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

x Preserving the gains, rethinking the losses

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.

Third annual report from the Illinois Families Study 101

Appendices

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


Top Related