Families on TANF in Illinois:  Employment Assets and Liabilities

Appendix D.
Detailed Survey Data Tables

[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Contents

Table D.1
Employment Experiences of TANF Case Heads
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  All Cases
Current Employment Status
Employed 39
Not employed; worked for pay during the past year 35
Not employed; worked for pay more than a year ago 22
Not employed; never worked for pay 3
Number of Months Worked for Pay During the Past Year
0 26
1 to 3 15
4 to 6 25
7 to 9 12
10 to 11 5
12 17
Number of Months Worked If Employed in Past Year
Average 6.9
Median 6.0
Number of Jobs Held During the Past Year
0 26
1 44
2 24
3 or more 6
Number of Jobs Held If Employed in Past Year
Average 1.5
Median 1.0
Proportion of Time Employed Since Age 18
About 75 percent or more 54
About 50 percent 22
About 25 percent or less 21
Not at all 3
Sample Size 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.

Table D.2
Characteristics of Current or Most Recent Job Held by TANF Case Headsa
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  Currently Employed Previously Employed Ever Employed
Length of Employment on Job
Average number of months 14.3 10.2** 11.9
Median number of months 6.0 5.0 5.0
Hours Worked Per Week
Less than 20 9 8 8
20 to 34 36 30 33
35 or more 55 61 59
Average hours worked per week 32.3 34.9** 34.2
Median hours worked per week 35.0 40.0 35.0
Temporary or Seasonal Job 22 32** 28
Shift or Time of Day Worked
Regular day time shift 54 57 56
Morning or afternoon shift 11 9 9
Evening or night shift 20 24 22
Irregular, split, or rotating shift 14 9 11
Other 2 2 2
Industry   ***  
Manufacturing 3 9 7
Retail 27 31 29
Transit/transportation 3 2 2
Personal servicesb 14 7 9
Business services/utilities 9 15 13
Recreation/amusement 3 2 2
Health services 20 10 14
Social/educ./other non-profit or public services 18 11 14
Hotels and other lodging services 3 4 3
Other 2 10 7
Occupation
Administrative support/clerical 16 16 16
Sales 14 19 17
Health services 15 9 12
Food services 15 13 14
Grounds maintenance/cleaning services 10 10 10
Personal services 11 9 10
Other services 9 7 8
Technical 1 2 2
Production/manufacturing 4 5 4
Other 5 9 8
Sample Size 157 244 401
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between currently and previously employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with a currently/previously employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a Statistics in this table are on the characteristics of the current or most recent jobs held by case heads who ever worked for pay.
b Personal services include laundry and cleaning services, beauty shops, and other services performed within a private household.

Table D.3
Compensation on Current or Most Recent Job Held by TANF Case Heada
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  Currently Employed Previously Employed Ever Employed
Hourly Wageb  
Less than $5.15 21 20 20
$5.15 to 6.00 26 24 25
$6.01 to 7.00 24 19 21
$7.01 to 8.00 13 13 13
$8.01 to 9.00 7 10 9
$9.01 to 10.00 5 7 6
More than $10.00 4 8 6
Average hourly wage $6.37 $7.64** $7.12
Median hourly wage $6.31 $6.50 $6.50
Fringe Benefits Available  
Paid sick leave 32 31 31
Paid vacation 43 37 40
Paid holidays 46 38 41
Health insurance 34 34 34
Retirement plan 25 20 22
Opportunity for Advancement (Self-assessment)  
Great deal 16 16 16
Some 28 25 26
A little 20 25 23
None 36 34 34
Sample Size 157 244 401
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between currently and previously employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with a currently/previously employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a Statistics in this table are on the characteristics of the current or most recent jobs held by case heads who ever worked for pay.
b This estimate includes both case heads who are paid on an hourly basis and those who are paid a salary where the hourly wage was calculated.

[Go To Contents]

Table D.4
Principal Reasons for Not Working and for Leaving Most Recent Joba
(Percentages)
  Cases w/ Heads
Not Currently Employed
Principal Reason Currently Not Working For Pay
Physical, mental health, or substance abuse problem 14
Pregnancy or newborn care 17
Prefer/need to stay home with children 7
Other family responsibilities 4
Child care problem 11
Transportation problem 3
In school/training 10
Lack education/work experience 11
No jobs available/wages too low 13
Other 10
Principal Reason for Leaving Most Recent Job
Not satisfied with hours/benefits/salary 8
Problems on the job (with boss or too stressful) 7
Pregnancy/maternity leave 19
Own health problems 11
Family or personal problems 6
Child care or transportation problems 7
Improved opportunities (school or another job) 3
Temporary or short term assignment ended 14
Fired or laid off 14
Other 11
Sample Size 244
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.
a Tabulated for cases on which the head was not currently employed, but had been employed in the past.

