NOT MAKING IT
IN MASSACHUSETTS:
THE IMPACT OF THE 1981 OBRA POLICIES
ON AFDC FAMILIES
by
MAR I AN DARL INGTON-HOPE
B.A.,
UNIVERSITY
OF MASSACHUSETTS
(1981)
AT BOSTON
SUBMITTED TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER
IN CITY PLANNING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
MAY
1984
Marian Darlington-Hope 1984
The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce
thesis in whole or in part.
and to distribute
copies of this
Signature of Author
D
Certified
artment o(
Urba( Studies
nd Planning
by
Leonard Buckle
Thesis Supervisor
Certified by
Suzann Thomas-Buckle
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by
Ralph A.
Gakenheimer
Chairman, Departmental Graduate Committee
MA SAC
EI
iNSi0T
OF TECHNOLOGY
AUG1 0 1984
LIBRARIE3
NOT MAKING IT IN MASSACHUSETTS:
THE IMPACT OF THE 1981 OBRA POLICIES
ON AFDC FAMILIES
by
MARIAN DARLINGTON-HOPE
submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
May 28, 1984
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER in CITY PLANNING
ABSTRACT
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a 46 year old
income
provides
which
welfare program
mandated
federally
support for low-income families was radically altered in 1981
major
a
(OBRA),
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
the
by
Over
administration.
by the Reagan
effort
cutting
budget
in
families
26,000
and
nationally
families
300,000
11
of
A total
were terminated from benefits.
Massachusetts
and
provisions were passed which changed the nature
general
In particular, child care, work e-xpenses
structure of AFDC.
and Medicaid were either eliminated or reduced.
the
and
have coped
examines how families
thesis
This
life
strategies they employed in their struggle for a decent
AFDC
their
of
the termination
since
families
their
for
child
addressed:
The
impacts of four issues are
benefits.
public
about
care and attitudes
health
employment,
care,
with
are based on a study contracted
data
The
assistance.
Services
and the Department of Social
Centre Research,Inc.,
mail
Data collection methods included a
of
Massachusetts.
the
survey and limited follow-up interviews conducted during
Spring 1983.
difficulties
The study concludes that families have met with
implemented.
was
policy
continuing almost two years after the
medical
any
having
not
27.7% reported
particular,
In
21%
used;
care
child
the type of
35% changed
coverage;
24.9%.
and
obligations
financial
meeting
reported difficulties
or
strained family relationships and
experiencing
reported
emotional stress.
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people who have made this
thesis possible:
I am grateful to Scott Bass and Carol Van Deusen Lukas
First,
academic
an
just
to make my thesis more than
helping
for
exerci se.
mother,
my
due
is
thank you
special
a
Secondly,
last
the
during
children
two
my
for raising
Darlngton
I
studied.
years while
Agnes
three
Third, I owe a great deal of gratitude to my thesis advisors,
I am very proud to have had
Leonard and Suzann Buckle.
Drs.
the
left
they
with them before
work
to
opportunity
an
departure
Their
Planning.
and
Studies
Urban
of
department
will be a great loss to the entire Institute.
advisor,
academic
my
my appreciation to
give
I
Finally,
MIT.
who encouraged me all during my tenure at
Jones
Frank
Without his faith in my ability, I would not have continued.
3
Stephanie and Sean
This
thesis is dedicated to my children,
and
continuing
who were my main reasons -For applying,
Hope
completing my studies here at MIT.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
EARNINGS AND INCOME . .
.
.
.
.
11
.
.
.
.
12
.
WOMEN AND AFDC
THE O.BRA PROVISIONS
ELIGIBILITY .
.
.
WORK REGISTRATION
.
.
.
ACCOUNT ING AND. ENFORCEMENT
.
.
.
.
12
A .
.
.
15
IN MASSACHUSETTS
16
.
16
..
NATIONL
IMPCT
MASSACHUSETTS
.OBRAND DAY CARE
.
BACKGROND
METHODOLOGY .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Characteristic
, .
.
.
.
P..ROFILE OF- INERVIEWEES
Personal
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
Status........
Marital
17
19
10
Education
21
Welfare His to..Ey..
21
p .l.. . . Dt . . . .
H ou
- - - - .
Hou1si.D
SUMMARY OF
Heal th
FINDINGS
.
.
.
Emplpymengt.
.
Child Care
n .
.
.-
.
.
Attitudes Toward
Public Assistance
.
.
.
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY .
.
.
.
CONCLUSI.ON. .
APPENDIX
--
.
26
.
.
..
34
41
This
the
for
Research
benefits
working
to
and
income
low-income women
and
their
-
-
budget-cutting
effort
was
OBRA
(OBRA).
Act
children
(AFDC).
In
Reagan
by the
successful
major
administration
which
a
included eliminating many AFDC provisions,
were
supports
just
the
of
two
some of which had
other
Child care and
in effect for at least 15 years.
income
support
focused on the effects of the Omnibus Budget
it
Reconciliation
been
two
impacts of policy on
receiving Aid For Families With Dependent Children
particular,
Research
1983.(Centre
of
child care
needs
social
important
the summer
in
(DSS)
Services
of Social
Centre
by
conducted
a study
study analyzed the
The
Inc.,1984)
Department
during
Massachusetts
on
based
is
thesis
provisions
many
dramatically reduced under this Act.
Among
because it
other
policy reforms,
OBRA has
reach.
has had broad operational
a dramatic change in both the nature and
for
Families with Dependent Children
its
immediate effects,
against
AFDC
significant
therefore
structure
of
(AFDC) program.
for families--mostly
has
lasting
in
OBRA resulted
and
the Aid
Beyond
a
war
women
and
it represents the winning of
entitlements
children-- and
been
important
implications.
This thesis is intended to examine the impact of
created
were
by OBRA on families in Massachusetts whose
terminated.
In particular,
6
policies.
benefits
this work focuses on what
happened
in
which
their lives and the resultant strategies which
the
life
for
employed
women
children
how they coped with the policy changes
Massachusetts,
affected
their
AFDC women and
terminated
to
in an attempt to provide a decent
themselves and their families.
OBRA
Historically,
significance
when
this
the
in
viewed
thesis,
of
context
OBRA
the
even
on
take
changes
greater
AFDC
other
will
provisions
be
reforms.
In
presented
and illuminated by the Massachusetts study and its
findings, along with a discussion of national
implications of
and conclusions which can be drawn from an overview
OBRA
of
OBRA and its impact on AFDC women and their families.
WOMEN AND AFDC
As
of
January
1982,
85.3% of all
AFDC were comprised of
receiving
families
women and
nationally
children.
their
Originally legislated as part of the 1935 Social Security Act
as
Aid
Families
to
Dependent
Children
changed
(later
with Dependent Children),
program
however,
particular,
fathers
of
concerns were raised
1962
for
about
arguments developed which accused low-income
deserting
their families
families to qualify for AFDC benefits.
in
responsibility
cause of family dissolution.
whether AFDC was a contributory
In
to
families participating in the
As the number of
quickly grew,
Aid
the program was designed
to enable low-income women to assume full
childrearing.
to
in
order
for
(Steiner, 1981)
and 1967 major reforms to the program added
7
their
Thus,
social
to
incentives that allowed
benefits and work
services
a portion of their earnings
keep
families
"work
This
tax-free;
remain
incentive" was designed to help men to support and to
with their
families.
the same time these policies were
At
was occurring across the nation,
change
social
instituted,
and
and more
more
women were working outside the home. As a result of
increased
care services afforded AFDC and
non-AFDC
more
demand,
day
women
the opportunity to work more hours outside
Thus,
the women's movement,
the question of
brought
home.
the
changes
along with other social
the primary position of women
in
the
home and men on the job into the public debate.
Similarly, while espoused AFDC policies placed emphasis on
families
keeping
of
tradition
intact
as
the
implemented
the
preserving
the nuclear family with the
tending to her children,
such
and
mother
so called "family-oriented"
societal
effect
home,
programs
were
that pushed men in AFDC recipient families
into
offered
benefits.
at
programs
Manpower
development and
WIN
the labor market. These jobs, usually in the
market,
time-honored
secondary labor
neither advancement potential
nor
adequate
in the context of a series of
In fact, when taken
and corresponding institutional
changes,
the
net
of AFDC could be seen as subsidizing employers and of
providing health and other benefits to women and children.
