The LBP Survey produced information on how families that have been assigned to the LBP are affected by the loss of cash benefits. Quantitative data from a highly structured survey cannot, however, capture the nuances and richness of the experiences of these families. Consequently, the study design included less structured, in-depth interviews with the LBP Survey respondent in each of 12 purposefully selected families so that these parents could tell their stories in their own words. The goal of the case studies was to understand more fully how these parents came to be on the LBP and how they coped with the loss of benefits. We wanted to know how these parents made decisions; what strategies they chose for responding to their situations; how they accessed the resources of family, friends, churches, and social service agencies; what effects the LBP had on them and their children; and what efforts they made to obtain, retain, or improve their employment situations.
This chapter has five sections: Section A describes the methodology of the case studies. Section B presents six family vignettes, two from each of three "coping" categories. Section C highlights three common themes among the 12 case-study families: (1) meeting basic needs; (2) changes in dependence; and (3) linkages with noncustodial parents. Section D examines the entry of these families into the LBP and their plans to reapply for FIP benefits. Section E summarizes the major findings from the case studies.
We used a purposive sampling process to select families for the case studies; consequently, findings from the case studies cannot be generalized to the entire LBP population. Our objective for the sampling process was to select families with a broad range of experiences. The first step was to classify the LBP Survey respondents into three categories according to the survey interviewers' subjective assessments of their overall level of coping with the loss of cash assistance: (1) coping adequately; (2) struggling but coping; (3) in trouble, having great difficulty. An item in the survey instrument required the interviewer to classify each respondent into one of these categories following the interview. Based on the interviewers' assessments, 31 respondents were in category one, 63 were in category two, and 43 were in category three.
The next step in the sampling process was to identify survey respondents in each of the three coping categories who would be most likely to provide quality information for the case studies. To make this determination, we used a second item in the LBP Survey instrument that required the interviewer to rate each respondent along several dimensions related to data quality following the interview. For each of the respondents, we computed a composite quality rating based on the interviewer's assessment of her (all of the respondents were women) understanding of the questions, her accuracy of responses, her interest in the survey, and overall quality of the data she provided. We then selected the 10 respondents in each coping category (a total of 30) with the highest composite ratings as the potential subjects of the case studies.
We sought to conduct case-study interviews with 4 persons in each of the 3 coping categories, for a total of 12 interviews. Letters were sent to the 30 selected LBP Survey respondents, outlining the purpose of the case-study interview, offering a $50 payment for completing the interview, and asking interested persons either to fill out and return the enclosed response card or to call ISED's toll-free telephone number. We first attempted to interview persons who had responded by mail or by telephone, and then turned to the remaining persons in the group of 30 as necessary until we reached our goal for completed interviews.
Interviews lasting 60 to 90 minutes were conducted during May and June of 1996 in the homes of the participating parents and their families. These interviews occurred either shortly before, during, or shortly after the twelth month on the LBP for these families. A simple protocol consisting of eight general topics provided a structure for the interviews, which were tape recorded and then transcribed.
Based on the in-depth information provided during the interviews, we reclassified the survey respondents (parents) interviewed for the case studies into the three coping categories described above. Specifically, this reclassification was based on a comprehensive assessment of the parent's sense of hopefulness for the future, the parent's ability to meet her family's basic needs for food, shelter, and clothing, and the overall stability of her family's situation. The correspondence between the LBP Survey interviewer's initial classification and our final classification is high, but several of the 12 respondents did have different initial and final classifications.(1) The case-study subjects in the three final coping categories can be characterized as follows:
To enrich the reader's understanding of the findings presented in the preceding chapters, we have prepared vignettes to convey the experiences of the parents we interviewed in 6 of the 12 case-study families--two from each of the three coping categories described above--and her family. Names have been changed to avoid identifying the interviewees. These vignettes give faces to the quantitative findings from the analyses of the administrative and survey data. They remind us that this study is about individuals and families whose lives are affected by welfare policies.
The two parents selected from the first coping category voluntarily entered the LBP. Both have stable sources of income, one through full-time employment and the other through her partner's employment. Both have financial support from partners or former partners. Both are pleased to be independent of the welfare system. Even though both of them are past their six-month period of ineligibility for cash assistance, neither has reapplied for FIP benefits.
