issue brief 3-welfare reform, tanf caseload changes, and latinos: a preliminary assessment

Public Law 104-193 . . . . . . .2

Welfare Reform, Caseload

Changes, and Latinos . . . . . .6

Profiles of Three Key States

and Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . .9

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

ISSUE BRIEFSeptember 2000 No. 3

Welfare Reform,TANFCaseload Changes, andLatinos: A PreliminaryAssessment

By Eric Rodriguez and Kaydee Kirk*

INTRODUCTION

S ince the enactment ofthe 1996 welfare reformlaw, the Persona

Responsibility and WorkOpportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)(PRWORA), researchers andpolicy analysts have beenmonitoring its implementationand its impact on states,communities, and families. Thisparticular round of welfarereform initiated the mostprofound change in eligibilitystandards and benefits forlow-income mothers with chil-dren in six decades by eliminat-ing the federal guarantee of cash

assistance and other safety netservices, giving greater flexibil-ity and responsibility to states,and emphasizing “work first”objectives.

The 1996 welfare law abolishedthe Aid to Families withDependent Children (AFDC)and Job Opportunities andBasic Skills training (JOBS) pro-grams and replaced them withthe “Temporary Assistance forNeedy Families” (TANF) blockgrant. New welfare legislationcreated additional state report-ing and data requirements forthe TANF program and provid-ed flexibility and bonuses tostates for reducing caseloads. Inaddition, the 1996 welfare law

* Eric Rodriguez is a Senior Policy Analyst with NCLR and Kaydee Kirk was formerly aResearch Assistant with NCLR. In addition, Sonia M. Pérez, Deputy Vice President, andCristina Bryan, Editor, as well as Jennifer Kadis, reviewed and edited this brief. Allerrors of fact and logic are the sole responsibility of the authors.

INSIDE

imposed strict work participation requirementsfor recipients of welfare, implemented timelimits on cash assistance and, further, requiredcuts in federal assistance to legal immigrants.The inclusion of punitive provisions, especially,created a heightened concern for advocates,policymakers, and researchers who believedthese measures would deepen poverty amongwomen and children. The result of this uneasi-ness is a significant increase in the volume ofreports, briefs, and articles that have examinedclosely the effects of welfare reform implemen-tation on families and children.

As many of these reports describe, since 1996welfare caseloads nationwide have dropped dra-matically and some have proclaimed the law aresounding success. However, other studies haveexamined the impact of welfare reform in broad-er terms, raising serious questions as to whetherthe law has improved measurably the lives of thenation’s poor. While these reports reflect aneffort to get a complete picture of the impact ofwelfare reform implementation, they have notincluded the effect of welfare reform on specificpopulations like the Latino* community. Thedearth of research on Latinos is troubling.NCLR’s initial assessment of the 1996 law sug-gested that Hispanics were likely to become alarger segment of the nation’s welfare populationover time, while the cornerstones of the newwelfare bill would be the most potentially harm-ful areas for Latinos.

In light of such concerns, this issue brief high-lights the changes in TANF caseloads forHispanic women and children nationwide, offersa preliminary assessment of implementation thusfar, and reviews the caseload status in Puerto

Rico and the three states with the largestnumbers of Latinos on the TANF rolls. Becausewelfare reform implementation is only enteringits fourth year, and information on Hispanics andTANF is limited, the paper lays the groundworkand offers a first step toward examining howLatinos have fared thus far under welfare reform.In addition, welfare reform encompasses morethan changes to the TANF program, but becausemany have focused on TANF caseload reductionsas an indicator of welfare reform’s success,the scope of this issue brief is limited to thisprogram.

PUBLIC LAW 104-193:1996 WELFARE

REFORM LAWWelfare reform changed the nation’s welfaresystem to require work in exchange fortime-limited assistance. The “work first”approach focuses primarily on placing recipientsinto jobs and job-search programs rather thaneducational or training programs. UnderPRWORA, states were given broad flexibility inthe design and operation of their welfareprograms but had to use funds consistent withthe main tenets of the new law that, among otherthings, imposed strict work requirements,placed a time limit on assistance, and deniedbenefits to presumably “undeserving” groups(e.g., certain categories of legal immigrants).

Civil rights and anti-poverty groups such asNCLR, in large part opposed PRWORA becauseit was believed that the central tenets of reformwould destabilize families and punish recipients

* The terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” are used interchangeably throughout this issue brief.

of aid, pushing them deeper into poverty. Thelaw’s primary goal was to lower the welfarerolls; it was not developed with the intent ofreducing poverty and placing recipients intomore stable employment with greater incomepotential. These advocates argued that the out-come of this effort seemed predetermined -greater numbers of working poor families whilethe poorest families would get poorer.