81,
AFDC and associated programs were enacted during
These
expansion in the economy with a belief that
of
time
poverty
The
could best be minimized through government intervention.
in
embodied
the Reagan administration -
living,
results
society --
rapidly
Carter
the
(Hahn, 1981)
keep
to
or even to provide a decent standard of
inflation,
pace with
1980.
-
inflation,
of benefits for women and children
failure
The
during
declined
1976 and
Administration between
has
which
when adjusted for
fact,
actually
benefits
AFDC
In
benefits.
decreased
philosophy
held
currently
for the
stage
the
set
and
concept
that
decade have undermined
of the last
recessions
a
from
attitudes about the poor
attitudes reflected in the Reagan
present
in
administration.
Reagan's chief Welfare advisor, exemplified
Martin Anderson,
the
Reagan administration attitude when he declared in 1981,
"We
have virtually ended poverty in the United States,"
and
resulted
in
in
the
two
that
decades
psychological
of
work
incentives
Another element
to working.
barriers
have
Reagan philosophy is a triage approach in which it held
limited
for
all
resources
who needed them so decisions would
relative need.
poor
would not permit services to be
people,
Under this system,
"the
be
working-age,
marginally poor,"
that
provided
made
about
able-bodied
should be weaned
away
from Welfare, which popular theorist George Gilder has argued
"perpetuates
recipients
to
poverty"
there is
because
work to their
"capacity."
'S
no
incentive
for
"deservin"
comprise all of
the poor. This phenomenon is now described as
the "feminization of poverty."
(Pearce, 1932)
attention
Although recent research has begun to give more
households
the increased plight of single female-headed
policies such as OBRA in effect penalize
and their children,
them
In the next section we turn to an
situation.
for their
explanation
in
will
they
by the year 2000,
is rising so rapidly,
poverty
children
the number of single women and their
fact,
to
said
has been
little
poor,
"non-deserving"
and
the
over
the fact that most of the poor are women and children.
about
In
debates that have been waged
these
Throughout
impacts on these women.
of OBRA and its
THE OBRA PROVISIONS
First,
The goals of OBRA were two-fold.
reduce
and to
costs
Welfare
it was designed to
of AFDC
simplify the beauracracy
programs. Second, OBRA was designed to add enforcement to the
OBRA focused on
work ethic.
American
and
claims
for work and day care allowances and
tax
designed
to
employment.
to
rates
OBRA
addition,
encourage
that
limited
greatly
raised
gave rise to a series of policies
income
marginal
on
states
enabled
discourage
Welfare
cumulative
individuals
benefits.
from
In
work
tests
terminating
their
institute
to
earned
families with
Other programs, such as Workfare, were developed
others
not yet working
to
find employment
and to
counteract disincentives for those already employed.
Overall,
OBRA
included
11 new provisions which
10
affected
were
earnings
individual's
work
mandatory
and
income and
Fourth,
individuals.
Third,
of
enforcement
were
work
tests
for
some
added
were
registration
an
expenses
less
the calculation of benefits.
in
included
and
were
of
more
Second,
specified.
terms
and
tightened
and
support,
child
)
which
eligibility criteria
First,
brought on by OBRA.
p.
types of changes
provisions formed four general
These
(see appendix
alike
non-working families
and
working
monthly budgeting and determination procedures were included.
ELIGIBILITY
Eligibility
to
children
dependent
prohibiting
pregnant
eligibility
until
under
those
no
with
women
18
of
definition
limiting the
included
changes
years
old;
children
from
19
or
other
the 6th month of pregnancy;
limiting
and
150%
to families whose gross income is at or below
benefits
of the state standard of need.
EARNINGS AND
INCOME
income
and
Earnings
changes
included
the
following:
that the net income of
a stepparent be counted
in
determining benefits; calculating
the expected amount of
the
requiring
Earned
Income
Tax
projected income,
for
it;
applied
applying
allowing
only
and adding
it
whether or not the individual
has
Credit
(EITC),
the $30 and
1/3 earnngs disregard
disregard to $75 a month for full
child care expenses to $160
applied
to
be
and
and limiting
the
time employment and capping
a month.
1
the
earnings
during the first four months of
the disregard to the net income;
to
WORK REGISTRATION
registration
Work
Years
changes
included
at least
is
6
which
programs
creation of work experience
and
old
participation
individuals whose youngest child
of
inclusions
and
would require recipients to work off their AFDC grants.
ACCOUNT ING AND
ENFORCEMENT
Changes in accounting procedures included monthly reporting
of
determining
income,
support;
child
enforcing
retrospectively;
benefits
monthly
support
applying a cost of child
and eliminating payments under $10.
collection fee;
NATIONAL IMPACT
The Center for
sample
of
the Study of Social Policy
states
to
find out how
(CSSP) surveyed a
had
states
individual
implemented the policy changes. The Center's findings suggest
altered
raised
state's
Some states
OBRA was not uniformly implemented.
that first,
Others
their methods for calculating AFDC benefits.
their
standard of need.
standard
litigation,
of need:
5%.)
(Massachusetts
At
least ten
the
raised
filed
states
the results of which are still pending.
Second,
socio-economic forces within state economies have also played
This
is
true in areas where the economy is seasonal
or
a significant role in deterring the impact of OBRA.
particularly
massive unemployment exists.These difficulties
claims
of
successful
impementation will
be
indicate that
difficult
to
evaluate.
Overall,
implemented
it can be said that most of the changes were not
with
an
understanding
12
of
the
day
to
day
AFDC
servicing
of
complexities
and programs seem to reflect an
policies
which simply ignored the empirical
the
best,
at
families;
stance
ideological
situation.
context of the
states for example,are not equipped to collect the type
Most
on
data which would clearly identfy implementation based
of
retrospective
2.
changes,
3.
and
budgeting,
to
due
terminations
1.
very
three
identified
CSSP
types of case closings;
different
policy
changes.
policy
Federal
the
other
reasons not necessarily influenced by OBRA.
there
Whether
OBRA is
from
of total
of
also
savings by
debatable.
Estimates vary from 107. to
AFDC budgets.
reductions
benefit
governments
state
were actual
Some savings for example are a
which fluctuate more
reopen
month basis.
by
month
benefits on
terminated by OBRA returns to AFDC,
of the original
family
result
lost completely. A
grant
to return at a full
For example,
partial grant.
recipient
the savings as a
termination are reduced or
likely
is
a
If
to
longer
Terminated cases take
and also incur costs in the process.
result
because
rapidly
recipients can move from reduced benefits to full
a
40%
than
rather
a
in New York, of the terminated
recipients who returned to the rolls within six months,
distributed
OBRA has
16% returned with any earned income.
only
the responsiblity and cost of providing for families to state
As
governments.
are
now spread
Food
example,
likely
to
a result of OBRA benefits paid through AFDC
among other programs and
Stamp
benefits
and costs
increase as AFDC benefits
13
drop
For
institutions.
for
or
a
family
cease.
are
Also
assistance
General
programs may have to pick up
individual
AFDC.
Similarly,
and families who have been terminated from
of
because
funded health care services costs are impacted
city
health care coverage.
OBRA's reductions in
suggest
facts
These
any
eliminate
or
terminated cases returning to AFDC,
longer term income
increase
actually
2. possible increases
other social programs and
of
cost
the
of
likelihood
the
1.
savings;
in
policy
the
3.
may
related
and
support
to
which
The three major factors
increase poverty than end it.
reduce
more
done
OBRA may have
that
services.
Massachusetts families were more affected by these changes
in
OBRA
states.
than families in most
Massachusetts
Only
other states
succeeded in reducing its AFDC caseload by 21%;
as large percentage of reductions as Massachusetts
with
smaller total
to
caseloads.
This high reduction was due partly
benefits packages available for AfDC families,
the
under which Massachusetts has
vigor
implementation was former
vigorous
Edward
King
As
policies.
provisions,
which
a
was
in full
in
families
benefits terminated between October
We
now
turn
implemented
agreement
14.
this
with
the
OBRA
the
new
OBRA
Massachusetts
had
1,1981 and June 30,
to the specific consequences of OBRA
recipients in Massachusetts.
of
these
governor of Massachusetts
result of implementation of
26,000
and partly to
the administration
In particular,
policies.
OBRA
liberal
fact that Massachusetts had one of the more
the
had
on
their
1982.
AFDC
IMEAC. OF. OE(F.