Sarah is 32 years old, has never been married, and has three children, ages 15, 9, and 8. She will complete her Associate's degree at the local community college in approximately six months and is "tired of being on public assistance." While Sarah was receiving FIP benefits, she voluntarily entered the LBP because it seemed appropriate for her. She had a full-time job in the accounting department of an express mail firm, with the option of a complete package of fringe benefits after six months of employment. Sarah thought the job was going to be permanent. The company downsized soon after she had signed up for the LBP, and she lost her job. However, Sarah was able to find a full-time, temporary job in the data entry department of another express mail firm. She hopes that she will be retained on that job for more than six months, at which time she would be eligible for fringe benefits.
The greatest impact of the LBP on Sarah's family was a change in residence and a resulting change in household composition. After selecting the LBP, Sarah moved to a smaller apartment with a lower rent in order to reduce her household expenditures. Because this new apartment had fewer bedrooms, Sarah's oldest daughter moved in with her father, who lives in the same town and had been making regular child support payments. Sarah has talked with her daughter about the situation and describes her daughter as an "angel who never complains." This daughter visits on weekends, but Sarah would like for her to permanently rejoin Sarah and her other children. To make this possible, Sarah plans to move into a larger apartment within the next three months.
Sarah does not plan to return to public assistance. She wants to stay in control of her family and her finances. The most pressing issue she now faces is the uncertainty about whether she will be able to retain her current job long enough to secure fringe benefits. However, Sarah has already started looking for another job in case her current job does not work out. She believes that her prospects for finding a good job will be enhanced when she receives her associate's degree in six months.
We have classified Sarah in category one because she has stabilized her employment and housing situations, is meeting the daily needs of her family, and has a positive attitude about her personal goals and her family's future.
Karen is 24 years old, has never been married, and has two children, ages 6 and 2. She is a high school graduate. Karen lives with Steve, the father of her younger child, who financially supports her and both of her children. Because Karen knew that signing an FIA would require her to go to work, she told her PROMISE JOBS caseworker that she wanted the LBP. Karen and Steve had determined that, given her limited employment experience (minimum-wage jobs at fast-food restaurants), she could not earn enough to pay for child care. They decided that it would be better for their family for Karen to stay at home and care for the children. According to Karen, "Why pay someone else to watch my kids when that is what I want to do?" Additionally, Karen was tired of working with PROMISE JOBS and wanted to stop checking in with her caseworker every month.
Since going on the LBP, Karen's life has not changed significantly. Steve continues to pay all of the household bills--rent, electricity, telephone, groceries, cleaning supplies, and clothes--which has been their financial arrangement for the past three years.(2) Steve currently has two jobs, so he is able to support the family. Consequently, the primary effect of the loss of cash benefits on Karen and her family is that there is less money to spend on videos and special treats for the children.
Karen has two long-term plans--to buy a home and to go to college. She is more aggressively pursuing the former goal. She and Steve currently live in an apartment in a high-crime area. They would like to move to a safer neighborhood and own a home with a large yard. They have pursued this goal through recent contacts with real estate agents. After her youngest child is in school, Karen would like to study photography at a community college and eventually work in a photographer's studio.
We have classified Karen in category one because she has a stable housing arrangement, a secure source of income through her partner, and a strong positive outlook for the future. Although the loss of FIP cash benefits increased her dependency on Steve, Karen's attitude is positive because she has continued to meet the needs of her family.
The two parents selected from the second coping category voluntarily entered the LBP. Although they had perceived themselves as ready to become self-sufficient, both are now struggling to meet the basic needs of their families. Familial support has been critical to the limited success that they have achieved.
Jean is 27 years old, has never been married, and has a daughter, age 4. She holds two part-time jobs and has completed one and a half years of college toward an associate's degree in computer hardware repair. While receiving FIP benefits, Jean told her PROMISE JOBS caseworker that she wanted the LBP. She said she was "tired of being broke all of the time on welfare" and thought that she could do better on her own.
Jean attributes her ability to attend college while working to the concrete support provided by her parents. Her mother cares for Jean's daughter when Jean is at work or in class. Her father has hired Jean on an on-call basis in his business. Jean struggles financially from month to month, but she knows that her parents are there for her--providing child care, emotional encouragement, and financial support.
Jean's housing situation is a constant concern. Her parents gave her space on their property to relocate a condemned mobile home that she purchased for $500. The front door is broken, the windows cannot be closed, and the interior has been damaged by water. Nonetheless, she lives in this mobile home and is repairing it herself.
