(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "How are they doing? : a longitudinal study tracking households leaving welfare under Massachusetts' reform"

pnfls£ H9cK>. ^:h1 $o 



UMASS/AMHERST 



3iaQbb D27D 144b 3 



How Are They Doing? 

A Longitudinal Study of 
Households Leaving Welfare 
Under Massachusetts Reform 



Massachusetts 
Department of Transitional 



April 1999 



GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS 
COLLECTION 

OCT 2 9 1999 

Unive.sity of Massachusetts 
Depository Cay 




p 



c 



L 

[ 

L 

[ 
L 




V <!CQ$ 



Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Health and Human Services 

Department of Transitional Assistance 

600 Washington Street • Boston MA 02111 



Argeo Paul Cellucci 
Governor 



Jane Swift 
Lieutenant Governor 



William D. O'Leary 
Secretary 

Claire Mclntire 
Commissioner 



April, 1999 

Dear Colleague, 

In 1 995 the Massachusetts state legislature passed Chapter 5 requiring significant 
changes to the AFDC program including mandatory work requirements, a time- 
limit on assistance, and special rules for teen parents. 

In the fall of 1996, 1 requested that the Department's Office of Program 
Assessment undertake a more thorough study to identify the circumstances of 
former recipients. The enclosed study is the first of what I expect to be many 
studies to provide information that will allow the Commonwealth to address the 
concerns of TAFDC recipients as they transition to self-support. We are already 
in the process of conducting a new study to be available in the summer of 1 999 to 
answer in more detail some of the questions arising from this report in the area of 
food insecurity and child care. 

I would like to thank all of the staff in Program Assessment, especially Mary 
Prendergast and her Quality Control staff who conducted all of the interviews and 
Gloria Nagle, Ph.D. and Bruce Goodro, Ph.D., who compiled all of the data and 
produced the report. 

I hope this report will be of benefit to Department staff and all parties interested in 
assuring a successful implementation of welfare reform. 



Sincerely, 




-^K 




Claire Mclntire 
Commissioner 



c 

c 

: 



HOW ARE THEY DOING? 

A LONGITUDINAL STUDY 

TRACKING HOUSEHOLDS LEAVING WELFARE 

UNDER MASSACHUSETTS' REFORM 



Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance 

April 1999 



: 

L 

[ 
C 
[ 
[ 
[ 

c 

[ 

[ 

c 

[ 

I 

r 
c 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 



1. INTRODUCTION 1 

2. DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS 3 

2.1 Sampling Methodology 3 

2.2 Comparative Data on Round 1 Respondents 3 

2.2.7 Socio-Demographic Traits 4 

2.2.2 Programmatic Variables 6 

2.2.3 Other Findings on Respondents 7 

2.3 Summary: Respondents Profile 8 

3. SURVEY FINDINGS -- ROUND 1 9 

3. 1 Family Well-Being After TAFDC (Section A of Questionnaire) 9 

3.2 Employment/Earnings/Benefits (Questions Bl to B26 of Questionnaire) 10 

3.2. 1 Employment: Households Currently Working 10 

3.2.2 Earnings: Households Currently Working // 

3.2.3 Employment-Related Data 16 

3.3 Overall Financial Status (Questions B27. B28. B30. and Section C of Questionnaire) . 20 

3.3.1 Total Family Income 20 

3.3.2 Household Debt 21 

3.3.3 Other Income Supports 21 

3.4 Food Security (Section G of Questionnaire) 23 

3.4.1 Food Sufficiency 23 

3.4.2 Days Without Food 24 

3.5 Children's Medical Coverage (Questions HI toH5 of Questionnaire) 29 

3.6 Child-care Arrangements (Section I) 29 

3.6.1 Number of Child-care Providers 29 

3.6.2 Type of Child-care Providers 30 

3.6.3 Paying For Child Care 31 

3.7 Child Support Agreement/Contact With Absent Parent (Section J of Questionnaire). 32 

3.8 Child Well Being (Questions H6ToH13 Of Questionnaire) 32 

3.9 Household Composition (Section D of the Questionnaire) 34 

3.9.1 Housing Statistics. (Section D of the Questionnaire) 35 

3.10 Employment And Training (Section F of the Questionnaire) 35 

3.1 1 Transportation (Section E) 36 

3.12 Summary - Round 1 Survey Findings 37 

4. SURVEY FINDINGS « ROUND 4 39 

4.1 Comparison Of Round 4 And Round 1 Respondents 39 

4.2 Family Well Being After TAFDC (Section A Of Questionnaire) 40 

4.3 Employment/Earnings/Benefits (Questions Bl toB24 of Questionnaire) 40 

4.3.1 Employment: Households Currently Working (Table AS') 41 

4.3.2 Earnings: Households Currently Working 42 

4.3.3 Employment-Related Data 44 

4.4 Overall Financial Status (Section C of Questionnaire) 45 

4.4.1 Total Family Income (Table D14) 45 

4.4.2 Household Debt 46 

4.4.3 Other Income Supports (Table DI5) 46 



4.5 Food Security 47 

4.5.1 Food Sufficiency (Tabic I) J 6) 47 

4.5.2 Days Without Food 47 

4.5.3 Other Food Assistance 48 

4.6 Children's Medical Coverage (Table Dl 7) 49 

4.7 Child-care Arrangements 49 

4.7.1 Number of Child-care Providers (Table Dl 8) 49 

4.7.2 Type of Child-care Providers (Table D19) 49 

4.7.3 Paying for Child-care (Table D20) 50 

4.8 Child Support Agreement/Contact With Absent Parent (Table D21 ) 50 

4.9 Children's Well Being 50 

4.10 Household Composition/ Housing (Tables D22. D23) 51 

4.10.1 Housing Statistics 52 

4.1 1 Employment And Training (Table D24) 52 

4.12 Transportation (Table D25) 53 

4.13 Summary -- Round4 Findings 53 

5. CHANGES OVER TIME 55 

5.1 Status changes 55 

5.2 Most Actwe Variables 55 

5.2. 1 Moderately Active Variables 58 

5.2.2 Inactive Variables 59 

5.2.3 Conclusions - Changes Over Time 59 

6. CONCLUSIONS 60 

6.1 Areas of Concern 60 

6.2 Respondents Self-Assessment of Post-Welfare Experience 61 

6.3 Representativeness of Findings 61 

6.4 Future Tracking Acnvnr 61 



ATTACHMENT A: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE'S CLOSED CASE 
TRACKING STUDIES A-l 

ATTACHMENT B: GROUPING / CODING OF CLOSING ACTION REASONS B-l 

ATTACHMENT C: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE C-l 

ATTACHMENT D: ROUND 4 TABLES Dl 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In November 1995, Massachusetts reformed its welfare system, now known as the 
Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC) program, with a primary 
objective of assisting recipients make the transition from welfare to work. The reforms 
include financial work incentives and strict work requirements. A two-year time limit for 
certain able-bodied recipients went into effect in December 1996, with the first group of 
recipients having reached their time limit in December 1998. 

To help former TAFDC recipients become more financially secure, the Commonwealth 
provides health and employment-related income supports such as MassHealth coverage 
(Massachusetts 1 Medicaid program), child care and transportation subsidies. Child 
support, food stamps, rent subsidies, and similar types of assistance can also help families 
achieve greater income security. 

In light of these many changes, the Department is interested in how former recipients are 
doing after leaving assistance and is undertaking a long range evaluation of the post- 
welfare experiences of TAFDC cases. These findings are from the first stage of the 
evaluation process. 

The findings presented here are based on 341 completed interviews from 647 randomly 
selected cases that left TAFDC during the first half of 1997. These interviews took place 
approximately three months after the households' TAFDC case closed. We attempted to 
survey sample members every three months for up to a year, and, in total, Department 
staff conducted more than 1,000 interviews over twelve months. The results of the fourth 
round of interviews, which took place one year after sampled households left TAFDC, are 
also reported. (We do not report on the six and nine month interviews at this time.) We 
paid $25 for the first interview and $10 for each subsequent interview. 

Major Survey Findings 

We collected comprehensive data on employment, income, income supports, food 
security, children's medical coverage, child-care arrangements, and household 
composition. Since some cases who participated in round 1 interviews did not participate 
in round 4, the two sets of findings are not directly comparable. Rather, our primary goal 
is to describe as completely as possible the post-welfare experiences of the households 



participating in the study. Details of respondent household's circumstances are provided 
at three and twelve months. In addition, to assess the changes over time, we analyzed the 
same 210 respondent households who participated in both rounds 1 and 4. 

Eighteen percent (18.2%) of respondent households in round 1 had returned to TAFDC 
before being interviewed, as did 20.9% of respondent households in round 4. When not 
specified, cases that had reopened are combined with cases that were still closed. Some 
analyses, however, include only one group or the other, and are so noted. 

These findings reflect respondent's own views of their circumstances. We have made no 
attempt to verify the information provided by respondents except in limited instances as 
noted in the report. 

The findings are generally encouraging, but they also reveal potential problems that 
require a closer look. 

Employment And Earnings - Employment levels of households were quite high. 
Approximately three months after leaving, 75.0% of round 1 households whose TAFDC 
case was still closed reported that someone was working, generally the former recipient. 
A year after leaving TAFDC, 71.2% of households that remained closed included 
someone who was working. 

The average weekly earnings for respondents working full time was $305 during the first 
round of interviews, and $323 during the fourth round. More than one-sixth (17.3%) of 
households participating in both rounds of interviews included a working 
spouse/significant other. The average weekly earnings for spouses or significant others 
working full time was $355 during the first round of interviews, and $362 during the 
fourth round. 

Employment Benefits - Nearly half (44.2%) of those who were working at the first 
interview had health insurance available through their employer. More than half (57.8%) 
of the working round 4 households had health insurance available through their employer. 

Employer-based pensions were less common, with only 26.6% of those working at the 
time of the first interview, and 40.4% of those working at the fourth interview having this 
benefit. We did not ask specifically about Social Security coverage. 



u 



Overall Income And Debt - Round 4 households who remained closed were 
financially better off than round 1 households. (Only cases that remained closed are 
reported on for overall family income.) Nearly two-thirds (63.3%) of round 4 households 
that remained closed had total income of more than $250 per week ($12,980 per year). In 
round 1, 56.2% reported that amount of income. Among the higher income levels, in 
round 4, 17.8% of respondents reported income above $500 per week ($26,081 annually), 
compared to 1 1.7% for round 1. Similarly, 14.2% of round 4 respondents reported 
income below $150 weekly, compared to 22.3% in round 1. 

Round 4 households had somewhat higher debt levels than round 1 households. 
Twenty-one percent (20.5%) of round 4 cases reported total debt of $10,000 or more 
( 1 7.2% for round 1 cases). Conversely, 45.8% of round 4 cases reported total debt of 
$2,000 or less (57.3% for round 1 cases). We did not ask whether the debt was 
accumulated before or after leaving TAFDC. 

Income Supports- Virtually all households had MassHealth coverage for their 
children, and child-care subsidies were helping many of these households cover the cost 
of child care. 

Other income supports, especially food stamps, were used infrequently. Less than one of 
five households ( 1 7.9%) whose TAFDC case was still closed at the time of the first 
interview was receiving food stamps, and only 6.5% of cases still closed were receiving 
food stamps at the time of the fourth interview. 

Few households reported receiving child support. Only 14.7% of households 
participating in the first interview, and 18.6% of households participating in the fourth 
interview were receiving child support. Households whose TAFDC case was still closed 
were more likely to be receiving child support than were those who had returned to 
TAFDC. Sixteen percent (15.8%) of cases still closed at the first interview were 
receiving child support, compared to 9.7% of cases that had returned to TAFDC. By the 
time of the fourth interview, 21.8% of the cases still closed and 6.7% of cases that had 
returned to TAFDC were receiving child support. 

Because we could not identify whether legally liable fathers were present in the 
household, these percentages may understate actual child support. (The figures cited 



ui 



above assume no legally liable fathers were present.) Better information is expected after 
completing the forthcoming administrative records review (see page vii). 

Food Security - One particularly disturbing finding was that a small number of 
households, mainly in the first round of interviews, reported going without food for one 
or more days during the previous month. While some of these families' food problems 
developed after leaving TAFDC, in most instances the families were experiencing food 
insecurity even before their TAFDC case was closed. 1 Food security of households 
participating in the fourth interview was considerably improved. Of the twenty-six 
households reporting going without food during the first interview, fourteen participated 
in the fourth interview. None of these fourteen households reported going without food 
at the fourth interview, approximately nine months after the first. Unfortunately, twelve 
cases that reported having insufficient food at the first interview did not complete the 
round 4 interview, so we were unable to determine whether the circumstances had 
changed. 

Household Composition - Survey data indicated that respondents' households were 
often more complex than simply a single mother and her child(ren). Twenty-four percent 
(23.8%) of households participating in the fourth interview included a spouse/significant 
other, and 3 1 .6% included another individual". According to survey data, the average 
size of households participating in the survey was 3.8 individuals in round 1 and 3.9 
individuals in round 4. In comparison, the average household size according to 
departmental records at the time of closing was 2.9 individuals. 

Children's Medical Coverage - The number of children with health coverage after 
their families left TAFDC was very high. In both the first and fourth rounds of 
interviews, nine often children had MassHealth. 

Child-care Arrangements - The most common providers of child care were the 
custodial parent's mother, father, or grandparent, a baby-sitter or family day care, a school 
or after-school program, and child-care centers. The largest number of children in 
households participating in the fourth round of interviews fell into the category of "not 
needing" child care. 



Only cases that were still closed at the time of the interview were asked about food security. In the first 
round of interviews, we asked households to compare their food situation after leaving TAFDC with what it 
was like during the last three months that the family was on TAFDC. 
~ Statistics on spouse/significant other and other individuals are not available for round 1. 



IV 



Child-Care Costs - The state was paying the costs of child care for forty percent of 
cases at the first interview and for half of the cases at the fourth interview. 

Family Well Being - In both the first and fourth rounds of interviews, the majority of 
respondents whose TAFDC case was still closed rated their financial and general well- 
being after leaving TAFDC as better than when they were on TAFDC. In the first 
interview, 74.1% of cases still closed said that their family was financially the same or 
better since leaving TAFDC, and 79.5% said that their family, in general, was the same or 
better off. In the fourth interview, 85.9% of cases still closed rated their financial 
situation as the same or better, and as many (85.9%) said that, in general, they were the 
same or better than when on TAFDC. At both times, the majority rated their situation as 
improved. 

Profile Of Respondent Households 

Overall, respondents' households were leaving TAFDC by combining employment, 
MassHealth coverage and child-care subsidies. The fact that so many respondents 
reported that their financial and general well being remained the same or improved after 
leaving TAFDC was encouraging. At the same time, the fact that some households 
reported experiencing food insecurity is a concern. 

Changes Over Time 

We analyzed the 210 households who participated in both the round 1 and round 4 
interviews. Those households, on average, experienced a discernible improvement in 
their living conditions between the first and fourth interviews. More than three times as 
many households (49.2%) whose TAFDC case remained closed increased their family 
income than experienced a loss in income (15.4%). Twice as many households upgraded 
their food status (30.8%) than downgraded their status (16.5%). And twice as many 
working households had employment-based health insurance available (24.8%) than lost 
its availability ( 13.6%). 

While the households we followed improved over time, because 131 households from 
round 1 did not participate in round 4, we cannot rule out the possibility that those who 
participated in both rounds were experiencing more positive outcomes than those who did 
not. We will be in a better position to measure the differences between respondents and 
non-respondents when we conduct the second stage of this evaluation: a review of 



v 



administrative records on employment, earnings, food stamps receipt, and child support 
for all closings during the sample period. 

Survey Sample and Response Bias 

Our findings are based on comprehensive interviews with former welfare recipients 
completed shortly after they left assistance (round 1 ) and a year later (round 4). Of 647 
randomly selected cases that met the criteria for the study, we interviewed 34 1 
households during the first round of surveys for a response rate of 52.7%. In round 4 we 
interviewed 215 households, a 19.5% attrition rate from round 1. 

Because our response rate was less than hoped for, we cannot definitively conclude that 
the survey findings for round 1 and round 4 are representative of all households who left 
assistance at the time we pulled the sample. We know, for example, that Hispanics were 
moderately underrepresented in the respondent population for both rounds of interviews. 

Respondents were not markedly different from all closings in terms of educational 
background, although a slightly higher proportion of respondents had some college than 
closings as a whole. Respondents were somewhat more likely to live in public or 
subsidized housing than all closings. While the proportions of cases subject to the time 
limit are similar for respondents and all closings, the percentage subject to both the time 
limit and work requirement is higher in the respondent population. Respondents were 
more likely to have had their TAFDC cases closed for earnings than were all closings. 

Because the sample size was larger, our findings for round 1 have a smaller margin of 
error for the full sample (±5.3%) than do the round 4 findings (±6.7%). While we found 
no statistically significant difference between the round 4 and the round 1 samples on 
selected variables, we cannot rule out the likelihood that the round 4 group was better off 
on traits that we were unable to measure, such as interpersonal skills and social supports. 

The findings, however, remain important. Perhaps their real strength comes within the 
limitations of the sample. If respondent households were more advantaged than the 
universe of closings, these findings alert us to their problems and concerns after leaving 
assistance. They also serve as a foundation for examining the post-welfare experiences of 
time limited closings, a group that may have higher proportions of households in less 
favorable circumstances. 



vi 



Future Tracking Activity 

This is the first of a four-part tracking study of closed TAFDC cases. The next part will 
consist of a review of all closings from January to June 1997 (N=20,000) using 
Departmental administrative records, augmented by income and child support data from 
the Department of Revenue's Longitudinal Database (LDB). 

For the third part of the study, the Center for Survey Research at the University of 
Massachusetts - Boston will conduct a survey of a random sample of 600 closings from 
the December 1998 to February 1999 period, many of which will have been the first to 
reach the state's two year time limit. Special emphasis will be placed on getting a survey 
response rate of 75% or higher. 

Finally, we will be conducting a review of all closings for the December 1998 to February 
1999 time period using the same administrative records described above for the January 
to June 1997 review. Parts three and four of this study will be conducted with funding 
from the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) of the US Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Through these various evaluations we hope to comprehensively document the post- 
welfare experience of households leaving assistance under welfare reform, one of the 
major social policy changes of our time. 



vu 



HOW ARE THEY DOING? 

A LONGITUDINAL STUDY 

TRACKING HOUSEHOLDS LEAVING WELFARE 

UNDER MASSACHUSETTS' REFORM 



1. INTRODUCTION 

Spurred by a robust economy and major welfare reforms, the number of cases receiving 
AFDC in Massachusetts declined from 102,993 cases in February 1995, when welfare reform 
legislation was signed, to 55,129 cases in February 1999, a 46.5% drop. As the state's 
caseload has fallen to levels not seen in decades, interest has increasingly focused on 
documenting the lives of those leaving the rolls as a result of welfare reform. 

Broad-based changes to the Massachusetts welfare system, aimed at making it a transitional 
support system, went into effect in November 1995 including work requirements, financial 
work incentives, teen parent requirements relating to education and living arrangement, a 
family cap, and school attendance for children under fourteen. A two-year time limit for 
certain able-bodied recipients was added in December 1996 with the first group of recipients 
having reached their 24-month time limit in December 1998. The welfare program is now 
known as the Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC) program and 
the Department of Public Welfare was renamed the Department of Transitional Assistance 
(DTA). 

The single largest concern about these reforms is how former recipients are doing after 
TAFDC. To what extent has reform helped recipients replace the welfare check with a 
paycheck? How has their standard of living changed after leaving TAFDC? How are the 
children doing after TAFDC? What impact have TAFDC caseload declines had on other 
publicly supported programs such as food stamps, MassHealth (Massachusetts 1 Medicaid 
program), and housing subsidies? 

The Department embarked on a long-range evaluation of cases leaving TAFDC that includes 
surveys of individual households and analysis of state administrative data. While surveys are 
the best way to get a comprehensive understanding of how families are coping with life after 
welfare, they are costly. Consequently, the number of cases that can be surveyed is low. 
Administrative data on the other hand are relatively inexpensive to use but lack the depth of 
survey data. To build upon the strengths of both data sources, the Department's long-range 
strategy involves a comprehensive survey of a random sample of closed cases covering two 
distinct study periods, combined with an analysis of the universe of closings for the same two 
periods using administrative data. 

The first study period spans the months from January to June 1997 and is the focus of this 
report. The second study will include December 1998, January 1999, and February 1999. 
While cases from the current study left assistance prior to time limited closings going into 
effect, many of the closings that we will track during the second study period will be the first 



Page 1 



that reached the state's two-year time limit. A complete description of the state's closed 
cases tracking strategy is given in Attachment A. 

The Department believes this tracking strategy will enable us to document a broad range of 
experiences of families after they have left assistance. These findings will in turn be used to 
refine and improve the way we operate and to identify needed changes in other public policy 
areas. This report begins the process. 

As noted above, this report focuses on the period from January to June 1997. We present 
findings from 341 completed interviews from 647 randomly selected households whom we 
refer to throughout the report as round 1 respondents because they participated in the first 
round of interviews approximately three months after their TAFDC case was closed. The 
Department attempted to re-contact survey sample members every three months for up to one 
year after they left assistance. Because it is always more difficult to track cases as time goes 
on, we were able to interview only 2 1 5 of these households by the time of the fourth 
interview approximately one year after their TAFDC case had been closed. We completed 
223 cases in round 2 and 237 cases in round 3. Overall, therefore, we completed 1,016 
questionnaires. 

Section 2 of this report compares the 341 households participating in the first round of 
interviews to the universe of closings for the same time period. 

Section 3 presents findings from round 1 of the survey, approximately three months after 
respondents left TAFDC. 

Section 4 presents the major findings from the fourth round of interviews, approximately one 
year after their TAFDC case closed. 

Section 5 compares the status of households participating in the first interview to their status 
at the fourth interview. 

Section 6 presents concluding remarks and plans for future analyses. 

These findings reflect respondents' own views of their circumstances. We have made no 
attempt to verify the information provided by respondents except in very limited cases as 
noted in the report. 



Page 2 



2. DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS 

2.1 Sampling Methodology 

Three hundred forty-one (341) members of a randomly selected sample of 729 cases 
participated in the first round of surveys. Fifty-seven cases were inappropriately sampled in 
that their case had closed for less than 30 days. Twenty-five cases were known to have 
moved out of state and no contact was attempted. Of the 647 cases that met the criteria for 
the study, we completed interviews with 341 respondents in the first round for a response rate 
of52.7%'. 