MA.SSA CHUSE TTS
to OBRA's implementation,
Prior
earn
Welfare.When
by
benefits
were
before
year
OBRA was implemented,
Massachusetts had been $379. month.
lost
(150% of the state standard of need).
Stamps for
first
in
workers
the
113
of the
calculation
for only four months.
of need by 5%,
standard
the
plus
$30
applicable
With no earnings this
Food
in
net income of $526 per month.
a total
disregarded
$580/month
AFDC benefits plus $147
income disregard provision
The
the
in
$379
receiveed
family
This family of three
earnings exceeded
when household
eligibility
maximum
the
(mother and two children)
for a family of three
AFDC payment
in
could
Work expenses, transportation, and day care were
terminated.
untax:ed
a
13,000
approximately
a family of three
(income
disregard
remaining
of
AFDC
allowed
income
to
was
benefits)
raised
Although the state
which allowed
full-time
more
to receive benefits again but this was only a
four-
the
state
Most full
month solution.
standard of need.
time workers exceeded
Consequently,
remain
a woman was not able to work
She would
eligible.
lose
medicaid
full-time
and
valued at
$2113 a year, along with Food Stamp benefits.
This provision,
to
families
150%
be
in
conjunction with limiting
eligibility
whose gross income was at or above the
State's
and the elimination of work
expense
standard of need,
i5~
were responsible
deductions
terminations
of
assistance.
for
It also embodied the
standard
A
recipients.
than and now of Welfare and its
held
of
number
greatest
the
single
family of three would be limited to earning less than
parent
597.00 in order to remain eligible for AFDC,
and
any slight
increase in the recipient salary would make her ineligible.
ODRA A..ND DAY. CARE. I.N. MASSCHUSETTS
BACKGROUND
While
still
complying
with
the
OBRA,
of
goals
Massachusetts sought ways to reduce the negative impact these
with young
changes would have on families, particulary those
children.
new
Within
a few weeks after Congress had passed
the
policies and when it was clear families would lose their
subsidy for day care through income-disregard, the Department
of Public Welfare calculated that an additional
supported
state-
9,718
day care slots would be required to meet the needs
of employed AFDC clients who would be affected by the
income
the Department of
Social
cap.
To
services
recipients
respond
shifted
to these needs,
their
terminated
policy
care
day
for reasons
of
access to child care slots for several
DSS transfered
school
to
give
employment
months.
AFDC
priority
In addition,
its purchase of 2,000 day care slots from pre-
to after-school programs.
This shift would at least
minimize the negative impacts of OBRA and its decreased child
care assistance needed by these families.
16
As soon as the federal policy took effect in
slots
allow
based
on
AFDC recipients to pay
income.
their
Although,
care
only less
than
twenty
actually
their children in the DSS day care slots,
entered
to
returned
only a small percentage of clients
the AFDC rolls,
care
child
for
who had been terminated
the clients
of
percent
former
eligibility
their
Sliding-fee day
day care slot.
DSS sliding-fee
a
for
informing them of
recipient a letter
1981,
former
DSS Commissioner Mary Jane England wrote each
then -AFDC
October
leaving a
large nmber of contracted slots vacant.
Policy makers at DSS came under fire from legislators, who
initially
assumptions for day care demand were simply
their
out.
In
not
borne
legislators raised other questions about
addition,
the general well
of
as
agreed with the change in day care priorities,
being of terminated families.
In the spring
DSS contracted with Centre Research to undertake
1983,
included
an
into the reasons for the unused reserved
OBRA
of
study
general
investigation
a
day
care
which
needs
day care slots.
METHODOLOGY
Two data sources and methods were employed
investigation:
follow-up
survey
interviews
a questionaire mailed to clients and a set of
This approach was selected because
interviews.
would
in the research
reach
would
a broad number
allow
for a
IT7
more
of
people.
complex
a
Follow-up
analysis
not
obtainable
sample of 2,000
A random statistical
a survey.
in
former AFDC recipients was selected from a DPW computer print
list.
out
(appendix
additional
follow-up
questionaire
A
p.
4
6).
requesting the family's participation
in
interviews
and
to be conducted in
to the full
(appendix,
person
returned
random from the 271
be
could
and
analyzed
population of AFDC recipients
terminated
were
benefits
which
utilization
generalized
questionaire
the
The sample was used to gather data on day care
questionaires.
need
family
each
an
with
30 names were picked at
p.53).
to
was
Included
letter
was mailed out
whose
eligibility
new
the
under
then
guidelines.
Because
a
considered
to
income,
family's
others,
order
to
of
child
be a function of many
existing familial
among
use
care
is
services
variables
--
parental
support systems and work schedules,
the 30 in-depth interviews were conducted
gather
more detailed information
elimination
of
day care allowances had
utilization
of
child care services
families'
impacted
and
the
how
about
These
facilities.
follow up interviews covered the same issues as those in
questionaire
better
but
in
understanding
day
more depth,
care
decisions
about
withdrawal
of AFDC benefits.
and
gain
in an attempt to
of the reasons
how
behind
they
the
a
families'
the
related
to
Questions about health care,
the
and
well-being
other government
benefits and the families'general
were included in
both the interviews and questionaire.
18
in
INTERVIEWEES
PROFILE OF
Personal Characteristics
women
The
interviewed in depth had volunteered as part of
questionnaire.
the process of completing the Centre Research
expected to encounter difficulty finding people
had
We
motivated
be
would
to
be
since
long amount of time which had elapsed
relatively
the
of
because
interviewed
who
the
day care policy was first implemented and were thus concerned
the
women
had lived in Massachusetts at
were life long residents.
section of the state.
30 of
In fact all
sample would be "skewed".
that
least
ten years,
cross-
rural towns, larger cities
part of the state as well as Boston.
in the central
and some
They represented a regional
Both small
Although
A few
most of the women were between the ages of 24 and 35,
one woman was
women were in their mid-forties,
the
One
fifty.
woman interviewed was nineteen and living with her parents.
heritage
racial
The
Massachusetts
women
the
women,
was
however,
Comparisons with the racial composition
predominantly white.
of
of
white
AFDC recipients indicate that these
were overrepresented in the sample and in
the
racial
Minorities comprise 34% of the
make-up of state recipients.
state AFDC population.
Marital Status
Most
dissolution
of
the
of
women
their
(26)
had
marriages
19,
been
marked
married
their
and
the
"initial
association with"
employment
of
location and type
their current
but
married
Many of them worked while they were
AFDC.
made it impossible for them to become self-supporting.
the "typical" AFDC family,
Like
half of these women had two children, and only
two children,
two had four children.
had
women
the
half of
with child care on a limited basis.
those women who had
For
been married,
their ages at the time of giving birth
from 16 to 26;
those unmarried, ranged from 16 to 38.
had
payments.
problems
of the
all
the exception of two,
With
women
receiving
husband's
including
existed without
support
payments,
Medicaid.
Welfare.
Welfare
from
received
she
several
support
she
When
myself!".
her
Welfare
not
letter
of
a
received
"Oh,
to
equal
was
!.
_
(We
Now I'll
discovered
cases in which ex-husbands were still making
payments
to
the
recipients--their
years before.)
Ed..cati on
Welfare
ex-wives
ex-
One woman remarked
which he made to
get the money from him
to
child
if their husbands had,
termination of benefits she exclaimed,
have
married
Most of them said with bitterness that their
they could have
what
ranged
formerly
or
alimony
husbands had not provided support, and
that
assist
they had families of their own were able to
although
two
only two of the women had grown children who,
and
children,
whose
the women had children
Half of
younger;
or
ten
was
oldest
comprised of a woman and
department,
even
had been terminated
support
though
almost
the
two
one of the eldest and an
also
immigrant
school
high
a
had
interviewed
(The woman with the least education --
education.
was
women
the
of
Most
9th Qrade-Portugal.
from
had
women had also taken either business courses or
Several
associate
enrolled
in school;
another
taking
was
talked
public
nearby
desire
their
about
and
employed,
been
courses on her own at a
others
Several
college.
currently
one had been taking courses which were
by the company where she had
sponsored
were
women
Two
degrees.
acquired
to
"dream")
was far
The majority of the women who were terminated in
1981 had
education,
continue their
(that
but said it
in the future.
Welfare History
had
and
months
three
Two
women
thirteen
years
as a result of the birth of another child.
been
first
AFDC
receiving
respectively.
her
for between six
Five had received AFDC benefits more than once before
years.
