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
(Massachusetts1 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 (Massachusetts1 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 A1
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 group8
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
0
0
2
0.6
Food Kitchen
4
1.4
1
1.6
5
1.5
Food Banks
6
2.2
0
0
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
nLast 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.1o/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
0
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%
0
0
Clearly, the most common form of transportation to a doctor's appointment and to the
grocery store was public transportation, which was less than xh 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 Time Part Time Not Working
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
0 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 S7~4 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.
0 7.1% reported getting money from one other source for food.
° 2.9% reported getting money from two other sources for food.
0 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 coverage17.
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 0 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 0 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.
"V1 ^* '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%
X2 = 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
X2= 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
X2= 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
0
0
17
7.9
Supplemental
Security Income
10
5.9
5
11.1
15
7.0
Worker's
Compensation
1
0.6
0
0
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
0
0
3
1.4
Food Banks
4
2.4
0
0
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
Unduplicated Count*
Number of
Children
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
0
0
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
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11