Sampled cases left TAFDC between December 15, 1996, and June 14, 1997, so their first 
months without benefits were January through June 1997. Sixty-two (62) of the 341 
respondents (18.2%) had had their TAFDC case reopened by the time of the first interview 
(but had been closed for at least 30 days; cases that reopened within 30 days were eliminated 
from the sample). First interviews took place approximately three months after the case no 
longer received assistance. For example, cases that did not receive assistance in January 1997 
were scheduled for first interviews in April 1997; February 1997 closings were scheduled for 
first interviews in May 1997. Our goal was to track sample members quarterly for up to one 
year after their TAFDC case had closed. 

We attempted to contact sampled cases by letter, by telephone (both during days and 
evenings), and by home visits. Departmental staff conducted 263 interviews by phone 
(77.1% of total), 50 interviews face to face (14.7% of total), 25 interviews by mail (7.3% of 
the total); and 3 interviews using a combination (0.9% of total). Sampled cases that did not 
participate in round 1 but agreed to cooperate later were interviewed with the round 1 
questionnaire because it examined their experiences in greater detail than did follow-up 
questionnaires. For analysis purposes, they are reported with round 1 results. We paid $25 
for the first interview and $10 for each subsequent interview. 

Our response rate is less than we had hoped. However, because of the extensive scope and 
depth of the interviews, these findings shed considerable light on how this group of families 
is coping after leaving TAFDC. It should also be noted that this is the first in what we plan to 
be a series of reports that will document the full range of post-welfare experiences. 



2.2 Comparative Data on Round 1 Respondents 

To determine how representative our sample is of all closings during the January to June 1997 
months, we compared administrative data on respondents with the universe of closings on 
several key demographic and programmatic variables. 



1 From other studies we know that approximately 12% of cases close because they moved out-of-state. Using 
that proportion increases the response rate to 58%. 

Page 3 



2.2.1 Socio-Demographic Traits 

We compared survey respondents to the universe of closings on race, language, educational 
level, marital status and housing status. 

Race. Most survey respondents were White, as was the majority of all closings. Whites, 
however, represented a higher proportion of respondents (56.3%) than was the case for all 
closings (51.8%). In contrast, 22.9% of respondents were Hispanic while Hispanics 
comprised 27.0% of all closings. The percentage of Blacks among respondents was very 
close to the percentage in the universe of closings (16.4% of respondents compared to 17.6% 
of all closings). Two percent (2.3%) of survey respondents were American/Alaskan Indian 
compared to 0.3% of all closings, and 2.1% of respondents were Asian/Pacific Islanders 
compared to 3.2% of all closings. 

Figure 1: Race 



E Respondents(%) 
"AIICIosings(%) 




White 



Hispanic 



Black American/ 

Alaskan Indian 



Asian 



Language. Respondents were more likely to speak English as their primary language and 
less likely to speak Spanish than the universe of closings. Eighty-nine percent (89.4%) of 
respondents spoke English as their primary language compared to 85.1% of all cases closed 
during the study period. Likewise, 8.2% of respondents spoke Spanish compared to 1 1 .8% of 
all closings. The remaining respondents, 2.4%, spoke another language compared to 3.1% of 
all closings. 

Figure 2: Language 



: 




English 



Spanish 



Other 



Page 4 



Education. Forty percent of respondents (40.2%) did not have a high school diploma or 
GED. A similar percentage of all closings, 42.3%, lacked a high school diploma or GED. 
The proportion of cases with a high school diploma was the same for respondents and all 
closings (36. 1 %). A slightly higher proportion of respondents had some college or completed 
a 2 or 4-year college than was the case for the universe of closings ( 1 5.3% of respondents 
compared to 13.0% of all closings). DTA's information on educational achievement, 
however, is generally not updated after intake, so these data from DTA's Masterfile may 
understate the educational level of both respondents and all closings. 



Figure 3: Education 



40% -I 












35% - 


























D Respondents(%) 
■ AIICIosings(%) 




30% 


/ 








2b%- 


s 






20%- 






1b%- 


s 




£=. 


j 


10%- 




fc 










rf™ 




\ 




b%- 


HM . 






1 


^=lfli ^MB / /■■ w 




No School 


1 t 
Ye 


08 
ars 


9 tc 

Ye 


11 
ars 


Hi 
Scr 


3h 

lOOl 


Gf 


ED 

1 


So 
3ol 


me 
ege 


2-Year 4- Year Not Avail. 
College College 



Marital Status. The vast majority of both respondents and all closings had never been 
married: sixty percent (59.8%) of respondents compared to 6 1 .2% of all closings. Both 
respondents and all closings were comparable in the other marital categories. 

Figure 4: Marital Status 




Never Married 



Married 



□ Respondents(%) 
■ AIICIosings(%) 



H ra 



Separated 



Divorced 



Widowed Not Available 



Page 5 



r 



Housing. Individuals living in public or subsidized housing were more likely to respond to 
the survey than would be expected based on their numbers in the universe of closings. Forty- 
two percent (41.6%) of respondents were living in public or subsidized housing compared to 
37.7% of all closings. 



Figure 5: Housing Status 



70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 



<\ 





HRespondents(%; 
MAI! Closings(%) 




[ 
i 
[ 
[ 

r 

L 
[ 



Private 



Subsidized 



2.2.2 Programmatic Variables 

In addition to socio-demographic traits, we examined three important programmatic 
variables: time limit status, work requirement status and reason for closing. 

Time Limits And Work Requirements. The proportion of respondents who were subject to 
the time limit was the same as that for the universe of closings: 64.8%. However, survey 
respondents included a higher proportion of time limit cases that were also subject to the 
work requirement because the youngest child was school age (35.5%) than was the case for 
all closings (29.7%). The percentage of cases exempt from the time limit was essentially the 
same for respondents (29.6%) and all closings (30.5%). 



Figure 6: Exemption Status 




Exempt 



Time Limit Only 



Time Limit & 
Work Req 



Time Limit (2- 
Parent or FEP) 



Exempt Pend. 
Disability Rev 



Exempt Pending 

TAFDC Rev or in 

Control Group 



■ 



Page 6 



r 



Reason For Closing. We collapsed the Department's lengthy list of closing action reasons 
into six categories to simplify analysis. (See Appendix B for details.) Closing action reasons 
are an administrative tool to notify recipients why we are closing their case and to allow them 
to correct the circumstance that caused the closing if they choose. By themselves they do not 
give an accurate representation of why cases close. Cases that close for failing to redetermine 
have many different reasons for leaving TAFDC, including becoming employed. Others have 
married, or otherwise changed their living arrangement, but we have no consistent, reliable 
way to know the actual circumstances. As Figure 7 shows, the most common reason for 
closing, for both respondents and all closings, was failure to cooperate with an eligibility 
requirement, a category that is of particular interest for tracking purposes because of its 
ambiguity. Thirty-seven percent (37.2%) of respondents closed because the recipient failed 
to cooperate with an eligibility requirement, compared to 39.3% of all closings. 

The second most common reason for case closings among round 1 respondents was increased 
earnings. Thirty-five percent (34.9%) of respondents closed because of earnings compared to 
26.9% of all closings. 

Finally, the third most common reason for closings among round 1 respondents was the 
recipient's request. Only 1 1.1% of respondents, however, closed for this reason compared to 
17.2% of all closings. 

Figure 7: Reason for Closing 




D Respondents (%) 
■ All Closings (%) 



Failure to Earnings 

cooperate 




Client Request No Eligible Child Unearned 

Income 



Other 



2.2.3 Other Findings on Respondents 

According to Departmental records, 30 households participating in the survey (8.8%) had a 
spouse/significant other present. The educational level of the spouse/significant other was 
comparatively low with half lacking a high school diploma or GED. 

Some additional information on respondents comes from the survey itself. (Except where 
noted, all the data reported above are taken from Departmental records.) Question A2 of the 



Page 7 



survey questionnaire asked respondents to estimate the total amount of time, in years, they 
had been on assistance. The responses show a diverse group in terms of length of stay: 
o Thirty-one percent (3 1 . 1 9c ) of respondents reported being on (T)AFDC for 2 

years or less. 
o Thirty percent (29.67c) of respondents reported being on (T)AFDC for three to 

five years. 
o Sixteen percent (16.47c) of respondents reported being on (T)AFDC from six 

to eight years. 
o Twenty-three percent (22.97c) of respondents reported being on (T)AFDC for 

more than eight years. 

At the two ends of the spectrum, five cases ( 1 .5%) reported 20 years or more of (T)AFDC 
receipt, and five cases reported being on for less than one year. Approximately one-third of 
the respondents (32.27c) reported being on assistance as a child. 



2.3 Summary: Respondents Profile 

In summary, survey respondents were a diverse group that is not easily portrayed. They were 
more likely to be White and less likely to be Hispanic, more likely to speak English and less 
likely to speak Spanish than all closings. Respondents were more likely to live in public or 
subsidized housing than were all closings. 

Respondents' educational backgrounds were not markedly different from all closings, 
although a slightly higher proportion of respondents had some college than closings as a 
whole. 

While the proportions of cases subject to the time limit are similar for respondents and all 
closings, the percentage subject to both the time limit and work requirement is higher in the 
respondent population. In addition, survey respondents were more likely to have had their 
TAFDC cases closed for earnings than were all closings. Most frequently, cases left TAFDC 
because of failure to cooperate with an eligibility requirement, especially a scheduled 
redetermination. Similar proportions were found between respondents and all closings. 

While these comparative data suggest a certain bias within the respondent population, they 
also describe a group of cases of special interest on the three programmatic variables 
examined: time limit status, work requirement status, and reason for closing. 



Page 8 



3. SURVEY FINDINGS ~ ROUND 1 

We tracked TAFDC cases that closed between January and June 1997 at three-month 
intervals (four separate rounds of surveys) for one year. In this section we present survey 
findings from round 1 . They will provide a picture of how participating households were 
doing shortly after leaving TAFDC (that is, approximately three months after their TAFDC 
case was closed). 

We completed comprehensive questionnaires on 341 closed cases during round 1. (See 
Appendix C for a copy of the questionnaire.) The parenthetical portion of certain section 
titles below refers to the specific sections of the survey questionnaire that are discussed. 



3.1 Family Well-Being After TAFDC (Section A of Questionnaire) 

In large numbers respondents reported that they were better off after leaving assistance. 
Specifically, we asked respondents for their perceptions of their financial and general well 
being after leaving TAFDC. For both questions respondents could choose from five possible 
choices ranging from much better to much worse. These two questions on financial and 
general well being were asked only if the case was still closed (n=279). 

Three-quarters (74.1 % ) of respondents reported that their families were the same or 
better off financially since leaving TAFDC. Nearly 60% of survey respondents thought 
they were either much better or a little better off financially since leaving TAFDC. 

Responses were distributed among the five options presented as follows: 

o 25.8% reported that the family was much better financially since leaving TAFDC. 

o 32.7% reported that the family was a little better financially since leaving TAFDC. 

o 15.6% reported that their financial situation was the same. 

o 13.8% reported that the family's financial situation was a little worse. 

o 12.0% reported that the family's financial situation was much worse. 

Eighty percent (79.5%) of respondents felt that their families were the same or better 
off in general since they had left TAFDC. When the same individuals were asked how 
things were for the family in general since leaving TAFDC, the responses were: 

o 33.0% reported being much better off. 

o 34.8% reported being a little better off. 

o 1 1 .7% reported being the same. 

o 1 1 .7% reported being a little worse off. 

o 8.6% reported being much worse off. 

These findings provide a fitting context within which to view more specific details about 
families after leaving assistance. The next set of findings provides extensive information on 
the actual circumstances of their lives. 



Page 9 



3.2 Employment/Earnings/Benefits (Questions Bl to B26 of Questionnaire) 

Section B of the survey questionnaire explored the employment experiences of various 
individuals within the household. We began by asking all respondents if anyone in the 
household had worked since leaving TAFDC. 

Work levels among households participating in the survey were high. Eighty percent 
(79.5%) of respondents reported that at least one person in the household had worked 
at some time since leaving TAFDC. 

In addition, among cases that were still closed, three quarters of the households were working 
at the time of the first interview. Likewise, among all households two thirds (66.6%) had a 
respondent or spouse/significant other working. 



3.2.1 Employment: Households Currently Working 

As Table 1 shows, 125 respondents (36.7%) reported that they were working full time (30 or 
more hours per week) at the time of the first interview and 71 respondents (20.8%) reported 
working part-time, for a total of 196 working respondents. 

Table 1. 

Respondents and Spouse/Significant Others Working at Time of First Interview 

Respondents Spouse/Significant Other 



Work Level 




% 




% 


(Currently Working) 


Number 


of 341 


Number 


of 341 


Full-Time (30 or more hours) 


125 


36.7 


48 


14.7 


Part-Time (less than 30 hours) 


71 


20.8 


11 


3.2 


Total 


196 


57.5 


59 


17.3 



In addition, in forty-eight cases the respondent reported that a spouse/significant other was 
working full time at the time of the interview. In eleven cases a spouse/significant other was 
working part-time, for a total of 59 other adults who were working at the time of the 
interview, representing 17.3% of the respondent households. 

In two-thirds (66.6%) of all surveyed households, the respondent and/or spouse/ 
significant other was working at the time of the interview. The employment status of 
these households is shown in Table 2. 



Page 10 



Table 2. 

All Households With A Working Member: 

Work Status 



Spouses/ Significant Others 







Not Present or 


Full Time 


Part Time 


Not Working 


9 cases 


2 cases 


114 cases 


(2.6%) 


(0.6%) 


(33.4%) 


11 cases 


6 cases 


54 cases 


(3.2%) 


(1.8%) 


(15.8%) 


28 cases 


3 cases 


114 cases 


(8.2%) 


(0.9%) 


(33.4%) 



Full Time 



c 

© Part Time 

a 

09 
V 



Not Working 



Of those cases that were still closed at the time of the interview (n=279), three quarters 
(75.0%) had a respondent or spouse/significant other (or both) currently working. The 

employment status of these households is shown in Table 3. 

Table 3. 

Cases Still Closed With A Working Member: 

Work Status 



Spouses/ Significant Others 



Full Time 


9 cases 


(3.2%) 


11 cases 


(3.9%) 


26 cases 


(9.3%) 



Part Time 



Not Present or 
^NotWorking 





Full Time 


— 

= 
■o 




c 
o 
a 

t/5 


Part Time 




Not Working 



2 cases 
(0.7%) 

6 cases 

(2.2%) 

3 cases 

(1.1%) 



109 cases 
(39.1%) 

43 cases 

(15.4%) 

70 cases 

(25.0%) 



We also collected employment data on other individuals (generally children or parents) in the 
household. In two cases, dependents were working full-time and in five cases dependents 
were working part-time. In seven cases, the respondents' parents (living in the household) 
were working full time. In four cases, an adult dependent was working full time. (These 
individuals are not included in the above employment statistics.) 



3.2.2 Earnings: Households Currently Working 

If anyone in the household was currently working, we asked the amount of their earnings. 
We made no attempt to verify reported earnings. 



Pase 1 1 



For analytical purposes, we aggregated the individual-level earnings data for respondents and 
spouses/significant others into salary ranges. The following tables present earnings broken 
into four categories: 

o Respondents working full-time (Table 4). 



o Respondents working part-time (Table 5). 

o Spouse/significant other working full-time (Table 6). 

o Spouse/significant other working part-time (Table 7). 



3.2.2. 1 Respondents Working Full Time 

One hundred twenty five respondents were working full time when first interviewed. As 
Table 4 shows, sixteen percent (15.7% ) were making less than S200 weekly (S 10.360 
annually). The majority of cases (58.7%) were making between S201 and S350 weekly 
(S 10.361 to SI 5.600 annually). One-quarter was making more than S350 weekly ($ 18.221 or 
more annually). 

The average (mean) gross weekly pay for respondents working full-time was S305 (S 15.860 
annually). At the low end of the scale, one case reported earnings of only S25. while, at the 
high end. three cases reported earnings of more than S500 a week (specifically. S725. S962. 
and SI 100). If these four extreme values are omitted, the range of reported weekly earnings 
for respondents working full-time was SI 35 to S500. 



Table 4. 

Earnings of Respondents Working Full-Time 



Salary Range 







Cumulative 


■equency 


Percent 


Percent" 


5 


4.1) 


4.1 


14 


11.2 


15.7 


25 


20.0 


36.4 


26 


20.8 


57.9 


20 


16.0 


74.4 


17 


13.6 


88.4 


8 


6.4 


95.0 


3 


2.4 


97.5 


3 


2.4 


100.0 


121 


96.8 




4 


3.2 




125 


100.0 





$1 to $150 
$151 to $200 
$201 to $250 
$251 to $300 
$301 to $350 
$351 to $400 
$401 to $450 
$451 to $500 
$501 to $9999 
Total 

Did not respond 
Total 



4 Full time work was 30 or more hours per week. 

_> In this and following tables the cumulative percent column excludes those households who did not respond to 

the question. 



Page 12 



Summary Statistics on Earnings of Respondents Working Full-Time 



Mean 


Median 


Minimum 


Maximum 


25 


Quartiles 
50 


75 


$305 


$280 


$25 


$1,100 


$228 


$280 


$358 



3.2.2.2 Respondents Working Part Time 

Sixty-nine of the seventy-one respondents working part-time (less than 30 hours per week) at 
the time of the first interview reported earnings. More than half of respondents working part- 
time (58.0%) were making less than $150 weekly ($7,740 annually). (See Table 5.) An 
additional 21.7% were making between $151 and $200 weekly ($7,741 to $10,360 annually). 

The average weekly earnings of $148 from part-time work is half of that for full-time work 
($305). Two cases in the part-time group reported income of only $8 weekly and six other 
cases reported weekly earnings of $50 or less ($2600 annually). At the other end of the scale, 
two cases reported earnings of $300 weekly, and one case each reported earnings of $347, 
$350 and $400. The majority of cases (56) reported weekly earnings ranging from $60 to 
$280. 



Table 5. 














Earnings of Respondents Working Part-Time 




















Cumulative 




Salary Range 




Frequency 


Percent 


Percent 




$1 to $150 




40 


56.3 




58.0 




$151 to $200 




15 


21.1 




79.7 




$201 to $250 




7 


9.9 




89.9 




$251 to $300 




4 


5.6 




95.7 




$301 to $350 




2 


2.8 




98.6 




$351 to $400 




1 


1.4 




100.0 




Total 




69 


97.2 








Did not respond 




2 


2.8 








Total 




71 


100.0 








Summary Statistics on Earnings of Respondents Working 


Part-Time 


















Quartiles 




Mean 


Median 


Minimum Maximum 




25 


50 


75 


$148 


$140 


$8 $400 


i 


$98 


$140 


$180 



Page 13 



3.2.2.3 Spouses/Significant Others Working Full Time 

Forty-four (44) of 48 cases reported earnings data for spouses/significant others who were 
working full-time (Table 6). Fifty-seven percent (56.8%) of earnings for spouses/ significant 
others fell between $201 and $350 weekly ($10,361 to $18,220 annually), which is 
comparable to earnings for respondents working full-time (58.7%). Eleven percent ( 1 1 .4%) 
of spouses/significant others had weekly earnings of $200 or less ($ 1 0,360). Approximately 
one-third of spouses/significant others was making $250 or less weekly ($12,980 annually). 
For comparison purposes, 36.4% of respondents working full time had weekly earnings of 
$250 or less. 

Interestingly, a considerably higher percentage of spouses/significant others had weekly 
earnings at the high end of the scale than did respondents. Twenty-seven percent (27.3%) of 
spouses/significant others were making more than $400 weekly ($20,800 or more annually) 
compared to only 1 1.6% of respondents. That is, the average earnings of spouses/significant 
others working full-time, who presumably are predominantly male, is higher than that of 
respondents working full-time, who are predominantly female. Spouses/significant others 
working full-time had average weekly earnings of $355 compared to average weekly earnings 
of $305 for respondents working full-time. 



Table 6. 

Earnings of Spouses/Significant Others Working Full-Time 



Salary Range 







Cumulative 


Frequency 


Percent 


Percent 


3 


6.3 


6.8 


2 


4.2 


11.4 


9 


18.8 


31.8 


8 


16.7 


50.0 


8 


16.7 


68.2 


2 


4.2 


72.7 


2 


4.2 


77.3 


6 


12.5 


90.9 


4 


8.3 


100.0 


44 


91.7 




4 


8.3 




48 


100.0 





$1 to $150 
$151 to $200 
$201 to $250 
$251 to $300 
$301 to $350 
$351 to $400 
$401 to $450 
$451 to $500 
$501 to $1,000 
Total 

Did not respond 
Total 



Summary Statistics on Earnings of Spouses/Significant Others Working Full-Time 



Mean 


Median 


Minimum 


Maximum 


25 


Quartiles 
50 


75 


$355 


$301 


$100 


$1,000 


$250 


$301 


$443 



Page 14 



3.2.2.4 Spouses/Significant Others Working Part-Time 

Eleven spouses/significant others were working part-time (Table 7). Seventy percent (seven 
of the ten cases who reported earnings) were making $200 or less weekly ($10,360 or less 
annually). Forty percent (4 cases) were making $150 or less weekly ($7,740 or less 
annually). 



Table 7. 

Earnings of Spouses/Significant Others Working Part-Time 



Salary Range 

$1 to $150 
$151 to $200 
$251 to $300 
$301 to $350 
$451 to $500 
Total 

Did not respond 
Total 



Frequency 



4 

3 
1 
1 
1 

10 
1 

11 





Cumulative 


Percent 


Percent 


36.4 


40.0 


27.3 


70.0 


9.1 


80.0 


9.1 


90.0 


9.1 


100.0 


90.9 




9.1 




100.0 





Summary Statistics on Earnings of Spouses/Significant Others Working Part-Time 



Quartiles 



Mean 


Median 


Minimum Maximum 


25 


50 


75 


$211 


$177 


$100 $500 


$117 


$177 


$284 



3.2.2.5 Total Household Earnings 

The tables above examined earnings of individuals. In twenty-eight cases, however, both the 
respondent and a spouse/significant other were working. To get a comprehensive picture of 
household earnings, we calculated total earnings based on the number of workers. Table 8 
below includes the average earnings of households with only a respondent or 
spouse/significant other working, as well as the average earnings of households with two 
adults working. (In computing the average annual earnings data in Table 8, we assumed 52 
weeks of work a year. Existing research, however, suggests that job retention is highly fluid 
among former welfare recipients so this assumption may be overly optimistic. Conversely, 
we have not taken into account the effect of the earned income tax credit on earned income.) 



The earnings data on households with two working adults (Table 8) underscore the 
importance of a second source of income in assisting single-parent households to attain 
financial self-sufficiency. 

o Financially, the best possible scenario is when two adults are working full-time. 