1981
benefits
receiving
been
One
child
for
eleven
and
whose marriage had seemingly ended
was
several
months
old,
tried
had
reconcile with her husband and found herself pregnant.
thereafter,
apart.
the reconciliation fell
unmarried and 38 when she became pregnant,
until
work
alone.
It
her daughter,
now twelve,
was only a few years ago,
many
of these other women,
to
Soon
A second woman,
had not wanted to
could stay
at
that she had begun
For
even work part-time while her child was in school.
and
when
dissolution of
a
home
to
her
marriage
and/or having a young child propelled them into situations in
which they required assistance.
the
of
time
Most
interview.
of
them
Jobs were
but
training,
any
that
them
for
more
the
have
they
job and thus felt
already spending too many evenings away
of
school
could not because they felt
because they held a second
time
Many
too expensive or that they did not
was
education
most
the women indicated
they would have liked to attend
that
indicated
a few of
advancement in their work.
for
possibility
more
Only
occupation.
common
as the
work
services--with clerical
and personal
sales
work,
such areas as clerical
compensation in
low in
were
interviewed
employed in low-wage female dominated occupations.
primarily
the
at
the women were working outside the home
of
All
were
from their children.
Housing
majority of the women
A
housing complexes or in
seemed
combination
sewage
homeowner
but
to
of
payments
have
Home ownership,
a
needed
howevever did not
In one case, the
lot
of
over
$700/month.
and
"apprehensive"
22
the
water
and
The
said ownership itself gave her a sense of
that she felt
and
repair,
first and second mortgages,
totaled
Two
buildings.
apartment
necessarily connote freedom for these women.
home
section 8)
(e.g.
which had become theirs as part
women owned their own homes,
of a divorce settlement.
public-funded
either
publicly supported
private homes or
in
apartments
lived in
because her
other
security,
house was in
an
isolated area, and her daughter was home by herself
for three
hours/day.
J1..M.R.Y. QF. F.IND IN S
section
This
draws
findings from both
Both suggest that most of the families who were
interviews.
months following termination.
still
Data are also reported from a larger
1981.
more
and
relevant
These findings are illustrated by excerpts from
30 interviews.
the
benefits
similar
extensive study in Michigan to give additional
information.
care
and day
employment,
stemming from their termination from AFDC
problems
in
most of the
Two years later,
reported financial,
the
in
from AFDC experienced great difficulties
terminated
women
and
survey
the
and
Many of the stories are remarkable
exemplify both the resiliency and strength and the tremendous
were
so powerful,
were
no amount of quantitative
could bring to life their experiences.
divided into
four topics:
health,
employment,
In each area a brief
of findings is followed by descriptions
families including excerpts from their
analysis
These experiences are
child care,
and attitude toward public assistance.
summary
stories
It is because their
discouragement of these women.
of
several
interviews.
Health
Prior
to
OBRA,
AFDC
medicaid.
families
held
This health
coverage
through
families
to engage in preventative medical
as well
as hospitilization and emergencies.
23
extensive
coverage
and dental
health
enabled
care,
Termination
of
AFDC benefits ended Medicaid for most families.
Health care was cited as critical
however reported
24.7% of them,
and interviewed.
surveyed
by the majority of those
not having any health care coverage.
in
lives
a 3 decker
Anna
Z...
with
her two children ages
11 and
Her children have not been to a
interview
from her
letter
a
that
indicating
doctor
the
she received
us that
she told
14.
During
1981.
October
since
house
daughter's
school
her daughter might have
a hearing problem.
big
a
made
that
thing
only
... the
Up
coverage.
medicaid
difference, having
medical
kids had regular
the
then,
until
six
every
the dentist
check-ups and visited
checkalso had eye and ear
They
months.
ups. Since AFDC ended, they have not been to
haven't been to a
doctor or dentist......I
a
for
I reapplied
doctor myself in 4 years.
over
7.00
was
I
told
was
but
Medicaid
in
I had over $2000
if
said
They
income.
me
they (Medicaid) would pick
medical bills
the kids "Don't get sick."
up. I tell
40.2%
Another
insurance
through
interviews,
a
portion
coverage
in
part
they were
that
stated
employer.
However,
for a
their
the
in
by
health
follow-up
coverage
costs.
Additional
"family plan" would have to be paid at
by the employee,
health
explained that they had to pay
most participants
of
covered
and the cost
24
for
the
least
additional
coverage ranged between $45 and $100
has four children ranging in ages
Y.
Betty
She works in
10 years old.
1 1/2 to
per month.
department of a large company.
$121
is
a
sales
Her net
pay
weekly.
plan
put my children on my work medical
I
waiting
covered them after a 90 day
which
Work deducts $100 a month from my
period.
policy....
the
family
to
cover
check
must
everything has to be budgeted and you
food
choices... The choice is between
make
and health.
The cost of
women
and
of
was the sole cause for some
their
quitting
the
jobs and returning to Welfare.
respondents
their
hours from full time in order to qualify for
generally
on-going
an
previously taken
Carol
child
W.
children
received
care
In
these
existed
which
(4.7%).
illness
care of through Medicaid.
is
33 years old and
ages
10,15 and
17.
has three
She
AFDC most of her adult
She works as a LPN in
a nearby city.
25
has
life.
the
reduced
They had
part time.
interviewed were working
subsidized
of
Six
women
and
these
burden for
health care was a substantial
Medicaid
families,
had
been
it
was glad to be rid of Welfare but
I
...
went
I
was the medical that was important.
to school and was ready to be on my feet..I
One of my children
called medicaid first.
very
and
I
was
problems
ear
has had
costs... When
his medical
about
concerned
over
they said I would have to re-apply all
stubs
pay
in
again and would need to bring
whole
the
I dropped
everything,
and
social
didn't bother to call my
thing...I
the
about
care
I didn't
because
worker
of
80%
covers
insurance
health
money...The
needed
son
the cost of hosptilization...My
pay
his ears so I was saving to
in
tubes
and
infection
ear
bad
a
my part then he got
ear....
left
his
in
well
he doesn't hear
49% of those in
study.
the Michigan study were covered with
insurance through their employer. Lack of preventative
health
care was also cited as a result of
similar
in
surveyed
those
of
study in
Michigan.
care
was also cited.
study
In that study,
reportea
larger
children had not
38% reported
the previous year.
having had a dental exam in
28%
the loss of Medicaid.
the Michigan
received a physical exam in
not
Michigan
the
health care problems were found by
Similar
In
the previous year.
a
48% of those who re-applied were again
receiving Medicaid.
Empj.oye.t
Prior to OBRA's implementation,
care
allowing
income.
and
transportation
and
a
woman
income disregards,
were included as
to keep a larger portion
work
of
child
incentives
her
earned
As a result of the OBRA changes, both those surveyed
those interviewed described experiencing work
2a
problems.
21%
missing
reported
from
days
Work..
work.
previously allowed were limited and under OBRA
lowered
incentives
in addition to
income eligibility.
is
Denise Y.
in a
lives
She
a mother of two children and
large urban housing
requested
more hours at
project.
work but
it
was denied at the time.
to
had to take time off from work
... I
support
child
courst to enforce
to
go
after
($35.00 a week) with my ex-husband
I became depressed.
welfare cut me off.
the
tried,
the harder to
seems like
It
make....
you
less
After
several
hours
to
trying
for
re-qualify
to
collect
to
and
Medicaid
reason:
she cut her
months,
child
work
The
welfare.
be
support
free
from
from
her
ex-husband.
Frances V.
13.
She
has two children
describes
ages 7 and
other work problems...
I worry
not 100'%.
... My concentration is
2:00 to 3:00 pm I worry about
From
more.
call
they get home and
the children until
has
it
impact is that
biggest
me.... The
that
me from taking other positions
kept
more
demand
but
more
pay
time...Babysitting would be too expensive.
27
$310
worked
$121
these full-time workers ranged from
for
Income
for those who worked two jobs and/or
dollars/week net,
the
shifts in order to take advantage of
night
to
pay
diffential.
works as a nurses aide in a Boston
Gail U.
hospital
ages
girls
She leaves
her
twin
and her 5 year
old
home
at night.
