the cost of welfare use by immigrant and native householdstakes place. to address the undercount...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
11629 K Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006 • Phone 202.466.8185 • Fax 202.466.8076 • www.cis.org
C I S
CIS Letterhead_Layout 1 7/26/12 4:34 PM Page 1
May 2016
In September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies published a landmark study of immigration and wel-fare use, showing that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households. Following similar
methodology, this new study examines the dollar cost of that welfare use.
• Theaveragehouseholdheadedbyanimmigrant(legalorillegal)coststaxpayers$6,234infederalwelfarebenefits,whichis41percenthigherthanthe$4,431receivedbytheaveragenativehousehold.
• Theaverageimmigranthouseholdconsumes33percentmorecashwelfare,57percentmorefoodassis-tance,and44percentmoreMedicaiddollarsthantheaveragenativehousehold.Housingcostsareaboutthe same for both groups.
• At$8,251,householdsheadedbyimmigrantsfromCentralAmericaandMexicohavethehighestwelfarecostsofanysendingregion—86percenthigherthanthecostsofnativehouseholds.
• Illegalimmigranthouseholdscostanaverageof$5,692(drivenlargelybythepresenceofU.S.-bornchil-dren),whilelegalimmigranthouseholdscost$6,378.
• Thegreaterconsumptionofwelfaredollarsbyimmigrantscanbeexplainedinlargepartbytheirlowerlevelofeducationand largernumberofchildrencomparedtonatives.Over24percentof immigranthouseholdsareheadedbyahighschooldropout,comparedtojust8percentofnativehouseholds.Inaddition,13percentofimmigranthouseholdshavethreeormorechildren,vs.just6percentofnativehouseholds.
IntroductionIn September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies published a landmark study of immigration and welfare use,showingthat51percentofimmigrant-headedhouseholds(legalandillegal)useatleastonefederalwelfareprogram, compared to 30 percent of native households.1 “Welfare” refers to means-tested anti-poverty programs. TheseincludedirectcashassistanceintheformofSupplementalSecurityIncome(SSI)andTemporaryAssistanceforNeedyFamilies(TANF);foodaidsuchasfreeschoollunch,theWomen,Infants,andChildren(WIC)nutri-tionprogram,andfoodstamps;Medicaid;andhousingassistanceintheformofrentsubsidiesandpublichous-ing. Not included are social insurance programs for which participants must generally pay into the system before drawingbenefits,suchasSocialSecurityandMedicare.
TheearlierCISstudywasnotableforshowingmuchhigherwelfareparticipationratesthanpreviouslyreported.ThereasonisthatearlierstudiesmeasuredwelfareparticipationwiththeAnnualSocialandEconomicSupple-ment (ASEC)of theCurrentPopulationSurvey.TheASEC is a simple cross-sectionaldatasetwidelyused inlabormarket research.However, theASECsubstantiallyundercountswelfareparticipation, inpartbecause itasks respondents to recall their welfare use over a period between three and 15 months before the interview takesplace.Toaddresstheundercountproblem,CISusedamorecomplexdatasetcalledtheSurveyofIncome
The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Households
By Jason Richwine
Jason Richwine, PhD, is an independent public policy analyst based in Washington, D.C., and a contributing writer at National Review.
1629KStreet,NW,Suite600•Washington,DC20006•(202)466-8185•[email protected]•www.cis.org
![Page 2: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Center for Immigration Studies
and ProgramParticipation (SIPP).As the nameimplies, the Census Bureau specifically designed theSIPPtomeasureparticipationingovernmentprograms.Inaddition,theSIPPisa“longitudinal”dataset, meaning it follows the same respondents over time, asking them about their monthly pro-gram participation in three different interview “waves”throughouttheyear.Theresultisamuchmore complete picture of welfare participation comparedtowhattheASECprovides.
Table 1, adapted from thatCIS study, quantifiesthedifferences.WhiletheSIPPshowsthat51per-cent of immigrant-headed households and 30 per-cent of native-headed households used at least one welfare program in 2012, the comparable figures intheASECforimmigrantandnativehouseholdsarejust39percentand24percent,respectively.
NotethattheASECgenerallyundercountsimmi-grant welfare use more than it undercounts native use.Forexample,theMedicaidparticipationrateamongnativehouseholdsis1.27times(or27per-cent)higherintheSIPPcomparedtotheASEC,while Medicaid participation among immigranthouseholdsis1.39times(or39percent)higher.
Why Study the Cost of Welfare Use?Thecontri-butionofthisnewCISstudyistogobeyondparticipationratesintheSIPPbyestimatingthedollarcostsassociatedwithimmigrantandnativewelfareuse.Thepurposeistwo-fold.First,costestimatesareanaturalextensionoftheoriginalproject.WhileitisimportantforAmericanstounderstandtherateofwelfareuseamongimmigrants,expressingthatuseindollarterms offers a more tangible metric that is tied to current debates over fiscal policy. With the nation facing a long-term bud-getary deficit, this study helps illuminate immigration’s impact on the problem.
Thesecondpurposeismoretechnical.AselaboratedinthenextsectionandintheAppendix,astandardstrategyincoststudiesistotaketheundercountedcostsinsurveydataandadjustthemsothatthetotalequalstheofficialbudgetarynum-bers.Forexample,whentheNationalResearchCouncilconducteditscomprehensivefiscalanalysisofimmigrationin1997,thereport’sauthorsfirstcalculatedthepercentageofagivenwelfareprogram’scostattributedtoimmigrantsintheASEC,thenappliedthatpercentagetotheprogram’sofficialbudgetarycost.2TheassumptionwasthattheundercountofwelfareparticipationintheASECwasthesameforbothimmigrantsandnatives.3GivenTable1above,wenowknowthatassump-tiondoesnothold.UndercountisgreaterforimmigrantsintheASEC,meaningthatimmigrantsusemorewelfarerelativetonativesthanisreportedintheNationalResearchCouncilanalysis.EstimatingthedollarcostsofwelfareprogramsusingtheSIPPoffersthechanceforamorefine-tunedcomparison.
Methodology Outline.Thefederalbudgetshowsonlyhowmuchthegovernmentspendsoneachprogram,notthedemo-graphicsofrecipients.Therefore,theonlywaytoallocatewelfarecostsbetweenimmigrantsandnativesistostartwithasur-vey—inthiscase,theSIPP—thatincludesbothrespondents’welfareparticipationand their demographic characteristics.
TheSIPPcanbeusedtoestimatetheportionofwelfarecostslistedinthegovernment’sbudgetthatgoestoimmigrants.Theassumption here is notthatimmigrantscostexactlywhatisreportedintheSIPP,sincesurveysinevitablyundercountreceiptofgovernmentservices.ThekeyassumptionisonlythatthefractionofcostsattributedtoimmigrantsintheSIPPisthesameas the fraction of the real budgetary costs consumed by immigrants. For example, if immigrants account for 20 percent of SSIdollarsreportedintheSIPP,thisstudyassumesthatimmigrantsconsume20percentofactualSSIspendingreportedinthe budget.