Their average weekly earnings was $617 or $32,084 annually. However, only nine 

cases (2.6%) fell into this category (and only eight respondents reported earnings). 

The next best scenario is when one adult is working full-time and the other part-time. 

The average weekly earnings for households with the respondent working full-time 



o 



Page 15 



: 



and the spouse/significant other working part-time was S464 or S24. 128 annually. 
For households with the spouse/significant other working full-time and the respondent 
working part-time, average weekly earnings were even higher. S537 or S27.924 
annually. Again, the number of cases is very small, a total of 1 1 cases, with earnings 
data reported by 10 cases. 

The most common situation was a household with only the respondent working full-time and 
averaging S3 10 weekly (SI 6. 120 annually). 



Table 8. 








Average Earnings 


Cases Reporting 
Earnings 








(Number of A 1 


i erage Weekly 


Average Annual 


Working Level 


Cases) 


Earnings 


Earnings 




Respondents Only Working 






Full-time 


HOof 114 


$310 


$16,120 


Part-time 


53 of 54 

Spouses/Significant Others Only 
Working 


$151 


$7,852 


Full-time 


26 of 28 


$325 


$16,900 


Part-time 


3 of 3 


$208 


$10,816 



Both Respondent and 

Spouse/Significant Other Working 
Full-time - respondent and 
spouse/significant other 8 of 9 $617 $32,084 

Full-time - respondent. Part-time - 

spouse/significant other 2 of 2 $464 $24,128 

Full-time - spouse/significant other. 

Part-time - respondent 10 of 11 $537 $27,924 



: 



! 



Part-time - respondent and 

spouse/ significant other 5 of 6 $351 $18,252 



3.2.3 Employment-Related Data 

In addition to employment and earnings data on households currently working, we compiled 
information on such employment-related issues as job search activity, earned income tax 
credit and employment benefits. The survey questionnaire has three separate sections on 
employment-related issues: one for those currently working: one for those who had worked 
since leaving TAFDC but had stopped by the time of the interview: and one for those who 
had not worked since leaving TAFDC. The distribution of the 341 households surveyed was 
as follows: 



; 



: 

— 

I 



Paec 16 



o In 231 cases (68.5%), someone was currently working (Currently Working 

Group). 
o In 44 cases (13.1%) someone had worked but stopped (Worked But Stopped 

Group). 
o In 62 cases (18.4%) no one in the household had worked after leaving TAFDC 

(Never Worked Group). 7 (Four cases did not respond.) 



3.2.3. 1 Currently Working Group (n=23 I) and Worked But Stopped Group (n=44) 

For households with someone currently working or with someone who had worked but 
stopped we asked: 

o What kind of job do (did) you have? 

How did you find the job? 

Do you know about the earned income tax credit? 

Did you claim an earned income tax credit for 1996? 

Does (or did) your employer offer you health insurance? 

Does (or did) your employer offer you a pension plan? 



o 
o 
o 
o 
o 



Type of Job. More than three quarters of these two groups (214 of 275, 186 currently 
working and 28 who worked but stopped) told us about their type of job, with slight 
differences between those working at the time and those that had worked but stopped. Those 
who continued working were more likely to be in a clerical job and less likely to be a child- 
care provider. Those who had stopped working were more likely to have worked serving food 
or as an uncertified teacher. Other differences were slight. (See Figure 8 below.) 

Figure 8: Job Type 




This is slightly higher than the percentage cited above in Section 3.2. 1 because it includes more household 
members. The calculations in Section 3.2. 1 were based on the employment status of respondents and 
spouse/significant others. 

In Section 3.2 we had reported that 80% of households had worked at some time since leaving TAFDC, 
leaving 20% who did not. The small number of non-responses contributes to the discrepancy between the 
18.4% cited here and the 20.5% cited in Section 3.2. 



Page 17 



Job Source. For respondents with some type of work experience after leaving cash 
assistance, friends and newspapers were the most common sources of their jobs. State job 
sources (JOBS/ESP worker, other DTA worker. Career Center, or ESP provider) were cited 
by only 1 1 .8% of the currently working group and by 6.8% of the worked but stopped group 8 

Figure 9 summarizes data on how these two groups found their jobs. (More than one source 
could apply.) The most common job source for both groups was a friend. Also important 
were: newspapers, door to door, and word of mouth. 



Figure 9: Job Source 



4 



* 



if ,s ^ > J 






•9 



S° 



<# # ^ ^ 



sr 



<5* 



^ 



2b%-r 






1 




a Currently Working Group (n=23 1 ) H 
■ Worked But Stopped Group (n=44) 




20%- 








15%- 


1 fl 




1 


10%- 










k 1 1 

1 B fl 


5%- 
0%- 


















-J? 



s? 



if Sr 



4 



■>o 






o° cr 



Earned Income Tax Credit / Benefits / Pensions 

Sixty-one percent (60.6%) of the currently working group knew about the earned income tax 
credit (EITC) and 45.0% reported that they had claimed the EITC. In comparison. 70.5% of 
the worked but stopped group reported that they knew about the EITC and fifty-two percent 
(52.3%) reported that they had claimed the EITC. 

Respondents who were currently working had more jobs that included health insurance than 
respondents who had worked but stopped (44.2% compared to 31.9%). Thirty percent 
(30.3%) of the working group reported that their employers offered health insurance from the 
start and 13.9% reported that their employers offered health insurance later. In comparison 
fewer of the worked but stopped group reported that their employers offered health insurance 
from the start (20.5%). and 1 1.4% reported that their employers offered health insurance later 
on. Less than half of both the currently working group and the worked but stopped 



s These job source data are inconsistent with data from other sources. Historically. Department records indicate 
that approximately one-third of all recipients entering employment received services from a state agency in 
obtaining employment This discrepancy is likely due to the wording of the survey question. 



Page 18 



group had health benefits available through their jobs three months after leaving 
assistance. As we will see below, however, more than 90% of the children in 
respondent's households had MassHealth coverage at the time of the interview. 

Only a quarter (26.6%) of the currently working group and seven percent (7.0%) of the 
worked but stopped group had a pension plan available through their jobs. We did not ask 
about Social Security separately, however, so the extent to which they were covered is 
unknown. 



3.2.3.2 Non-working Status: Workkd But Stoppkd Group (n=44) 

For the worked but stopped group, the reasons they stopped working were (more than one 
could apply): 

o Child care (29.5% or 13 cases) 

o Respondent was laid off, including seasonal employment (27.3%, 12 cases) 

o Respondent was ill (13.6% or 6 cases) 

o Fired ( 1 1 .4% or 5 cases) 

o Illness/other than respondent (9. 1 % or 4 cases) 

o Quit (9.1% or 4 cases) 

o Transportation problems (6.8% or 3 cases) 

o Didn't like job (4.5% or 2 cases) 

o Other (6.8%) 

Fifty-three percent (23 of the 44 cases) of cases who had stopped working reported that they 
had looked for employment for 1-32 hours per week. Only 18.2% (8 cases) reported using an 
employment service. 

When asked why they were not working at the time of the interview, forty-one respondents 
indicated: 

o Dlness/self (26.8% or 1 1 cases) 

o Cannot find any job ( 1 4.6% or 6 cases) 

o Child care ( 1 2.2% or 5 cases) 

o Transportation problems (7.3% or 3 cases) 

o Illness/other (4.9% or 2 cases) 

o Waiting for a seasonal job (4.5% or 2 cases) 

o Do not have the right skills (2.4% or 1 case) 

o Does not pay enough (2.4% or 1 case) 

o Other reason (24.3% or 10 cases). 



Page 19 



3.2.3.3 Non-working Status: Never Worked Group (n=62) 

Of the 62 cases who did not work after leaving TAFDC. 22 (35.5%) reported they had looked 
for work for anywhere from 1 to 25 hours a week. Only 8.1% reported using an employment 
service. The most commonly cited reasons for not working were: illness/self (25.8%). child 
care (22.6%). other (19.4%), and cannot find any job (16.1%). Other reasons cited were: 
illness of another (4.8%). transportation (3.2%) and not having the right skills (3.2%). 



3.3 Overall Financial Status (Questions B27, B28, B30, and Section C of 
Questionnaire) 

In addition to earnings income, respondents reported on their overall financial status, 
including other sources of income, debt incurred by the family, as well as any publicly funded 
or charitable income supports that the family received. 



3.3.1 Total Family Income 

We asked respondents whose TAFDC case remained closed to estimate their total family 
income including wages, pensions, social security and all other income sources for everyone 
living with the respondent. Nearly all, 265 of the 279 households who remained closed, 
answered the question on total family income. 

Twenty-two percent (22.3%) of these cases reported total family income of SI 50 or less 
weekly (S7.800 or less annually). At the high end, 20.4% reported weekly income of S401 or 
more (S20.852). Nearly forty percent (39.3%) had family income between $201 and $350 
weekly ($10,452 to $18,200 annually). (See Figure 10.) 



Figure 10: Weekly Family Income 





S150or less 
22.3% 


$151 to $200 
9.4% 


$501 or more_ 
11.7% 


f 


/ ^^\ $201 to $250 
^^^ \ 121% 


$451 to S500 






4.5% 




^^ S251 toS300 


$401 to $450 


/^^ 


HB^^^^ 15.5% 


4.2% 


S351 to $400 


$301 to $350 




8.7% 


1 1 .7% 



Page 20 



3.3.2 Household Debt 

We asked respondents to add up all their debt, excluding mortgages. While the data reported 
just above, on total family income (Section 3.3. 1 ), covered only respondents whose TAFDC 
case was still closed at the first interview, the debt data presented here include all 
respondents. For comparison purposes, debt data on only the cases that remain closed are 
provided in parentheses. Two hundred sixty-seven (267) households answered the debt 
question (78.3% of all households participating in the round 1 survey). We did not ask 
respondents about how much debt was accumulated while on assistance. 

o The majority of households (57.3%) reported total debt of $2000 or less (56.7% of 

cases still closed). 
o Twenty percent (20.0%) of cases reported debt of between $200 1 and $7000 ( 1 8.9% 

of cases still closed). 
o Six percent of cases (5.6%) reported debt between $7001 and $9999 (6.4% of cases 

still closed). 
o Seventeen percent of cases (17.2% of respondent) reported total debt of $10,000 or 
more ( 18.0% of cases still closed) 9 . 

The major sources of debt (more than one could apply) for respondents who answered the 
question were: electric company (32.0%); credit cards (27.3%), rent/mortgage (26.1%), 
oil/gas company (23.5%), car loans ( 1 1 .7%), student loans ( 10.9%), and personal loans 
(7.0%). Twenty-five percent (24.9%) of cases cited "other" sources. The sources were 
similar for only those cases that remained closed. 



3.3.3 Other Income Supports 

Earlier we presented data on households' earnings and other sources of income. In addition, 
households receive other income supports, mainly publicly funded and charitable. We asked 
respondents about other income supports they were receiving. 

Receipt of public and charitable income supports by respondents was low. 

Food stamps were the most commonly used income support, but even their use was low with 
only 91 cases (26.7% of respondent households) reporting that they were receiving food 
stamps at the time of the first survey. An additional 23 cases (6.7%) reported previous use of 
food stamps. Households whose TAFDC case had reopened were much more likely to be 



9 
Sixteen (16) cases reported debt of $20,000 or more. (One case each reported debt of $20,000 and $24,000. 

Two cases reported debt of $25,000. Six cases reported debt of $30,000. and two cases each reported debt of 

$40,000. $50,000 and $80,000.) 

Some of these debt figures, however, appear problematic. Five "high debt" cases owned their own home. These 
five cases reported debt of $13,000. $19,000. $30,000. $40,000 and $50,000. One case that reported being 
homeless also reported debt of $18,000. One case reporting debt of $80,000 said that their major source of debt 
was a 401-K plan. This case also reported her spouse's earnings of $464 a week. The other case that reported 
debt of $80,000 said the major sources of debt were the oil or gas company, rent, and the electric company. 
This case reported gross weekly income of $400 from full-time employment of both the respondent and 
spouse/significant other. 



Page 21 



receiving food stamps (66.1*7 I than were households whose TAFDC case was still closed 
(17.9%). 

Receipt of child support by respondents was ver> low. Only 14.7% of respondents 
were receiving child support. A considerably higher proportion of cases still closed w as 
receiving child support < 15.8*7 > than were reopened ca^es (9.7*7 I. Because we could not 
identify legally liable fathers in the household, these figures ma\ understate actual child 
support. The figures cited above assume no legally liable fathers were present. 

The nutritional program for women, infants, and children (WK2 i was being received by 
12.3% of all respondents ( 1 1.8*7 of cases still closed and 14.5*7 of reopened case- 
Rent Subsidies. When asked about rent subsidies as an income support, only 16.1*7 of 
round 1 respondents reported having their rent subsidized. However, later in the interview 
we asked. "If renting, is unit in public housing (i.e.. owned by a local housing authority) or 
otherwise publich subsidized I i.e.. does a public agency pay some of your rent? \". Forty-one 
percent (41.0*7 i or 134 households declared rent subsidies on the second question. This is 
consistent with Departmental records that indicate 41.7*7 of respondent households were 
living in public or subsidized housing when they closed. 

The most likely explanation for the discrepant data on rent subsidies is the wording and 
placement of the two questions on rent subsidies. The first question merely asked if the 
respondent was receiving a rent subsidy as an income support, while the second question 
more specifically defined a rent subsidy. 

Less than two percent reported using food kitchens. Two percent 1 1 .8% i reported currently 
using a food bank, and an additional 3.5*7 reported that they had used food banks but had 
stopped, for a total of 5.3*7 of all respondents reporting food bank use after leaving TAFDC. 
In the next section we look at food security for cases still closed at the time of the interview. 
As w ill be seen in Table 1 1 below . when the question was asked somewhat differently. 
12.27- of households still closed < 10.07^ of all respondents | reported using food banks after 
leaving TAFDC. Consequently, almost twice as many reported using food banks in the next 
section as here. (Reported use of food kitchens was consistent in both sections. I 



Page :: 



Table 9. 














Receipt of Other Income Supports 


at First Interview 










Closed Cases 


Reopened Cases (n=62) 


All Respondents 




(n= 


=279) 






(n= 


=341) 


Income Support 


Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


Food Stamps 


50 


17.9 


41 


66.1 


91 


26.7 


EAEDC 


3 


1.1 


6 


9.7 


9 


2.6 


Child Support 


44 


15.8 


6 


9.7 


50 


14.7 


Social Security 


24 


8.6 


2 


3.2 


26 


7.6 


Supplemental 














Security Income 


15 


5.4 


3 


4.8 


18 


5.3 


Worker's 














Compensation 


1 


0.4 


1 


1.6 


2 


0.6 


WIC 


33 


11.8 


9 


14.5 


42 


12.3 


Foster Care 














Payments 


2 


0.7 








2 


0.6 


Food Kitchen 


4 


1.4 


1 


1.6 


5 


1.5 


Food Banks 


6 


2.2 








6 


1.8 


Friends/Relatives 














(regular basis) 


9 


3.2 


3 


4.8 


12 


3.5 


Rent Subsidy 


40 


14.3 


15 


24.2 


55 


16.1 


Fuel Assistance 


19 


6.8 


4 


6.5 


23 


6.7 


Other 


3 


1.1 


2 


3.2 


5 


1.5 



3.4 Food Security (Section G of Questionnaire) 

We now take an in-depth look at the food status of cases still closed at the time of the first 
interview. 

3.4.1 Food Sufficiency 

To evaluate possible impacts of leaving TAFDC on a family's food security, we asked cases 
that were still closed as of the date of the interview (n=279) about the adequacy of their food 
both before and after leaving assistance. Specifically, we asked: 

"In the last 3 months you were on welfare, which of these statements best describes the 

food eaten in your household? 

1 . We had enough to eat of the kinds of food we needed. 

2. We had enough to eat but not always the kinds of food we needed. 

3. Sometimes we didn't have enough to eat. 

4. Often we didn't have enough to eat." 

We also asked this question for the most recent three months. 

Overall, there was some decrease in the perceived amount and adequacy of respondents' food. 
Cases reporting adequate food dropped from when they were on assistance to when they were 
off. Likewise, the number of cases reporting that they did not have enough to eat, either 
sometimes or often, increased by 18 cases (6.4%). 



Page 23 



Figure 11: Food Sufficiency On and After Assistance 




ELast three months on welfare 
■ Most recent three months 





Enough to eat of kinds of Enough to eat but not 
food needed kinds needed 



Sometimes not have 
enough to eat 



Often did not have 
enough to eat 



3.4.2 Days Without Food 

We asked respondents who remained closed how often they went a whole day without food in 
a month. As above, we first asked the question for the last three months on welfare, then for 
the three most recent months. Two hundred fifty five respondents answered both questions. 
(See Table 10.) 



Table 10. 










Households 


Reporting Days Without Food 




After TAFDC 








Yes 


No 


Total 


Yes 




5.9% 


4.0% 


9.9% 


u 

Q 

< No 

H 




15 cases 


10 cases 


25 cases 




4.0% 


86.3% 


90.3% 




10 cases 


220 cases 


230 cases 


O 

Total 




9.9% 


90.3% 


100.2% 






25 cases 


230 cases 


255 cases 



The vast majority of respondents had not gone without food. Two hundred twenty (220, 
86.3%) never went without food either during their last three months on TAFDC or during 
the three most recent months when they were off TAFDC. Fifteen (15) cases reported going 
without food both while on and off TAFDC. Ten cases reported going without food while on 
TAFDC but not after. Likewise, ten cases reported going without food after leaving TAFDC 
but not during the last three months they were on TAFDC. 



Page 24 



For the last three months on welfare: 10 

o Twenty-two (22) cases reported going without food for 1 to 7 days; 

o One ( 1 ) case reported 8 days without food; 

o Two (2) cases reported 10 days without food; and 

o One ( 1 ) case reported 14 days without food. 

For the most recent three months: 

o Eighteen (18) cases reported going without food for 1 to 7 days; 

o One ( 1 ) case reported 8 days without food; 

o Four (4) cases reported 10 days without food; and 

o Three (3) cases reported going without food for 12 days or more days. 

While the same number of individuals (but not always the same individuals) reported going 
without food before and after leaving TAFDC (26), the degree of insecurity worsened for 
some individuals after leaving TAFDC in the sense that the number of days they went 
without food increased. 



3.4.2. 1 Food Insecurity: A Closer Look 

We looked more closely at the circumstances of the 15 individuals who reported food 
insecurity both on and off TAFDC. These 15 cases included: 

o Two cases without food for one day per month. 

o Five cases without food for 2 days per month. 

o One case without food for 4 days per month. 

o Two cases without food for 5 days per month. 

o Five cases reporting being without food for seven or more days per month. 

According to Departmental records, all fifteen cases had been receiving food stamps at the 
time of their closing. However, twelve of these fifteen cases reported no food stamp use after 
TAFDC. One ( 1 ) case reported that the family had received food stamps but stopped, and the 
other two cases reported receiving food stamps at the time of the interview. 

Nine of these fifteen cases reported the same number of days without food while on TAFDC 
and after leaving. For example, one respondent who reported going without food for one day 
during the last three months on TAFDC also reported going without food for one day during 
the most recent three months. The other six cases reported the following: 

o One case reported 2 days without food per month while on TAFDC and 3 days since 

leaving TAFDC. 
o Two cases reported 2 days without food per month while on TAFDC and 4 days since 
leaving TAFDC. 



Table 10 shows 25 households reporting days without food while on TAFDC and 25 households reporting 
days without food after TAFDC. The aetual number in eaeh instance was 26 households. However, one 
household reported days without food while on TAFDC. but did not respond for the time since leaving. 
Conversely, one case reported about the time since leaving, but not for the period on TAFDC. 

Page 25 



o One case reported 5 days without food per month while on TAFDC and 6 days since 

leaving TAFDC. 
o One case reported 7 days without food per month while on TAFDC and 3 days since 

leaving TAFDC. 
o One case reported 8 days without food per month while on TAFDC and 15 days since 

leaving TAFDC. 



3.4.2.2 Food Insecurity After Leaving TAFDC 

We also looked more closely at the 10 cases that reported going without food after leaving 
TAFDC but not while on TAFDC. 

o Two cases reported 1 day without food per month. 

o One case each reported 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 days without food per month. 

o Two cases reported 10 days without food per month. 

o One case reported 12 days without food per month. 

Five of the 10 cases had been receiving food stamps at the time of closing. However, six of 
the ten cases did not report receiving food stamps after TAFDC; one case reported receiving 
food stamps but stopped; and 3 cases were receiving food stamps at the time of the interview. 



3.4.2.3 Food Insecurity While On TAFDC 

Similarly we looked more closely at the 10 cases that reported food insecurity while on 
TAFDC but not after leaving. 

o Four of these cases reported going without food for one day per month; 

o Three cases reported going without food for 2 days per month; 

o One case each went without food for 3, 4 and 5 days per month. 

Eight of the 10 cases had been receiving food stamps at the time of closing but none of the 10 
reported using food stamps at the time of the interview. (One case reported that she had 
received food stamps after leaving TAFDC but had stopped.) 



Page 26 



3.4.2.4 Usk of Food Support Services 

Use of food supports was low. We asked all cases that were still closed at the time of the 
interview (n=279) if they had received free food in their last three months on TAFDC or in 
the three most recent months. Options included food banks, food from a church, prepared 
meals at a shelter, prepared meals at a food kitchen, and other sources. Figure 12 summarizes 
the number of times respondents received free food from one of these sources. 



Figure 12: Number of Sources of Free Food 




n Last Three Months On TAFDC 
'Most Recent Three Months 



Respondents were also asked if they had received money from others for food while on and 
off TAFDC. Interviewers specifically asked about six sources of money for food: parents, 
relatives, friends, church, charity and other. Figure 13 summarizes the number of sources 
used. 



Figure 13: Number of Sources of Money for Food 





E|_ast Three Months On 
TAFDC 

• Most Recent Three Months 



2+ 



Figure 14 presents combined data on the degree to which these households were using free 
food or getting money for food from others, both while on TAFDC and after leaving 
assistance. Based on these two sources of support, we unduplicated the receipt of food or 
money for food. For example, 62.7% of cases did not receive any free food or money for food 
in the last three months on TAFDC. Likewise, 64.2% did not receive any such support in the 
three most recent months. 



Page 27 



Figure 14: Number of Sources of Free Food or Money 
for Food 




□ Last Three Months On 
TAFDC 

■ Most Recent Three Months 



The most frequently used sources of food assistance are reported in Figure 15. Money from 
parents and food banks were the most common, although food bank use went down after 
leaving assistance. 