Jean's greatest frustration is the failure of her daughter's father to make child support payments. She has struggled to receive child support ever since the child was born. However, since entering the LBP, Jean has pursued the payments more vigorously in order to reduce the financial strain on her parents. Although she has worked with the DHS Child Support Recovery Unit and the Legal Services Corporation to secure the court-ordered child support, her ex-partner has never made any payments.
Jean is determined to obtain an associate's degree and, if she is able to receive more financial aid, she would like to continue her education and obtain a bachelor's degree. However, she worries that she may not be able secure a better job with those degrees in the small town where she lives. She does not plan to reapply for FIP cash benefits, but it is not clear whether she will be able to maintain that resolve.
We have classified Jean in category two for several reasons. Her housing situation is substandard and, with the loss of FIP cash benefits, her dependence shifted from the state to her parents. Nevertheless, Jean has a positive attitude and is investing in her future by repairing her mobile home and attending college. However, she is currently unable to leave her family support system and she is concerned that her education may not pay off in the form of a good job.
Lisa is 30 years old and has two children, ages 13 and 11. She is separated from her husband, Dan. Lisa has an associate's degree in nursing. While receiving FIP benefits, Lisa voluntarily entered the LBP because she firmly believed she could find a job. However, she did not find a job right away, so the months without cash benefits were difficult. Lisa currently works 20 hours a week at a nursing home and still struggles to feed her family, often relying on her brother for help in purchasing groceries. Having secured financial aid on her own through a Pell Grant, Lisa is attending college full-time in pursuit of a bachelor's degree in nursing. She expects to graduate in approximately six months.
When Lisa's FIP benefits ended, she was unable to pay her mortgage, so she decided to reunite with Dan in an effort to work things out. They had been separated for 18 months. He was employed in a different community when they decided to reunite but was able to find employment in Lisa's community. However, he lost that job soon after joining Lisa. After three months, they separated again and Dan returned to his former job, but he continues to pay the mortgage and plans to do so until Lisa graduates. Upon graduation, Lisa is guaranteed a job with higher pay and better benefits at the nursing home where she currently works. She does not plan to reapply for FIP cash benefits.
Lisa fits into category two for several reasons. She struggles a great deal to meet the daily needs of her family and is very reliant on financial support from her estranged husband and her brother. Thus, at least for the present, her dependency has shifted from public assistance to her extended family. Despite her current struggles, Lisa maintains a positive attitude and continues to invest in her future.
Both of the parents selected from the third coping category had been assigned to the LBP because they had failed to comply with PROMISE JOBS requirements. One of them believed that she was not required to sign an FIA because she was employed; the other signed an FIA but was unable to fulfill it. Both suffered major family disruptions following assignment to the LBP; one sent her children to live with her mother, and the other lived in a shelter for four months.
Beth is 35 years old, divorced, and has three children, ages 14, 13, and 10. She has completed one year of college. Beth is on the LBP because she did not sign an FIA. She thought that she was exempt from signing an FIA because she was employed. Soon after being notified of her LBP assignment, Beth injured her back and lost her job. She said that she tried to contact PROMISE JOBS to work out an understanding after she lost her job, but by the time she did this, it was too late--the reconsideration period for pre-FIA LBPs had passed.
Beth's children have been living with her mother during the LBP's six-month period of ineligibility for FIP cash benefits. The children's grandmother is housing, feeding, and caring for them while Beth looks for work. Despite living in the same town as her mother, it is hard for Beth to visit her children because she relies on public transportation. This separation from her children has caused Beth to suffer from severe depression.
Beth also relies on her friends and community organizations for food and other forms of assistance. In her seventh month on the LBP, Beth was given a bus pass that made it possible for her to look for work and visit her children. She has strong ties to her church and periodically obtains food and household items from its food pantry. She also relies on other food pantries, but they only allow a person to get food once a month.
Beth cannot find permanent work, but she has been able to earn money by cleaning and painting houses. She plans to reapply for FIP cash benefits as soon as she is eligible. At the time of the case-study interview, Beth had already gone to PROMISE JOBS for an initial appointment.
We have classified Beth in category three because she has been unable to care for her children during her period of ineligibility for cash assistance. She has also been depressed. Rather than investing in her future, she is focusing her attention on returning to the welfare system as soon as possible.
Terry is 26 years old, has never been married, and has two children, ages 10 and 6. She has completed one year of college. Terry has an alcohol abuse problem. In an effort to deal with that problem, she entered a residential treatment facility. While in the treatment program, Terry was unable to continue to pursue her FIA goal of finishing her two-year college program. She could have met with her PROMISE JOBS caseworker to renegotiate the terms of her FIA, but chose not to because she was pessimistic about the outcome. After a state-level DHS review of her case, Terry was assigned to the LBP.
