Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
In this chapter, we begin with demographic and other background characteristics that describe the population of TANF recipients — including age, race and ethnicity, marital and cohabitation status, educational attainment, household composition, living arrangements, and family mobility. This demographic information will enable states to compare the economic, personal, family, and community-barrier measures across various demographic strata, in order to assess whether meaningful differences exist among recipients to these barriers.
Table II.1 summarizes our recommendations and priorities for measuring demographic and other background characteristics in the survey of TANF recipients. The estimate of the total time needed to administer all the “A”-rated items in the demographic and background characteristics domain, as indicated in Table II.1, is 4.25 minutes.
Age or date of birth is a demographic measure that provides basic descriptive information about the respondent being interviewed. Additionally, in many list frame telephone surveys, date of birth is used as a screening question (along with social security number) to verify that the interviewer has the correct respondent on the telephone before beginning the interview.
Most surveys reviewed collected the respondent’s date of birth, often at the beginning of the survey to screen for the correct respondent. Some surveys (Alameda and Nebraska) asked for both the respondent’s date of birth and the age. We believe this is not necessary, since respondent’s age can be calculated from their date of birth.
| Demographic and Other Background Characteristics | Number of Items | Past Survey(s) | Estimate of Time (minutes) | Priority Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | ||||
| Age, Date of birth | 1 | WES; MO; NE; IL | .25 | A |
| Race | 1 | WES; MO; NE; IL; NSAF | .25 | A |
| Ethnicity | 1 | MO; NE; IL; NSAF | .25 | A |
| Marital status | 1 | WES; MO; NE; AC; IL; NSAF | .25 | A |
| Living with spouse | 1 | NE; AC | .25 | B |
| Cohabitation status | 1 | WES; NE; AC | .25 | A |
| Educational Attainment | ||||
| Highest grade completed | 1 | WES; MO; NE; AC; IL | .25 | A |
| Types of diplomas, degrees, or certificates received | 1 | MO; NE; IL | .25 | B |
| Household Composition | ||||
| Number of people in the Household | 1 | MO; NE; AC; IL; NSAF; SPD | .50 | A |
| Relationship of people to Respondent | 1 | MO; AC; IL | .25 | A |
| Age of children in Household | 3 | NE | .75 | A |
| Whether Respondent has children not currently living with him/her | 1 | NE; AC; IL | .25 | A |
| Where are they living now? | 1 | IL | .25 | B |
| Why are they living there? | 1 | IL | .25 | B |
| Pregnancies and Births | ||||
| Whether Respondent had a child in past year | 1 | WES; AC | .25 | C |
| Living Arrangements and Family Mobility | ||||
| Does Respondent live in public housing? | 1 | WES; MO; NE; NSAF | .25 | A |
| How many bedrooms in Respondent’s home | 1 | AC; IL; NSAF | .25 | A |
| Does current housing situation interfere with work or training? | 1 | AC | .25 | A |
| How many times did Respondent move in past 12 months? | 1 | MO; AC; IA | .25 | A |
| Why did Respondent move (the last time)? | 1 | MO | .25 | B |
We therefore recommend asking only for the respondent’s date of birth. The date of birth measure is preferable, since it can also be used as a screening tool at the beginning of the survey to verify the correct respondent. If the respondent refuses to provide his or her date of birth, the information can be obtained from state administrative data files.
Race and ethnicity are two demographic measures that provide basic descriptive information about a respondent. This information can inform state policymakers of significant differences that may exist among racial or ethnic groups in areas such as employment; job training; or personal, family, or community barriers to employment and self-sufficiency.
There has been continuous debate among researchers as to the best way to collect racial and ethnic data in surveys. In 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised its standards for maintaining, collecting and presenting federal data on race and ethnicity (OMB 1997). These standards require that:
According to the OMB (1997), the minimum designations for race and ethnicity are:
All survey instruments included a measure of race, although the wording of the question or questions varied greatly. The WES asked whether the respondent was White, African American, or some other race. The Missouri survey asked for the respondent’s race as an open-ended question without reading any categories. The Alameda survey asked the respondent what best described himself or herself; Native American or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino/Chicano, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander or White/Caucasian. The Nebraska and Illinois surveys asked whether the respondent considered himself or herself to be White, Black or African American descent, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Native American or Alaskan Native.
