preserving the gains, rethinking the losses · the legislative advisory committee, ... stitziel...
TRANSCRIPT
Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses: Welfare in Illinois five years after reform Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study University Consortium on Welfare Reform April 2003
Dan A. Lewis, PhD Amy Bush Stevens, MSW, MPH Laura B. Amsden, MSW, MPH
Katie Hasson, BA Northwestern University
Kristen Shook Slack, PhD, MSW
University of Wisconsin at Madison
Bong Joo Lee, PhD University of Chicago
Paul Kleppner, PhD
Northern Illinois University
James Lewis, PhD Roosevelt University
Stephanie Riger, PhD
University of Illinois at Chicago
Robert Goerge, PhD University of Chicago
April 9, 2003 Carol Adams Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human Services 100 South Grand Avenue East Springfield, IL 62762 Dear Secretary Adams, On behalf of the University Consortium on Welfare Reform and in accordance with the requirements of the Welfare Reform Research and Accountability Act (P.A. 90-74), it is my great pleasure to forward to you, for transmittal to the Illinois General Assembly, our report on the third year of the Illinois Families Study. The report, titled Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses: Welfare in Illinois five years after reform, has both an executive summary and a complete technical report. The transmission of the report to you completes our responsibilities in the third year of the project as required by law. I want to make it clear to you and other members of the Governor’s cabinet that my colleagues and I are available to assist in interpreting the results and facilitating further analysis. I also want to compliment the Illinois Department of Human Services for the cooperation we have experienced in preparing this document. Your staff provided us with invaluable assistance over the last four years as the Consortium and the Department developed a very productive working arrangement. I believe that this partnership will be a model for other states that seek an objective understanding of the impact of welfare reform, an understanding that will assist policymakers in improving service delivery. The Illinois legislature is addressing budgetary concerns and preparing its own welfare package during the spring of 2003. This report focuses not only on the extent to which Illinois has achieved the goals of welfare reform, but also on which resources support the economic self sufficiency of this population, providing insight to legislators during the Illinois state budget debate. Next year and the years to come we hope will bring new reports and further analysis of Illinois’ efforts to improve the lives of poor families. We stand ready to assist the General Assembly and the executive branch of the Illinois government in the challenges ahead. Sincerely, Dan A. Lewis, Professor of Education and Social Policy, and Principal Investigator, University Consortium on Welfare Reform
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study i
Acknowledgements We are particularly grateful to the several foundations and government agencies that have supported the Illinois Families Study (IFS). The first three years of the project were made possible by the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Woods Fund of Chicago, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Polk Bros. Foundation, the Searle Fund, the Illinois Board of Higher Education, the Administration for Children and Families, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. We have received additional support from the US Department of Education, the National Institute of Justice, and the Illinois Department of Human Services. We thank the 1,072 respondents who completed interviews three years in a row for this study. This report would not be possible without them. The Metro Chicago Information Center (MCIC) conducted data collection, field work, and data entry for all three years of interviews. Woody Carter, Research Director, manages the IFS data collection at MCIC. A special thanks is extended to MCIC’s interviewing teams in Chicago, Peoria, and East St. Louis. They are an extremely professional group of interviewers who have tirelessly followed and successfully interviewed the very mobile group of families participating in this study. One of the most satisfying aspects of this work has been the partnership we have formed with the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS). The department has gone out of its way to assist with the project. Dave Gruenenfelder, Alan Whittaker, and Jane Radliff, in particular, have provided valuable feedback and assistance. Many other IDHS staff have also provided feedback on drafts of this report. The Illinois Department of Public Assistance (IDPA), particularly Jacquetta Ellinger, also provided invaluable assistance. The Legislative Advisory Committee, comprised of several members of the Illinois State Legislature, provides ongoing consultation to the IFS staff on policy relevance and dissemination. The members of this committee include Senators Steven Rauschenberger and Miguel del Valle and Representatives Barbara Flynn Currie and Rosemary Mulligan. Numerous graduate students from Northwestern University and the University of Wisconsin at Madison contributed significantly to this report. Lisa Altenbernd, Amber Stitziel Pareja, Marla McDaniel, Irene Carvalho, Joan Yoo, Lynette Renner, and Alan Puckett conducted data cleaning and data analysis. Three undergraduate students – Sara Whittaker, Jenn Kerner, and Jennie Taylor - provided research assistance. Jane Holl, Principal Investigator of the Illinois Families Study: Child Well-Being Supplement, provides valuable support and expertise to research design and data collection oversight for the overall study. Several staff members at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University provided administrative assistance to the project. These individuals include Ellen
ii Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Feldman, Ruth McCullough, and Fay Lomax Cook. Barbara Ray and Patricia Reese provided editing advice and Alice Murray assisted with formatting. The Principal Investigators of the study are Dan Lewis (Northwestern University), Paul Kleppner (Northern Illinois University), James Lewis (Roosevelt University), Stephanie Riger (University of Illinois at Chicago), Bong Joo Lee (University of Chicago), and Robert Goerge (University of Chicago). This report does not necessarily reflect the opinions of those who provided assistance to the investigators and project staff in its development. All correspondence related to this report should be directed to Laura B. Amsden, IFS Project Coordinator, at 847-491-5889 ( [email protected]), or Dan Lewis, Principal Investigator, at 847-491-8722 ([email protected]).
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study iii
Table of contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................... xi Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
Purpose of this report ...................................................................................................... 1 Goals of welfare reform .................................................................................................. 2 Key features of Illinois TANF and related programs...................................................... 3 Federal TANF reauthorization ........................................................................................ 4 AFDC/TANF caseload dynamics during the 1990s and recent economic trends in Illinois.............................................................................................................................. 5
Objectives and research design ....................................................................... 8 Objectives........................................................................................................................ 8 Sample and sample selection........................................................................................... 8 Data sources .................................................................................................................... 9 Response rates ............................................................................................................... 11 Analysis strategy ........................................................................................................... 11
Respondent characteristics ............................................................................ 12 Respondents .................................................................................................................. 12 Non-respondents............................................................................................................ 14
Have the main goals of PRWORA been realized in Illinois?......................... 15 Work and welfare .......................................................................................................... 15 Reasons for TANF entries and exits ............................................................................. 23 Family formation........................................................................................................... 27
Accomplishments thus far: How families are faring in Illinois five years after welfare reform.......................................................................................... 30
Income and poverty....................................................................................................... 30 Job characteristics ......................................................................................................... 32 Material hardship........................................................................................................... 40 Physical and mental health............................................................................................ 45 Health insurance............................................................................................................ 47 Child care ...................................................................................................................... 49 Satisfaction with welfare............................................................................................... 53
Making work pay in Illinois: Use of work supports and other services....... 55 Earnings disregards and stopping the clock .................................................................. 55 Food stamps and Medicaid............................................................................................ 57 Other work supports ...................................................................................................... 57 Knowledge of work supports and other policies........................................................... 64 Most valued benefit ....................................................................................................... 66 Does it pay to move from welfare to work?.................................................................. 67
iv Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
How are the most vulnerable families faring? ............................................... 70 No work and no welfare: Who are these families and how do they survive? ............... 70 Time limits .................................................................................................................... 79 Sanctions ....................................................................................................................... 80
Putting it all together: What helps families attain self-sufficiency? ............ 85 Additional description of methods ................................................................................ 89
Discussion ........................................................................................................ 90 Have the federal goals of welfare reform been achieved in Illinois?............................ 90 How are families doing? ............................................................................................... 90 How are the more vulnerable families faring? .............................................................. 91 Do welfare reform policies and work supports make work pay in Illinois? ................. 92 What is the overall impact of the moderate Illinois approach to welfare reform?........ 93 What are the most effective supports and services?...................................................... 93 Given limited resources, what should be the top funding priorities for the next phase of welfare reform? ............................................................................................................. 94
Conclusions and policy implications ............................................................. 95 Work supports should be the highest priority for the next phase of welfare reform..... 95 Family well-being has improved for many, but others are being left behind ............... 97 “Getting tough” has unintended consequences ............................................................. 98
Recommendations to Illinois policymakers................................................... 98 Preserve the gains: Maintain or expand existing work supports................................... 99 Rethink the losses: Provide intensive help for those who have been left behind.......... 99
References...................................................................................................... 100
Appendices..................................................................................................... 101 Appendix A: The Illinois TANF Program .................................................................. 102 Appendix B: Welfare policies and caseload trends in Illinois and other Midwestern states ............................................................................................................................ 105 Appendix C: IFS Study Regions ................................................................................. 111 Appendix D: IFS Research Team, Advisory Groups, and Collaborative Partners ..... 115
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study v
Figures
Figure 1: Illinois AFDC/TANF caseload, entries, and exits (1990-2002) .............. 6
Figure 2: Child poverty, AFDC/TANF caseloads, and unemployment in Illinois (1992-2002) ....................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Trends in work, 1998-2001 (percentage of IFS sample members with reported earnings; n=1,899)............................................................................. 15
Figure 4: Trends in reported earnings (1998-2001) (median quarterly earnings for those with earnings in each quarter) ................................................................ 17
Figure 5: Trends in TANF and food stamp use and Medicaid enrollment among adults (1998-2002) (number of IFS sample members active for each program, by month; n=1,899) .......................................................................................... 18
Figure 6: Work status for individuals across all three interviews (1999-00, 2001, and 2002)......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 7: TANF status for individuals across all three interviews (1999-00, 2001, and 2002)......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 8: Growth of the no-work/ no-TANF group (1999-00 to 2002)................. 70
Figure 9: Changes in no-work/ no-TANF status for individuals (among those in the no-work/no-TANF group in 2002, n=394)................................................... 71
Figure 10: Percent of children in poverty by study county (1995-1999) ........... 112
Figure 11: Percent change in TANF grantees by study county (1997-2002).... 113
vi Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Tables
Table 1: IFS data sources (included in this report)............................................... 9
Table 2: IFS survey response rates ................................................................... 11
Table 3: Residence of respondents at baseline (1999-00) (n=1,072)................. 12
Table 4: Demographic characteristics of 2002 respondents at baseline (1999-00)......................................................................................................................... 13
Table 5: Characteristics of sample members by survey response status........... 14
Table 6: Number of quarters worked (1998-2001) (percentage of IFS sample members with reported earnings) .................................................................... 16
Table 7: Changes in benefit packages for adults (1999-2002) (percent of IFS sample members active for each program, by month; n=1,899) ...................... 19
Table 8: Work status and TANF use .................................................................. 20
Table 9: Work and TANF use patterns............................................................... 21
Table 10. Experiences with applying for TANF .................................................. 23
Table 11: TANF requirements and diversions (among those who applied for TANF in the past 12 months/ since last interview) ........................................... 25
Table 12: TANF exits (among those who received TANF at some point in past 12 months/ since last interview) ............................................................................ 26
Table 13: Main reason went off TANF (at most recent TANF exit)..................... 26
Table 14: Marriage and cohabitation.................................................................. 27
Table 15: Births .................................................................................................. 28
Table 16: Births, by 1999 characteristics............................................................ 29
Table 17: Changes in mean and median annual income ................................... 31
Table 18: Poverty ............................................................................................... 32
Table 19: Median and mean hourly wage at current job .................................... 32
Table 20: Changes in hourly wage for individuals between 1999-00 and 2001 (among those employed in 1999-00 and 2001)................................................ 33
Table 21: Changes in hourly wage for individuals between 2001 and 2002 (among those employed in 2001 and 2002)..................................................... 33
Table 22: Employer benefits received at current job (among workers) .............. 34
Table 23: Industry (of current job) ...................................................................... 35
Table 24: Full and part-time work....................................................................... 36
Table 25: Changes in work status for individuals (1999-00 and 2001) (among those employed in 1999-00 and 2001)............................................................. 37
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study vii
Table 26: Changes in work status for individuals (2001 and 2002) (among those employed in 2001 and 2002)............................................................................ 37
Table 27: Length of time it takes to get to work, including dropping off children for child care.......................................................................................................... 38
Table 28: “How satisfied are you with your current main job?”........................... 38
Table 29: Received a promotion or pay raise from current employer in past year......................................................................................................................... 39
Table 30: Job retention....................................................................................... 39
Table 31: Material hardships experienced since last interview/ in past year ...... 41
Table 32: Food insecurity since last interview/ in past year................................ 42
Table 33: Homelessness and problems with housing conditions since last interview/ in past year ...................................................................................... 43
Table 34: Perceived financial situation............................................................... 44
Table 35: Use of charities and crisis assistance since last interview/ in past year......................................................................................................................... 45
Table 36: Overall health status of respondents and their children...................... 46
Table 37: Depression ......................................................................................... 46
Table 38: Respondents’ current health insurance coverage .............................. 47
Table 39: Children’s current health insurance coverage .................................... 48
Table 40: Gaps in health coverage for respondents and their children (past year)......................................................................................................................... 49
Table 41: Main type of child care arrangement used last week.......................... 50
Table 42: “How many different child care arrangements did child have during past 12 months?” ............................................................................................. 51
Table 43: Child care problems experienced since last interview/ in past year (among parents of at least one child under age 12)......................................... 52
Table 44: Satisfaction with current welfare worker: percent who “somewhat” or “strongly agree”................................................................................................ 53
Table 45: Attitudes about welfare reform: percent who “somewhat” or “strongly agree”............................................................................................................... 54
Table 46: Respondents who had their clocks stopped (while receiving TANF and working) ........................................................................................................... 56
Table 47: Characteristics of respondents who had their clocks stopped (while receiving TANF and working)........................................................................... 57
Table 48: Child care subsidy receipt .................................................................. 58
Table 49: Self-reported use of and need for the child care subsidy ................... 59
viii Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Table 50: Current receipt of housing assistance ................................................ 60
Table 51: Current receipt of child support .......................................................... 61
Table 52: Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) receipt .......................................... 62
Table 53: Participation in job training, work experience, and education programs since last interview/ in past year ...................................................................... 63
Table 54: Knowledge of welfare policies ............................................................ 65
Table 55: “If you could pick one thing, what would you say is most important to your family’s well-being?”................................................................................. 66
Table 56: Income and poverty level by work and TANF status .......................... 67
Table 57: Material hardship by work and TANF status....................................... 69
Table 58: Demographic characteristics (baseline characteristics in 1999, by 2002 work/ welfare group)......................................................................................... 72
Table 59: Material hardship and food insecurity (2002) ..................................... 73
Table 60: Health problems (2002)...................................................................... 74
Table 61: Sources of support: Spouses, partners, and boyfriends (2002) ......... 75
Table 62: Sources of support: Informal work, borrowing, and charity (2002) .... 76
Table 63: Sources of support: Government programs (2002) ............................ 77
Table 64: Recent TANF use and employment among respondents in the no-work/ no-TANF group (2002) ........................................................................... 77
Table 65: Moving towards the 60-month time limit (1997-2002)......................... 79
Table 66: Risk characteristics of respondents for reaching the time limit ........... 80
Table 67: Percent of respondents who experienced a partial or full-grant sanction......................................................................................................................... 81
Table 68: Percent of respondents who experienced any sanction (among respondents on TANF at any time from 1999-2001) ........................................ 81
Table 69: Percent of respondents who experienced first-, second-, and third-level sanctions (among those receiving TANF at any time from 1999-2001)............ 82
Table 70: Characteristics of respondents who experienced a partial or full grant sanction (among those who received TANF in 1999, 2000, or 2001) .............. 83
Table 71: Full-grant losses and material hardship.............................................. 84
Table 72: What helps families to meet the goals of welfare reform and attain self-sufficiency? ...................................................................................................... 87
Table 73: Characteristics of the Illinois TANF program .................................... 102
Table 74: Comparison of six Midwestern state TANF programs ...................... 106
Table 75: AFDC/TANF caseload declines in six Midwestern states (1996-2000)....................................................................................................................... 110
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study ix
Table 76: Number of TANF grantees (monthly average) by study county........ 113
Table 77: Race by study county, 2000 ............................................................. 114
Table 78: Hispanic origin by study county, 2000 .............................................. 114
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study xi
Executive Summary Purpose of this report Like most other states in the nation, Illinois is now more than five years into the major welfare reforms that were passed in 1996 and implemented in 1997. The state currently faces uncertain policy changes at the federal level, a shrinking state budget, and a weak economic climate. The purpose of this report is to help Illinois policymakers assess the value of these welfare reforms and prioritize services for families affected by them. By identifying the strengths and weaknesses of Illinois welfare reform programs and prioritizing them, we hope to help policymakers make the most of limited state resources. Background Last year’s Illinois Families Study (IFS) annual report to the legislature, based on surveys conducted in the “boom years” of 1999 through 2001, concluded that Illinois’ moderate approach to reform helped to make work “pay” and was associated with slightly improved family well-being. The report concluded that work supports—especially the “stopped clock” for employed TANF recipients, child care subsidies, Medicaid, and KidCare—were critical for promoting work and self-sufficiency. In this year’s report, we will reexamine these conclusions, adding data from 2002, to determine whether these findings still held true during the recent economic downturn. Methods The Illinois Families Study is longitudinal and will follow the same group of families for six years. The core of the study is an annual in-person survey of a random sample of adults who were primary TANF grantees in the fall of 1998, a little more than a year after TANF was implemented. Participants were selected from nine Illinois counties that were stratified by two regions: Cook County (including the city of Chicago) Eight Downstate counties (including the cities of East St. Louis and Peoria, and rural
counties surrounding Peoria) Together, these nine counties represent approximately 75% of the state TANF caseload. They also represent cities and towns of varying sizes and demographic makeup. This report draws upon two sources of data: Survey data: results of three annual in-person interviews, one conducted between
November 1999 and September 2000, a second interview conducted between February 2001 and September 2001, and a third interview conducted between February 2002 and September 2002
xii Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Administrative records: information about the use of TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, and child care subsidies, and employment and wage records (linked to the same families who were interviewed)
A total of 1,072 respondents were interviewed all three times—in 1999-00, 2001, and 2002. The response rate in 1999-00 was 72% (1,363 respondents), 87% in 2001 (1,183 respondents) and 91% in 2002 (1,072 respondents). Ninety-three percent of respondents consented to allow IFS researchers to access their individual administrative records. All analyses of survey data presented here are weighted to adjust for regional stratification and non-response. Have the main goals of PRWORA been realized in Illinois? The primary goals of PRWORA were to promote work and marriage and to decrease welfare dependence and births to unmarried women. In Illinois, the goal to decrease welfare dependence was clearly met. Efforts to increase work were moderately successful, although early success appears to be leveling off. Progress was also made towards the family formation goals, although it is unclear to what extent welfare reform was responsible for observed changes in marriage and childbearing. Between 1998 and 2002, work remained stable and earnings increased substantially while TANF use dropped sharply. About half of the IFS sample was working in 2002, while about one-fifth was still receiving TANF. Overall, large declines in TANF use were not matched by comparable increases in work, resulting in a large and growing group of families who were left with neither work nor TANF. By 2002, 37% of respondents were in the “no-work/no-TANF” group. The largest group, however, was the “work-only” group, making up almost half of the sample (45%) in 2002. Between 2001 and 2002, there was a significant increase in marriage and a significant decrease in births to unmarried parents. Marriage was still relatively rare, however; only 12% of respondents were currently married in 2002. How are families doing? Looking across a broad range of indicators of well-being, families appeared to be making steady progress from 1999-00 to 2002. Although the overall group improved significantly in many areas, poverty and hardship were still prevalent. Overall, income and earnings for these families has been rising steadily, although incomes continued to be very low. Combining earnings and all benefits (e.g., TANF and food stamps), the average family income in 2001 was only $14,145, up from $7,475 in 1998. Sixty-seven percent of the families were living below the poverty line in 2001, down from 75% in 1999-00.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study xiii
Between 1999-00 and 2002, there was an overall decrease in the number of families who experienced material hardship, although about half (49%) still reported some hardship. Housing affordability problems spiked upward in 2001, but returned to lower levels in 2002. Homelessness and food insecurity saw modest declines. Homelessness fell from 7% in 1999-00 to 2% in 2002. This includes families who stayed in a shelter, car, abandoned building, “on the streets,” or temporarily (less than two weeks) doubled up with a friend or relative. Seven percent of respondents in 2002 said they “sometimes” or “often” didn’t have enough food. Despite increases in work and earnings, most respondents perceived their financial situation to be staying about the same over the three-year period. In 2002, about two-thirds (64%) said they “somewhat” or “strongly” agreed that they can generally afford to buy the things they need. Eighty-five percent of respondents in 1999-00 and 2002, however, said they “worry a lot about having enough money in the future.” Between 1999-00 and 2002, respondents made significant gains in their hourly wages and in employer-sponsored benefits, although wages still remained fairly low and most working respondents did not receive benefits from their employers. The median wage in 2002 was $8.30 per hour, and 27% of working respondents said they received health insurance from their employer for themselves. In 2001, 46% of workers said they had received a pay raise or promotion in the past year. In 2002, employed respondents worked an average of 33 hours per week, unchanged from 1999-00. Seventy-six percent of all employed respondents were working full time (30+ hours per week) in 2002, also unchanged from 1999-00. Job satisfaction remained fairly stable during the three-year study period. The majority of respondents (79%) reported they were “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with their job in 2002. Self-reported physical and mental health improved steadily from 1999-00 to 2002 for adults and children. By 2002, 81% of adults and 96% of children were reportedly in “good,” “very good,” or “excellent” health. The proportion of adults reporting depressive symptoms dropped from 24% in 1999-00 to 18% in 2002. Health insurance for adults is one indicator of family well-being that did not improve over the three-year study period. The proportion of adults without health insurance coverage peaked in 2001 at 24%, improving slightly in 2002 to 21%—still higher than it had been in 1999-00. Steady gains in employer-sponsored health insurance were not enough to offset the large declines in Medicaid receipt adults experienced from 1999-00 to 2001, leaving many working adults without coverage. Changes in health insurance status were more positive for children. Modest increases in Medicaid, KidCare, and employer-sponsored coverage helped to decrease the number of uninsured children in 2001 and 2002. By 2002, 7% of respondents had at least one child who was uninsured.
xiv Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Use of formal child care arrangements, such as child care centers and Head Start, started off quite low in 1999-00 and continued to decline; by 2002, only 5% of children were in these types of formal arrangements. Care by a relative or some other family member was the most common type of child care; by 2002, 59% of the children under age 12 in the sample were in this informal arrangement. A high degree of stability among child care arrangements was maintained over time, with 90% of children having only 0-1 child care arrangements within the 12 months prior to the 2002 interview. Child care concerns dropped sharply over the three-year period. In 2002, 11% of respondents said they had one or more child care problems, down from 36% in 1999-00. Most respondents continued to express positive feelings about their welfare worker and specified welfare policies (time limits and work requirements). Satisfaction with these welfare policies increased from 1999-00 to 2002. Fully 95% said they “somewhat” or “strongly” agreed that “it is a good idea to require people on welfare to work” in 2002. Making work pay in Illinois: Use of work supports and other services Work does indeed “pay” in Illinois. Those who worked were less likely to experience poverty or material hardship than those who did not work. Despite fairly high rates of awareness of work support policies, many respondents were not receiving the work support benefits available in Illinois. For the most part, use of work supports and other services declined or remained stable from 1999-00 to 2002. The majority of respondents (86%) had their TANF clocks stopped at some point between July 1997 and June 2002. (TANF recipients have their clocks stopped when they are in compliance with work requirements or meet other specific criteria.) Overall, food stamp and Medicaid use dropped considerably from 1998 to 2002, although the declines slowed in 2001. Slightly more than half of the sample was still receiving each of these benefits in 2002. The overall use of child care subsidies increased between 1999 and 2000, and then decreased from 2000 to 2001. Only 37% of workers with a child under age 12 were receiving this benefit in June 2001. Receipt of housing subsidies remained fairly stable during the three-year period. About one-quarter of respondents (27%) reported receiving some kind of housing subsidy in 2002. Sixteen percent of those interviewed in 2002 were living in a public housing development and 18% said they received a rent voucher, such as Section 8. Receipt of formal child support fell slightly from 1999-00 to 2002. Fifteen percent of respondents received formal child support payments in the year prior to their 2002 interview. More than half (60%), however, said they received informal child support from their child(ren)’s other parent, usually the father.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study xv
Participation in job readiness, job training, work experience, basic education, and secondary education programs saw consistent and significant declines between 1999-00 and 2001. By 2002, only 12% of respondents said they had participated in a job readiness or job training program since their last interview and only 1% had participated in a post-secondary education program. The majority of respondents were aware of earnings disregards, transitional Medicaid, and continuing food stamps, while slightly less than half said they knew that the months when they work at least 30 hours per week do not count toward the time limit (“stopped clock” policy). Knowledge of these benefits increased significantly between 1999-00 and 2001 and then increased moderately or remained stable between 2001 and 2002. Looking at the relationship between work and welfare status in 1999-00 and poverty one to two years later, we find that work does indeed “pay.” That is, those who were working in 1999-00 were less likely to be living below the poverty line in 2000 or 2001 than those who were not working. Similarly, work seems to ameliorate material hardship. Those who were working in 2001 were less likely to experience hardship in 2002 than those who were not working in 2001. Although work seems to prevent some material hardship, levels of poverty and hardship were still high even among those who were working and off welfare; 38% of the 1999-00 work-only group was living below the poverty line in 2001. How are the most vulnerable families faring? There was a troubling and steady increase in the proportion of families who were relying upon neither work nor TANF. Most families were not very close to reaching the 60-month lifetime limit on TANF. About one-quarter of the families had been sanctioned, though the third-level “full family sanctions” were extremely rare. Sanctions and time limits appear to be disproportionately affecting the more vulnerable respondents in this study, such as those with low levels of education and family health problems. By 2002, over one-third of the sample (37%) had neither work nor TANF to rely upon. Although many in this group make use of informal sources of support and government benefits other than TANF, they were still much more likely to experience material hardship than other families and had high rates of health problems. These respondents seem to have very tenuous relationships with formal employment. Although they no longer rely upon TANF, many are still “connected to the system” by receiving food stamps and Medicaid. Almost all of the families in the IFS sample have “saved” some of their TANF months by leaving welfare temporarily or permanently and/or by using the “stopped clock” option. For this reason none of the families in this sample had reached their lifetime limit five years after TANF was implemented in Illinois. It is possible, however, to identify groups of families who are most at risk of reaching the time limit at some point within the next few years. Those with chronic health problems, more children, and a child with a
xvi Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
limiting health condition appear to be most at risk of hitting the time limit. The unemployed, the unmarried, and those without a high school degree also appear to be more vulnerable. Over one-fourth of the IFS sample (27%) received a sanction between 1999 and 2002. Most were first-level sanctions, while third-level sanctions (“full family sanction”) were extremely rare. Sanctioned respondents had, on average, more children, less education, and were more likely than other respondents to have a child with a health problem, indicating that the more vulnerable families are being sanctioned. After controlling for several demographic characteristics, sanctions were associated with material hardship and continued TANF receipt. Being sanctioned does not appear to promote work or decrease welfare dependence. Putting it all together: What helps families attain self-sufficiency? Work, work supports, and education seem to promote positive outcomes, while sanctions were associated with negative outcomes. Employer-sponsored health insurance, child care subsidies, the “stopped clock” option, and higher educational attainment appear to help families to get and/or keep jobs. Those who work, in turn, were less likely to experience material hardship, whereas those who were sanctioned were more likely to experience material hardship and still be receiving TANF. Even after controlling for work status in 2001, respondents with the following characteristics in 2001 were significantly more likely to be working in 2002: Had a job with employer-sponsored health insurance Received a child care subsidy Used the “stopped clock” (even after controlling for number of months on welfare) Had a high school degree or GED
Respondents with the following characteristics were significantly more likely to be earning higher hourly wages relative to others who were working in 2002: Had a job with employer-sponsored health insurance Received formal child support for one or more children Had a high school degree or GED
Respondents with the following characteristics were significantly less likely to lose their jobs in 2002: Had a job with employer-sponsored health insurance Used the “stopped clock” Received formal child support for one or more children Had a high school degree or GED
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study xvii
Respondents with the following characteristics in 2001 were significantly less likely to be on welfare in 2002: Received child care subsidies Had a high school degree or GED Were working
Respondents who received a partial or full grant sanction in 2001 were significantly more likely to be receiving TANF in 2002. Respondents with the following characteristics were significantly less likely to experience material hardship in 2002: Had employer-sponsored health insurance Were working Received government subsidized housing
Respondents with the following characteristics were significantly more likely to experience material hardship in 2002: Experienced a partial or full-grant sanction in 2001 Participated in job search/job training
Conclusions and policy implications In our last annual report, we concluded that Illinois’ moderate approach to welfare reform had been largely successful. After updating those findings with data collected in 2002 during an economic down-turn, we are still able to conclude that the overall impact of welfare reform in Illinois has been positive. Illinois’ moderate policies and the provision of several strong work supports have helped to make work “pay” for many families. For about half of the families in this study, employment—often supported by resources such as child care subsidies, health insurance, and food stamps—has given many families a boost in earnings and well-being. The other half, however, was not employed in 2002. Coupled with the overall leveling off of employment in recent years, the rising proportion of families who were relying on neither work nor TANF is troubling. For those reasons, any reductions in workforce support could harm poor families in Illinois. Work supports are the key to the success of welfare reform. Policymakers have an obligation to insure that working and leaving welfare are sustainable and translate into concrete gains for parents and their children. A comprehensive network of work supports for low-income families is the key to meeting this state obligation. Illinois should build on its success thus far by maintaining or strengthening its provision of work supports. Four work supports stand out as being particularly critical for promoting work and self-sufficiency: 1) health insurance, 2) child care subsidies, 3) the “stopped clock”, and 4) child support. Other supports, such as food stamps, the EITC,
xviii Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
earnings disregards, and housing assistance are also important. Given limited resources, the top priorities where the state of Illinois can have the greatest impact are: Public health insurance (Medicaid, KidCare, and FamilyCare) Child care subsidies
These programs benefit large numbers of low-income families—both on and off TANF—and should be maintained or expanded as the foundation of Illinois’ comprehensive work support system. Family well-being has improved for many, but some are being left behind. More than five years after the implementation of welfare reform, Illinois has seen a significant decrease in welfare receipt without an accompanying rise in material hardship. According to most indicators of well-being, families appeared to be making steady progress from 1999 to 2002, despite the unstable economy towards the end of this period. By 2002, however, a troubling pattern had emerged—a mismatch between the sharp decline in TANF use on one hand, and the moderate increase in work and persistence of poverty on the other hand. There appears to be a widening gap between successful and struggling TANF leavers. There is a large group of families who have successfully left TANF for jobs, while there is another group of almost equal size that relies upon neither work nor TANF. Evidence of the success of welfare reform in Illinois includes: Increased earnings and income High levels of job satisfaction and few complaints about child care Declines in poverty, material hardship, food insecurity, and homelessness Improvements in self-reported physical and mental health High levels of approval for welfare workers and the changes brought about by
welfare reform The following problems, however, stand out as obstacles to work, self-sufficiency, and well-being:
Persistence of high levels of poverty, even for workers Lack of health insurance coverage, especially for adults Persistence of relatively high levels of perceived financial strain Despite improvements, persistence of physical and mental health problems for many
adults Low educational attainment, declining participation in job training and education
programs, and the apparent ineffectiveness of job training programs Declines in or the leveling off of the use of key work supports such as food stamps,
child care subsidies, child support payments, the “stopped clock” option, and employer-sponsored health insurance
Slowed growth in hourly wages and workforce participation
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study xix
“Getting tough” has unintended consequences. The 1996 welfare reform “ended welfare as we knew it” by creating real costs for those who did not follow the new rules. Sanctions and time limits are two examples of the “get tough” approach to welfare reform. The intended purpose of sanctions was to decrease welfare dependency and increase work effort. Sanctions do not, however, appear to be producing the desired outcomes, and the most vulnerable families seem to be disproportionately affected by these policies. Recommendations to Illinois policymakers Illinois has implemented a moderate welfare reform strategy that “makes work pay,” reduces welfare dependency, and provides the foundation for a comprehensive system of work supports for low-income families. We therefore recommend that Illinois stay the course by preserving the gains made thus far. The state is currently facing a large deficit. There is pressure to cut the very services that have made welfare reform successful in Illinois. The success of the “Illinois example” suggests that reductions in services to current and former welfare recipients would be short-sighted, possibly resulting in declines in labor force participation and increases in hardship. Preserve the gains: Maintain or expand existing work supports Expand public health insurance Expand FamilyCare to cover more low-income parents, and/or Expand income eligibility cutoffs for Medicaid coverage for adults and extend the
provision of Transitional Medicaid Assistance to at least 12 months, if not longer, for TANF leavers. (Eliminate the six-month re-certification.)
Increase take-up for KidCare, FamilyCare, and Medicaid. Maintain child care subsidies Maintain child care subsidies as a high spending priority. Increase take-up of the child care subsidy.
Provide other work supports Maintain or increase funding for child support enforcement and the EITC. Continue the “stopped clock” and earnings disregards policies.