NATIONAL WELFARE CASELOAD

TRENDS1

A snapshot of the national TANF caseload andtrends serves as a starting-point for a prelimi-nary assessment of welfare reform’s impact. Forexample;

◗ The U.S. has experienced a substan-tial decline in the proportion ofthe population receiving welfarebetween 1993 and 1999. According todata from the U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services (HHS), In 1993, 5.5%of the U.S. population was receiving AFDC,compared to 4.7% in 1996 and 2.5% inJune 1999. As a result, there were 7.2 mil-lion fewer recipients on the TANF rolls in1999 than in 1993.

◗ The U.S. has experienced a significantdrop in welfare recipient caseloadsbetween 1996 and 1999. According torecent data from HHS, since the enactmentof the welfare reform law in 1996, thenationwide welfare caseload has beenreduced by 44.7%, from 11.4 million recip-ients reported for January 1997, to 6.3 mil-lion recipients reported for December1999. There were 5.1 million fewer welfarerecipients in 1999 than in early 1997.

◗ The number of children on welfarehas dropped substantially between1996 and 1999. According to data fromHHS, the caseload changes for children haveparalleled that of overall TANF recipients.During the period from October 1995 toSeptember 1996 and from October 1998 toSeptember 1999, the number of childrenreceiving assistance has dropped from 8.7million to 5.3 million: (39.1%).

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF

IMPLEMENTATIONAs these data show, since the passage of welfarereform in 1996, a significant number of poorfamilies have moved off the TANF rolls.Notwithstanding these presumably positive indi-cators, two primary questions remain: (1) didthe 1996 welfare reform law directly result ingreater TANF caseload reductions; and (2) doessmaller TANF rolls mean poor single mothershave experienced measurable improvements inincome, poverty, and economic well-being?

With respect to PRWORA’s impact on the case-load, President Clinton’s Council of EconomicAdvisors (CEA) issued a paper that attributedone-third of caseload declines between 1996 and1998 to welfare reform and 8-10 percent to thestrong labor market (low unemployment).2

While this study is not the definitive word onthis question, and the exact segment of caseloadreduction that is due to PRWORA is difficult todiscern, most researchers and analysts agree thatwelfare reform has played an important role inreducing the TANF rolls. Given this generalagreement, to the extent that AFDC caseloadreduction was an important stated public policygoal, welfare reform has been successful.However, many researchers and policy analysts

have been more concerned with the question ofwhether welfare reform and tumbling TANFrolls have translated into measurable improve-ments in economic status and well-being forpoor single mothers.

In terms of welfare reform’s impact on overalleconomic status, the results are unclear. Forinstance, while Census data show increases inincome and reductions in poverty for single-mother families between 1996 and 1998, thesenumbers are explained, in large part, byimprovements for female-headed families withchildren who did not work. Between 1996 and1998 the poverty rate for single mothers 16-64who did not work declined from 82.8% to76.7%.* In the meantime, for mother-only fam-ilies who did work (where the householder was16-64 years old) the poverty rate remainedsteady while the number of poor families actual-ly grew by 142,000 between 1996 and 1998, anincrease of 7.3%.3 Accordingly, overall nation-wide improvements in poverty and income forsingle-mothers can hardly be linked to welfarereform, but more than likely are due to the eco-nomic expansion. On the other hand, a swellingworking-poor population may reflect moreclosely the movement of poor mothers fromwelfare into low-paying jobs.

With respect to welfare reform’s impact on eco-nomic well-being, several well-known studies ofwelfare “leavers” nationally, and in several keystates, found gains in employment and earnings

for welfare recipients but also unstable employ-ment and high levels of TANF recidivism.Specifically:

◗ A significant number of welfarerecipients who left the rolls foundemployment. A recent study by theUrban Institute found that 69% of welfare“leavers” who reported a reason for leavingwelfare said it was due to increased earningsor a new job.** In addition, a recent studyof welfare recipients in Michigan foundthat between fall 1997 and fall 1998 thenumber of former recipients who wereworking increased from 56.8% to 61.5%.†4

Furthermore, state surveys compiled by theNational Conference of State Legislaturesshowed that out of 19 states, four statesreported more than 60% found work, 12states reported 50-60% of adults leavingwelfare worked at some point, while 3 statesreported less that half found work.5

◗ Former welfare recipients, who wereemployed, relied less on welfare andmaintained relatively fair earninglevels. The Michigan study found anincrease in the number of recipients work-ing and no longer receiving welfare, from19.9% in the fall of 1997 to 37.3% in thefall of 1998.6 In addition, a report by theUrban Institute found that median monthlyearnings of former recipients’ families($1,149) were higher than those of families

* This may reflect increases in family income from other sources besides wages and earnings (e.g., other family members).** The study also noted that three in ten total welfare leavers in that study did not report a reason for leaving.† The study of Michigan recipients is one of the most widely cited studies of welfare leavers because it focuses on economic well-

being.

with income less than 150% of poverty($1,031) but slightly less (although not sta-tistically significant) than those of familieswith income less than 200% of poverty($1,240).7