Figure 15: Food Support Sources 



<? 
<*<?■ 



r& 



□ Last Three Months On TAFDC 
■ Most Recent Three Months 




fflP f=^m 



<£ 



,» 



* 



^ 






/S/.SS 



A°" 



*f 



/ 



• * ** 



& 



<$■ 



^ 



*t 



F 



a 



r,<> 



flP 



^ 



^ /' <f jf 






*■ 



IT J 



/ 



^ 



rJ? 



Taken together, the findings in this section show that a number of families are vulnerable to 
food insecurity after leaving TAFDC. These data also reveal that many of these same families 
were experiencing problems while on TAFDC. 



Page 28 



3.5 Children's Medical Coverage (Questions HI to H5 of Questionnaire) 

Only respondents whose TAFDC case was still closed at the time of the interview (n=279) 
were asked questions on children's medical coverage because reopened TAFDC cases were 
automatically enrolled in the MassHealth program. 

Ninety five percent (95.0%), or 438 of 461 reported children were covered by MassHealth. 
Two hundred forty one (241) of 279 households (not children), or 86.4%, reported 
MassHealth coverage for at least one child in the family. We checked our administrative 
records for households who did not report MassHealth coverage. We discovered that 23 of 
the 38 cases actually had MassHealth coverage. Adding these cases increases the MassHealth 
coverage to 264 households (94.6%). 

In contrast, 59 children (12.8%) had private insurance or an HMO, and seven children (1.5%) 
had some other type of insurance. 



Table 11. 

Types of Children's Medical Coverage 



Children 



MassHealth / Transitional Medicaid 
(TMA) 438 

Private Insurance/ HMO 59 

Other 7 

Total 504 

Unduplicated Count of Children with 

Medical Coverage* 461 

* More than one type of coverage could apply to each 
child. This row presents the unduplicated number of 
children with some type of medical coverage. 



3.6 Child-care Arrangements (Section I) 

We asked respondents about their current child-care arrangements for children in the 
household who were under the age of 14. We specifically sought out child care information 
on up to four children in the household. 

3.6.1 Number of Child-care Providers 

While the majority of children used only one child-care provider, nearly one-third (31.2%) of 
the children reported on were being cared for by more than one provider. 



Page 29 



Figure 16: Number of Child Care Providers 



^ 

. 




^^? 



3.6.2 Type of Child-care Providers 

There was considerable diversity among child-care providers (See Table 12.)- The most 
commonly used providers were: 

o the custodial parent's mother/father (17.9%) 

o baby-sitter/family day care ( 1 1 .0%) 

o custodial parent's grandparent (8.7%) 

o school/after school program (8.1%) 

o neighbor/friend (7.8%) 

o child-care center (7.5%). 



: 



Table 12. 








Child-care Providers Used by 






Respondent's Children 










Children 




Provider 




Number 


Percent 




Respondent's 






Significant Other 




13 


3.8 


Mother/Father 




62 


17.9 


Brother/Sister 




22 


6.3 


Grandparent 




30 


8.7 


Other Relative 




15 


4.3 


Neighbor/Friend 


Child's 


27 


7.8 


Other Parent 




18 


5.2 


Grandparent (Other Parent) 


11 


3.2 


Sibling 




13 


3.8 


Other Relative 




9 


2.6 



" Percents in parentheses were calculated by dividing the number of children using a particular type of child- 
care provider by the total number of providers used (n=347). As seen above, nearly one third used more than 
one provider (Table 27). 



Page 30 



Other Provider 






School/After School 


28 


8.1 


Baby-sitter/family day care 


38 


11.0 


Child cares for self 


3 


0.9 


Child-care Center 


26 


7.5 


No one. Can't afford/find 


2 


0.6 


Not needed 


17 


4.9 


Other 


13 


3.8 


Total 


347 


100.4 



Figure 17: Child Care Providers 



50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 





=, 


/ 




/; 




/ 


r^l f^\ 


■ 


_, JJOflg -, 



J 



£>»•' r^ 



J& 



«? .^ J* J3 



r # 






JO 



& ^ 






A®' 



^ 



^ 



^ • 



A' 



.# 



,<? 



We also examined the child-care providers used by households (not children) and combined 
relative, friend and neighbor child care into one category. Nearly half (46.3%)of households 
were using either a relative, neighbor or friend as their child-care provider. 



3.6.3 Paying For Child Care 

The vast majority of child-care costs were paid either by the respondent (48.9%) or the state 
(40.2%). 



Page 31 



Figure 18: Child Care Funding 

50% r A 




Sixty-two percent (61.5%), or 123 of 200 cases responding, reported that they were aware 
that the Department of Transitional Assistance would pay for child care for one year after 
leaving welfare for work. Sixty-two (62) of 195 households responding (31.8%) said they 
were using or had used transitional child-care benefits. 

Ninety-eight (98) of 192 households responding (51.0%) reported that they were aware of the 
state's income eligible child-care program. 



3.7 Child Support Agreement/Contact With Absent Parent (Section J of 
Questionnaire) 

If the child's parent was absent from the household, we asked respondents if there was a legal 
agreement for the absent parent to provide financial support. Respondents reported that they 
did not have a legal support agreement for the majority of their children (56.7%). (See Figure 
19.) 

It is not clear from the data to what extent those who reported a legal agreement were actually 
receiving anything. Only 14.7% of respondents reported receiving child support payments in 
Section 3.3.3 of this report, but respondents reported that 37.9% of their children were 
covered by a legal support agreement. 



Page 32 



Figure 19: Child Support Arrangement 

Not sure if current 
arrangement is 
Pending | ega | 

4-3% \ / i. 1 o /o 




Legal Support 

Agreements 

37.9% 



3.8 Child Well Being (Questions H6 To H13 Of Questionnaire) 

We collected additional information (aside from medical coverage reported above) on 
children of school age who were present in the household. While there are limitations with 
the data, we believe they are still noteworthy because so little research is available on 
children's well being. These survey data are an initial attempt to fill the research gap. 

We asked eight specific questions related to the children's well being: 
o Did [child] transfer to a different school? 
o Did [child] attend special classes for gifted students or do advanced work in any 

subjects in school? 
o Did [child] attend special education classes for a learning or developmental disability 

in school? 
o Had respondent been told by a school or health professional that [child] had an 

emotional or behavioral problem? 
o Had [child] been suspended or expelled from school? 
o Was [child] on a sports team? 

o Had [child] taken after-school lessons such as music, dance, language, or computers? 
o Had [child] participated in a club or organization such as Scouts, YMCA, religious 

group, school newspaper? 

For each question, we asked respondents to compare how things were during the last three 
months on TAFDC to the most recent three months when most were off TAFDC, as shown in 
the table. 



Page 33 



Table 13. 

Indicators of Children's Well-Being 



Activity 



Number of Children 
Last Three 

Months On Most Recent 

TAFDC Three Months 



School Transfer 

Gifted Classes/Advanced Work 

Special Education 

Behavioral/emotional problem 

School suspension/expulsion 

Sports team 

After School Programs (music, 

dance, language, computers...) 
Club Activity (Scouts, YMCA...) 



17 


14 





1 


27 


18 


27 


23 


18 


11 


50 


42 


35 


26 


34 


33 



It is impossible to draw any conclusions from these data because of the absence of 
comparative data and because we do not have a reliable count of the total number of school 
age children in respondents' households. The best that can be said at this stage is that these 
findings show considerable positive activities alongside some more problematic behaviors. 
For example, 42 school-aged children were involved in sports, 26 in various after-school 
programs such as dance or computer courses, and 33 in club activities such as scouts or the 
YMCA. In contrast, 23 children had behavioral or emotional problems, and 1 1 children had 
been suspended or expelled from school. (These statistics are for the most recent three 
months.) 

As we explained at the start, this is the first part of long range evaluation of closed cases. 
Future surveys and administrative studies will continue to focus attention on developing and 
compiling reliable data on children's well being. 



3.9 Household Composition (Section D of the Questionnaire) 

We asked respondents for the number of individuals living in the household both at the time 
they left TAFDC and at the time of the interview. We specifically asked them to include 
spouses, significant others, children and other individuals regardless of whether they were 
eligible for assistance or not. 

When compared to Department records on household size at the time of closing, survey data, 

as of the time of the closing, show: 

o fewer household members in 2.1% of cases (7 households) 

o the same number of household members in 47.5% of cases ( 1 62 households) 

o more household members in 50.4% cases (172 households) 



Page 34 



As of the time of the interview, survey data show: 

o fewer household members in 3.0% of cases (10 households) 

o the same number of household members in 42.6% cases (143 households) 

o more household members in 54.5% of cases (183 households) 

The average household size is considerably higher using survey data than using 
administrative records. According to survey data, the average size of households 
participating in the survey was 3.8 individuals, approximately one person (0.9) more than 
Department records show as of the case closing. 

The most likely explanation for the difference between the two data sources is that the survey 
data include individuals who would not be eligible for TAFDC and, therefore, were not part 
of the Department's TAFDC records. For example, as reported under Section 2.2.3 of this 
report, Department records show that 30 of the round 1 households had a spouse/significant 
other present, while 59 respondents reported that a live-in spouse/significant other was 
working at the time of the interview. Likewise, forty-five respondents reported six or more 
people in their household at the time of their closing, while Department records only 
indicated ten such households. This alone accounts for 0.7 of the 0.9 difference. 



3.9.1 Housing Statistics. (Section D of the Questionnaire) 

The vast majority of respondents (85.3%) were renters. Five percent (5.0%) owned their own 
home; six percent (5.9%) shared housing; one percent (1.2% or four cases) reported being 
homeless; and three percent (2.7%) reported "other" arrangements. Twenty-two percent 
(21.7%) of respondents (74 cases) reported moving since leaving TAFDC. 

One hundred thirty-four (134) cases reported receiving some type of housing assistance either 
by living in public housing or having some public agency pay part of their rent. The 134 
cases reporting a rent subsidy represent 41.0% of the 327 cases responding to this question 
and coincides with Departmental records that show that 41.7% of respondent households 
were living in public or subsidized housing. 

Three hundred-two (302) cases reported paying rent or mortgage ranging from $0 in four 
cases to $ 1 200 in one case with an average of $349 and a median of $350. 

Two hundred forty-four (244) cases reported paying utility bills ranging from $0 to $400, 
with a mean of $123, and a median of $100. Seventeen percent (16.8%), or 57 cases, 
reported receiving energy assistance ranging from $100 to $1,092 (time period covered 
unclear). Twenty-two percent (22.0%) reported that they share the costs of rent or utilities 
with someone else. 

3.10 Employment And Training (Section F of the Questionnaire) 

We asked respondents about educational or job training programs they or another adult in the 
household were involved with while on TAFDC and since leaving TAFDC. Nearly half 



Page 35 



(47.3%) of all respondents had participated in an educational or job training program while 
on TAFDC. (Figure 20.) 



Figure 20: Participation in Education or Training 




Educational Only Job Training Only Both Ed.& Training 



None 



As of the first interview, very few cases (16.4%) had participated in educational and training 
programs after leaving TAFDC. When we asked about the major problems with getting more 
education or training since leaving, respondents reported (more than one problem could 
apply): 

o 98 cases (28.7%) cited child care 

o 84 cases (24.6%) cited lack of time 

o 82 cases (24.0%) cited cost 

o 60 cases (17.6%) cited transportation 

o 3 1 cases (9. 1 %) cited health 

o 7 cases (2. 1 %) cited a full program or waiting list 

o 48 cases (14.1%) cited another problem. 

Two hundred eleven (21 1) cases (73.8% of the 286 cases responding to this section) said that 
more education or training would have been helpful while on assistance. 



3.1 1 Transportation (Section E) 

We were interested in identifying any special transportation problems of households 
leaving TAFDC. One hundred eighty four ( 1 84) cases (56.4% of 326 cases responding to 
this question) reported that they owned a car. The 142 respondents who did not own a car 
were asked about how they got around. 

One hundred twenty-three (123) cases responded to questions on the availability of public 
transportation as follows: 

o 70.7% or 87 cases reported that they had to walk less than Vi mile to public 
transportation. 



Page 36 



o 6.5% or 8 cases reported that they had to walk Vi mile to 1 mile to public 

transportation. 
o 7.3% or 9 cases reported that they had more than a mile walk to public 

transportation. 
o 8.9% or 1 1 cases reported using cabs. 
o 6.5% or 8 cases said that no public transportation was available. 

Consequently, of the 326 respondents who answered this section, 83.1% either owned a car 
or lived within Vi mile of public transportation. 

We also asked respondents who did not own a car how they got their children to a doctor's 
appointment and how they got to the grocery store. Table 14 presents the findings. (More 
than one mode of transportation could apply.) 



Table 14. 

Transportation to Doctor's Appointment and Grocery Store 

For Respondents Without a Car (n=142) 



Mode of Transportation 



Public Transportation 
Cab 
Walk 

Respondent's Parent 
Friend/Neighbor 
Borrow a car 
Other 
Non-custodial Parent 



To Doctor's 


; Appointment 


To Grocery Store 


Number of 




Number of 




Cases 


Percent 


Cases 


Percent 


65 


45.8% 


57 


40.1% 


26 


18.3% 


39 


27.5% 


7 


4.9% 


48 


33.8% 


21 


14.8% 


13 


9.2% 


26 


18.3% 


29 


20.4% 


17 


12.0% 


20 


14.1% 


19 


13.4% 


13 


9.2% 


1 


0.7% 









Clearly, the most common form of transportation to a doctor's appointment and to the 
grocery store was public transportation, which was less than x h mile away for the majority of 
respondents without a car. But most other modes of transportation were being used to some 
degree, except for transportation provided by the non-custodial parent, which was virtually 
nonexistent. 



3.12 Summary - Round 1 Survey Findings 

At the first interview, approximately three months after their TAFDC case had closed, the 
majority of respondents reported that their families were better off since they left TAFDC. 
Employment levels were high, with two-thirds of households reporting that someone was 
currently working. Of households whose TAFDC case was still closed, three-quarters 
reported that someone was currently working. Average weekly earnings for respondents 
working full time was $305. Nearly one-fifth (17.3%) of participating households included a 
working spouse/significant other who averaged weekly earnings of $355. 



Page 37 



The support most widely used by respondents was MassHealth coverage for their children, 
w ith 95.0% of respondent's children covered. Eight) -six percent (86.49? ) of round 1 
households (not children) whose TAFDC case was still closed reported MassHealth coverage 
for at least one child in the family. Department records show an additional 23 cases with 
MassHealth coverage that was not reported by respondents, for a total of 94.69? of 
households w ith MassHealth coverage. 

In contrast, less than one-fifth ( 17.99?) of respondent's households whose case was still 
closed was receiving food stamps. Less than two percent of all respondents was using a food 
kitchen, and 12.29? of cases still closed reported using a food bank after leaving TAFDC. 
This was four percent lower than the number reporting use during the last three months on 
TAFDC (16.59?). 

Only 14.79? of all respondents was receiving child support. Households whose TAFDC case 
was still closed were more likely to be receiving child support than households who had 
returned to TAFDC. 

The three most common providers of child care were: the custodial parent's mother or father: 
a baby-sitter/family day care provider: and the custodial parent's grandparents. Nearly half of 
child-care costs were paid by the respondent, and two-fifths of child-care costs were paid by 
the state. Most were aware of transitional child care, but it was not universal. 

A disturbing finding was that a number of households reported going w ithout food for one or 
more days. While some of these families" food problems developed after leaving TAFDC. in 
the majority of cases the families were experiencing food insecurity even before their 
TAFDC case was closed. 

A second concern was the lack of employment-based benefits such as health insurance and 
pensions. While respondents children were overwhelmingly covered by MassHealth. less 
than half of those who had w ork experience since leaving TAFDC had health benefits 
available through their employer. The availability of pensions was even less common with 
employer-based pensions available to only 26.69? of those currently working. We did not ask 
specifically about Social Security coverage. 

These are some of the more ensasins findinss from the first round of interview s with a 
sample of former TAFDC recipients. These early experiences are particularly important 
because they form the foundation upon which later events build. In the next section, we will 
look at manv of these same cases one vear after closins from TAFDC. 



[ 



Page 38 



4. SURVEY FINDINGS « ROUND 4 

Approximately a year after their TAFDC case closed, we were able to interview 2 10 of the 
original 341 households who participated in the first round of interviews (61.6%), plus five 
additional households whose first interview was done later in the survey cycle ". 
Consequently, we have data on 215 households collected approximately twelve months after 
they left TAFDC, a 19.5% attrition rate from round 1. 

Because of this attrition, the two sets of data are not directly comparable. Rather, our primary 
goal in this chapter is to describe, as completely as possible, the post-welfare experiences of 
these households one year after leaving assistance. For the reader's convenience we 
reference findings from round 1. In section 5 we will examine only those households who 
participated in both rounds of interviews to measure the amount of change between the first 
and fourth interviews. 

Before presenting the survey results of the fourth round of interviews, we analyze the 
differences at the time of closing between the round 4 and round 1 respondents. 



4.1 Comparison Of Round 4 And Round 1 Respondents 

Because this study is longitudinal, households participating in the fourth round of interviews 
are a subset of the round 1 respondents (except for the five cases explained above). For the 
reader's convenience we only present summary findings in this chapter, with supporting 
tables in Appendix D. 

Differences Between Round 4 and Round 1 Respondents 

We compared round 4 and round 1 respondents in terms of race, language, education, marital 
status, housing, reason for closing, and program exemption status. In no instance was there a 
statistically significant difference. (See Tables Dl to D7.) However, we cannot rule out the 
likelihood that the round 4 households were better off on traits that we were unable to 
measure, such as interpersonal skills and social supports. 

We also compared round 1 and round 4 respondents on key administrative variables, 
including TAFDC status, food stamp status at closing, the presence of a spouse or significant 
other at the time of closing. We did not conduct statistical tests on these variables. 

TAFDC Status. A slightly higher percentage of the round 4 households (20.9%) had 
returned to TAFDC compared to 18.2% of round 1 households. 

Food Stamps at Closing. A higher percentage of round 4 cases (93.0%) had been receiving 
food stamps when their TAFDC cases closed than round 1 participants (85.0%). 



1 ^ 

~ These five households are not included in the round 1 analysis presented in Section 3 nor are they part of the 
analysis in Section 5 which tracks households that participated in both the first and fourth interviews. 

Page 39 



Spouse/Significant Other. According to Department records, a higher percentage of 
round 4 households, 12.1% (26 cases), had a spouse/significant other present at the time 
their TAFDC case was closed than round 1 households (8.8%, 30 cases). 

Forty-two percent (42.3%) of the spouses/significant others in round 4 households lacked a 
high school diploma or GED compared to 50.0% of spouses/significant others in round 1 
households. 



4.2 Family Well Being After TAFDC (Section A Of Questionnaire) 

Among the cases still closed, a larger percentage of round 4 households reported that they 
were better off, or the same, than did round 1 households. 

Among cases that were still closed, the vast majority of round 4 respondents (85.9%) 
reported that their families were the same or better off financially since leaving 
TAFDC. For round 1 the comparable rate was 74.1%. Sixty-three percent (62.9%) of 
round 4 respondents thought they were either much better or a little better off 
financially since leaving TAFDC compared to 58.5% of round 1 households. Responses 
for round 4 were: 

o 36.5% reported that the family was much better financially since leaving TAFDC. 
(25.8% for round 1 ) 

o 26.5% reported that the family was a little better financially since leaving TAFDC. 
(32.7% for round 1 ) 

o 22.9% reported that their financial situation was the same. (15.6% for round 1 ) 

o 9.4% reported that the family's financial situation was a little worse. (13.8% for round 

1) 
o 4.7% reported that the family's financial situation was much worse. (12.0% for round 

1). 

The vast majority of round 4 respondents felt the same or better off (85.9%) in general 
since they left TAFDC. The responses were distributed as follows: 

o 40.0% percent reported being much better. (33.0% for round 1 ) 

o 24.7% reported being a little better. (34.8% for round 1 ) 

o 2 1 .2% reported being the same. ( 1 1 .7% for round 1 ) 

o 7.1% reported being a little worse. ( 1 1 .7% for round 1 ) 

o 5.3% reported being much worse . (8.6% for round 1 ) (Three cases ( 1 .8%) did not 
respond.) 

A year after leaving TAFDC, less than 15% of round 4 respondents thought that their 
financial or general well being had deteriorated. 



4.3 Employment/Earnings/Benefits (Questions Bl to B24 of Questionnaire) 

Eighty-four percent (84. 1 %) of households whose TAFDC case was still closed reported that 
someone had worked within the last three months, compared to only 24.4% of households 



Page 40 



13 



that had returned to TAFDC. Work levels were somewhat lower for the round 4 
respondents than for round 1 respondents. Compared to 79.5% of round 1 respondents, 
7 1 .6% of round 4 respondents had worked sometime during the three months prior to the 
interview. 



4.3.1 Employment: Households Currently Working (Table D8) 

Seventy-four (74) respondents (34.4%) reported that they were working full time at the time 
of the survey, and 40 respondents (18.6%) reported working part-time, for a total of 1 14 
respondents working (53.0%) at the time of the fourth interview compared to 57.5% of round 
1 respondents. 

An additional 33 cases reported that a spouse/significant other was working full time at the 
time of the interview, and five cases reported a spouse/significant other was working part- 
time, for a total of 38 other adults working at the time of the fourth interview (17.7% of the 
respondent households in round 4). For the first interview, 17.3% of households included a 
working spouse/significant other. 



Table 15. 

All Households, Round 4: 

Respondents and Spouses/Significant Others Work Status 

Spouses/ Significant Others 

Not Present or 
Full Tim e Part Time Not Worki ng 



s 

■O 
C 

© 

a* 



Full Time 



Part Time 



Not Working 



12 cases 


1 cases 


61 cases 


(5.6%) 


(0.5%) 


(28.4%) 


8 cases 


2 cases 


30 cases 


(3.7%) 


(0.9%) 


(14.0%) 


13 cases 


2 cases 


86 cases 


(6.0%) 


(0.9%) 


(40.0%) 



Sixty percent (60.0%) of all round 4 households had a respondent and/or 
spouse/significant other working at the time of the interview (66.6% of round 1 
households). Of those cases that were still closed at the time of the fourth interview 
(n=170), 71.2% of households had a respondent or spouse/significant other (or both) 
currently working. (74.9% of households in round 1.) 



