[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]
Income, earnings, and program participation are important parts of economic well-being, but they do not capture all aspects of well-being. A number of ASPE-funded leaver studies have collected information in their surveys that reveals the extent to which former recipients experience particular material hardships, such as hunger and housing problems.37 Many studies also compare the hardships leavers experience after exit with their experiences while on welfare to assess whether their well-being has improved or gotten worse.38 The questions across these surveys are not identical, so comparisons need to be made carefully. However, the addition of these measures significantly broadens our understanding of the well-being of welfare leavers.
One area of concern is the extent to which families who left welfare are having problems with the basic necessity of having enough food. The studies use a variety of measures to assess the extent and severity of food-related problems families are experiencing (Table VI.1). Three studies (Iowa, Massachusetts, and Cuyahoga County)
Problem |
AZ | DC1 | GA | IL1 | IA | MA1 | MO1 | SC1,2 | WA | Cuy. Co. | Bay Area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Food Insecure |
32 | 43 | 46 | ||||||||
Food Insecure with hunger |
16 | 22 | 26 | ||||||||
Cut size of meals or skipped meals (one or more months) |
25 | 25 | 20 | 43/273 | |||||||
Almost every month |
6 | 6 | |||||||||
Child cut or skipped meals |
3 | 13/4 | |||||||||
Food didn't last (often or sometimes) |
46 | 44 | 53 | ||||||||
Food didn't last (often) |
13 | 11 | |||||||||
Not enough to eat at times |
24 | 13 | 31 | ||||||||
Went without food all day at least once |
15 | ||||||||||
Could not afford balanced meals (often or sometimes) |
18 | 38 | |||||||||
Is unable to buy enough food |
26 | ||||||||||
Ate less because not enough money |
22 | ||||||||||
Hungry but didn't eat because couldn't afford |
10 | ||||||||||
Worried food wouldn't last |
53 | 38 | |||||||||
Received Emergency Food Services4 |
|||||||||||
Food from religious, community or charitable organization |
12 | 7 | 2 | 10 | |||||||
Food pantry/food kitchen/shelters/food banks |
21 | 12 | 285 | 29 | 3 | 35 | |||||
Received food/money for food from friends/relatives |
21 | 7 | 14 | ||||||||
1Results are for all cases, not just
single-parents. |
|||||||||||
report on the concept of “food insecurity” — a measure based on answers to the Household Food Security Scale developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.39These studies also report the more severe situation of food insecurity with hunger (defined as answering yes to at least five out of the six questions on the USDA Food Insecurity scale). In all three of these studies, about a third or more of leaver families (32 to 46 percent) report experiencing food insecurity. Among the three studies, between 16 and 26 percent of leaver families experienced food insecurity with hunger between the time they left TANF and the time the survey was administered.
Another eight studies asked some combination of questions on whether leavers experienced a variety of food-related problems, including not having enough to eat, not being able to afford food, food not lasting until the end of the month, or having to cut or skip meals.40 A fairly large percentage of leaver families report experiencing one of these food-related problems in the time since exiting welfare. Four studies ask whether families had to cut the size of meals or skip meals entirely. The share of leavers reporting this hardship at least some of the time since exit ranges from 20 percent in South Carolina to 43 percent in Washington. Smaller percentages of leavers in these four studies report such hardships on a monthly basis or among children in the households. In DC and South Carolina, 6 percent of families report they cut or skipped meals almost every month. Missouri reports that 3 percent of leavers’ children had to cut the size of or skip meals and Washington reports 13 percent of leavers cut the size of their children's meals.
Three studies ask whether food didn’t last until the end of the month. About half of leaver families report this happened sometimes or often since exit: 44 percent in Illinois, 46 percent in DC, and 53 percent in South Carolina. A number of these families (13 percent in DC and 11 percent in South Carolina) report experiencing this problem more frequently.
In Arizona, Georgia, and the Bay Area studies, 24, 13, and 31 percent of leaver families, respectively, reported not having enough to eat. In Washington, 15 percent of leavers went without food all day at least once since exit.
Several studies ask questions about whether a leaver family could not afford food. The exact question asked varies across studies. Results for similarly worded questions also vary. In South Carolina, 38 percent of leavers said they couldn’t afford balanced meals while 18 percent in Georgia said this was true. Results vary even for similarly worded questions within the same study. For example, in South Carolina, when asked if they were hungry but didn’t eat because they couldn’t afford food, 10 percent agreed; when asked if they ate less because they did not have enough money, 22 percent said “yes.”
Finally, two studies report the percent of leavers that had worried food wouldn’t last. In both DC and Georgia, this percentage is higher than other food hardship measures in those studies. DC and Georgia report that 53 and 38 percent of leaver families, respectively, experience this worry.