Rethink the losses: Provide intensive help for those who have been left behind Reexamine job training and education Determine why so few current and former welfare recipients take advantage of
existing job training and education programs. Improve the effectiveness of job training and education programs.
xx Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Reconsider “get tough” policies Use sanctions and time limits as a “red flag” for identifying and helping struggling
families. Continue to provide exemptions to work requirements for families who struggle with
health problems. Given the demands of single parenting and the leveling off of employment in this
sample, requiring a 40-hour work week is not recommended. The current requirement of 30-35 hours per week appears to be working well and should be maintained. Requiring a full 40-hour week may discourage some recipients and could be counterproductive.
Provide intensive wrap-around services Provide intensive services for those who remain on TANF, including counseling and
opportunities to participate in supported work environments. Reach out to families who are relying on neither work nor TANF. Many of these
families are still “in the system” since they receive Medicaid or food stamps.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 1
Introduction Purpose of this report The Illinois Families Study (IFS) was designed to meet the requirements of the Welfare Reform Research and Accountability Act (P.A. 90-74), a measure passed by the Illinois General Assembly in 1997 that required the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) to appoint outside researchers to implement a six-year panel study of welfare reform in Illinois. The primary goal of the study is to inform state legislators, IDHS administrators, and other state and local policymakers about the experiences of families and children in the Illinois welfare program. Like most other states in the nation, Illinois is now more than five years into the major welfare reforms that were passed in 1996 and implemented in 1997, and is facing uncertain policy changes at the federal level, a shrinking state budget, and a weak economic climate. Congress did not meet the October 1, 2002 deadline to reauthorize the welfare reform legislation, instead choosing to extend the legislation through the end of the year. Illinois has an estimated budget deficit of $1.9 billion in fiscal year (FY) 20031 and the unemployment rate rose to a high of 6.8% in October 2002.2 Welfare reform is therefore at a crossroads, with mounting needs for some families and shrinking resources for programs such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. The purpose of this report is to help Illinois policymakers assess the value of welfare reforms and prioritize services for the families affected by them. By identifying the strengths and weaknesses of Illinois welfare reform programs and prioritizing them, we hope to help policymakers make the most of limited state resources. Last year’s IFS annual report to the legislature, based on surveys conducted in the “boom years” of 1999 through 2001, concluded that the moderate approach to reform taken by the state helped to make work “pay” and was associated with slightly improved family well-being. The report concluded that work supports—especially the “stopped clock” for employed TANF recipients, child care subsidies, Medicaid, and KidCare—were critical to promoting work and self-sufficiency. In this year’s report, we will reexamine these conclusions with additional data from 2002 to determine whether these findings held true during the recent economic downturn. We will update earlier findings about the overall success of welfare reform in Illinois by revisiting five key questions: 1. Have the federal goals of welfare reform been achieved in Illinois?
a. Has welfare dependence decreased? b. Have work, marriage, and two-parent families been successfully promoted?
2. How are families doing? c. Are families better off when they work and/or leave welfare?
1 Work, Welfare, and Families, 2003. Frequently Asked Questions about the Budget and Proposed Revenue Alternatives. (www.workwelfareandfamlies.org) 2 Illinois Department of Employment Security, 2003. (www.ides.state.il.us)
2 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
d. Are families able to meet their children’s needs as they move from welfare to work?
e. How do current and former recipients feel about the welfare system and policies?
3. How are the most vulnerable families faring? f. Who is in the “no work/ no welfare” group (nonemployed leavers) and how do
they survive? g. Who has reached the time limit? h. What is the impact of sanctions? i. Which obstacles to self-sufficiency do these families face?
4. Do welfare reform policies and work supports make work pay in Illinois? 5. What is the overall impact of Illinois’ moderate approach to welfare reform? We will then go on to answer the following questions: 1. What are the most effective supports and services? 2. Given limited resources, what should be the top funding priorities for the next phase
of welfare reform in Illinois? Assessing the effectiveness of a new law is always problematic. Supporters claim victory where opponents see failure. Research can shed light on the situation, although some issues remain beyond the reach of the study design, and elected officials will have to make final decisions about spending. In our last report to the Illinois General Assembly, we assessed welfare reform in Illinois in a positive light. Work efforts improved and welfare receipt fell, while hardship levels improved slightly for those interviewed. The question posed from that report is to what degree can the outcomes be attributed to changes in the law versus economic conditions? The data on which last year’s report was based were collected when economic conditions were favorable in Illinois, and the reported good news may have been attributed in some part to those conditions. This year’s report is based on data collected in much weaker economic times; therefore, if we find employment, hardship, and welfare receipt stable we can attribute these findings to the reform. Goals of welfare reform When Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), it replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the federal entitlement program for low-income families with children, with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants. According to the PRWORA legislation, the overall goals of TANF are to: Provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own
homes or in the homes of relatives End the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job
preparation, work, and marriage
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 3
Prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies
Encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families3 Although each of these goals addresses family formation issues, most of the legislation focused on promoting work and decreasing welfare dependence. Illinois, as did many other states, chose increased work and decreased welfare dependence as its top priorities for welfare reform, placing less emphasis on the family formation goals. National and Illinois approaches to welfare reform focused, from their inception, on reducing welfare dependency and only secondarily on reducing poverty. The underlying assumptions of the reforms were that staying on welfare under the old rules and regulations did grave damage to recipients and violated the central tenets of the American value system. Work was not only to be encouraged but required, and public assistance was to be temporary for the overwhelming majority of recipients. Proponents of the new “work-first” system argued that if these goals were achieved, the lives of the poor would be improved and public support for social programs would be strengthened. Arguing that poverty is often caused by welfare dependency, they also predicted that poverty would decline as a result of the new reforms. Key features of Illinois TANF and related programs The Illinois General Assembly crafted the state’s TANF plan during its 1997 session and the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) began implementing the program in July 1997. The Illinois plan incorporated major features of the state’s earlier experiments with welfare reform, including Earnfare, Get a Job, WorkFirst employment programs, a “family cap,” and the Work Pays income disregard program. Key features of the Illinois TANF program and related services include: Time limits: 60-month lifetime limit on TANF cash assistance4
“Stopped clock” provision: the time limit clock stops for recipients who: Work at least 30 hours per week and still qualify for assistance (30 hours for
single-parent families and 35 hours for two-parent families) Are full-time students in a post-secondary degree program with a minimum
GPA of 2.5 (36-month limit; must be a single parent)5 Provide constant in-home care for a medically dependent child6 Provide care for a disabled child or spouse7
3 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, H.R. 3734, Section 401. 4 IDHS enacted several exceptions to the time limit in February 2002, which were first implemented in July 2002. Families may receive additional months of TANF cash assistance if they meet one of several exemptions, including having a pending Supplemental Security Income SSI application; having a medical barrier to employment; participation in an approved education, training, or intensive service program; caring for a severely disabled child; or caring for a spouse or child with a physical or mental health problem. 5 This rule was not implemented until January 1999. 6 This rule was not implemented until July 2001. 7 This rule was not implemented until September 2001.
4 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Receive approval for a Domestic Violence Exclusion Income disregards (Work Pays program): two-thirds of earned income is
disregarded when determining benefit levels (for example, a parent earning $300 per month receives a $100 decrease in her monthly TANF grant)
Sanctions: three-step sanction process ending in full-grant sanction after three occurrences of non-cooperation or after three months in a first- or second-step sanction
Family cap: no additional cash benefits are awarded for children born ten months or more after initial enrollment
Work requirements: 30-35 hours per week under a broad definition of work-related activities, including community service, substance abuse treatment, domestic violence counseling, foster parenting, and post-secondary education
Cash benefits: maximum monthly cash benefit is $396 for a family of three in urban areas (increased from $377 in July 2002)
Child care subsidies: available for all families living at or below 50% of 1997 state median income, regardless of TANF status; parent co-pay sometimes required
Medical benefits Family Assist (Medicaid): medical benefits provided to parents or caregivers of
children who have income no greater than 105% of the (AFDC) income standards in effect July 16, 1996
Parent Assist (Medicaid): medical benefits provided to parents or caregivers whose income is too high to qualify for Family Assist but less than 133% of the AFDC income standards in effect July 16, 1996
Transitional Medical Assistance (Medicaid) : medical benefits provided for 6-12 months to persons in families no longer eligible for Family Assist because of increased earnings
KidCare (Medicaid and SCHIP): health benefits provided to children and pregnant women; children up to age 19 are eligible if their family income is no more than 185% of poverty; pregnant women and their infants are eligible if their family income is no more than 200% of poverty
FamilyCare (Medicaid and SCHIP HIFA waiver): expands Parent Assist to provide health benefits for parents or caregivers in families with income up to 49% of poverty
See Appendix A for more information about the Illinois TANF program. Federal TANF reauthorization The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant established by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) expired September 30, 2002. Congress passed an extension of PRWORA through the end of December, 2002, then until March 31, 2003, and then again until June 30, 2003. On February 13, 2003, the House passed a reauthorization bill (H.R. 4) that is similar to the current Administration’s proposal to increase work requirements from 30 to 40 hours per week, increase the mandatory work participation rate to 70 percent, limit training, and eliminate education as allowable work activities. H.R. 4 also provides hundreds of
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 5
millions of dollars to promote marriage and sexual abstinence. Critics charge that the bill does not provide sufficient additional funds to assist states and does not provide adequate funding for child care. Reauthorization bills introduced in the Senate in March, 2003 represent more moderate views than the bill passed in the House. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee Hearing on TANF Reauthorization debated reauthorization issues on March 12, 2003, and received statements from concerned citizens and groups through March 26, 2003 for the reauthorization hearing record.8 This committee is expected to reconsider proposals for TANF reauthorization in mid-May, 2003. AFDC/TANF caseload dynamics during the 1990s and recent economic trends in Illinois In an analysis of the Illinois AFDC/TANF caseload from 1990 to 1999, researchers from the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago examined trends in total caseload, entries, exits, duration on welfare, recidivism, and earnings for welfare recipients during the pre-Work Pays (1990-93), post-Work Pays/ pre-TANF (1993-97), and post-TANF (1997-99) periods.9 The average time spent on AFDC in the pre-Work Pays period was only 9-10 months, although recidivism was fairly high; about one-quarter of those who left returned to the rolls within 4-5 months. During the 1990s, time spent on welfare declined from a median of 11 months in 1994 to 7 months in 1999. Recidivism also declined, indicating that Work Pays and TANF, along with lower unemployment rates, were associated with decreases in welfare dependency in Illinois. Although marked by occasional dips, the number of exits from AFDC/TANF was relatively stable while entries to the program declined significantly beginning in late 1997. As a result of decreased duration on welfare, lower recidivism, and fewer recipients entering the program, the overall AFDC/TANF caseload saw an unprecedented 88% decline from about 200,000 recipients in 1994 to fewer than 25,000 in 2002 (see Figure 1).
8 Work, Welfare and Families, Weekly Review, March 18, 2003 (www.workwelfareandfamilies.org) 9 Lee, Goerge, and Dilts, 2000.
6 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Figure 1: Illinois AFDC/TANF caseload, entries, and exits (1990-2002)
Source: Illinois Department of Human Services, calculations by Chapin Hall The same study also found that after implementing Work Pays in 1993, earnings among those on welfare steadily increased. The average monthly earnings for the 1991 AFDC entry cohort were $47 compared to $96 in the 1999 TANF cohort. 10 A companion study of welfare leavers (exit cohorts) in Illinois from 1995 to 1999 concluded that recipients were increasingly more likely to have earnings when they left assistance in the late 1990s, but that earnings remained fairly low and had not led to improved overall economic well-being for these families.11
10 Reported earnings are in 1999 dollars and are adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 11 Lee, Goerge, and Dilts, 2001
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Jan-90
Nov-90
Sep-91
Jul-92 May-93
Mar-94
Jan-95
Nov-95
Sep-96
Jul-97 May-98
Mar-99
Jan-00
Nov-00
Sep-01
Cas
eloa
d
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Entr
ies
and
Exits
Caseload Exits (6-month moving average) Entries (6-month moving average)
Jun-02
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 7
Overall, the Illinois AFDC/TANF caseload declines (Figure 2) have been more dramatic than other upper Midwest states (See Appendix Table 75). Between 1996 and 2001, Illinois saw a 73% caseload decline with Wisconsin and Ohio following with declines of 65% and 60%, respectively. Michigan (58% decline), Minnesota (32%), and Indiana (18%) saw less dramatic declines. In addition to rapid caseload declines, Illinois has received performance bonuses from the federal government for reductions in out-of-wedlock births and for employment retention among TANF recipients. As in the rest of the nation, Illinois experienced high unemployment rates in the early 1990s (7.6% in 1992) which declined substantially later in the decade (4.4% in 1999). The recent economic downturn has seen unemployment climb to 5.4% in 2001 and 6.3% in 2002.12 Illinois ranked as one of the top ten states with the highest unemployment rates in 2001 and 2002 according to the U.S. Department of Labor.13 Figure 2: Child poverty, AFDC/TANF caseloads, and unemployment in Illinois (1992-2002)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (child poverty rate); Illinois Department of Human Services, calculations by Chapin Hall (AFDC/TANF caseload); Illinois Department of Employment Security (unemployment rate)
12 Illinois Department of Employment Security (http://lmi.ides.state.il.us) 13 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov)
15.8%
23.1%
7.6%6.3%
208,646 cases
32,3000
5
10
15
20
25
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Chi
ld P
over
ty a
nd U
nem
ploy
men
t Rat
e
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
AFD
C/T
AN
F C
asel
oad
Child Poverty Rate Unemployment Rate (as of Dec.) AFDC/TANF Caseload (as of Sept. )
8 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Objectives and research design Objectives The primary goal of the Illinois Families Study (IFS) is to inform legislators, state program administrators, social service providers, advocates, and other policymakers about the experiences of families and children in the state’s TANF program. The study will follow a representative sample of families from nine Illinois counties over six years to document how they respond to the changes under TANF. More specifically, the IFS aims to inform policymakers by fulfilling three major objectives:
1) Broaden the scope of state welfare reform research to include key indicators of well-being (e.g., health, life events, hardships), in addition to employment outcomes and welfare-use patterns
2) Describe the impact of and need for government-funded support services 3) Describe changes in workforce attachment, economic status, and family well-
being over an extended period of time A more detailed description of the study’s background and purpose is available in the first-year report, Work, Welfare, and Well-Being: An independent look at welfare reform in Illinois (available at www.northwestern.edu/ipr/research/IFS.html). Sample and sample selection A sample of 1,899 TANF grantees was selected from the 1998 welfare caseloads in nine Illinois counties: Cook, Knox, Stark, Marshall, Fulton, Peoria, Woodford, Tazewell, and St. Clair. The nine counties were chosen to ensure variability in regional representation, given that the majority of Illinois welfare recipients reside in the metropolitan Chicago area (Cook County). The eight “non-Cook” or “Downstate” counties represent mid-size urban, small urban, and rural areas. The combined welfare population of the nine counties represents approximately three-quarters of the statewide welfare caseload. The sample is stratified by region: half of the sample members were randomly selected from Cook County and half from the combined Downstate counties. This ensured that a sufficient number of sample members were included from the Downstate regions (which enhances the reliability of the statistics generated for these regions). However, this design also makes the sample less representative of the actual distribution of welfare recipients in the combined nine counties. Therefore, base weights were constructed to correct for the over-representation of Downstate sample members. In this way, the statistics generated for this report can be interpreted as representative of the population of welfare recipients from the nine study counties. A more detailed description of the IFS study design and sampling strategy is available in Work, Welfare, and Well-Being: An independent look at welfare reform in Illinois (available at www.northwestern.edu/ipr/research/IFS.html).
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 9
Data sources The IFS draws upon annual survey data, a wide range of administrative records, and qualitative research. This report focuses primarily on findings from three waves of interviews and selected administrative records. Table 1 displays the data sources for this report. Table 1: IFS data sources (included in this report) Survey data Time period available Wave 1 IFS interview (“1999-00 interview”)
Interviews conducted: November 1999-September 2000
Respondents were asked about activities “within last 12 months”
Wave 2 IFS interview (“2001 interview”)
Interviews conducted: February 2001-September 2001
Respondents were asked about activities “since your last interview”
Wave 3 IFS interview (“2002 interview”)
Interviews conducted February 2002-September 2002
Respondents were asked about activities “since your last interview”
Administrative records TANF, Medicaid enrollment14, and food stamp use (IDHS)
September 1998- June 2002
Child care subsidies (IDHS)
September 1999, September 2000, and June 2001
Employment and wages (IDES, Unemployment Insurance records15)
September 1998- September 2001
Survey data The core of the IFS is a longitudinal panel study that will track the same group of families for six years. These surveys include questions on several topics, ranging from the characteristics of the current or most recent job, other types of work activities (e.g., job training, education), income, and welfare experiences to housing characteristics, family structure, life events, physical health, and other indicators of well-being (e.g., depression, self-efficacy, etc.). Most interviews were conducted in person, usually in the respondent’s home. All survey data collection is managed and conducted by Metro Chicago Information Center (MCIC). The first of the annual surveys was administered between November 1999 and September 2000, the second between February 2001 and September 2001, and the third between 14 Administrative data on Medicaid presented in this report is for adults only. 15 It is important to note that there are several limitations to Unemployment Insurance earnings data. This data does not capture earnings from informal work or wages earned in other states. These limitations may underestimate total earnings.
10 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
February 2002 and September 2002. The average length of time between the 2001 and 2002 surveys was approximately 12 months, with a range from 7 to 18 months. These differing intervals between interviews should be kept in mind when interpreting the “changes” between survey waves. Such differences mean shorter or longer “risk” or “exposure” periods. In other words, respondents may have longer (or shorter) time periods for certain events to occur (e.g., getting a job, losing a job, getting married, giving birth, etc.) compared with other respondents. In the first survey (1999-00), questions were asked about the current month or the “previous 12 months,” while in the second and third surveys (2001 and 2002), the same questions were asked about the current month or the time period “since the last interview.” Although the “reference” time periods are not consistent across surveys, most respondents were interviewed reasonably close to one year after their initial survey, and three-quarters received their second interview within 8 to 16 months after their first interview. Administrative data The IFS survey data are also linked to administrative data from the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS), the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES), and the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (IDCFS) using a probabilistic linking process.16 The primary administrative data sources for this report are IDHS (welfare benefits and support services) and IDES (quarterly information on employment status and wages, as reported by employers). Specific administrative information used for selected analyses in this report include: Welfare benefit data: Information on the receipt of cash TANF benefits and food stamps and Medicaid enrollment for September 1998 through June 2002. Work support data: Data on child care subsidies from IDHS for September 1999, September 2000 and June 2001. Employment and wage data: Wages are reported quarterly to IDES by employers who pay unemployment insurance on behalf of their employees. Quarterly information on employment and earnings is available from September 1998 through September 2001. Ninety-three percent of the 1999-00 survey respondents (n=1,261) provided consent to access administrative data related to themselves and their children. In this report, analyses incorporating information from administrative data for the post-1999-00 survey time periods rely on this subsample of respondents. Difference of means tests comparing consenters and nonconsenters, using administrative data provided as part of the original sampling frame, suggest no systematic bias between these two groups in terms of employment or welfare use.
16 A matching process that utilizes personal identifying information (e.g., Social Security numbers, names, birth dates, etc.) to link across data sources.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 11
Response rates Of the original 1,899 sample members selected for the IFS in 1998, 1,363 were interviewed for the 1999-00 survey, for a response rate of 72% (see Table 2). This initial response rate is consistent with and, in many cases, greater than the response rates of other large-scale surveys of welfare-involved or welfare-eligible individuals. Studies that have achieved higher response rates tend to be conducted within regions that are less urban than Cook County, and within only one region as opposed to several sites. In 2001, 1,183 of the 1999-00 respondents completed a second survey interview (see Table 2), for a response rate of 87%. In 2002, 1,072 respondents completed a third interview. Throughout this report, survey data are generally presented for this group of 1,072 respondents who completed interviews in all three waves. Table 2: IFS survey response rates Number of completed interviews Response rate 1999-00 survey 1,363 72% 2001 survey 1,183 87% 2002 survey 1,072 91% Overall, 56% of the original 1,899 sample members were interviewed at the three time points (1999-00, 2001, and 2002). To adjust for attrition between survey waves, the same method that was used to adjust for nonresponse in 1999-00 and 2001 was applied to adjust for nonresponse in 2002 (using administrative data from the original sampling frame, as well as a wide range of survey data from 2001). These nonresponse adjustment weights, in conjunction with the base weights that correct for the stratification design, are applied to the final 2002 sample. One advantage of the IFS is the ability to construct nonresponse weights using sampling frame data on several key factors, including employment, welfare use, food stamp receipt, Medicaid enrollment, and a range of demographic factors. In constructing non-response weights, an algorithm was applied which produced a set of mutually exclusive groups that together accounted for the greatest amount of variation in response probabilities (Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 1992). This strategy minimizes the effects of bias in the sample related to differences in respondents and nonrespondents. Analysis strategy All of the analyses using only administrative data refer to the original sample of 1,899 individuals. These analyses are unweighted and therefore over-represent the Downstate sample members. Most of the analyses presented in this report (particularly those incorporating survey data) are conducted using the final 2002 sample (n=1,072). This allows assessment of changes at the individual level, given that comparisons of the full 1999-00 sample with the final 2002 sample do not refer to an identical set of individuals. With the adjustment
12 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
and base weights applied, however, the statistics generated should reasonably (although not perfectly) approximate the characteristics and circumstances of the original representative sample (n=1,899). Analyses that combine both survey and post-1999-00 information from administrative data are restricted to those sample members who consented to IFS researchers accessing administrative information on themselves and their family members (n=1,123). These analyses are weighted to adjust for the stratification design, and nonresponse in each survey wave. The analyses assessing changes in characteristics and circumstances across survey waves are presented as point-in-time statistics for the 2002 full sample and for the 2002 sample by region (Cook versus Downstate). Unless a different statistical test is noted, difference of means (or difference of proportions) tests were conducted to identify statistically significant changes between years. Respondent characteristics Respondents This section describes the characteristics of the 1,072 IFS respondents who completed all three years of the survey. These characteristics are reported as they were measured at the baseline survey (1999-00). As with all other survey results presented in this report, the data presented here are weighted to adjust for regional stratification and non-response. As shown in Table 3, the weighted IFS sample is overwhelmingly from Cook County (91%), reflecting the large proportion of the state’s TANF recipients in that county. Nine of the sample is from Downstate, with about 60% of those from St. Clair County (East St. Louis) and 40% from the Peoria region (Peoria County and the surrounding rural counties). Table 3: Residence of respondents at baseline (1999-00) (n=1,072)
Weighted Unweighted Number Percent Number Percent
Cook County 970 91% 485 45% Chicago 850 79% 429 40% Suburban Cook County 120 -11% 56 5%
Downstate 102 9% 587 55% St. Clair County 60 6% 347 32% Peoria County 27 3% 160 15% Rural Counties (Peoria region)
15 1% 80 8%
Table 4 displays basic demographic characteristics of the IFS respondents. On average, a respondent was female (97%), African American (86%), and 31.7 years old when she
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 13
was first interviewed in 1999-00. Respondents had on average 2.5 children and the average age was 7.5 years. More than half (63%) gave birth as a teenager and most have never been married (63%). Fifty-nine percent were high school graduates or had received their GED. Twelve percent indicated that they were of Hispanic, Latino, or Chicano origin. With the exception of marriage rates, race/ethnicity and education, there were very few demographic differences across the two study regions. A much larger proportion of Cook County respondents (66%) had never been married compared to Downstate respondents (42%). Nearly one-third of Downstate respondents were White (32%) compared with a much smaller proportion of the Cook County sample (10%). Only 1% of the Downstate respondents were Hispanic, Latino, or Chicano compared with 14% of those in Cook County. The majority in both regions were African American, although African Americans made up a larger proportion of the Cook County group (88%) than the Downstate group (68%). Table 4: Demographic characteristics of 2002 respondents at baseline (1999-00)
1999-00 All
(n=1072) Cook
County (n=970)
Downstate (n=102)
Mean age 31.7 31.8 30.5 Female 97% 97% 98% Mean number of children 2.5 2.5 2.5 Mean age of children: Youngest child Oldest child All children (n=3,029)
5.2 9.6 7.5
5.2 9.6 7.4
5.7 9.8 7.7
Gave birth as a teenager 63% 63% 66% Marital status: Never married Divorced Separated Married Widowed
63% 13 15 7 2
66% 12 14 7 2
42% 16 30 12 1
High school graduate (including GED completion)
59% 59% 70%
Race: African American White Other
86% 12 2
88% 10 2
68% 32 1
Hispanic/Latino/Chicano 12% 14% 1% Source: IFS survey data and Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records)
14 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Non-respondents Table 5 presents selected characteristics of four groups of original IFS sample members (n=1,899): respondents who did not participate in any IFS interview; those who participated in only the 1999-00 interview; those who participated in 1999-00 and 2001, and those who participated in all three interviews. There are some significant differences in participation and continuation in the surveys, including gender, county of residence, history of and current TANF receipt, Medicaid, food stamps, and child care subsidy receipt. It is possible that this higher rate of program participation among IFS respondents may affect survey results. Race and work experience prior to the first survey were not associated with participation in the IFS. The above variables and other administrative data were used to construct the non-response weights for the 1999-00 survey data. When constructing non-response weights for the 2002 survey data, additional information from the 1999-00 and 2001 survey was used as well. After making adjustments for non-response, statistics in this report more accurately reflect the original 1,899 IFS sample members, who in turn are a representative group of 1998 welfare recipients from the nine study counties. Table 5: Characteristics of sample members by survey response status Means and Proportions Characteristics
Non-respondent (n=536)
Respondent in 1999-00
only (n=180)
Respondent in 1999-00 and 2001
only (n=111)
Respondent in 1999-00, 2001, and
2002 (n=1072)
p-value
Age as of 9/98 30 31 30 30 Male gender 5% 6% 2% 2% ** African American 70% 66% 66% 75% Hispanic 6% 9% 8% 5% Cook County resident
51% 69% 57% 45% ***
Previous work experience as of 9/98
69%
66% 75% 68%
Cumulative months on TANF as of 9/98
69 71 73 77 **
Receiving TANF in 9/99
47% 62% 58% 61% ***
Receiving Medicaid in 9/99
69% 82% 79% 84% ***
Receiving food stamps in 9/99
55% 69% 64% 72% ***
Received child care subsidies in 12/99
19% 31% 30% 33% ***
***p<.001, **p<.01, *p< .05 (statistical significance for differences between time periods; Chi-square and ANOVA tests) Source: Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records)
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 15
Have the main goals of PRWORA been realized in Illinois? Work and welfare State administrative records for the original IFS sample (n=1,899) indicate that between 1998 and 2001, work and earnings stayed the same or increased slightly for the IFS sample, while TANF use dropped sharply. Figure 3 displays the portion of the sample who was working between the fourth quarter of 1998 and the fourth quarter of 2001. Work remained stable in the Downstate region and in Cook County, only increasing by one percentage point from 2001 to 2002. Overall, 46% of the sample was employed in the fourth quarter of 1998 and 54% was employed in the fourth quarter of 2002. The proportion of the sample that was working peaked at 54% in the second quarter of 2002 and again in the fourth quarter of 2002. Figure 3: Trends in work, 1998-2001 (percentage of IFS sample members with reported earnings; n=1,899)
Source: Unemployment Insurance wage data (administrative records)
50%
55%56%
43%
51%51%
46%
53% 54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1998Q4 1999Q2 1999Q4 2000Q2 2000Q4 2001Q2 2001Q4
Downstate
Cook County
All
16 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Table 6 shows the duration of workforce participation. Of the sample, 16% had worked in each of the 13 quarters (1998 Q4-2001 Q4). In contrast, 19% had not worked in any of these quarters, indicating that 81% of the sample had worked at some point during this time period. Table 6: Number of quarters worked (1998-2001) (percentage of IFS sample members with reported earnings) All
(n=1899) Cook County
(n=947) Downstate
(n=952) No work (in any quarter, 1998Q4- 2001Q4)
19% 20% 17%
Worked in 1-3 quarters
18% 20% 16%
Worked in 4-6 quarters
19% 19% 20%
Worked in 7-9 quarters
18% 19% 17%
Worked in 10-12 quarters
29% 28% 30%
Worked all 13 quarters
16% 14% 18%
Source: Unemployment Insurance wage data (administrative records)
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 17
Earnings rose between the fourth quarters of 1998 and 2001 for employed IFS sample members (see Figure 4). In total, median quarterly earnings rose $1,229, from $1,748 in the fourth quarter of 1998 to $2,977 in the fourth quarter of 2001. With the exception of the first quarter shown, Cook County sample members earned more than their downstate counterparts. Quarterly earnings for the overall group peaked at $2,977 in the fourth quarter of 2001, the last quarter for which data are available. Earnings fluctuated in 2001 with the most significant decrease between the second and third quarters ($175) and the most significant increase ($418) between the third and fourth quarters of 2001. Figure 4: Trends in reported earnings (1998-2001) (median quarterly earnings for those with earnings in each quarter)
Source: Unemployment Insurance wage data (administrative records)
$2,977
$1,748 (All)
$2,597$2,793
$1,785 (Downstate) $2,338
$3,136
$1,696 (Cook)
$2,840
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
1998Q4 1999Q2 1999Q4 2000Q2 2000Q4 2001Q2 2001Q4
All
Downstate
Cook County
18 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Mirroring statewide trends, Figure 5 displays the sharp decline in TANF use among adults in the IFS sample. In September 1998, 96% of the sample was receiving TANF.17 By June 2002, only 10% was still receiving TANF. Declines in Medicaid enrollment and food stamps, while not as dramatic, were approximately 40 percentage points, with slightly more than half of the sample members receiving these benefits in 2001 (57% and 56%, respectively). (The data presented in this section pertains only to adults. Medical benefits for children are discussed on page 39. Food stamps and Medicaid for adults are also discussed further on page 19. Figure 5: Trends in TANF and food stamp use and Medicaid enrollment among adults (1998-2002) (number of IFS sample members active for each program, by month; n=1,899)
96% (TANF)
24%10%
61%
97% (Medicaid)
57%59%
90% (Food Stamps)
56%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Sep-98 Dec-98 Mar-99 Jun-99 Sep-99 Dec-99 Mar-00 Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02
TANF Grant
Medicaid
Food Stamps
Source: Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records)
17 All IFS sample members were receiving TANF at some point between September and November 1998. The TANF rate for September 1998 is not 100% because sample members could have been receiving TANF in October and/or November 1998 but not in September 1998.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 19
Table 7 displays the changes in benefit packages, that is, the combination of cash (TANF), food stamp, and Medicaid benefits that sample members received. The proportion of sample members receiving none of these benefits rose steadily, from 18% in September 1999 to 35% in June 2002. Conversely, receipt of the entire package of benefits (TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid) dropped from 52% in September 1999 to 10% in June 2002. Many more sample members (38%) were receiving Medicaid and food stamps (with no TANF) by June 2002, an increase of 24 percentage points from September 1999 (14%). Table 7: Changes in benefit packages for adults (1999-2002) (percent of IFS sample members active for each program, by month; n=1,899) September 1999 September 2000 February 2001 June 2002 No benefits 18% 26% 30% 35% TANF, Medicaid, and Food Stamps
52% 30% 23% 10%
Medicaid only 11% 12% 10% 9% Food Stamps only
2% 7% 9% 8%
Medicaid and Food Stamps (no TANF)
14% 25% 27% 38%
Other combinations of benefits
4% 1% 1% 0%
Source: Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records) The preceding analysis relied on administrative data. Tables 8-12 and Figures 6-7 are based on IFS survey data and therefore rely upon self-reports and represent “points in time,” rather than trends over time. The survey results are also weighted to adjust for regional stratification and non-response.
As i
ndic
ated
in th
e ad
min
istra
tive
data
abo
ve, r
espo
nses
from
thre
e su
rvey
wav
es sh
ow st
eady
pro
porti
ons o
f wor
king
re
spon
dent
s and
a sh
arp
decl
ine
in T
AN
F us
e. T
he p
erce
ntag
e of
surv
ey re
spon
dent
s who
wer
e w
orki
ng a
t the
tim
e of
all
thre
e in
terv
iew
s was
a c
onst
ant 5
0% (a
ppro
xim
atel
y), w
hile
the
porti
on re
ceiv
ing
TAN
F dr
oppe
d 34
per
cent
age
poin
ts (s
ee T
able
8).
O
vera
ll in
200
2, 4
9% o
f res
pond
ents
wer
e w
orki
ng a
nd19
% w
ere
rece
ivin
g TA
NF.
Dow
nsta
te re
spon
dent
s wer
e m
ore
likel
y to
be
wor
king
(64%
vs.
47%
for C
ook
Cou
nty)
, and
to b
e of
f TA
NF
(91%
vs.