11
alone.
the
on
on extra work
took
first
... I
nursing
temporary
with
worked
I
weekends.
shifted to nights and
finally
services...I
the day...
during
work
do temporary
13.4 surveyed reported working
as unstable.
second jobs could be classified
from
more hours.
of
Most
Hours fluctuated
week to week and were dependent upon seasonal
demand or
business needs.
Helen
T.
appliance
ages
works as a receptionist in a small
store.
10 and 11.
themselves
after
She is raising
two
She says they take care
school
and
the
boys
of
neighbors
help to look after them.
a small second and third job almost
... I took
was coming... I work
immediately... Christmas
a
on
depends
It
function waitress.
a
as
a
$25
... pays
(party)
booking
company
28
these
waitress,
a
as
third job
a
job ... took
creative
of
week ... I have a lot
a
nights
up
setting
cake decorating and
like
skills
pull
can't
I
parties... In spite of all this,
them all together to make I decent wage...
October
1981 and June 1983, when ajusted for
actually
incomes
for better jobs with
apply
other cases,
In
income.
reported
women
those
of
few
inflation, their
were
who
remarked that termination from AFDC forced
interviewed
to
A
declined.
between
raise
of
some type
reported
everyone
Although
responsibility,
being
greater
them
and
responsibility
just the opposite was
jobs
afraid to apply for
true.
Many
with
more
because their
even if it meant more income,
child care situations were unstable.
21%
reported unpaid bills as a result of
reported
few
that if they had to do
it
changes.
the
again,
over
A
they
wouldn't try to work. Several stated they felt that they were
for
penalized
attempting to work and blamed others for
the
OBRA policy and they way it affected their lives.
These
study
findings seems to complement that of
Michigan
which found respondents had an average hourly wage
$5.17 totalling
were
the
employed
$798.00 a month.
in
similar
of
Women in the Michigan study
occupations
to
those
in
the
Massachusetts study.
Child Care
Child care, which was the basic concern
29,
of the study, was
and
both problematic and expensive for women with pre-school
school
aged children,
to
Prior
particularly under ten years of age.
the policy change child care expenses
deductible as a work expense.
child care deductions to $160
the survey, 52%
reported
since
fully
After OBRA, limits were placed
on the amount of
arrangements
were
having to change
October 81
per month.
their
(46.8) within the
In
day
care
first
six
months.
R. has her 2 teenagers care for their
Jill
younger
two
siblings.
afford the after school
She
couldn't
care costs.
She
feels unhappy that her older children are
no
longer able to work after school
engage in
or
after school activities.
center
the
child care cost at
... The
I was told that I would have
up.
went
children
to pay $12 for each of the two
and
in the center. I appealed but I lost
the
over
150%
I was
me
told
they
to
and had to pay according
guidelines
scale.
the sliding
In
general,
institutional
child
care
to more informal
older siblings, or babysitters.
left alone at home.
arrangements
changed
arrangements with
from
relatives,
In some cases children were
moved away from nearby relatives
Iona S.
OBRA
before
shortly
benefits.
her
terminated
her
She had a babysitter for
sons after school
then 8 and 9.
... I had to drop my babysitter almost
immediately..The boys have grown up fast
without me... The children are alone now
in the afternoons and school vacations.
My children have lost a lot of their
childhood...
reported
48.1
reason
the
these changes The women who were
for
the
major
leaving
their
as
high cost of day care
children alone had two types of
reaction to tha change:
some
reported that they did not feel
comfortable with it
felt
they
no choice;
had
others said that they felt
but
that
their
to
the
children were old enough to care for themselves.
The
latter
interviewers their
took
their
friends who would
children.
eligiblity
lived
Attitudes
for
Most
pains
high level
child's
common occurence of this
their
great
to
describe
practice in their
"keep
of
a watch"
them
-
the
neighborhood,
or
of responsiblity;
through the window for
did not
DSS services and those who
know
did
in areas far from after school programs.
Toward
Public Assistance
about
very
their
often
35.6%
Overall,
re-applied
more likely to re-apply
were
children
Families with young
in receiving benefits.
successful
AFDC
for
the respondents re-applied
six months though only 17.4% of those who
within
were
of
for
benefits.
AFDC
48.9% of those who re-applied had children of pre-school
In
addition,
either
laid
age.
those whose AFDC benefits had resumed had been
order
off or reduced work hours in
health benefits.
to
regain
The interviews revealed that they resorted
months of hardship trying to exist
to this only after several
the
total
respondents applied to another agency for assistance.
Again,
public
without
assistance.
Only
15.9%
of
with young children were more likely to apply.
families
main reasons given was money and benefits.
The
Those who did not
re-apply for benefits, 57.2% did not know they were eligible,
but
19.7% reported they did not want any
with government agencies.
stated,"I
AFDC)".
more
In several of the interviews, women
just couldn't go through it any more
"The
involvements
(applying for
help you get isn't worth the hassle".
Kate P.
AFDC.
is bitter and angry about the end of
She blames other AFDC recipients
for
the policy changes.
got
and
reported my income
always
"I
..
honest... It
I tried to be
because
screwed
Telling the
gives you a good reason to lie.
didn't
truth doesn't do you any good...They
even give me a chance to get on my feet."
Another
woman had this
to say:
32,
their
see
I
can
stinks.
... "Government
point in getting the people who were abusing
I
They don't treat people equally.
it, off.
and
earning more
were
who
people
know
cut as fast."
weren't getting
would
Everyone contacted expected that at some point they
go off Welfare. Some could give estimates between one and two
years when they believed they would be self sufficient.
Many
children
were
that
reported
either
out of
they were waiting until
their
child care or old enough to be home alone.They
terminations,
the
about the suddeness of
also
complained
which
did not give then time to prepare for the
income
arranging
another job or
or the need to finding
changes
in
for
child care.
Laurie
was
felt
0.
the only reason she
that
her
because she saw
upset
child
suffer.
took
they
they took away my check
"When
from my kid, not me. I don't feel deprived
but I worry about him. He doesn't get the
ice
an
have
He can't
life.
in
extras
cream when the other kids have one."
Most
former
recipients
bitterness about their
relations.
Many
and
openly
expressed
contacted
treatment by Welfare.
have became bitter and worried;
family
were
who
24.9% said they
strained
10.3% reported
stated
that
they
penalized for working and trying to get off Welfare.
blamed other Welfare recipients for
us",
"making it bad for
felt
Several
all of
because they didn't try to work or had boyfriends living
33,
asked about applying for other benefits said
When
with them.
were finished with Welfare
they
(including
all
entitlement
programs).
CO.NCLUS ION
Overall,
OBRA's
and upheaval
turmoil
changes
inflicted
increased
upon affected families and required that
engage in struggle for basic survival.
they
As we found
families whose already low
Massachusetts study,
the
stress,
in
income
had been lessened with OBRA's implementation, faced difficult
choices
among
fewer
and less appealing
necessities as employment,
options
for
health and child care.
such
What the
researchers found surprising and even shocking was the degree
of
financial,
families
emotional
and physical
experiencing
were
hardship
almost two years
that
after
some
OBRA's
implementation.
Children,
usually the most in need of services, were often
the most likely to be left unserved and in need,
parents
who
children
to fend for themselves.
many families.
second
working
were unable to afford child care services
once taken for granted,
their
as
After-school
child
care,
became a luxury beyond the reach
termination
Affected
dominated
of
In some families, children at-large continued
self-care into the evening hours while parents
jobs
left
to
replace
of
their
income that
AFDC
had
been
worked
lost
with
benefits.
families described having to adopt more
diets because their Food Stamps benefits
starchhad been
to buy food that would
and they could not afford
eliminated,
provide more well-balanced diets.
federally-supported school
lunches
lunch program made school
expensive for many families.
prohibitively
aspect
Another
emergency
reached
Medicaid
a
was
impact
OBRA's
of
families' capacities to deal
Health
status.
had
encouraged
and
examinations.
no health care coverage
OBRA,
many
Those
having some coverage had benefits which only
After
all.
at
assisted
hospital admissions.
in payment for
of
spite
through
benefits
care
routine physical and dental
families
in
reduction
with health problems before they
provided a broad range of services
preventive
In
the
cuts in
Simultaneously,
these
determined
were
sometimes
to their apparent detriment.
sufficiency,
self
achieve
to
families
that
found
it was
major hardships,
Many refused to even
apply for benefits for which they were entitled.