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
PublicSubsidized
Table 1. Comparison of Welfare Participation Rates in the SIPP and the ASEC
SIPP
30.2%9.5%7.1%1.7%
21.8%12.4%4.2%
15.6%22.8%5.9%5.0%1.7%
SIPP
51.3%11.9%9.0%2.1%
40.3%30.0%10.9%20.8%41.6%6.0%5.0%1.6%
Native Households Immigrant Households
ASEC
24.0%5.3%4.2%1.3%
14.7%6.8%2.5%
10.7%17.9%4.3%3.0%1.3%
ASEC
38.5%6.3%4.5%2.0%
25.6%17.3%5.9%
13.5%29.9%
5.2%3.5%1.6%
Ratio
1.261.801.691.331.491.821.671.461.271.381.671.27
Ratio
1.331.881.991.051.581.731.841.541.391.151.430.98
Source: Camarota, “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households”,TableA1.TheASECistheAnnualSocialandEconomicSupplementoftheCurrentPopulationSurvey.TheSIPPistheSurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipation.RatioistheSIPPparticipationratedividedbytheASECpar-ticipation rate. In this table, the Cash category includes several miscella-neous programs such as state general assistance and veterans’ compensa-tion.Intherestofthispaper,CashrefersexclusivelytoSSIandTANF.SeetheAppendixformoredetails.
![Page 3: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
The above approach — calculating the costs at-tributable to immigrant- or native-headed house-holds in a survey, then adjusting those costs so that the total reflects official budgetarynumbers— isequivalenttotheNationalResearchCouncilmeth-od mentioned earlier, except that CIS uses the more accurateSIPPratherthantheASECtoestablishtheinitial allocation between immigrants and natives. PleaseseetheAppendixformoredetails.
Technicalspecificsaside,thefindingspresentedinthe next section are estimates.Allsurveys—eventhe best ones, such as the SIPP— are subject tomeasurement error, particularly when the surveys ask respondents for the amount of money they re-ceivefromvariousprograms.Adjustingthesurveycosts to reflect budgetary totals eliminates much of theuncertainty.However, theestimatespresentedin the next section should not be confused with ex-act budgetary figures.
FindingsThemain findings are presented in Table 2.Theaverage welfare cost in immigrant-headed house-holds is $6,234, compared to $4,431in native-headed households. Immi-grant households consume more cash, food,andMedicaiddollarsthannativehouseholds, while housing costs are roughly the same for both groups. Fig-ure1showsthatMedicaidisthelargestwelfare program, driving a large part of the overall difference between immi-grants and natives.
Sending Region. The cost of immi-grant welfare use varies by the immi-grants’ region of origin. Figure 2 shows that the highest-cost households are those headed by immigrants from Cen-tral America andMexico, consuminganaverageof$8,251inwelfarespend-ing.HouseholdsheadedbyimmigrantsfromEurope andAsia tend to be theleast costly. Unfortunately, individu-al countries are not identified in the SIPP,soafiner-grainedanalysis isnot possible.4
Legal Status.Although theSIPPdoesnot directly measure legal status, prob-ability models can be used to determine which immigrants are most likely to be in the country illegally.5 Table 3 indi-
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Table 2. Average Cost of Household Welfare Use in 2012
Cost
4,43151744670
6896632
5902,831395
22,077104.6
Cost
6,23468658997
1,08317983
8214,072394
2,98016.16
Native Households
Immigrant Households Immigrant/
Native Cost Ratio
90 % C.I. (±)
14029278
2632
249926
90 % C.I. (±)
41393892789129
7927063
1.411.331.321.381.572.712.571.391.441.00
Source: Surveyof Income andProgramParticipation covering calendaryear2012,alongwithfederalbudgetdata.Householdsareclassifiedbythenativity of the household head. C.I. = confidence interval.
Figure 1. Immigrant households consumed more welfare than native households in 2012.
Source: SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipationcoveringcalendaryear2012,alongwith federal budget data. Foodprogramsincludefreeorreducedschoollunch,WIC,andfoodstamps;cashin-cludesSSIandTANF;andhousingincludessubsidizedandpublichousing. Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead.
7,000
Native Households
Immigrant Households
6,000
$4,431
$6,234
$517 $686 $689$1,083
$2,831
$4,072
$395 $394
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Aver
age
Hou
seho
ld C
ost
0All
WelfareCash Food Medicaid Housing
![Page 4: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Center for Immigration Studies
cates that households headed by (likely) illegal immigrantshave an average welfare cost of $5,692. Illegal immigrants arebarred from directly accessing most (though not all) welfareprograms, but they can receive welfare through their U.S.-born children.6 Legal immi-grant households, which have greater eligibility for welfare, cost$6,378onaverage.
Workers. A popular miscon-ception about the Americanwelfare system is that it mainly benefits people who are not in the labor force. In fact, most means-tested anti-poverty programs are open to low-wage workers. For that reason, limiting the analysis to house-holds with at least one worker, asTable4does,onlymodestlyreduces the welfare cost esti-mates. The drop is especiallysmall for immigrant house-holds — from an overall cost of$6,234 inTable2 to$5,340in Table 4— because 84 per-cent of immigrant households already contain a worker (vs.73percentofnativehouseholds).Therefore,thehigher welfare spending on immigrant house-holds compared to native households is not due toa lackofworkamong immigrants.Thedif-ference is better explained by the demographic factors analyzed below.
Education. It is easy to understand why people with fewer skills are more likely to participate in welfare programs, since eligibility for those programsrequiresalowincome.Unsurprising-ly,Table5showsthatwelfarecostsdecreaseasthe education of the household head increases. Whereas immigrant households headed by a highschooldropoutcostanaverageof$10,329,immigrant households with college-educated headscost just$2,455.Thetabledemonstratesthat the difference between immigrant and na-tive household welfare costs becomes smaller after accounting for education.
Some differences remain. College-educated immigrant households consume substantially more welfare than comparably educated na-
Figure 2. Household welfare consumption in 2012 tended to be higher among immigrants from Latin America and lower among immigrants from Europe and Asia.
Source: SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipationcoveringcalendaryear2012,alongwithfederal budget data.Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead. Individual countries are not identified in the source data.
Natives
Central America and Mexico
$4,431
$8,251
$6,159
$5,705
$5,631
$5,260
$3,509
$2,565
South America
Caribbean
Africa
East Asia
Europe
South Asia
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Table 3. Average Household Cost of Welfare Use in 2012, by Legal Status
Cost
4,43151744670
6896632
5902,831395
22,077104.6
Cost
6,37880571292
99914364
7924,131443
2,41212.77
Cost
5,692238122116
1,399314156929
3,8462095683.39
Native Households
Legal Imm.Households
Illegal Imm.Households
90 % C.I. (±)
14029278
2632
249926
90 % C.I. (±)
485113108
3195129
8531373
90 % C.I. (±)
669846554
1943325
16647684
Source:SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipationcoveringcalendaryear2012,alongwithfederalbudgetdata.Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityof the household head. Legal status is determined by a probability model de-scribedinCamarota,“WelfareUsebyLegalandIllegalImmigrantHouseholds”.C.I. = confidence interval.