◗ Sustained employment remained achallenge for welfare leavers, and asignificant number returned to theTANF rolls. In 1999, the GeneralAccounting Office (GAO) testified beforeCongress that available state data reportedonly between 61% to 71% of former recip-ients were employed during the follow-upperiod.*8 Moreover, an Urban Institute studyof welfare leavers found that only 61% ofthose still off the rolls were working at thetime of the follow-up interview and that29% of those who left welfare between1995 and 1997 returned to the rolls.9 Inaddition, the GAO found that, “the percent-age of families who initially left welfare andthen returned to the rolls was significant,ranging from 19 percent after 3 months inMaryland to 30 percent after 15 months inWisconsin.”10

◗ Families who left the TANF rolls stillreported struggling financially. TheUrban Institute found one-third (33.4%) offormer recipients, compared to one-quarter(24.7%) of low-income mothers (below150% of poverty), reported needing to cutthe size of meals or skipping meals becausethere was not enough food.11 In addition,the Michigan study found that, regardless of

level of work, a significant segment report-ed “serious economic difficulties and subjec-tive financial strain.” In this study of formerwelfare recipients, one in five (19.3%)reported two or more hardships includinglack of health insurance.12 Moreover, arecent Children’s Defense Fund report high-lighted several notable studies that found asignificant number of families who left wel-fare in South Carolina, Florida, andWisconsin reported hardship and a dramat-ic increase in food insecurity between 1997and 1998.13

Taken together, the evidence suggests that wel-fare reform did contribute to moving families offthe TANF rolls. However, data and studies sug-gest that while there is a linkage between shrink-ing TANF caseloads and increased employmentand earnings for many poor single mothers,TANF caseload reduction alone is not a goodindicator of the success of welfare reform. Thestudies show that PRWORA itself has not con-clusively led to overall improvements in thewell-being and stability of poor mothers.Moreover, other news reports have revealed thatwelfare reform implementation itself has lead toadministrative practices that may have long-termnationwide implications. For example;

◗ Since welfare reform was enacted,families have been pushed off therolls regardless of need. Federal data,noted in a 1998 Washington Post article,showed that over a three month period in1997, 38% of the recipients who left welfare

* The year when states undertook follow-up interviews ranged from 1996 (Indiana) to 1998 (Washington and Wisconsin).

did so because of “state sanctions, orderedfor infractions [ranging from] missingappointments with caseworkers to refusingto search for work.” The article also foundthat states such as Indiana and Florida wereusing sanctions and rules violations to closea significant proportion of cases.14

◗ In some regions, a decline in the TANFcaseload also reflected fewer welfareapplications being approved insteadof a reduction in need for TANFassistance or increased employmentfor poor single mothers. For instance,New York City welfare offices have made adeliberate effort to divert needy familiesfrom initially applying for or receiving pub-lic assistance. An article by the New YorkTimes reported that two welfare offices (onein Brooklyn, the other in Queens) reportedmajor declines in caseloads that were attrib-utable to fewer applications for TANF beingaccepted.15

Because there is limited information, if any, onthe experience of eligible families after beingdenied or discouraged from receiving TANFassistance, it is difficult to tell conclusively howthese practices harmed families. But, if nothingelse, the evidence suggests that welfare reformaltered materially the philosophy and, corre-spondingly, the behavior of welfare administra-tors nationwide and these practices, which havenothing to do with welfare reform’s success,likely contributed to smaller TANF caseloads.

WELFARE REFORM, CASELOAD

CHANGES, AND LATINOSThe experience of Hispanic poor mothers andtheir children who receive TANF has been

mixed, and overall TANF caseload data showboth positive and negative trends.

NATIONAL RACIAL AND ETHNIC

TANF CASELOAD

COMPOSITION 16

◗ The number of Latino families on theTANF rolls declined between 1995-96and 1998-99, but at a slower rate thanfor White and Black families. Between1995-96 and 1998-99, the number ofHispanic families on TANF nationwidedropped by almost 300,000, a decline of31.5%. However, in comparison, duringthe same period, the number of White andBlack families declined by 50.6% and39.6%, respectively.

◗ The share of all families receivingTANF/AFDC that is Hispanicincreased by 17.7% between 1995-96and 1998-99. According to HHS data,between October 1998 and September1999, 24.5% of all families receiving TANFwere Hispanic, whereas 38.3% were Blackand 30.5% were White. However, between1995 and 1996 Hispanics constituted 20.8%of all families receiving AFDC, while 36.9%were Black and 35.9% were White.

◗ The segment of all children receivingTANF/AFDC that is Latino grew by16.1% between 1995-96 and 1998-99.Between October 1998 and September1999, 26.0% of all children on TANF wereHispanic, while 39.5% were Black and25.8% were White. However, between1995 and 1996 Hispanics constituted 22.4%of the AFDC caseload, while 38.4% wereBlack and 31.6% were White.