80%
for C
ook
Cou
nty)
. Ta
ble
8: W
ork
stat
us a
nd T
AN
F us
e
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=1
067)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=965
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
Wor
king
50
%
49%
65
%
52%
5
1%
66%
4
9%2
47%
2
64%
N
ot
wor
king
50
%
51%
35
%
48%
4
9%
34%
5
1%2
53%
2
36%
Rec
eivi
ng
TAN
F 53
%
54%
47
%
31%
1 3
2%1
19%
1 1
9%1,
2
20%
1, 2
9%
Not
re
ceiv
ing
TAN
F
47%
46
%
53%
6
9%1
68%
1 8
1%1
81%
1, 2
80%
1, 2
91
%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-
test)
S
ource
: IFS
surve
y data
Tabl
e 9
disp
lays
the
four
com
bina
tions
of w
ork
and
wel
fare
. A
lmos
t hal
f of t
he e
ntire
sam
ple
was
rely
ing
on w
ork
only
(45%
) in
200
2, w
hile
14%
was
onl
y re
ceiv
ing
TAN
F. A
ver
y sm
all p
ropo
rtion
(4%
) was
com
bini
ng w
ork
and
TAN
F, w
hile
mor
e th
an o
ne-th
ird re
porte
d th
at th
ey w
ere
neith
er w
orki
ng n
or re
ceiv
ing
TAN
F (3
7%).
The
re w
ere
stat
istic
ally
sign
ifica
nt c
hang
es
in a
ll fo
ur o
f the
gro
ups b
etw
een
1999
-00
and
2001
and
bet
wee
n 19
99-0
0 an
d 20
02.
Ther
e w
ere
larg
e in
crea
ses i
n th
e w
ork-
only
(+15
per
cent
age
poin
ts) a
nd n
o-w
ork/
no-
TAN
F (+
20 p
erce
ntag
e po
ints
) gro
ups,
and
larg
e de
crea
ses i
n th
e w
ork-
and-
TAN
F (-
17 p
erce
ntag
e po
ints
) and
TA
NF-
only
gro
ups (
-19
perc
enta
ge p
oint
s).
Alth
ough
the
incr
ease
in th
e w
ork-
only
gro
up
is e
ncou
ragi
ng, t
his g
roup
will
still
be
susc
eptib
le to
the
cont
inui
ng d
ownt
urn
in th
e ec
onom
y an
d ris
ing
unem
ploy
men
t. T
he
incr
ease
in th
e no
-wor
k/no
-TA
NF
grou
p is
trou
blin
g.
20 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Ther
e w
ere
nota
ble
regi
onal
var
iatio
ns fo
r the
se fi
ndin
gs.
In 2
002,
the
two
regi
ons d
id n
ot v
ary
muc
h in
the
wor
k-an
d-TA
NF
grou
p or
th
e no
-wor
k/ n
o-TA
NF
grou
p. D
owns
tate
resp
onde
nts (
60%
) wer
e m
ore
likel
y th
an C
ook
Cou
nty
resp
onde
nts (
43%
) to
be re
lyin
g on
w
ork
only
, whi
le th
ose
in C
ook
Cou
nty
(15%
) wer
e m
ore
likel
y th
an D
owns
tate
(5%
) to
be re
lyin
g on
TA
NF
only
(see
Tab
le 9
).
Dow
nsta
te (3
1%) a
nd C
ook
Cou
nty
(37%
) had
sim
ilar p
ropo
rtion
s of r
espo
nden
ts in
the
no-w
ork/
no-T
AN
F gr
oup.
Ta
ble
9: W
ork
and
TAN
F us
e pa
ttern
s
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n=
1067
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=965
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=102
) Al
l (n
=107
2)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=970
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=102
) W
ork
and
TAN
F 21
%
20%
31
%
11%
1 1
1%1
10%
1 4
%1,
2 4
%1,
2
4%1
Wor
k on
ly
30%
29
%
34%
4
1%1
40%
1 5
6%1
45%
1,2
43%
1,2
60%
1
TAN
F on
ly
33%
34
%
17%
2
0%1
21%
1
9%1
14%
1,2
15%
1,2
5%
1
No
wor
k/ n
o TA
NF
17%
17
%
19%
2
8%1
28%
1 2
4%1
37%
1,2
37%
1,2
31%
1
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Fi
gure
s 6 a
nd 7
show
wor
k an
d w
elfa
re st
atus
for i
ndiv
idua
ls a
cros
s the
thre
e in
terv
iew
per
iods
. O
ne-th
ird (3
0%) o
f the
sam
ple
was
w
orki
ng a
t the
tim
e of
all
thre
e in
terv
iew
s (se
e Fi
gure
6).
Alm
ost t
he sa
me
prop
ortio
n (2
7%) w
as n
ot w
orki
ng a
t any
of t
he th
ree
inte
rvie
ws.
Wor
k st
atus
rem
aine
d co
nsta
nt fo
r mor
e th
an h
alf o
f the
sam
ple.
For
this
gro
up th
ere
was
no
chan
ge in
the
wor
k st
atus
ov
er th
e th
ree-
year
stud
y pe
riod.
M
ore
than
one
-third
(38%
) of t
he sa
mpl
e re
porte
d th
at th
ey w
ere
not r
ecei
ving
TA
NF
at th
e tim
e of
all
thre
e in
terv
iew
s (se
e Fi
gure
7).
O
nly
11%
said
they
wer
e re
ceiv
ing
TAN
F at
all
thre
e in
terv
iew
s. T
he re
mai
ning
resp
onde
nts,
roug
hly
half
of th
e sa
mpl
e, c
ycle
d on
an
d of
f TA
NF.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 21
Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses 22
Figure 6: Work status for individuals across all three interviews (1999-00, 2001, and 2002)
Source: IFS survey data Figure 7: TANF status for individuals across all three interviews (1999-00, 2001, and 2002)
Source: IFS survey data
On TANF at all 3 interviews11%
Off TANF at all 3 interviews
38%
Other combinations on and off TANF, 51%
Working at all 3 interviews
30%
Not working at all 3 interviews
27%
Working in 1999-00 and 2001, but not in
20027%
Not working in 1999-00 and 2001, but working in 2002
7%
Other combinations29%
Rea
sons
for T
AN
F en
trie
s an
d ex
its
The
shar
p de
clin
e in
TA
NF
use
from
199
9 to
200
2 w
arra
nts f
urth
er in
vest
igat
ion.
Dec
lines
in T
AN
F us
e ar
e ca
used
bot
h by
re
spon
dent
s lea
ving
(TA
NF
exits
) and
by
not r
etur
ning
to T
AN
F (T
AN
F re
-ent
ries)
. Thi
s sec
tion
look
s at r
espo
nden
ts’ e
xper
ienc
es
with
app
lyin
g fo
r and
leav
ing
TAN
F an
d ex
plor
es th
e ex
tent
to w
hich
resp
onde
nts p
erce
ive
dive
rsio
ns fr
om T
AN
F re
ceip
t and
w
heth
er th
ey le
ft TA
NF
for a
ppro
pria
te re
ason
s. (T
hese
find
ings
are
from
surv
ey d
ata
and
refle
ct re
spon
dent
s’ p
erce
ptio
ns o
f TA
NF.
) Th
ere
wer
e si
gnifi
cant
dec
lines
from
199
9-00
to 2
002
in th
e pr
opor
tion
of re
spon
dent
s who
wen
t to
the
wel
fare
off
ice
with
the
inte
ntio
n of
app
lyin
g fo
r TA
NF
(see
Tab
le 1
0).
Thirt
y-ni
ne p
erce
nt sa
id th
ey d
id so
in 1
999-
00 c
ompa
red
with
23%
in 2
002.
Mor
e st
rikin
gly,
the
prop
ortio
n of
resp
onde
nts w
ho sa
id th
ey a
pplie
d fo
r and
act
ually
rece
ived
TA
NF
drop
ped
shar
ply,
from
74%
in 1
999-
00 to
50%
in 2
002.
A d
ecre
ase
in th
e nu
mbe
r of f
amili
es se
ekin
g TA
NF
alon
g w
ith a
shar
p de
clin
e in
TA
NF
appl
ican
ts a
ctua
lly
rece
ivin
g TA
NF
appe
ar to
be
cont
ribut
ing
fact
ors t
o th
e ov
eral
l dec
line
in T
AN
F us
e.
By
2002
, the
re w
ere
larg
e re
gion
al d
iffer
ence
s in
the
prop
ortio
n of
resp
onde
nts w
hose
TA
NF
appl
icat
ions
resu
lted
in T
AN
F re
ceip
t; on
ly 3
1% o
f Dow
nsta
te a
pplic
ants
said
they
rece
ived
TA
NF
com
pare
d w
ith 5
1% o
f Coo
k C
ount
y ap
plic
ants
. It
is u
ncle
ar fr
om th
ese
resu
lts w
heth
er th
is re
gion
al v
aria
nce
is d
ue to
diff
eren
ces i
n el
igib
ility
or d
iffer
ence
s in
polic
y an
d pr
actic
e at
loca
l wel
fare
off
ices
. Ta
ble
10. E
xper
ienc
es w
ith a
pply
ing
for T
AN
F
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
Cook
Co
unty
Down
state
All
Cook
Co
unty
Down
state
All
Cook
Co
unty
Down
state
Wen
t to
the
wel
fare
off
ice
to a
pply
for T
AN
F (in
pa
st 1
2 m
onth
s/ si
nce
last
inte
rvie
w; a
mon
g al
l re
spon
dent
s) (n
=106
3-10
69)
39%
39
%
36%
38
%
40%
1 26
%
23%
1,2
23%
1,2
16%
1
Act
ually
app
lied
for T
AN
F (a
mon
g th
ose
who
w
ent t
o of
fice
to a
pply
) (n=
408-
410)
92
%
92%
92
%
88%
1 89
%1
72%
1 90
%
90%
78
%1
Rec
eive
d TA
NF
as re
sult
of th
at a
pplic
atio
n (a
mon
g th
ose
who
act
ually
app
lied)
(n=3
62-3
73)
74%
74
%
72%
58
%1
59%
1 43
%1
50%
1,2
51%
1,2
31%
1
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired a
nd on
e-sa
mple
T-tes
ts)
Sour
ce: I
FS su
rvey d
ata
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 23
Whe
n as
ked
why
they
did
not
app
ly fo
r TA
NF,
man
y re
spon
dent
s cite
d al
read
y fin
ding
a jo
b, to
o m
uch
hass
le, w
ork
requ
irem
ents
, an
d no
t bei
ng a
ble
to g
et a
n ap
poin
tmen
t at t
he w
elfa
re o
ffic
e (n
ot sh
own)
. (T
he n
umbe
r of r
espo
nden
ts w
ho a
nsw
ered
this
que
stio
n,
how
ever
, was
ver
y sm
all a
nd a
s suc
h it
is n
ot p
ossi
ble
to e
xam
ine
diff
eren
ces b
etw
een
year
s or r
egio
ns.)
Tabl
e 11
show
s sev
eral
diff
eren
t req
uire
men
ts a
nd o
ptio
ns th
at c
asew
orke
rs m
ay p
rese
nt to
TA
NF-
seek
ers.
Som
e of
thes
e po
licie
s m
ay fu
nctio
n as
div
ersi
ons t
o ap
plyi
ng fo
r or r
ecei
ving
TA
NF.
Bet
wee
n 19
99-0
0 an
d 20
02, t
he p
ropo
rtion
of r
espo
nden
ts w
ho sa
id
som
eone
at t
he w
elfa
re o
ffic
e ha
d to
ld th
em a
bout
the
TAN
F w
ork
requ
irem
ents
incr
ease
d si
gnifi
cant
ly.
At t
he sa
me
time,
si
gnifi
cant
ly fe
wer
resp
onde
nts w
ere
told
to a
pply
for b
enef
its fr
om a
noth
er p
rogr
am (1
6% in
199
9-00
vs.
12%
in 2
002)
or w
ere
give
n im
med
iate
or t
empo
rary
ass
ista
nce
(39%
in 1
999-
00 v
s. 8%
in 2
002)
. D
owns
tate
resp
onde
nts w
ere
mor
e lik
ely
than
Coo
k C
ount
y re
spon
dent
s to
repo
rt ei
ther
of t
hese
exp
erie
nces
by
2002
. Th
ere
was
a si
gnifi
cant
incr
ease
in th
e pr
opor
tion
of re
spon
dent
s who
said
thei
r cas
ewor
ker h
elpe
d th
em to
dev
ise
a pl
an fo
r su
ppor
ting
thei
r fam
ily w
ithou
t TA
NF.
In
1999
-00
only
23%
of T
AN
F ap
plic
ants
in th
e sa
mpl
e re
porte
d th
is, c
ompa
red
with
45%
in
2002
(see
Tab
le 1
1).
This
incr
ease
was
mos
tly d
riven
by
Coo
k C
ount
y an
d by
200
2 th
ere
wer
e la
rge
regi
onal
diff
eren
ces.
Alm
ost
half
of C
ook
Cou
nty
appl
ican
ts (4
6%) s
aid
they
wer
e of
fere
d he
lp to
dev
ise
a pl
an in
200
2, c
ompa
red
to o
nly
one-
quar
ter (
25%
) of
Dow
nsta
te a
pplic
ants
.
24 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Tabl
e 11
: TA
NF
requ
irem
ents
and
div
ersi
ons
(am
ong
thos
e w
ho a
pplie
d fo
r TA
NF
in th
e pa
st 1
2 m
onth
s/ s
ince
la
st in
terv
iew
)
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Did
the w
elfar
e offi
ce/ c
asew
orke
r…
All
(n=3
76)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=3
43)
Down
state
(n=3
3)
All
(n=3
58-
362)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=3
39-
343)
Down
state
(n=1
8-19
) Al
l (n
=215
-21
6)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=2
03)
Down
state
(n=1
3)
Tell
you
that
in o
rder
to re
ceiv
e ca
sh
[wel
fare
/ TA
NF]
ben
efits
, or k
eep
rece
ivin
g it,
you
wou
ld fi
rst h
ave
to lo
ok fo
r wor
k?
60%
61
%
50%
56
%
55%
1
64%
65
%1,
2
64%
2
81%
1
Tell
you
that
in o
rder
to re
ceiv
e ca
sh
[wel
fare
/ TA
NF]
ben
efits
, or k
eep
rece
ivin
g it,
you
wou
ld fi
rst h
ave
to fi
nd a
job
or d
o co
mm
unity
serv
ice
wor
k?
48%
49
%
42%
45
%
44%
63
%
57%
1,2
57
%1,
2
60%
Tell
you
to a
pply
for b
enef
its fr
om a
noth
er
prog
ram
inst
ead
of [w
elfa
re o
r TA
NF]
? 16
%
17%
14
%
5%1
5%
1
8%
12%
1,2
12
%1,
2
18%
Giv
e yo
u im
med
iate
ass
ista
nce
or
tem
pora
ry a
ssis
tanc
e to
pay
for s
omet
hing
? 39
%
39%
38
%
17%
1
18%
1
14%
1
8%1,
2
8%1,
2
14%
1
Hel
p yo
u de
vise
a p
lan
for h
ow y
ou c
ould
su
ppor
t you
r fam
ily w
ithou
t [w
elfa
re/
TAN
F]?
23%
23
%
16%
24
%
24%
23
%
45%
1,2
46
%1,
2
25%
1 =sig
nifica
nt dif
feren
ce fr
om 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 =sig
nifica
nt dif
feren
ce fr
om 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; on
e-sa
mple
T-tes
t) So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
TA
NF
exits
(am
ong
thos
e st
ill re
ceiv
ing
TAN
F) sa
w m
odes
t but
sign
ifica
nt d
eclin
es fr
om 4
2% in
199
9-00
to 3
7% in
200
2 (s
ee T
able
12
). E
xits
wer
e m
ore
com
mon
am
ong
Dow
nsta
te re
spon
dent
s in
1999
-00
(48%
Dow
nsta
te v
s. 41
% C
ook)
but
bec
ame
less
com
mon
in
200
2 (3
3% D
owns
tate
vs.
37%
Coo
k).
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 25
Tabl
e 12
: TA
NF
exits
(am
ong
thos
e w
ho re
ceiv
ed T
AN
F at
som
e po
int i
n pa
st 1
2 m
onth
s/ s
ince
last
inte
rvie
w)
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=1
069)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=967
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=4
88)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=4
57)
Down
state
(n=3
0)
All
(n=2
92)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=2
77)
Down
state
(n=1
5)
Wen
t off
TA
NF
or lo
st a
ll TA
NF
bene
fits f
or 1
or m
ore
mon
ths (
in
past
12
mon
ths/
sinc
e la
st in
terv
iew
)
42%
41
%
48%
40
%
40%
38
%1
37
%1
37
%1
33
%1
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; on
e-sa
mple
T-tes
t) So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
R
espo
nden
ts w
ere
aske
d to
exp
lain
why
they
left
TAN
F (a
t the
mos
t rec
ent t
ime
they
left
TAN
F) (s
ee T
able
13)
. In
200
2, a
lmos
t one
-ha
lf of
resp
onde
nts (
46%
) sai
d th
ey le
ft TA
NF
beca
use
of e
arni
ngs (
“got
a jo
b,”
or “
earn
ings
too
high
”), w
hile
abo
ut o
ne-q
uarte
r (2
7%) c
ited
adm
inis
trativ
e re
ason
s (“m
isse
d ap
poin
tmen
t” o
r “pa
perw
ork
not f
iled”
). D
urin
g th
e th
ree-
year
surv
ey p
erio
d, th
ere
wer
e si
gnifi
cant
incr
ease
s in
exits
bec
ause
of o
btai
ning
jobs
(fro
m 3
0% in
199
9-00
to 4
0% in
200
2) a
nd n
ot fi
ling
pape
rwor
k (f
rom
1%
in
1999
-00
to 1
1% in
200
2).
Hav
ing
earn
ings
that
wer
e “t
oo h
igh”
dro
pped
from
12%
in 1
999-
00 to
5%
in 2
001
and
6% in
200
2.
Tabl
e 13
: Mai
n re
ason
wen
t off
TAN
F (a
t mos
t rec
ent T
AN
F ex
it)
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
Mo
st co
mmon
resp
onse
s Al
l (n=
433)
Al
l (n=
193)
Al
l (n=
106)
G
ot a
job
30%
30
%
40%
1,2
Earn
ings
too
high
12
%
5%1
6%1
Mis
sed
appo
intm
ent
18%
14
%1
16%
D
idn’
t file
pap
erw
ork
(res
pond
ent o
r cas
ewor
ker)
1%
11
%1
11%
1 R
each
ed a
tim
e lim
it 0%
5%
1 9%
1,2
Oth
er
19%
1%
1 7%
1,2
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel;
2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sour
ce: I
FS su
rvey d
ata
26 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Fam
ily fo
rmat
ion
The
mar
riage
rate
rem
aine
d st
able
bet
wee
n 19
99-0
0 an
d 20
01 a
nd th
en in
crea
sed
in 2
002
(see
Tab
le 1
4).
Alth
ough
onl
y 12
% o
f re
spon
dent
s wer
e m
arrie
d in
200
2, th
is is
a si
gnifi
cant
incr
ease
(2 p
erce
ntag
e po
ints
) fro
m th
e pr
ior t
wo
surv
ey p
erio
ds.
Mor
e D
owns
tate
than
Coo
k C
ount
y re
spon
dent
s wer
e m
arrie
d, a
lthou
gh th
is ra
te re
mai
ned
stab
le d
urin
g th
e th
ree
inte
rvie
w y
ears
. C
ook
Cou
nty
saw
an
incr
ease
in m
arria
ge fr
om 1
0% to
12%
. A
cros
s the
thre
e su
rvey
per
iods
, non
-mar
ital c
ohab
itatio
n ro
se si
gnifi
cant
ly in
20
01 b
ut th
en re
turn
ed in
200
2 to
stat
istic
ally
sim
ilar l
evel
s of 1
999-
00.
Tabl
e 14
: Mar
riage
and
coh
abita
tion
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=967
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=959
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
Cur
rent
ly
mar
ried
10
%
10%
16%
10%
10%
15
%
12%
1,2
12%
1,2
16%
Cur
rent
no
n-m
arita
l co
habi
tatio
n
6%
5%
8%
8%1
8%
1 10
%
7%
7
%
7%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 27
Chi
ldbe
arin
g de
clin
ed st
eadi
ly a
mon
g th
e IF
S sa
mpl
e fr
om 1
3% in
199
9-00
to 1
1% in
200
1 an
d 7%
in 2
002
(see
Tab
le 1
5).18
The
re
was
a si
mila
r tre
nd fo
r “ou
t-of-
wed
lock
” bi
rths.
Pre
gnan
cy ra
tes (
i.e.,
the
perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
who
repo
rted
bein
g pr
egna
nt a
t ea
ch su
rvey
wav
e) re
mai
ned
fairl
y co
nsta
nt b
etw
een
surv
ey w
aves
. Ta
ble
15: B
irths
1999
20
00
2001
All
(n=1
008)
Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=913
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=95)
Al
l (n
=100
8)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
13)
Down
state
(n=9
5)
All
(n=1
008)
Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=913
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=95)
Birt
hs to
bio
logi
cal
pare
nts
13%
1
3%
11
%
11%
11%
1
1%
7%
1,2
7%
1,2
8%
Birt
hs to
unm
arrie
d bi
olog
ical
par
ents
(“
out-o
f-w
edlo
ck”
birth
s)
12%
1
2%
9%
1
0%
10
%
9%
6%1,
2 6
%1,
2
6%
Preg
nanc
ies
5%
5%
6%
5%
5%
5%
6%
5
%
6%
No
te: S
tatist
ics fo
r this
table
wer
e calc
ulated
using
infor
matio
n per
tainin
g only
to re
spon
dents
who
wer
e the
biolo
gical
pare
nt of
a chil
d und
er th
e age
of 18
, livin
g in t
he ho
useh
old
as of
the 2
002 i
ntervi
ew. O
ther r
elativ
e car
egive
rs we
re no
t inclu
ded.
Pre
gnan
cy st
atisti
cs ar
e bas
ed on
only
female
resp
onde
nts (n
=969
). 1 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Cha
nges
in b
irths
and
pre
gnan
cies
ove
r thi
s thr
ee y
ear p
erio
d do
not
off
er a
true
ass
essm
ent o
f whe
ther
wel
fare
pol
icie
s hav
e af
fect
ed
the
trend
s dep
icte
d ab
ove,
giv
en th
at w
e ca
nnot
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
decl
ines
obs
erve
d re
flect
nat
ural
“lif
e co
urse
” pa
ttern
s in
ferti
lity
for t
his a
ge ra
nge,
or w
heth
er re
spon
dent
s bas
ed d
ecis
ions
abo
ut fe
rtilit
y on
wel
fare
pol
icy
ince
ntiv
es a
nd d
isin
cent
ives
. Th
ese
findi
ngs s
houl
d th
eref
ore
be in
terp
rete
d w
ith c
autio
n. G
iven
that
the
orig
inal
IFS
sam
ple
was
a c
ross
-sec
tion
of th
e w
elfa
re
popu
latio
n (a
nd th
eref
ore
over
-rep
rese
nted
“lo
ng-te
rm”
reci
pien
ts o
f wel
fare
, who
wer
e m
ore
likel
y to
be
olde
r and
to a
lread
y ha
ve
mul
tiple
chi
ldre
n as
of t
he fi
rst s
urve
y), t
he o
bser
ved
decl
ine
in b
irths
is to
be
antic
ipat
ed.
18
Chi
ldre
n’s b
irth
date
s wer
e us
ed to
ass
ess c
hang
es in
birt
h ra
tes f
rom
199
9 to
200
1, a
s opp
osed
to re
lyin
g on
surv
ey se
lf-re
ports
of w
heth
er a
chi
ld w
as b
orn
in
the
year
prio
r to
the
1999
-00
inte
rvie
w, a
nd in
bet
wee
n th
e 19
99-0
0 an
d 20
01 in
terv
iew
s. W
e be
lieve
the
form
er st
rate
gy y
ield
s the
mos
t acc
urat
e re
sults
.
28 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 29
To assess the effectiveness of policies such as the “family cap,” more detailed analyses of the relationship between births, welfare status, and work status were performed. If it is assumed that those on welfare are more aware of TANF policies and therefore more likely to consider the “family cap” disincentive, we would expect welfare receipt to reduce the likelihood of future births. However, it may also be the case that those who are unable to leave welfare are also more disadvantaged, and for various reasons, more likely to have additional children irrespective of policy influences. In a separate analysis (see Table 16), we assessed whether births in 2001 were associated with several 1999 (baseline) characteristics, including whether the respondent gave birth to a child in 1999, marital status, cohabitation, age, family size, and work and welfare status. In these bivariate analyses, being younger than age 25 was associated with a greater likelihood of a birth in 2001 and being 35 or older was associated with a lower likelihood of a 2001 birth; having more than two children and working were associated with lowered likelihood of having a subsequent birth. Giving birth in 1999, being married or cohabiting, being 25-34 years old, and receiving TANF were not associated with subsequent births. Table 16: Births, by 1999 characteristics
1999-00 Characteristics
Gave Birth in 2001 (n=1067-1072)
Gave birth in 1999 Yes No
7% 7%
Married Yes No
5% 7%
Cohabiting (unmarried) Yes No
5% 7%
Under 25 years old* Yes No
13% 5%
25-34 years old Yes No
8% 6%
35 or older* Yes No
2% 10%
More than 2 children* Yes No
5% 9%
Working* Yes No
5% 9%
Receiving TANF Yes No
8% 6%
*p<.05 (statistical significance for differences between groups; Independent samples t-test) Source: IFS survey data Interestingly, when a multivariate analysis (not shown) was conducted predicting births in 2001 using the above 1999 characteristics, the only statistically significant findings were for family size (more children increased the likelihood of having a birth in 2001),
30 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
parental age (younger respondents were more likely and older respondents were less likely than respondents aged 25-34 years to give birth in 2001), and employment (which reduced the likelihood of a birth in 2001). Giving birth in 1999 increased the likelihood of having a birth in 2001, although this finding was not statistically significant. In other words, when marital, cohabitation, welfare, and 1999 birth status are held constant, larger family sizes and younger age emerge as significant predictors of childbearing, and employment and older age reduce the likelihood of this outcome. This suggests that family planning decisions hinged, at least in part, on employment status. The finding that larger family sizes in 1999 are predictive of 2001 births is unexpected, however this may reflect, in part, the greater likelihood of larger families remaining on TANF over time. By Wave 3, families with more than two children as of the first wave were nearly twice as likely to be receiving welfare than families with fewer children in the first survey wave. This also suggests, though, that childbearing disincentives embedded in welfare reform policy are not working as intended, at least for those who remain on TANF. Accomplishments thus far: How families are faring in Illinois five years after welfare reform This section includes a wide range of indicators of child and adult well-being. First to be addressed are income, poverty, and job characteristics, followed by indicators of material hardship (such as food stamp use, housing difficulties, etc.), and then various dimensions of work, health, and child care that affect family well-being. To conclude, satisfaction with welfare reform is discussed. Income and poverty Although poverty reduction was not an explicit goal of PRWORA, it is an important indicator of family and child well-being. The IFS survey asks respondents to report income received from employment and other benefits (including TANF) in the previous tax year, while family size is measured at the time of the interview. For this reason, the proportion of families living below the Federal Poverty Line (FPL) is derived from 2002 survey questions asking respondents about their income from 2000 and 2001. Table 17 shows the mean and median annual income for respondents over the three years of the study.19 Mean income increased significantly in both regions; however, overall incomes were quite low.20 For this sample, the mean income in 2001 was $14,145, while the median was $11,250. Downstate respondent average earnings in 2001 were close to Cook County earnings, although there was a larger difference in the median income. 19 These numbers are not adjusted for inflation. The general rate of inflation in the Midwest from 1998-2000 was 5.6%, and from 2000 to 2002, 3.9%. U.S. Department of Labor (www.bls.gov) 20 The measure of income in the IFS survey was improved for the 2001 and 2002 interviews. These changes in the income measure could have artificially inflated the increase in income from 1998 to 1999-00 and from 1999-00 to 2001.
The
med
ian
annu
al in
com
e fo
r Dow
nsta
te re
spon
dent
s in
2001
was
$13
,750
, com
pare
d w
ith o
nly
$11,
250
for C
ook
Cou
nty
resp
onde
nts.
To p
lace
thes
e in
com
es in
con
text
, the
mea
n an
d m
edia
n an
nual
inco
mes
for I
llino
is in
200
0 w
ere
$72,
821
and
$56,
744,
21
resp
ectiv
ely.
The
Sel
f-Su
ffic
ienc
y St
anda
rd fo
r Illi
nois
pro
vide
s ano
ther
poi
nt o
f com
paris
on.
This
stan
dard
mea
sure
s how
muc
h in
com
e is
nee
ded
for a
full-
time
wor
king
fam
ily o
f a g
iven
com
posi
tion
(num
ber o
f adu
lts a
nd n
umbe
r and
age
s of c
hild
ren)
in a
giv
en
plac
e to
ade
quat
ely
mee
t its
bas
ic n
eeds
with
out p
ublic
or p
rivat
e as
sist
ance
. Th
e st
anda
rd ta
kes i
nto
acco
unt h
ousi
ng, c
hild
car
e,
food
, tra
nspo
rtatio
n, h
eath
car
e, ta
xes,
and
mis
cella
neou
s cos
ts, a
s wel
l as s
ever
al ta
x cr
edits
. A
ccor
ding
to th
e st
anda
rd, t
he a
dequ
ate
annu
al in
com
e fo
r an
adul
t with
one
infa
nt a
nd o
ne p
resc
hool
-age
d ch
ild li
ving
in th
e C
hica
go M
etro
polit
an S
tatis
tical
Are
a (M
SA)22
in
200
1 w
as $
40,8
84.
For a
com
para
ble
fam
ily in
the
Peor
ia-P
ekin
MSA
it w
as $
33,9
03. 2
3 Ta
ble
17: C
hang
es in
mea
n an
d m
edia
n an
nual
inco
me
19
98
(tax y
ear p
rece
ding
1999
-00 i
ntervi
ew)
1999
-00
(tax y
ear p
rece
ding
2001
inter
view)
2001
(ta
x yea
r pre
cedin
g 20
02 in
tervie
w)
Resp
onde
nt ea
rnin
gs
and
othe
r ben
efits
co
mbi
ned
All
(n=9
73)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=8
91)
Down
state
(n=8
2)
All
(n=9
73)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=8
91)
Down
state
(n=8
2)
All
(n=9
73)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=8
91)
Down
state
(n=8
2)
Mea
n an
nual
inco
me
$7,4
85
$7,3
94
$8,1
36
$11,
5361
$11,
4961
$11,
9201
$14,
1451,
2 $1
4,16
51,2
$13,
934
Med
ian
annu
al
inco
me
$6,2
50
$6,2
50
$6,2
50
$8,7
50
$8,7
50
$12,
250
$11,
250
$11,
250
$13,
750
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
21
Cen
sus 2
000
Supp
lem
enta
ry S
urve
y (w
ww
.cen
sus.g
ov)
22 E
xclu
ding
dow
ntow
n an
d se
lect
ed n
orth
side
are
as (h
igh
cost
are
as).
23 W
omen
Em
ploy
ed (w
ww
.wom
enem
ploy
ed.o
rg/p
ublic
atio
ns)
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 31
The
data
show
n in
Tab
le 1
8 re
flect
the
perc
ent o
f fam
ilies
bel
ow th
e 20
01 F
eder
al P
over
ty L
ine.
Six
ty-s
even
per
cent
wer
e liv
ing
belo
w th
e Fe
dera
l Pov
erty
Lin
e in
200
1, d
ecre
asin
g by
eig
ht p
erce
ntag
e po
ints
from
199
9-00
.
Tabl
e 18
: Pov
erty
1999
-00
(tax y
ear p
rece
ding t
he 20
01 in
tervie
w)
2001
(ta
x yea
r pre
cedin
g the
2002
inter
view
Al
l (n
=962
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=878
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=84)
Al
l (n
=962
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=878
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=84)
Pe
rcen
t of f
amili
es b
elow
the
Fede
ral
Pove
rty L
ine
75%
75%
71%
67%
67%
70%
No
te: T
he 20
01 F
eder
al Po
verty
Line
was
used
beca
use m
ost r
espo
nden
ts re
porte
d inc
ome f
rom
2001
. So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Jo
b ch
arac
teris
tics
A
s a g
roup
, em
ploy
ed re
spon
dent
s mad
e si
gnifi
cant
gai
ns in
hou
rly w
ages
, alth
ough
the
over
all m
edia
n w
age
for 2
002
was
onl
y $8
.30
per h
our (
see
Tabl
e 19
). T
he a
vera
ge w
age
incr
ease
d by
$1.