![Page 5: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
tives.Attheotherendoftheskillspectrum, immigranthouse-holds headed by a high school dropout use less welfare than their nativecounterparts.Moreimportantthanthoseintra-educationdifferences, however, is the distribution of education across households.The“Percentage”rowsinTable5showthatover24percent of immigrant households are headed by a high-school dropout,vs.just8percentofnativehouseholds.Suchstarkedu-cational differences will inevitably lead to differences in welfare consumption.
Children. Another important cause of the difference betweenimmigrant and native households is the presence of minor chil-dren.Table6showsthatcostsaresimilarforagivennumberofchildren, and immigrant households have more children on aver-agethannativehouseholds.However,thepresenceofchildrenisnot the only reason for the relatively higher welfare cost of im-migranthouseholds.Table6 shows that immigranthouseholdswithout children consume significantly more welfare dollars than childless native households.
Race and Ethnicity. Regardless of nativity, households headed by blacks orHispanics consumemorewelfare dollars on aver-agethanhouseholdsheadedbywhitesorAsians.However,Table7 shows some interesting immigrant-native differences withinracialgroups.ImmigranthouseholdsheadedbyblacksandHis-panics cost less than their native counterparts, while white- and Asian-headed immigrant households cost more. Despite thelowercostamongimmigrantHispanicscomparedtonativeHis-panics, a much larger proportion of immigrant households are headedbyHispanics,whichcontributestothegreateroverallcostdifference between immigrants and natives.
Explaining Immigrant-Native Cost Differences with Regression Analysis. What explains the cost difference between im-migrantandnativehouseholds?Theprecedingsectionscontroloneatatimeforfactorssuchaseducationandnumberofchildren.Thissectionusesregressionanalysistosimultaneouslycontrolformultipleexplanatoryvariables,givingabettersense of which factors are most important.
Table8showshowthedifferencebetweenimmigrantandnativewelfarecostsvariesdependingonthecontrols.Thefirstrow gives the baseline estimate with no controls other than an indicator for immigrant status. In the no-control scenario, immigranthouseholdscost$1,803morethannativehouseholds,whichisconsistentwithTable2above.Thesecondrowshowsthattheimmigrant-nativedifferencebecomeslarger—upto$2,323—whenwecontrolforthepresenceofaworkerinthehousehold.Thedifferencethenbecomesgraduallysmallerascontrolsareaddedforeducationandnumberofchildren.Thefourthrowshowsthatimmigranthouseholdswiththesameworkerstatus,education,andnumberofchildrenasna-tivehouseholdscostjust$309more,whichisastatisticallyinsignificantdifference.Thefifthrowshowsthatimmigrantsusefewer welfare dollars when they are compared to natives of the same race as well as worker status, education, and number of children.
Althoughthisregressionanalysisisinterestingfromasociologicalperspective,itisimportantnottooverstateitsimportance.Once we control for demographic factors, we are now looking only at hypothetical costs that might exist if immigrants had the average characteristics of natives. It is easy to see how these hypothetical costs could be abused in policy debates. For ex-ample,immigrationrestrictionistsmightarguethatimmigrantsareuniquelypronetousingwelfarebecausetheycostmorethan natives with the same employment status. Supporters of expanded immigration might counter that immigrants’ greater attachment to the workforce is more important than their welfare use.
Similarly, immigration advocates often argue that although immigrants use more welfare than natives, low-skill immigrants use less welfare than low-skill natives.7(Seethe“lessthanhighschool”columninTable5.)Criticsrespondthatthisisthe
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Table 4. Average Cost of Welfare Use in 2012 in Households with a Worker
Cost
3,20829125041
5967135
4902,135187
15,37276.7
Cost
5,34045838475
1,03519691
7483,638208
2,42713.64
Native Households
Immigrant Households
90 % C.I. (±)
12625248
2733
259318
90 % C.I. (±)
39183792685131075
27744
Source:SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipationcov-ering calendar year 2012, along with federal budget data.Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead.Worker status is determined by the January interview. C.I. = confidence interval.TableA5containsmoredetaileddata.
![Page 6: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Center for Immigration Studies
wrongstandardforjudgment.Justbecausepoorandunskilledimmigrantsmayconsumefewerwelfaredollarsthanequallypoor and unskilled natives, it does not necessarily follow that such immigrants are good candidates for residence and citi-zenship,sincetheUnitedStatescouldsimplypursueimmigrantswhodonothavelowlevelsofeducationinthefirstplace.
ThemostimportantrowinTable8isthefirstone,whichshowstheactualcostdifferencesbetweenimmigrantsandnatives.Theremainingrowshelpestablishthereasonsforthedifferences—and,insodoing,mayinformpolicydebatesregardingskill selection — but immigrants do not become more or less costly based on their hypothetical characteristics. It is the actual characteristics that matter.
Cost of Households Currently Using a Given Welfare Program. Up to thispoint, every table in this studyhas shownwelfare costs averaged across all households regardless of whether the households are participating in a welfare pro-gram. In other words, many $0values are included in theaverages.Thesetablesanswerthe question, “How muchdoes the average immigrant household cost in welfare ex-penditures compared to na-tive households?”
A related but different ques-tion is how much immigrant and native households cost once they are on the welfare program inquestion.Table9restricts the cost averages to households participating in the welfare program listed in each row. For example, among immigrant households receiv-ing SSI, the average benefit is $6,561, compared to $6,274for native households receiv-ing SSI. Immigrant and native household costs are generally similar in Table 9, with theimportant exceptionofMed-icaid.Onceenrolled inMed-icaid, immigrant households cost less on average than na-tive households, perhaps due to immigrant coverage being more tilted toward children rather than the elderly and disabled. In fact, because of legal restrictions, immigrant households are more likely to be “child-only” welfare recipients.8
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)Percentage
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)Percentage
Table 5. Average Cost of Household Welfare in 2012, by Education
Cost
11,6711,5731,395179
1,653141
501,4627,1691,2751,9888.157.8%
Cost
10,3291,067897170
1,946332159
1,4566,7765397563.93
24.3%
Cost
6,2027005821189898447
8573,941573
5,64525.8124.7%
Cost
7,829762577185
1,486239100
1,1475,0085736943.87
23.9%
Cost
4,49650944168
7367836
6222,885367
7,88538.4436.7%
Cost
5,08163760334
72912368
5383,4073096373.56
22.0%
Cost
1,099112104
71471911
11777961
6,55932.2030.8%
Cost
2,455349336
133144719
2481,5981948934.81
29.7%
Less Than High School
Less Than High School
Native Households
Immigrant Households
High School
High School
SomeCollege
SomeCollege
College DegreeOr More
College DegreeOr More
90 % C.I. (±)
80417416454
1301310
119532159
90 % C.I. (±)
87917917567
2152726
192658119
90 % C.I. (±)
4127065207176
6528658
90 % C.I. (±)
74515814273
1682524
149526133
90 % C.I. (±)
21742421643
54
4015238
90 % C.I. (±)
794270269
31153
2317
139542102
90 % C.I. (±)
11523224
2133
198914
90 % C.I. (±)
3979997128378
7926168
Source: Survey of Income andProgramParticipation covering calendar year 2012, alongwithfederal budget data. Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead. C.I. = confidence interval. TableA5containsmoredetaileddata.