What can we learn from this variety of measures and responses? While questions differ across studies, in most of them one-quarter to one-half of leaver families are reporting some type of food-related problems. Using available measures, Georgia seems to be reporting somewhat lower rates of food hardships than the other studies.
Emergency Food Services. One action families may take when faced with problems affording food is to seek help from emergency food service providers, including food banks or pantries, food kitchens or shelters, churches, or other charitable or community organizations. The percentage of leaver families reporting they have sought out these services ranges from lows of 5 percent in South Carolina (combining both sources of services) and 7 percent in Missouri to highs of 29 percent in Massachusetts and 35 percent in Washington. The lower end of the range may represent conservative estimates because these states only asked the subset of leavers reporting a specific food problem these questions about seeking assistance, rather than all leavers.
Friends and relatives can also be a source of assistance when food problems occur; several studies report receipt of this type of aid. In Missouri, 7 percent of families received assistance from family and friends, while 14 percent and 21 percent report help in South Carolina and Arizona, respectively. The percentage for Arizona may be higher because it represents assistance of food or money from friends and relatives for any use.
Changes in Food-Related Problems Since Exit. In addition to comparing food hardship across studies, we also examine whether leavers in a given area are experiencing higher levels of food problems after leaving TANF than before exit. Four studies compare food problems before and after exit based on the respondents' recollection at the time of interview (Table VI.2).41 The Washington state study has a different research design for comparing former and current recipients—it compares the cohort of leavers with a separate sample of families still on TANF.
Problem |
AZ | IL1 | MA1 | SC1,2 | WA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pre | post | pre | post | pre | post | pre | post | Caseload | Leavers | |
Food Insecure |
30 | 43 | ||||||||
Food Insecure with hunger |
14 | 22 | ||||||||
Cut the size of meals or skipped meals (one or more months) |
24 | 25 | 14 | 20 | 39/22 3 | 43/27 3 | ||||
Almost every month |
3 | 6 | ||||||||
Child cut or skipped meals |
16/5 | 13/4 | ||||||||
Not enough to eat at times |
30 | 24 | ||||||||
Food didn't last (often or sometimes) |
51 | 44 | ||||||||
Went without food all day at least once |
11 | 15 | ||||||||
Is unable to buy enough food |
||||||||||
Ate less because not enough money |
13 | 22 | ||||||||
Hungry but didn't eat because couldn't afford |
8 | 10 | ||||||||
Worried food wouldn't last |
||||||||||
Received Emergency Food Services |
||||||||||
Food from religious, community or charitable organization |
15 | 12 | 2 4 | 2 4 | ||||||
Food pantry/food kitchen/shelters/food banks |
29 | 21 | 15 | 12 | 26 | 29 | 2 4 | 3 4 | 44 | 35 |
Received food/money for food from friends/relatives |
24 | 21 | 9 | 14 | ||||||
1Results are for all cases, not just
single-parents. |
||||||||||
Arizona finds that fewer leaver families experience food hardship after exit than while receiving TANF benefits.42 In contrast, Massachusetts and South Carolina generally find higher rates of food problems among those who left TANF. The difference is largest in Massachusetts where 30 percent of leaver families report food insecurity before exiting compared with 43 percent reporting this problem after exit. Two studies, Illinois and Washington, present mixed evidence as to whether food hardship is greater before or after exit from welfare.
The use of emergency food services is lower post-exit compared with pre-exit in Arizona and Illinois; in Massachusetts and South Carolina, however, it is somewhat higher. This is not surprising given the decrease in food problems post-exit in Arizona and, to some extent, in Illinois and the increase in these problems in Massachusetts and South Carolina. Washington reports lower use of emergency food services among leavers than among current recipients; the percentage of leavers seeking emergency food services after TANF exit in Washington, however, is still the highest of these five studies, 35 percent.
Differences across studies in whether food problems increase or decrease after exiting TANF could be related to the many differences in the economy, caseload, welfare policy, and survey design. In general, the evidence is mixed for whether food-related problems are more or less prevalent after exit.
[Go To Contents]
Another area of material hardship for leavers is difficulty affording housing and utilities. Again, the surveys use a number of different questions to assess the extent to which leavers are experiencing housing-related problems. One measure, asked by seven of the studies, is whether the family has fallen behind on rent or housing costs (Table VI.3). In all but one of the study areas, between one-quarter and one-half of leaver families report having fallen behind on rent or housing costs. Georgia, the exception, reports that 18 percent of leaver families had this problem after exit.