54 b
etw
een
1999
-00
and
2002
.24 A
lthou
gh w
ages
incr
ease
d in
bot
h ar
eas
of th
e st
ate,
regi
onal
diff
eren
ces p
ersi
sted
. C
ook
Cou
nty
resp
onde
nts r
epor
ted
an h
ourly
med
ian
wag
e of
$9.
10 in
200
2, c
ompa
red
with
$8.
11 fo
r dow
nsta
te re
spon
dent
s. Ta
ble
19: M
edia
n an
d m
ean
hour
ly w
age
at c
urre
nt jo
b
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=522
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=458
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=64)
Al
l (n
=533
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=469
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=64)
Al
l (n
=497
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=438
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=60)
M
edia
n
$7.0
0 $7
.02
$6.5
0 $
8.00
$
8.00
$
7.00
$
8.30
$
8.45
$
7.49
M
ean
$7.4
4 $7
.53
$6.8
0 $
8.49
1 $
8.62
1 $
7.57
1 $
8.98
1,2
$9.
101,
2 $
8.11
1
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
24
The
se n
umbe
rs a
re n
ot a
djus
ted
for i
nfla
tion.
32 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Tabl
e 20
and
Tab
le 2
1 sh
ow th
e ch
ange
in h
ourly
wag
es fo
r ind
ivid
uals
who
wer
e w
orki
ng in
199
9-00
and
200
1, a
nd 2
001
and
2002
. A
lthou
gh m
ost r
espo
nden
ts sa
w in
crea
ses i
n ho
urly
wag
es (7
3% a
nd 6
4%) b
etw
een
surv
ey y
ears
, app
roxi
mat
ely
one-
fifth
to o
ne-
four
th sa
w d
ecre
ases
(17%
and
24%
). Im
porta
nt to
the
curr
ent p
ictu
re o
f res
pond
ents
, the
seco
nd tw
o ye
ars o
f the
stud
y sa
w h
ourly
w
age
decr
ease
s tha
t wer
e gr
eate
r tha
n be
twee
n th
e fir
st tw
o ye
ars o
f the
stud
y (2
4% v
ersu
s 17%
).
Tabl
e 20
: Cha
nges
in h
ourly
wag
e fo
r ind
ivid
uals
bet
wee
n 19
99-0
0 an
d 20
01 (a
mon
g th
ose
empl
oyed
in 1
999-
00
and
2001
) Ho
urly
Wag
e Al
l (n
=399
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=346
) Do
wnsta
te
(n=5
4)
Incr
ease
d 73
%
74%
72%
D
ecre
ased
17
%
16%
21%
St
ayed
the
sam
e 10
%
10%
7%
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Tabl
e 21
: Cha
nges
in h
ourly
wag
e fo
r ind
ivid
uals
bet
wee
n 20
01 a
nd 2
002
(am
ong
thos
e em
ploy
ed in
200
1 an
d
2002
) Ho
urly
Wag
e Al
l (n
=373
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=327
) Do
wnsta
te
(n=4
6)
Incr
ease
d 64
%
63%
68%
D
ecre
ased
24
%
24%
19%
St
ayed
the
sam
e 13
%
13%
14%
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Pa
ralle
ling
wag
e in
crea
ses,
mor
e w
orki
ng re
spon
dent
s wer
e re
ceiv
ing
empl
oyer
ben
efits
in 2
002
than
in 1
999-
00; n
ever
thel
ess,
only
ab
out o
ne-th
ird re
ceiv
ed th
ese
bene
fits (
liste
d in
Tab
le 2
2).
The
larg
est g
ains
wer
e in
em
ploy
er-s
pons
ored
retir
emen
t pro
gram
s and
he
alth
insu
ranc
e, w
hich
incr
ease
d 13
and
12
perc
enta
ge p
oint
s, re
spec
tivel
y, fr
om 1
999-
00 to
200
2. T
hirty
-two
perc
ent r
ecei
ved
paid
si
ck d
ays i
n 20
02, a
stat
istic
ally
insi
gnifi
cant
gai
n fr
om 2
8% in
199
9-00
.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 33
Tabl
e 22
: Em
ploy
er b
enef
its re
ceiv
ed a
t cur
rent
job
(am
ong
wor
kers
)
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=519
-532
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=455
-467
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=64-
66)
All
(n=5
54-5
59)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=4
86-4
91)
Down
state
(n=6
7-68
) Al
l (n
=514
-524
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=450
-459
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=65)
H
ealth
in
sura
nce
for s
elf
15%
1
6%
12%
23
%1
24%
1 20
%
27%
1 2
7%1
24%
1
Den
tal
insu
ranc
e fo
r sel
f
22%
2
3%
15%
25
%
26%
19
%
29%
1,2
30%
1 2
3%
Ret
irem
ent
prog
ram
1
4%
14%
1
1%
17%
17
%
17%
2
7%1,
2 2
8%1,
2 2
1%
Paid
sick
da
ys
28%
2
9%
22%
29
%
29%
27
%
32%
3
2%
27%
Unp
aid
sick
da
ys o
r pe
rson
al
leav
e da
ys
23%
2
3%
19%
27
%1
28%
1 27
%
32%
1,2
33%
1,2
29%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
Sou
rce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Dat
a fr
om 2
002
show
ed a
reve
rse
of 2
001
trend
s with
an
incr
ease
in th
e nu
mbe
r of r
espo
nden
ts w
orki
ng in
man
ufac
turin
g jo
bs,
retu
rnin
g th
ese
num
bers
to th
e 19
99-0
0 le
vel (
see
Tabl
e 23
). In
add
ition
, alth
ough
the
num
ber o
f res
pond
ents
wor
king
in th
e se
rvic
e se
ctor
rose
shar
ply
betw
een
1999
-00
and
2001
, in
2002
this
num
ber d
ropp
ed sl
ight
ly b
ut re
mai
ned
sign
ifica
ntly
hig
her t
han
in 1
999-
00.
The
prop
ortio
n of
resp
onde
nts w
orki
ng in
serv
ice
jobs
—w
hich
incl
ude
heal
th se
rvic
es, s
ocia
l ser
vice
s, an
d ho
tels
and
lodg
ing—
incr
ease
d fr
om 5
6% in
199
9-00
to 6
6% in
200
1, b
ut d
ecre
ased
to 6
4% in
200
2. M
eanw
hile
, man
ufac
turin
g jo
bs d
ropp
ed fr
om 6
% to
3%
in 2
001,
then
retu
rned
to 6
% in
200
2. R
etai
l tra
de a
nd fi
nanc
ial s
ecto
r wor
k bo
th d
ropp
ed si
gnifi
cant
ly in
200
2. I
n 19
99-0
0, 2
0%
of re
spon
dent
s wor
ked
in re
tail
trade
, whi
le in
200
2 th
is n
umbe
r has
dro
pped
to 1
6%.
Fina
nce,
insu
ranc
e, a
nd re
al e
stat
e em
ploy
men
t de
clin
ed fr
om 5
% in
199
9-00
to 3
% in
200
2. D
espi
te 2
002
decl
ines
, ser
vice
s (64
%) a
nd re
tail
trade
(16%
) rem
aine
d th
e m
ost
com
mon
ly re
porte
d in
dust
ries i
n 20
02.
34 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Tabl
e 23
: Ind
ustr
y (o
f cur
rent
job)
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=534
) Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=468
)
Down
state
(n=6
6)
All
(n=5
57)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=4
89)
Down
state
(n=6
8)
All
(n=5
18)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=4
53)
Down
state
(n=6
5)
Serv
ices
5
6%
56
%
54
%
66%
1 6
6%1
65
%
64
%1
63%
1
64%
R
etai
l tra
de
20%
19%
28%
1
7%
17%
21%
16%
1 1
5%1
22
%
Tran
spor
tatio
n,
com
mun
icat
ions
, an
d ot
her p
ublic
ut
ilitie
s
9%
10%
4%
9%
9%
3%
1
1%
12%
5%
Fina
nce,
In
sura
nce,
and
R
eal E
stat
e
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
1,2
3%
3%
Man
ufac
turin
g
6%
6%
4%
3%
1
3%1
4%
6%
7%
2
4%
Oth
er
3%
3%
5%
1%1
0%
1
3%
0%
1,2
0%
2%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 35
In 2
002,
repo
rt of
full-
and
par
t-tim
e w
ork
reve
rsed
pre
viou
sly
note
d tre
nds,
with
par
t-tim
e w
ork
retu
rnin
g to
199
9-00
leve
ls a
fter
incr
easi
ng si
gnifi
cant
ly in
200
1 an
d fu
ll-tim
e w
ork
incr
easi
ng si
gnifi
cant
ly a
fter a
dec
reas
e in
200
1 (s
ee T
able
24)
. In
200
2, 2
4% o
f em
ploy
ed re
spon
dent
s rep
orte
d th
ey a
re c
urre
ntly
wor
king
par
t-tim
e. A
fter a
slig
ht d
ecre
ase
betw
een
1999
-00
and
2001
, ful
l-tim
e w
ork
incr
ease
d to
68%
in 2
002,
5 p
erce
ntag
e po
ints
hig
her t
han
in 1
999-
00.
The
mea
n nu
mbe
r of h
ours
wor
ked
per w
eek
incr
ease
d fr
om 3
2 ho
urs i
n 20
01 to
33
hour
s in
2002
, whe
re it
rem
ains
eve
n w
ith th
e m
ean
in 1
999-
00.
The
num
ber o
f res
pond
ents
cur
rent
ly
wor
king
41+
hou
rs p
er w
eek
decl
ined
sign
ifica
ntly
bet
wee
n 19
99-0
0 an
d 20
02, f
rom
13%
to 8
%.
Ther
e ha
s als
o be
en a
stea
dy d
eclin
e ov
er th
e st
udy
perio
d in
cur
rent
ly w
orki
ng re
spon
dent
s who
stat
ed th
at th
ey w
ould
like
to w
ork
mor
e ho
urs,
from
57%
in 1
999-
00 to
51
% in
200
1 an
d 45
% in
200
2.
Tabl
e 24
: Ful
l and
par
t-tim
e w
ork
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=5
09-
534)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=4
45-
469)
Down
state
(n=6
3-65
) Al
l (n
=527
-55
9)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=4
63-
491)
Down
state
(n=6
5-68
) Al
l (n
=500
-52
4)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=4
36-
455)
Down
state
(n=6
4-65
)
Part-
time
(cur
rent
ly w
orki
ng
1-29
hou
rs/w
eek)
24%
24%
22%
30%
1
30%
1
27%
24%
2 2
4%2
24
%
Full-
time
(cur
rent
ly w
orki
ng
30-4
0 ho
urs/
wee
k)
63
%
63
%
63
%
59
%
59
%
58
%
68
%1,
2 6
9%1,
2
61%
Cur
rent
ly w
orki
ng
41+
hour
s/w
eek
13
%
13
%
15
%
11
%
11
%
15
%
8%
1,2
7%
1,2
15
%
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of h
ours
w
orke
d pe
r wee
k 33
ho
urs
33
hour
s 34
ho
urs
32
hour
s1 32
ho
urs1
34
hour
s 33
ho
urs2
33
hour
s2 34
ho
urs
Wou
ld li
ke to
wor
k m
ore
hour
s
57%
57%
54%
51%
1
51%
1
52%
45%
1,2
45%
1,2
42
%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Ta
bles
25
and
26 sh
ow th
e ch
ange
s in
hour
s wor
ked
for i
ndiv
idua
ls w
ho w
ere
empl
oyed
in 1
999-
00 a
nd 2
001
(in T
able
25)
, and
in
2001
and
200
2 (in
Tab
le 2
6).
The
maj
ority
(62%
in 2
001
and
67%
in 2
002)
con
tinue
d as
full-
time
wor
kers
. A
mon
g th
ose
indi
vidu
als
36 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
empl
oyed
in 2
002,
7%
dec
reas
ed th
eir w
ork
hour
s fro
m fu
ll-tim
e to
par
t-tim
e w
hile
nea
rly tw
ice
as m
any
(12%
) inc
reas
ed th
eir w
ork
hour
s fro
m p
art-t
ime
to fu
ll-tim
e. T
his t
rend
was
reve
rsed
for i
ndiv
idua
ls e
mpl
oyed
in 1
999-
00 a
nd 2
001.
Mor
e w
orke
rs d
ecre
ased
th
eir h
ours
than
gai
ned
hour
s. S
ixty
-fou
r per
cent
of t
hese
new
wor
kers
wer
e w
orki
ng fu
ll tim
e in
200
1, c
ompa
red
with
76%
of t
hose
w
ho w
ere
alre
ady
wor
king
in 1
999-
00 (n
ot sh
own)
.
Tabl
e 25
: Cha
nges
in w
ork
stat
us fo
r ind
ivid
uals
(199
9-00
and
200
1) (a
mon
g th
ose
empl
oyed
in 1
999-
00 a
nd 2
001)
All
(n=3
93)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=3
41)
Down
state
(n
=52)
W
ent f
rom
par
t-tim
e to
full-
time
12%
12
%
12%
W
ent f
rom
full-
time
to p
art-t
ime
15%
15
%
10%
C
ontin
ued
as p
art-t
ime
11%
11
%
10%
C
ontin
ued
as fu
ll-tim
e 62
%
62%
68
%
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Tabl
e 26
: Cha
nges
in w
ork
stat
us fo
r ind
ivid
uals
(200
1 an
d 20
02) (
amon
g th
ose
empl
oyed
in 2
001
and
2002
)
All
(n=3
93)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=3
41)
Down
state
(n
=52)
W
ent f
rom
par
t-tim
e to
full-
time
12%
12
%
14%
W
ent f
rom
full-
time
to p
art-t
ime
7%
6%
13%
C
ontin
ued
as p
art-t
ime
15%
15
%
10%
C
ontin
ued
as fu
ll-tim
e 67
%
67%
64
%
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Ther
e w
ere
no si
gnifi
cant
cha
nges
ove
rall
in th
e le
ngth
of t
ime
it to
ok re
spon
dent
s to
get t
o w
ork,
incl
udin
g th
e tim
e it
took
them
to
drop
off
thei
r chi
ldre
n at
chi
ld c
are
(whe
n ap
plic
able
). T
he m
ean
for t
he o
vera
ll sa
mpl
e in
200
2 w
as 4
4 m
inut
es a
nd th
e m
edia
n w
as
30 m
inut
es (s
ee T
able
27)
. It
took
Coo
k C
ount
y re
side
nts m
uch
long
er to
get
to w
ork
(mea
n= 4
7 m
inut
es) t
han
Dow
nsta
te re
side
nts
(mea
n=21
min
utes
), a
sign
ifica
nt d
ecre
ase
from
199
9-00
. O
vera
ll, 2
0% o
f res
pond
ents
repo
rted
a on
e-w
ay c
omm
ute
of m
ore
than
60
min
utes
. In
Coo
k C
ount
y, 2
3% o
f res
pond
ents
repo
rted
a co
mm
ute
long
er th
an 6
0 m
inut
es, a
sign
ifica
nt ri
se fr
om 1
8% in
199
9-00
.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 37
Tabl
e 27
: Len
gth
of ti
me
it ta
kes
to g
et to
wor
k, in
clud
ing
drop
ping
off
child
ren
for c
hild
car
e
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=522
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=458
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=64)
Al
l (n
=535
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=471
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=65)
Al
l (n
=510
) Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=447
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=63)
M
edia
n nu
mbe
r of
min
utes
35
40
20
30
40
20
30
40
16
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of
min
utes
43
45
29
43
45
25
44
47
21
1
Mor
e th
an 6
0 m
inut
es
17%
18
%
6%
17%
19
%
3%
20%
23
%1
2%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
Sou
rce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Ther
e w
ere
over
all i
ncre
ases
in jo
b sa
tisfa
ctio
n be
twee
n 20
01 a
nd 2
002,
with
79%
of 2
002
resp
onde
nts r
epor
ting
that
they
wer
e sa
tisfie
d w
ith th
eir j
ob (“
very
satis
fied”
or “
som
ewha
t sat
isfie
d”) (
see
Tabl
e 28
). T
he p
ropo
rtion
repo
rting
that
they
wer
e “v
ery
satis
fied”
with
thei
r job
rose
6 p
erce
ntag
e po
ints
to 3
2% in
200
2 af
ter f
allin
g fr
om 3
6% in
199
9-00
to 2
6% in
200
1. D
owns
tate
re
spon
dent
s rep
orte
d gr
eate
r sat
isfa
ctio
n in
200
2 th
an th
eir C
ook
Cou
nty
coun
terp
arts
(46%
ver
sus 3
0%, r
espe
ctiv
ely)
.
Tabl
e 28
: “H
ow s
atis
fied
are
you
with
you
r cur
rent
mai
n jo
b?”
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=5
37)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=4
71)
Down
state
(n=6
5)
All
(n=5
55)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=4
88)
Down
state
(n=6
8)
All
(n=5
18)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=4
53)
Down
state
(n=6
5)
Ver
y sa
tisfie
d 3
6%
35%
40%
2
6%1
25%
1
40%
3
2%2
30%
1,2
46
%
Som
ewha
t sat
isfie
d 4
3%
44%
41%
4
6%
47%
43%
4
7%
48%
39%
So
mew
hat d
issa
tisfie
d
9%
9%
10%
1
3%1
13%
1
12%
1
1%
11%
8%
Ver
y di
ssat
isfie
d 1
2%
12%
9%
14%
1
6%1
5%
1
0%2
11%
2
7%
1
= sig
nifica
nt dif
feren
ce fr
om 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sou
rce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
In
200
2, 4
6% o
f res
pond
ents
said
they
rece
ived
a p
rom
otio
n or
pay
rais
e fr
om th
eir c
urre
nt e
mpl
oyer
in th
e pa
st y
ear (
see
Tabl
e 29
).
T
his r
epre
sent
s a 4
per
cent
age
poin
t inc
reas
e fr
om 2
001
whe
n 42
% o
f res
pond
ents
repo
rted
a pr
omot
ion
or ra
ise.
Dow
nsta
te
38 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
re
spon
dent
s, ho
wev
er, e
xper
ienc
ed n
o in
crea
se in
thos
e w
ho re
ceiv
ed a
pro
mot
ion
or p
ay ra
ise,
rem
aini
ng a
t 47%
in 2
002.
Ta
ble
29: R
ecei
ved
a pr
omot
ion
or p
ay ra
ise
from
cur
rent
em
ploy
er in
pas
t yea
r
1999
-00
2001
20
02
All
(n=5
15)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=4
51)
Down
state
(n=6
3)
All
(n=5
29)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=4
1)
Down
state
(n=4
7)
All
(n=4
94)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=4
32)
Down
state
(n=6
2)
33%
31
%
44%
42
%1
41%
1 47
%
46%
1,2
46%
1,2
47%
1 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
In 2
002,
resp
onde
nts h
ad b
een
at th
eir c
urre
nt o
r mos
t rec
ent j
obs f
or a
n av
erag
e of
22
mon
ths a
nd re
porte
d ho
ldin
g an
ave
rage
of 1
.18
jobs
sinc
e th
eir l
ast i
nter
view
(see
Tab
le 3
0).
Job
rete
ntio
n in
crea
sed
from
199
9-00
to 2
002.
By
2002
, res
pond
ents
had
hel
d th
eir j
obs
for a
n av
erag
e of
7 m
ore
mon
ths t
han
in 1
999-
00, a
nd th
ey h
eld
slig
htly
few
er jo
bs.
Tabl
e 30
: Job
rete
ntio
n
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=7
13)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=6
29)
Down
state
(n=8
5)
All
(n=7
14)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=6
35)
Down
state
(n=7
9)
All
(n=7
02)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=6
18)
Down
state
(n=8
4)
Ave
rage
num
ber o
f m
onth
s at c
urre
nt o
r m
ost r
ecen
t job
15
mon
ths
15
mon
ths
17
mon
ths
181
mon
ths
181
mon
ths
21
mon
ths
221,
2 m
onth
s 22
1 m
onth
s 23
m
onth
s
Ave
rage
num
ber o
f jo
bs h
eld
in p
ast y
ear/
sinc
e la
st in
terv
iew
(c
urre
ntly
and
rece
ntly
em
ploy
ed)
1.55
jo
bs
1.51
jo
bs
1.82
jo
bs
1.45
1 jo
bs
1.44
jo
bs
1.62
jo
bs
1.18
1,2
jobs
1.
161,
2 jo
bs
1.30
1,2
jobs
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 39
Mat
eria
l har
dshi
p B
etw
een
the
1999
-00
and
2002
inte
rvie
ws,
the
over
all n
umbe
r of f
amili
es w
ho re
porte
d ex
perie
ncin
g an
y of
the
mat
eria
l har
dshi
ps
liste
d in
Tab
le 3
1 de
clin
ed, a
lthou
gh h
alf s
till r
epor
ted
som
e ha
rdsh
ips.
For
ty-n
ine
perc
ent o
f res
pond
ents
in 2
002
repo
rted
expe
rienc
ing
any
of th
ese
prob
lem
s, co
mpa
red
to 6
6% in
199
9-00
, a st
atis
tical
ly si
gnifi
cant
dec
reas
e of
seve
ntee
n pe
rcen
tage
poi
nts.
D
owns
tate
fam
ilies
that
saw
an
incr
ease
in h
ards
hip
in 2
001
saw
thes
e ha
rdsh
ips d
ecre
ase
from
200
1 to
200
2. O
vera
ll, p
hone
serv
ice
shut
offs
and
inab
ility
to p
ay re
nt/m
ortg
age
saw
the
bigg
est d
eclin
es.
The
num
ber o
f res
pond
ents
repo
rting
that
thei
r pho
ne, g
as, o
r el
ectri
city
serv
ice
had
been
shut
off
, for
exa
mpl
e, d
ecre
ased
sign
ifica
ntly
, alth
ough
pho
ne sh
utof
fs re
mai
ned
a m
ajor
pro
blem
, af
fect
ing
34%
of r
espo
nden
ts in
200
2. A
lthou
gh th
ere
was
a si
gnifi
cant
incr
ease
in th
e pr
opor
tion
of fa
mili
es u
nabl
e to
pay
thei
r ful
l re
nt o
r mor
tgag
e be
twee
n 19
99-0
0 an
d 20
01 (2
5% to
37%
), th
is n
umbe
r dec
reas
ed su
bsta
ntia
lly fr
om 2
001
to 2
002
to n
umbe
rs lo
wer
th
an in
199
9-00
(37%
to 1
4%).
Sim
ilarly
, whi
le th
e nu
mbe
r of e
vict
ions
incr
ease
d by
13
perc
enta
ge p
oint
s fro
m 1
999-
00 to
200
1,
they
dec
reas
ed fi
fteen
per
cent
age
poin
ts to
a p
ropo
rtion
low
er th
an in
the
first
yea
r of t
he su
rvey
. U
nmet
med
ical
and
den
tal n
eeds
al
so d
ecre
ased
sign
ifica
ntly
bet
wee
n th
e fir
st a
nd th
ird y
ears
of t
he su
rvey
.
40 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Tabl
e 31
: Mat
eria
l har
dshi
ps e
xper
ienc
ed s
ince
last
inte
rvie
w/ i
n pa
st y
ear
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=1
066
-107
1)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=9
65-9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
00-
102)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
065
-107
2)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=9
64-9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
01-
102)
Ph
one
serv
ice
turn
ed o
ff/ w
ithou
t ph
one
serv
ice
for a
ny re
ason
5
0%
51
%
42
%
40
%1
40%
1
37%
34
%1,
2 35
%1,
2
30%
Cou
ld n
ot p
ay fu
ll re
nt/ m
ortg
age
25%
26%
17%
37%
1 3
7%1
35
%1
14%
1,2
14%
1,2
13
%2
Evic
ted
from
hom
e
4%
5%
3%
17
%1
17%
1
18%
1 2
%1,
2
2%1,
2
3%2
Res
pond
ent o
r chi
ld n
eede
d to
see
a de
ntis
t but
cou
ldn’
t aff
ord
to g
o 1
7%
17
%
20
%
15
%
15%
17%
10
%1,
2 1
0%1,
2
11%
Res
pond
ent o
r chi
ld n
eede
d to
see
a do
ctor
but
cou
ld n
ot a
ffor
d to
go
14%
14%
13%
11%
1 1
1%1
11
%
10%
1
10%
1
10%
Res
pond
ent o
r chi
ld n
eede
d to
fill
a pr
escr
iptio
n bu
t cou
ld n
ot a
ffor
d to
do
so
13%
13%
13%
11%
1
1%
14
%
10%
1
10%
1
11%
Mov
ed in
with
oth
ers t
o re
duce
ex
pens
es
9%
10%
7%
7%
1
6%1
13
%
5%
1
5%1
4%
2
Res
pond
ent h
ad a
fam
ily m
embe
r/ fr
iend
mov
e in
to re
duce
exp
ense
s
3%
3%
4%
6%
1
6%1
5%
1
%1,
2
1%1,
2
2%
Gas
/ ele
ctric
ity tu
rned
off
1
5%
15
%
10
%
2%
1
2%1
3%
1 7
%1,
2
7%1,
2
10%
2
One
or m
ore
of th
e ab
ove
hard
ship
s 6
6%
66
%
58
%
56
%1
57%
1
54%
49
%1,
2 5
0%1,
2
43%
1
Thre
e or
mor
e of
the
abov
e ha
rdsh
ips
23%
24%
19%
23%
2
2%
26
%
13%
1,2
13%
1,2
15
%2
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 41
Ther
e w
ere
mod
est b
ut si
gnifi
cant
dec
lines
in fo
od in
secu
rity
and
hom
eles
snes
s bet
wee
n th
e 19
99-0
0 an
d 20
02 in
terv
iew
s. S
even
pe
rcen
t of r
espo
nden
ts in
200
2 re
porte
d th
at th
ey “
som
etim
es”
or “
ofte
n” d
id n
ot h
ave
enou
gh o
f the
kin
ds o
f foo
d th
ey w
ante
d to
eat
, do
wn
from
10%
in 1
999-
00 (s
ee T
able
32)
. H
omel
essn
ess d
eclin
ed si
gnifi
cant
ly fr
om 7
% in
199
9-00
to 2
% in
200
2 (s
ee T
able
33)
. Th
is in
clud
es fa
mili
es w
ho st
ayed
in a
shel
ter,
car,
aban
done
d bu
ildin
g, “
on th
e st
reet
s,” o
r tem
pora
rily
(less
than
two
wee
ks) d
oubl
ed
up w
ith a
frie
nd o
r rel
ativ
e. T
he p
ropo
rtion
of r
espo
nden
ts re
porti
ng p
robl
ems w
ith h
ousi
ng c
ondi
tions
als
o de
clin
ed si
gnifi
cant
ly,
from
38%
in 1
999-
00 to
21%
in 2
002,
as d
id th
e ov
eral
l pro
porti
on o
f fam
ilies
livi
ng in
cro
wde
d ho
usin
g co
nditi
ons (
mor
e th
an tw
o pe
rson
s per
bed
room
). F
ourte
en p
erce
nt o
f res
pond
ents
repo
rted
crow
ded
cond
ition
s in
2002
, with
Coo
k C
ount
y fa
mili
es (1
5%) b
eing
m
uch
mor
e lik
ely
than
Dow
nsta
te fa
mili
es (5
%) t
o ex
perie
nce
this
pro
blem
.
Tabl
e 32
: Foo
d in
secu
rity
sinc
e la
st in
terv
iew
/ in
past
yea
r
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Fam
ily “s
omet
imes
” or
“ofte
n”…
All
(n=1
063)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=482
)
Down
state
(n=1
01)
All
(n=1
069)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=968
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
071)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
Did
not
hav
e en
ough
of t
he
kind
s of f
ood
they
wan
ted
to
eat.
10%
10
%
9%
10
%
10%
7%
7%
1,2
7%1,
2 5%
Wor
ried
that
chi
ldre
n w
ere
not e
atin
g en
ough
bec
ause
th
ere
was
not
eno
ugh
mon
ey
for f
ood.
13%
13
%
12%
10
%1
10%
1 7%
9%
1 9%
1 5%
1
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired
T-te
st)
Sou
rce: I
FS su
rvey d
ata
42 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Tabl
e 33
: Hom
eles
snes
s an
d pr
oble
ms
with
hou
sing
con
ditio
ns s
ince
last
inte
rvie
w/ i
n pa
st y
ear
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=967
-970
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=101
-10
2)
All
(n=1
067
-107
2)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
66-
1970
)
Down
state
(n=1
01-
102)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=965
-968
) Do
wnsta
te (n
=100
-10
2)
Hom
eles
s 7%
7%
4%
5%
1 5%
1 4%
2%
1,2
2%1,
2 2%
1,2
Live
d in
two
or
mor
e pl
aces
si
nce
last
in
terv
iew
25%
25%
24
%
23%
23
%
25%
26
%
26%
26
%
Hig
h “c
row
dedn
ess
ratio
” (m
ore
than
tw
o pe
rson
s per
be
droo
m)
17%
18
%
9%
17%
17
%
9%
14%
1,2
15%
1,2
5%
Any
pro
blem
s w
ith h
ousi
ng
cond
ition
s (in
sect
s, pl
umbi
ng
prob
lem
s, no
he
at, e
tc.)
38%
38
%
33%
31
%1
31%
1 28
%
21%
1,2
21%
1,2
16%
1,2
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Th
e nu
mbe
r of r
espo
nden
ts w
ho “
som
ewha
t” o
r “st
rong
ly”
agre
ed th
at th
ey c
ould
“ge
nera
lly a
ffor
d to
buy
the
thin
gs w
e ne
ed”
retu
rned
to it
s 199
9-00
leve
l afte
r ris
ing
sign
ifica
ntly
bet
wee
n th
e fir
st a
nd se
cond
yea
rs o
f the
surv
ey (s
ee T
able
34)
. O
ther
mea
sure
s of
per
ceiv
ed fi
nanc
ial s
ituat
ion
saw
no
chan
ge.
Hal
f of r
espo
nden
ts c
ontin
ued
to fe
el th
at th
eir f
inan
cial
situ
atio
n w
as b
ette
r tha
n it
had
been
“in
a lo
ng ti
me”
and
85%
said
they
wor
ried
“a lo
t” a
bout
hav
ing
enou
gh m
oney
in th
e fu
ture
in 2
002
com
pare
d to
83%
in
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 43
2001
. Th
ere
was
som
e re
gion
al v
aria
tion,
with
Dow
nsta
te re
spon
dent
s rep
ortin
g so
mew
hat m
ore
posi
tive
perc
eptio
ns o
f the
ir fin
anci
al si
tuat
ion.
Ta
ble
34: P
erce
ived
fina
ncia
l situ
atio
n
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Resp
onde
nt
“som
ewha
t” or
“s
trong
ly” ag
rees
th
at…
All
(n=1
071)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=967
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
071)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
My
finan
cial
si
tuat
ion
is b
ette
r th
an it
’s b
een
in a
lo
ng ti
me.
50%
50
%
58%
49
%
48%
59
%
48%
47
%
63%
I can
gen
eral
ly
affo
rd to
buy
the
thin
gs w
e ne
ed.
62%
61
%
69%
68
%1
67%
1 74
%
64%
2 63
%2
71%
I wor
ry a
lot a
bout
ha
ving
eno
ugh
mon
ey in
the
futu
re.
85%
85
%
77%
83
%
83%
82
%
85%
86
%
77%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
O
vera
ll, a
ll fo
rms o
f cha
rity
and
cris
is a
ssis
tanc
e us
e de
crea
sed
from
199
9-00
to 2
002.
The
re w
as a
strik
ing
24 p
erce
ntag
e po
int
decr
ease
from
200
1 to
200
2 in
the
num
ber o
f res
pond
ents
who
said
they
wen
t to
a ch
urch
or c
harit
y fo
r clo
thes
or f
inan
cial
hel
p at
so
me
poin
t in
the
past
yea
r or s
ince
thei
r las
t int
ervi
ew, a
lthou
gh o
nly
a 4
perc
enta
ge d
ecre
ase
betw
een
the
first
and
third
yea
rs (s
ee
Tabl
e 35
). T
hirte
en p
erce
nt re
porte
d th
is k
ind
of h
elp
in 1
999-
00 c
ompa
red
with
33%
in 2
001
and
9% in
200
2. T
here
wer
e al
so
decr
ease
s in
food
pan
try, s
oup
kitc
hen,
and
gov
ernm
ent c
risis
ass
ista
nce
use.
One
-fou
rth o
f res
pond
ents
said
they
had
to b
orro
w
mon
ey fr
om fr
iend
s or f
amily
to p
ay b
ills i
n 20
02, d
own
from
abo
ut o
ne-th
ird d
urin
g th
e fir
st tw
o ye
ars o
f the
surv
ey.