![Page 7: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
The Broader Fiscal PictureThisstudyfocusesonthecostofmajorwelfareprogramsusedbyimmigrantandnativehouseholds.Bycontrast,acompletefiscal analysis would measure the cost of all government services and compare those costs with the taxes paid by each type of household. Some readers may wonder whether broadening the analysis would reveal that immigrant households make up for theirgreaterwelfarecostbypayinghighertaxes.Thisisnotthecase.AsthepreviousCISstudyofwelfareparticipationdem-onstrated, immigrant house-holdspayonlyabout89centsin federal income and payroll taxes for every dollar paid by native households.9
The aforementioned reportby the National Research Council, which did measure all government expenditures and taxes paid, found that im-migrant households cost tax-payersasmuchas$2,200peryear in the 1990s, dependingon their state of residence.10 More recently, the HeritageFoundation’s complete fiscal analysis (towhichtheauthorof this studycontributed)es-timated that the average legal immigrant household paid $4,344 less in taxes than itreceived in services in 2010, compared to a deficit of just $310 for the average nativehousehold.11 For the most up-to-date numbers, the National Research Council will release a new analysis later this year.
Thestudiesmentionedabovemeasure the direct fiscal effects of immigration by compar-ing the services households receive with the taxes they pay. But what about indirect effects? Immigration touches allaspectsofAmericanlife,soone could give almost endless examples of immigrants influ-encing society in ways that in-directly change how much the government taxes and spends. Attempting to quantify someof those indirect effects is not objectionable in itself, but itdoesopena“Pandora’sBox” of selectivity bias and exaggeration.
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)Percentage
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)Percentage
Table 6. Average Cost of Household Welfare Use in 2012, by Number of Children
Cost
2,62045243616
24533
2401,632291
15,83872.5969.4%
Cost
4,145820796
23374
56
3632,528423
1,6728.63
53.4%
Cost
6,115631472159
1,0829466
9223,849554
2,70613.94
13.3%
Cost
5,49039733958
91015188
6713,7324515002.99
18.5%
Cost
7,512584420165
1,46317887
1,1994,912
5522,23811.51
11.0%
Cost
7,467538362175
1,557303157
1,0985,0653084452.47
15.3%
Cost
15,461874554320
3,395513192
2,68910,271
9211,2956.576.3%
Cost
14,540723355368
3,717794307
2,6169,8072923632.07
12.8%
NoChildren
NoChildren
Native Households
Immigrant Households
OneChild
OneChild
TwoChildren
Two Children
Three or MoreChildren
Three or MoreChildren
90 % C.I. (±)
1233433
516
11
168123
90 % C.I. (±)
396139141
1551
23
5025574
90 % C.I. (±)
3738370357269
6727483
90 % C.I. (±)
678128120
331401726
128496147
90 % C.I. (±)
512947945
103111295
33696
90 % C.I. (±)
1,01418613984
2362730
209710125
90 % C.I. (±)
1,05413710082
2473124
218733161
90 % C.I. (±)
1,4822141581453524043
3321,150160
Source: Survey of Income andProgramParticipation covering calendar year 2012, alongwithfederal budget data. Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead.Child status is determined by the January interview. Some children occasionally enter the house-hold after January, which explains why non-child households have non-zero costs for school lunch and WIC. C.I. = confidence interval. TableA6containsmoredetaileddata.
![Page 8: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Center for Immigration Studies
Forexample,considerthereactiontotheHeritageFoundation’sestimatethatillegalimmigrationandamnestywouldgen-erateadirectlifetimecostof$6.3trillion.Supportersofamnestyquicklysettledonarebuttalpoint:Althoughillegalim-migrantswhoreceiveamnestymaypayasagroup$6.3trillionlessintaxesthantheyreceiveinbenefitsovertheirlifetimes,their labor boosts economic productivity so much that natives probably still end up in the black.12Thatclaimis,firstofall,atremendousexaggeration.Mostofthegainsfromimmigrationgotoimmigrantsthemselves,nottonatives.13 In a paper forCISbackin2013,economistGeorgeBorjasestimatedthatillegalimmigrantsincreasedGDPby$395billionto$472bil-lion.Ofthatamount,however,onlyabout$9billionwenttonatives.14Afterextendingthat$9billionannuallyoveranadultlifetimeof50years,productivitygainswouldaddbackjust7percentofthe$6.3trillionfiscalcost.
Furthermore, an increase in productivity is just one of many indirect fiscal effects of immigration. What is the cost of addi-tional welfare spending on natives when they are displaced from jobs or see their wages lowered by immigrant competition?15 What are the moving and commuting costs incurred by natives who flee overcrowd-ing? What are the costs of less social trust and cooperation identified by Robert Putnamand others?16How about theincrease in English-languagelearners in public schools? One could go on and on with costs and benefits of immi-gration that indirectly impact the government’s fiscal situa-tion. But once advocates enter the world of indirect effects, they become decidedly selec-tive with the effects they wish to include.
ConclusionWhen researchers analyze welfare participation and costs, their dataset of choice has traditionally been the AnnualSocialandEconomicSupplement (ASEC) of theCurrent Population Survey.While the ASEC is certainlyuseful—CISusesitfrequent-ly — it substantially under-counts welfare participation. For that reason, CIS turned to the Survey of Income and ProgramParticipation(SIPP),a more complex dataset de-veloped by the Census Bureau specifically to analyze wel-fare use. CIS’s analysis of the SIPP has now generated twomajorstudies.Thefirststudy,published in September 2015, measured welfare participa-tion rates. It showed that 51
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)Percentage
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)Percentage
Table 7. Average Cost of Household Welfare Use in 2012, by Race
Cost
8,3751,010798212
1,39219777
1,1175,072901
1,2178.057.7%
Cost
7,863756575181
1,632317148
1,1675,163
3121,1577.08
43.8%
Cost
10,0731,2311,030
2011,702
15168
1,4835,8631,2762,71413.4012.8%
Cost
6,47046444124
1,03411057
8674,3785932721.549.5%
Cost
2,957333303
304333721
3752,007185
17,32278.9675.5%
Cost
4,56454950346
5717229
4702,9594858674.06
25.1%
Cost
3,183467464
317854
3121
2,373165176
1.031.0%
Cost
4,76480478816
5795026
5043,019362626
3.2019.8%
Hispanic
Hispanic
Native Households
Immigrant Households
Black
Black
White
White
Asian
Asian
90 % C.I. (±)
64615413660
1271713
114435161
90 % C.I. (±)
69217517256
1602319
13847272
90 % C.I. (±)
65514112342
1201110
111429118
90 % C.I. (±)
1,556183180
212452622
2271,120278
90 % C.I. (±)
1362424
524
22
2210017
90 % C.I. (±)
61513112224
104129
94394120
90 % C.I. (±)
1,237308308
36522
357
944137
90 % C.I. (±)
691146144
13149
1212
144446109
Source: Survey of Income andProgramParticipation covering calendar year 2012, alongwithfederal budget data. Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead. C.I. = confidence interval. TheBlack,White,andAsiancolumnsexcludeHispanics.“Other”racenotshown. TableA6andTableA7containmoredetaileddata.