Table D.5
Perceived Discrimination by Potential Employer During the past Yeara
(Percentages)
  Currently Employed Previously Employed All
Perceived Discrimination Based On:
Race or ethnic origin 6 9 7
Gender 3 7 5
Having been on welfare 12 10 11
Appearance or other physical characteristicsb 8 11 10
Any of the above 19 22 20
Sample Size 157 244 401
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a Statistics in this table are based on experiences by case heads who have ever worked for pay.
b Includes dental problem, weight, eyesight or hearing, or anything else about appearance.

Table D.6
Performance of Job Tasks among TANF Cases
(Percentages)
  Regularlya Monthly Ever
Job Tasks Performed:
Talk with customers face to face 80 2 82
Talk with customers over the phone 51 4 55
Read instructions or reports 53 8 61
Write letters or memos 30 6 36
Work with a computer 37 5 42
Work with another electronic machine 67 3 70
Do arithmetic 60 4 64
Fill out forms 55 6 61
Keep watch over gauges or instruments 40 5 46
Performed at Least Four Job Tasks 67 1 72
Sample Size     416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
a Regularly is defined as having performed the job skill at least weekly.

[Go To Contents]

Table D.7
Participation in Education, Training, and Job Preparation Programs among TANF Cases During the past Year
(Percentages)
  Employed Not Employed All
Education or Training Programs 46 50 49
GED classes or preparing for GED exam 16 23* 21
Specialized training program 34 29 31
College classes 15 12 13
Job Preparation Programs 48 60** 55
Job readiness training 33 33 33
Job search program or job club 45 54* 51
Work Experience Program 13 29*** 23
Any of the Above 67 78** 74
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.

Table D.8
Basic Understanding of Work Norms among TANF Cases
(Percentages)
  Employed Not Employed All
Understands Problem and Able to Identify Viable Solutions:
Arriving at Work Late Due to Unreliable Babysitter 43 50 47
Not Performing Well on Smaller Job Tasks (e.g. filing) 41 46 44
Losing Temper over Criticism from Co-Worker 86 88 87
Approaching New Tasks That Are Unfamiliar 47 56* 53
Making Mistakes Due to Stress of Job 47 51 50
Good Overall Understanding of at Least 3 Work Normsa 56 64 61
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a For each of the five scenarios, the survey asked respondents to gauge their understanding of the problem and then provide a solution. Those who demonstrated a sense of the problem and could identify a viable solution were considered to have a good understanding of the underlying work norm.

Table D.9
Characteristics of the Heads of Single-parent TANF Cases in Illinois
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  Employed Not Employed All
Gender
Female 99 99 99
Male 1 1 1
Age   ***  
Younger than 25 years 21 45 36
25 to 34 years 41 31 35
35 years or older 38 24 30
Average age (years) 31.8 28.1*** 29.5
Median age (years) 31.0 25.0 28.0
Marital Status
Never married 65 72 69
Married or living with partner 15 12 13
Separated, divorced, or widowed 20 16 17
Highest Education Completed
Less than high school diploma/GED 40 47 44
High school diploma/GED 27 28 28
More than high school diploma/GED 33 25 28
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.

[Go To Contents]

Table D.10
Household Composition of Single-parent TANF Cases in Illinois
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  Employed Not Employed All
Household Composition
Adults only, no children 0 1 1
Single parent, children 61 50 55
Single parent, other adults, childrena 32 38 36
Single parent, partner, childrenb 4 4 4
Two married adults, childrenb 3 6 4
Average number of persons in HH 4.6 4.5 4.5
Median number of persons in HH 4.0 4.0 4.0
Number of Children Less than Age 18 in Household
0 0 1 1
1 17 29 24
2 30 27 28
3 26 20 22
4 11 9 10
5 or more 16 14 15
Average number of children < 18 in HH 2.9 2.6* 2.7
Median number of children < 18 in HH 3.0 2.0 2.0
Number of Children Less than Age 6 in Household   ***  
0 36 19 26
1 36 46 42
2 21 25 24
3 or more 6 10 9
Average number of children < 6 in HH 1.0 1.3** 1.2
Median number of children < 6 in HH 1.0 1.0 1.0
Age of Youngest Child   ***  
Less than 1 year 21 33 29
1 to 5 years 42 48 46
6 to 14 years 32 18 23
15 years or older 4 1 2
Average age of youngest child 4.8 3.0*** 3.8
Median age of youngest child 3.0 1.0 2.0
Have Own Children Less than Age 18 Living Outside Household 5 7 6
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a "Other adults" is exclusive of a spouse or partner.
b Other adults may also have been present in the household.