In addition, a recent study of welfare “leavers”revealed that Hispanics only constituted 13.1%of former recipients who left the TANF rollsduring the study period (between 1995 and1997) while more than half (52.2%) were Whitenon-Hispanic.17

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF

IMPLEMENTATION ON LATINASAlthough data show that the number of Hispanicfamilies on TANF has declined, welfare reformoverall had a dramatic effect on Hispanic familiesand Latino families and children constitute agrowing share of the TANF caseload. This islargely because PRWORA: 1) targeted legalimmigrants for cuts in assistance; 2) heighteneddiscrimination against families in need of TANFassistance; and 3) emphasized work instead oftraining and skill-building including English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) training, which is crit-ical toward helping Hispanic women move fromwelfare to work.

Because welfare reform targeted legal immi-grants - many of whom are Hispanic - for cuts,

and extended restrictions to other safety-netprograms like Supplemental Security Income(SSI), Food Stamps, and Medicaid, Hispanic fam-ilies were disproportionately and adverselyharmed by the 1996 law.18 With respect toTANF, because legal immigrants made up a small

segment of participants (only5.9% between 1995-96),19

these provisions more than like-ly had a more modest directeffect on the nationwide TANFcaseload. Nevertheless, confu-sion on the part of welfareadministrators over eligibilityfor categories of legal immi-grants in a range of servicesundoubtedly impacted immi-grant families in need of, andeligible for,TANF assistance.20

Moreover, welfare reform’simmigrant provisions coupled

with its emphasis on reducing the caseloadappears to have provided, at least implicitly, tacitencouragement to welfare administrators toopenly discriminate against Hispanic and otherfamilies in need of TANF, especially those withlanguage barriers. For instance, an investigationconducted by the HHS Office for Civil Rights(OCR) in 1999 found serious levels of discrimi-nation against Limited English Proficient (LEP)clients among several welfare offices in NewYork. The report states that OCR found that dueto lack of language assistance, “LEP clients expe-rience significant difficulties when applying foror accessing benefits and, as a result, are effec-tively denied meaningful access to the New YorkState Medicaid and TANF programs.”21 Amongtheir findings, OCR discovered that several NewYork welfare offices frequently denied LEP per-

sons language interpreter assistance andinstructed such persons to bring their own inter-preters to eligibility interviews and otherappointments. The investigation also found thatthe number of bilingual staff employed at thevarious offices was sparse, even in predominant-ly Hispanic communities. Moreover, OCR dis-covered that, on several occasions, LEP appli-cants were sent away because they did not bringan interpreter. In addition, a study of the FoodStamp program in Oregon found that non-English speakers waited four times longer thanEnglish speakers for applications in their lan-guage.22 Although little is known about theexperience of Hispanic families denied or dis-couraged from receiving TANF assistance,arguably these practices have had serious effectson families.

Furthermore, welfare reform’s “work first” focusappears to have contributed to the slower rate ofcase closures for Hispanics than for White andBlack TANF families between 1995-96 and1998-99. This is largely because of the well-doc-umented skill-barriers of single Hispanic moth-ers.23 Of those recipients who have left theTANF rolls with a job, the bulk had relatively fewbarriers to employment. For this reason, mostrecipients still on the caseload tend to be theleast skilled and so-called “hard to serve,” facingsignificant, multiple, and interrelated barriers toemployment. As a result, from 1994 to 1997,the percentage of the TANF caseload that hadbeen receiving assistance for five years or morehad increased from 19% to 24%.24

Furthermore, research shows that the modestportion of immigrant women on the TANF rollshave had a difficult time moving off the rolls. By1998-99, despite a decline in the number of par-ticipants, the segment of the TANF caseload thatwas non-citizen grew from 5.9% in 1995-96 to11.7%, and a recent study revealed that welfarereform has not succeeded in moving many immi-grant women, because of skill-barriers, into self-sufficient employment.25

Moreover, although information on the experi-ence of Latina mothers who have left the rollssince 1996 is limited, Census data reveal that thenumber of working-poor Hispanic single moth-ers 16 to 64 years of age grew by 61,000between 1996 and 1998, an increase of 18.3%.In comparison, during the same period, thenumber of similar poor Black and White familiesincreased 7.8% and 6.6%, respectively.*26 Thesedata suggest that even those Latinas leaving therolls for work may be less likely to escape pover-ty than their White and Black counterparts.

Taken together, since 1996 Hispanic womenwith children have left the TANF rolls in sub-stantial numbers and many, undoubtedly, havefound jobs. But PRWORA had a sweeping affecton Hispanic families, and arguably helped toincrease discrimination against Hispanic familiesin need of TANF assistance. Moreover, because“work first” has not been as successful forHispanic and Black women as for their Whitecounterparts, an increasingly larger share offamilies on the TANF rolls is either Black orHispanic.

* Similar to overall nationwide trends, between 1996 and 1998 the number of poor Hispanic households headed by women (with chil-dren) who did not work declined by 110,000. Also, the poverty rate for these families declined from 87.7% in 1996 to 82.2% in1998. This also reflects increases in income from other sources besides wages and earnings.