Instead
of
sufficiency,
"weaning"
the
policy
poor
marginally
the
changes
time
of
these
The impression
gets from anti-welfare forces is large numbers
workers
occasionally,
Massachusets
view
self-
may force many
families to choose between work and Welfare.
one
into
prefer
when
were
in
full
collecting
AFDC
benefits
fact 13% of the total case
workers.
time
that most AFDC families do not work.
work over the course of a year.
of
full
and
work
load
many
Alternatively
In fact,40
in
-
A variety of reasons can
50%
be
contributed to this mix of work and Welfare. First, women are
35 J
Child rearing
concentrated in low-paying high turnover jobs.
tend
responsibilities
to
interrupt
work
or
less likely to offer them permanent
employers
and
time
make
positions
with more responsibility.
Further
analysis
raises
questions about the
which
supposed Welfare cost savings from can be
as
sign of lessened Welfare
a
expenditures
may
Greater
public
children
incur
dependency.
result
if
to
interpreted
deficits or health problems which are even
educational
likely
less
not
extent
to be remedied because of the few resources
less
available
to the family.
Most
Welfare
reform packages have had
limited
Whether
this new set of reforms will be any more
than its
precessors is
has
debatable.
policy of
to low income families by implementing policies
a
second
consequences
The
headed
these
report
about
on
1980
by
year,
without
first
indicate that
poverty
single females is increasing,
direction
that
in its attitudes and actions,
likely to maintain a
class of women and their
children.
by
them.
half
Studies
us
very
The
has
permanent
the
families
and over
are below the poverty line.
is
program
among
quality of life for those families.
administration
and
investigating
low rates of recidivism to AFDC tell
the
non-support
those most likely to be affected
census
families
successful
The present administration
seemed determined to continue its
changes
success.
of
that
little
present
chosen
a
poverty
don't
analysts
policy
state
Intermediary
enough.
go far
and
scientists
social
by
reccomendations
Finally,
programs designed to ease the impact of OBRA are mere bandaid
Suggestions
goal.
which
enforcement
encourage
viable alternatives
not
its
DSS efforts did not acheive
our study,
In
approaches.
support
are
fathers
are under or unemployed.
child
of
and
ex-spouses
when
Employment
not
is also
a
solution
since
64% of those terminated were full-time
wage
earners.
Training programs to qualify women for better
jobs
will
any better in a society that uses women
be
not
employers.
reserve army for
fundamentally
enforce
a
as
which
Unless there are policies
decent
living
of
standard
for
single women and their children will probably
everyone,
a
get
the short end of the stick.
is
What
even
activists
welfare
by
inflicted on families.
OBRA
making
public
surprising has been the lack of
dramatically
cut
about
However,
a vast number
simultaneously
has
a closer look reveals that
of
social
services,
In
addition,
agencies focus on their own survival.
Massachusetts
OBRA
problems
the
outrage
proposed other
programs
like
workfare which would've reduced those remaining of welfare to
accept
these
degrading conditions.
programs
terminated
In
diffused attention away from the
against
plight
of
AFDC families.
conclusion,
successful
State wide organizing
Piven and Cloward are less optimistic the
large scale organizing:
Even with widespread opposition to the Regan
be
to
not likely
are
victories
program,
37
quick and easy,
for the administration
and
its
business allies
are
formidable
and
determined,
and
they
have
already
entrenched
their
interests in the
federal
budget through huge tax cuts.
The
threat
of
defeat at the polls will
matter greatly;
in fact it
is critical.
But the
processes
through
which
the electoral threat can
be
made
effective
are more complex
than
they
appear at first glance.
No mere tallying of
public
opinion
will be enough
for
public
opinion
needs
articulated
outrage
and
articulated
alternatives to assume a
clear
form
and
the
advantages of
the
uses
of
propaganda are with the administration.
(Piven
389
and Cloward
1982.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AndersonM.
1978.
Welfare.
Stan dford:
Hoover
Contemgorry. Social Welfare.
Bell W,
Publishing Co.,
1982.
Press,
Institute
Mac
New York:
Millan
Lives in Stress. Beverly Hi11s: Sage, 1982.
Belle, D.
(Ed.)
with
F ami__ies. Cope
How
Ends Meet:
Makinq
Cap]ovitz ,D.
Sage, 1979
Beverly Hills:
Inflation and Recession.
Federal
Effects of
for
the Study of Social Policy.
Center
Partnership.
Policy. Change-. A Study of Federal--State
AFDC
Washington, DC: March, 1983.
At.
Children's
Defense
Defenseof...
Fund.the...
Children's
1984..
Was.
B.udgt..
Washington,
DC:
.na1y.is. of- the 1.8.
Defense Fund, 1983.
"Measuring
Danziinger, S.
Budget." Social Work 27:4
Poverty and Cutting
(July 1982) : 369-372.
Race.,
and Class. New York:
Davis,
1981.
A.
Women..
Budget.:
An
Children's
the
Federal
Random House,
A Critique of Martin
"No More Poverty in America?
Dear,R.B.
Services
Youth
Theory of Welfare." Children and
Anderson 's
Review 4:1/2 (1982): 5-34
Family
The American Famil y. Report 1978-1979:
General Mills.
Health in an Era of Stress. Minneapolis: General Mills, 1979.
Gilder, G.
Wealth and Poverty .
Cause
and.
Goodwin,L.
Lexington Books, 1983.
Cures
New York:
of
Basic Books,
Welfare.
1981.
Lexington,
MA:
The Effects of the
A.
H.gh Tax Rates Without Breaks:
Hahn,
Waltham,
Poor.
Federql
Budget Act of 1981 On New Eng.land's
Income
Study of
for the
Center
University
MA:
Brandeis
Maintenance, 1982.
Government
"Entry
and Exit Transitions in a
Hutchen,
R.M.
Transfer Program:
The Case of Aid of Families with Dependent
217Children." Journal of Human Resources 16 (Spring 19810:
237.
FY
Effects of_ the
of Families in Poverty:
Profile
Joe,T*.
Washington,
DC:
Center
198~3 Budget Proposals on the Poor,
for the Study of Social Policy, 1982.
The
Freeman.
"Women to the Workhouse:
Kuttner,
B.
and P.
Wo.rking Page..s
IX:6
(NovemberLatest
in
Family Policy."
18-27.
December 1982):
39
"Income Maintenance Experiments:
Roach.
and J.
NeubechK.
Problems
the Perpetuation of Poverty. " Social
and
Politics
(1981) : 308-320.
28:3
Ihe Imp.t
The Poverty of Our Eut.re.
D.
Pearce,
Cuts on Women... Mi.Eorities arnd Children.
budt.
Center for National Policy Review, 1982.
DC:
Piven, Frances Fox
Re-tgr..E..'
R a sa
York:
Cloward, The New Class War:
and Richard A.
ttack on the Welfare State and
....
..
..
.......
of Reagan
Washington,
Its ConseunsNw
........
.....
~e
.....
1982.
in
"Determinants of the Work-Welfare Choice
Mildred,
Rein,
1972),
AFDC," Social Service Review, Vol.46, No. 4 (December
pp. 539-566.
Social
and L. Rainwater. Patterns of Welfare Use."
M.
Rein,
Service Review 52:4 (December 1978): 511-534.
Census.
the
of
Bureau
Commerce,
of
Dp.artment
U.S.
1982-1983.
States:
United
the
of
Abstract
Statistical
Office.
Governme.nt PF'rintin
Wash igto:...
US.
Depar...tment
Rec-i rpi en t
of
Health and Human Services.
Characteristics
Washington,DC:
_LY.
Parts
Government Printing Office,
I
1979
FDC
and
II.
1982.
Schroeder, and L.S. King. "Single FemaleA.
Van Houten,T.,
for
Families and Public Social Services -- Questions
Headed
(1982):
4:12
Review
Services
Yo.uth
and.
Children
the 80's"
209-221.
WallaceP. Black Women in the Labor Force.
Press, 1982, pp.77-106.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
and
Support,
Social
"Network Structure,
N.
Wedemeyer,
Journal
Family"
Single-Parent
the
in
Psychological Well-Being
of Marriage and the Family (August 1981). pp. 601-612-
40
APPENDIX
41
OV/1
CK
Mary Jane England. M.D.
-
Commissioner
o
October 5; 1,981
Dear Parent:
The Department of Public Welfare has informed us
that your AFDC benefits will be terminated on October 15, 1981.
They have also indicated that you have child care needs. The
Governor has made a commitment to try to help you with your
child care needs.