Table D.11
Housing Characteristics
(Percentages)
  Employed Not Employed All
Number of Bedrooms
1 7 9 9
2 35 38 37
3 34 34 34
4 or more 24 18 20
Housing Assistance
Live in public housing 17 15 16
Receive rent subsidy 28 26 27
None 56 59 58
Number of Moves in Past 12 Months
0 61 48 53
1 26 25 25
2 or more 13 27 21
Evicted in Past Year 5 6 5
Unstable Housinga 16 27** 23
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) to test for differences between employed and not employed recipients.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a Defined as having been evicted or moving two or more times in the past 12 months.

Table D.12
Children's Health and Special Needsa
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  All Cases
Type of Problem / Special Needb
Asthma 34
Medical problems 42
Learning problems 35
Behavior problems 24
Depression / mental health problems 2
Other 6
Age of Child with Problems / Special Needsb
5 and under 41
6 to 12 49
13 to 17 26
Child Receives SSI Benefits 27
Child is Limited in Activities 53
Number of Children Limited in Activities
0 47
1 45
2 7
3 1
Sample Size 120
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
a Tabulated for cases with at least one child with health, behavioral, or special needs.
b Percentages do not add to 100 percent due to cases with multiple children with health, behavioral, or special needs.

[Go To Contents]

Table D.13
Earnings of TANF Cases
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  All Cases
Case Head Worked for Pay in Past Month 40
Monthly Earnings of Case Heada
Less than $400 28
$400 to $799 42
$800 to $1199 23
$1200 or more 7
Average monthly earnings $616
Median monthly earnings $600
Other Adults in the Household Worked for Pay in Past Month 21
Sample Size 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between currently and previously employed case heads.
a Tabulated for cases who reported working for pay in past month (n=160).

Table D.14
Income Sources and Amounts among TANF Householdsa
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  Percentage with Income from Sourceb Income in Past Monthb
Cases with Income from Selected Source All Clientsc
Earnings by All Household Members 54 $817 $407
Public Assistance
TANF benefits 86 $273 $235
Food stamp benefits 93 $317 $293
SSI or disability insurance 15 $559 $ 79
Child Support Over Past 12 Months
Received any 10 -- --
Received regularlyd 48 -- --
Other Sourcese 13 $244 $ 32
All Sources -- -- $1065
Sample Size     416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between currently and previously employed case heads.
a Income sources and amounts refer to the month prior to the survey.
b Categories include income received by any member of the household.
c Figures for "all clients" includes clients who received or who did not receive the income source in the past month. Those who did not receive the income source had values of $0 in the calculation of the average.
d Tabulated only for cases that received child support in past 12 months (n=41).
e Other income includes child support, unemployment benefits, alimony payments, and money from friends or relatives. Separate figures for monthly child support payments were not gathered in the survey.

Table D.15
Monthly Household Income of TANF Cases and Income Relative to Poverty Levels
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  All Cases
Total Monthly Household Incomea
Less than $500 14
$500 to 999 41
$1,000 to 1,499 27
$1,500 to 1,999 10
$2,000 or more 8
Average income $1065
Median income $934
Total Monthly Household Income Relative to Poverty Levelb
Less than 0.50 65
0.50 to 0.99 29
1.00 to 1.49 4
1.50 to 1.99 2
2.00 or more 0
Average income to poverty level .48
Median income to poverty level .39
Sample Size 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between currently and previously employed case heads.
a Based on reported household income for month prior to the survey.
b Poverty threshold level for 2001 as established by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The analysis of monthly household income relative to the poverty level excludes food stamps. Income from food stamps is included in the monthly household income figures presented.