Problem |
AZ | DC1 | GA | IL1 | IA | MA1 | MO1 | SC1,2 | WA | Cuy. Co. | Bay Area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behind on Rent/Housing Costs |
37 | 27 | 18 | 38 | 25 | 26 3 | 33 | ||||
Forced to move because of |
17 | 6 | 13 | 12 | 26 | ||||||
housing costs |
|||||||||||
Evicted |
4 | 7 | 7 4 | ||||||||
Without a place to live at least once |
1 5 | 7 | 13 | ||||||||
Used homeless shelter |
3 | 3 | 3 | 2 6 | 2 | 1 | |||||
Did not have own place to live |
8 | ||||||||||
Moved in with family/friends |
22 | 11 | 14 | 10 | |||||||
Crowded house conditions |
32 7 | ||||||||||
Behind on Utility Payments |
29 | 22 | 48 | ||||||||
Utilities turned off/Went without |
12 | 14 | 26 | ||||||||
Heat |
5 | 8 | 9 | ||||||||
Electricity |
6 | 12 8 | 7 | 11 | 12 8 | 19 8 | |||||
Water |
3 | 7 | |||||||||
Phone disconnected |
19 | 35 | 35 | ||||||||
1Results are for all cases, not just
single-parents. |
|||||||||||
Many studies also gathered information on more severe housing problems. These include having to move because of inability to pay housing costs or eviction; being without a place to live or having stayed in a homeless shelter; or moving in with family or friends, not having one’s own place to live, or living in crowded housing conditions (2 or more household members per room). In general, a small but substantial percentage of families report these problems.
The percentage of families that were forced to move because of housing costs ranges from 6 percent in DC to 26 percent in Cuyahoga county. The percentage of families evicted is generally smaller, 4 percent in Georgia, and 7 percent in Washington and Cuyahoga County. However, it is possible that some families move to avoid eviction. Of the six studies reporting use of a homeless shelter since exit, the percentages range from 1 to 3 percent. A larger percentage of families reported they were without a place to live at least once in Iowa and Washington— 7 and 13 percent respectively. Finally, some families moved in with relatives or friends because of high housing costs. The reports range from 10 percent in Washington to 22 percent in DC. The Bay Area study reports that 32 percent of leaver families say they lived in crowded housing conditions.
Utilities. In addition to problems with rent and places to stay, a number of families have had problems paying utilities or had utilities cut off because of failure to pay. The percentage of families who were behind on utilities after leaving welfare ranges from 22 percent in Georgia to 48 percent in South Carolina. A smaller percentage generally report they had utilities turned off. Some studies separately report having heat, electricity, water, and phone service turned off. The percentage of families that had heat, electricity or water utilities turned off ranges from a low of 3 to 6 percent in DC to a high of 26 percent in Massachusetts. For the three studies reporting that phone service of leavers was disconnected, the percentages are somewhat higher, from 19 percent in Georgia to 35 percent in Iowa and South Carolina.
> Changes in Housing-Related Problems Since Exit. Six of the studies compare leavers pre- and post-exit experiences of housing and utility-related hardships (Table VI.4). The results are similar to those for food-related problems. Three of the studies, Arizona, DC, and Illinois, find similar or lower absolute percentages of families experiencing housing-related problems after exiting TANF than before. Massachusetts and Washington find that leavers experience somewhat higher rates of housing problems after exit than when on TANF. South Carolina reports somewhat of a mixed picture. Leavers in South Carolina have more trouble paying rent and utilities post-exit than when on TANF. However, fewer families in South Carolina were forced to move because of housing costs or used a homeless shelter post-exit than when on TANF. Overall, these results provide mixed evidence on whether leavers experience an increase or decrease in housing problems after exiting TANF.
Problem |
AZ | DC1 | IL1 | MA1 | SC1,2 | WA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Caseload | Leavers | |
Behind on Rent/Housing Costs |
41 | 37 | 27 | 27 | 45 | 38 | 25 | 33 | ||||
Forced to move because of housing costs |
21 | 17 | 8 | 6 | 15 | 13 | 19 | 12 | ||||
Evicted |
3 | 7 | ||||||||||
Without a place to live at least once |
2 3 | 1 3 | 11 | 13 | ||||||||
Used homeless shelter |
4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 4 | 2 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Did not have own place to live |
3 | 8 | ||||||||||
Moved in with family/friends |
14 | 11 | 7 | 10 | ||||||||
Behind on Utility Payments |
29 | 29 | 26 | 48 | ||||||||
Utilities turned off/Went without |
18 | 12 | 27 | 14 | 20 | 26 | ||||||
Heat |
7 | 5 | 6 | 9 | ||||||||
Electricity |
7 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 12 | 12 | ||||||
Water |
2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | ||||||||
Phone disconnected |
23 | 35 | ||||||||||
1Results are for all cases, not just
single-parents. |
||||||||||||
[Go To Contents]
In Chapter IV, we discussed the high percentage of adult leavers that do not have health insurance coverage. Lack of health insurance, out-of-pocket costs, and difficulty accessing medical providers even when insured can leave families unable to obtain needed medical care. Six studies report some measure of leaver families having problems affording or receiving health care (Table VI.5).