Of the reopened cases (n=45), two respondents reported working full-time and three reported working part- 
time; one spouse/significant other was working full-time and two were working part-time: and one dependent 
was working part-time. Of the cases still closed (n=170). 72 respondents were working full-time, 37 
respondents were working part-time; 32 spouses/significant others were working full-time and 3 
spouses/significant others were working part-time: 3 dependents were working part-time; and 1 adult dependent 
was working full-time and 2 were working part-time. 

There were no non-responses in round 1 while four round 4 cases did not respond. If the cases that did not 
respond are omitted, the work rate increases to 73.0% in round 4. 



Page 41 



Table 16. 

Households Still Closed. Round 4 : 

Respondents and Spouses/Significant Others Work Status 

Spouses/ Significant Others 



Full Time 



= 

- 

G 
O 

a 

■■r. 



Part Time 



Not Working 







Not Present or 


Full Time 


Part Time 


Not Working 


12 cases 


1 cases 


59 cases 


(7.1%) 


(0.6%) 


(34.7%) 


8 cases 


2 cases 


27 cases 


(4.7%) 


(1.2%) 


(15.9%) 


12 cases 


cases 


49 cases 


(7.1%) 




(28.8%) 



4.3.2 Earnings: Households Currently Working 

As with round 1. we collected detailed information on earnings of household members who 
were currently working. Once again, we made no attempt to verify reported earnings. 
Earnings are reported for respondents working full time (Section 4.3.2. 1 ), respondents 
working part time (Section 4.3.2.2), spouses/significant others working full time (Section 
4.3.2.3). and spouses/significant others working part time (Section 4.3.2.4). Finally, 
household earnings data are presented in Section 4.3.2.5. 



4.3.2. 1 Respondents Working Full Time (Table D9) 

Of the seventy-four respondents working full time at the time of the fourth interview, 7 1 
reported earnings amounts. Similar to round 1 cases, sixteen percent (15.5%) of round 4 
cases were making $200 or less weekly ($10,360 or less annually). However, unlike round 1 
cases, a greater proportion of round 4 cases had higher earnings. Forty percent (39.4%) of 
respondents working full time at the fourth interview were making more than $350 weekly 
($18,221 or more annually), compared to only one-quarter of round 1 respondents working 
full-time. 

The average gross weekly pay for round 4 respondents working full-time was $323. (Round 
1 respondents averaged $305.) Gross weekly income ranged from a low of $80 to a high of 
S800 a week. 



4.3.2.2 Respondents Working Part Time (Table D 10) 

Thirty-nine of forty respondents working part-time at the time of the fourth interview 
provided earnings data. Nearly half (48.7%) of round 4 respondents working part-time were 
making SI 50 or less each week ($7,740 annually) (57.1% for round 1 cases). An additional 
18.0% of round 4 respondents who worked part-time were making between $151 and $200 
weekly (S7.741 to $10,360 annually). (Round 1 had 21.5%.) One-third (33.3%) was making 
over $200 a week. 



Page 42 



The average weekl) earnings of SI 72 from part-time work was S24 higher than that for round 
1 cases (S148). Gross weekh earnings ranged from a low of S25 to a high of $350. 



4.3.2.3 Spolses/Sigmficant Others Working Full Time i Table Dili 

Thirty-one (31 ) of 33 cases reported earnings data for spouses/significant others who were 
working full-time. Fifty-five percent ( 54.8^ > of earnings for round 4 spouses/significant 
others fell between S201 and S350 weekly <S 10.361 and SI 8.220 annually). e»>entially the 
same as round 1 cases (54.4*7 >. Only 6.5*7 of round 4 spouses/significant others who were 
working full time had weekly earnings of less than S200 i less than SI 0.360 annually) 
compared to fifteen percent 1 15.2% ) of spouses/significant others in round 1. 

While one-quarter of spouses/significant others in round 1 were making more than S400 
weekly (S20.8OO or more annually), only 19.4*7 of comparable round 4 spouses/significant 
others had weekly earnings that high. Con\er>ely. 18.2*7 of round 4 spouses/significant 
others had weekly earnings between S35 1 and S400 compared to 4.2*7 for round 1 
spouses/significant others. 

Spouses/significant others working full-time had average weekly earnings of S362 compared 
to average weekly earnings of S323 for respondents working full-time. (Average weekh 
earnings for spouses/significant others working full-time in round 1 were S355. | Earnings 
ranged from a low of S200 weekly to a high of S900 weekly. 



4.3.2.4 Spouses/Significant Others Working Part Tlme i Table D 1 1 

Earnings data were reported for four of five spouses/significant others w orking part-time at 
the time of the fourth interview. Three-quarters (three of the four cases who reported 
earnings ) were making between S 1 5 1 and S200 weekly I S 7 ~4 1 to S 1 0.360 annually ). The 
remaining case reported weekh earnings of S451 to S500. 

The average weekly earnings for round 4 spouses/significant others who were working part- 
time was S265 i S2 1 1 in round 1 >. 



4.3.2.5 Household Earnings i Table D 13 1 

As with round 1 results, we estimated the average earnings of households with two working 
adults, assuming 52 weeks of work a year, and compared them to average earnings of 
households with just one worker. The estimates do not take into account the effect of the 
earned income tax credit on earned income. 

The findings for round 4 follow essentially the same pattern as those reported for round 1. 
The most common situation was a respondent working full-time and averaging S324 weekl) 
or SI 6.848 annual h (S3 10 weekly or SI 6. 120 annually for comparable round 1 cases). 

Overall, households with two working adults continued to be substantially better off: 



Page 43 



The average weekly earnings for two adults working full-time was S704 or S36.608 
annually (S617 weekly or S32.084 annually for comparable round 1 cases). However, 
only twelve cases among the round 4 respondents (eleven of whom provided earnings 
data) fell into this group, an increase over the nine such cases in round 1 . 
The weekly earnings for the household with the respondent working full-time and the 
spouse/significant other working part-time was $400 or $20,800 annually (S464 
weekly or $24,128 annually for comparable round 1 cases). There was only one case 
of this type in round 4. 

For households with the spouse/significant other working full-time and the respondent 
working part-time, average weekly earnings were even higher. $552 or $28,704 
annually ($537 weekly or $27,924 annually for comparable round 1 cases). Only 
eight round 4 cases fell into this category, seven of whom provided data. 



4.3.3 Employment-Related Data 

We collected data on job type, job sources, and employment-based benefits for those with 
work experience. 

Job Type. Working round 4 respondents (n=148) 1:> typically had the same types of jobs as 
did working round 1 respondents. Four of the most common types of jobs were: 

o Retail/service (13.2%) 

o Clerical (12.5%) 

o Unskilled Health Care ( 1 1 .8% ) 

o Laborer/factory (8.1%) 

Job Source. Round 4 respondents who were working generally found their jobs through 
essentially the same sources as did those in round 1 : 

o Newspaper (20.9%) 

o Friend (18.2%) 

o Word of mouth ( 1 4.9% ) 

State employment resources (JOBS/ESP worker. DTA worker. Career Center, and ESP 
service provider) were only cited by 1 1 .6% of working respondents in round 4. essentially the 
same as round 1 ( 1 L8%) 16 . 

Benefits. A considerably higher percentage (57.8%) of working round 4 respondents could 
get health insurance through their employer than was the case for the round 1 working group 
(44.2% ). Forty-four percent (43.5% ) of working round 4 households reported that they could 
get health coverage right away, and 14.3% reported that they had to wait. 



Tabic 15 shows fewer working households (129). Apparently some respondents were more willing to 
provide information on their type of job and how they got it than on their earnings. 

6 As noted previously, these findings understate the extent to which job development activities provided b\ 
other state agencies helped respondents gain employment. 

Pase 44 



Likewise, a significantly higher percentage of working round 4 households had a pension 
plan available through their employer than comparable round 1 households (40.4% compared 
to 26.6%). Twenty-one percent (20.5%) of working round 4 respondents said that they could 
take advantage of the pension plan right away, and 19.9% said they had to wait. As with 
round I, we did not ask specifically about Social Security. 

Reason For Leaving Job: Worked But Stopped Group. Twenty-two respondents had left 
their jobs within three months of the fourth interview. Reasons for doing so included (not all 
of the cases gave a reason): 

o Seven cases cited illness of someone other than the respondent. 

o Three cases said they quit. 

o One case each cited transportation problems, child-care problems, did not like the job, 
and being fired. 
In contrast, child-care problems and illness of the respondent were the most common reasons 
for the round 1 group who left their jobs. 

Forty one percent (40.9% or nine cases) said that they had looked for work since leaving their 
job, for anywhere from 8 to 30 hours per week. Only three cases reported using an 
employment service. 

Reasons For Not Currently Working: Worked But Stopped Group. Illness was the 
reason most commonly specified by respondents who had worked but who were not working 
at the time of the interview (cited by six cases, 27.3%). This was also the most common 
reason given by comparable round 1 respondents (25.0%). Two cases said they could not 
find a job, and one case each cited: transportation problems, child-care problems, not having 
the right skills, inadequate pay, and illness of another. 

Reasons For Not Working: Never Worked Group. Forty-three households reported that 
no one worked in the three months prior to the fourth interview. The most common reason 
specified for not working was the illness of the respondent (25.6%). This was also true for 
comparable round 1 respondents. Other reasons cited were: cannot find any job (18.6%), 
illness of someone other than respondent (7.0%), child care (7.0%), not having the right 
skills, and the job not paying enough (4.7% each). 

Of the 43 respondents who did not work in the last three months, 16 (37.2%) reported they 
had looked for work for anywhere from 2 to 30 hours a week. Only 18.6% reported using an 
employment service. 



4.4 Overall Financial Status (Section C of Questionnaire) 

In this section we present data on the financial status of round 4 households. 

4.4.1 Total Family Income (Table D14) 

Family income is reported only for those households whose TAFDC case was still closed at 
the time they were interviewed (n= 1 70 for round 4 and n=279 for round 1 ). Two-thirds 



Page 45 



(63.3% ) of the round 4 cases that were still closed reported total family income of more than 
S250 weekly (S 12.980 annually) (56.2% of round 1 cases). 

Eighteen percent ( 17.8%) of round 4 households reported total family income of more than 
S500 a week (S26.081 or more annually) ( 1 1.7% for round 1 households). 

Only 14.2% of round 4 households reported income of SI 50 or less each week (S7.740 or less 
annually) (22.3% for round 1 ). 

Clearly, households participating in the round 4 interviews who remained closed were, 
in percentage terms, financially better off than round 1 households, supporting 
respondents" higher rating on financial well being reported in Section 4.2. 



4.4.2 Household Debt 

Round 4 households had somewhat higher debt levels than round 1 households. 
Twenty-one percent (20.59?-) of round 4 cases reported total debt of SI 0.000 or more ( 17.2% 
for round 1 cases). Conversely. 45.8% of round 4 cases reported total debt of S2.000 or less 
(57.3% for round 1 cases). Similarly. 28.3% of round 4 cases reported debt of between 
S2.001 and S7.000 (20.0% of round 1 cases). 

Of 142 households who answered the debt question for both rounds of interviews: 
° 12.0% (17 cases) reported less debt in round 4 
° 64.8% (92 cases) reported the same level of debt 
° 23.2% (33 cases) reported a higher level of debt 

Sources of Debt. The major sources of debt were very similar for round 1 and round 4 
households. The primary differences were more credit card debt, and more personal loans for 
round 4 households, as well as less rent/mortsase and 'other" debt for round 4 households. 



4.4.3 Other Income Supports (Table D15) 

Round 4 households whose TAFDC case was still closed were much less likely to be 
receiving food stamps than were reopened cases. Seven percent (6.5%) of cases still closed 
was receiving food stamps, compared to nearly two-thirds (64.4%) of reopened cases. 

Less than one-fifth (18.6% ) of round 4 respondents was receiving child support. 

Twenty-two percent (21.8%) of cases still closed were receiving child support compared 
to only 6.7% of reopened cases. (As noted earlier, the percentage of households 
receiving child support may be understated because we can not exclude households with 
fathers present from the calculation.) 

Other income supports such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the Women. Infants 
and Children (WIC) nutrition program, and fuel assistance were being received by less 
than 10% of round 4 respondents. 



Page 46 



While only 20.0% of respondents reported receiving rent subsidies here, later in the interview 
39.1% reported having their rent subsidized (See Section 4.10.1). We had the same finding 
in round 1 and believe the discrepancy is due to the fact that the second question was clearer 
on the meaning of a rent subsidy. Consequently, we believe 39. 1 % is more accurate. 

No reopened cases reported using a food kitchen or food bank. Two percent ( 1 .8%) of cases 
still closed reported using food kitchens. Two percent (2.4%) of cases still closed reported 
currently using food banks, and one percent ( 1 .2%) reported past use of food banks, for a 
total of four percent (3.6%). In the next section of the questionnaire, eight percent (8.2%) of 
cases still closed reported using food banks. (See Section 4.5.3.) This is approximately 
double the use reported in the section of the questionnaire on income supports. (Reported use 
of food kitchens was consistent between the two sections.) 

Overall, receipt of public and charitable income supports by round 4 respondents was 
very low. The pattern of use was quite different for cases still closed and those that re- 
opened. Those who were still closed were less likely to receive food stamps, rent 
subsidies, and were more likely to receive child support. 



4.5 Food Security 

4.5.1 Food Sufficiency (Table D16) 

Round 4 cases reported more food security than round 1 cases (on a percentage basis). 

Nearly sixty percent (58.8%) of round 4 households reported that they had enough of the right 
kinds of food (51 .6% for round 1 ). One third (33.5%) reported that they had enough to eat, 
but not always the kind of food needed (26.7% for round 1 cases). Only 6.6% of round 4 
respondents reported not having enough food (2 1 .6% for round 1 ). ( 1 .2% did not respond.) 



4.5.2 Days Without Food 

Less than two percent (3 cases, 1.8%) of round 4 households whose TAFDC case was still 
closed reported going without food for a day or more during the month. One reported going 
without food for 3 days, one for 4 days, and one for 6 days. None of the three had reported 
food shortages at the first interview. 

Food Stamp Status. All three cases were receiving food stamps at the time their TAFDC 
case was closed, but only one case was receiving food stamps at the first interview, and none 
was receiving food stamps at the fourth interview. 

Round 4 Status of Cases Reporting Food Shortages in Round 1. Twenty-six (26) 
households in round 1 reported going without food for a day or more per month, of whom 
eight said that they went without food for more than one week during the month. Of these 
eight, one case reported eight days without food; four cases reported 10 days without food; 
and one case each reported 12, 14, and 15 days without food. 



Page 47 



Fourteen of the 26 cases in round 1 that reported going without food also participated in the 
fourth interview. None of the 14 cases who reported food shortages at the first interview 
reported a shortage at the fourth interview. Four of these 14 cases were among the eight that 
previously reported going without food for more than a week. 

Food Stamp Status. Twelve of the fourteen cases were receiving food stamps at the time 
their TAFDC case closed. Three of the fourteen cases were receiving food stamps at the first 
interview, of which one was still using food stamps at the fourth interview. Conversely, four 
of the fourteen cases were receiving food stamps at the time of the fourth interview, of which 
three had not been receiving food stamps at the first. 

While it is encouraging to see that fourteen households experienced significant improvement 
in food security from the first to the fourth interview, we are concerned about the twelve 
cases reporting a food shortage in the first interview that did not participate in the fourth 
interview, and about the three cases who experienced increased food insecurity from the first 
interview to the fourth. 



4.5.3 Other Food Assistance 

Among households that were still closed (n=170), very few reported receiving free food, or 
money from others for food, in the three months prior to the fourth interview: 
14. 1% reported using one source of free food. 

° 1 .2% reported using two sources of free food. 

° 84.7% did not use free food. 

7.1% reported getting money from one other source for food. 
° 2.9% reported getting money from two other sources for food. 
90.0% did not get money from others for food. 

The degree to which these households received free food or got money from others for food 
was: 

12.4% (21 cases) used one form of food assistance 

° 7.6% ( 1 3 cases) used two forms of food assistance 

° 0.6% ( 1 case) used three forms of food assistance 

° 79.4% ( 135 cases) used no food assistance 



Page 48 



The types of food assistance used were: 

o 8.2% (14 cases) reported using a food bank. 
o 1 .2% (2 cases) reported using food kitchens. 
o 3.5% (6 cases) reported using free food from a church. 
o 3.5% (6 cases) reported getting free food from some other source. 
o 4.7% (8 cases) reported receiving money for food from their parents. 
o 4.7% (8 cases) reported receiving money for food from relatives. 
o 2.4% (4 cases) reported getting money for food from friends. 
o 0.6% ( 1 case each) reported receiving money for food from the church or from 
another source. 

Overall the level of food security with round 4 respondents appeared to be quite high, 
even though their use of food stamps was low. This was not true for round 1 
respondents. 



4.6 Children's Medical Coverage (Table D17) 

Only respondents whose TAFDC case was still closed at the time of the interview (n=170) 
were asked questions about their children's medical coverage because reopened TAFDC 
cases were automatically enrolled in the MassHealth program. 

Among households (not individual children), the vast majority reported having 
MassHealth (85.9%) coverage. When we checked households not reporting MassHealth 
coverage against our database, we found that an additional 6.5% of households had 
MassHealth coverage for a total of 92.4% of respondents' households covered. By 
comparison, 17 households ( 10%) reported private insurance coverage, and 14 
households (8.2%) reported HMO coverage. Finally, three households ( 1 .8%) reported 
some other type of coverage 17 . 

4.7 Child-care Arrangements 

4.7.1 Number of Child-care Providers (Table D18) 

A higher percentage of children among the round 4 respondents (80.3%) used only one child- 
care provider than did round 1 children (68.8%). Only 4.5% of round 4 children used more 
than two compared to 1 1.6% of round 1 children. 



4.7.2 Type of Child-care Providers (Table D19) 

There was considerable diversity among households in types of child-care arrangements. The 
most common response, however, was that the child did not need care (n=56). In contrast, 
only 17 children in round 1 did not need care. 



Twelve households reported both MassHealth and private insurance coverage. Nine households reported both 
MassHealth and HMO coverage. 

Pase 49 



The most common types of child-care providers for round 4 households using child care 
were: 

o the custodial parent's mother or father (48 cases) 

o custodial parent's grandparent (17 cases) 

o school/after school program ( 1 7 cases) 

o child-care center ( 1 6 cases) 
These were also commonly used child-care providers for round 1 cases. 

If relative, friend and neighbor are combined into one category, the types of child-care 
arrangements used by respondents were: 

° 42% used a relative, friend or neighbor 

° 26% reported none was needed 
13% used a child-care center 

° 10% used a school/after school program 

° 5% used a baby-sitter or family day care 

° 3% used some other arrangement 

° 1 % said they couldn't afford child care. 



4.7.3 Paying for Child-care (Table D20) 

State funded child care was somewhat more prevalent with round 4 cases than with round 1 
cases, 48.3% for round 4 compared to only 40.2% for round 1 . The incidence of self-pay care 
was essentially the same for both groups, 50.0% for round 4 compared to 48.9% for round 
1." 

Only 12.6% of the round 4 respondents (27 cases) indicated that they had or were using 
transitional child care in the last three months. However, 26.0% of the cases did not respond. 



4.8 Child Support Agreement/Contact With Absent Parent (Table D21 ) 

The majority of round 4 respondents (57.1%) reported not having a legal child support 
agreement. It is not clear from the data to what extent the 40.9% of children who were 
covered by a legal arrangement were actually receiving anything. Only 18.6% of round 4 
respondents reported receiving child support payments when we asked about other income 
supports in Section 4.4.3. 

4.9 Children's Well Being 

We simplified the questions on children's well being for the fourth round of interviews, and 
asked households only about four types of events that might have applied to children in the 
family during the three months prior to the interview. 



The number of children in round 4 for which we have a child-care funding source is quite small, only 60 
children, compared to 174 children in round 1. Presumably, this is due to the lower number of round 4 
respondents and the higher percentage of children not needing care in round 4. 

19 Seventeen cases (7.9%) did not respond to any of the four questions. 

Page 50 



Eleven respondents (5. 1%) said a child had transferred to a different school. 

Twenty-eight respondents (13.0%) said a child had attended special classes in one or more 
subjects in school. 

Eight respondents (3.7%) had a child who was suspended or expelled from school. 

Fifty-eight respondents (27.0%) had a child participate on a sports team, after-school activity 
(such as music, dance, language, or computers) or club (such as Scouts, YMCA, religious 
group, school newspaper). 

As we explained in Section 3, it is difficult to interpret these data on children's well-being 
because of the absence of comparative data. We plan to continue to focus attention on 
developing and compiling reliable data on children's well being. 



4.10 Household Composition/ Housing (Tables D22, D23) 

We have more complete survey data on household composition for the round 4 cases than for 
the round 1 cases. We collected data on the number of spouses/significant others, children, 
and other individuals living in round 4 households. 

o 10 households (4.7%) included spouses/significant others who were not the father of 

any of the children. 
o 4 1 households (19.1%) included spouses/significant others who were the father of at 

least one of the children. 
o 68 households (3 1 .7%) included individuals other than a dependent child or 
spouse/significant other. 

The distribution of children in round 4 households is given in Table D22, along with 
administrative data on the number of children in these households when their TAFDC case 
was closed. 

The major difference between survey and administrative data on the number of children in 
round 4 households is that the latter show a greater percentage of households with only one or 
two children (76.7%) than did the survey data (67.9%). Conversely, survey data show a 
greater percentage of households with three or more children (29.3%) compared to 
administrative records (23.3%). Because of the difference in time frame between the two sets 
of data, they are not directly comparable, but they are helpful in explaining the difference in 
average household size between survey data and administrative data. 

The average household size of round 4 households according to survey data was 3.9 
individuals, compared to the average household size of 2.9 individuals according to 
administrative data. (See last row of Table D23.) We had the same finding for round 1 cases 
where survey data showed an average household size of 3.8 individuals. 



Page 51 



Some of the difference is attributable to a larger number of children included in the survey 
data, but other individuals are also more prominent than expected. A substantial number of 
round 4 households included spouses/significant others (51 cases or 23.8% of round 4 cases), 
while administrative records showed only 26 round 4 households (12.1*70 with a 
spouse/significant other present. In addition, nearly one-third of round 4 households (68 
cases) reported the presence of some other individual. The major conclusion to be drawn is 
that many of the respondent households are composed of more complex family structures 
than simply a single mother and her children. 



4.10.1 Housing Statistics 

The vast majority (83.7%) of round 4 respondents were renters (85.3% in round 1 ). Six 
percent (6.0%) owned their own home (5.0% in round 1 ); five percent (5.1%) shared housing 
(5.9% in round 1 ); one per cent (two cases, 0.9%) reported being homeless (1.2% or four 
cases in round 1); and three percent (2.8%) reported another arrangement (2.7% in round 1). 