During four of the six months without cash benefits, Terry and her children lived in a shelter. This was a very difficult time for her. The shelter did not seem safe, and it provided little privacy. Terry has no family or friends in her community, but she does attend church and has started to connect with other church members. The church helped her leave the shelter by referring her to a housing agency, which assisted her in finding an apartment and paid a portion of the security deposit.
Terry also found it difficult to obtain enough food and clothing during the period without cash benefits. In addition to receiving and using food stamps, Terry frequently went to local food pantries and government commodity distribution sites. She occasionally borrowed food from other residents at the shelter. Terry frequented the local Goodwill and Salvation Army stores in an effort to acquire clothes for her two children. Members of her church also gave her family clothes.
Currently, Terry works 35 hours a week in a temporary position at a day care center. She hopes that the position will become full-time so that she can receive health benefits. This is unlikely, however, since the center seeks to minimize its cost of fringe benefits by avoiding full-time positions. Terry enjoys working and being a positive role model for her children. Although proud of her financial independence from the state, she is waiting to see how her job develops before deciding whether to reapply for FIP cash benefits.
We have classified Terry in category three because her family's food, shelter, and clothing situations were very precarious during the period of FIP ineligibility. She was highly dependent on community organizations to meet those basic needs. Although Terry now has a job, her employment situation does not appear to be stable. She has a positive attitude but is very uncertain about her family's future.
The preceding vignettes demonstrate that each family confronts a unique set of problems upon the termination of its FIP cash assistance and responds with a unique set of coping strategies. However, certain themes do cut across the lives of all or most of the subject families. This section highlights three such themes: (1) meeting basic needs, (2) shifting dependency from public assistance to family and friends, and (3) linkages with noncustodial parents. Our development of these themes is based on information provided by all 12 of the case-study subjects, not just the 6 that were highlighted in the vignettes.
Most, but not all, of the case-study families responded to the loss of cash assistance by adjusting their expectations about and strategies for meeting basic needs. The need for food is perhaps most fundamental. Many of the case-study families adjusted their strategies for obtaining food upon the termination of their cash assistance. More than in the past, they economized by purchasing bulk quantities of food, in addition to relying on Food Stamps, gratefully accepting gifts of groceries from relatives, participating in the government commodity distribution program, and visiting food pantries. One case-study parent commented:
Now I buy food differently. One week I might buy a case of canned vegetables and then the next week I will get a meat order. It is different how I shop and how we eat. We eat stuff bought in bulk to last more days. Also, when the kids were in school, they were on the free breakfast and lunch program. Now, in the summer, it's even harder to get by.
Another parent reported:
We go to the food bank once each month. We would like to go more. But there is a rule about not going more than once each month. We try to go in the middle of the month so it feels we are doing our best for the first two weeks when we use our food stamps. But, it is hard.
Other parents mentioned that they had gone to churches, food pantries, and government commodity distribution sites to obtain food during the six-month period of ineligibility for cash assistance. Many of these organizations strictly limit the amount or frequency of assistance.
The case-study parents are also struggling to pay bills on time, and they have taken two main approaches to doing this. One approach is to pay bills in the order of the importance of the service or product, with the rent bill typically being paid first. Some parents paid their rent out of their employment earnings, while others relied on financial support (for example, mortgage payment by an estranged spouse) or in-kind support (for example, provision of space for a mobile home by parents) from friends or family, or bartered with landlords to reduce their rent in return for their cleaning vacant apartments. A second approach is to pay a small set of absolutely necessary bills each month (such as rent, electricity, and water) and then to alternate from month to month which bills of secondary importance are paid. Of course, a downside to this strategy is that access to a service or product that falls into the latter category may be lost due to lapses in payment. One case-study family lost its telephone service for this reason.
FIP cash benefits were terminated shortly before Christmas for many of the case-study families, making it difficult for parents to give presents to their children, as they had before going on the LBP. This was hard on both the children and the parents. One parent stated, "I could not afford any new toys for my boys. I felt bad about it. We went over to my brother's house for Christmas dinner and he had some gifts for my kids. That was a great surprise for the boys."