[Go To Contents]

Table D.16
Child Care Use and Problems
(Percentages)
  Cases With Child Under Age 6a Cases With Child Between Age 6 and 12 Cases With Child Under Age 13
Used Child Care During the Past Yearb 47 52 48
Received Child Care Subsidyc 62 66 63
Child Care Problems Interfered w/ Work/School/Training 32 23 31
Specific child care problems for cases with problemsd
Cost 13 25 15
Not available when needed 30 27 30
Too far from home or work 4 0 4
Provider unavailable or unreliable 43 10*** 38
Worry about child neglect or abuse 8 0 7
Sick or disabled child 12 27 15
Subsidy late, so lost provider 4 0 3
Other 19 23 20
Sample Size 311 71 382
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases based on child's age (under 6 and between 6 and 12) is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a TANF clients with a child younger than 6 years of age and a child between 6 and 12 years of age are classified as having a child in the younger age category but not in the older age category.
b The measure of child care use does not include care provided by a child's parent.
c Tabulated only for cases that used child care other than that provided by a parent (sample size = 190).
d Tabulated only for cases that experienced problems with child care that interfered with work, school, or training (sample size = 120). Percentages sum to more than 100 because some cases experienced multiple problems.

Table D.17
Other Personal and Family Issues That May Be Barriers to Employment
(Percentages)
  Employed Not Employed All
Possible Presence of a Learning Disabilitya 10 13 12
Child with Health or Behavioral Problem or Special Need 33 29 30
Caring for an Elderly, Sick or Disabled Family Member or Friend 8 14* 12
Difficulty with English Because it is Not Native Language 3 2 2
Criminal Conviction 19 17 18
Multiple Arrestsb 11 20** 16
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases and administrative data from the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a The possible presence of a learning disability was determined following the methodology of the Washington State Learning Needs Screening Tool.
b Has had two or more arrests since 1996.

Table D.18
Physical Health
(Percentages, Unless Otherwise Stated)
  Employed Not Employed All
Overall Health (Self-Assessment)
Excellent 22 23 23
Very good 20 16 18
Good 38 31 34
Fair 15 20 18
Poor 5 10 8
Pregnanta 3 11*** 8
Younger than 25 years -- -- 12
25 to 34 years -- -- 8
35 years or older -- -- 3
Presence of Chronic Health or Medical Conditionb 22 31* 27
Arthritis 4 4 4
Asthma/Emphysema 9 13 12
Back problem 2 5 4
High blood pressure 1 5** 3
Nerves/Anxiety/Stress 2 5 4
Physical Functioningc   **  
First quartile of the U.S. population 40 51 47
Second quartile of the U.S. population 22 12 16
Third or fourth quartile of the U.S. population 38 37 38
Below average for the U.S. population 30 40** 36
Physical Health Problemd 16 24** 21
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
-- Sample sizes too small for subgroup analysis.
a Tabulated only for cases with female heads (sample size = 413).
b Not all categories are shown.
c Physical functioning was determined following the methodology of the Physical Functioning Scale of the SF-36 Health Survey, incorporating norms based on age and gender.
d Following the methodology of the University of Michigan's Women's Employment Study, a case head was defined to have a physical health problem if overall health was poor or fair and physical functioning was in the lowest quartile.

[Go To Contents]

Table D.19
Mental Health
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  Employed Not Employed All
Experienced Psychological Distress in Past 30 Daysa 6 15*** 12
Experienced Major Depression in Past Yearb 86 72*** 77
Characteristics of Depressive Spells Over Past 12 Mos.c
Cumulative duration (in weeks) -- -- 17.6
Timing of most recent spell (months in past) -- -- 2.7
Consulted doctor or other professional -- -- 58
Took medication or used drugs or alcohol -- -- 48
Caused at least some interference with activities -- -- 78
Mental Health Problemd 15 31*** 25
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
-- Sample sizes too small for subgroup analysis.
a Categories of nonspecific psychological distress were assigned on the basis of the K6 psychological distress scale, with a range of 0 to 24, and on normative data from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey and the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Individuals with scores of 13 or greater are classified as experiencing psychological distress.
b The probability of major depression was determined following the methodology of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF). Under this methodology, individuals with three or more of seven symptoms of major depression are classified as being at probable risk of major depression. Individuals who volunteer that they are on medication, such as anti-depressants also are classified as being at probable risk of major depression.
c Tabulated for the 95 cases in which the head had at least three of the seven symptoms of major depression in the CIDI-SF.
d Defined as having a high level of nonspecific psychological distress or probable major depression.