We observed similar diversity in the question wording for the ethnicity measure. The Missouri survey asked whether the respondent considered himself or herself to be of Hispanic or Latino origin. The Nebraska survey asked whether the respondent was of Latino or Spanish descent or origin. The Alameda survey included ethnicity as a category within the race question but did not ask it as a separate measure. The Illinois survey asked two questions on ethnicity: whether the respondent was of Spanish or Hispanic origin and, if so, what was his or her specific ethnicity? The WES did not measure ethnicity.
We recommend following the OMB’s revised 1997 standards, which dictate using two separate measures for ethnicity and race. First, ask whether a respondent is of Hispanic or Latino origin. Second, ask whether a respondent considers himself or herself to be White, Black or African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Native American or Alaskan Native. The question of ethnicity reflects what was used in the Missouri survey. The question on race most closely reflects what was used in the Nebraska survey, with the categories changed to reflect the revised OMB racial categories. We believe these two questions most closely match the OMB’s revised standards.
Marital status is a common measure that provides basic descriptive information about a respondent. Historically, single mothers with children formed the core of the welfare rolls. Due to a host of personal and family barriers, this group has had greater difficulty finding stable and sustainable long-term employment than have married or single adults. Collecting marital information will allow states to make comparisons among various groups, based on their marital status.
Cohabitation is a relatively common occurrence among welfare populations, as well as being an important measure of family well-being. An unmarried partner can provide economic and social resources to help sustain a family, or — just as a married partner — he or she can cause sstress if they have physical or mental health problems, contribute to domestic violence, or have a criminal behavior problem.
Many surveys asked for the respondent’s marital status; but they differed slightly in the way the question was worded. The WES asked whether the respondent was currently married and living with her husband, married and living apart, separated, divorced, widowed, or never been married. If not married, follow-up questions were asked whether she was living as an unmarried partner with someone and, if not, whether she currently had a boyfriend or steady partner. The Missouri survey asked whether the respondent was currently married, separated from his or her spouse, divorced, widowed, or never married. Two follow-up questions were asked whether the respondent had gotten married since leaving AFDC, and whether he or she had been separated or divorced since leaving AFDC. The Nebraska survey asked whether the respondent was currently married, separated, divorced, widowed, or never married. If she was not married, a follow-up question asked if she was currently living together as a couple with someone.
The wording in the WES survey contains two ambiguous categories: married and living apart, and separated. The two categories could be interpreted as meaning the same thing or different things. Therefore, we do not recommend this measure; nor do we recommend the other two categories from the WES. The measure that asks whether the respondent is living with someone as an “unmarried partner” is of concern because the language may be perceived by respondents as offensive, and it could lead to item nonresponse. We believe it is not crucial to collect information on whether the respondent currently has a steady boyfriend or partner who does not live with the respondent.
The Missouri and Nebraska surveys ask for marital status in nearly identical fashion. The Missouri marital question contains a few more words that provide no additional clarity. The follow-up questions from the Missouri survey are irrelevant for the purposes of this study, since we will be interviewing current welfare recipients.
We recommend asking two measures under this topic, both taken from the Nebraska survey — first, whether the respondent is currently married, separated, divorced, widowed, or never been married. These categories are clear and distinct from one another. Second, for those respondents who answer anything other than “married,” we recommend asking a follow-up question on whether the respondent currently lives together as a couple with someone. We believe the wording of this question is less likely to offend respondents.
Educational attainment is a key measure in determining an individual’s economic potential in the workforce, as well as being an indicator of economic self-sufficiency. Individuals with low levels of education have much greater difficulty obtaining self-sustaining employment and are at higher risk of economic instability. This instability can contribute to, and exacerbate, stress on the family unit. Measuring educational attainment will enable states to compare their welfare populations by education level, to learn whether significant differences exist along key barrier measures.