PROFILES OF THREE

KEY STATES AND

PUERTO RICO27

Because TANF is a highly devolvedprogram, states have played a signifi-cant role in shaping and implement-ing welfare reform. Tables 1-4reflect changes in the number andcomposition of welfare caseloads forthe island of Puerto Rico and thestates with the greatest number ofHispanics - California, New York,and Texas.

As the data in Table 1 indicate,between 1997 and 1999 Texas nearlymatched the national average in totalTANF caseload declines (-50% and -51%, respectively). Meanwhile,California (-30%), New York(-26%), and Puerto Rico (-29%)reported significant but moremodest TANF caseload declines ascompared to the national average.

Furthermore, data in Table 2 showthe growth in the share of Latinofamilies on the TANF rolls between 1997 and1999 was particularly evident in Texas andCalifornia. In addition, both Table 2 and Table 4show that in Texas, more than half of all familiesand all children on the TANF rolls between 1997and 1999 were Hispanic. Moreover, the tablesshow that in California the growth rate wasparticularly profound as the share of bothfamilies and children on TANF caseload thatwere Latino increased by about 23% between1997 and 1999.

At the same time, other data reveal that compo-sition changes may have been more intense ininner cities where there are large numbers ofLatinos. For instance, an article in the New YorkTimes reported that the caseload in New York

Table 2DISTRIBUTION OF TANF FAMILIES BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

1995/96 - 1998/99Top Three States with the Greatest Number of Latinos and Puerto Rico

STATE Hispanic White Black1995/96 1998/99 1995/96 1998/99 1995/96 1998/99

California 37.9% 46.4% 31.2% 25.1% 16.8% 18.1%New York 7.2% 38.2% 19.9% 17.1% 34.6% 42.1%Texas 46.6% 49.6% 19.9% 20.2% 32.1% 29.4%Puerto Rico 99.4% 98.4% .3% 0.7% .2% 0.0%U.S. TOTAL 20.8% 24.5% 35.9% 30.5% 36.9% 38.3%

Source: Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services

Table 3DISTRIBUTION OF TANF ADULT RECIPIENTS

BY RACE/ETHNICITY October 1998-September1999

Top Three States with the Greatest Number of Latinos and Puerto Rico

STATE Hispanic White BlackCalifornia 36.8% 29.7% 18.7%New York 36.8% 19.1% 41.3%Texas 50.4% 21.7% 26.8%Puerto Rico 98.4% 0.7% 0.7%U.S. TOTAL 23.1% 32.4% 36.4%

Source: Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health andHuman Services

Table 1

TOTAL TANF RECIPIENT CASELOAD 1993-1999Top Three States with the Greatest Number of Latinos and Puerto Rico

STATE Jan ‘93 Jan ‘97 June ‘99 Percent change Percent change(‘93-’97) ‘97-’99)

California 2,415,121 2,476,564 1,735,103 +3% -30%New York 1,179,522 1,074,189 795,030 -9% -26%Texas 785,271 626,617 313, 823 -20% -50%Puerto Rico 191,261 145,749 103,220 -24% -29%U.S. TOTAL 14,114,992 12,876,661 6,889,315 -13% -51%

Source: Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services

City had drastically changed to reflect the grow-ing presence of minorities unable to move off therolls.28 Moreover, a recent report on major U.S.cities and welfare reform revealed that 20 coun-ties (containing some of the largest cities) expe-rienced a 2.7% increase in the share of the case-load that was Hispanic between 1996 and 1999.Meanwhile, the study showed that share of thecaseload that was African American in thesecities increased by 0.6% during this period andthe share that was White decreased by 3.3%.*29

CONCLUSIONSThe data presented in this brief reveal thatwelfare reform contributed, in some measure, toa reduction in the TANF caseload for women andchildren between 1996 and 1999. During thisperiod, other studies show an increase inemployment for former welfare recipientsnationwide. Recent studies and welfare reformevaluation research also confirm that many

women have moved from welfare intowork and many have experienced signifi-cant gains in income and earnings.

Nevertheless, many of these same studiesalso substantiate that improvements ineconomic well-being remains elusive formany families that have left the rolls;many have not been able to sustainemployment and many have, or haveneeded to, return to the TANF rolls.

Moreover, there are strong indicationsthat welfare reform altered profoundly the orga-nizational culture and philosophy of welfareservice delivery. One result of this change is thatmany families have been forced off the TANFrolls whether they are employed or not, andmany eligible families have been denied accessto, or deterred from, applying for TANF assis-tance and other services when they needed it andwere eligible. While precise information on thenumber of families denied, discouraged, or cutoff from TANF assistance is scarce, preliminaryreports suggest that the impact was significantand in many cases dramatic.