![Page 9: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
percent of immigrant-headed households used some form of welfare, compared to 30 percent of native households.17ThissecondstudyextendstheSIPPanalysisbymovingfromratestocosts. It finds that immigrant-headed households consume anaverageof$6,234inwelfarespending,comparedto$4,431fornativehouseholds.Thehighest-costimmigranthouseholdstendtobethoseheadedbyapersonfromLatinAmerica,whilethelowest-costhouseholdsareheadedbypeoplefromEuropeandAsia.
Thisstudyimpliesthattwocompetingnarrativesaboutimmigrationareboth true. Immigrants do indeed have a strong at-tachmenttothelaborforce,asimmigrationadvocatesoftenpointout.Atthesametime,however,immigrantsconsumealargeamountofwelfarespending,justascriticsclaim.ThereasonthatbothnarrativesaretrueisthattheAmericanwelfaresystemhasbecomeincreasinglyfocusedonbuttressinglow-wageworkersratherthansupportingnon-workers.Putmoresimply, welfare and low-wage work go together. Just as natives with low levels of education and large numbers of children are apttoconsumewelfare,immigrantswiththosesamecharacteristicsarealsolikelytobeonwelfare.Astrongworkethicdoesnot change this reality.
Inordertoreducethecostofimmigrantwelfareuse,eitherthewelfaresystemortheimmigrationsystemmustchange.Theformer option is sometimes described as “building a wall around the welfare state” to prevent new immigrants from access-ing it. It is easier said than done. Loopholes and exceptions have weakened previous attempts to limit immigrant access to welfare.18Moreimportantly,CongresshasnopowertopreventtheU.S.-bornchildrenofimmigrantsfromusingthesamewelfare programs that the children of natives do. No matter how strong the “wall around the welfare state” is built, it cannot stopimmigrantparentsfromsigninguptheirU.S.-bornchildrenforMedicaid,SNAP,freeschoollunch,etc.,aslongasnativeparents can do the same.
Only a full-scale rollback of the welfare state for both immigrants and natives would prevent immigrant families from con-suming welfare dollars. Whatever one thinks of that proposal, it is not a policy change likely to occur in the near future.19 In fact, importing new clients of the welfare state likely makes it even harder to roll back.20AslongastheU.S.continuestoadmitlargenumbersoflow-skillimmigrants(legalorillegal),thenimmigrantwelfareconsumptionwillremainhigh.
Regression
1
2
3
4
5
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Table 8. Immigrant Household Welfare Use Minus Native Household Welfare Use
Controls
None
Householdworker
HouseholdworkerNumber of children
HouseholdworkerNumber of childrenEducationofhead
HouseholdworkerNumber of childrenEducationofhead
Race of head
25,057120.8
CostDifference
1,803
2,323
1,196
309
-626
90 % C.I. (±)
446
435
401
427
472
Source:Source:SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipationcover-ing calendar year 2012, along with federal budget data. Apositivevaluemeansthatimmigrantscostmorethancomparablenatives.Anegativevaluemeansimmigrantscostless. Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead.C.I. = confidence interval.
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Table 9. Average Cost of Households Currently Using Given Welfare Program
Cost
14,9546,2666,2744,0703,190
535755
3,88612,4196,672
Cost
12,2176,5456,5614,6372,686597751
4,0239,7936,604
Native Households
Immigrant Households
90 % C.I. (±)
373238253310981631
103353214
90 % C.I. (±)
677555597777176
2138
254493535
Source:SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipationcov-ering calendar year 2012, along with federal budget data.Unlikeeveryothertableinthisstudy,thecostsshownhereare averaged over only the households that are using the welfareprograminquestion.Inotherwords,nozeroesareincluded in the averages.Sample sizes vary depending on the program.Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead. C.I. = confidence interval.
![Page 10: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Center for Immigration Studies
AppendixTodeterminewhichhouseholdsusewhichwelfareprogramsintheSIPP,thisstudyfollowsalmosttheexactmethodologyofthepreviousCISreport,“WelfareUsebyImmigrantandNativeHouseholds”.TheoneexceptionisthattheaggregateCashcategorynowrefersexclusivelytoSSIandTANF.Inthepreviousstudy,Cashalsoincludedseveralmiscellaneousprogramssuchasstategeneralassistance,veterans’compensation,and,inthecrypticwordsoftheSIPPdocumentation,“otherwel-fare”.21 Because these smaller programs are too vaguely defined to locate in budget documents, the Cash category is now limitedtothetwolargestcashassistanceprograms,SSIandTANF.
Thecontributionofthisstudyistoestimatethedollarcostsassociatedwiththewelfareuseratespreviouslyreported.Thatprocessinvolvestwomajorsteps.First,someprogramcostsintheSIPPmustbeimputedbecausetheyarenotmeasureddirectlyinthesurvey.Second,duetomeasurementerrorinthesurveyresponsesandimputations,theSIPPcostsmustbeadjusted to reflect the full cost of each welfare program as reported in the government’s budget.
Program Costs in the SIPP. TheSIPPprovidesdirectcostestimatesforsomebutnotallofthewelfareprogramsforwhichitmeasuresparticipation.DeterminingtheannualhouseholdcostofSSI,TANF,WIC,andfoodstampsissimplyamatterofsummingthemonthlyvaluesofthevariablesprovidedintheSIPP.22However,thecostoffreeorreducedschoollunch,Medicaid,andsubsidizedhousing(the“cost-unknownprograms”)mustbeimputedseparately.
RecallthattheASECsubstantial-ly undercounts program partici-pation, making it suboptimal for awelfare analysis.However, theASEC does provide direct costestimates for the cost-unknown programs using imputation pro-cedures developed by the Cen-sus Bureau. The approach ofthis study is to apply the same imputation to the SIPP’s cost-unknown programs as the Cen-susBureauuseswiththeASEC.Theaimistoproducea“bestofboth worlds” dataset that com-bines the more accurate partici-pationratesoftheSIPPwiththemore complete cost estimates of theASEC.TableA1outlinestheprocess.
ForitsASECestimates,theCensusBureaudeterminedthattheaverageannualcostoffreelunchforonechildin2012was$507,whiletheannualcostofreducedlunchwas$440.TheSIPPdistinguishesbetweenfreeandreducedlunchreceiptatthehousehold level, so determining the monthlycostintheSIPP—rememberthattheSIPPmeasureswelfareusebymonth—issimplyamatterofdividingeither$507or$440by12,thenmultiplyingbythenumberofeligiblechildreninthehouseholdeachmonth.Theresultingmonthlyestimatesaresummedtoproduceanannualhouseholdcost.