44 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Tabl
e 35
: Use
of c
harit
ies
and
cris
is a
ssis
tanc
e si
nce
last
inte
rvie
w/ i
n pa
st y
ear
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=1
067-
1071
)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=9
66-9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
01-
102)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
Use
d a
food
pan
try o
r sou
p ki
tche
n 1
7%
17
%
15
%
18
%
18
%
18
%
14
%2
14
%2
13
%
Wen
t to
a ch
urch
or c
harit
y fo
r clo
thes
or f
inan
cial
hel
p 1
3%
13
%
15
%
33
%1
33
%1
30%
1
9%1,
2
8%1
9%
2
Rec
eive
d he
lp fr
om a
go
vern
men
t cris
is a
ssis
tanc
e pr
ogra
m
7%
7%
11
%
9%
9%
11%
3%1,
2
3%1
7%
Had
to b
orro
w m
oney
from
fr
iend
s/fa
mily
to p
ay b
ills
36%
37%
31%
34%
34
%
31
%
23%
1,2
23
%1
22
%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Ph
ysic
al a
nd m
enta
l hea
lth
Ther
e w
as a
n in
crea
se in
200
2 in
the
num
ber o
f res
pond
ents
repo
rting
goo
d ph
ysic
al h
ealth
for t
hem
selv
es a
nd th
eir c
hild
ren
and
an
over
all d
ecre
ase
in d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms i
n re
spon
dent
s. In
200
2, 8
1% o
f res
pond
ents
des
crib
ed th
eir h
ealth
as “
exce
llent
,” “
very
go
od,”
or “
good
,” a
stat
istic
ally
sign
ifica
nt in
crea
se fr
om 1
999-
00 (s
ee T
able
36)
. Li
kew
ise,
in 2
002,
96%
of r
espo
nden
ts d
escr
ibed
th
e he
alth
of t
heir
child
ren
as “
exce
llent
,” “
very
goo
d,”
or “
good
,” a
stat
istic
ally
sign
ifica
nt in
crea
se fr
om 1
999-
00.
Eigh
teen
per
cent
of
resp
onde
nts r
epor
ted
expe
rienc
ing
sym
ptom
s of d
epre
ssio
n w
ithin
the
past
wee
k, d
own
6 pe
rcen
tage
poi
nts f
rom
24%
in 1
999-
00
(see
Tab
le 3
7).
To m
easu
re d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms,
resp
onde
nts w
ere
aske
d qu
estio
ns re
late
d to
moo
d an
d fu
nctio
ning
in th
e pa
st
wee
k.25
Whi
le m
easu
res o
f bot
h m
ild a
nd se
vere
dep
ress
ion
show
ed st
atis
tical
ly si
gnifi
cant
dec
reas
es, t
he n
umbe
r of r
espo
nden
ts
repo
rting
sym
ptom
s of m
oder
ate
depr
essi
on in
crea
sed
slig
htly
, but
sign
ifica
ntly
, bet
wee
n 20
01 a
nd 2
002
(7%
to 1
0%).
25
Dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s wer
e as
sess
ed u
sing
a 1
2-ite
m v
ersi
on o
f the
Cen
ter f
or E
pide
mio
logi
cal S
tudi
es D
epre
ssio
n Sc
ale
(CES
-D) d
evel
oped
by
Ros
s, M
irow
sky,
and
Hub
er (1
983)
.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 45
Tabl
e 36
: Ove
rall
heal
th s
tatu
s of
resp
onde
nts
and
thei
r chi
ldre
n
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l Co
ok
Coun
ty
Down
state
All
Cook
Co
unty
Do
wnsta
te Al
l Co
ok
Coun
ty
Down
state
Resp
onde
nt: s
elf-ra
ted
healt
h st
atus
(n=1
068-
1072
)
Goo
d, v
ery
good
, or
exce
llent
77
%
77%
7
7%
78%
7
8%
80
%
81%
1,2
81%
1,2
81
%
Fair
or p
oor
23%
2
3%
23%
2
2%
23%
20%
1
9%1,
2 1
9%1,
2
19%
Ch
ild: p
aren
t-rat
ed h
ealth
st
atus
(n=2
306-
2340
)
Goo
d, v
ery
good
, or
exce
llent
92
%
92%
9
4%
94%
1 9
4%1
94
%
96%
1,2
96%
1,2
97
%
Fair
or p
oor
8%
8%
6%
6%1
6%
1
6%
4%
1,2
4%
1,2
3%
1 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Tabl
e 37
: Dep
ress
ion
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=106
2)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=9
61)
Down
state
(n=1
01)
All
(n=1
058)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=957
)
Down
state
(n=1
01)
All
(n=1
055)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=954
)
Down
state
(n=1
01)
Any
dep
ress
ion
24
%
23
%
28
%
20
%1
20
%1
21
%1
18%
1 1
8%1
16%
1
Mild
dep
ress
ion
4%
4%
5%
5%
5%
5%
3%
1,2
3%
1,2
3%
M
oder
ate
depr
essi
on
11
%
11
%
11
%
7%
1
7%1
8%
1
0%2
10%
2
8%
Seve
re d
epre
ssio
n
9%
9%
12%
8%
8%
8%
6%
1,2
6%
1,2
6%
1 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
46 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Hea
lth in
sura
nce
The
num
ber o
f uni
nsur
ed a
dults
dec
reas
ed to
21%
in 2
002,
3 p
erce
ntag
e po
ints
less
than
in 2
001
but s
till h
ighe
r tha
n th
e 19
90-0
0 le
vel
(see
Tab
le 3
8).
Alth
ough
Med
icai
d re
mai
ned
the
mos
t com
mon
form
of c
over
age,
Med
icai
d ra
tes f
ell 1
0 pe
rcen
tage
poi
nts f
rom
73%
of
adu
lts in
199
9-00
to o
nly
63%
in 2
001
and
2002
. A
lthou
gh th
e nu
mbe
r of r
espo
nden
ts re
ceiv
ing
empl
oyer
-spo
nsor
ed h
ealth
be
nefit
s ros
e to
14%
in 2
002,
this
was
not
a st
atis
tical
ly si
gnifi
cant
incr
ease
from
the
2001
leve
ls a
nd is
a le
velin
g of
f of t
he in
crea
ses
in e
mpl
oyee
hea
lth b
enef
its n
oted
last
yea
r. O
nly
a fr
actio
n of
resp
onde
nts r
epor
ted
bein
g co
vere
d th
roug
h th
eir s
pous
e or
par
tner
or
thro
ugh
som
e ot
her s
ourc
e.
Tabl
e 38
: Res
pond
ents
’ cur
rent
hea
lth in
sura
nce
cove
rage
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=106
5-10
71)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
64-9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
01-1
02)
All
(n=1
067-
1072
)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
65-7
0)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
070-
1072
)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
68-9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
Med
icai
d 7
3%
73%
7
3%
63
%1
64
%1
56
%1
63
%1
64
%1
56
%1
No
cove
rage
1
8%
18%
1
7%
24
%1
23
%1
27
%1
21
%2
20
%2
24
%
Empl
oyer
-sp
onso
red
8%
8%
8%
13%
1
13%
1
14%
14%
1
14%
1
16%
1
Spou
se o
r pa
rtner
’s
plan
1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
4%
2%
2%
3%
Oth
er
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 47
Cha
nges
in h
ealth
insu
ranc
e st
atus
for c
hild
ren
wer
e m
ore
posi
tive
and
less
dra
mat
ic th
an fo
r adu
lts (s
ee T
able
39)
. Sm
all i
ncre
ases
in
Med
icai
d an
d em
ploy
er-s
pons
ored
cov
erag
e (+
2 pe
rcen
tage
poi
nts e
ach)
resu
lted
in a
dec
reas
e in
the
num
ber o
f uni
nsur
ed c
hild
ren
(-5
perc
enta
ge p
oint
s) b
etw
een
1999
-00
and
2002
. K
idC
are
saw
insi
gnifi
cant
incr
ease
s ove
r thi
s sam
e tim
e pe
riod.
Med
icai
d w
as th
e m
ost c
omm
on fo
rm o
f cov
erag
e fo
r chi
ldre
n, re
mai
ning
stea
dy in
200
1 (7
9%),
and
then
incr
easi
ng in
200
2 (8
1%).
Ove
rall,
7%
of
child
ren
wer
e un
insu
red
in 2
002,
com
pare
d w
ith 8
% in
200
1 an
d 12
% in
199
9-00
. Fe
w c
hild
ren
wer
e co
vere
d by
thei
r par
ent’s
sp
ouse
or p
artn
er (1
%),
thei
r fat
her (
3%),
or so
me
othe
r sou
rce
of c
over
age.
Ta
ble
39: C
hild
ren’
s cu
rren
t hea
lth in
sura
nce
cove
rage
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=102
5)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=9
29)
Down
state
(n=9
6)
All
(n=1
025)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=929
)
Down
state
(n=9
6)
All
(n=1
025)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=929
)
Down
state
(n=9
6)
Med
icai
d
79%
7
9%
83%
7
9%
79%
7
9%
81%
2 8
1%
81%
K
idC
are
2%
2%
3%
4%
3%
6%
3%
3%
2%
No
cove
rage
1
2%
12%
9%
8%
1
8%1
8%
7%1
7%
1
7%
Empl
oyer
-sp
onso
red
5%
5%
3%
8%1
8%
1
7%
7%
1
7%1
7%
Spou
se o
r pa
rtner
’s
plan
2%
2%
4%
2%
2%
4%
1%
1,2
1%
1,2
3%
Chi
ld(r
en)’
s fa
ther
’s
plan
N/A
N
/A
N/A
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%2
4%
Oth
er
1%
1%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1,2
1%
1,2
1%
No
te: R
espo
nden
ts we
re as
ked i
f any
of th
eir ch
ildre
n wer
e cov
ered
by th
ese h
ealth
insu
ranc
e opti
ons:
they w
ere n
ot as
ked a
bout
their c
hild(
ren)
’s fat
her’s
plan
in 19
99-0
0. 1 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
48 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Pare
nts w
ere
aske
d if
they
or a
ny o
f the
ir ch
ildre
n ex
perie
nced
a g
ap in
hea
lth in
sura
nce
cove
rage
dur
ing
the
past
yea
r. B
etw
een
1999
-00
and
2002
, the
re w
as v
ery
little
cha
nge
in th
e nu
mbe
r of p
aren
ts e
xper
ienc
ing
insu
ranc
e ga
ps, a
lthou
gh c
hild
ren
expe
rienc
ing
gaps
dec
lined
14
perc
enta
ge p
oint
s (se
e Ta
ble
40).
Ove
rall,
28%
of p
aren
ts a
nd 1
0% o
f chi
ldre
n ex
perie
nced
a g
ap in
cov
erag
e in
20
02.
Pare
nts h
ad a
sign
ifica
nt in
crea
se in
“lo
ng g
aps”
(fou
r or m
ore
mon
ths w
ithou
t cov
erag
e), f
rom
14%
in 1
999-
00 to
21%
in
2002
, alth
ough
mos
t of t
hat i
ncre
ase
had
occu
rred
by
2001
. Ta
ble
40: G
aps
in h
ealth
cov
erag
e fo
r res
pond
ents
and
thei
r chi
ldre
n (p
ast y
ear)
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=106
3-10
72)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
63-9
70)
Down
state
(n
=96-
102)
Al
l (n
=107
2)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
70)
Down
state
(n
=96-
102)
Al
l (n
=106
8-10
70)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
66-9
68)
Down
state
(n
=96-
102)
Resp
onde
nts
(adu
lts)
Any
gap
in
cove
rage
2
8%
29%
2
7%
29%
2
9%
33%
2
8%
28%
3
0%
Long
gap
(4
+ m
onth
s)
14%
1
4%
16%
2
0%1
20%
1 2
2%
21%
1 2
1%1
21%
Child
ren
Any
gap
in
cove
rage
2
4%
25%
1
7%
19%
1 1
9%1
19%
1
0%1,
2 1
0%1,
2
7%1,
2
Long
gap
(4
+ m
onth
s)
6%
7%
3%
8%
8%
8%
7%
7%
5%
Note:
Res
pond
ents
were
aske
d if a
ny of
their
child
ren e
xper
ience
d a ga
p in h
ealth
insu
ranc
e. 1 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Chi
ld c
are
Res
pond
ents
wer
e as
ked
“Wha
t was
the
mai
n ty
pe o
f chi
ld c
are
arra
ngem
ent y
ou u
sed
for t
his c
hild
last
wee
k?”
for e
ach
of th
eir
child
ren
unde
r age
12
(see
Tab
le 4
1).
Ove
rall,
200
2 sa
w d
ecre
ased
use
of c
ente
r-ba
sed
care
, non
rela
tives
in th
e ho
me,
and
the
child
st
ayin
g w
ith th
e re
spon
dent
and
incr
ease
d us
e of
ext
ende
d fa
mily
mem
bers
or s
iblin
gs a
nd p
artn
ers o
r spo
uses
as c
areg
iver
s. C
are
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 49
from
an
exte
nded
fam
ily m
embe
r (e.
g., g
rand
pare
nt, a
unt,
etc.
) or s
iblin
g (“
info
rmal
car
e”) w
as b
y fa
r the
mos
t com
mon
chi
ld c
are
arra
ngem
ent,
repr
esen
ting
the
arra
ngem
ents
of 5
9% o
f all
child
ren
in 2
002.
Thi
s was
a d
ram
atic
17
perc
enta
ge p
oint
incr
ease
sinc
e 19
99-0
0. T
he n
ext m
ost c
omm
on fo
rm w
as w
ith th
e re
spon
dent
as c
areg
iver
, whi
ch d
ecre
ased
in 2
002
to 2
3% fr
om 3
8% in
199
9-00
. C
ente
r-ba
sed
care
(day
care
cen
ter,
pres
choo
l, H
ead
Star
t, or
afte
r-sc
hool
pro
gram
) dec
reas
ed to
5%
in 2
002
from
7%
in 1
999-
00.
Dow
nsta
te c
hild
ren
(11%
) wer
e m
ore
likel
y th
an C
ook
Cou
nty
child
ren
(5%
) to
rece
ive
cent
er-b
ased
car
e an
d w
ere
less
like
ly to
re
ceiv
e ca
re fr
om a
n ex
tend
ed fa
mily
mem
ber (
49%
) tha
n C
ook
Cou
nty
child
ren
(60%
).
Tabl
e 41
: Mai
n ty
pe o
f chi
ld c
are
arra
ngem
ent u
sed
last
wee
k
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=203
2)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=1
843)
Do
wnsta
te (n
=188
) Al
l (n
=178
0)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=1
613)
Do
wnsta
te (n
=167
) Al
l (n
=161
8)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=1
462)
Do
wnsta
te (n
=156
) D
ayca
re c
ente
r, pr
esch
ool,
Hea
d St
art,
or
afte
r-sc
hool
pro
gram
7%
7%
11.5
%
8%
8%
12%
5%
1,2
4%1,
2 11
%
Exte
nded
fam
ily
mem
ber o
r sib
ling
(in
child
’s h
ome
or
rela
tive’
s hom
e)
42%
42
%
46%
44
%
43%
46
%
59%
1,2
60%
1,2
49%
Non
rela
tive
(in c
hild
’s
hom
e or
oth
er h
ome)
8%
8%
11
%
8%
8%
7%
6%1,
2 5%
1,2
9%
Chi
ld st
ayed
hom
e al
one
.2%
.2
%
.3%
.4
%
.3%
.5
%
1%1,
2 1%
1,2
.2%
C
hild
stay
ed w
ith
resp
onde
nt’s
pa
rtner
/spo
use
4%
3%
7%
5%
5%
6%
6%1
6%1
7%
Chi
ld is
alw
ays w
ith
resp
onde
nt
38%
39
%
23%
33
%
34%
27
%
23%
1,2
23%
1,2
23%
Oth
er
1%
1%
.5%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
.2
%
50 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Ther
e w
as a
slig
ht in
crea
se in
the
stab
ility
of c
hild
car
e ar
rang
emen
ts o
ver t
he th
ree-
year
per
iod.
Ove
rall,
90%
of c
hild
ren
in 2
000
had
one
or fe
wer
chi
ld c
are
arra
ngem
ents
dur
ing
the
prev
ious
12
mon
ths (
see
Tabl
e 42
). N
ever
thel
ess,
the
perc
enta
ge o
f fam
ilies
with
two
to th
ree
child
car
e ar
rang
emen
ts in
crea
sed
to 9
% in
200
2, a
fter d
ropp
ing
from
10%
to 7
% b
etw
een
1999
-00
and
2001
.
Tabl
e 42
: “H
ow m
any
diffe
rent
chi
ld c
are
arra
ngem
ents
did
chi
ld h
ave
durin
g pa
st 1
2 m
onth
s?”
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=2
015)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=183
3)
Down
state
(n=1
83)
All
(n=1
770)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=160
6)
Down
state
(n=1
63)
All
(n=1
614)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=145
9)
Down
state
(n=1
56)
0-1
88
%
90
%
76
%
91
%1
92
%1
85
%1
90%
1 9
1%
85%
1 2-
3
10%
9%
22
%
7%
1
7%
10
%1
9%
2
8%
13%
1 4
or
mor
e
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
5%
1%2
1%
1,2
3%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Pa
rent
s wer
e as
ked
if th
ey h
ad e
xper
ienc
ed a
ny o
f a se
ries o
f spe
cific
chi
ld c
are
conc
erns
dur
ing
the
past
yea
r or s
ince
thei
r las
t in
terv
iew
. R
esul
ts fo
r par
ents
of c
hild
ren
unde
r age
12
are
disp
laye
d in
Tab
le 4
3. O
vera
ll, 1
1% o
f par
ents
repo
rted
that
they
had
at
leas
t one
con
cern
abo
ut c
hild
car
e, w
hich
is a
dra
mat
ic a
nd si
gnifi
cant
impr
ovem
ent f
rom
199
9-00
. Q
ualit
y (5
%) a
nd n
ot h
avin
g re
lativ
es o
r frie
nds t
o he
lp w
ith c
hild
car
e (5
%) w
ere
the
mos
t com
mon
ly re
porte
d pr
oble
ms.
Par
ents
als
o re
porte
d co
ncer
n ab
out c
ost
(4%
) and
arr
angi
ng e
mer
genc
y ca
re (4
%).
The
re w
ere
sign
ifica
nt d
ecre
ases
in th
e pr
opor
tion
of p
aren
ts re
porti
ng th
ese
child
car
e co
ncer
ns, i
ndic
atin
g th
at p
aren
ts w
ere
mor
e sa
tisfie
d w
ith th
eir c
hild
car
e op
tions
in 2
002
than
they
wer
e in
199
9-00
.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 51
Tabl
e 43
: Chi
ld c
are
prob
lem
s ex
perie
nced
sin
ce la
st in
terv
iew
/ in
past
yea
r (am
ong
pare
nts
of a
t lea
st o
ne c
hild
un
der a
ge 1
2)
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=9
16)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=8
31)
Down
state
(n=8
5)
All
(n=9
02)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=8
17)
Down
state
(n=8
5)
All
(n=8
57)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=7
75)
Down
state
(n=8
2)
Con
cern
ed a
bout
qua
lity
19
%
20%
12%
1
5%1
15
%1
12
%
5%
1,2
5%
1,2
2%
1,2
Prov
ider
too
far a
way
14
%
15%
5%
7%
1
7%1
5%
2%1,
2
2%1,
2 0%
Pr
ovid
er n
ot d
epen
dabl
e 15
%
16%
8%
7%
1
7%1
9%
3%1,
2
3%1,
2
1%1,
2 C
ost t
oo m
uch
20%
21
%
11
%
11%
1
10%
1
13%
4%1,
2
4%1,
2
3%1,
2 N
o re
lativ
es o
r frie
nds w
ho
coul
d he
lp w
ith c
hild
car
e 16
%
16%
11%
8%1
8%
1
7%
5%
1,2
6%
1,2
1%
1,2
Afr
aid
care
take
r mig
ht
harm
chi
ld o
r arr
ange
men
t un
safe
14%
15
%
6%
6%1
7%
1
4%
2%
1,2
3%
1,2
1%
1
Cou
ldn’
t fin
d ch
ild c
are
durin
g w
ork
hour
s 18
%
19%
12%
9%1
9%
1
11%
2%1,
2
2%1,
2
1%1,
2
Cou
ldn’
t arr
ange
regu
lar
child
car
e w
hen
need
ed
17%
18
%
10
%
8%
1
8%1
8%
3%1,
2
4%1,
2
1%1,
2
Cou
ldn’
t arr
ange
em
erge
ncy
child
car
e w
hen
need
ed
17%
17
%
12
%
9%
1
9%1
6%
4%1,
2
4%1,
2
1%1
Oth
er c
hild
car
e co
ncer
ns
N/A
N
/A
N/A
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1
or m
ore
of th
e ab
ove
prob
lem
s 36
%
37%
24%
2
3%1
23
%1
24
%
11%
1,2
12
%1,
2
6%1,
2
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
52 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Satis
fact
ion
with
wel
fare
Th
e m
ajor
ity o
f res
pond
ents
who
wer
e st
ill re
ceiv
ing
TAN
F re
porte
d po
sitiv
e fe
elin
gs a
bout
thei
r wel
fare
wor
ker;
neve
rthel
ess,
alth
ough
ther
e w
as a
n in
crea
se in
satis
fact
ion
in 2
001
from
199
9-00
, the
follo
win
g su
rvey
per
iod
saw
a d
ecre
ase
in sa
tisfa
ctio
n w
ith
rate
s at o
r bel
ow 1
999-
00 le
vels
(see
Tab
le 4
4).
Ove
rall,
70%
“so
mew
hat”
or “
stro
ngly
” ag
reed
that
thei
r wel
fare
wor
ker t
reat
ed th
em
with
dig
nity
and
resp
ect,
dow
n 2
perc
enta
ge p
oint
s fro
m 7
2% in
199
9-00
. Se
vent
y-fiv
e pe
rcen
t of r
espo
nden
ts a
lso
repo
rted
that
thei
r w
orke
r too
k tim
e to
exp
lain
pro
gram
rule
s, w
hich
, alth
ough
dow
n fr
om 8
0% in
200
1, w
as h
ighe
r tha
n th
e 69
% re
porte
d in
199
9-00
.
Tabl
e 44
: Sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith c
urre
nt w
elfa
re w
orke
r: p
erce
nt w
ho “
som
ewha
t” o
r “st
rong
ly a
gree
”
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=106
6)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=9
65)
Down
state
(n=1
01)
All
(n=4
89)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=4
59)
Down
state
(n=3
0)
All
(n=9
3)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=8
8)
Down
state
(n=5
)
Trea
ted
me
with
di
gnity
and
re
spec
t
72%
72
%
73%
79
%
79%
79
%
70%
69
%
75%
Take
s the
tim
e to
ex
plai
n pr
ogra
m
rule
s
69%
69
%
67%
80
%
80%
81
%
75%
75
%
78%
1 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 53
Supp
ort f
or w
elfa
re re
form
pol
icie
s, al
read
y qu
ite h
igh
in 1
999-
00, i
ncre
ased
in 2
001
and
agai
n in
200
2. T
he m
ajor
ity o
f res
pond
ents
“s
omew
hat”
or “
stro
ngly
” ag
reed
that
tim
e lim
its (7
9%) a
nd w
ork
requ
irem
ents
(95%
) wer
e a
good
idea
(see
Tab
le 4
5).
Ove
rall,
su
ppor
t for
tim
e lim
its in
crea
sed
19 p
erce
ntag
e po
ints
bet
wee
n 19
99-0
0 an
d 20
02, w
hile
supp
ort f
or w
ork
requ
irem
ents
incr
ease
d 8
perc
enta
ge p
oint
s. R
espo
nden
ts w
ho w
ere
still
rece
ivin
g TA
NF
diff
ered
sign
ifica
ntly
from
thos
e w
ho w
ere
alre
ady
off T
AN
F w
hen
resp
ondi
ng to
thes
e qu
estio
ns in
200
2 (n
ot sh
own)
. Eig
hty
perc
ent o
f TA
NF
leav
ers “
som
ewha
t” o
r “st
rong
ly”
agre
ed th
at ti
me
limits
ar
e a
good
idea
, com
pare
d w
ith 6
9% o
f tho
se st
ill re
ceiv
ing
TAN
F. S
imila
rly, 9
5% o
f TA
NF
leav
ers “
som
ewha
t” o
r “st
rong
ly”
agre
ed
that
wor
k re
quire
men
ts a
re a
goo
d id
ea in
200
2, c
ompa
red
with
93%
of t
hose
still
rece
ivin
g TA
NF.
Res
pond
ents
wer
e al
so a
sked
, “If
th
e m
oney
and
med
ical
cov
erag
e w
ere
the
sam
e, d
o yo
u pr
efer
wor
king
or g
ettin
g w
elfa
re?”
Alm
ost a
ll re
spon
dent
s in
2002
(95%
) sa
id th
ey p
refe
rred
wor
king
. Th
ere
was
a m
odes
t but
sign
ifica
nt d
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n C
ook
Cou
nty
resp
onde
nts (
91%
) and
Dow
nsta
te
resp
onde
nts (
96%
) on
resp
onse
s to
this
que
stio
n in
200
2. R
espo
nses
to th
is q
uest
ion
did
not v
ary
sign
ifica
ntly
bet
wee
n tim
e pe
riods
, ho
wev
er.
Tabl
e 45
: Atti
tude
s ab
out w
elfa
re re
form
: per
cent
who
“so
mew
hat”
or “
stro
ngly
agr
ee”
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
It’
s a g
ood
idea
to…
All
(n=1
066-
1068
) Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=965
-967
)
Down
state
(n=1
01)
All
(n=1
071)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
01)
All
(n=1
070)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=968
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
Lim
it th
e am
ount
of
time
peop
le c
an
rece
ive
[cas
h w
elfa
re
or T
AN
F].
60%
59
%
72%
74
%1
74%
1 73
%
79%
1,2
79%
1,2
78%
Req
uire
peo
ple
on
[cas
h w
elfa
re o
r TA
NF]
to fi
nd a
job
and
wor
k.
87%
87
%
93%
92
%1
92%
1 92
%
95%
1,2
95%
1,2
94%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
54 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 55
Making work pay in Illinois: Use of work supports and other services Earnings disregards and stopping the clock The “stopped clock” is a unique provision of Illinois TANF that allows parents who work at least 30 hours per week and who still qualify for TANF to stop their 60-month time-limit “clock” while they continue receiving TANF benefits. (A description of the “stopped clock” policy and its applications for employment, education, and care-giving responsibilities is provided on page 3.) Combined with income disregards (see page 4 for a description of the income disregards policy), this policy supports parents earning low wages by preventing or delaying them from “hitting the time limit.” It also allows the recipient to “bank” months of TANF eligibility to insure against future risk. Table 46 shows that for the majority of the IFS respondents (86%), the clock was stopped at some point between July 1997 and June 2002, while they continued to receive TANF. Although some respondents may have been attending post-secondary education programs or caring for sick or disabled family members, the clocks stopped for the majority of the respondents because they were working. The data presented in this section, therefore, represent use of the “stopped clock” due to employment.26 The average amount of time the clock was stopped for this group was 12 months, and about one-quarter (25%) used the option for more than half of the months they were receiving TANF. Downstate respondents appear to be making better use of this option. More Downstate families (93%) than Cook County families (86%) were able to stop their clocks, and, among those who did, Downstate parents used the benefit longer (15 months on average compared with 11 months). Almost half (44%) of those Downstate whose clock was stopped experienced a stopped clock for more than half their time spent receiving TANF, compared with 23% of Cook County “stopped clock” users.
26 It was not possible to identify the proportion of respondents that had their clocks stopped due to participation in post-secondary education. Given that only 1% of the total IFS sample, regardless of TANF status, was in post-secondary education in 2002, we can assume that most of these “stopped clock” cases were for employment, not education.
56 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Table 46: Respondents who had their clocks stopped (while receiving TANF and working)
2002
Of 60 possible months counted toward 60-month lifetime limit
All Cook County Downstate
Percent whose clock was stopped at any point (n=1023)*
86% 86% 93%
Of those using stopped clock option, average number of months “saved” (n=879)*
12 11 15
Of those using stopped clock option, percent who have used it more than 50% of time on TANF (n=879)*
25% 23% 44%
*p<.05, Chi-square and t-tests for differences between regions. Source: Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records) The analyses reported above were restricted to those who consented to administrative data access (n=1,023). However, the same analysis conducted using data on the original sample (n=1,899) (without linking to the survey data) found no significant differences in the observed means or medians, suggesting that the group that consented to having their administrative records reviewed did not differ significantly from the overall sample. Table 47 identifies some characteristics that differentiate “stopped clock” users from those who did not have their clocks stopped. “Stopped clock” users were significantly more likely to be working (50% versus 41% among non-users) and had an average of 2.7 children, compared with 2.4 children among other respondents. Users were also significantly more likely than non-users to be aware of the income disregard policy.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 57
Table 47: Characteristics of respondents who had their clocks stopped (while receiving TANF and working)
2002 Selected characteristics
Never used stopped clock option
(n=157)
Used stopped clock option
(n=866) Rent is government subsidized 27% 27% Currently working* 41% 50% Participated in job search program 7% 9% Average cumulative number of months receiving TANF prior to 1999-00 survey*
74 months
80 months
Married 14% 12% Average age of youngest child 6.1 years 5.9 years Any children with health conditions limiting their activities
15% 18%
Number of children as of 2001 survey (under age 18) *
2.4 children 2.7 children
Chronic health problems 35% 31% High school degree 70% 71% Unaware of income disregard policy*
48% 33%
Note: analyses are restricted to the 1023 respondents in 2002 who consented to administrative data access. *p<.05, Chi-square tests. Source: IFS survey data and Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records) Food stamps and Medicaid Trends in food stamps and Medicaid are displayed in Figure 5 and Table 7 on pages 18-19. The sharpest drop in the use of these benefits among the IFS sample occurred between 1998 and early 1999; the declines continued, but more gradually between 1999 and January 2001 before leveling off between January 2001 and June 2002 . According to administrative records, as of June 2002, 56% of the original IFS sample was receiving food stamps and 57% was receiving Medicaid (see Figure 5, page 18). As overall TANF use declined sharply between September 1999 and June 2002 (see Table 7), the proportion of IFS respondents receiving food stamps and Medicaid without TANF increased dramatically. In September 1999, 14% of the sample was receiving this benefit combination (food stamps and Medicaid, no TANF), while in June 2002, 38% was receiving it (see Table 7). Other work supports Table 48 depicts an increase in child care subsidy receipt between 1999 and 2001. These analyses were restricted to respondents with any reported earnings in the third quarter of each year (i.e., July, August, or September), and with at least one child under the age of
58 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
12 at all three survey waves. No additional criteria were available to determine “need” for child care. Table 48 presents the proportion of each group receiving a child care subsidy in September 1999, September 2000, and June 2001, based on IDHS administrative records. At least among workers, the proportion receiving a child care subsidy increased significantly between September 1999 and September 2000 and decreased significantly thereafter; by June 2001 it had returned to the September 1999 levels. Table 48: Child care subsidy receipt
September 1999 September 2000 June 2001 All
(n=867) Cook
County (n=785)
Downstate (n=82)
All (n=867)
Cook County (n=785)
Downstate (n=82)
All (n=867)
Cook County (n=785)
Downstate (n=82)
Receiving child care subsidy
34% 34% 34% 42%1 43%1 34% 37%2 38%1,2 33%
Note: These analyses were restricted to sample members with at least one child under the age of 12 in all three survey waves. 1= significant difference from 1999-00 estimate at .05 level; 2= significant difference from 2001 estimate at .05 level
(statistical significance between time periods; paired T-test) Source: Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records) Non-workers may also be in need of child care. For example, those who are participating in training programs, educational programs, or looking for work may also require child care support. Using self-reported data from the IFS surveys, we analyzed whether respondents were receiving support for child care expenses for all, some, or none of their children who were in need of child care (see Table 49). These data show a different trend that perhaps more accurately depicts real child care needs from 1999-00 to 2002. There has been a significant decline (-6 percentage points) in the percentage of respondents receiving subsidies “from the welfare office” for all of their children who need care and a correspondingly significant increase (+11 percentage points) in the percentage from 1999-00 to 2002 who say they are not receiving subsidies for any of their children who need care. One caveat related to Table 49 is that some respondents may be unaware that their children’s care arrangements are subsidized, such as when the subsidy check is sent from the welfare office directly to the child care provider.