Overall, welfare reform has had a disproportion-ate and adverse impact on Hispanics. The datashow that Latinas have left the TANF rolls inlarge numbers, but poor single Hispanic womenand Hispanic children, have become a larger seg-ment of the welfare caseload nationwide. This isespecially evident in key states and cities withlarge Latino populations like Texas and New York

Table 4DISTRIBUTION OF TANF FAMILIES BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

1995/96 - 1998/99Top Three States with the Greatest Number of Latinos and Puerto Rico

STATE Hispanic White Black1995/96 1998/99 1995/96 1998/99 1995/96 1998/99

California 40.3% 49.0% 27.2% 20.2% 16.2% 20.2%New York 39.7% 37.7% 15.4% 16.3% 34.8% 40.8%Texas 47.7% 52.8% 17.7% 16.9% 33.5% 29.0%Puerto Rico n/a 99.4% n/a 0.2% n/a 0.1%U.S. TOTAL 22.4% 26.0% 31.6% 25.8% 38.4% 39.5%Source: Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services

* The study requested race and ethnic caseload composition information from the 25 counties containing the largest 25 cities includ-ing: Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Francisco, and El Paso.However, the following counties/cities did not respond: New York City, Baltimore, Memphis, Nashville, and Cleveland.

City. All indications are that Latinas are notmoving off the rolls as quickly as White andBlack clients because they tend to have a greaternumber of skill-barriers and are less likely to bejob ready.

Furthermore, TANF caseload reductions donot reflect the full extent of PRWORA’simpact on families. PRWORA made sweepingchanges to safety-net programs beyond TANF.Modifications to the Food Stamp, Medicaid, andSupplemental Security Income programs havehad a major affect on the ability of families toimprove their economic well-being. In addition,PRWORA contained specific targeted provisionsto immigrants. These provisions had an intenseand immediate impact on families with legalimmigrants, many of whom are Latino. BecauseLatinos are more likely to be foreign-born, andare more likely than White and Black families tohave immigrant family members, these provi-sions disproportionately and adversely impactedHispanics.

In spite of this, scholars and policy makers havepaid little attention to how Latinas have faredunder welfare reform. Few studies have collect-ed Hispanic data, and even where the data areavailable, few have extracted and highlighted it.This is problematic because the nationwide case-load is becoming more Hispanic, and the successof welfare policy in the future may hinge on itsability to move Latinas from the welfare rollsinto the workforce. In addition, mothers cur-rently on the rolls, many of whom are Hispanic,will likely be reaching their five-year life-timelimit under TANF in the next two years. How toserve these families best will be a paramount

concern in the years to come, yet, not enough isknown about what works or how to improvesubstantially their employability in the contextof the new policy and economic environment.

In addition, policymakers, researchers, and ana-lysts have begun to focus on welfare leavers andpolicy options to keep them in the labor market.As a result, many have turned attention awayfrom the hard-to-serve and those still on therolls, and have assumed that those women whoare still participating fully in the TANF programare unable to leave and have disabilities, healthproblems, or substance abuse challenges. Thispresumption limits the resources and attentionnecessary to move Latinas with severe skill-chal-lenges into the labor market.

Based on this preliminary assessment, severalmajor research questions deserve further explo-ration including:

1. What are the characteristics of the currentcaseload of Hispanic women? What do weknow about their length of stay on welfare?When will they reach their life-time limit?What are their employment and support-service needs?

2. What do we know about the employmentstatus, income, and poverty rates ofHispanic welfare leavers?

3. How have the different local economies con-tributed to or impeded the employmentoptions for poor Hispanic single mothers?

4. What has been the effect of discrimination,denying or discouraging receipt of TANFand ancillary services, and diversion pro-grams on Hispanic families?

5. Are there particular state programs thathave been more successful than others inhelping Hispanic women obtain and main-tain employment? What are their commoncharacteristics?

Even in the absence of all the data required todevelop a comprehensive policy agenda toaddress the interests of Hispanic TANF recipi-ents, sufficient evidence exists that shouldinform policy formation. As policymakers andadvocates begin to consider how to reauthorizeand reshape TANF and related programs, severalbroad areas need to be addressed in order toimprove welfare policy outcomes for Latinas.These include:

◗ Philosophy and framework. The wel-fare reform law of 1996 altered substantial-ly the framework and philosophy of the wel-fare system to emphasize TANF caseloadreduction and immediate employment ofwelfare recipients as major policy goals.Although these objectives are important, theexperience of welfare reform implementa-tion suggests that they are unsuitable as pri-mary goals for the nation’s welfare system;caseloads are down, many welfare mothersare employed, but poverty persists and foodinsecurity is on the rise. Welfare reautho-rization must establish a new policy frame-work that emphasizes the goals of reducingpoverty and increasing long-lasting self-suf-ficiency through employment, and strength-ening safety-net protections for thoseunable, through no fault of their own, towork.

◗ Benefit restorations. Although access tofederal safety-net services for many legal

immigrants was restored between 1997 and1999, a large segment of the U.S. legalimmigrant community remains unprotectedby the nation’s major social safety-net pro-grams. The bulk of those affected by currentrestrictions are hardworking Hispanics,often with U.S. citizen children who couldbe forced to go hungry or homeless if they,their parents, or another family memberloses a job or becomes disabled. Welfarereform must strengthen the social safety-netto ensure that all eligible families and chil-dren in need have access to Medicaid, FoodStamps, TANF, child care, and job training.Such investments are critical to assistingfamilies in their efforts to become self-suffi-cient and return to the work force.