Medicaidismorecomplicated.TheBureauidentifiesfour“riskclasses”—children(belowage21),non-elderlyadults,se-niors(age65andover),andthedisabled.23 It thenassignseachclassanaveragecostbystate.Thatgenerates4*50=200uniquecostestimates.Inaddition,MedicaidpaysthecostofMedicarepremiumsforpeopleenrolledinbothprograms.TheBureauaddstheannualMedicarepremium,whichwas$1,199in2012,tothetotalcostofMedicaidfordualenrollees.24ToperformtheimputationintheSIPP,thefullmatrixofcostestimateswasgeneratedintheASEC,thenmergedintotheSIPPusingthesameidentifyingvariablesofage,disabilitystatus,state,andMedicarecoverage.25Aswithschoollunch,theannualASECcostestimatesaredividedby12toproducemonthlySIPPcosts,thensummedtoproduceanannualfigure.
TheoriginalCISwelfarestudyseparatelyclassifiedpublichousingandsubsidizedrent,buttheASECcollapsesthecostofhousingassistanceintoonecategory.TheASECimputationisbasedonthreegroupsoffamilyincome(below$6,000,be-
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
PublicSubsidized
Table A1. Cost Calculation Methods by Program Source
Sumofcash,food,Medicaid,andhousinglistedbelowSumofSSIandTANF
DirectlymeasuredintheSIPPDirectlymeasuredintheSIPP
Sumofschoollunch,WIC,andSNAPAnnualcostofbothfreeandreducedlunchderivedfromASECDirectlymeasuredintheSIPPDirectlymeasuredintheSIPP
Averagecostbyage,disabilitystatus,andstate;derivedfromASECAveragecostbyregion,income,andsize;derivedfromASEC
Not individually calculatedNot individually calculated
SIPP=SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipation.ASEC=AnnualSocialandEconomicSupplementtotheCurrentPopulationSurvey.
![Page 11: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
tween$6,000and$10,000,morethan$10,000),threebedroomcounts(one,two,threeormore),andfourregions(Northeast,Midwest,South,West).26GeneratingreliablebedroomcountsistoodifficultwiththeSIPP,sothisstudyusesthenumberofpeopleinthehousehold(one,two,threeormore).AftergeneratingthefullmatrixofcostestimatesatthehouseholdlevelintheASEC—basedonregion,householdincome,andthenumberofpeople—thecostsaremergedintotheSIPPusingthosesamethreehouseholdcharacteristics.UnlikeschoollunchandMedicaid,housingcostsintheASECareprovidedasamonthlycost,meaningnodivisionby12isrequiredwhentransferredtotheSIPP.
Adjustment to Reflect Budgetary Costs. Afterallthewel-fare costs in the SIPP are established, the next step is toadjustthosecoststoreflecttherealbudgetarytotals.TableA2 compares the total costs reported (or imputed) in theSIPPwiththetotalcostslistedinthefederalgovernment’sbudgetaryrecords.ForconsistencywiththeSIPP,thebud-getary numbers collected here generally reflect the cost of actual benefits, not administrative costs. In addition, the cost of nursinghome care is excluded from theMedicaidbudget,sincetheSIPPdoesnotcovertheinstitutionalized population.
Some minor inconsistencies are unavoidable. For example, the budgetary cost of housing refers only to federal pro-grams, although state and local programs are a small part of thehousingcostmeasuredintheSIPP.Trackingdownthecost of every non-federal housing program would be infea-sible. In addition, most budgetary figures are available only for the “fiscal year”, which runs from October through Sep-tember,whereastheSIPPcoversthe“calendaryear”ofJanuarythroughDecember.27ThismeansthattheSIPPtimeperiodincludesninemonthsofFY2012(JanuarythroughSeptember)andthreemonthsofFY2013(OctoberthroughDecember).Tocorrectforthemisalignment,thisstudy’sbudgetarycostsforthe2012calendaryeararecalculatedasaweightedaverageoffiscal-yearcosts:(9/12)*(FY2012)+(3/12)*(FY2013).
Thereareseveralreasonswhythetotalcostofagivenprograminsurveydatadoesnotmatchthetotalbudgetarycostoftheprogram.First,thecostofdirecttransferssuchasTANF,WIC,andfoodstampsaretypicallyunderreportedinsurveys.Second,thecostimputationsofschoollunch,Medicaid,andhousingareinherentlyinexact.Third,thebudgetaryfiguresmaynot refer to the exact same costs measured in the survey, as is the case with housing.
CostsaregenerallyundercountedintheSIPP,butthediscrepanciesvaryconsiderablyfromprogramtoprogram,andSSIandschool lunch are actually overestimated.28Thesediscrepanciesmayseemlikeathreattothestudy’svalidity.Remember,how-ever,thattheSIPPcostestimatesaremerelyatoolfordividinguptherealbudgetary costs between immigrants and natives. Asnotedinthemaintext,theassumptionhereisnotthatimmigrantscostexactlywhatisreportedintheSIPP;rather,itisthatthefractionofcostsattributedtoimmigrantsintheSIPPisthesameasthefractionoftherealbudgetarycostsconsumedbyimmigrants.AnybiasintheSIPPdataunrelatedtoimmigrationstatus—forexample,ifbothimmigrantsandnativesun-derreporttheirTANFincomebythesamepercentage—isirrelevantoncethecostsareadjustedtoreflectbudgetarytotals.
Table1demonstratesthattheSIPPhelpscorrecttheASEC’sbiastowardundercountingimmigrantwelfareparticipationvis-à-visnativeparticipation.AslongasthereportedandimputedcostsofthatparticipationintheSIPParereasonablyunbiasedwith respect to immigration status, then the final adjusted cost estimates will be good approximations of the true budgetary numbers.
Theadjustmentprocedureissimple.ThecostofeachSIPPhousehold’sparticipationinagivenprogramismultipliedbyanadjustment factor, which is the ratio of total budgetary spending on the program to the total spending on the same program reportedintheSIPP.Forexample,theSNAPadjustmentfactoris$75.0billion/$56.5billion=1.33.Inotherwords,thetotalbudgetarycostofSNAPis1.33times(or33percent)higherthanthetotalSNAPcostintheSIPP.ThecostofeachSIPPhousehold’sSNAPusageismultipliedby1.33tobringthetotalSIPPcostsuptothebudgetarylevel.ThisismathematicallyequivalenttocalculatingtheportionofSNAPcostsattributedtoimmigrantsornativesintheSIPP,thenmultiplyingthatpercentagebythetotalbudgetarycostofSNAP.
Program
SSITANFSchool LunchWICSNAPMedicaidHousing
Table A2. Adjustment Factors for Program Costs in 2012
SIPP Cost(billions)
60.55.6
12.63.7
56.5251.017.3
Budgetary Cost(billions)
56.28.99.84.7
75.0361.947.6
Adjustment Factor
0.931.600.781.261.331.442.75
SIPP=SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipation.AdjustmentFactoristheratioofbudgetarycosttoSIPPcost.Budgetary costs are modified. See text for details.
