rate of 63%. But this average hides considerable variation across different groups of women who have left welfare.

The study found large differences in employment, household incomes, and poverty rates for leavers with differing social and economic characteristics. Women with lower levels of education, in poor health, with younger children, and who are young themselves have considerably lower employment rates and post-welfare income levels than women with greater levels of education, better health, older children, and who are older themselves.

The picture is also bleak for women who left welfare with a history of greater welfare dependence. These women have considerably lower incomes, receive less earnings support from other household members, and depend more on government benefits. In addition, women who were heavily dependent on welfare are substantially less likely to leave welfare than other recipients.

The researchers suggest that policymakers need to factor in the diversity in welfare leavers when they consider modifications in the programs or design special programs to assist those off the rolls who are in the greatest need.

Sanctions and case closings for noncompliance. Seventeen percent of the sample reported benefits had been reduced or stopped because of noncompliance with the rules. These people tended to have less education, poorer health, greater financial difficulties, and more substance use than non-sanctioned recipients. They also tended to live in lower quality housing, in less desirable neighborhoods, and were less likely to have a telephone or own a car. The most common reasons for losing benefits were missing an appointment with caseworkers or failing to file paperwork.

“Caregivers who had the most complex and challenging daily lives were more likely to have experienced a partial or full loss of benefits,” according to the researchers. “We found that sanctions and procedural case closings appeared to involve families that were experiencing hardships…. For low-income individuals with limited education, daily lives filled with personal turmoil, and employment and family responsibilities to balance, meeting all these demands is more than many can handle.”

Those who could not get benefits reinstated coped with their loss of income by getting a job, cutting back on necessities, or asking family or friends for money.

When welfare recipients fail to comply with program rules they may be having a hard time managing aspects of complex lives: raising a family, maintaining a household, and holding a job. The researchers suggest that instead of letting these families slip through the cracks, welfare departments could use instances of noncompliance to identify them, and offer more careful attention or immediate intervention.

The fourth policy brief, on health policy and welfare reform, will be released this spring, and the fifth, on how children are faring, in early summer.

Chase-Lansdale’s co-investigators are Ronald Angel, University of Texas; Linda Burton, Penn State University; Andrew Cherlin and Robert Moffitt, Johns Hopkins University; and William Julius Wilson, Harvard University.