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