◗ Work first. The “work first” philosophy hasrun its course, and whatever benefit it mayhave had has long passed. Those who werejob-ready, but may have been deterred frommoving into the labor force because of theabsence of time limits, have since left theTANF rolls. Those left behind consist pri-marily of long-term dependents and hard-to-serve mothers with severe and multiplebarriers to employment. A large and grow-ing segment of those remaining on the TANFrolls are Latinas, suggesting that welfare pol-icy must begin to address the skill-barriersof hard-to-serve Hispanic women if it is tocontinue to move mothers off the TANFrolls. Because the characteristics of theTANF population have changed since 1996,welfare policy must begin to shift away fromthe “work first” philosophy. The new welfarepolicy framework should emphasize qualitylong-term training, education, improved

access to transitional benefits and services,and employment in jobs that pay abovepoverty-level wages and provide fringe ben-efits.

◗ Discrimination. While discrimination inthe delivery of welfare services did notbegin with the 1996 welfare law, provisionswithin the law heightened the opportunitiesfor and implications of this behavior forLatinos. These unlawful behaviors have dis-proportionately affected non-English speak-ing families, which include a substantialnumber of Latinos, and has resulted in fam-ilies being effectively denied services thatthey need to avert destitution and becomeself-sufficient. Welfare reauthorization muststrengthen oversight and increase accounta-bility on the part of states and cities toensure that families have access to the bene-fits and services for which they are eligible.

◗ Language assistance and outreach.The research reveals that the welfare sys-tem, by and large, has not responded well to

the growing need for language assistance.The lack of language services - includingmultilingual materials, staff, and forms - hasresulted in eligible families in need of assis-tance essentially being denied access to serv-ices simply because they do not speak orunderstand English very well. The evidenceshows that this problem is endemic andexists even in areas where a large segment ofthe community is made up of non-Englishspeakers. The upcoming discussion overwelfare reauthorization must address thisissue in a serious manner if programs are toadequately serve a TANF population that isincreasingly Hispanic and made up of non-English speaking families.

Given that the share of the TANF caseload that isLatino is increasing, and that changing demo-graphics underscore the importance of Latinoworkers to sustaining the economy, it is incum-bent to focus attention on this population.Given demographics, this is an economic imper-ative; services and federal investments must helppeople become self-sufficient.�

ENDNOTES1. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program:

Third Annual Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,August 2000.

2. The Effects of Welfare Policy and the EconomicExpansion on Welfare Caseloads: An Update, A reportby the Council of Economic Advisers, August 3, 1999.

3. Poverty in the United States: 1998, CurrentPopulation Reports, U.S. Bureau, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Commerce, September 1999.

4. Danziger Sandra, Mary Corcoran, Sheldon Danziger,and Collen M. Heflin, Work, Income and MaterialHardship After Welfare Reform, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor MI: revised January, 2000.

5. Compilation of individual state surveys posted to theNational Conference of State Legislatures web pagewww.ncsl.org.

6. Ibid.

7. Loprest, Pamela, Families Who Left Welfare: Who AreThey and How Are They Doing? Washington, D.C.:Urban Institute, 1999.

8. Welfare Reform: States’ Implementation Progress andInformation on Former Recipients, testimony/statement of Cynthia M. Fagnoni, GeneralAccounting Office, Washington D.C.: May 27, 1999.

9. Loprest, Pamela, Families Who Left Welfare: Who AreThey and How Are They Doing? op.cit.

10. “Welfare Reform: States’ Implementation Progressand Information on Former Recipients,” op.cit.

11. Loprest, Pamela, Families Who Left Welfare: Who AreThey and How Are They Doing? op.cit.

12. Danziger Sandra, Mary Corcoran, Sheldon Danziger,and Collen M. Heflin, Work, Income and MaterialHardship After Welfare Reform, op. cit.

13. The State of America’s Children Yearbook 2000,section on Family Income, Children’s Defense Fund,Washington: D.C., March, 2000.

14. “Sanctions Fuel Drop in Welfare Rolls,” BarbaraVobejda and Judith Havemann, The Washington Post,March 23, 1998.

15. “New York’s New Strategy Sharply Cuts WelfareApplications at Two Offices,” Rachel L. Swarns, NewYork Times, June 22, 1998.

16. Calculations by NCLR based on published data tablesfrom the U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices.

17. Loprest, Pamela J. and Sheila R. Zedlewshi, Currentand Former Welfare Recipients: How Do TheyDiffer?” Urban Institute, Washington DC: November1999.

18. “Immigration and Welfare Reform Legislation: TheImpact on Latinos,” Washington D.C.: NCLR, March1999.

19. Unpublished data from the U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services.

20. Zimmerman, Wendy and Karen C. Tumlin, PatchworkPolicies: State Assistance for Immigrants UnderWelfare Reform, Washington D.C.: The UrbanInstitute, Occasional Paper Number 24, May 1999.