For two of the case-study families, the loss of cash benefits had little effect on their strategies for meeting basic needs. These families had greater economic resources than the others. In one family, the parent's partner paid all of the bills; in the other, the parent had secured full-time employment and was earning more each month than the amount of her former FIP cash benefits. For these two families, the loss of cash benefits affected the frequency with which the family bought special items for the children and engaged in leisure activities.
Extended family members and friends played key roles in helping many of the case-study families cope with the loss of FIP cash benefits. They provided emotional support, financial assistance, and in-kind assistance, such as groceries and child care. In some cases, this support was so extensive that the family can be characterized as having shifted its dependency from public assistance to extended family members and friends.
The case-study parents who received assistance from extended family members and friends expressed varying levels of comfort in asking others for help, but they requested assistance because they put the needs of their children over their own embarrassment, loss of independence, lower self-esteem, and sense of guilt. One parent expressed the essence of this dilemma: "Well, I had to depend on other people to pay my bills, instead of me paying them myself. It is really hard trying to ask somebody for money. I did it because I had to. I had no choice. I am thankful that I have friends like that." As one parent noted, "I would do anything for my kids." Another parent said, "It does not matter how I feel about moving in with my folks. It is the best thing for my kids right now."
Many parents who relied on others for assistance expressed their sense of guilt at having imposed financial and other burdens on their family and friends. One parent said:
We lived with my mother for about four months. That was really hard. She is on Social Security and does not have a lot of money anyway. It was hard to ask her for help. I knew that she would say "yes," but I knew she could not afford it. We had no choice. I had been to the shelter already, and it was not safe there.
Another parent told us, "My friends will help me until I get on FIP again. My friends will help with groceries or help watch the kids if I need to go to a job interview." Nonetheless, she noted that this ongoing support had strained their friendship. "My friends told me that they cannot continue helping like this. They cannot afford it."
Case-study parents also struggled with the idea of returning to live in their parents' homes after being out on their own. They believed that it was a step backward for them emotionally. As one case-study parent said, "I had to go back and be under the same roof as my parents. I had to live by their rules again. I have a different way of parenting than they did when I was growing up, so there was a lot of stress at the beginning." Most of the case-study parents were willing to make these sacrifices when they expected them to be short-term. One explained, "I really appreciated their help and I knew I would be finding my own place. So, I just did the best I could."
A few case-study parents did not rely on extended family members or friends for support, choosing instead to manage on their own. They considered the loss of benefits a private issue, and the necessary adjustments were made within the immediate family. One such parent said, "I did it all on my own. I really did not want to go to anyone for help."
All of the case-study parents commented on the roles of noncustodial parents in the lives of their families. Most reported that their LBP status had not affected the frequency or type of contact they had with their former partners. Three of the noncustodial parents had been and remained fairly active in the lives of their children, helping out financially or providing child care and transportation. Four of the case-study parents indicated that they began to pursue child support more earnestly following the termination of FIP cash benefits. This entailed working with the DHS Child Support Recovery Unit and, in some cases, with the Legal Services Corporation of Iowa.
Irregular or nonexistent child support payments are the norm among the case-study families, creating strain for many custodial parents. For example, irregular child support payments were a major source of disagreement between one case-study parent and her former husband. She told us that she was at the mercy of her former husband to make his court-ordered payments and had little control over the situation. Other parents made similar observations.
Some of the case-study parents remarked that their only tie to the fathers of their children was through the fathers' health insurance. These parents indicated that their children were covered under the noncustodial fathers' employer-provided health insurance policies. This coverage was greatly valued by these parents, especially those whose children had health problems that required expensive treatment. For example, one case-study parent had an asthmatic child who also suffered from allergies. The $165 monthly cost of medication and a breathing machine to treat those ailments was covered by the noncustodial father's health insurance policy.
Entry into the LBP was a critical transition for the case-study families that led directly to the termination of their FIP cash assistance. As these families approached the end of their six-month period of ineligibility for cash assistance, they faced another key transition--would they reapply for FIP assistance or try to carry on without public assistance? This section examines their decisions regarding entry into the LBP and reapplication for FIP benefits.
Case-study parents described two different means by which they entered the LBP. Parents in five of the families told us that they voluntarily entered the LBP, while parents in the remaining seven families said that they were assigned to it as a consequence of noncompliance with PROMISE JOBS participation requirements. The case-study parents' attitudes are correlated with the means by which they entered the LBP. Parents who voluntarily entered the LBP have a sense of control over their lives and are hopeful about the future, while parents who were assigned to the LBP have less of a sense of control and are less optimistic.