Table D.20
Chemical Dependence
(Percentages)
  Employed Not Employed All
Alcohol Dependencea
No alcohol dependence 99 98 98
Probable alcohol dependence 1 2 2
Drug Dependenceb
No drug dependence 99 98 98
Probable drug dependence 1 2 2
Any Chemical Dependencec 2 4 3
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a The probability of alcohol dependence was determined following the methodology of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF). Under this methodology, individuals with three or more of seven symptoms of alcohol dependence are classified as being at probable risk of alcohol dependence.
b The probability of drug dependence was determined following the methodology of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF). Under this methodology, individuals with three or more of seven symptoms of drug dependence are classified as being at probable risk of drug dependence.
c Probable alcohol or drug dependence.

Table D.21
Domestic Violencea
(Percentages)
  Employed Not Employed All
Experienced Physical Violence from Partner
Moderate Physical Violenceb   **  
In past year 15 17 16
In lifetime, but not past year 24 14 18
Never 61 68 65
Severe Physical Violencec   **  
In past yeard 11 14 13
In lifetime, but not past year 23 13 17
Never 66 72 70
Any Physical Violence   **  
In past year 15 19 17
In lifetime, but not past year 26 15 19
Never 58 66 63
Experienced Threats from Partner
Physical Threatse   ***  
In past year 12 13 13
In lifetime, but not past year 31 17 22
Never 57 70 65
Coercive Threatsf   *  
In past year 10 11 11
In lifetime, but not past year 19 11 14
Never 71 78 75
Any Threats   **  
In past year 15 17 16
In lifetime, but not past year 30 17 22
Never 55 65 62
Ever Experienced Violence/Threats from Partner 50 40** 44
Sample Size 156 257 413
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a Tabulated only for cases with female heads, based on a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale used in the University of Michigan's Women's Employment Study.
b Moderate physical violence: pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, kicking, or biting.
c Severe physical violence: hitting, beating, choking, using or threatening use of a weapon, or forcing sexual activity.
d Any severe physical violence in past year was used to signify a barrier to employment in the Women's Employment Study of the University of Michigan. Severe physical violence includes hitting, beating, choking, using or threatening use of a weapon, or forcing sexual activity.
e Physical threats: threatening to hit with a fist or object, or throwing anything that could harm.
f Coercive threats: threatening to take children away, to harm individual or friends, to report to child protective services or welfare agency, harassing at work or school, or coercing into doing illegal things .

[Go To Contents]

Table D.22
Transportation Use and Problems
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  Employed Not Employed All
Primary Mode of Transportation to Work or Work-Related Activitya   **  
Drives self 30 16 22
Gets a ride 11 10 10
Bus or public transportation 52 67 61
Walks 5 5 5
Other 3 3 3
Length of Commute to Work or Work-Related Activity (in Minutes)a
Average 51.9 55.1 53.7
Median 45.0 45.0 45.0
Does Not Have a Valid Driver's License 43 56** 51
Does Not Own or Have Access to a Car 51 69*** 62
Self-Reported Transportation Problemb 14 26*** 21
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a Tabulated only for cases in which the head worked or attended a work-related activity (sample size = 381 )
b Case head indicated that a transportation problem prevented him/her from participating in work, education or training during the past year.

Table D.23
Perceived Neighborhood Characteristicsa
(Percentages)
  Employed Not Employed All
Unemployment Among Neighborhood Residents
Not a problem 37 34 35
Somewhat of a problem 26 29 28
Big Problem 37 37 37
Drug Users or Pushers in Neighborhood
Not a problem 33 31 32
Somewhat of a problem 24 27 26
Big Problem 43 42 42
Crime, Assaults, or Burglaries in Neighborhood
Not a problem 49 44 46
Somewhat of a problem 31 29 30
Big Problem 20 27 24
Run-down Buildings and Yards in Neighborhood
Not a problem 60 61 61
Somewhat of a problem 23 22 22
Big Problem 16 17 17
At Least One Neighborhood Characteristic is Perceived to Be a Big Problem 53 56 55
No Safe Area for Children to Play in Neighborhood 34 37 36
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a Statistics in this table are analyzed from the self-assessments of TANF case heads. The case head was asked how much of a problem, if any, each category posed in their neighborhood.