![Page 12: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Center for Immigration Studies
Supplemental Tables
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Table A3. Average Cost of Household Welfare Use in 2012, by Age
Cost
5,704352212140
1,47286
1251,2623,183697
1,64510.89
Cost
4,0031023766
1,084134223726
2,6661511841.36
Cost
6,617517367151
1,35018268
1,1004,244
5053,21617.59
Cost
7,152419252167
1,740338160
1,2434,793
2005703.57
Cost
4,78056349171
6928625
5813,169356
3,83919.65
Cost
5,856458342116
1,12323470
8193,923
3527714.51
Cost
4,19268664640
427279
3912,766
3137,01432.21
Cost
2,309328308
20202
92
1911,462317
6,36324.26
Cost
6,105844791
537689132
6454,0684258644.19
Cost
7,0261,5191,465
53605278
5714,082820591
2.53
29and Under
29and Under
Native Households
Immigrant Households
30-39
30-39
40-49
40-49
50-6465
and Over
50-6465
and Over
90 % C.I. (±)
460605036
1251115
113295113
90 % C.I. (±)
865763162
2702963
230637157
90 % C.I. (±)
45972583489127
7932978
90 % C.I. (±)
88912410574
2183422
19262494
90 % C.I. (±)
3266863175574
5122948
90 % C.I. (±)
69612611060
1742019
160475114
90 % C.I. (±)
24557578
3432
3217240
90 % C.I. (±)
15539387
1611
16108
35
90 % C.I. (±)
720162168
301141410
107508132
90 % C.I. (±)
986414393409114
585
584171
Source:SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipationcoveringcalendaryear2012,alongwithfederalbudgetdata.Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead.C.I. = confidence interval.
![Page 13: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Table A4. Average Cost of Immigrant Welfare Use, by Household Head’s Length of Residence in U.S.
Cost
7,53776667690
1,152162137852
4,99762277
0.41
Cost
5,57657353142
1,033161101770
3,5604106343.61
Cost
6,537798644154
1,264206101957
4,0943815303.06
Cost
6,601532408125
1,37026297
1,0104,243455378
2.13
Cost
6,22576667393
851148
50653
4,238370
1,1705.92
Less than5
Immigrants’ Residence in U.S. (years)
5-10 11-15 16-25More than
25
90 % C.I. (±)
2,8845345351214677777
4032,038546
90 % C.I. (±)
72315415227
1562219
140474120
90 % C.I. (±)
85330328387
1962925
169533109
90 % C.I. (±)
1,00916813980
2904033
262681189
90 % C.I. (±)
69114714145
1322112
11949679
Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation covering calendar year 2012, along with federal budgetdata. Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead. C.I. = confidence interval. SomeimmigrantsaremissingbecausetherelevantSIPPquestionwasaskedaspartofaone-timemodule.
![Page 14: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Center for Immigration Studies
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Table A5. Average Cost of Welfare Use in 2012 in Households with a Worker, by Education
Cost
10,1851,006870136
1,94021676
1,6496,5746658523.79
Cost
9,072666533133
1,964381181
1,4016,1862565853.18
Cost
4,88245037476
94310054
7893,178
3113,49716.99
Cost
6,895581428153
1,405258107
1,0404,563346560
3.25
Cost
3,44629625640
6498338
5282,305196
5,66828.98
Cost
4,565469456
1370613679
4903,2311595082.95
Cost
92085796
131201299
67231
5,35526.99
Cost
1,899201188
13288
5221
2151,310
1017744.26
Less Than High School
Less Than High School
Native Working Households
Immigrant Working Households
High School
High School
SomeCollege
SomeCollege
College DegreeOr More
College DegreeOr More
90 % C.I. (±)
1,18020319183
2262417
201795194
90 % C.I. (±)
86512711656
2203129
198678105
90 % C.I. (±)
3265753218098
72232
50
90 % C.I. (±)
69914814572
1832728
162518121
90 % C.I. (±)
2023839124664
43153
31
90 % C.I. (±)
83630129917
1652620
14857691
90 % C.I. (±)
11223224
2033
18919
90 % C.I. (±)
3628381139289
8625656
Source: Survey of Income andProgramParticipation covering calendar year 2012, alongwithfederal budget data.Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead.C.I. = confidence interval. Worker status is determined by the January interview.
![Page 15: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Table A6. Average Cost of Welfare Use in 2012 in Households with Children, by Race
Cost
8,536664470194
1,694210100
1,3845,549629
6,23932.01
Cost
8,626533351182
1,894378171
1,3455,839360
1,3087.53
Cost
11,216975607368
2,315392148
1,7756,8861,0416013.93
Cost
10,233608342267
2,454528242
1,6836,8802916604.20
Cost
18,2561,6721,187485
3,676400174
3,10210,9511,9568884.93
Cost
9,22322817949
1,818260126
1,4316,4057721080.63
Cost
5,70436828187
1,12513073
9223,977234
4,49321.69
Cost
5,679689684
5322159
8155
4,6670
610.35
Cost
6,855407290117
1,20321785
9014,675570276
1.32
Cost
4,83746141942
91412758
7293,327136232
1.23
All
All
Native Households with Children
Immigrant Households with Children
Hispanic
Hispanic
Black
Black
White Asian
White Asian
90 % C.I. (±)
35754462676107
6925863
90 % C.I. (±)
688988153
1562117
14148593
90 % C.I. (±)
1,1522161841012362925
215779249
90 % C.I. (±)
90813110789
2423228
215664112
90 % C.I. (±)
1,2852271871122732824
255873266
90 % C.I. (±)
2,583157121
524605849
4281,931474
90 % C.I. (±)
3694541197797
6927841
90 % C.I. (±)
3,325681679
9170599
1432,633
0
90 % C.I. (±)
1,43620516267
2793326
254914307
90 % C.I. (±)
1,270219212
333282729
30683391
Source:SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipationcoveringcalendaryear2012,alongwithfederalbudgetdata.Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead.C.I. = confidence interval.TheBlack,White,andAsiancolumnsexcludeHispanics.“Other”racenotshown.Child status is determined by the January interview.
![Page 16: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Center for Immigration Studies
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Program
AnyWelfareCash
SSITANF
FoodSchool LunchWICSNAP
MedicaidHousing
Sample SizeWeightedn(millions)
Table A7. Average Cost of Welfare Use in 2012 in Households in Poverty, by Race
Cost
14,3681,301989312
2,855209110
2,5368,3181,8952,93214.37
Cost
13,086988683305
2,870372183
2,3148,0771,152612
3.33
Cost
19,9441,8741,221653
4,182434181
3,56810,8523,0362601.58
Cost
13,386818367451
3,438537268
2,6338,4486823221.94
Cost
20,8091,9741,461
5134,070
302150
3,61811,1823,582694
3.50
Cost
13,79663657165
2,43520891
2,1369,1921,534
520.30
Cost
10,556867721146
2,10513081
1,8936,590994
1,8138.52
Cost
11,681684684
067390
0582
9,1591,166
180.10
Cost
12,4411,3161,123193
1,95613664
1,7556,9242,246
1330.60
Cost
12,3291,6291,615
132,041
9050
1,9027,1581,501
950.44
All
All
Native Households in Poverty
Immigrant Households in Poverty
Hispanic
Hispanic
Black
Black
White Asian
White Asian
90 % C.I. (±)
5911079052
1361411
124407149
90 % C.I. (±)
1,230193162116285
3131
261806224
90 % C.I. (±)
1,8734363303014516040
4111,172672
90 % C.I. (±)
1,1432131581903894647
353810247
90 % C.I. (±)
1,592284222133323
3030
2941,041381
90 % C.I. (±)
6,10244042490
8877154
8294,2501,121
90 % C.I. (±)
688999438
1601313
147502127
90 % C.I. (±)
5,077823823
049259
0496
3,9541,213
90 % C.I. (±)
2,4225234731534934734
4541,419570
90 % C.I. (±)
3,800703702
217184236
6882,408621
Source:SurveyofIncomeandProgramParticipationcoveringcalendaryear2012,alongwithfederalbudgetdata.Householdsareclassifiedbythenativityofthehouseholdhead.C.I. = confidence interval. TheBlack,White,andAsiancolumnsexcludeHispanics.“Other”racenotshown.PovertystatusisdeterminedbytheJanuaryinterview.