Most surveys included measures of educational attainment. The WES, Missouri, Nebraska, Alameda, and Illinois surveys all asked for the highest grade or year of regular school that the respondent completed. The Missouri, Nebraska, and Illinois surveys followed up by asking for the types of degrees, diplomas, and certificates received. Examples of such degrees and certificates included GED or high school diploma, college-level degrees (BA, BS), and vocational or technical certificates, such as for a nursing assistant or welder. These questions gather the basic information needed to evaluate educational attainment.
The WES also included a question that asked for the age at which the respondent stopped attending school. We do not believe this measure is necessary, since it is unclear what information can be gleaned from these data.
We recommend one measure under this topic: the highest grade or year of regular school completed by the respondent. Time permitting, we would also recommend asking the types of degrees, diplomas, and certificates the respondent has received. Due to the high degree of similarity among measures, these questions can be taken from the Missouri, Nebraska, Alameda, or Illinois surveys.
Household composition is an important measure for evaluating family functioning and well-being. The information gathered about how many people live with the respondent, and their relationship to the respondent, provides detail on the family structure (nuclear, extended, single), the potential for family stress, and the pooling and sharing of resources among household members.
Collecting information on a respondent’s children who do not currently live with the respondent is another measure of family well-being. This information can present further evidence of family stress and hardship, both social and financial. States can use the information ggathered from these measures to compare the various barrier measures across family groups, to learn whether significant differences exist.
Some surveys (such as Alameda, Missouri, and Illinois) used a detailed grid format to collect data on household composition. For each member in the respondent’s household, these surveys gathered the name, date of birth or age, and relationship of that person to the respondent. The Alameda survey included additional questions on whether the person lived with the respondent during the prior year and, if not, where the person was living before, and whether the respondent supported the person financially during that time. The Missouri survey included an extra question on whether the person lived with the respondent during the prior month but asked no follow-up questions. The Illinois survey included additional questions on whether the person living in the household had a job, whether the person was a minor, and, if so, whether the minor’s other parent lived in the household.
The Nebraska survey collected information on household composition in a different format. One question asked for the total number of people living with the respondent. Two more questions asked for the number of children living in the household, grouped by age (0 to 5 and 6 to 17 years). No questions collected the relationship of the household members to the respondent. The Iowa Child Impact Survey did not collect any detailed household information because the information was already collected in a prior survey (the Iowa Core Survey), using the detailed grid format described above. The detailed grid format for collecting household composition provides more precise information about each household member. However, the method is time-consuming and tends to produce a higher level of item nonresponse in the form of refusals than is achieved using anonymous methods. We believe that collecting the information in a more general way, such as in the Nebraska survey, will obtain the requisite data on the number of household members and the age ranges of any children. However, it will not provide information about the relationship of household members to the respondent.
A few surveys collected information on respondents’ children who were not living with the respondents. The Nebraska, Alameda, and Illinois surveys asked whether the respondent had any children under age 18 who did not live with them and, if so, how many. The Illinois survey also asked where the children were living and why they were living there. The WES asked only for the number of children under age 18 living outside the respondent’s household. We believe that it is important to gather the number of children under age 18 the respondent has who live outside the respondent’s household, and also where they are living, and why.
We recommend using a two-question format to measure household composition. First, ask how many people live in the household; then, using a single, multiple-response question, ask for the relationship of everyone in the household, and the relation to the respondent. This question has been used effectively on a survey fielded by MPR which was not reviewed for this report. The question will provide the necessary information on the number of household members and their relationship to the respondent, with the utmost anonymity — which should reduce item nonresponse.
We then recommend asking for the ages of the children who live in the household. Furthermore, we recommend asking whether the respondent has any children under age 18 who do not currently live with the respondent. Time permitting, we also would recommend asking where these children live and why they live there.