Table D.24
Summary of Potential Assets and Liabilities for Employment
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
  Employed Not Employed All
Potential Assets for Employment
High school / GED or more 60 53 56
Substantial work experiencea 86 70*** 76
Performed four or more common job tasks 76 69 72
Potential Liabilities for Employment
Personal and Family Challenges
Physical health problemb 16 24** 21
Child or other family member or friend with a health problem or special needc 36 33 35
Pregnantd 3 11*** 8
Mental health probleme 15 31*** 25
Chemical dependencef 2 4 3
Severe physical domestic violence in past yeard 11 14 13
Possible presence of learning disability 10 13 12
Criminal conviction 19 17 18
Multiple arrestsg 11 20** 16
Difficulty with English 3 2 2
Logistical and Situational Challenges
Transportationh 14 26*** 21
Child careh 19 40*** 31
Unstable housingi 16 27** 23
Any perceived discrimination by potential employerj 19 22 20
Perceived problem neighborhood characteristicsk 53 56 55
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases and administrative data from the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Agency.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a Worked for pay 50 percent or more of time since turning age 18.
b Poor or fair overall health and physical functioning in the lowest quartile.
c Cases with a child with health, behavioral, or special need or those caring for an elderly, disabled, or sick family member or friend.
d Tabulated only for females (sample size = 413).
e High level of nonspecific psychological distress or probable major depression.
f Probable alcohol or drug dependence.
g Has had two or more arrests since 1996.
h Self-reported problems that prevented case head from participating in work, education, or training during the past year.
i Having been evicted or moving two or more times in the past 12 months.
j Tabulated only for cases who have worked for pay (n = 401).
k At least one neighborhood characteristic is perceived by case head to be a big problem.

[Go To Contents]

Table D.25
Self-reported Problems That Prevented Case Heads from Working
(Percentages)
Problem that Prevented Case Head from Participating
in Work, Education, or Training During Past Year		 Employed Not Employed All
Child's Health or Behavioral Problem or Special Need 11 13 12
Physical Health Problem 21 28 25
Mental Health Problem 3 10*** 7
Alcohol or Drug Problem 0 1 1
Problem in Relationship with Spouse or Partnera 6 8 7
Transportation Problem 14 26*** 21
Child Care Problemb 19 36*** 29
Housing Problem 5 16*** 12
Other Problemc 8 9 9
Any of the Above Problems 50 68*** 61
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a Tabulated only for cases with female heads (sample size = 413).
b Tabulated only for cases with children under age 15 (sample size = 400).
c Caring for an elderly, disabled, or sick family member or friend; difficulty with English because it is not native language; criminal record.

Table D.26
Number of Potential Liabilities for Employment
  Employed At Least 30 Hours Per Week Not Employed At Least 30 Hours Per Week All
Number of Human Capital Deficitsa   **  
0 29 18 21
1 40 36 37
2 25 32 30
3 6 14 12
Average 1.09 1.41*** 1.31
Median 1.0 1.0 1.0
Number of Personal Challengesb   **  
0 54 42 45
1 34 28 30
2 10 19 17
3 1 7 5
4 or more 1 3 3
Average .61 1.02*** .89
Median 0 1.0 1.0
Number of Logistical and Situational Challengesc   **  
0 32 20 24
1 40 36 37
2 19 26 24
3 9 13 12
4 0 5 3
Average 1.04 1.45*** 1.33
Median 1.0 1.0 1.0
Number of All Potential Liabilities for Employment   ***  
0 9 2 4
1 16 11 12
2 21 14 16
3 24 19 21
4 13 18 17
5 9 14 13
6 5 8 7
7 or more 3 13 10
Average 2.76 3.90*** 3.55
Median 3.0 4.0 3.0
Sample Size 157 259 416
Source: MPR's 2001-02 survey of Illinois TANF cases.
Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients in Illinois. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller than those shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. We conducted two-tailed t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-square tests (for categorical variables) for differences between employed and not employed case heads.
*/**/*** Difference between cases with/without an employed head is statistically significant at the .10/.05/.01 level.
a Human capital deficits include: (1) no high school diploma or GED, (2) employed less than four quarters of the past seven, and (3) never performed at least four of nine common job tasks.
b Personal challenges include: (1) current physical health problem, (2) mental health problem in the past year, (3) multiple arrests in past six years, (4) severe physical domestic violence in past year, (5) chemical dependence in the past year, (6) signs of a learning disability, and (7) difficulty with English.
c Logistical and situational challenges include: (1) child or other family member or friend currently experiencing a health or behavioral problem or special need, (2) child care problem in the past year, currently pregnant, or currently have a child under age one in the household, (3) transportation problem in the past year, and (4) unstable housing in the past year.

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents

Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)