Eight percent (8.4%) of cases reported moving in the last three months (21.7% of cases in 
round 1). 

Eighty-four households (39.1%) reported receiving some type of housing assistance either by 
living in public housing or having some public agency pay part of the rent (41.0% in round 
1). 

One hundred ninety-five (195) households (90.7%) reported paying rent or mortgage ranging 
from $17 to $975, with an average of $364. 

One hundred sixty-two (162) households (75.3%) reported paying utility bills ranging from 
$20 to $800. with an average of $162. 

Twenty-four households (1 1.2%) reported receiving energy assistance ranging from $100 to 
$1000 (time period covered unclear) with an average amount of $305. 

Fifteen percent ( 14.9%) of households reported that they share the costs of rent or utilities 
with someone else. 



4.11 Employment And Training (Table D24) 

Eleven percent ( 1 1.2%) or 24 cases said that they had been involved in an educational or job 
training program in the three months prior to the interview. Sixteen (16) of the 24 cases were 
still closed and the other eight cases had reopened their TAFDC case. 

The major problems with getting more education or training were (more than one problem 
could apply): 

o 70 cases (32.6%) cited lack of time (24.6% in round 1 ). 

o 56 cases (26.0%) cited cost (24.0% in round 1 ). 

o 30 cases (14.0%) cited child care (28.7% in round 1). 

Page 52 



o 18 cases (8.4%) cited transportation ( 17.6% in round 1 ). 

o 20 cases (9.3%) cited health (9. 1 % in round 1 ). 

o 8 cases (3.7%) cited full program/waiting list (2. 1 % in round 1 ). 

o 28 cases (13.0%) cited other (14.1% in round 1). 

The major reason for not getting more education or training differed between reopened cases 
and cases still closed as shown in Table D24. Thirty-seven percent (36.5%) of closed cases 
cited lack of time, while 3 1 . 1 % of reopened cases cited costs. Costs were the second most 
common reason for not pursuing additional education and training for cases still closed, while 
the second most common reason for reopened cases was health. 

Of one hundred thirty-two ( 1 32) respondents (61 .4% of the round 4 respondents) who 
answered, 84 (63.6%) said that more education or more training while on assistance would 
have been helpful. Reopened cases were even more likely than closed cases to say this 
(7 1 . 1 % of reopened cases compared to 56.5% of cases still closed). 



4.12 Transportation (Table D25) 

The same percentage of round 4 cases as round 1 (56.3% for round 4 and 56.4% for round 
1 ) reported owning a car. The ninety-four round 4 respondents who did not own a car 
were asked about how they got around. 

Eighty-four (84) cases reported on the availability of public transportation as follows: 
o 72.6% (61 cases) reported that they had to walk less than Vi mile to public 

transportation. 
o 9.5% (8 cases) reported that they had to walk Vi mile to 1 mile to public 

transportation. 
o 6.0% (5 cases) reported that they had more than a mile walk to public 

transportation. 
o 8.3% (7 cases) reported using cabs. 
o 3.6% (3 cases) said that no public transportation was available. 

We also asked respondents who did not own a car how they got their children to a doctor's 
appointment or grocery store. The most common form of transportation to a doctor's 
appointment or grocery store for round 4 respondents was public transportation, as was the 
case for round 1 respondents. 



4.13 Summary -- Round 4 Findings 

Round 4 respondents, as a subset of round 1 respondents, were better off in virtually every 
area we examined. The majority of round 4 respondents felt that they were better off, both 
financially and in general, than when they were on welfare. While employment levels were 
down somewhat compared to the round 1 respondents, the average earnings of round 4 
respondents were higher than for round 1 respondents. 



Page 53 



While round 4 respondents were employed in similar fields as round 1 (retail/service, clerical, 
unskilled health care, and factory laborer), a higher percentage had health insurance and 
pensions available through their employer. 

As noted above, MassHealth was by far the most common type of health insurance for 
respondent's children, with 92.4% of round 4 households reporting MassHealth coverage. 
Use of other public and charitable income supports was very low. Only seven percent (6.57c) 
of respondents whose TAFDC case was still closed was receiving food stamps. Overall, food 
security was high with only 6.5% of households who were still closed reporting that they did 
not have enough to eat at times. 

Receipt of child support was also very low, but was much higher for cases that remained 
closed (21.8%) than for cases that had reopened (6.7%). 

The most common types of child-care providers were the custodial parent's mother, father or 
grandparent, a school/after school program, and a child-care center. But the largest number 
of children were reported as not needing child care. 

Round 4 households were generally more complex than simply a single mother and her 
children. Twenty-four percent included a spouse/significant other and 31.7% included some 
other individual. 

As a group, round 4 respondents were better off than round 1 households, particularly in 
the area of earnings, employment-based benefits, family income, and food security. 
Because 131 households who participated in the first interview did not participate in the 
fourth interview, the improvement noted for the round 4 sample might be a function of 
losing contact with more disadvantaged sample members over time. As we noted at the 
start of the chapter, however, we found no statistically significant differences between 
the round 1 and round 4 respondents on such variables as race, education, reason for 
closing and program exemption status. We cannot rule out that the round 4 sample as a 
group was different from the round 1 sample in traits that we were unable to measure 
such as interpersonal skills and social supports. We will be in a better position to 
measure how representative the round 4 sample is when we complete the review of all 
case closings for the January to June 1997 period using administrative records. 

At the same time, it should be noted that the experiences and coping strategies of households 
who have been able to stay off assistance for a year are of interest in and of themselves, 
regardless of the extent to which they represent other households leaving TAFDC. The 
findings presented in this chapter offer a better understanding of those households who 
appear to be making a successful transition from welfare to work. 



Page 54 



5. CHANGES OVER TIME 

To measure changes between household's circumstances three months after they close and 
twelve months after closing, we compared the same households for both rounds of 
interviews. In the next section we examine only those households who participated in both 
the first and fourth interviews (n=2 10). 

Round 4 respondents were better off in virtually every area we examined. Did these 
households improve over time? Did they start out at a higher level and maintain that level? 

We used bivariate analysis to track changes in households from the time they were first 
interviewed approximately three months after leaving TAFDC to the time of their fourth 
interview, approximately nine months later. Two hundred and ten (210) of the 215 round 4 
households participated in both the first and fourth interview, and are included in this 
analysis. 



5.1 Status changes 

We compared respondents' status at the first interview to their status at the fourth interview 
with respect to twenty survey variables. Table 17 presents the results. In interpreting them it 
is important to keep in mind that we are reporting on changes in circumstances, and not on 
the frequency of a particular condition. For example, in row 1 , the 6 1 .2% reported under the 
category of "same" means that 61.2% of households gave their financial status the same 
rating at the fourth interview as they did at the first interview. It does not mean that they 
rated their financial status as the same as when they were on TAFDC. In fact, many of these 
cases had reported that they were better off, or, to a lesser extent, worse off during both 
interviews. By analyzing changes on the same cases from round 1 to round 4 we can assess 
the extent to which respondent household's circumstances improved or worsened in that 
time. 



5.2 Most Active Variables 

On eight survey items more than 20% of households reported a change in their 
circumstances. In the case of total family income more than 60% changed. The eight were: 

Total Family Income — 49.2% of households that remained closed increased their income; 
15.4% of such households experienced a loss in income; and 37.8% reported no change in 
income. 

Food Security — 30.8% of households upgraded their food status; 16.5% of households 
downgraded their food status; and 52.7% reported no change in food status. 



In Section 4 we analyzed 215 round 4 cases, but five of these cases had their first interview done during the 
second or third round of interviews, and. therefore, are excluded from this analysis. 

Page 55 



Financial Status — 22.07c of households upgraded their financial rating; 16.7% of households 
downgraded their financial rating; and 61.2% reported no change." 1 

Employment-Based Health Insurance - 24.8% of households reported an increase in 
availability of employment-based health insurance. One eighth (13.6%) reported an apparent 
loss of such benefits, and 61.5% reported no change. 

Household Size — 20.8% of households experienced an increase in household size; 18.3% of 
households experienced a decrease in household size; and 61.2% reported no change. 

General Well Being — 17.3% of households upgraded their well-being rating; 15.8% of 
households downgraded their well-being rating; and 67.2% reported no change. 

Respondent Working Full Time — 12.4% who were not working full-time at the first 
interview were working full-time by the fourth interview; the same percentage (12.4%) had 
been working full-time at the time of the first interview but had stopped by the fourth 
interview; and 75.2% reported no change in work status. 

Food Stamps Receipt — 9. 1% who were not receiving food stamps at the first interview were 
receiving food stamps by the fourth interview; 14.8% who had been receiving food stamps at 
the first interview were not receiving them by the fourth interview; and 76.2% reported no 
chanse. 

Table 17. 

Changes From Round 1 to Round 4 



Financial Status 



General Well Being 



TAFDC Status 



Worked Last Three Months 



Better 


Same 


Worse 


Total 


22.0% 


61.2% 


16.7% 


1 50 cases 


Better 


Same 


Worse 


Total 


17.3% 


67.2% 


15.8% 


1 46 cases 


Closed 


Same 


Reopened 


Total 


7.6% 


81.4% 


1 1 .0% 


210 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


3.9% 


85.4% 


10.7% 


206 cases 



1 For both financial status and general well being, we combined the five optional answers into three: belter of 
(including much better off and a little better off), same, and worse off (including much worse off and a little 
worse off.) We then calculated the number of households who moved from one rating to another. 

A number of variables, namely, financial status, general well-being, total family income, and food security, 
show a total number of cases as 150 or less rather than 210. This is because these particular variables applied 
only to households whose TAFDC case was still closed at the time of the interview. In the instance of 
employment-based health insurance, it applied only to those who were working. 



Page 56 



Respondent Working Full Time 



Respondent Working Part Time 

Spouse/Significant Other 
Working Full Time 

Spouse/Significant Other 
Working Part Time 

Total Family Income (Closed 
Cases Only) 



Food Security 



Food Stamps Receipt 

Employment-Based Health 
Insurance Availability 



EAEDC Receipt 



Child Support Receipt 



Social Security Receipt 

Supplemental Security Income 
Receipt 



WIC Receipt 



Food Kitchen Use 



Fuel Subsidy Receipt 



No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


12.4% 


75.2% 


12.4% 


2 1 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


7.1% 


81.0% 


11.9% 


210 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


4.8% 


89.5% 


5.7% 


210 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


0.0% 


98.6% 


1.4% 


2 1 cases 


Better 


Same 


Worse 


Total 


49.2% 


37.8% 


15.4% 


143 cases 


Better 


Same 


Worse 


Total 


30.8% 


52.7% 


16.5% 


146 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


9.1% 


76.2% 


14.8% 


210 cases 


Better 


Same 


Worse 


Total 


24.8% 


61.5% 


13.6% 


1 17 cases 


Yes to No 


Same 


No to Yes 


Total 


1.9% 


96.7% 


1.5% 


210 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


9.0% 


83.9% 


7.2% 


210 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


2.9% 


96.2% 


1.0% 


210 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


2.9% 


95.3% 


1.9% 


210 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


4.3% 


90.1% 


5.7% 


2 10 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


1.4% 


97.2% 


1.4% 


210 cases 


No to Yes 


Same 


Yes to No 


Total 


3.8% 


90.9% 


5.2% 


210 cases 



Page 57 



Increase Same Decrease Total 

Household Size 20.8% 61.2% 18.3% 204 cases 

On average, the various changes in circumstance described above resulted in an improvement 
in respondent's lives. Family income was up. Food stamp receipt was down at the same time 
that ratings on food security were up. Ratings of financial well being, and to a lesser extent, 
general well being, were up. Employment-based health insurance was more often available. 
Two areas where there was no clear direction was in the full-time working status of 
respondents and in household size. Over a year's time, the same percent of respondents 
stopped working as started working full time. Interestingly, the changes identified in 
household size show that there was considerable movement of individuals in and out of 
households over the follow up period. 



5.2.1 Moderately Active Variables 

Six variables showed moderate activity ( 10% to 20% of households reported some change in 
their circumstances). 

Respondent Working Part Time —7.1% of respondents who had not been working part-time 
at the first interview were working part-time by the fourth interview: 1 1.9% who had been 
working part-time at the first interview were not working part-time at the fourth interview; 
and 81.0% reported no change. 

TAFDC Status — 7.6% of cases that had returned to TAFDC by the first interview had closed 
by the fourth interview; 1 1.0% of cases that had been closed at the first interview had 
returned to TAFDC by the fourth interview; and 81.4% of cases experienced no change in 
their TAFDC status. 

Child Support — 9.0% of respondents who were not receiving child support at the first 
interview were getting a child support payment at the fourth interview; 7.2% of respondents 
who had been getting child support at the first interview were no longer receiving child 
support at the fourth interview; and 83.9% reported no change. 

Worked Last Three Months — 3.9% of households who had not worked within the three 
months prior to the first interview had been working prior to the fourth interview; 10.7% who 
had been working prior to the first interview had not worked prior to the fourth interview; 
and 85.4% reported no change. 

Spouse/Significant Other Working Full Time — 4.8% of spouses/significant others who had 
not been working full time at the first interview were working full time at the fourth 
interview; 5.7% who had been working full time at the first interview were no long working 
full time at the fourth interview; and 89.5% reported no change in working status. 

WIC Receipt — 5.7% reported that they had been receiving WIC nutritional services at the 
first interview but had stopped by the fourth interview; 4.3% reported that they had not been 



( 



Page 58 



{ 



using WIC services at the first interview but were by the fourth interview; and 90% of 
respondents reported no change 



Three of these six moderately active variables were employment-related and generally reflect 
a slight decline in employment levels as we described in Section 4 of this report. Similarly, 
changes identified in the variable on TAFDC status are in accord with the earlier finding that 
a slightly higher percentage of round 4 cases had returned to TAFDC than round 1 cases. 



5.2.2 Inactive Variables 

Very few changes occurred in respondents use of income supports such as food kitchens, 
social security payments, Supplemental Security Income payments (SSI), and EAEDC 
payments. Ninety-five percent or more of respondents reported no change in their 
circumstances on these variables. 

There was practically no activity with respect to spouses/significant others who were working 
part-time. Virtually everyone (98.5%) in this very small group reported no change. 



5.2.3 Conclusions - Changes Over Time 

These findings demonstrate that round 4 households, on average, experienced a discernible 
improvement in their living conditions during the year. More than three times as many 
households (49.2%) whose TAFDC case remained closed increased their family income than 
experienced a loss in income (15.4%). Twice as many round 4 households upgraded their 
food status (30.8%) than downgraded their status (16.5%). Twice as many working round 4 
households had employment-based health insurance available (24.8%) than lost its 
availability (13.6%). 

However, because 131 households from round 1 did not participate in round 4, we cannot 
rule out the possibility that those who participated in both rounds were experiencing more 
positive outcomes than those who did not. We will be in a better position to measure the 
differences between respondents and non-respondents when we conduct the second stage of 
this evaluation, which will involve a review of administrative records on employment, 
earnings, food stamps receipt, and child support for all closings during the sample period. 



Page 59 



6. CONCLUSIONS 

Taken together, the evaluation findings presented here are encouraging. Employment levels 
of respondent households were high. Approximately three months after leaving TAFDC, 
three-quarters of respondent households whose TAFDC case was still closed included 
someone who was working. Similarly, approximately nine months later, 71.0% of 
households that remained closed who participated in the fourth interview included someone 
who was working. 

Average weekly earnings for survey respondents working full time was $305 during the first 
round of interviews and $323 during the fourth round of interviews. Nearly one-fifth of 
households participating in both rounds of interviews included a working spouse/ significant 
other. The average weekly earnings for spouses/significant others was $355 during the first 
round of interviews, and $362 during the fourth round of interviews. 

Earnings were being supplemented by MassHealth coverage of the children in the vast 
majority of households, and child-care subsidies were helping many households cover the 
cost of child care. 

Receipt of other income supports, especially food stamps, was considerably lower than 
expected. Less than one-fifth (17.9%) of households whose TAFDC case was still closed at 
the first interview were receiving food stamps, and only 6.5% of comparable households 
were receiving food stamps at the fourth interview. 

The number of households receiving child support was low. While households whose 
TAFDC case was still closed were more likely to be receiving child support than households 
who had returned to TAFDC, the numbers were low, with only 15.8% of cases still closed 
getting child support at the first interview, and 2 1 .8% getting support at the fourth interview. 

Survey data revealed that respondent households were generally more complex than simply a 
single mother and her children. Twenty-four percent of households participating in the fourth 
interview included a spouse/significant other, and 31.6% included another individual. 

In general, respondents' households were living without welfare through a combination of 
employment, MassHealth, and child-care subsidies. Use of other income subsidies was 
minimal. 



6.1 Areas of Concern 

One disturbing finding was that several households, mainly in the first round of interviews, 
reported going without food for more than one day during the month. While some of these 
families' food problems developed after leaving TAFDC, in the majority of cases the families 
were experiencing food insecurity even before their TAFDC case closed. Food security of 
households participating in the fourth interview was considerably better. Of the 26 



Page 60 



households reporting going without food in the three months after closing, 14 households 
(53.9%) were among the round 4 respondents. None of these 14 households reported going 
without food twelve months after closing. Unfortunately, we were unable to follow 12 cases, 
and three new cases reported food shortages in round 4. 

The low rate of child support payments is particularly worrisome because it places single 
mother households at greater financial risks. 

A third concern arising from the survey findings was the general unavailability of 
employment-based health insurance and pensions. In the first interview, less than half 
(44.2%) of those who were working had health benefits available through their employer. A 
considerably higher percentage of households participating in the fourth interview had health 
insurance available through their employer (57.8%). 

The availability of employer-based pensions was even less common, with only 26.6% of 
those working at the time of the first interview, and 40.4%) of those working at the fourth 
interview having this benefit. We did not specifically ask about the availability of Social 
Security coverage, however. 



6.2 Respondents Self-Assessment of Post- Welfare Experience 

Perhaps the best way to sum up these different survey results is through the assessment of the 
survey respondents themselves. In both the first and fourth rounds of interviews, the vast 
majority of respondents rated their financial and general well-being after leaving TAFDC as 
the same or better than when they were on TAFDC. 



6.3 Representativeness of Findings 

Because our survey response rate was under 70%, these findings cannot be assumed 
representative of all closings for the January to June 1997 time period. In particular, we 
know that Hispanics were underrepresented in the respondent population for both rounds of 
interviews. Consequently, the findings reported here are likely to be better representative of 
the more advantaged TAFDC recipient leaving assistance. The findings, however, remain 
important. Perhaps their real strength comes within the limitations of the sample. If 
respondent households were more advantaged than the universe of closings, these findings 
alert us to their problems and concerns after leaving assistance. They also serve as a 
foundation for examining the post-welfare experiences of time limited closings, a group that 
may have higher proportions of households in less favorable circumstances. 



6.4 Future Tracking Activity 

This is the first of a four part tracking study of closed TAFDC cases. The next stage will 
consist of a review of all closings from January to June 1997 (approximately 20,000) using 
Departmental administrative records, augmented by income and child support data from the 
Department of Revenue's Longitudinal Database (LDB). Tracking the outcomes of non- 
respondents will be one of the early analyses using the LDB. We will also be able to measure 

Page 61 



the degree to which respondent's reported data on income, food stamp receipt, and child 
support matches DOR records. 

For the third part of the study, the Center for Survey Research at the University of 
Massachusetts - Boston will conduct a survey of a random sample of closings from the 
December 1998 to February 1999 period. Many of these closings will be the first to reach the 
state's two-year time limit. Special emphasis will be placed on getting a high survey 
response rate. Closings studied here were primarily voluntary, and approximately 20% of 
respondent households had returned to TAFDC. For time limited closings that will not be 
possible for three more years, except for exempt cases and cases receiving extensions of the 
time limit. 

Finally, we will be conducting a review of all closings for the December 1998 to February 
1999 time period using the same administrative records described above for the January to 
June 1997 review. 

Through these evaluations we hope to more comprehensively document the post-welfare 
experience of households leaving assistance under reform. 



Page 62 



ATTACHMENT A 

LONG RANGE STRATEGY 

FOR 

TRACKING CASES LEAVING THE TRANSITIONAL AID TO DEPENDENT 

CHILDREN (TAFDC) PROGRAM 



Page A-l 



TRACKING CASES LEAVING THE TRANSITIONAL AID TO DEPENDENT 

CHILDREN (TAFDC) PROGRAM 

Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance 

The Massachusetts long-term tracking study of households leaving the Transitional Aid to 
Dependent Children (TAFDC) program has two survey components, and two review 
components based on administrative records. 

Cohort 1 Survey 

For January to June 1997 closings, Departmental staff" have conducted a longitudinal 
study of a random sample of closings whereby former recipients were interviewed every 
three months for up to one year after leaving TAFDC. Respondents were paid $25 for the 
first interview and $10 for each subsequent interview. This report presents the findings 
from the first round of interviews with 341 households that took place approximately 
three months after they left TAFDC, and findings from the fourth round of interviews that 
took place approximately nine months later (twelve months after closing) with 215 of 
these same households. Overall, more than 1,000 surveys were completed as part of the 
Cohort 1 survey. 

Cohort 2 Survey 

For the December 1998 to February 1999 closings, the Department has contracted with 
the Center for Survey Research at the University of Massachusetts-Boston to complete 
interviews of a minimum of 600 closed cases with an over-sampling of time limit 
closings (approximately 400). These cases will be interviewed approximately six months 
after they leave the program. We have received funding from the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services for this survey. 

Administrative Records Review 

In addition to conducting two surveys, the Department will review all cases that closed 
during the two study periods using Departmental administrative records, augmented by 
child support and wage reporting data from the Department of Revenue's Longitudinal 
Database (LDB). For the January to June 1997 period, the universe of closings totaled 
19,956 cases; for the December 1998 to February 1999 time period, we estimate the 
universe of closings to be approximately 15,000 cases. 

The chart on the next page graphically presents the major features of the Department's 
multifaceted evaluation strategy. 



" Staff who conducted the survey were volunteers from Quality Control units located throughout the state. 