21. Letter by the Department of Health and HumanServices Office of the Secretary, Office forCivil Rights, Docket Number: 02-99-3130 toAntonia C. Novello M.D., Commissioner, New YorkState Department of Health, Jason A. Turner,Commissioner, Human Resources AdministrationCity of New York, John Wingate, Commissioner,Suffolk County Department of Social Services, BrianWing, Commissioner, New York State Office ofTemporary and Disability Assistance, Peter Clement,Assistant Commissioner, Nassau County Departmentof Social Services, Washington D.C.: October 21,1999.

22. Strege-Flora Carson, Hunger Pangs: Oregon FoodStamp Program Fails to Deliver, Oregon ActionNorthwest Federation of Community Organizations,National Breaking Barriers Series No.2, April 2000.

23. Pérez, Sonia M. Untapped Potential: A Look atHispanic Women in the U.S., Washington D.C.,National Council of La Raza, February 1996: JuliaTeresa Quiroz and Regina Tosca, On My Own:Mexican American Women, Self-Sufficiency, and theFamily Support Act, Washington D.C.: NationalCouncil of La Raza 1990; Julia Teresa Quiroz andRegina Tosca, For My Children: Mexican AmericanWomen, Work, and Welfare, Washington D.C.:National Council of La Raza, March 1992; and JoseCruz, Implementing the Family Support Act:Perspectives of Puerto Rican Clients, WashingtonD.C.: National Puerto Rican Coalition, May 1991.

24. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)Program, First Annual Report to Congress, U.S.Department Of Health And Human ServicesAdministration for Children and Families Office ofPlanning, Research and Evaluation, August 1998.

25. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families....” op.citpublished data tables from the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, August 2000; and DorisY. Ng, From War on Poverty to War on Welfare: TheImpact of Welfare Reform on the Lives of ImmigrantWomen. San Francisco, CA: Equal Rights Advocates,April 1999.

26. Unpublished data from the Department of Health andHuman Services, Office of Family Assistance, andU.S. Bureau of the Census, Current PopulationReports, Series P60-207, Poverty in the UnitedStates: 1998.

27. Ibid.

28. “Shrinking Welfare Rolls Leave Record High Share ofMinorities,” Jason DeParle The New York Times, July27, 1998.

29. Allen, Katherine, and Maria Kirby, “UnfinishedBusiness: Why Cities Matter to Welfare Reform,”Washington D.C., Center on Urban & MetropolitanPolicy, The Brookings Institution, Survey Series, July2000.

Moving up the Economic Ladder:Latino Workers and the Nation s Future

Prosperity

Now Available...Moving up the Economic Ladder:

Latino Workers and the Nation s FutureProsperity

Now Available...No w Av ai l a b l e ...

“ . . .provides a broad view of Latino workers, but atthe same time it focuses on critical issues that arenecessary to developing a richer understanding of theeconomic status of Latinos. . . The result is anin-depth and complex picture of a vital segment of theU.S. work force . . .”

—Prof. Clara Rodríguez, Fordham University

S TAT E O F H ISPANIC A M E R I C A 1999

NCLR’s first book, Moving Up the Economic Ladder, offers an extensivelook at the employment status of the U.S. Latino population - asignificant and growing segment of the nation’s labor force.

“At last, at long last, we have a volume that takes a careful, comprehensive, and quiteinformative look at Latino workers. . . The book will instantly become a valuable resourcefor anyone who cares about issues of work and pay in the economy and the contributions

and struggles of the Latino worker.”— Prof. David T. Ellwood,

John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

“ . . . a masterful compendium on Latino workers andthe nation’s future prosperity. Readers will want toscan the data, sit back, and reflect. This book helps tounderstand . . . the issues facing Hispanic workers andthe nation’s economy in general.”

— Dr. Refugio Rochín, Director,Smithsonian Center for

Latino Initiatives

TO ORDER, PLEASE FILL OUT AND MAIL THIS F O R M❏ Yes ❏ No I would like to order _______ copy(ies) of the Moving up the Economic Ladder: Latino Workers and the Nation’sFuture Prosperity, (H51). Enclosed is a ❏ Check or ❏ Money Order i the amount of $________ to cover the cost of the publication(s)including $5 for Shipping and Handling. (Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery.) THE PRICE O F THIS REPORT IS $30 PLUS COST O F

SHIPPING AND HANDLING.NameCompanyAddress City

State ZipTelephone Fax e-mail

❏ Please send me and NCLR Publications Catalog.

PPlleeaassee mmaaiill tthhiiss ffoorrmm wwiitthh PPAAYYMMEENNTT ttoo:: NNCCLLRR DDiissttrriibbuuttiioonn CCeenntteerrPP..OO.. BBooxx 229911 �� AAnnnnaappoolliiss JJcctt..,, MMDD 2200770011 �� ((330011)) 660044--77998833

✁ O RDER YO U R COPY TODAY!