![Page 17: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
End Notes1 StevenA.Camarota,“WelfareUsebyImmigrantandNativeHouseholds”, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, September 2015.
2 National Research Council, The New Americans, Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress,1997,p.308.
3 TheHeritageFoundation’s2013fiscalanalysismakesthesameassumption.RobertRectorandJasonRichwine,“TheFiscalCostofUnlawfulImmigrantsandAmnestytotheU.S.Taxpayer”,HeritageFoundationSpecialReport,May6,2013,p.47.
4 HereisalistofthecountriesgroupedundertheregioncategoriesinFigure2.Central America:Belize,Mexico,CostaRica,ElSalvador,Guatemala,Honduras,Nicaragua,Panama.Caribbean:Barbados,Cuba,Dominica,DominicanRepublic,Gre-nada,Haiti,Jamaica,TrinidadandTobago,WestIndies.South America:Argentina,Bolivia,Brazil,Chile,Colombia,Ecua-dor,Guyana,Peru,Uruguay,Venezuela.Europe:Austria,Belgium,France,Germany,Ireland,Holland/Netherlands,Norway,Sweden,Switzerland,UnitedKingdom,Albania,Bulgaria,Greece,Hungary,Italy,Poland,Portugal,Romania,Spain,CzechRepublic,BosniaandHerzegovina,Croatia,Lithuania,Belarus,Russia,Ukraine,USSR.East Asia:China,HongKong,Ja-pan,Korea,SouthKorea,Taiwan.South Asia:Afghanistan,Bangladesh,India,Iran,Nepal,Pakistan,SriLanka,Uzbekistan.Africa:Egypt,EquatorialGuinea,Ethiopia,Eritrea,Ghana,Kenya,Liberia,Morocco,Nigeria,SierraLeone,Somalia,SouthAfrica,Sudan.
5 StevenA.Camarota, “WelfareUsebyLegal and Illegal ImmigrantHouseholds”, Center for Immigration Studies Back-grounder, September 2015, pp. 2-3.
6 Camarota, “WelfareUsebyImmigrantandNativeHouseholds”,Appendix.
7 See,forexample,ShikhaDalmia,“Heritage’sUpdatedStudyontheWelfareCostsofImmigrants:GarbageIn,GarbageOut”, Reason,May7,2013.
8 Camarota,“WelfareUsebyImmigrantandNativeHouseholds”,Appendix.
9 Ibid., pp. 22-23.
10 National Research Council, The New Americans,pp.284-289.The$2,200figurereferstoCalifornia,whichtheauthorsdescribe as likely to be an upper bound estimate.
11 RectorandRichwine,“TheFiscalCostofUnlawfulImmigrantsandAmnestytotheU.S.Taxpayer”,Table6.Bothtypesofhouseholds are in deficit because the government spends more than it takes in.
12 See, for example, Will Wilkinson, “WelfareandAmnesty”, The Economist,May8,2013.
13 ThemistakenbeliefthatimmigrationgenerateslargeindirectfiscalbenefitsseemstostemfromconfusingGDPgrowthwithgainsfornatives.Thelatterisjustatinyproportionoftheformer.Foramorein-depthdiscussion,seeJasonRichwine,“Mostof theGains fromImmigrationGotoImmigrantsThemselves–Not toNatives”, Center for Immigration Studies, February10,2016.
14 George Borjas, “ImmigrationandtheAmericanWorker”, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder,April2013.
15 See,forexample,GeorgeJ.Borjas,JeffreyGrogger,andGordonH.Hanson,“ImmigrationandtheEconomicStatusofAfrican-AmericanMen”, Economica,Vol.73(2010),pp.255-282.
16 RobertD.Putnam,“E Pluribus Unum:DiversityandCommunityintheTwenty-firstCentury”,Scandinavian Political Stud-ies,Vol.30,No.2(June2007),pp.137-174.
17 Camarota,“WelfareUsebyImmigrantandNativeHouseholds”.
![Page 18: The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Householdstakes place. To address the undercount problem, CIS used a more complex dataset called the Survey of Income The Cost of Welfare](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041911/5e67b9b36c90a9352458925d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Center for Immigration Studies
18 Ibid.,Appendix.
19 Means-testedanti-povertyspendinghastrendedineluctablyupward.Eventhefamous“cuts”in1981and1996werejustminor speed bumps on the road to higher spending. See Jason Richwine, “Crying Wolf Over Spending Cuts”,TheRichwineArchive,January18,2014.
20 “HowMass(Legal)ImmigrationDoomsaConservativeRepublicanParty”,EagleForum,firstpublishedJanuary2014.
21 PersonalcommunicationwithShelleyIrvingattheCensusBureau.
22 OnereportedvalueforannualSSIreceiptisanimplausiblyhigh$69,934.Itappearstobeamis-code,asthenext-highestvalueisjust$37,281.Theimplausiblevaluehasbeentop-codedto$37,281forthisstudy. 23 AdisabledpersonintheASECisunderage65andhasatleastoneofthefollowingadditionalcharacteristics:SSIincome,Social Security income, or not working due to illness.
24 PersonalcommunicationwithJessicaSemegaattheCensusBureau.
25 Unfortunately,theSIPPdoesnotidentifyMedicarerecipientswhoareunder15yearsold,eventhoughchildrenwithkid-neydiseasecouldbeontheprogram.Therefore,thecostofMedicaidneverincludesanadditional$1,199Medicarepremiumfor respondents under 15 in this study.
26 PaulD.Johnson,TrudiRenwick,andKathleenShort,“EstimatingTheValueofFederalHousingAssistancefortheSupple-mentalPovertyMeasure”,U.S.CensusBureauWorkingPaper,December2010,pp.6-7.
27 TheSIPPpanelusedinthisstudystartedin2008,soitispossibletocalculateSIPPwelfarecostsoverthefiscal-yearperiodofOctober2011toSeptember2012ratherthanoverthecalendar-yearperiod.ThetroubleisthattheCensusBureaupro-videslongitudinalweightsonlyforcalendaryears.Withoutthoseweights,theSIPPwouldbeunrepresentativeofthegeneralpopulation.
28 OnereasonSSIisoverestimatedintheSIPPmaybethatrespondentsconfuseitwithdisabilityinsurance(DI)payments.BothSSIandDIareadministeredbytheSocialSecurityAdministration,butDIisasocialinsuranceprogramopenonlytoworkers who pay into the system, while SSI is a means-tested transfer payment.