Page A-2 



Evaluation Design 



Population 
First Study Period 



Cohort 1 Households 

20,000 households (all 
closings for January to 
June 1997) 



350 randomly 
selected from 
20,000 closings 



Data Sources/ 
Data Elements 



Administrative Records 



Welfare Receipt 

Food Stamps 

Medicaid 



Earning 
Child Support 



Survey Data 

Employment 
Earnings 
Other Income/Supports 
Total Family Income 
Total Family Debt 
Household Composition 
Housing & Subsidies 
Health Care Coverage 
Education 
Training 
Food Security 
Child Care 
Children's Well-being 
Child Support 
Transportation 



Population 
Second Study Period 



Cohort 2 Households 

15,000 households (all 
closings for December 
1998 to February 1999 



600 randomly 
selected from 
15,000 closings 



(400 time-limit 
closings; 
200 other 
closings) 



Additional Cohort 2 Survey Items ■ 

Substance Abuse 

Mental Health and Indicators of Well Being 

Victimization/Domestic Violence 

Family Responsibilities/Problems Beyond Children 

Informal Financial Supports 

Time Limit Related Assistance 



Page A-3 



ATTACHMENT B 

Re-coded Closing Action Reasons 



Action 

Reason 

23 
24 

25 
26 

28 

30 
31 
32 
33 

34 



35 



36 

37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
43 
44 
45 
46 

47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
53 
54 
55 

56 

57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 



Description 

Required to be in another assistance unit 

Eligible for Unemployment Comp/Excess 

child support 

Receipt of SSI 

Failure to Prepare for scheduled transition 

review 

Non-cooperation with DRU 

Excess unearned income 

Excess assets 

Dependent over age or out of home 

Eligibility for. or receipt of, other assistance 

Refusal to Apply for other potential benefits 

Both parents in home and no deprivation factor 

Child in foster care 

No longer incapacitated 

Client's Request 

Failure to provide income/asset verification 

Failure to provide verifications 

Failure to keep redetermination appointment 

No eligible adult in the home 

Ineligible alien 

DRU determines not disabled 

PAFS closed-required to get in another FS 

case 

No eligible dependents in home 

No lonser Massachusetts resident 

Death 

Whereabouts unknown - no mail returned 

Failed to complete family cap review 

Case closed due to striker 

Whereabouts unknown - mail returned 

Not enrolled in school/GED and not meeting 

teen living reqs. 

AR03 case denied - excess income, assets. 

hours 

DRU found not incapacitated 

Failure to cooperate w/ QC 

Incomplete MR 

Earnings 30 and/or 1/3 

Earnings 

Child over 19 

No longer pregnant 



Re-coded 
Category 

Misc. 

Unearned Income 



Unearned Income 
Failure to Cooperate 

Misc. 

Unearned Income 

Misc. 

No Elig. Child 

Unearned Income 

Misc. 

Misc. 

No Elig. Child 

Misc. 

Recipient Request 

Failure to Cooperate 

Failure to Cooperate 

Failure to Cooperate 

No Elig. Child 

No Elig. Child 

No Elig. Child 

Misc. 

No Elig. Child 

Misc. 

Misc. 

Failure to Cooperate 

Misc. 

Misc. 

Failure to Cooperate 

Misc. 

Income/Earninss 

Misc. 

Misc. 

Failure to Cooperate 

Income/Earnings 

Income/Earnings 

No Elig. Child 

Misc. 



Page B-2 



64 Failure to verify SSN 

65 Earnings and child support 

66 Failure to cooperate w/ CSEU 

67 Failure to return MR 

7 1 Failure to correct inadequate MR 

72 Lump sum income 

73 Failure to comply with EDP 

74 Failure to cooperate with direct deposit 

76 Clients request to stop cash only 

77 Bank match reporting excess assets 

79 Depen./teen no longer meeting school req 

81 Failure to participate in ESP (2nd time) 

83 Receiving assistance in another state 

86 Failure to schedule a recertification 

87 Teen failed to live in accepted situation 

90 Excess income of children and parents 

91 Disqualification period over 

92 Income of parents of minor parents 

94 Institutionalization (incl. incarceration) 

95 Learnfare 

96 Fleeing Felon 

98 BSI fraudulent case 

99 Change facsimile number to new SSN 



Misc. 

Income/Earnings 

Misc. 

Failure to Cooperate 

Failure to Cooperate 

Unearned Income 

Failure to Cooperate 

Failure to Cooperate 

Recipient Request 

Misc. 

No Elig. Child 

Failure to Cooperate 

Misc. 

Failure to Cooperate 

Misc. 

Income/Earnings 

Misc. 

Unearned Income 

Misc. 

Misc. 

Misc. 

Misc. 

Misc. 



Page B-3 



ATTACHMENT C 

Questionnaire for Cases Still Closed 



Page C-l 



Quality Control Review of Closed TAFDC Cases 
Cases Still Closed 

Review # 



1 



I 



For all cases now active on EA or Cats 4 or 9, please read the following: 



Participation in this study is strictly voluntary. However, you should be aware that, although the 
information is intended for this study, any information that is different than that known by your 
w orker w ill be communicated to your w orker. 



I 



Previous Assistance 



This first section is about your experience with AFDC and the new program TAFDC, as an adult and 
earlier. 



\ 



Al. How many times have you been on AFDC as an adult? 



A2. Please estimate the total amount of time, in years, you have been 
on assistance as an adult? 



# times 



# years 



A3. While vou were a child, did vour familv receive assistance? 

Yes = 1 No = 2 



A4. Have you been back on assistance or reapplied since you left in [Month of Closing]? 
l.No[skiptoQA6.] 

2. Will apply 

3. Applied 

4. Waiting to hear (everything in. no decision) 

5. Denied 

6. Receiving again 

7. Received, off now. 

A5. If YES: What program(s) have you applied for? 

AFDC 

EAEDC 

SSI 

Emergency Assist. (EA) 

Food stamps 

Other 



I 



Page C-2 



; 



A6. Is your family better off FINANCIALLY now than when you were on welfare? 

1 . Much better 

2. Little better 

3. Same 

4. Little worse 

5. Much worse 



Why? 



A7. In general, do you think things are better for your family now than when you were on 
welfare? 



1. Much better 

2. Little better 

3. Same 

4. Little worse 

5. Much worse 



B. Employment/Earnings/Benefits 



Next, Vd like to ask about jobs you may have had in the last few months. 



Bl. Have you or anyone in the household worked at any time since leaving TAFDC? 

Yes [ No O 



B2. Is anyone in your household working now, including teenagers? 

(Check all that apply.) Full time Part time Avg. Hours 

( 30+hours ) ( less than 30 hours ) per Week 

Respondent 



Spouse/Significant other 

Dependent 

Parent of respondent 

Adult dependent 



Avg. Gross 
Weekly Income 











































For respondents/employed adults CURRENTLY WORKING continue with Q B3 (next page). 
For respondents/employed adults who WORKED, but HA VE STOPPED go to Q B9 (page 4). 
For those respondents/employed adults who HA VE NOT WORKED go to Q B22 (page 6). 



Page C-3 



For those who are currently working. If both adults are working, answer for the primary wage 
earner. 



B3. What kind of job do you have? 



(See Code sheet for codes.) 



B4. How did you find this job? (Check all that apply.) 
Newspaper 
JOBS/ESP worker 
Other DTA worker 
Career Center 
ESP Service Provider 
Private placement agency 
Worked there before 
Friend 
Relative 
Word of mouth 
Went door to door 
Other: 



B5. Do you know about the earned income tax credit? (This is an item on the federal income tax 
form that gives extra money to low-income heads of households.) 

YesD NoD 

B6. Did you claim an earned income tax credit for 1996? 

YesD NoD 

B7. Does your employer offer you health insurance? 

YesQ NoQ Yes, but later D 

B8. Does your employer offer you a pension plan? 

YesQ NoQ Yes, but later □ 

If one adult in the household worked since leaving assistance but has stopped, continue with 
Q B9 (next page). 

If one adult in the household never worked since leaving assistance, go to Q B22 (page 6). 

Otherwise, Go to Q B27 (Page 7) 

***************************************************************** 



Page C-4 



For those who worked since leaving assistance, but have stopped. If both adults worked since leaving 
but stopped working, answer for the primary wage earner. 



B9. What kind of job did you have? 



(See Code sheet for codes.) 



BIO. How did you find that job? (Check all that apply.) 
Newspaper 
JOBS/ESP worker 
Other DTA worker 
Career Center 
ESP Service Provider 
Private placement agency 
Worked there before 
Friend 
Relative 
Word of mouth 
Went door to door 
Other: 



Bll. Do you know about the earned income tax credit? This is an item on the federal income tax 
form that gives extra money to low-income heads of households. 

YesQ NoD 

B12. Did you claim an earned income tax credit for 1996? 

YesQ NoD 

B13. Did your employer offer you health insurance? 

YesQ NoD Yes, but later □ 

B14. Did your employer offer you a pension plan? 

YesQ NoQ Yes, but later □ 



B15. Why 



did you stop working? (Check all that apply.) 

Transportation 

Child care 

I don't have the right skills 

Job didn't pay enough 

Illness (self) 

Illness (other) 

Didn't like the job 

Fired 

Quit 

Other: 



Page C-5 



B16. How long ago did you stop working? 



months ago 



B17. Have you looked for work since your job ended? 

Yes \ No 



B18. If YES, how much time do you spend each week, on average, looking for work since 
your job ended? 

# hours 



B19. Have you used an employment service, such as a career center or DET to find a job? 

YesQ 



No 



B 20. If No, why not? 



B21. What is the main reason you are not working now? | | 

1 . Transportation 

2. Can't find any job 

3. Child care 

4. Don't have the right skills 

5. Doesn't pay enough 

6. Illness (self) 

7. Illness (other) 

8. Other: 

If one adult in the household never worked since leaving assistance, continue with 
Q B22 (next page). 

Otherwise, Go to Q B27 (Page 7). 



Page C-6 



For those who had DID NOT WORK in the last 3 months. If both adults did not work, answer for the 
primary wage earner. 



B22. Have you looked for work since leaving TAFDC? 

Yes [ No O 



B23. How much time do you spend each week, on average, looking for work since leaving 
TAFDC? 

# hours 



B24. Have you used an employment service, such as a career center or DET to find a job? 

Yes [ No O 



B 25. If No, why not? 



B26. What is the main reason you are not working now? [ 

1 . Transportation 4. Don't have the right skills 

2. Can't find any job 5. Don't pay enough 

3. Child care 6. Illness (self) 



7. Illness (other) 

8. Other: 



Page C-7 



For all respondents 



B27. Please estimate your TOTAL FAMILY INCOME including wages, pensions, social security, 
and all other sources. Please include everyone in your family who lives with you. 



ANNUAL OR MONTHLY 


OR 


WEEKLY 




$7,740 or less 


$645 or less 




$150 or less 


1 


$7,741 to $10,360 


$646 to $863 




$151 to $200 


2 


$10,361 to $12,980 


$864 to $1081 




$201 to $250 


3 


$12,981 to $15,600 


$1082 to $1300 




$251 to $300 


4 


$15,601 to $18,220 


$1301 to $1518 




$301 to $350 


5 


$18,221 to $20,800 


$1519 to $1736 




$351 to $400 


6 


$20,801 to $23,460 


$1737 to $1955 




$401 to $450 


7 


$23,461 to $26,080 


$1956 to $2173 




$45 1 to $500 


8 


$26.08 1 or more 


$2 1 74 or more 


$501 


or more 9. 





B28. If you were to add up all your debt (excluding mortgages) how much would you owe? 

$ 



* 



B30. What are your major sources of debt? (Check all that apply.) 
Credit cards 
Student loans 
Oil/gas company 
Rent/Mortgage 
Car loan 
Personal loan(s) 
Electric company 
Other: 



Page C-8 



C. Other Income and Supports 



Next I'd like to ask you about other sources of income you might have received lately. 



CI. What other income/income supports are you receiving (or have you received) since leaving 
TAFDC? 

(If monthly amounts differ, use most recent.) 



Refused to answer 

Food Stamps 

EAEDC 

Child Support 

Social Security 

SSI 

Worker's Comp 

WIC 

Foster Care Payments 

Food Kitchen 

Food Banks 
Friends or Relatives 

(on a regular basis) 

Rent subsidy 

Fuel Assistance 

Other 



Rec'd Reeling # Months Amount Rec'd Monthly 

$ 
$ 
$ 
$ 
$ 
$ 



$ 



$ 










$ 










$ 










$ 











D. Household Composition / Housing 



Now I'd like to ask about who lives with you and about the place where you live. 



Dl. When you left assistance who was living in your household? 

Spouse/ Significant Other (not father of any child) 
Spouse/ Significant Other (father of one or more children) 

]# of Children 

_ # of Others on assistance 
# of Others not on assistance 



D2. How many people live there now? 

Spouse/ Significant Other (not father of any child) 
Spouse/ Significant Other (father of one or more children) 

]# of Children 

_ # of Others on assistance 
# of Others not on assistance 



Page C-9 



D3. Do you own or rent the place you live in now? 

1. Rent 

2. Own 

3. Share 

4. Homeless 

5. Other: 



D4. Have you moved since leaving TAFDC? 

Yes [ No 






r 



D5. If yes, why? 



D6. Do you share the costs of rent or utilities with anyone? 

YesQ 



No 



D7. If renting, is unit in public housing (i.e., owned by a local housing authority) or otherwise 
publicly subsidized (i.e., does a public agency pay some of your rent?) 

Yes O No [ 



D8. How much do you pay for rent and utilities? $ 



D9. Do you receive any energy assistance? 

Yes 



rent, $ 



utilities? 



No 



D10. If Yes, how much? 



$ 



: 

: 

[ 
[ 



E. Transportation 




El. Do you or anyone in the household own a car, van, truck, or motorcycle? 

YesQ 



No 



// Yes, skip to Section F (page 10). 



E2. If NO, How available is public transportation? 

1 . Walk less than 1 12 mile ( 1 5 minutes or less) 

2. Walk 1/2 to 1 mile (16-30 minutes) 

3. Walk more than a mile (more than 30 minutes) 

4. Cabs 

5. None at all 



[ 
[ 
[ 

L 



L 



L 



Page C-10 



1. 



E3. How do you get your children to a doctor's appointment? (Check all that apply.) 
Cab 

Parent (not in household) 
Friend/Neighbor 
Child's other parent 
Public transportation 
Borrow a car 
Other: 



E4. How do you get to the grocery store? (Check all that apply.) 
Cab 

Parent (not in household) 

Friend/Neighbor 

Child's other parent 

Public transportation 

Walk 

Borrow a car 

Other: 



E5. Have you sold a car, van, or truck, since going off TAFDC? 

Yes [ No 



E6. Are you looking to buy a car, van, or truck? 

Yes [ No [ 



F. Educational and Employment Training 



Next, I would like to ask about education or training programs you (or the other adult) may have 
been in either when on assistance or since then. 

The next few questions will ask you to compare how things were when you were on TAFDC to how 
things have been since you left TAFDC. 

Please listen carefully to each question. 



Fl. While you were on TAFDC did you (or the other adult) participate in an educational 
program? 

Yes O No O 

If Yes, what kind? If No, why not? 



Page C- 11 



F2. While you were on TAFDC did you (or the other adult) participate in a job training program? 



Yes 



If Yes, what kind' 



NoQ 

If No. why not? 



F3. Since vou left TAFDC , did you (or the other adult) participate in an educational program? 



Yes 



If Yes, what kind? 



No 



If No, why not? 



F4. Since you left TAFDC , did you (or the other adult) participate in a job training program? 



Yes 



No 



If Yes, what kind? 



If No, why not? 



If respondent (or the other adult) has participated in any program since leaving assistance, continue. 
If not, skip to Q F9 (below). 



F5. What type of program was it? [Get ESP program types.] 



F6. Which of the following was this (most recent) training designed to accomplish? 

1. Teach basic job skills such as reading or math 

2. Teach job skills such as office automation, software or effective work habits 

3. Teach technical skills to use equipment or machinery 

4. Upgrade skills or knowledge on a topic already known 

5. Prepare for another job 

6. Other: 



F7. How did you (or the other adult) pay for the program? 

1 . Out of pocket 

2. No cost 

3. Subsidized 

4. Credit card 

5. Someone else paid (relative, friend) 

6. Still owe 

7. Other 



F8. Did this program help you (or the other adult) get a job, or do you expect that it will help you 
(or the other adult) get a job when completed? 

NoQ 



Yes 



F9. Do you feel that more education would have been helpful while you (or the other adult) were 
on assistance? 

NoQ 



Yes 



F10. Do you feel that more training would have been helpful TO YOU (or the other adult) while 
you were on assistance? 

Yes [ No | | 



Page C- 12 



Fll. What are the major problems with your getting more training or education since you went 
(or the other adult) off assistance? (Check all that apply.) 

Transportation 

Child care 

Health 

Cost 

Program full / waiting list 

Not enough time 

Other 



G. Food Security 



The next few questions ask about your food and eating since you left assistance. The questions will 
again ask you to compare how things were during the last three months you were on TAFDC to how 
things have been since you left TAFDC. Please listen carefully to each question. 



Gl. In the last 3 months you were on welfare , which of these statements best describes the food 
eaten in your household? 

1 . We had enough to eat of the kinds of food we needed. 

2. We had enough to eat but not always the kinds of food we needed. 

3. Sometimes we didn't have enough to eat. 

4. Often we didn't have enough to eat. 

G2. Would you answer the same question for the most recent three months . In the last three 
months , which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household? 



1 . We have enough to eat of the kinds of food we need. 

2. We have enough to eat but not always the kinds of food we need. 

3. Sometimes we don't have enough to eat. 

4. Often we don't have enough to eat. 



G3. In the final three months on welfare , how many times per month did you go a whole day with 
no food? 



times 



G4. In the last three months , how many times per month have you gone a whole day with no 
food? 

times 



Page C- 13 



G5. In the last three months vou were on TAFDC , did vou use any of the following for free food? 

(Check all that apply.) 

Food bank 



Prepared meals at a shelter 
Prepared meals at a food kitchen 
Church 
Other: 



G6. In the last three months , did vou ever go somewhere to get free food? (Check all that apply.) 



Food bank 

Prepared meals at a shelter 

Prepared meals at a food kitchen 

Church 

Other: 



G7. During vour last three months on welfare , did you get money for food from anyone? (Check all 
that apply.) 

Parents 

Relatives 

Friends 

Church 

Charity 

Other: 



G8. Since vou w ent off w elfare , did you get money for food from anyone? 



Parents 

Relatives 

Friends 

Church 

Charity 

Other: 



Page C-14 






H. Children's Well-Being 



The next few questions ask about how your kids are getting along. 



Complete for each child. 



Name: 



Child 1 

HI. Does [Name] have any medical coverage? 

Yes=l No=2 



Child 2 



Child 3 

□ 



Child 4 



*J* *i* *J-. ^l> ^1* *\* *\* v!- *J> *I* ^t^ *l^ *\* %l* *l* ^1* vl* *L* *1* *l* vL* *lrf *L* +1* *X* *l* *l* *l* ^1* *l* *l* »J* «J> »l* *1* *!* *\* »1* »t* *I* *l* *]* *l* *1* *1* *l* *1* *X* *1* *X* *1* *1* *1* *1^ *1^ ^1^ *1^ ^t- ^1^ *!• ^1* *1* *4» ^!- *!* *4* ^i* *t* ^1* ^1* ^1* ^1* *l^ *I* *1* *I* *1* *I* *J^ ^1** *I> *4s »X* vl* 

*f* *y* *j* *p* >p» ^f* ^f» *■[* *J> ^(^ >j* ^J< »-j> ^J* *-f» >J> *f* *j* *J* *j* *y» *-|> #^» ^f. *f* *J> ^J> *j* >J* *T* 'T* "i* *T^ *T* *T* 'i* *T* *T* 'f* *I* "T* *l"* *»* *T* *l* *T^ *T* *T* *1^ *T* *1* *i* *T* *I^ *Y* *!* M^ *T > *f* *T* *T* *T* *T* *I* *I^ *I* 'I* *!* *T* *T^ *** *V* *T* *T* *T* *I* *1* 'i* "1* *V* *r* M* ^^ ^^ 

If No, go to Section I on page 16. 

H2. If Yes: What kind of coverage? (Check all that apply.) 
Medicaid 1. 

Transitional Medicaid (TMA)2. 
Private insurance 3. 

HMO 4. 

Other: 5. 



H3. Who provides the coverage? (Check all that a 
DTA / DMA 
DSS 

Other state agency 
Employer's insurance 
Other parent's insurance 
Other: 



pply.) 



1. 

2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 



H4. Who carries the coverage? (Check all that apply.) 
Respondent 1 . 

Respondent' significant other 2. 
Child's other parent 3. 

Respondent's parent(s) 4. 



H5. How is it being used? (Check all that apply.) 
Emergencies only 1 . 

Regular medical treatment 2. 
Other: 3. 



Page C- 15 



For the next few questions, please compare things as they have been for the past 3 months with the 
last three months you were on assistance: 



Complete for each child. Name: 



H6. [Name]had to transfer to a 
different school. 



Child 1 



Child 2 



Child 3 Child 4 



On Since On Since On Since On Since 



times times times times times times times times 



H7. [Name] attended special classes 
for gifted students or did advanced 

work in | 

any subjects in school. 



times times times times times times times times 



H8. [Name] attended special 
education classes for a learning 

or developmental disability 
in school. 



times times times times times times times times 



H9. 1 was told by a school or 
health professional that [Name] 

had an emotional or 

behavioral problem. times times times times times times times times 



H10. [Name] was suspended 
or expelled 
from school. 



times times times times times times times times 



Hll. [Name] was on a sports 
team. 



times times times times times times times times 
HI 2. [Name] took after-school lessons 

such as music, dance, language, 
or computers. 



times times times times times times times times 



H13. [Name] participated in a club or 
organizations such as Scouts, 

YMCA, religious group, 
school newspaper. 



times times times times times times times times 



Page C- 16 



I. Child Care Utilization 



The next few questions ask about your children under 14 and who cares for them. 



"V 1 ^* 'i* *t* *T* *T* *t* *t* *(* *T* *t* *t* *P *t* *T* *i* *T* *1* *J* *t* *[* *t > *T* *I* *Tr *t* *I* *t* *T* *f^ *r* *t* *t* 't* "S *{* •*** *t* *T* *T' *t' ^ *t~ *t^ *P 'P *t* "P ^* "I* ^* "t^ 'I* ^ ^ "I* *t* *T" "I* *P *J* ^* "F "T^ ^ M* *I* *t* *P *t* *Tr *T* *J* *T* *'* *•* *J' *t* *I* 't* *i* "I* »T* "I* 

NOTE: ASK THIS QUESTION SEPARA TELY FOR EACH CHILD IN THE HOUSE. 

Name: 



Child 
II. Does [Child 1] currently receive child care, 

either paid or not? 