Tabl
e 49
: Sel
f-rep
orte
d us
e of
and
nee
d fo
r the
chi
ld c
are
subs
idy
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
“Is th
e welf
are o
ffice
cu
rrent
ly he
lpin
g yo
u to
pa
y for
child
care
ex
pens
es o
n…”
All
(n=1
042)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
49)
Down
state
(n=9
3)
All
(n=1
072)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
051)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
50)
Down
state
(n=1
01)
All
of m
y ch
ildre
n w
ho
need
it
21
%
21%
21%
17%
1
18%
13%
15
%1
16
%1
11
%
Som
e of
my
child
ren
who
nee
d it
4%
4%
4%
7%1
7%
8%
1%
1,2
1%
1,2
3%
Non
e of
my
child
ren
who
nee
d it
26
%
24
%
44
%
29
%
28%
1
39%
37
%1,
2
37%
1,2
42
%
Not
app
licab
le (n
one
of
my
child
ren
need
chi
ld
care
righ
t now
)
49
%
50
%
31
%
47
%
48%
40%
47
%
47
%
44
%
1 =sig
nifica
nt dif
feren
ce fr
om 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05l
Leve
l ; 05
(stat
istica
l sign
ifican
ce fo
r diffe
renc
es be
twee
n tim
e pe
riods
; T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Surv
ey d
ata
wer
e al
so u
sed
to m
easu
re re
ceip
t of h
ousi
ng a
ssis
tanc
e (s
ee T
able
50)
. N
early
one
-third
of r
espo
nden
ts (2
7%) r
epor
ted
rece
ivin
g so
me
kind
of h
ousi
ng su
bsid
y in
200
2, a
retu
rn to
199
9-00
leve
ls a
fter h
avin
g dr
oppe
d 3
perc
enta
ge p
oint
s in
2001
. R
ates
fo
r cur
rent
ly li
ving
in a
pub
lic h
ousi
ng d
evel
opm
ent h
ave
rem
aine
d st
able
at a
bout
15-
16%
ove
r the
thre
e su
rvey
per
iods
. R
ates
for
rece
ivin
g a
rent
vou
cher
(suc
h as
Sec
tion
8) h
ave
risen
slow
ly b
ut si
gnifi
cant
ly, f
rom
16%
to 1
8%.
Dow
nsta
te re
side
nts w
ere
mor
e lik
ely
than
Coo
k C
ount
y re
side
nts t
o be
rece
ivin
g ho
usin
g as
sist
ance
, inc
ludi
ng p
ublic
hou
sing
and
vou
cher
s.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 59
Tabl
e 50
: Cur
rent
rece
ipt o
f hou
sing
ass
ista
nce
1 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05l
Leve
l ; 05
(stat
istica
l sign
ifican
ce fo
r diffe
renc
es be
twee
n tim
e pe
riods
; T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Mos
t IFS
resp
onde
nts r
epor
ted
that
they
did
not
rece
ive
form
al c
hild
supp
ort (
see
Tabl
e 51
). O
ne-th
ird (3
3%) o
f the
resp
onde
nts h
ad
a ch
ild su
ppor
t ord
er o
r file
d pa
pers
to e
stab
lish
pate
rnity
for o
ne o
r mor
e ch
ildre
n in
200
2, a
smal
l but
sign
ifica
nt d
ecre
ase
of 3
pe
rcen
tage
poi
nts f
rom
200
1. A
ltoge
ther
, onl
y 15
% o
f res
pond
ents
rece
ived
form
al c
hild
supp
ort p
aym
ents
. In
con
trast
, mor
e th
an
half
(60%
) of t
he re
spon
dent
s rec
eive
d in
form
al su
ppor
t for
one
or m
ore
child
ren
in 2
002,
a si
gnifi
cant
incr
ease
from
199
9-00
and
fr
om 2
001.
Thi
s inc
lude
s any
mon
ey o
r sup
plie
s (e.
g., c
loth
es, d
iape
rs, f
ood,
toys
) tha
t the
chi
ld’s
non
-res
iden
t par
ent p
rovi
des t
o th
e re
spon
dent
to h
elp
cove
r exp
ense
s.
The
14 p
erce
ntag
e po
int d
ecre
ase
in th
e nu
mbe
r of c
hild
ren
cove
red
by a
chi
ld su
ppor
t ord
er o
r with
pat
erni
ty p
aper
s file
d m
ay
war
rant
furth
er re
sear
ch.27
One
pos
sibl
e ex
plan
atio
n fo
r thi
s fin
ding
is re
late
d to
the
shar
p de
crea
ses i
n TA
NF
use.
Coo
pera
tion
with
ch
ild su
ppor
t enf
orce
men
t is r
equi
red
for T
AN
F el
igib
ility
; fam
ilies
mus
t com
ply
to re
ceiv
e be
nefit
s. G
iven
that
few
er fa
mili
es a
re
27
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
Illin
ois D
epar
tmen
t of P
ublic
Aid
, TA
NF
and
form
er T
AN
F st
atis
tics r
epor
ted
annu
ally
to th
e O
ffic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t sug
gest
th
at th
e pe
rcen
t of T
AN
F an
d fo
rmer
TA
NF
clie
nts t
hat r
ecei
ve c
hild
supp
ort p
aym
ents
is in
crea
sing
; the
sam
e re
port
sugg
ests
that
the
perc
ent o
f chi
ldre
n in
this
19
99-0
0 20
01
20
02
Al
l (n
=107
2)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
069-
1072
)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
067-
1072
)
Cook
Co
unty
(n=9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
Any
hou
sing
subs
idy
27
%
27%
31
%
24
%1
23
%1
28
%
27
%2
26
%2
35
%
Cur
rent
ly li
ve in
a
publ
ic h
ousi
ng
deve
lopm
ent
15%
14
%
25%
1
5%
14
%
23
%
16%
15%
19%
Cur
rent
ly re
ceiv
e a
rent
vou
cher
, suc
h as
Se
ctio
n 8
16%
15
%
23%
1
7%
17
%
20
%
18
%1
17
%1
26
%
60 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
are
curr
ently
rece
ivin
g TA
NF,
it is
now
pos
sibl
e th
at a
s new
chi
ldre
n ar
e bo
rn, f
ewer
are
the
subj
ects
of f
orm
al c
hild
supp
ort o
rder
s or
pate
rnity
agr
eem
ents
. Ta
ble
51: C
urre
nt re
ceip
t of c
hild
sup
port
1999
-00
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=102
5-10
44)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
29-9
45)
Down
state
(n=9
6-99
) Al
l (n
=102
5-10
44)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
29-9
45)
Down
state
(n=9
6-99
) Al
l (n
=102
5-10
44)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
29-9
45)
Down
state
(n=9
6-99
)
Chi
ld is
cov
ered
by
a c
hild
supp
ort
orde
r, or
pap
ers
have
bee
n fil
ed to
es
tabl
ish
pate
rnity
47%
46
%
55%
36%
1
34%
1 50
%
33
%1
31%
1 52
%
Oth
er p
aren
t pay
s ch
ild su
ppor
t on
ce o
r tw
ice
a ye
ar o
r mor
e (o
f to
tal s
ampl
e)
18%
17
%
23%
16%
15%
24
%
15%
13
%1
28%
Res
pond
ent
rece
ives
info
rmal
ch
ild su
ppor
t fr
om th
e ch
ild’s
fa
ther
50%
50
%
50%
55%
1
55%
1 58
%
60
%1,
2 60
%2
55%
Note:
Ana
lyses
wer
e res
tricted
to 20
02 re
spon
dents
who
had c
hildr
en un
der t
he ag
e of 1
8 still
living
with
them
. 1 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 19
99-0
0 esti
mate
at .05
leve
l; 2 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
2001
estim
ate at
.05 l
evel
(stati
stica
l sign
ifican
ce be
twee
n tim
e per
iods;
paire
d T-te
st)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
po
pula
tion
cove
red
by a
chi
ld su
ppor
t ord
er o
r with
pat
erni
ty e
stab
lishe
d ha
s inc
rese
d by
5%
per
yea
r fro
m 2
000
to 2
002.
The
se d
iffer
ence
s may
be
due,
in p
art,
to se
lf re
port
vers
us a
dmin
istra
tive
data
.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 61
Eigh
ty-o
ne p
erce
nt o
f tho
se w
ho w
orke
d fo
r pay
at s
ome
poin
t in
the
prev
ious
tax
year
said
they
rece
ived
the
Earn
ed In
com
e Ta
x C
redi
t (EI
TC) i
n 20
01 (s
ee T
able
52)
. Th
is is
a 9
per
cent
age
poin
t inc
reas
e fr
om 1
999-
00 a
nd a
20
poin
t inc
reas
e fr
om th
e fir
st y
ear
of th
e st
udy,
indi
catin
g in
crea
sing
aw
aren
ess o
r use
of t
he E
ITC
. D
owns
tate
and
Coo
k C
ount
y re
spon
dent
s wer
e eq
ually
like
ly to
say
they
rece
ived
the
cred
it w
ith 8
2% a
nd 8
0%, r
espe
ctiv
ely,
in 2
002.
Ta
ble
52: E
arne
d In
com
e Ta
x C
redi
t (EI
TC) r
ecei
pt
19
98-1
999
(tax y
ear p
rece
ding 1
999-
00 in
tervie
w)
2000
(ta
x yea
r pre
cedin
g 200
1 inte
rview
) 20
01
(tax y
ear p
rece
ding 2
002 i
ntervi
ew)
Al
l (n
=106
9)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
67)
Down
state
(n=1
01)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=970
) Do
wnsta
te
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
071)
Co
ok C
ounty
(n
=970
) Do
wnsta
te
(n=1
01)
Wor
ked
for p
ay
(at s
ome
poin
t in
prev
ious
tax
year
)
62%
60
%
82%
71
%1
70%
1 83
%
67%
1,2
65%
1,2
84%
Rec
eive
d ta
x re
fund
(a
mon
g th
ose
who
w
orke
d fo
r pay
)
72%
70
%
85%
79
%1
78%
1 89
%
86%
1,2
86%
1,2
90%
Rec
eive
d Ea
rned
In
com
e Ta
x C
redi
t (a
mon
g th
ose
who
w
orke
d fo
r pay
)
61%
59
%
75%
72
%1
71%
1 79
%
81%
1,2
80%
1,2
82%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
for d
iffere
nces
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; Ch
i-squ
are t
est)
Sour
ce: I
FS su
rvey d
ata
62 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Parti
cipa
tion
in jo
b re
adin
ess,
job
train
ing,
wor
k ex
perie
nce,
bas
ic e
duca
tion,
and
seco
ndar
y an
d po
st-s
econ
dary
edu
catio
n pr
ogra
ms
decl
ined
bet
wee
n 19
99-0
0 an
d 20
02 (s
ee T
able
53)
. Th
e bi
gges
t dec
line
was
in jo
b re
adin
ess a
nd jo
b tra
inin
g pr
ogra
ms,
drop
ping
25
perc
enta
ge p
oint
s, fr
om 3
7% in
199
9-00
to 1
2% in
200
2. A
lthou
gh C
ook
Cou
nty
saw
a la
rger
dec
line,
Coo
k C
ount
y re
spon
dent
s wer
e st
ill m
ore
likel
y th
an D
owns
tate
resp
onde
nts t
o pa
rtici
pate
in th
ese
prog
ram
s in
any
of th
e th
ree
year
s of t
he st
udy.
Onl
y a
frac
tion
of
resp
onde
nts t
ook
part
in a
wor
k ex
perie
nce
prog
ram
(2%
), ad
ult b
asic
edu
catio
n or
seco
ndar
y ed
ucat
ion
prog
ram
(1%
), or
pos
t-se
cond
ary
educ
atio
n pr
ogra
m (1
%) i
n 20
02.
Tabl
e 53
: Par
ticip
atio
n in
job
trai
ning
, wor
k ex
perie
nce,
and
edu
catio
n pr
ogra
ms
sinc
e la
st in
terv
iew
/ in
past
yea
r
19
99-0
0
2001
20
02
Al
l (n
=107
2)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Cook
Cou
nty
(n=9
70)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
A
ny jo
b re
adin
ess o
r jo
b tra
inin
g pr
ogra
m
37%
38
%
23%
23
%1
24%
1 14
%
12%
1,2
12%
1,2
7%
Any
wor
k ex
perie
nce
plac
emen
t pro
gram
7%
7%
7%
3%
1 3%
1 5%
2%
1 2%
1 2%
Any
adu
lt ba
sic
educ
atio
n or
seco
ndar
y ed
ucat
ion
prog
ram
(A
BE,
ESL
, GED
, or
high
scho
ol d
iplo
ma)
7%
6%
8%
4%1
4%1
5%
1%1,
2 1%
1,2
3%
Post
-sec
onda
ry
educ
atio
n (f
or
asso
ciat
e’s,
bach
elor
’s,
or g
radu
ate
degr
ee)
3%
3%
6%
2%
2%
5%
1%1,
2 0%
1,2
4%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
for d
iffere
nces
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; T-
test)
Sour
ce: IF
S su
rvey d
ata
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 63
Kno
wle
dge
of w
ork
supp
orts
and
oth
er p
olic
ies
To a
sses
s any
incr
ease
in p
olic
y kn
owle
dge
sinc
e th
e pr
ior s
urve
ys, r
espo
nden
ts w
ere
aske
d w
heth
er “
the
mon
ths y
ou w
ork
at le
ast 3
0 ho
urs p
er w
eek
and
also
rece
ive
wel
fare
cou
nt to
war
d th
e tim
e lim
it” (“
stop
ped
cloc
k”),
whe
ther
“yo
u ca
n ke
ep re
ceiv
ing
any
of y
our
cash
wel
fare
ben
efits
if y
ou a
re w
orki
ng”
(Wor
k Pa
ys),
whe
ther
“yo
u ge
t to
keep
rece
ivin
g M
edic
aid
if yo
u ge
t a jo
b,”
whe
ther
“yo
u ge
t to
keep
rece
ivin
g fo
od st
amps
if y
ou g
et a
job,
” an
d w
heth
er “
a pe
rson
’s c
ash
wel
fare
/TA
NF
gran
t inc
reas
es w
hen
a ne
w b
aby
is
born
into
the
fam
ily”
(fam
ily c
ap).
Res
pond
ents
who
ans
wer
ed “
no”
or “
it de
pend
s” to
the
“sto
pped
clo
ck”
and
fam
ily c
ap q
uest
ions
w
ere
cons
ider
ed to
hav
e an
swer
ed c
orre
ctly
. Th
e an
swer
s “ye
s” a
nd “
it de
pend
s” w
ere
coun
ted
as a
ccur
ate
resp
onse
s to
the
othe
r qu
estio
ns.
Tabl
e 54
doc
umen
ts a
n ov
eral
l inc
reas
e in
pol
icy
know
ledg
e ac
ross
surv
ey w
aves
, with
the
larg
est i
ncre
ases
bet
wee
n 19
99-0
0 to
200
1 af
ter w
hich
they
leve
led
off b
etw
een
2001
and
200
2. T
he la
rges
t gai
ns in
kno
wle
dge
betw
een
the
first
and
third
yea
rs o
f the
stud
y w
ere
seen
with
the
“sto
pped
clo
ck”
polic
y (a
22
perc
enta
ge p
oint
gai
n in
kno
wle
dge)
follo
wed
by
know
ledg
e of
ear
ning
s dis
rega
rds
(18
perc
enta
ge p
oint
gai
n) a
nd k
now
ledg
e of
tran
sitio
nal M
edic
aid
(12
perc
enta
ge p
oint
gai
n).
Som
e of
this
incr
ease
d kn
owle
dge
may
st
em fr
om e
xper
ienc
e—as
mor
e re
spon
dent
s go
to w
ork,
they
lear
n th
at it
is p
ossi
ble
to k
eep
at le
ast a
por
tion
of th
eir b
enef
its, a
nd
that
the
mon
ths t
hey
spen
d w
orki
ng 3
0-35
hou
rs re
sults
in fe
wer
mon
ths c
ount
ed to
war
d th
e lif
etim
e lim
it on
ass
ista
nce.
D
iscr
epan
cies
in k
now
ledg
e be
twee
n th
e re
gion
s in
2001
eve
ned
out i
n 20
02.
O
vera
ll, k
now
ledg
e of
thes
e po
licie
s was
fairl
y hi
gh.
Mos
t res
pond
ents
in 2
002
wer
e aw
are
of tr
ansi
tiona
l Med
icai
d, c
ontin
uanc
e of
fo
od st
amps
(afte
r lea
ving
TA
NF)
, Wor
k Pa
ys p
rogr
am a
nd th
e fa
mily
cap
. Fe
wes
t res
pond
ents
wer
e aw
are
of th
e “s
topp
ed c
lock
” po
licy.
64 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Tabl
e 54
: Kno
wle
dge
of w
elfa
re p
olic
ies
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
All
(n=1
072)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=970
)
Down
state
(n=1
02)
Kno
wle
dge
of “
stop
ped
cloc
k” p
olic
y 22
%
22%
25
%
44%
1 43
%1
32%
1 4
4%1
45%
1
48%
1
Kno
wle
dge
of e
arni
ngs
disr
egar
ds (W
ork
Pays
) 46
%
47%
43
%
61%
1 60
%1
66%
1 6
4%1,
2 6
4%1,
2
65%
1
Kno
wle
dge
of
trans
ition
al M
edic
aid
(afte
r lea
ving
TA
NF)
77%
76
%
85%
89
%1
88%
1
92%
8
9%1
89%
1
90%
Kno
wle
dge
of c
ontin
uing
fo
od st
amps
(afte
r le
avin
g TA
NF)
74%
73
%
81%
80
%1
79%
1
89%
8
5%1,
2 8
4%1,
2
87%
Kno
wle
dge
of fa
mily
cap
N
/A
N/A
N
/A
70%
72
%
55
%
72
%
72%
69%
2
The f
amily
cap q
uesti
on w
as no
t ask
ed in
the 1
999-
00 su
rvey.
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 65
Mos
t val
ued
bene
fit
Res
pond
ents
wer
e as
ked
whi
ch b
enef
it w
as m
ost i
mpo
rtant
to th
eir f
amily
’s w
ell-b
eing
(see
Tab
le 5
5).
Mor
e th
an h
alf (
61%
) cho
se
Med
icai
d or
free
hea
lth c
over
age
in 2
002,
up
13 p
erce
ntag
e po
ints
from
199
9-00
. H
ousi
ng a
ssis
tanc
e (1
7%) a
nd fo
od st
amps
(12%
) w
ere
also
cho
sen
by m
any
resp
onde
nts.
Far
few
er fa
mili
es m
ost v
alue
d ca
sh a
ssis
tanc
e, c
hild
car
e as
sist
ance
, and
tran
spor
tatio
n as
sist
ance
. D
owns
tate
resp
onde
nts (
77%
) wer
e m
ore
likel
y th
an C
ook
Cou
nty
resp
onde
nts (
60%
) to
sele
ct M
edic
aid,
whi
le C
ook
Cou
nty
resp
onde
nts (
18%
) saw
a g
reat
er n
eed
for h
ousi
ng a
ssis
tanc
e co
mpa
red
with
thei
r Dow
nsta
te c
ount
erpa
rts (6
%).
Tabl
e 55
: “If
you
coul
d pi
ck o
ne th
ing,
wha
t wou
ld y
ou s
ay is
mos
t im
port
ant t
o yo
ur fa
mily
’s w
ell-b
eing
?”
19
99-0
0 20
01
2002
All
(n=1
067)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=966
)
Down
state
(n=1
01)
All
(n=1
056)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=956
)
Down
state
(n=1
00)
All
(n=1
069)
Co
ok
Coun
ty (n
=968
)
Down
state
(n=1
07)
Med
icai
d or
free
hea
lth
care
cov
erag
e
48%
4
7%
55%
5
6%1
54
%1
73
%1
61%
1,2
60%
1,2
77%
1
Hou
sing
ass
ista
nce
20
%
20%
1
5%
19%
20%
8%
17%
1
8%
6%
1
Food
stam
ps
16
%
16%
1
4%
15%
15%
11%
1
2%1,
2 1
2%1,
2
9%
Cas
h as
sist
ance
12%
1
2%
9%
7%1
8%
1
4%
7%
1
7%1
5%
C
hild
car
e as
sist
ance
4%
4%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
Tran
spor
tatio
n as
sist
ance
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
0%1,
2
0%1
1%
1 = si
gnific
ant d
iffere
nce f
rom
1999
-00 e
stima
te at
.05 le
vel; 2 =
sign
ifican
t diffe
renc
e fro
m 20
01 es
timate
at .0
5 lev
el (st
atisti
cal s
ignific
ance
betw
een t
ime p
eriod
s; pa
ired T
-test)
So
urce
: IFS
surve
y data
66 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 67
Does it pay to move from welfare to work? The architects of welfare reform wanted to “make work pay” by offering work supports and an opportunity to earn more income by working than by receiving cash assistance. An important research question, therefore, is “Does it pay to move from welfare to work in Illinois?” Tables 56 and 57 examine the relationship between work and welfare status, on the one hand, and income, poverty and material hardship, on the other hand. These analyses make use of the longitudinal study design by looking at outcomes in 2001 and 2002 based on work and welfare status in 1999-00 and 2001.28 Table 56 shows that work is associated with higher income and a reduced likelihood of poverty, although the proportion of families living below the Federal Poverty Line is quite high, even among the work-only group. Respondents in the no-work/ no-TANF and TANF-only groups experienced the lowest incomes and highest rates of poverty. The work-and-TANF group represented the middle ground, while those in the work-only group had the highest mean annual incomes and were less likely than those in all other groups to be living in poverty. By 2001, 38% of those who were in the work-only group in 1999-00 were living below the poverty line, compared with 81% in the TANF-only group and 80% in the no-work/ no-TANF group. The work-only group saw the largest decline in the percentage of families living in poverty—from 52% in 2000 to 38% in 2001. Table 56: Income and poverty level by work and TANF status
Characteristics in 1999-00
Income and poverty outcomes in 2000 and 2001
No-work/ no-TANF (n=172)
TANF-only
(n=341)
Work-and- TANF
(n=215)
Work-only
(n=313) 2000 (as reported in 2001 interview)
Mean annual family income*
$8,615 $8,634 $11,563 $16,155
Percent of families below the Federal Poverty Line*
87% 90% 79% 52%
2001 (as reported in 2002 interview)
Mean annual family income*
$10,943 $11,643 $14,059 $18,617
Percent of families below the Federal Poverty Line*
80% 81% 74% 38%
*p<.05, Analysis of variance and Chi-square tests. Source: IFS survey data
28 Income and poverty data are only available for 2000 and 2001. As explained on page 30, 2002 income and poverty data are not yet available. Income and poverty outcomes, therefore, are examined here in Table 56 for 2000 and 2001, while material hardship is examined for 2002 in Table 57.
68 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
A similar pattern emerges when looking at material hardship. It is clear from the results in Table 57 that those who were neither working nor receiving TANF in 2001 consistently reported more material hardships in 2002 than any other group. For example, 63% of those in the no-work/ no-TANF group in 2001 reported having one or more of the hardships listed in the first part of the table compared with 53% of the TANF-only group, 52% of the work-and-TANF group, and 36% of the work-only group. Consistently higher percentages of the no-work/no-TANF group also reported they needed but were unable to afford to see a doctor, dentist, or have a prescription filled for themselves or their children. Table 57 shows that health insurance hardship (respondent or child needed but could not afford to see a dentist, doctor, or fill a prescription) is lower for the TANF-only and work-and-TANF groups. For example, 3% of the TANF-only and 9% of the work-and-TANF report that they could not afford to see a doctor compared with 14% of no-work/ no-TANF and 12% of work-and-TANF groups. The groups that receive TANF also receive Medicaid, thus reducing hardship related to health insurance, while those no longer receiving TANF are more likely to be uninsured and lack affordable access to health care. Overall, the work-only group reported the least amount of hardship. As was noted above, the work-only group had the lowest percentage of hardship when reporting “one or more of the above hardships”. Work-only also reported the lowest rates of gas or electricity shut off, phone service shut off, seeking help from a church or charity for clothes or financial aid and being worried that children were not eating enough because of insufficient income. The TANF-only group reported an inconsistent pattern of hardships - some rates were the highest and some were the lowest. The work-and-TANF group is consistently in the middle. The pattern that emerges is that work protects against some material hardship (but not for health care). Work does indeed “pay”, and relying solely on welfare does not seem to protect families from material hardship. Families who rely on neither welfare nor work are particularly vulnerable. It is important to note that although work seems to prevent some material hardship, it did not fully prevent it; 36% of those who were working and no longer receiving TANF experienced some hardship in 2001. In summary, these findings suggest that work does indeed “pay.” Work appears to be somewhat protective against poverty and material hardship, although rates of poverty and hardship were still quite high among workers.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 69
Table 57: Material hardship by work and TANF status
Characteristics in 2001
Material hardship outcomes in 2002
No-work/ no-TANF (n=296)
TANF-only
(n=217)
Work-and- TANF
(n=115)
Work-only
(n=444) Phone service turned off*** 37% 47% 37% 23% Could not pay full rent/ mortgage
17% 14% 15% 11%
Evicted from home 3% 2% 2% 2% Respondent or child needed to see a dentist but couldn’t afford to go**
12% 3% 10% 12%
Respondent or child needed to see a doctor but couldn’t afford to go***
14% 3% 9% 12%
Respondent or child needed to fill a prescription but couldn’t afford it**
13% 3% 9% 11%
Moved in with others to reduce expenses***
8% 9% 2% 3%
Respondent had a family member/ friend move in to reduce expenses
1% 2% 0% 1%
Gas/ electricity turned off** 11% 9% 9% 4% One or more of the above hardships***
63% 53% 52% 36%
Three or more of the above hardships
14% 11% 12% 13%
Can generally afford to buy the things we need** (somewhat/strongly agrees)
62% 56% 62% 70%
Went to church or charity for clothes/financial help***
12% 13% 8% 3%
Worried that children were not eating enough because not enough money for food (sometimes/often)***
15% 7% 12% 5%
Homeless* 2% 4% 3% 1% Lived in two or more places since last interview
29% 30% 26% 22%
***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05, Chi-square tests Source: IFS survey data
70 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
How are the most vulnerable families faring? No work and no welfare: Who are these families and how do they survive? At the time of the 2002 IFS survey, 37% of respondents were neither receiving TANF nor working (in formal employment), up from 17% in 1999-00 (see Figure 8). This steady upward trend in the size of the “no-work/ no-TANF” group, or “nonemployed leavers,” reveals a potentially vulnerable population that requires further attention from researchers and policymakers. This section examines the characteristics of this group, assesses the level of hardship among them, identifies other sources of support on which these families rely, and explores some possible explanations for the phenomenon. Figure 8: Growth of the no-work/ no-TANF group (1999-00 to 2002)
Source: IFS survey data
Work-only: 45%
30%
41%
Work-and-TANF: 4%
21%
11%
TANF-only: 14%
33%
20%
No-work/ no-TANF: 37%
17%
28%
1999-00 2001 2002
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 71
Figure 9 displays changes in the no-work/ no-TANF status for individuals across the three survey years. As of 2002, 19% of respondents had been in the no-work/ no-TANF group for all three years, while 41% were new to this group in 2002. Figure 9: Changes in no-work/ no-TANF status for individuals (among those in the no-work/no-TANF group in 2002, n=394)
Source: IFS survey data
No work/ no TANF in 1999-00 and 2002 only,
6%
No work/ no TANF in 2001 and 2002 only,
33%
No Work/ no TANF in 1999-00, 2001, and
2002, 19%
No work/ no TANF in 2002 only, 41%
72 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Table 58 shows the demographic characteristics of respondents at the baseline survey (1999-00) based on their work and welfare status in 2002. There were no significant differences by region. There were, however, other statistically significant differences between nonemployed leavers and those in the work-only and TANF-only groups. Employed leavers (73%) were significantly more likely than nonemployed leavers (50%) to have a high school diploma or GED. Several significant differences also emerged between nonemployed leavers and respondents in the TANF-only group. Nonemployed leavers were, on average, older (32.1 vs. 29.3 years), less likely to be African American (76% vs. 87%), had fewer children (2.4 vs. 2.8), and were less likely to have a child under age 5 (48% vs. 66%). Table 58: Demographic characteristics (baseline characteristics in 1999, by 2002 work/ welfare group) No-work/
no-TANF (Nonemployed
Leavers) (n=394)
Work-only (Employed Leavers) (n=479)
Work-and-TANF (n=45)
TANF-only (n=154)
HS diploma or GED ***2
50% 73% 45% 44%
Mean age**3 32.1 32.1 32.2 29.3 Race/ethnicity African American *3 Hispanic White Other **2, *3
76% 13% 7% 3%
79% 13% 7% 1%
79% 4% 12% 5%
87% 9% 5%
---- Number of children *3 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.8 Has child under age 5 **3
48% 51% 45% 66%
Region Cook County Downstate
92% 8%
87% 13%
90% 10%
97% 3%
Note: Differences between the no-work/ no-TANF group and the other three groups were tested using the One-way ANOVA test; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; 2= work-only significantly different from no-work/ no-TANF; 3= TANF-only significantly different from no-work/ no-TANF Source: IFS survey data
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 73
Are nonemployed leavers more prone to hardship? Nonemployed leavers reported very high levels of hardship in 2002, especially compared with those who were working (see Table 59). The majority of nonemployed leavers (60%) had at least one in a list of material hardships since their last interview, including being evicted, having utilities shut off, being unable to afford a doctor, or related problems. A much smaller proportion of nonemployed leavers (10%) said they had experienced three or more hardships (considered “severe hardship”). Fourteen percent said they “sometimes” or “often” worried that their children were not getting enough food. Nonemployed leavers were significantly more likely than employed leavers to experience any hardship or to report concern about getting enough food. Conversely, employed leavers were significantly more likely to report severe hardship. Table 59: Material hardship and food insecurity (2002) No-work/
no-TANF (Nonemployed
Leavers) (n=394)
Work-only (Employed Leavers) (n=479)
Work-and-TANF (n=45)
TANF-only (n=154)
Any material hardship ***2
60%
40%
54%
49%
Severe material hardship (3 or more hardships) *2
10%
16%
13%
12%
“Sometimes” or “often” worried children not eating enough because not enough money for food ***2
14%
6%
4%
7%
Note: Differences between the no-work/ no-TANF group and the other three groups were tested using the One-way ANOVA test; *p < .05, ***p < .001; 2= work-only significantly different from no-work/ no-TANF Source: IFS survey data
74 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Nonemployed leavers also reported high levels of health problems in 2002. One-fifth of these respondents rated their health as “fair” or “poor” and almost one-quarter (24%) had symptoms of depression (see Table 60). One-quarter had no health insurance and 19% had at least one child with a limiting health condition. Nonemployed leavers (24%) were significantly more likely than employed leavers (10%) to report symptoms of depression, although the TANF-only group experienced the highest levels of depression (28%). Not surprisingly, nonemployed leavers were significantly more likely than those receiving TANF only to report being uninsured.29 Overall, those in the TANF-only and no-work/ no-TANF groups had similarly high rates of health-related problems. Table 60: Health problems (2002) No-work/
no-TANF (Nonemployed
Leavers) (n=394)
Work-only (Employed Leavers) (n=479)
Work-and-TANF (n=45)
TANF-only (n=154)
Fair or poor health (respondent)
20% 16% 17% 26%
Symptoms of depression ***2
24% 10% 12% 28%
No health insurance ***3
25% 23% 14% 3%
Has at least one child with a limiting health problem
19% 14% 19% 24%
Note: Differences between the no-work/ no-TANF group and the other three groups were tested using the One-way ANOVA test; ***p < .001; 2= work-only significantly different from no-work/ no-TANF; 3= TANF-only significantly different from no-work/ no-TANF Source: IFS survey data
29 TANF recipients also receive Medicaid. This data is self-reported.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 75
What other sources of support do these families have? If these families have neither TANF nor earnings from formal employment, how do they make ends meet? The IFS survey asked several questions about alternative sources of support, such as spouses and boyfriends, informal work, charity, and other government programs. Marriage (13%) and cohabitation (8%) were fairly uncommon for nonemployed leavers (as for the IFS sample overall), although almost one-third (31%) said they had a spouse, partner, or boyfriend who contributed to living expenses “pretty regularly” or “all the time” in 2002 (see Table 61). Table 61: Sources of support: Spouses, partners, and boyfriends (2002) No-work/
no-TANF (Nonemployed
Leavers) (n=394)
Work-only (Employed Leavers) (n=479)
Work-and-TANF (n=45)
TANF-only (n=154)
Currently married 13% 13% 5% 8% Currently cohabitating
8% 6% 0% 10%
Has spouse, partner, or non-cohabitating partner who works
30% 28% 13% 22%
… who contributes to living expenses “pretty regularly” or “all the time”
31% 26% 20% 26%
Note: Differences between the no-work/ no-TANF group and the other three groups were tested using the One-way ANOVA test. No significant differences were found for the data presented in this table. Source: IFS survey data
76 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Informal work and borrowing money were important sources of support for nonemployed leavers in 2002 (see Table 62). Twenty-seven percent said they had done informal work for pay “sometimes” or “often” since their last interview, including babysitting, housekeeping, styling hair or doing nails, or odd jobs such as sewing or laundry. Many also borrowed money from friends or family (30%), used a food pantry or soup kitchen (20%), or sought help from a church or charity for clothes or financial aid (11%). Both of the nonemployed groups were more likely to be relying on these informal sources of support. Nonemployed leavers were significantly more likely than employed leavers to report borrowing money, seeking help from a church or charity, or using a food pantry or soup kitchen. Table 62: Sources of support: Informal work, borrowing, and charity (2002) No-work/
no-TANF (Nonemployed
Leavers) (n=394)
Work-only (Employed Leavers) (n=479)
Work-and-TANF (n=45)
TANF-only (n=154)
Any informal work 27% 14% 15% 28% Borrowed money from friends or family ***2
30%
15%
25%
29%
Went to church or charity for help ***2
11%
4%
4%
14%
Used food pantry or soup kitchen ***2
20%
8%
10%
18%
Note: Differences between the no-work/ no-TANF group and the other three groups were tested using the One-way ANOVA test; ***p < .001; 2= work-only significantly different from no-work/ no-TANF Source: IFS survey data Although nonemployed leavers were no longer receiving TANF, many were still receiving other government benefits. Almost three-quarters (71%) were receiving Medicaid and 70% were receiving food stamps (see Table 63). Almost one-quarter (24%) said they were receiving housing assistance (rent voucher, Section 8, public housing, or otherwise paying lower rent because of government help). Fourteen percent said they received “SSI or aid for the disabled” in 2001 (for themselves or for a child), and 12% received formal child support payments. Nonemployed leavers were significantly more likely than employed leavers to receive food stamps or SSI, while they were significantly less likely than those in the TANF-only group to receive food stamps or SSI. Nonemployed leavers were significantly less likely than those in the work-and-TANF group to receive food stamps or housing assistance.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 77
Table 63: Sources of support: Government programs (2002) No-work/
no-TANF (Nonemployed
Leavers) (n=394)
Work-only (Employed Leavers) (n=479)
Work-and-TANF (n=45)
TANF-only (n=154)
Food stamps*** 1, 2, 3 70% 46% 100% 100% Medicaid 71% 44% 82% 96% Housing assistance**1
24% 22% 47% 28%
SSI (2001)*** 2, 3 14% 5% 13% 24% Formal child support payments (since last interview)*** 2
12% 19% 4% 7%
Note: Differences between the no-work/ no-TANF group and the other three groups were tested using the One-way ANOVA test; **p < .01, ***p < .001; 1= work-and-TANF significantly different from no-work/ no-TANF; 2= work-only significantly different from no-work/ no-TANF; 3= TANF-only significantly different from no-work/ no-TANF Source: IFS survey data Why do families leave welfare without work? Almost one-half (42%) of 2002 nonemployed leavers had worked at some point for one or more months since their last interview, and 13% had received TANF (see Table 64). Table 64: Recent TANF use and employment among respondents in the no- work/ no-TANF group (2002) Percent of respondents
in No-work/ no-TANF group in 2002 (n=394)
Received TANF at any time since last interview 13% Worked for pay at any time since last interview 42% Source: IFS survey data Follow-up questions were asked of respondents who had left a job or TANF since their last interview to identify the reasons why they were no longer employed or on welfare. Among 2002 nonemployed leavers, the most common reasons cited30 for leaving TANF were:31 Got a job (28%) Other (not specified) (26%) Missed appointment (15%)
30 These are self-reported reasons and may not coincide with the official reasons cited by DHS. 31 The responses listed here were the most frequently reported reasons for leaving TANF the most recent time the respondent left TANF, which the respondent may have reported at the 2002, 2001, or 1999-00 interview.