The five parents who indicated that they had voluntarily entered the LBP all appeared to be committed to their choice not to rely on public assistance. They and their families struggled to make adjustments when FIP cash assistance ended, but their efforts were facilitated by support from extended family members and friends and by their expectation of a better future. These parents are characterized by self-confidence and the ability to plan for the future. One of these parents told us, "I chose to be on the LBP because I was tired of being on welfare. I was tired of waiting once a month for a check. I felt like DHS was trying to control me instead of helping me." Another parent who selected the LBP said, "I have a plan to finish school and go to work as a computer hardware technician. I do not ever want to return to FIP."
The attitude of the seven parents who indicated that they had been assigned to the LBP was different from the attitude of those who voluntarily entered it. The attitude of those who had been assigned to the LBP is characterized primarily by an absence of a sense of control over one's life. One of these seven parents told us that she was placed on the LBP because "PROMISE JOBS felt that I did not cooperate." She continued, "I was working, so I was doing what I was suppose to do according to my FIA. I called my worker several times to see why I was being cut off and he said, 'It was their [PROMISE JOBS's] mistake, but they could not do anything now.' " Several other parents in this group noted that they had wanted to attend college but had been told by their PROMISE JOBS caseworkers that there was not any money for college. Consequently, they concluded that they really had no choice but to sign their FIAs and identify employment as their goal. Another parent, who was assigned to the LBP due to her partner's noncompliance with PROMISE JOBS participation requirements, said, "I did everything right, but [my partner] did not. So, I was punished for what he did. I cannot control him."
The case-study parents also differed sharply from one another in their thoughts about reapplying for FIP cash benefits. The dominant factors influencing their thoughts about this important step were the adequacy and stability of their current income and their feelings about being dependent on the public welfare system. Four of the 12 case-study parents did not plan to reapply for FIP cash benefits, 5 had started the reapplication process prior to their interviews, and 3 were uncertain whether they would reapply.
The four parents who were not intending to reapply for FIP benefits had all voluntarily entered the LBP and had either secured employment, stabilized their relationships with partners who were supporting them, or had decided that they did not want to deal with the system anymore. One of these parents, who appreciated the stability and frequency of her paychecks, told us, "I like knowing how much I can bring in each month. I am paid every two weeks, so it is not as long from one paycheck to the next [compared with the monthly FIP check]." Another parent focused on the advantages of being independent of the welfare system, saying, "I like being in control of what is coming into the house [income]. When I was on FIP, it was up to DHS to decide how much they think we need. Now, it is up to me." The income-stability and independence motivations to remain off of FIP are apparent in the comment of yet another parent in this group, "It is better being employed. We have more money now. The kids get more things now. My income is steady, and it is just a lot more than it was before when I was on FIP. I have more freedom, I have more money."
The five case-study parents who were reapplying for FIP cash benefits had all been assigned to the LBP. In general, their employment and income were inadequate and unstable. For them, the LBP was something that they were waiting out; that is, their goal was to survive the six months of no cash assistance and then return to FIP as soon as possible. As one of these parents said, "We have been getting by, but I am waiting for next week when I can reapply for benefits. I already have an appointment. I think we will qualify. After that things will be back on track." Another told us, "I'm just trying to get back on FIP again and trying to find odd jobs to pay my bills in the meantime."
The remaining three case-study parents had not yet decided whether to reapply for FIP cash benefits when we interviewed them. One of these parents had voluntarily entered the LBP, and other two had been assigned to it. These parents were trying to secure employment, and if they were successful, they would not reapply for FIP assistance. If they were unsuccessful, they saw no alternative to reapplying. One of these parents told us, "I lost my job because of a misunderstanding with my boss. I am trying to meet with him to talk about it. I hope I can get my job back. If I do, we will be all right [without FIP cash benefits]."
The information from the case-study interviews with 12 LBP parents yields three major findings concerning basic needs, family support, and return to welfare:
The case-study findings summarized here, and presented in more detail in preceding sections of this chapter, describe only the 12 parents and their families purposefully selected and interviewed for the case studies. Hence, while the case studies clearly enrich our understanding of the effects of the loss of cash benefits, they cannot be generalized to either the LBP Survey population or to the larger LBP population.
1. Two families changed from category one to category two; one family changed from category two to category three; and one family changed from category three to category two. Hence, after the final classification, there were two families in category one, six families in category two, and four families in category three.
2. It is not clear whether Steve's financial contributions to the family had been factored into the determination of the family's eligibility for FIP benefits.