Yes=l No=2 



Child 2 

□ 



Child 3 

□ 



Child 4 



*«J* *1* *1* *1* *1* *!' *1" *1* *A* *J<* *1* *1* *i* *I* xl* ~\r -Xr *1* *1* *1* ^1* *1> *I* *1> ^1* *1> *1* *1* *i* *]- »l* *I* *1* •A* *J* *1* *l* vl* *1* *1* *1* xl^ >!.* vl* *1* *J* <J* *!*• *1* *1* *I* *I* *1* *1* *1* *1* *J* *!-• *1* *!*• *1* *1* *1* *1* *lrf *!* *1* *A* ^1* *1* *A* *1* *1* <!> *1* *J^ *1* *l* *1* *J* *±# *l^ xL* 
*j* *f* *7* *T* *l* *T* *I* *?* *T* *T* *!* 'T* *?* *!* *T* *T* *T* "T* *T* *r* •T^ *T* *T* *T* 'I* *T* *1* *T* 'T^ *T* *T* *T* *T* *!* *T* *T* ^* *i* "^* *T* "T* *T^ *T* 'T* *T* ^* *** *T* 'T* *T^ *T* *T* *I* *T* *T* *X* *T* *T* *T* *T* *T* *T* *T* *T* '^* *T* *T* *T* *?* *T* *T" ^* •!* 'i* *T* *** ^T* 'T* *T* *1* *^ ^1* ^1* 

If No, skip to Q I8.(next page) 

*T^ *l^ 'i^ *1^ 'T^ ^T* *i^ *Tt* *T* *I* *t* *i^ ^P *i^ ^i* *1* ^t* *I* 'I* *t^ ^P 't* "*^ 'T^ ^^ 'T* *t* ^t^ 'T^ 'i^ *fi ^t^ 'P ^i* *t^ 't^ 'P T* *1* 'I* m^ 't^ 'l^ 'i^ 'T^ ^i* ^P *T^ ^1^ ^t^ 'f^ *T* ^t^ 't^ *I^ *t^ *1^ ^t^ *1^ *T* *i^ 'T^ *T^ *** 't^ 'i^ ^T* *X* 'J* *T* *p ^P *l* **■ *I^ *!* *t^ ^P 'T* *t* "1^ 't* *t* *** 

Please tell me which of these you use for [Child's name]'s care on a regular basis. By regular 
basis, I mean at least once a week during the PAST MONTH. 

Name: 



Child 1 



Child 2 



Child 3 



Child 4 



Grantee 's 

01 Significant Other 

02 Mother/Father 

03 Brother/Sister 

04 Grandparent 

05 Neighbor/Friend 

06 Other Relative 

Child's 

07 Other parent 

08 Grandparent (on other parent's side) 

09 Sibling 

10 Other Relative 

Other 

1 1 School/After School 

12 Baby-sitter/ family day care 

13 Child cares for self 

14 Child Care Center 

15 No one. Can't afford/find 

16 Not needed 

17 Other 



PageC-17 



13. How long is [Name] with all care provider! s) on average each week' 



hours 



hours 



hours 



hour: 



14. Who pays for [Name's] care' 

State funded / subsidized 
Child's grandparents 
Parent's Employer 
Child's other parent 

Friend 
Other: 



1. 








2. 








3. 








4. 








5. 








6. 









□ 



15. Do you know that the Department of Transitional Assistance will pay for child care for one 
year after you leave welfare for work? 

Yes \Z\ No O 



r 






16. Have vou ever used or are vou now using transitional child care benefits? 



YesQ 



No LJ If No, why not'? 



17. Are vou aware of income eligible child care? 



YesQ 



No 



Go to Section J (page 19) 

18. If NOT currently using child care, did you use one of the following on a regular basis within 
the past 3 months? 



Grantee 's 

01 Significant Other 

02 Mother/Father 

03 Brother/Sister 

04 Grandparent 

05 Neighbor/Friend 

06 Other Relative 



Name: 



Child 1 



□ 



Child2 



Child 3 



Child 4 



Child's 

07 Other parent 

08 Grandparent (on other parent's side) 

09 Sibling 

10 Other Relative 



□ 



PaeeC-18 



Other 

1 1 School/After School 

12 Baby-sitter/ family day care 

1 3 Child cares for self 

14 Child Care Center 

15 No one. Can't afford/find 

16 Not needed 

1 7 Other 



If no care used, skip to Q 112 below. 



19. Why did you use the care? (Check all that apply.) 
Working 
School 
Job training 
Other training 
Other: 



110. Were you on AFDC/TAFDC when you used the care? 

YesQ 



No 



111. Do you know that the Department of Transitional Assistance will pay for child care for 
one year after you leave welfare for work? 

YesQ 



No 



112. Did you apply for and receive these transitional child care benefits after leaving welfare? 

Yes Q] No | | 

If Yes, for how many months? If No, why not? 



Page C- 19 



J. Child Support Agreement/Contact with Absent Parent 



Finally, I would like to ask a few questions about the children *s absent parent. 
Ask only if parent is still absent. 



Jl. Is there any kind of legal arrangement that says that [Name's] (father/mother) should provide 
any kind of financial support for (him/her)? 

Name: 



Child 1 



Child 2 



Child 3 Child 4 



□ 



1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Legal arrangement pending 

4. There is an arrangement but respondent doesn't know if it is legal 

If Not Yes: 

J2. Has there ever been any other kind of agreement or understanding that says that 
(name's) (father/mother) should help support (him/her)? 

Name: 



Child 1 



Child 2 



Child 3 Child 4 

□ □ 



1. Yes 

2. No 



That is the end of the survey. Is there anything else you think we should know about getting off 
TAFDC? 



Thank you. We'll use this survey to better understand how families are doing under TAFDC and to 
improve the program. 

Finally, please confirm that we have the correct information for your payment: 
Grantee's Name: (Correct/Changed) 
Telephone: (Correct/Changed) 
Address: (Correct/Changed) 



Page C-20 



ATTACHMENT D 

Round 4 Tables 



PageD-l 



SURVEY FINDINGS -- ROUND 4 

Section 4.1 

Comparison Of Round 4 And Round 1 Respondents 



Table Dl. 








Round 1 


Round 4 


Race 


Respondents 


Respondents 


White 


56.3% 


58.6% 


Hispanic 


22.9% 


17.7% 


Black 


16.4% 


18.1% 


American/Alaskan Indian 


2.3% 


2.8% 


Asian/ Pacific Islander 


2.1% 


2.8% 


X 2 = 2.44 







Table D2. 



Language 



English 
Spanish 
Other 



x- = o.io 



Table D3. 



Education 



No Schooling 
1 to 8 Years 
9 to 1 1 Years 
High School 
GED 

Some College 
2-Year College 
4- Year College 
Did not respond 



Round 1 
Respondents 



89.4% 

8.2% 

2.4% 



Round 4 

Respondents 

90.7% 

6.5% 

2.8% 



Round 1 


Round 4 


Respondents 


Respondents 


3.8% 


2.3% 


5.9% 


5.6% 


30.5% 


27.9% 


36.1% 


35.8% 


7.6% 


8.4% 


12.3% 


15.3% 


1.2% 


1.4% 


1.8% 


2.3% 


0.9% 


0.9% 



X- = 2.01 



Page D-2 



Table D4. 








Round 1 


Round 4 


Marital Status 


Respondents 


Respondents 



Never Married 

Married 

Separated 

Divorced 

Widowed 

Did not respond 



X" = 0.14 



Table D5. 



Housing Status 



Private 

Public 

Subsidized 



59 8% 

14.7% 

12.6% 

8.2% 

0.6% 

4.1% 



55.3% 

18.6% 

14.4% 

8.4% 

0.5% 

2. 



Round 1 


Round 4 


Respondents 


Respondents 


58.0% 


59.5% 


1 1 .0% 


8.8% 


31.0% 


31.6% 



x- = o.oi 



Table D6. 



Reason Jbr Closing 



Failure to cooperate 
Earnings 
Client Request 
No eligible child 
Unearned Income 
Other 

X 2 = 1.70 



Round 1 


Round 4 


Respondents 


Respondents 


37.2% 


38.1% 


34.9% 


36.7% 


11.1% 


7.9% 


4.1% 


4.2% 


8.5% 


9.3% 


4.1% 


3.7% 



Page D-3 



Table D7. 



Time Limit And Work 
Requirement Status 



Exempt 

Subject to time limit only 
(Youngest child age 2 to school 
age) 

Subject to time limit and work 
requirement (Youngest child 
school age) 

Subject to Time Limit 
(2-Parent or FEP case) 

Exempt pending disability review 



Round 1 Round 4 

Respondents Respondents 

29.6% 25.1% 



26.7% 



35.5% 



2.6% 



2.6% 



27.9% 



39.5% 



2.8% 



2.c 



Exempt pending TAFDC review 

_Q£JJ2_gggtr(^group 

X 2 = 1.71 



3.0% 



1. 



Section 4.3 Employment/Earnings/Benefits 

Section 4.3.1 Employment: Households Currently Working 



Table D8. 

Respondents and Spouse/Significant Others Working at Time of First Interview 



Work Level 
(Currently Working) 
Full-Time 
Part-Time 



Unduplicated** 



Respondents 


Spouse/Sig 


nificant Other 


% 




% 


lumber of 215 


Number 


of215 


74 34.4(36.7)* 


33 


15.3(14.7) 


40 18.6(21.1) 


5 


2.3 ( 3.5) 


114 53.0(57.5) 


38 


17.7(17.3) 



* Numbers in parenthesis are comparable statistics for round 1 participants. 



Page D-4 



Section 4.3.2.1 Respondents Working Full Time 

Table D9. 

Weekly Earnings of Respondents Working Full-Time 



Salary Range 

$1 to $150 
$151 to $200 
$201 to $250 
$251 to $300 
$301 to $350 
$351 to $400 
$401 to $450 
$45 1 to $500 
$501 to $1,000 
Total 

Did not respond 
Total 







Cumulative 


Tequency 


Percent 


Percent* 


5 


6.8 


7.0 (4.1) 


6 


8.1 


15.5(15.7) 


13 


17.6 


33.8(36.4) 


10 


13.5 


47.9 (57.9) 


9 


12.2 


60.6 (74.4) 


15 


20.3 


81.7(88.4) 


5 


6.8 


88.7 (95.0) 


4 


5.4 


94.4(97.5) 


4 


5.4 


100.0 


71 


95.9 




3 


4.1 




74 


100 





Summary Statistics on Earnings of Respondents Working Full-Time 

Quartiles 
Mean Median Minimum Maximum 25 50 75 



$323 $310 $80 $800 $225 $310 $400 

($305) ($280) ($25) ($1,100) ($228) ($280) ($358) 

* Numbers in parenthesis are same statistic for round 1 . 



Page D-5 



Section 4.3.2.2 

Respondents Working Part Time 



Table D 10. 










Weekly Earnings 


of Respondents 


Workins Part-Time 




Cumulative 


Sal an Ramze 




Frequency 


Percent 


Percent" 


SI to 5150 




19 


47.5 


48.7(57.1) 


S151 toS200 




7 


17.5 


66.7(78.6) 


S201 toS250 




7 


17.5 


84.6(88.6) 


S251 toS300 




4 


10.0 


94.9(95.7) 


S301 toS350 




2 


5.0 


100.0(98.6) 


Total 




39 


97.5 




Did not respond 




1 


2.5 




Total 




40 


100.0 







Summary Statistics on Earnings of Respondents Working Part-Time 



Mean 



Median Minimum Maximum 



25 



Quartiles 
50 75 



SI 72 SI 60 S25 S350 

(S148) (S140) (S8) (S400) 

Numbers in parenthesis are comparable statistic for round 1 . 



S108 
(S98) 



S160 

(S140 



S230 
S180) 



[ 

L 
L 
[ 
[ 
[ 
[ 
[ 
[ 
L 
L 
L 

L 
1 
L" 



Page D-6 



L 



Section 4.3.2.3 

Spouses/Significant Others Working Full Time 



Table Dll. 

Weekly Earnings of Spouses/Significant Others Working Full Time 



SalaryJRange 
$15 



to $200 
to $250 
to $300 
to $350 
to $400 
to $450 
to $500 
to $9999 



$201 

$25 
$301 

$35: 

$40 

$45 

$501 

Total 

Did not respond 

Total 



Frequency 



2 
3 
7 
7 
6 
2 
1 

3 

31 

2 

33 



Percent 



6.1 

9.1 

21.2 

21.2 

18.2 

6.1 

3.0 

9.1 

93.9 

6.1 

100.0 



Cumulative 
Percent* 



6.5(15.2) 
16.1 (34.8) 
38.7(52.2) 
61.3(69.6) 
80.6 (73.9) 
87.1 (78.3) 
90.3(91.3) 
100.0 



Summary Statistics on Earnings of Spouses/Significant Others Working 
Full-Time 



Mean 



Median Minimum Maximum 



25 



Quartiles 
50 



75 



$362 $325 $200 $900 

($355) ($301) ($100) ($1,000) 

*Numbers in parenthesis are comparable statistic for round I 



$280 $325 $400 

($250) ($301) ($443) 



Page D-7 



Section 4.3.2.4 

Spouses/Significant Others \\ orking Part Time 



Table D 12. 

Weekly Earnings of Spouses/Significant Others Working Part Time 



Salary Range 



S151 toS200 
S45 1 to S500 
Total 

Did not respond 
Total 







Cumulative 


ency 


Percent 


Percent* 


3 


60.0 


75.0(72.7) 


1 


20.0 


100.0 


4 


80.0 




1 


20.0 




5 


100.0 





Summary Statistics on Earnings of Spouses/Significant Others Working 
Part Time 

Quartiles 
Mean Median Minimum Maximum 25 50 75 



S265 S200 SI 60 S500 SI 70 S200 $425 
($211) (S177) (S100) (S500) ($117) (S177) (S284) 
Numbers in parenthesis are comparable statistic for round 1 . 



Page D-8 



Section 4.3.2.5 








Household Earnings 








Table D 13. 








Average Weekly Earnings 










Cases 


Average 


Average 




Reporting 


Weekly 


Annual 




Earnings 


Earnings 


Earnings 


Working Level 


of All Cases 


(Round 1) 


(Round 1) 


Respondents Working 








Full-time 


59 of 61 


$324 


$16,848 






($310)* 


(16,120) 


Part-time 


30 of 30 


$176 


$9,152 






($151) 


($7,852) 


Spouses/Significant Others 








Working 








Full-time 


12 of 13 


$340 


$17,680 






($325) 


($16,900) 


Part-time 


Oof 2 










($208) 


($10,816) 


Households 








Full-time - respondent and 


11 of 12 


$704 


$36,608 


spouse/significant other 




($617) 


($32,084) 


Full-time - respondent Part-time 


1 of 1 


$400 


$20,800 


- spouse/significant other 




($464) 


($24,128) 


Full-time - spouse/significant 


7 of 8 


$552 


$28,704 


other Part-time - respondent 




($537) 


($27,924) 


Part-time - respondent and 


1 of 2 


$285 


$14,820 


spouse/significant other 




($351) 


($18,252) 


* Numbers in parenthesis are comparable statistic from round 1. 





Page D-9 



Section 4.4 

Overall Financial Status 



Table D 14. 








Total Weekly Family Income 






Cumulative 


Family Income 


Frequency 


Percent 


Percent* 


$150 or less 


24 


14.1 (20.1) 


14.2 (22.3) 


$151 to $200 


16 


9.4 (9.0) 


23.7(31.7) 


$201 to $250 


22 


12.9(11.5) 


36.7(43.8) 


$251 to $300 


19 


11.2(14.7) 


47.9 (59.2) 


$301 to $350 


21 


12.4(11.1) 


60.4 (70.9) 


$351 to $400 


19 


11.2(8.2) 


71.6(79.6) 


$401 to $450 


9 


5.3(3.9) 


76.9(83.8) 


$451 to $500 


9 


5.3 (4.3) 


82.2 (88.3) 


$501 or more 


30 


17.6(11.1) 


100.0 


Total 


169 


99.4 




Did not respond 


1 


0.6(5.0) 




Total 


170 


100.0 




Numbers in parenthesis are comparable 


statistics for round 1 . 







Page D- 10 



[ 

c 

c 
[ 

L 

[ 
[ 

L 



Section 4.4.3 

Other Income Supports 



Table D 15. 

Receipt of Other Income Supports at Round 4 Interview 



Income Support 
Food Stamps 



TAFDC Case Still 
Closed (n= 170) 
Number Percent 



TAFDC Case 

Reopened (n=45) 

Number Percent 



All Respondents 

(n=215) 

Number Percent 



11 



6.5 



29 



64.4 



40 



8.6 



EAEDC 



3 



1.8 



11 



8 



3.7 



Child Support 


37 


21.8 


3 


6.7 


40 


18.6 


Social Security 


17 


10.0 








17 


7.9 


Supplemental 














Security Income 


10 


5.9 


5 


11.1 


15 


7.0 


Worker's 














Compensation 


1 


0.6 








1 


0.5 


WIC 


12 


7.1 


3 


6.7 


15 


7.0 


Foster Care 














Payments 


1 


0.6 


1 


2.2 


2 


0.9 


Food Kitchen 


3 


1.8 








3 


1.4 


Food Banks 


4 


2.4 








4 


1.9 


Friends/Relatives 














(regular basis) 


2 


1.2 


1 


2.2 


3 


1.4 


Rent Subsidy 


32 


18.8 


11 


24.4 


43 


20.0 


Fuel Assistance 


8 


4.7 


4 


8.9 


12 


5.6 


Other 


2 


1.2 


2 


4.4 


4 


1.9 



Page D- 11 



Section 4.5 Food Security 
Section 4.5.1 Food Sufficiency 



Table D 16. 

Food Security For Cases Still Closed 



Suney Response 



For three 
months before 

round 4 
interview 

(n=170) 



For three 

months before 

round 1 

interview 

(n=279) 



Enough to eat of kinds of food 
needed 



58.8% 



50.5% 



Enough to eat but not always the 
kinds of food needed 



33.5% 



26.2% 



Sometimes did not ha\e enough 
to eat 



5.9% 



16.8% 



Often did not ha\e enoueh to eat 

Total 

Did not respond 



0.6% 


4.3% 


98.8% 


97.8% 


1.2% 


2.2% 



Section 4.6 

Children's Medical Coyerage 



Table D 17. 

Types of Children's Medical Coyerage 



Type o\ Medical Coverage 



MassHealth/TMA 

Pri\ate Insurance 

HMO 

Other 

Total 

Unduplic ated Count* 



Number of 
Child ren 

282 

36 

22 

5 

345 

314 



More than one type of coverage could apph to each child. 
This row presents the unduplicated number of children with 
some type of medical coverage. 



Page D- 12 



Section 4.7 Child-care Arrangements 
Section 4.7.1 Number of Child-care Providers 



Table 


D18. 










Child- 


■care Providers 








Number of Child 


-care 




Children 




Providers 




Frequency 


Percent 


1 






143 




80.3 


2 






27 




15.2 


3 






4 




2.3 


4 






1 




0.6 


5 






3 




1.7 


Total 






178 




100.1 



Section 4.7.2 

Type of Child-care Providers 



Table D 19. 

Current Child-care Providers 



Provider 


Children 


Respondent's 




Significant Other 


2 


Mother/Father 


48 


Brother/Sister 


13 


Grandparent 


17 


Other Relative 


12 


Neighbor/Friend 


14 


Child's 




Other Parent 


11 


Grandparent (Other Parent) 


2 


Sibling 


4 


Other Relative 


2 


Other Provider 




School/After School 


17 


Baby-sitter/family day care 


6 


Child-care Center 


16 


Child cares for self 


1 


No one. Can't afford/find 


2 


Not needed 


56 


Other 


4 



Page D- 13 






Section 4.7.2 Paving for Child Care 



Table D20. 






Current Child-care Funding 


( 


Children 


Child-care Funder 


Frequency 


Percent 


Self 


30 


50.0 


State 


29 


48.3 


Employer 


1 


1.6 


Total 


60 


99.9 



Child Support Agreement/Contact With Absent Parent 

Table D21. 

Legal Child Support Agreements 

Children 

Legal Agreement? Frequency Percent 

Yes 

No 

Pending 

Not sure if current 

arrangement is legal 

Total 



139 


40.9 


194 


57.1 


4 


1.2 


3 


0.9 


340 


100.1 



Household Composition/ Housing 



Table D22. 
Number of Children 



Round 4 Survey Data 



Administrative Data (as of 
time of TAFDC closing) 



Number of 


Percent of 


Number of 


Percent of 


Households 


Households 


Households 


Households 


71 


33.0 


85 


39.5 


75 


34.9 


80 


37.2 


43 


20.0 


35 


16.3 


13 


6.0 


12 


5.6 


6 


2.8 


3 


1.4 


1 


0.5 








209 


97.2 


215 


100.0 


6 


2.8 






215 


100.0 


215 


100.0 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Total 

Did not respond 

Total 



PageD-14 



Table D23. 

Household Size: Round 4 Survey Data Versus Administrative Data (as of time of closing) 



Number of 






Survey Data: 


One Year 


Persons in Household 


Department Records 


After Leavin 


g TAFDC 




Number of 




Number of 






cases 


Percent 


cases 


Percent 


1 


11 


5.1 






2 


79 


36.7 


35 


16.3 


3 


74 


34.4 


60 


27.9 


4 


32 


14.9 


54 


25.1 


5 


12 


5.6 


36 


16.7 


6 


5 


2.3 


13 


6.0 


7 


2 


0.9 


9 


4.2 


8 






3 


1.4 


12 






1 


0.5 


Total 


215 


99.9 


211 


98.1 


Did not respond 






4 

215 


1.9 
100.0 


Mean 


2.9 




3.9 















EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 



Table D24. 

Reasons for Not Getting More Education / Training 

Reopened 

Reason Cases 

Transportation 17.8% 

Child Care 17.8% 

Health 22.2% 

Costs 31.1% 

Full Program 8.9% 

No time 17.8% 

Other 20.0% 



Closed Cases 
5.9% 
12.9% 
5.9% 

24.7% 

2.4% 

36.5% 

11.2% 



Page D- 15 



Transportation 



Table D25. Transportation to Doctor's 
Appointment or Grocery Store for Those Without a 
Car(n=94) 



Mode of Transportation 



To Doctor's or 
Grocery Store 



Cab 



Respondent's Parent 



Friend/Neighbor 



Non-custodial Parent 



Public Transportation 



Borrow a car 



Other 



28 cases 

(29.8%) 

6 cases 

(6.4%) 

17 cases 

(18.17c) 

4 cases 

(4.3%) 

59 cases 

(62.8%) 

1 2 cases 

(12.8%) 

9 cases 

(9.6%) 



Page D- 16