For those of you who' are already enrolled in Department
of Social Services day care slots, I want to assure you that your
day care services will continue. I recommend that you talk to
your day care provider to reassess your day care sliding fees
to adjust for your new income level.
For those of you who have been using the funds included
in your grant to purchase your child care, I want to state that
DSS has child care resources which we will make available to as
many children as possible. The termination letter which you
have received from DPW will serve as the authorization or proof
that you are part of the group of families which the Governor has
identified as a top priority to receive subsidized child care
services from this Department.
You will receive a second letter from DSS by October 16th
which will describe the steps you need to take to work with DSS
to help solve your child care needs. By the time that you get
your second letter we will be ready to help you. Please wait
until you get your second letter to call our offices. This second
letter will include the addresses and phone numbers of the DSS
Area Offices and other important information which will help you
with your child care.
Please remember to keep your DPW termination letter as
it is the essential document needed to ensure our ability to help
you. We are aware that this period is one of great difficulty for
you and the Department of Social Services will make every effort
to respond to your child care needs.
Sinarely,
Mary Jaezng and, M. .
Commiss oner-'
MJE/EMO/lg
42
try Jane England, M.D.
Commissioner
October 13, 1981
Dear Parent:
The Department of Public Welfare has informed us that as a result
of the Federal cutbacks your AFDC (welfare) benefits will be terminated in
the near future. They have also informed us that you have child care needs
due to your current work situation.
The Governor has made a conmitment to try to help you with your
child care needs. This letter contains imrportant information on how you
can apply for the child care services available through the Department of
Social Services (DSS).
For those of you who are already enrolled in a day care slot provided through the Department of Social Services, I want to assure you that
your day care services will continue. I recomend that you talk to your day
care provider to reassess your day care fee to adjust for your new income
level.
For those of you who have been using the funds included in your
grant to purchase your child care, I want to state that the Department of
Social Services has child care resources which we will make available to
as many children as possible within the limits of our budget. The termination letter which you received from the Department of Public Welfare will
serve as the proof that you are part of a group of families which the
Governor has identified as a high priority to receive subsidized child care
services through this Department. It is very important that you save the
termination letter to use when you apply for child care services.
The child care resources which might be available to you are two
basic types. The first is a slot in a contracted day care program. The
particular kind of contracted day care you might need will depend on the
age of your child. The day care providers involved are participants in
the Department's sliding fee program. Under this program the parents pay
for part of the cost of their child care by paying a fee based upon their
incom and the size of their family, and the Department pays for the rest
of the cost. The Department has made special arrangements with the day care
providers to give you a high priority in obtaining a vacant day care slot.
The second type of child care resources which might be available
to you is babysitting. This service can be made available to a limited extent
for the children of working consumers. Babysitting can be provided for a
maximn of 22 hours per week.
43
-2-
Parent
October 13, 1981
The remainder of this letter contains instructions on how you
can apply for the limited child care resources available through the
Department of Social Services. Please read these instructions carefully
in order to improve your chances of obtaining the kind of child care you
need.
Your first step should be to contact directly the day care providers which have contracts with the Department. Attached to this letter
is a list of these day care providers by region according to the kind of
day care they offer. You should call or go to the providers near you
which offer the kind of day care you need. When you ask for day care, it
is important that you tell the day care center that your AFDC benefits
are being cut-off and that you need child care because you are working.
If the day care program you contact has an opening you should
make an appointment to fill out an application. When you go to your appointment you should take two things:
1. Your letter from the Department of Public Welfare
notifying you of your AFDC benefits (welfare check)
being cut off.
2. Two most recent pay stubs which the day care program
will use to determine the amount of your day care fee.
Before you can begin services with DSS, you will
need to provide the information above, complete an
application and a fee agreement and make advance payment for the first week's day care services.
If you have not been able to obtain a day care slot by contacting
day care programs directly,_you should contact the DSS Area Office which
serves the comnumity where you live. Attached to this letter is a list of
the DSS Area Offices, a list which shows which comnunities are served by
each Area Office and detailed information for Boston residents.
Call the DSS Area Office and ask for assistance in obtaining day
care. When you call, it is important that you say you need help finding day
care because your AFDC benefits are being terminated. The Area Office will
set up an appointment for you to help you find a contracted day care slot
or try to make other arrangements for your child care needs. When yo go to
your appointment take with you the letter from the Department of Public
Welare not!
thatour AFDC benefits have been terminated.
We are aware that this period is one of great difficulty for
you and the Department of Social Services will attempt to respond to your
child care needs.
Sincerely,
/67
Mary Jane England, M.d.
Comnissioner
KJE/RT/cg
4
centre research, inc.
p.o. box 0, w. newton, ma
02165
(617) 491-8490
Dear Parent,
Many individuals in state government and the Legislature are concerned
about what happened to families who were terminated from AFDC nearly 18 months
ago, especially in relation to their child day care arrangements.
Centre Research, a private research firm, has been contracted to find out
how you and others like you are coping. This information will be used to
influence future state legislation and services for day care.
This questionnaire is totally confidential. The information you provide
will never be identified with you. In fact, your name will not appear on the
materials you send back, nor will your name be shared with any state agency.
Your answers, however, will be used with those from hundreds of other families
that were terminated from AFDC in October 1981.
The questionnaire looks long and complicated. However, it will only take
15 to 20 minutes to fill out. Once you get started, we think you will find
that it is easy to follow.
In addition to asking people to fill out this questionnaire, we would
also like to talk with some of you in person. If you are willing to be
interviewed, please fill out the form enclosed at the end of the questionnaire
and mail it back to us.
If we decide to interview you, a meeting will be arranged at your convenience, and you will be paid $5.00 by Centre Research to help cover your
expenses. The interview will last approximately one hour. Like this
questionnaire, your answers to the interview will be completely confidential.
We need your help in filling out this questionnaire.
The more people
that respond, the more effective we will be in representing how families such
as yours have been affected.
Please complete and return the questionnaire
within two weeks.
Thank you for your time and concern.
Sncerely,
Carol VanDeusen Lukas
Scott A. Bass
45
Final Draft
QUESTIONNAIRE
Column(s)
In filling out this questionnaire, please keep the following points
in mind:
"
The questions cover events and services at different
points in time. Each question will clearly identify
the time period it is asking about.
"
The questions about day care ask about your arrangements for only one of your children; your youngest
child above the age of two. Think about this
particular child when answering all questions about
day care.
/
Q-1.
Q-2.
/
/
/
/
1-4
Right now, at this time, how many children do you have who are
13 years old or older? (circle the number next to your answer)
1
ONE CHILD
2
TWO CHILDREN
3
THREE CHILDREN
4
FOUR CHILDREN
5
FIVE CHILDREN
6
SIX OR MORE CHILDREN
5
Right now, how old is your youngest child above ag
the age)
2?
(write in
6-7
Q-3.
In what region of the state do you currently reside?
number next to your answer)
1
BOSTON
2
GREATER BOSTON AREA
3
SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETfS AND CAPE COD
4
NORTH SHORE OR MERRIMACK VALLEY
5
WORCESTER OR CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS AREA
6
SPRINGFIELD OR WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS AREA
46
(circle the
8
-2-
Q-4.
Q-5.
Q-6.
Before October 1981, when you were still receiving AFDC benefits,
who cared for your youngest child above age 2 while you worked?
(circle the number next to your answer)
1
A DAY CARE CENTER
2
A FAMILY DAY CARE HOME
3
A BABYSITTER
4
OTHER PARENT OR GUARDIAN
5
A RELATIVE
6
A FRIEND
7
OLDER CHILD(REN) WATCHED THE YOUNGER ONE
8
CHILD CARED FOR SELF
9
OTHER (explain)
9-10
Before October 1981, when you were still receiving AFDC benefits,
did you usually pay for someone to care for your youngest child
above age 2 while you work? If so, how was that care mainly
(circle the number next to your answer)
paid for?