A pregnancy or birth of a child can have a significant impact on a woman’s ability to obtain and maintain employment. Work-related tardiness and absenteeism can be higher for pregnant or recently delivered mothers, behaviors most employers frown upon. Child care issues, such as the affordability and reliability of child care for low-income women, can have an impact on work performance as well. Low-income women are more likely to deliver low-birthweight infants, an outcome associated with delaying the start of prenatal care until after the first trimester. This delay can lead to serious medical repercussions during pregnancy, as well as complications during and after delivery. The care of a premature or low-birthweight infant can be more demanding than for a full-term infant. These circumstances can increase individual and family stress and be an obvious barrier to working or seeking employment.
Most surveys did not address the topic of pregnancy and birth. The WES asked whether the respondent was currently pregnant and whether the respondent had been pregnant over some specified period of time. The Alameda survey asked, among a list of questions measuring life-stress events, whether the respondent gave birth to a child during the past year.
Although these measures may be of interest, we do not recommend including them in the survey of TANF recipients. We believe that these items can be measured indirectly, using other questions. In the household composition section, we plan to collect data on the ages of children in the respondent’s household. This will provide a measure of the presence and stress of young children in the household, as well as provide better information on the number of births or pregnancies that occurred during the previous year. In addition, under the physical health section, we recommend measures asking about overall health status and whether any health problems interfered with a respondent’s ability to work or attend training. A pregnancy or birth-related health condition could be addressed by these measures, even though the information obtained could not be linked directly to a prior pregnancy or birth.
Information on living arrangements and family mobility are useful measures with which to assess the family functioning and social and economic well-being of TANF recipients. The type of housing a recipient lives in has an impact on that person’s quality of life and may impede his or her ability to find and maintain employment. Similarly, a recipient who moves frequently from place to place may have difficulty securing and maintaining employment, due to the personal disruption experienced.
Most surveys asked for the respondent’s current living arrangement — for instance, whether he or she owned or rented a home or apartment, lived rent-free with friends or family, lived in a shelter, or was homeless and living on the street. For those who rented, some surveys asked a follow-up question: Was the respondent living in public housing or receiving vouchers for housing? The Alameda and Illinois surveys asked for the number of bedrooms in the house or apartment (an indicator of family crowding and stress). The Illinois survey also asked for the amount of rent or mortgage payment that the respondent was responsible for in the prior month.
The NSAF asked the longest series of questions about housing. They included whether the respondent lived in public housing or received housing vouchers, whether the home was owned, rented, or occupied without cash payment, how long the respondent lived in the home, the number of bedrooms in the home, the respondent’s portion of the monthly rent or mortgage, and the total household’s monthly rent or mortgage.
Three surveys included questions on family mobility. The Missouri survey asked three questions: (1) the number of times the respondent moved during the past 12 months, (2) the date of the most recent move, and (3) the primary reason for the move. The Alameda survey asked a longer battery of questions. These included how many times the respondent moved during the past 12 months, the other types of housing he or she lived in during the past 12 months, how long he or she lived in each type of place, whether the respondent could stay in the current housing for the next 30 days without being asked to leave, and whether the current housing situation interfered with work or training. The Iowa Child Impact Survey asked for the number of moves over the past 12 months.
While it may be common to collect information about a respondent’s type of housing, analysis of the data show that the vast majority of welfare recipients are renters. Very few own homes, live in shelters, or are homeless. Thus, we believe it is not useful to include this measure in our proposed survey. We do, however, recommend including the three measures having to do with whether the respondent lives in public housing, the number of bedrooms in the respondent’s dwelling, and whether the current housing situation interferes with work or training. This will capture important information on the use of low-income housing, potential household crowding and family stress (when coupled with the data on the number of household members), and perceptions of work- or training-related difficulties due to housing problems. Due to the time constraints on the survey, we do not recommend asking any more questions about housing.
We also recommend asking one measure on family mobility taken from the Alameda survey: how many times the respondent moved over the past 12 months. Time permitting, we would also recommend asking the primary reason for moving (the last time, if more than one move). This will provide the basic information on mobility and family stress, using a minimal number of measures.
Main Page of Report | Main Contents
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)