78 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Earnings from job got too high (7%) Did not follow rules (e.g., child support, immunizations, school attendance, drug use)
or did not meet work requirements (6%) Respondent or caseworker did not file paperwork (4%) Reached a time limit (3%) Received benefits from another program (3%)
Among nonemployed leavers in 2002, reasons cited for leaving their most recent job were:32 Quit or resigned (44%) Laid off (30%) Only hired for temporary work (16%) Fired (7%) Maternity leave (3%)
Among nonemployed leavers in 2002, the most common reasons cited for not currently working were: No jobs with good wages (24%) Ill or disabled (17%) Pregnant or caring for children (11%) Problem with child care (10%) Currently looking for work (5%) Lost previous job (laid off, quit, fired, or job ended) (4%) Cannot find any job/ no one will hire me (4%) Transportation problem (3%) In school (currently, recently, or soon to be in school) (3%)
These findings indicate that although most nonemployed leavers had not recently received TANF, many had been employed in the recent past. Of those who had worked recently, almost half apparently left their jobs voluntarily, and almost one-third had been laid off. Low wages, illness, disability and parenting responsibilities were the biggest stumbling blocks to current employment,. About one-third of these respondents (35%) left TANF because of earnings (“got a job,” or “earnings too high”), while almost one-fifth (19%) cited “administrative” reasons (“missed appointment,” or “paperwork not filed”).
32 The reasons listed here were for leaving their most recent job, which the respondent may have reported at the 2002, 2001, or 1999-00 or interview.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 79
Time limits Who is most likely to reach the lifetime limit? The Illinois 60-month time limit began in July 1997. Individuals who were receiving TANF continuously from July 1997, without using the “stopped clock” option,33 reached their time limit on cash assistance in July 2002. This is the first report in which we were able to examine 60 months of receipt that counted towards the time limit (e.g., use of TANF months from July 1997 to June 2002). Of the initial 60 months counted toward the time limit, IFS respondents used an average of 23 months of their limit, and one third used up more than half of their possible time receiving TANF (see Table 65). As of June 2002, none of the IFS respondents had reached the lifetime limit, and only 7% had used up more than 75% of their time. There was significant regional variation for these findings. Although the differences were not significant, Downstate respondents had only used an average of 15 months toward their time limit compared with an average of 23 months for Cook County respondents. More than one-third of Cook County residents had used more than half of their months, compared with only 10% of their Downstate counterparts. This indicates that more Cook County respondents than Downstate respondents could reach the time limit in 2003. Table 65: Moving towards the 60-month time limit (1997-2002)
As of June 2002 All
(n=1023) Cook County
(n=924) Downstate
(n=99) Average number of months on TANF from July 1997 through June 2002*
33 33 29
Average number of months counted towards lifetime limit*
23 23 15
Percent of respondents who have used up more than half of their time limit (e.g., 30 months or more)*
33% 36% 10%
Percent of respondents who have used up more than 75% of their time limit (e.g., 45 months or more)*
7% 7% 1%
*p<.05, Chi-square and t-tests Source: Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records) Significant differences between those who have used less than half of their TANF months and those who have already used half or more of their TANF months toward the lifetime limit were found in all characteristics examined (see Table 66). Those closer to reaching the time limit were more likely to have chronic health problems, more children, younger 33 Descriptions of the “stopped clock” policy are provided on page 3.
80 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
children, and a child with a limiting health condition. They also were more likely to have received TANF for a longer period of time, have participated in a job search/job training program, and have government-subsidized rent. Those who had used up less than half of their TANF months were more likely to be working, to have a high school degree and to be married. It seems that those who “used up” more time often had problems that limited labor force participation. Table 66: Risk characteristics of respondents for reaching the time limit
2002 Selected characteristics as of 2002
Used less than half of months toward limit
(n=641)
Used half or more of months toward limit
(n=335) Rent is government subsidized* 25% 31% Currently working* 57% 32% Participated in job search/job training program*
5% 16%
Average cumulative number of months on AFDC/TANF (prior to 1999-00 survey)*
76 87
Married* 16% 6% Average age of youngest child* 6.4 5.1 Any children with health conditions limiting their activities*
13% 25%
Number of children (under age 18)* 2.5 3.0 Have chronic health problems* 29% 38% Have high school degree or GED* 74% 64% Unaware of earnings disregard policy* 38% 30% Note: analyses are restricted to the 1,023 2002 respondents who have consented to administrative data access. *p<.05, Chi-square tests Source: IFS survey data and Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records) Sanctions Illinois has a three-step sanction process. At the first instance of non-cooperation, cash benefits are reduced by half until the individual cooperates. At the second instance, benefits are reduced by half for three months. After three occurrences of non-compliance or after three months in a first or second-step sanction, cash assistance is completely eliminated for three months. This is referred to as a “full-grant” or “full family” sanction. Nearly one-third of the IFS sample experienced a partial or full grant sanction between 1999 and March 2001 (see Table 67). These sanctions were significantly more common for Cook County families (27%) than for Downstate families (22%). This regional variance does not seem to be an artifact of the difference of length of welfare use given the small difference in the number of months receiving TANF between Cook and Downstate respondents (see Table 65).
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 81
Table 67: Percent of respondents who experienced a partial or full-grant sanction
1999 through March 2001 All
(n=1023) Cook County
(n=924) Downstate
(n=99) Partial or full grant sanction* 27% 27% 22% *p<.05, Chi-square tests Source: Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records) Among respondents receiving TANF at any time in 1999, 13% experienced a sanction compared with 21% of respondents receiving TANF at any time in 2000 (see Table 68). Overall, of respondents receiving TANF at any given time in 1999, 2000, and through March 2001, 30% experienced a sanction. Table 68: Percent of respondents who experienced any sanction (among respondents on TANF at any time from 1999-2001) Any sanction (among respondents on TANF at any time in given year)**
All
Cook
Downstate
Sanction in 1999 (n=897, 811, 86) 13% 13% 17% Sanction in 2000 (n=647, 597, 51) 21% 21% 18% Ever any sanction 1999-2001** (n=911, 823, 88)
30% 31% 25%
**Sanction data for 2001 only run through March 2001 Source: Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records)
82 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
The majority of respondents who received a first level sanction did not receive a second- or third-level sanction (see Table 69). Twenty-five percent received a first-level sanction compared to 7% receiving a second-level sanction and 1% receiving a third-level sanction. Of the respondents who experienced a first-level sanction, a higher proportion of Cook County respondents received a sanction than Downstate respondents (26% and 17%, respectively). Table 69: Percent of respondents who experienced first-, second-, and third-level sanctions (among those receiving TANF at any time from 1999- 2001) Level of sanctions received at any time from 1999-2001 (among those receiving at any time from 1999-2001)**
All (n=911)
Cook (n=823)
Downstate (n=88)
Ever received first-level sanction (lost 50% of grant for up to three months)*
25% 26% 17%
Ever received second-level sanction (same as first-level except applies for full three months)
7% 7% 10%
Ever received third-level sanction (no grant for three months)
1% 1% 3%
*p<.05 Chi-square tests. **Sanction data for 2001 only run through March 2001 Source: Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records) Table 70 displays the characteristics of those who experienced partial or full-grant sanctions during the three years of this study (among those who received TANF in 1999, 2000, or 2001). Sanctioned respondents were less likely to be working, to have a high school diploma or GED, and more likely to have participated in a job search or job training program. On average, respondents who had experienced any sanction had slightly more children and were more likely to have a child with health conditions that limited their activity.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 83
Table 70: Characteristics of respondents who experienced a partial or full grant sanction (among those who received TANF in 1999, 2000, or 2001)
2002
Selected characteristics as of 2002
No sanction (n=637)
Sanction (n=274)
Rent is government subsidized 25% 28% Currently working* 56% 28% Participated in job search/job training program*
6% 19%
Average cumulative months receiving AFDC/TANF (prior to 1999-00 survey)
80 85
Married* 11% 6% Average age of youngest child 6.0 5.5 Any children with health conditions limiting their activities*
15% 21%
Number of children (under age 18) * 2.5 2.8 Chronic health problems 32% 33% High school degree or GED* 73% 61% Unaware of earnings disregard policy 36% 30% Note: analyses are restricted to the 1,023 2002 respondents who have consented to administrative data access *p<.05, Chi-square tests. Source: IFS survey data and Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records) Respondents who experienced a partial or full sanction experienced, on average, more material hardship than those who did not. Sanctioned families were significantly more likely than other families to experience the following problems: unable to pay full mortgage or rent, phone service was turned off, sought help from a church or charity or experienced one or more of the hardships listed (see Table 71). Sanctioned families were significantly less likely to “somewhat” or “strongly agree” that they could afford to buy the things they needed, although non-sanctioned families were more likely to say that they could not afford to see a dentist or doctor for themselves or their child/ren.
84 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Table 71: Full-grant losses and material hardship Material hardship outcomes in 2002
Never sanctioned (n=637)
Partial or full grant sanction in 1999-2001
(n=274) Phone service turned off* 29% 46% Could not pay full rent/ mortgage* 13% 18% Evicted from home 2% 2% Respondent or child needed to see a dentist but could not afford to go*
11% 3%
Respondent or child needed to see a doctor but could not afford to go*
11% 4%
Respondent or child needed to fill a prescription but could not afford it
10% 5%
Moved in with others to reduce expenses
5% 6%
Respondent had a family member/ friend move in to reduce expenses
1% 1%
Gas/ electricity turned off 7% 9% One or more of the above hardships*
46% 56%
Three or more of the above hardships
13% 9%
Can generally afford to buy the things we need* (somewhat/strongly agrees)
66% 53%
Sought help from a church or charity for clothes or financial aid*
7% 14%
Worried that children were not eating enough because not enough money for food (sometimes/often)
8% 11%
Homeless 2% 2% Lived in two or more places since last interview
27% 28%
Note: analyses are restricted to the 911 respondents in 2002 who have consented to administrative data access and who received TANF at some point during 1999-2001. Distinctions between partial and full family grant sanctions were not made, because fewer than 1% of the sample experienced a full grant sanction in 1999, 2000, or 2001. *p<.05, Chi-square tests. Source: IFS survey data and Illinois Department of Human Services (administrative records)
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 85
Putting it all together: What helps families attain self-sufficiency? To more fully understand the relative impact of policies, work supports and individual characteristics on the lives of current and former welfare recipients, several questions must be explored. Are the intended objectives of the legislation being met? Are more people working and not receiving welfare because of these policies and work supports? Are people keeping jobs, earning more income, and experiencing less hardship? Are more people marrying as a result of these policies and work supports? What helps families attain self-sufficiency and avoid material hardship? Looking at data from two points in time (2001 and 2002) and using multivariate analyses helps to uncover factors that uniquely contribute to these outcomes. Table 72 presents the results of multivariate analyses (logistic and linear regressions) predicting six key outcomes as measured in the 2002 IFS survey: work, hourly wages34 (among those employed in 2002), marriage, welfare use, job loss (among those working in 2001), and material hardship. This analysis allows us to look at the impact of selected policies (such as sanctions and the “stopped clock”), work supports (such as child care subsidies, employer-sponsored health insurance, and formal child support), and personal characteristics (such as education level and marital status) on these six outcomes. The results displayed in Table 72 also control for the effects of several other demographic, personal, and program characteristics measured prior to the 2002 interview. These include: race/ethnicity, respondent’s age, marital status (currently married or not married) as of the second year survey (2001), number of children, age of the youngest child in the home, whether any children have a health condition that limits activity, region (Cook County and Downstate) and the number of months respondents have received cash welfare benefits since July 1997 (the month TANF was implemented in Illinois). These analyses also control for work in 2001. Some individuals have personal characteristics that make them more likely to work. Controlling for work in 2001 reduces this potential bias and allows us to examine the effects of work supports and other factors, independent of work status at the baseline time period. A similar strategy is used for welfare status. Number of months receiving TANF prior to February 2001 is also one of the control variables, allowing us to examine the impact of various factors independent of welfare history. In summary, the results displayed in Table 72 show that jobs with employer-sponsored health insurance and formal child support payments keeps individuals employed (less likely to experience job loss) and helps them earn more money. Those who take advantage of the state’s “stopped clock” option and child care subsidies are also more likely to keep working. Having a high school degree or GED is also advantageous in that it helps respondents to not only keep their jobs and earn higher wages but to obtain
34 Hourly wages were examined because annual income was not available for 2002.
86 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
employment in the first place. Those who work, in turn, are less likely to experience material hardship. On the other hand, Table 72 shows that respondents participating in a job search or job training program or who experienced partial or full sanctions are more likely to experience material hardship. It is important to keep in mind that those who work, attain jobs with health insurance benefits, and use the “stopped clock” option, available child care subsidies and formal child support may initially be more advantaged, and those who participate in job search or job training and experience sanctions may initially be more disadvantaged. Although the analyses controlled for these many human capital limitations and strengths, there may be important unmeasured characteristics that partially or even fully explain our findings on work supports (stopped clock, child care subsidies, formal child support and subsidized housing) and job search or job training. Nevertheless, even assuming that these limitations exist, we can discern that for some individuals, this first set of policies and supports (employer-sponsored health care, “stopped clock”, child care subsidy and formal child support) are highly associated with self-sufficiency, and that for some individuals job search or job training and sanctions are associated with greater instability and dependency. In short, the findings indicate that access to human capital, quality health care and work supports promotes, on average, self-sufficiency and well-being.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 87
Table 72: What helps families to meet the goals of welfare reform and attain self-sufficiency?
Outcomes in 2002 (n=1034) 2001 Characteristics
A Working
Odds Ratio
B Hourly Wages
(among those working in 2002,
n=472) Beta
C Married
Odds Ratio
D Receiving
TANF
Odds Ratio
E Job Loss
(among those working in
2001, n=595) Odds Ratio
F Any
Material Hardship
“Stopped clock” (no. of months used “stopped clock,” July 1997 – February 2001; continuous)
1.04*** .004 1.03 1.01 .94*** 1.00
Partial- or full-grant sanction (during 2001)
.86 -.19 .35 2.86*** 2.16 1.80*
Employer-sponsored health insurance
2.40** 1.58*** 3.01*** .38 .51* .56*
Child care subsidies in 2001
1.52* -.46 1.08 .51** .71 1.36
Has high school degree or GED
1.72** .85* 1.03 .63* .44** .77
Working 5.14*** .89 .54** .59** Married .97 -.19 .49 1.33 1.11 Respondent has health problem
.86 -.37 1.27 1.23 .75 1.26
Participation in job search or job training
1.15 -.24 3.89*** .69 1.57 1.68**
Government-subsidized housing
1.25 -.0004 .73 1.12 .57 .57**
Receiving formal child support
1.35 1.38*** .74 .73 .48** 1.00
Constant -.15*** 8.80*** .05*** .12** 5.40* .80 Note: Analysis controls for the following characteristics: race/ethnicity, age (2001), number of children (2001), age of youngest child (2001), any children with health problems (2001), region, and number of months receiving TANF (July 1997-February 2001). Analyses are limited to 1034 respondents in 2002 who consented to administrative data access. Analyses are weighed to adjust for sample stratification, initial non-response, and attrition across waves. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001. Shaded cells indicate variables omitted from model.
88 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Work and Wages (Columns A and B) Even after controlling for work status in 2001, respondents with the following characteristics in 2001 were significantly more likely to be working in 2002: Had a job with employer-sponsored health insurance Received a child care subsidy Used the “stopped clock” option (even after controlling for number of months on
welfare) Had a high school degree or GED
Respondents with the following characteristics were significantly more likely to be earning higher hourly wages, relative to others who were working in 2002: Had a job with employer-sponsored health insurance Received formal child support Had a high school degree or GED
Respondents with employer-sponsored health insurance in 2001 were earning, on average, $1.58 more per hour in 2002 than those without employer-sponsored health insurance. Marriage (Column C) Respondents who participated in job search or job training in 2001 were significantly more likely to be married in 2002. Receiving TANF (Column D) Respondents who received a partial- or full-grant sanction in 2001 were significantly more likely to be receiving TANF in 2002. Respondents with the following characteristics in 2001 were significantly less likely to be receiving welfare in 2002: Received child care subsidies Had a high school degree or GED Were working
Job Loss (Column E) Respondents with the following characteristics were significantly less likely to lose their jobs in 2002: Had a job with employer-sponsored health insurance Used the “stopped clock” Received formal child support for one or more children Had a high school degree or GED
Material Hardship (Column F) Respondents with the following characteristics were significantly more likely to experience material hardship in 2002 Experienced a partial- or full-grant sanction in 2001 Participated in job search or job training
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 89
Respondents with the following characteristics were significantly less likely to experience material hardship in 2002: Had employer-sponsored health insurance Were working Received government subsidized housing
Additional description of methods In the analyses, the coefficient for employer-sponsored health insurance should be interpreted as the effect of working in a job with employer-sponsored health insurance, and the coefficient for “work” should be interpreted as the effect of working without employer-sponsored health insurance. A similar interpretation can be given to the coefficient on child care subsidies (e.g., controlling for subsidies is the same as controlling for work activities plus child care subsidies, while the effects of work and job training can be interpreted as participating in these activities without use of child care subsidies). Models A, C, D, E, and F in Table 72 are logistic regression analyses. The odds ratio is interpreted as the increase (greater than 1) or decrease (less than 1) in the likelihood of experiencing the relevant 2002 outcome for a person with a specific characteristic or work support/sanction, controlling for all other factors in the model. For dichotomous predictor variables, the reference group is comprised of those individuals who lack the specific characteristic or work support/sanction. For example, in Model A, respondents who were working in 2001 are 5.14 times more likely than non-workers in 2001 to be working in 2002, controlling for other factors. Those who were married in 2001 are .97 times as likely as unmarried respondents to be working in 2002, controlling for other factors. For continuous predictor variables, the odds ratios reflect the increased or decreased likelihood of the outcome for each additional unit of the predictor variable. Model B is a linear regression with 2002 hourly wages as the outcome. The “beta” coefficient provided in the table can be interpreted as the units of the hourly wage variable (e.g., dollars and cents). For continuous variables, the coefficient reflects the increase or decrease in hourly wage for each additional unit of the predictor variable. Of particular interest in these models is the effect of various work and income supports and sanctions on the outcomes presented. We control for select demographic characteristics only to minimize competing explanations for the work support and sanction effects. It is, nevertheless, important to understand that the effects that emerge in relation to work supports and sanctions may be in part explained by other omitted characteristics of the sample members.
90 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Discussion We began this report with seven key questions regarding the success of welfare reform in Illinois and setting priorities for the next phase of reform. Here, we draw on the findings presented to answer these questions. Have the federal goals of welfare reform been achieved in Illinois? As evidenced by the sharp declines in TANF caseloads between 1997 and 2002, the goal to decrease welfare dependence has been successfully met in Illinois. Efforts to increase work have also been largely successful, although workforce participation had leveled off by 2001 and nearly one-half of the IFS sample was still not working in 2002. Progress was also made in family formation goals, with increases in marriage and declines in births to unmarried parents. It is unclear, however, to what extent welfare reform was responsible for these changes. How are families doing? During the three years examined, there has been no decline in the health and well-being of most individuals in this study. Indeed, most measures of hardship and instability improved or remained stable, even during the more difficult economic climate of 2002. Although income and earnings rose steadily from 1998 to 2001, overall incomes remained very low for these families; 67% were living in poverty in 2000 even with about half of respondents working. Between 1999-00 and 2002, respondents made significant gains in their hourly wages and in employer-sponsored benefits, although wages still remained fairly low and most working respondents did not receive benefits from their employer. Are families better off when they work and/or leave welfare? Work appears to protect against material hardship and poverty. Families who leave welfare for work seem to be doing better than families who continue to receive welfare or who have neither work nor welfare to depend on. However, it is important to note that although work appears to prevent some material hardship, more than one-third of the families who were working and no longer receiving TANF still experienced some hardship in 2002, and 38% of these families were living in poverty in 2001. Are families able to meet their children’s needs as they move from welfare to work? Looking across a broad range of indicators of well-being, families appeared to make steady progress from 1999-00 to 2002. Measures of child well-being—such as having access to a doctor or dentist, having enough food to eat, overall child health status, health insurance coverage, and child care stability—all improved steadily during the three-year study period.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 91
One indicator of family well-being that did not improve for adults during the three-year study period was health insurance. The proportion of adults without health insurance peaked in 2001 at 24%, improving slightly in 2002 to 21%—but still higher than it had been in 1999-00. The high proportion of families still living in poverty, slower growth in hourly wages between 2001 and 2002 (compared with 1999-00 to 2001), and the persistence of perceived financial strain also stand out as trouble spots among otherwise positive findings. How do current and former welfare recipients feel about the welfare system and policies? Most respondents reported positive feelings about their welfare worker and approved of many of the changes brought about by welfare reform. Already quite high in 1999-00, support for these policies increased in 2001 and 2002, with 95% of respondents in 2002 agreeing that it is a good idea to require welfare recipients to work. Overall, respondents expressed a strong preference for work over welfare receipt, which may explain their strong support for the new system. How are the more vulnerable families faring? Between 1999-00 and 2002, there was a troubling increase in the proportion of families who were relying on neither work nor TANF. By 2002, more than one-third of the sample (37%) was in this category. Although many in this group rely on informal sources of support and government benefits other than TANF, they were still much more likely to experience material hardship than other families, and they had high rates of health problems. These respondents seem to have tenuous relationships with formal employment. Although they no longer rely on TANF, many are still “connected to the system” through food stamps and Medicaid. Who is most likely to reach the time limit? Almost all of the families in this sample have “saved” some of their TANF months by leaving welfare temporarily or permanently or by using the “stopped clock” option. For this reason none of the families had reached their lifetime limit five years after TANF was implemented in Illinois. It is possible, however, to identify groups of families who are most at risk of reaching the time limit at some point within the next few years. Those with chronic health problems, more children, and a child with a limiting health condition appear to be most at risk of reaching the time limit. The unemployed, the unmarried, and those without a high school degree also appear to be more vulnerable.
What is the impact of sanctions? More than one-fourth of the IFS sample (27%) received a sanction between 1999 and 2002. Most were first-level sanctions, and third-level sanctions (“full-family sanction”) were extremely rare. Sanctioned respondents had, on average, more children and less education and were more likely than other respondents to have a child with a health problem, indicating that the more vulnerable families are being sanctioned. After controlling for several demographic characteristics, sanctions were associated with material hardship and continued TANF receipt. Being sanctioned does not appear to
92 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
promote work or decrease welfare dependence. It is possible, however, that for other families the threat of being sanctioned affected their decision to leave TANF or get a job. What obstacles to self-sufficiency do families face? Overall, low levels of education and poor access to work supports appear to be major obstacles to leaving welfare and getting and keeping a job. After controlling for a variety of personal characteristics, having less than a high school degree or GED and lacking access to employer-sponsored health insurance, formal child support, and child care subsidies were associated with not working, earning lower wages, or still receiving TANF. Sanctions were also associated with negative outcomes. Low and decreasing levels of participation in education and training programs do not seem to bode well for adults with low educational attainment. Furthermore, participation in existing job training and job search programs was associated with negative outcomes (such as material hardship, being sanctioned, and approaching the time limit), indicating that currently available programs are not contributing significantly to self-sufficiency or well-being, or they are serving people with serious barriers to employment that are not being mitigated by current resources. Child care subsidies, child support payments, the “stopped clock” option, and employer-sponsored health insurance all promote self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, receipt of these benefits seems to be leveling off or decreasing. Other problems that affect large numbers of families include poor housing conditions, low wages, lack of health insurance, depression, and other health problems. Although these problems are affecting fewer families over time, they still may deter a significant number of adults from successfully moving from welfare to work. Affordable housing, living-wage jobs with benefits, and access to good mental and physical health services may help these families to attain self-sufficiency. Do welfare reform policies and work supports make work pay in Illinois? Looking at the relationship between work and welfare status in 1999-00 and poverty one to two years later, we find that work does indeed “pay.” That is, those who were working in 1999-00 were less likely to be living below the poverty line in 2000 or 2001 than those who were not working. Similarly, work appears to ameliorate material hardship. Those who were working in 2001 were less likely to experience hardship in 2002 than were those not working in 2001. Illinois provides a wide array of work supports, including earnings disregards, the “stopped clock” option, the state EITC and child care subsidies. Despite fairly high rates of awareness of these policies, many respondents were not receiving these resources. For the most part, use of work supports and other services was declining or remaining stable by 2002. It is unclear how many respondents simply do not want or need these supports, and how many cannot access them, despite need.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 93
Even after controlling for several personal characteristics (including work in 2001), child care subsidies, employer-sponsored insurance, and the “stopped clock” option appear to promote and support employment. Even after controlling for work status in 2001, those who received a child care subsidy or employer-sponsored insurance or who took advantage of the “stopped clock” option in 2001 were more likely to be working in 2002. Widely accessible child care subsidies and health insurance and the “stopped clock” option (with its accompanying income disregards) emerge as critical elements of the Illinois TANF program that help families move toward self-sufficiency. What is the overall impact of the moderate Illinois approach to welfare reform? More than five years after the implementation of welfare reform, Illinois has seen a significant decrease in welfare receipt without an accompanying rise in material hardship. Despite the souring economy of 2001 and 2002, the well-being of families interviewed for this study was maintained or improved over the three-year study period. We conclude, therefore, that the overall impact of Illinois’ moderate approach to welfare reform has been positive. Much of this success can be attributed to providing work supports, such as child care subsidies and health insurance, which have helped many Illinois families make the transition from welfare to work. Although declines in the TANF rolls and improvements in family well-being point to the success of reform in Illinois, the mismatch between the sharp decline in TANF use and the moderate increase in work paired with the persistence of poverty demonstrates that more work needs to be done. Increased wages and earnings, high levels of job satisfaction, approval of many reform policies, and a strong preference for work over welfare receipt indicate that many families have enthusiastically taken advantage of new opportunities and are improving their own lives through work. Increases in work effort, however, began stagnating in 2000 and only about half of the sample was employed in 2002. Those who have found and maintained employment appear to be faring as well as or better than they did prior to welfare reform. Those who have been unable to enter or stay in the workforce, however, appear to be struggling. Some of these families are still receiving TANF, while a larger group relies on neither work nor welfare. The major challenge of the next phase of reform in Illinois, therefore, will be to help these families get and keep jobs, while continuing to support families who are newly self-sufficient. Maintaining or expanding a comprehensive network of work supports for low-income families will be key to building upon Illinois’ successful approach to welfare reform. What are the most effective supports and services? After controlling for several factors, the following work supports promote a variety of positive outcomes related to self-sufficiency (employment, higher wages, leaving TANF, and avoiding job loss): Employer-sponsored health insurance;
94 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Child care subsidies; The “stopped clock” option; and Child support.
Employer-sponsored health insurance appears to help workers to keep their jobs and is associated with reduced hardship. Medicaid and other forms of public health insurance, such as KidCare and FamilyCare, are also crucial supports, especially for those who are not employed or who work for employers that offer no health insurance. Over the three-year study period, respondents consistently rated “Medicaid or free health care coverage” as the most important benefit. Child care subsidies promoted employment and were associated with leaving TANF. For those remaining on TANF, the “stopped clock” policy appears to promote employment. Formal child support was associated with higher hourly wages and reduced job loss, indicating that, as with employer-sponsored health insurance, this type of support may help to keep workers in their jobs by buffering them from financial instability. Given limited resources, what should be the top funding priorities for the next phase of welfare reform? The two programs with the greatest impact on self-sufficiency and family well-being are public health insurance programs (Medicaid, KidCare, and FamilyCare) and child care subsidies. These programs benefit large numbers of low-income families—both on and off TANF—and should be maintained or expanded as the foundation of Illinois’ comprehensive work support system.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 95
Conclusions and policy implications In our last annual report, we concluded that Illinois’ moderate approach to welfare reform had been largely successful. Data collected in 2002 allow us to conclude that, despite this year’s economic downturn, the overall impact of welfare reform in Illinois has been positive. Illinois’ moderate policies and the provision of several strong work supports have helped to make work “pay” for many families. For about one-half of the families in this study, employment—often supported by resources such as child care subsidies, health insurance, and food stamps—has offered many families a boost in earnings and well-being. The other one-half, however, were not employed in 2002. Coupled with the overall levelling off of employment in recent years, the rising proportion of families who were relying on neither work nor TANF is troubling. For these reasons, any reductions in workforce support could harm poor families in Illinois. Work supports should be the highest priority for the next phase of welfare reform The welfare reforms of 1996 ushered in a new social contract that promised to reward those who left welfare for jobs. For the most part, Illinois welfare recipients have kept their end of the bargain. As of 2002, the vast majority of the IFS sample was no longer receiving TANF, about one-half were working, and about 80% had worked at some point since 1998. Policymakers, therefore, have an obligation to follow through on their end of the bargain by insuring that working and leaving welfare are sustainable and translate into concrete gains for parents and their children. A comprehensive network of work supports for low-income families is the key to meeting this state obligation. Illinois should build on its success thus far by maintaining or strengthening work supports. Four work supports stand out as being particularly critical for promoting work and self-sufficiency: 1) health insurance, 2) child care subsidies, 3) the “stopped clock” option and, 4) child support. Given limited resources, the greatest impact can be attained with the following priorities: Public health insurance (Medicaid, KidCare, and FamilyCare) Many families continue to suffer from health problems and have jobs with no health
insurance. It is extremely important that current and former TANF recipients have continued access to health insurance through public programs such as Medicaid, KidCare, and FamilyCare.
Those who had access to employer-sponsored health insurance were more likely to keep their jobs. This indicates that health insurance supports work, possibly by keeping workers and their children healthy, or by helping to “make work pay.”
Over the three-year study period, respondents consistently and increasingly rated “Medicaid or free health coverage” as the most important benefit, far above housing,
96 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
cash, child care, or transportation assistance, or food stamps. By 2002, 61% said health insurance was the benefit most important to their family’s well-being.