1
USUALLY DID NOT PAY ANYTHING AND DID NOT
EXCHANGE RERSONAL SERVICES
2
EXCHANGED PERSONAL SERVICES, BUT LITTLE OR NO
MONEY
3
PAID OUT OF FAMILY INCOME FROM WORK,
REIMBURSED FROM ANY SOURCE
AND NOT
4
PAID AS A WORK-RELATED EXPENSE OUT OF AFDC GRANT
5
PAID PART OF COST OUT OF OWN INCOME, AND
REMAINDER SUBSIDIZED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCY
(DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES)
6
RECEIVED PRIVATE SUBSIDY OR SCHOLARSHIP
7
OTHER (explain)
Within six months after your AFDC benefits were terminated in
October 1981, did you have to change your day care arrangements
for your youngest child above age 2? (circle the number next
to your answer)
(continued)
~47
11
-3-
Q-6.
(continued)
1
NO; DID NOT CHANGE DAY CARE
ARRANGEMENTS
2
4-3
NO; DID NOT WANT/NEED DAY CARE --
If NO, skip to
Q-10 below
12
YES
(If YES, answer Q-7, Q-8, and Q-9.)
Q-7.
Q-8.
Within six months after your AFDC termination in October
1981, what was the main reason you changed your day care
arrangements for your youngest child above age 2?
(circle the number next to one answer)
1
STOPPED WORK; NO LONGER NEEDED DAY CARE
2
INCREASED COSTS CREATED FINANCIAL BURDEN
3
COULD NOT AGREE WITH PRINCIPLE OF
INCREASED COSTS
4
5
DAY CARE NOT AVAILABLE AT NECESSARY TIMES
DAY CARE NOT CONVENIENTLY LOCATED, OR
DIDN'T PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION
6
POOR QUALITY OF CARE
7
PERSON OR AGENCY STOPPED PROVIDING SERVICE
8
9
MOVED
OTHER (explain)
13
What day care arrangements did you make for your youngest
(circle the
child above age 2 as a result of this change?
number next to your answer)
1
A DAY CARE CENTER
2
A FAMILY DAY CARE HOME
3
A BABYSITTER
4
STAYED HOME MYSELF
5
OTHER PARENT OR GUARDIAN
6
A RELATIVE
7
A FRIEND
8
OLDER CHILD(REN) WATCHED THE YOUNGER ONE
9
CHILD CARED FOR SELF
14-15
10
OTHER (explain)
48
I
-4-
Did this change in day care arrangements for your youngest
child above age 2 affect your job in the following ways
at that time? (circle one number for each possible effect)
Q-9.
Q-10.
NO (1)
YES (2)
a.
MISSED DAYS AT WORK
1
2
16
b.
WAS LATE FOR WORK FREQUENTLY
1
2
17
c.
HAD TO REDUCE THE HOURS
WORKED
1
2
18
d.
HAD TO QUIT JOB
1
2
19
e.
FORCED ME TO BE TERMINATED
OR FIRED
1
2
20
Within six months after your AFDC benefits were
October 1981, did you apply for assistance from
agency (like the Department of Social Services)
day care for your youngest child above age 2?
number next to your answer)
(If
1
NO
2
YES
NO,
Q-l1.
)
ES,
terminated in
another state
to help pay for
(circle the
skip to Q-12 below
21
answer Q-ll below.)
Why did you not apply for day care assistance from
(circle the number next to
another state agency?
your answer)
1
DID NOT NEED TO PAY FOR DAY CARE
2
DID NOT KNOW I WAS ELIGIBLE
3
DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH
ANOTHER STATE AGENCY
4
OTHER (explain)
22
(If answered Q-11, skip to Q-13 below.)
Q-12.
If you did apply for day care assistance from another
state agency, did you actually receive subsidized day care?
(circle the number next to your answer
1
NO; COULD NOT OBTAIN ADEQUATE INFORMATION
2
NO; NO SPACES WERE AVAILABLE/WAITING LISTS
TOO LONG IN PROGRAMS THAT MET MY NEEDS
(continued)
49
23
-5-
Q-12.
(continued)
3
NO; FEES WERE TOO HIGH
4
NO;
OTHER
(explain)
23
5
Q-13.
YES
At any time since October 1981, did you re-apply for AFDC benefits?
(circle the number next to your answer)
)
1
NO
2
YES
If NO, skip to Q-16 below
24
(If YES, answer Q-14 and Q-15 below.)
Q-14.
If you did re-apply for AFDC benefits, which of the following were reasons for your re-application? (circle one
number for each reason listed)
NO (1)
YES (2)
APPEALED INITIAL
TERMINATION
1
2
25
b.
LEFT JOB
1
2
26
c.
WORK HOURS WERE REDUCED
1
2
27
d.
ILLNESS(ES) OCCURRED
IN FAMILY
1
2
28
a.
e.
Q-15.
Q-16.
OTHER (explain)
29
If you did re-apply for AFDC benefits, were you successful
in receiving benefits?
(circle the number next to your
answer)
1
NO
2
YES
30
If you were out of work at any time since October 1981, and you
did not re-apply for AFDC benefits, please explain your reason(s).
(circle the number next to your answer)
1
THIS QUESTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ME
2
REASON:
31
50
-7-
Q-20.
Q-21.
Right now, at this time, what is the main way that you pay for
day care for your youngest child above age 2? (circle the
number next to your answer)
1
USUALLY DO NOT PAY ANYTHING AND DO NOT
EXCHANGE PERSONAL SERVICES
2
EXCHANGE PERSONAL SERVICES, BUT LITTLE
OR NO MONEY
3
PAY OUT OF FAMILY INCOME FROM WORK, AND NOT
REIMBURSED FROM ANY SOURCE
4
PAY AS A WORK-RELATED EXPENSE OUT OF AFDC GRANT
5
PAY PART OF COST OUT OF OWN INCOME, AND
REMAINDER SUBSIDIZED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCY
(DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES)
6
RECEIVE PRIVATE SUBSIDY OR SCHOLARSHIP
7
OTHER (explain)
40
Overall, how has the reduction in AFDC and/or other governmental
benefits affected you and your family?
41-42
Please place your completed questionnaire in the enclosed, postage-paid,
return-addressed envelope and mail it back to us.
If you are willing to talk with Centre Research staff about your
experiences since being terminated from AFDC in October 1981, please
fill out the attached form to tell us how to reach you.
Mail the form to us in the same envelope with your questionnaire or,
if you prefer, in the second envelope included in this packet.
Thank You
51
-6-
Q-17.
What kind of medical coverage have you had since October 1981
when you were terminated from AFDC?
(circle the number next to
your answer)
1
MEDICAID
2
HEALTH INSURANCE; EMPLOYER PAYS MOST/ALL
3
HEALTH INSURANCE; YOU PAY MOST/ALL
4
OTHER MEDICAL COVERAGE (explain)
32
5
Q-18.
NO MEDICAL COVERAGE (explain how your family would be
treated for illness/injury) _
Since October 1981 when you were terminated from AFDC, have any
of the following subsidies been reduced as a result of your new
financial status?
(circle one number for each of the following)
NO (1)
a.
RENT INCREASE IN SECTION 8 HOUSING
1
2
33
b.
REDUCTION IN FOOD STAMP ALLOCATION
1
2
34
c.
REDUCTION IN FUEL ASSISTANCE
ALLOCATION
1
2
35
LOSS OF EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
BENEFITS
1
2
36
REDUCTION IN SCHOOL LUNCH SUBSIDY
1
2
37
d.
e.
Q-19.
YES (2)
Right now, at this time, what child care arrangements do you
have for your youngest child above age 2?
(circle the number
next to your answer)
1
A DAY CARE CENTER
2
A FAMILY DAY CARE HOME
3
A BABYSITTER
4
STAY HOME MYSELF
5
OTHER PARENT OR GUARDIAN
6
A RELATIVE
7
A FRIEND
8
OLDER CHILD(REN) WATCHED THE YOUNGER ONE
9
CHILD CARES FOR SELF
10
38,39
OTHER (explain)
52
c e n t
r e
r e s e a r c h ,y
research,
centre
p.o. box 0, w. newton, ma
02165
i n c
inc.
.
(617) 491-8490
I am interested in being interviewed about my experiences since being
terminated from AFDC in October 1981.
Name:
Address:
You can best contact me to set up a specific time and place for the interview
by (check and fill
in the information for whichever of the following apply
Calling me at home.
Phone number:
Hours I'm most easily reached:
Calling me at work.
Phone number:
Hours I'm most easily reached:
Writing to me at the address shown above.
Writing to me at the following address:
Calling me at a friend's, neighbor's,
or relative's house.
Phone number:
Hours they are most easily reached;
(Please mail this form in one of the enclosed envelopes to Centre Research.)
Thank You
53