Despite the great need for Medicaid, use of this benefit among adults in the IFS sample dropped considerably from 1998 to 2002. For adults, Medicaid losses appear to be responsible for an overall increase in the number of parents who have no insurance coverage or unstable coverage. Although coverage by employer-sponsored insurance is increasing, the majority of respondents do not have access to health insurance through their job. Public programs are, therefore, the most viable source of coverage for these low-income parents.
Thanks to more generous income eligibility guidelines for children (compared to adults), declines in Medicaid have been less severe for children. KidCare also appears to be buffering many children from the risks of no medical coverage. Hopefully, FamilyCare will have a similar effect on parents, although it affects a very small number of adults.
Child care subsidies The Illinois child care subsidy appears to promote work and lessens TANF
dependency. Illinois has invested significantly in creating a child care subsidy that ties eligibility
to income, rather than TANF status. This allows for a “seamless” provision of child care assistance for working poor families who may move on and off welfare. The program also has no waiting lists and is not time-limited. This approach to providing child care assistance appears to be helpful for those Illinois families who can access the program. Many parents who said they needed the subsidy, however, were not receiving it, indicating possible problems with accessibility.
Those interviewed for this study were largely satisfied with their child care arrangements, and most who use child care rely on care from relatives. We were not able to assess the quality of child care arrangements or their impact on children. High rates of parent satisfaction and provider stability, however, indicate that recent improvements to the child care system in Illinois appear to be a good start to providing needed support to working families and their children.
These programs benefit large numbers of low-income families—both on and off TANF—and should be maintained or expanded as the foundation of Illinois’ comprehensive work support system. Other work supports Other supports, such as child support, food stamps, the EITC, and housing assistance are also critical. Given the low incomes and material hardship in this population, these supports help working poor families to “stretch” their paychecks to meet their children’s basic needs and help to make work a viable alternative to staying on welfare. In the face of apparent need, the low take-up of these programs indicates that burdensome eligibility requirements, administrative difficulties, and lack of awareness may be deterring some families from receiving them.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 97
The Work Pays program (earnings disregards) and the “stopped clock” option are crucial supports for those still receiving TANF and should be maintained. Family well-being has improved for many, but others are being left behind More than five years after the implementation of welfare reform, Illinois has seen a significant decrease in welfare receipt without an accompanying rise in material hardship. According to most indicators of well-being, families appeared to be making steady progress from 1999 to 2002, despite the souring economy towards the end of this period. By 2002, however, a troubling pattern had emerged—a mismatch between the sharp decline in TANF use, on one hand, and the moderate increase in work and persistence of poverty on the other hand. There appears to be a widening gap between successful and struggling TANF leavers. Although there is a large group of families who have successfully left TANF for jobs, there is another group of almost equal size that relies on neither work nor TANF. Evidence of the success of welfare reform in Illinois includes: Earnings among workers increased substantially between 1998 and 2002. Overall,
family incomes made steady gains from 1998 to 2001. Most families were satisfied with their jobs and child care arrangements. Despite a declining economy, material hardship, food insecurity, and homelessness
declined between 1999-00 and 2002. Indicators of physical and mental health improved between 1999-00 and 2002. Most respondents expressed approval for their welfare worker and the changes
brought about by welfare reform. The following problems, however, stand out as obstacles to work, self-sufficiency, and well-being:
Sixty-seven percent of families were still living in poverty in 2001, despite the fact that about half of respondents were working.
Far too many adults lack health insurance. By 2002, 21% of adults lacked coverage, up from 18% in 1999-00.
Despite gains in income, high levels of perceived financial strain persist. Sixty-four percent said they could “generally afford to buy the things we need,” up slightly from 62% in 1999-00.
Despite improvements, many adults suffer from physical and mental health problems. In 2002, 19% of adults rated their health as “fair” or “poor” and 18% reported symptoms of depression.
Low educational attainment is a barrier to employment, yet there seems to be little progress in improving the education and skills of adults in the IFS sample. Participation in education and job training programs dropped consistently during the three-year study period. By 2002, only 2% of the sample had participated in an education program since their last interview, despite the Illinois TANF program’s generous allowances for pursuing secondary and post-secondary education.
98 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Furthermore, participation in existing job training and job search programs was associated with negative outcomes, indicating that currently available programs are doing little to increase self-sufficiency or well-being, or they are serving people with serious barriers to employment that are not being mitigated by current resources.
In addition to decreased participation in education and job training programs, receipt of other resources such as food stamps, child care subsidies, child support payments, the “stopped clock” option, and employer-sponsored health insurance leveled off or declined during the three-year study period.
After promising gains from 1999-00 to 2001, growth in hourly wages slowed somewhat between 2001 and 2002.
“Getting tough” has unintended consequences The 1996 welfare reform “ended welfare as we knew it” by creating real costs for those who did not follow the new rules. Sanctions and time limits are two examples of the “get tough” approach to welfare reform. The intended purpose of sanctions was to decrease welfare dependency and increase work effort. Sanctions do not, however, appear to be producing the desired outcomes, and the most vulnerable families seem to be disproportionately affected by these policies. After controlling for several other characteristics, sanctions were shown to increase
the likelihood of staying on TANF and experiencing material hardship. Sanctions do not, therefore, appear to decrease welfare dependency or to promote employment. They may, in fact, harm families.
Respondents who were sanctioned were more likely to have a child with a health problem, have more children, and lack a high school diploma or GED.
Respondents who were approaching their lifetime limit of TANF benefits were more likely to have younger children or more children, to have a child with a health problem, or to have a chronic health problem themselves.
Recommendations to Illinois policymakers Illinois has implemented a moderate welfare reform strategy that “makes work pay,” reduces welfare dependency, and provides the foundation for a comprehensive system of work supports for low-income families. We therefore recommend that Illinois stay the course by preserving the gains made thus far. The state is currently facing a large budget deficit. There is pressure to cut the very services that have made welfare reform successful in Illinois. The success of the “Illinois example” suggests that reductions in services to current and former welfare recipients would be short-sighted, possibly resulting in declines in labor force participation and increases in hardship.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 99
Preserve the gains: Maintain or expand existing work supports Expand public health insurance Expand FamilyCare to cover more low-income parents, and/or Expand income eligibility cutoffs for Medicaid coverage for adults and extend the
provision of Transitional Medicaid Assistance to at least 12 months, if not longer, for TANF leavers. (Eliminate the six month re-certification.)
Increase take-up for KidCare, FamilyCare, and Medicaid. Maintain child care subsidies Maintain child care subsidies as a high spending priority. Increase take-up of the child care subsidy.
Provide other work supports Maintain or increase funding for child support enforcement and the EITC. Continue the “stopped clock” and earnings disregards policies.
Rethink the losses: Provide intensive help for those who have been left behind Reexamine job training and education Determine why so few current and former welfare recipients take advantage of
existing job training and education programs. Improve the effectiveness of job training and education programs.
Reconsider “get tough” policies Use sanctions and time limits as a “red flag” for identifying and helping struggling
families. Continue to provide exemptions to work requirements for families who struggle with
health problems. Given the demands of single parenting and the leveling off of employment in this
sample, requiring a 40-hour work week is not recommended. The current requirement of 30-35 hours per week is working well and should be maintained. Requiring a full 40-hour week may discourage some recipients and could be counterproductive.
Provide intensive wrap-around services Provide intensive services for those who remain on TANF, including counseling and
opportunities to participate in sheltered work environments. Reach out to families who are relying on neither work nor TANF. Many of these
families are still “in the system” since they receive Medicaid or food stamps.
100 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
References Lee, B., Goerge, R., and Dilts, J. Outcomes for the Income Maintenance Caseload After Receipt: Caseload Dynamics, Employment and Earnings in Illinois, 1995-1999. Chapin Hall Center for Children discussion paper. 2001. Lee, B., Goerge, R., and Dilts, J. Outcomes for the Income Maintenance Caseload During Receipt: Caseload Dynamics, Employment and Earnings in Illinois, 1991-1999. Chapin Hall Center for Children discussion paper. 2000.
102 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Appendix A: The Illinois TANF Program Table 73: Characteristics of the Illinois TANF program Eligibility (at intake) A family must include:
a child under age 18; a child age 18 who is a full-time student in secondary school; or a woman with no other children who documents that she is pregnant regardless of
month of pregnancy. Amount of monthly gross earnings above which an applicant cannot qualify for cash assistance: Family of 1*: $302 Family of 2: $368 Family of 3: $467 Family of 4: $504
$90 of applicant’s earnings disregarded in determining eligibility. Asset Limits: Family of 1*: $2000 Family of 2: $3000 $50 addition for each additional family member
All two-parent families are eligible using the same criteria as single parent families.
Income disregards Family exits program when gross monthly earnings exceed: Family of 1*: $636 Family of 2: $834 Family of 3: $1131 Family of 4: $1242
Maximum Benefit Levels35
All Families (Excluding Child-Only Assistance Units): Family of 1*: $212 Family of 2: $278 Family of 3: $377 Family of 4: $414
Child-Only Assistance Units: 1 Recipient: $102 2 Recipients: $201 3 Recipients: $249 4 Recipients: $319
Benefit Calculation
A recipient’s benefit is the difference between his/her countable income and the maximum benefit. The countable income is his/her gross monthly income less 67% of earnings.
* Family of One = Pregnant woman 35 Maximum benefit levels for the counties with the highest cash benefits and the most recipients in Illinois (Boone, Champaign, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, Ogle, Whiteside, Winnebago, Woodford). Some of the counties in the IFS sample have lower cash benefit levels.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 103
Family Cap Assistance payments to families will not increase when a child is born unless: The baby is born within ten months after application is filed. If conception occurs during a month when family received TANF and family did not
receive TANF for a period of nine consecutive months any time following conception The baby is the first child of a child in the assistance unit Conception was result of documented incest or rape
Work Requirements/ Work Activities
The recipient must find paid work or participate in one of the following activities: Job search Work experience Self-employment Work First (state employment and training program) Community service Basic education Vocational training Education beyond high school Foster parenting Other self-sufficiency activities such as:
- alcohol or substance abuse treatment - mental health treatment - domestic violence counseling
Time limits Lifetime time limit of 60 months: No extensions (unless working or attending school; see exemptions below) Does not apply to teen parents under 18 who have their own grant (months start
counting toward limit when parent turns 18) Exemptions Work Exemptions:
Recipients whose youngest child is less than one year old Recipients age 60 or older An adult in a family with a child-only assistance unit
Time Limit Exemptions: Adult is employed at least 30 hours per week (one-parent family) or 35 hours a week
(two-parent family) Adult from one-parent family is attending a post-secondary degree program full time and
maintains at least a 2.5 GPA. Adult provides constant in-home care for a medically dependent child Adult provides care for a disabled child or spouse
Sanctions
The sanctions for failure to participate in work or child support enforcement activities, or failure to meet school attendance requirements, are as follows: 1st Instance: 50% reduction of cash assistance until family complies with requirements
or three months have passed; if still no cooperation after three months, all cash assistance is terminated.
2nd Instance: 50% reduction of cash assistance for a minimum of three months; if still no cooperation after three months, all cash assistance is terminated.
3rd Instance: Cash assistance is discontinued for a minimum of three months; cash assistance will not be reinstated until family has complied with requirements
Recipients who are not engaged in work activities within 24 months will have their cash assistance terminated unless agreed upon support services were not provided.
104 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Participation of eligible legal residents who are not citizens of the U.S.
Same as citizens
Child Care Benefits
All families with income below 50% of 1997 state median income ($1818 per month for family of three), or 160% of federal poverty level, are eligible regardless of prior TANF status. A two-parent family may receive assistance only if the second parent is unavailable or unable to care for children. The following families may receive subsidies: If adult from eligible family (see above) is working If TANF recipient is participating in any work-related activity lf adult from eligible family attends a two- or four-year college degree program; S/he
must either work 10 hours per week or be involved in a combination of work and educationally required, work-like activities (i.e., student teaching) for a total of 20 hours per week.
If adult from eligible family attends adult basic education, English as a Second Language, GED (general education development) classes, or a non-degree vocational training program - No work requirement - Two-year time limit on eligibility
Medical Benefits (Medicaid)
All TANF recipients are entitled to coverage. Families that are no longer eligible for TANF due to earnings: Retain coverage for six months Can retain coverage for an additional six months if family income is below 185% of
federal poverty level (FPL)
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 105
Appendix B: Welfare policies and caseload trends in Illinois and other Midwestern states
Tabl
e 74
: Com
paris
on o
f six
Mid
wes
tern
sta
te T
AN
F pr
ogra
ms
Illino
is In
dian
a Mi
chig
an
Minn
esot
a Oh
io
Wisc
onsin
W
elfar
e Pro
gram
Na
me1
TANF
TA
NF/IM
PACT
Fa
mily
Indep
ende
nce
Prog
ram
(FIP
) MN
Fam
ily In
vestm
ent
Prog
ram
(MFI
P)
Ohio
Wor
ks F
irst
(OW
F)
Wisc
onsin
Wor
ks (W
-2)
Tim
e Lim
it2 60
mon
ths
24 m
onths
No
ne
60 m
onths
36
mon
ths
60 m
onths
“Sto
pped
Clo
ck”
Optio
n3 Ye
s11
No12
No
13
Yes –
only
for
care
giver
s of a
n ill o
r dis
abled
hous
ehold
me
mber
14
No15
No
16
Fam
ily C
ap2
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
(pro
vides
a fla
t ben
efit
rega
rdles
s of fa
mily
size)
Sa
nctio
ns2
1st :
50%
cash
redu
ction
un
til co
oper
ation
; 2nd
: 50
% ca
sh re
ducti
on fo
r 3 m
onths
; 3rd
: cas
h cut-
off >
3mon
ths
1st : C
ut 2 m
onths
of
adult
cash
gran
t; 3rd
: Cu
t cas
h gra
nt at
least
3 yea
rs.
1st Los
e 1 m
onth
(nee
d to c
heck
this)
1st :
10%
gran
t cut;
2nd
: Ven
dor p
ays
shelt
er co
st wi
th 30
%
redu
ction
of gr
ant
1st :: L
ose 1
mon
th 2nd
: Lo
se ca
sh fo
r 6
month
s
1st : Gr
ant r
educ
ed
$5.15
for e
ach h
our n
ot wo
rked
2nd: L
ose b
enefi
ts in
that c
ompo
nent
for lif
e (ch
eck t
his on
e)
Asse
t Lim
it2 <$
3,050
for F
amily
of 3
<$1,5
00;
car <
$5,00
0 <$
3,000
; no
car li
mit
<$2,0
00;
car a
nd as
set <
$7,50
0 No
asse
t limi
t <$
2,500
; ca
r <$1
0,000
Ca
sh D
ivers
ion
Prog
ram
1 No
Ye
s (sh
ort te
rm cr
isis
prog
ram)
No
Yes
Coun
ty dis
cretio
n Ye
s
Wor
k Req
uire
men
ts
Paid
work
or w
ork
activ
ities s
uch a
s job
se
arch
, edu
catio
n, or
se
lf-suff
icien
cy4
Job-
read
y or n
o-Jo
b-re
ady t
rack
s; 20
-25
hour
s of T
ANF
work3
Wor
k upo
n stat
e de
termi
natio
n; No
co
mmun
ity se
rvice
op
tion5
Emplo
ymen
t & ra
nge
of wo
rk ac
tivitie
s; plu
s ed
ucati
on op
tion3
Emplo
ymen
t & ra
nge
of wo
rk ac
tivitie
s; plu
s ed
ucati
on op
tion6
4-tie
red w
ork a
ctivit
y: un
subs
idize
d wor
k, tria
l job
s, co
mmun
ity jo
bs,
W-2
tran
sition
7 Do
mes
tic V
iolen
ce
Exem
ptio
n1 Ye
s Ye
s Ye
s Ye
s Ye
s (co
unty
discre
tion)
Ye
s
106 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Illi
nois
Indi
ana
Mich
igan
Mi
nnes
ota
Ohio
W
iscon
sin
Tran
sitio
nal M
edica
id
Assis
tanc
e (TM
A)
Elig
ibilit
y2
Avail
able
for up
to 12
mo
nths (
6 mon
ths af
ter
leavin
g TAN
F, pl
us
addit
ional
6 mon
ths if
family
inco
me is
below
18
5% F
PL).
Avail
able
for up
to 12
mo
nths.
Avail
able
for up
to 12
mo
nths.
Avail
able
for up
to 12
mo
nths.
Avail
able
for up
to 12
mo
nths.
Avail
able
for up
to 12
mo
nths.
Medi
caid
Elig
ibilit
y fo
r Chi
ldre
n (a
s % o
f FP
L)8
Infan
ts bo
rn to
wom
en
eligib
le at
time o
f birth
: 20
0%
After
this,
Ag
e 0-1
8 133
%
150%
Ag
e 0-1
: 185
%
Age 1
-18:
150%
Ag
e 0-2
: 280
%
Age 1
-18:
275%
20
0%
185%
Stat
e Chi
ldre
n’s
Healt
h In
sura
nce
Prog
ram
(S-C
HIP)
eli
gibi
lity (
as %
of
FPL)
9
185%
20
0%
200%
No
t Ava
ilable
(N
o sep
arate
S-C
HIP
prog
ram;
Minn
esota
Ca
re)
Not A
vaila
ble
(No s
epar
ate S
-CHI
P pr
ogra
m; H
ealth
y Star
t He
althy
Fam
ilies)
Not A
vaila
ble
(No s
epar
ate S
-CHI
P pr
ogra
m; B
adge
rCar
e)
Child
Car
e Sub
sidy
Elig
ibilit
y (as
% o
f FP
L fo
r fam
ily o
f th
ree)
157%
(50%
of st
ate
media
n inc
ome)
Su
bsidy
is av
ailab
le re
gard
less o
f TAN
F sta
tus.12
143%
TA
NF re
cipien
ts ar
e eli
gible
by vi
rtue o
f the
ir TAN
F sta
tus.
Othe
r app
lican
ts mu
st be
at or
below
143%
FP
L. 12
-mon
th lim
it aft
er le
aving
TAN
F.
Once
enro
lled,
familie
s re
main
eligib
le un
til the
ir inc
ome e
xcee
ds
181%
FPL
(at c
ounty
dis
cretio
n).10
188%
Su
bsidy
avail
able
rega
rdles
s of T
ANF
status
.13
275%
(Tra
nsitio
nal
Child
Car
e pro
gram
) Al
l form
er M
FIP
partic
ipants
are e
ligibl
e as
long
as th
ey ha
ve
rece
ived M
FIP
in 3 o
f the
last
6 mon
ths
befor
e los
ing th
eir
eligib
ility.14
182%
(Tra
nsitio
nal
Child
Car
e)
OWF
partic
ipants
with
ch
ildre
n und
er 13
ye
ars o
ld ar
e elig
ible
for O
WF
child
care
su
bsidy
. Tra
nsitio
nal
Child
Car
e is a
vaila
ble
for up
to 12
mon
ths
after
leav
ing O
WF.
15.
165%
Su
bsidy
avail
able
rega
rdles
s of T
ANF
status
. On
ce en
rolle
d, fam
ilies
rema
in eli
gible
until
their i
ncom
e exc
eeds
20
0% F
PL.16
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 107
Illi
nois
Indi
ana
Mich
igan
Mi
nnes
ota
Ohio
W
iscon
sin
Post
-sec
onda
ry
Educ
atio
n Co
unte
d as
a W
ork
Requ
irem
ent10
Yes (
2-ye
ar an
d 4-ye
ar
degr
ee pr
ogra
ms)
36-m
onth
limit (
as
stand
-alon
e acti
vity;
may c
ontin
ue af
ter tim
e lim
it if w
orkin
g at le
ast
20 ho
urs/w
eek)
No ot
her w
ork a
ctivit
y re
quire
d; mu
st ma
intain
full-t
ime
atten
danc
e and
a 2.5
GP
A
Yes (
2-ye
ar de
gree
pr
ogra
m, w
hen
acco
mpan
ied by
part-
time w
ork a
ctivit
y) No
(4-ye
ar de
gree
pr
ogra
m)
12-m
onth
limit
Yes (
2-ye
ar an
d 4-ye
ar
degr
ee pr
ogra
ms,
when
acco
mpan
ied by
pa
rt-tim
e wor
k acti
vity)
12-m
onth
limit
Yes (
2-ye
ar de
gree
pr
ogra
m)
No (4
-year
degr
ee
prog
ram)
24
-mon
th lim
it
Coun
ty dis
cretio
n (ma
y be
allow
ed if
comb
ined
with
work
activ
ity)
24-m
onth
limit
(max
imum
; cou
nty
discre
tion)
No
Stat
e EIT
C11
Yes
(Non
-refun
dable
tax
credit
)
No*
No
Yes
(Refu
ndab
le tax
cred
it) No
Ye
s (R
efund
able
tax cr
edit)
* Ind
iana o
ffers
an al
terna
tive “
earn
ed in
come
” tax
cred
it. 1 A
dmini
strati
on fo
r Chil
dren
and F
amilie
s (ww
w.ac
f.hhs
.gov)
2 The
Urb
an In
stitut
e, W
elfar
e Rule
s Data
base
(ww
w.ne
wfed
erali
sm.ur
ban.o
rg/w
rd
3 Per
sona
l com
munic
ation
with
state
offic
ial
4 Ilin
ois D
epar
tmen
t of H
uman
Ser
vices
5 M
ichiga
n Lea
gue f
or H
uman
Ser
vices
(www
.milh
s.org
) 6 O
hio W
orks
Firs
t (ww
w.sta
te.oh
.us/od
jfs)
7 Wisc
onsin
Dep
artm
ent o
f Wor
kforce
Dev
elopm
ent (
www.
dwd.s
tate.w
i.us)
8 Ame
rican
Aca
demy
of P
ediat
rics (
www.
aap.o
rg)
9 Kais
er F
amily
Fou
ndati
on (w
w.sta
tehea
lthfac
ts.or
g)
10 C
enter
for L
aw an
d Soc
ial P
olicy
(www
.spdp
.org)
11
Cen
ter on
Bud
get a
nd P
olicy
Prio
rities
(www
.cbpp
.org)
12
Illino
is De
partm
ent o
f Hum
an S
ervic
es (w
ww.st
ate.il.
us/ag
ency
/dhs/c
hildc
np.ht
ml)
108 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
3 Mich
igan S
enate
Fisc
al Ag
ency
issu
e pap
er (w
ww.se
nate.
state.
mi.us
/sta/p
ublic
ation
s) 14
Minn
esota
Dep
artm
ent o
f Hea
lth S
ervic
es (w
ww.dh
s.stat
e.mn.u
s/ECS
) 15
Ohio
Dep
artm
ent o
f Job
and F
amily
Ser
vices
(www
.state
.oh.us
/odjfs
/facts
heets
) 16
Wisc
onsin
Dep
artm
ent o
f Wor
k Enfo
rceme
nt (w
ww.st
epah
ead.o
rg/ch
ildca
re.ht
m)
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 109
110 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Table 75: AFDC/TANF caseload declines in six Midwestern states (1996- 2000) Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin
AFDC/TANF caseload change, FY 1994- September 2000
-73% -18% -58% -32% -60% -65%
September 2000 TANF caseload
58,900 42,400 72,100 39,200 82,200 18,100
Change in food stamp usage, FY 1994- FY1999
-11% +11% -17% -10% -13% +12%
Source: US Department of Health and Human Services
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 111
Appendix C: IFS Study Regions Rationale for studying these counties TANF families who live in the following counties have been selected for this study: Cook, St. Clair, Peoria, Fulton, Knox, Marshall, Woodford, Tazewell, and Stark. These nine counties represented 75% of the Illinois TANF caseload when the sample was drawn in 1998. Cook and St. Clair counties were selected because they are the counties with the largest shares of TANF recipients in Illinois. Cook County alone represented approximately 67% of the 1998 TANF caseload, and St. Clair County made up 4% of the TANF caseload. Peoria County was selected for several reasons: 1) it represents the third largest share of TANF recipients in the state (2%) (see Table 76); 2) it includes a mid-size city rather than a larger urban area (as is true of both Cook and St. Clair counties); and 3) researchers believed it was important to represent central Illinois in the study sample. Peoria is not intended to be a “representative” mid-sized county, as the wide variation in demographic and TANF caseload characteristics among other mid-sized Illinois counties means there is no “typical” mid-sized county. Two important characteristics should be noted, however, that distinguish Peoria County from other similar-sized counties. It has a slightly higher poverty rate and a greater proportion of African-American residents than other mid-sized counties (see Figure 10 and Table 77). The great majority of Illinois counties (approximately 85%) have populations less than 100,000. Researchers therefore believed it was important to include a number of smaller counties in the sample. Although a random sample of smaller counties would have been ideal, budget constraints did not allow such a design. Instead, we included the ring of six counties that surrounds Peoria County: Fulton (1998 population 38,788), Knox (56,070), Marshall (12,791), Woodford (34,576), Tazewell (127,602), and Stark (6,396). When these rural counties are compared (as a group) to all other counties with populations less than 100,000 in the state, there are minimal differences across a number of welfare caseload characteristics. The only exception is that the rural counties are less likely to include African-American residents than other small Illinois counties (7% versus 16%, respectively). Given the larger representation of African-American TANF recipients in Peoria, along with the efficiency gained by selecting counties in close proximity to one of our other selected sites, this difference was not determined to be sufficient cause for revising the sampling plan. Demographic characteristics Child poverty and TANF caseloads The child poverty rate varies widely by study county. Fifteen percent of Illinois children were living in poverty in 1999, a decrease of 2 percentage points from 1997. Five of the study counties (Cook, St. Clair, Peoria, Fulton and Knox) had child poverty rates that exceeded the overall state rate, while the remaining four study counties—all of them
112 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
rural—had rates at or below the state level. Despite dramatic declines of 4 percentage points since 1997, St. Clair (21%) and Cook (19%) counties continued to have particularly large proportions of children living in poverty (see Figure 10 Figure 10: Percent of children in poverty by study county (1995-1999)
8%
11%
13%
12%
18%
17%
20%
21%
19%
15%
8%
13%
14%
13%
19%
20%
22%
25%
23%
17%
9%
13%
14%
11%
19%
21%
22%
27%
26%
19%
Woodford
Tazewell
Stark
Marshall
Knox
Fulton
Peoria
St. Clair
Cook
State of Illinois
Stud
y C
ount
y
Percent of Children
199519971999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Estimates Branch, 2002. Variations in TANF caseloads mirror differences in the child poverty rate and overall population size. Cook County, for example, had a monthly average of 28,036 TANF grantees in 2001, compared with only three grantees in Stark County (see Table 76). The state of Illinois and all study counties experienced steep declines in TANF caseloads between 1997 and 2001 (see Figure 11). Every county included in the study experienced a decline of at least 70% between 1997 and 2001, with most rural counties experiencing astonishing declines of more than 90%. The most urban county (Cook) experienced caseload declines from 1997 to 2001 that were slower than that of the state overall (-73% compared with -78% statewide).
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 113
Table 76: Number of TANF grantees (monthly average) by study county 1997 1999 2001 2002 State of Illinois 157,818 76,194 34,637 22,446 Cook 103,576 58,775 28,036 17,793 St. Clair 6,370 3,165 1,365 953 Peoria 3,173 1,381 460 309 Fulton 369 56 26 39 Knox 542 163 49 44 Marshall 110 28 19 15 Stark 42 4 3 0 Tazewell 848 127 52 48 Woodford 111 30 6 9 Note: Excludes child-only cases and pregnant women. Source: Illinois Kids Count 2003, Voices for Illinois Children, 2003. Figure 11: Percent change in TANF grantees by study county (1997-2002)
-92%
-94%
-100%
-86%
-92%
-89%
-90%
-85%
-83%
-86%
-120% -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0%
Woodford
Tazewell
Stark
Marshall
Knox
Fulton
Peoria
St. Clair
Cook
State of Illinois
Stud
y C
ount
y
Percent Change
Source: Illinois Kids Count 2003, Voices for Illinois Children, 2003. Race and ethnicity Rural counties are predominantly white, while the more urban counties (Cook, St. Clair, and Peoria) have significant African-American populations (see Table 77). Cook County had the largest proportion of persons of Hispanic ethnic origin, at 19.9% in 2000 compared with 2.5% and fewer in all other survey counties (see Table 78).
114 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Table 77: Race by study county, 2000* Black White Other race State of Illinois (n=12,419,293)
15.1% 73.5% 9.4%
Cook (n=5,376,741) 26.1% 56.3% 15.0% St. Clair (n=256,082) 28.8% 67.9% 3.3% Peoria (n=183,433) 16.1% 79.4% 4.5% Fulton (n=38,250) 3.6% 95.1% 1.3% Knox (n=55,836) 6.3% 89.9% 6.7% Marshall (n=13,180) 0.3% 98.2% 1.5% Stark (n=6,332) 0.1% 98.6% 1.3% Tazewell (n=128,485) 0.9% 97.4% 1.7% Woodford (n=35,469) 0.3% 98.5% 1.2% *Percents do not add up to 100% due to rounding. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Table 78: Hispanic origin by study county, 2000* Hispanic Origin State of Illinois (n=12,419,293)
12.3%
Cook (n=5,376,741) 19.9% St. Clair (n=256,082) 2.2% Peoria (n=183,433) 2.1% Fulton (n=38,250) 1.2% Knox (n=55,836) 2.5% Marshall (n=13,180) 1.0% Stark (n=6,332) 0.9% Tazewell (n=128,485) 1.0% Woodford (n=35,469) 0.7% *Percents do not add up to 100% due to rounding. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 115
Appendix D: IFS Research Team, Advisory Groups, and Collaborative Partners Principal Investigators Dan A. Lewis Professor, School of Education and Social Policy Faculty Fellow, Institute for Policy Research Northwestern University 2040 Sheridan Road Evanston, IL 60208-4100 847-491-3715 [email protected] James H. Lewis Director, Institute for Metropolitan Affairs Roosevelt University 430 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 846 Chicago, IL 60605-1394 312-341-3541 [email protected] Paul Kleppner Director, Office of Social Policy Research Professor, Political Science and History Northern Illinois University 138 North 3rd Street DeKalb, IL 60115 815-753-1309 [email protected] Stephanie Riger Professor, Psychology and Women’s Studies University of Illinois at Chicago 1152 Behavioral Sciences Building 1007 Harrison Street Chicago, IL 60607-7137 312-413-2300 [email protected] Bong Joo Lee Faculty Associate Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago (now Associate Professor of Social Welfare, Seoul National University, Korea) 1313 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 773-256-5156 [email protected]
116 Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses
Robert Goerge Research Fellow Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago 1313 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 773-256-5137 [email protected] Northwestern University Laura B. Amsden, IFS Project Coordinator Institute for Policy Research 2040 Sheridan Road Evanston, IL 60208-4100 847-491-5889 [email protected] Amy Bush Stevens, IFS Project Coordinator Institute for Policy Research 2040 Sheridan Road Evanston, IL 60208-4100 847-491-7767 [email protected] Lisa Altenbernd, Graduate Research Assistant Irene Carvalho, Graduate Research Assistant Marla McDaniel, Graduate Research Assistant Amber Stitziel Pareja, Graduate Research Assistant Katie Hasson, Program Assistant University of Wisconsin—Madison Kristen Shook Slack, Assistant Professor School of Social Work 1350 University Ave. Madison, WI 53706 608-263-3671 [email protected] Alan Puckett, Graduate Research Assistant Lynette Renner, Graduate Research Assistant Marya Sosulski, Graduate Research Assistant Joan Yoo, Graduate Research Assistant Metro Chicago Information Center Woody Carter, Director of Research
Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 117
Danae Corado, Data Quality Supervisor Joyce Franklin, Data Entry Clerk Patricia Gross, Deputy Director Christine Marx, Research Assistant Carole Moody, Senior Field Supervisor Thais Seldess, Director of Field Operations Olivia Shaw, Director of Staff & Support Services D. Garth Taylor, Executive Director Rong Zhang, Senior Programmer Interviewers Cook County Delores Crawford Almeda Moore Esther Davis Cordell Rainey Abigail Hernandez Jack Sloan Teresa Johnson Pearl Washington Eugene Lloyd Lynda Wells Sam Lopez Peoria region Pam Christianson Gretchen Flynn Shirley Daniels Dennis McQuellin Barbara Fletcher Laurie Shoemaker St. Clair County Rosalyn Johnson Delores Owens Eugene Lloyd Jacqueline Rice Linda Love Anthony Taylor Legislative Advisory Committee Representative Barbara Flynn Currie Senator Miguel del Valle Representative Rosemary Mulligan Senator Steven Rauschenberger IDHS Steering Committee Marilyn Okon, Bureau Chief, Program Design and Evaluation, IDHS David Gruenenfelder, Manager, Program Design and Evaluation, IDHS Jane Radliff, Social Service Program Planner, Program Design and Evaluation, IDHS