Problem |
AZ | DC1 | GA | IL1 | SC1,2 | Cuyahoga Co. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |||
Could not afford health care |
14 | 24 | 3 | 8 | ||||||
Didn't get medical attention when needed |
10 | 26 | 31 | 4 | 10 | 40 | ||||
Didn't go to dentist when needed |
16 | 41 | ||||||||
1Results are for all cases, not just
single-parents. |
||||||||||
>Two studies report the percentage of leaver families that are unable to afford health care—8 percent of families in DC and 24 percent in Arizona. The percentage of leaver families reporting they didn’t seek medical attention when needed because of costs also varies, from 10 percent in Georgia and South Carolina to 40 percent in Cuyahoga County. The variation in these reports may be related to the percentage who report themselves as uninsured in each study. South Carolina and DC report the lowest rates of adult uninsurance among these studies.
In all four studies that report pre- and post-exit health care problems the incidence of problems is higher after exiting welfare. For example, in Arizona 14 percent of leaver families could not afford health care before exiting TANF, but 24 percent report this problem after exit. These results are consistent with the significant declines in Medicaid coverage among leavers in Arizona reported in Chapter IV. Interestingly, in three of these studies, Arizona, DC, and Illinois, the incidence of food and housing problems reported by leaver families was generally lower after exit compared with while on TANF.
[Go To Contents]
A final measure of well-being of families comes from a more general question posed to families in six studies. The question asks families to compare their overall well-being since exiting TANF to a prior time period when they were on TANF (Table VI.6). The specific question varies somewhat across studies, from asking about change in overall well-being to emotional well-being to general standard of living. Six studies report the percentage of families claiming they are better off, worse off, or the same relative to before leaving TANF, although two studies, Arizona and Washington, report finer gradations as well.
State |
Much Better Off | Better Off | Same | Worse Off | Much Worse Off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona |
31 | 37 | 16 | 12 | 3 |
Illinois1,2 |
n.a. | 57 | 30 | 13 | n.a. |
Iowa2,3 |
n.a. | 49 | 32 | 19 | n.a. |
Massachusetts1,2,4 |
n.a. | 47 | 26 | 28 | n.a. |
South Carolina1,5 |
n.a. | 80 | n.a. | 20 | n.a. |
Washington |
32 | 28 | 19 | 13 | 8 |
1Results are for all cases, not just
single-parents. |
|||||
In all six studies, about half or more families report they are better off since leaving welfare. More than two-thirds of families report they are better off in Arizona. South Carolina asks families whether they agree or disagree with the statement “Life was better when I was getting welfare” and 80 percent disagree. Approximately one-fifth or fewer of families report they are worse off or much worse off after leaving TANF than before in all states except Massachusetts, where 28 percent report they are worse off. Illinois has the lowest percentage of leavers who say they are worse off since leaving TANF (13 percent).
Interestingly, this overall self-assessment of relative well-being does not always accord with the leavers’ reports of specific measures of hardship discussed earlier. For Arizona and Illinois, the relatively high percentage of leaver families reporting they are better off after exit matches the generally lower levels of specific hardships reported in these studies. However, the results for Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Washington are less consistent. The majority of families are reporting they are not worse off since exiting, although the results on specific hardship measures are mixed, with higher rates of hardship among families after exit on many measures.
[Go To Contents]
Above, the discussion has focused on material hardship among the entire group of welfare leavers. However, there are important questions about how specific subgroups of leavers are doing. For example, one would like to know if hardship is greater among leavers that are not working than those who are working. Also, it would be helpful to know if there are differences in hardship across families by the reason they left welfare, specifically those who left due to sanctions or time limits relative to those who did not. Several leaver studies reviewed here allow us to explore these questions. For these comparisons, the report shows a subset of the measures of food, housing, and health care hardships discussed earlier.
Five studies allow for comparisons between employed leavers and those who are not employed (Table VI.7). All of these studies include results for the group of leavers that are currently employed at the time of the interview. Missouri also reports results separately for those who have worked at some point and those who never worked since exit.43 It is important to remember that in all of these studies, except South Carolina, families who have returned to TANF are included.
Problem |
DC1 | IA | IL1 | MO1 | SC1,2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employed | Not Employed | Employed | Not employed | Employed | Not employed | Currently employed | Worked since exit | Never worked since exit | Employed | Not Employed | |
Cut the size of meals or skipped meals (every month or some months) |
25 | 26 | 21 | 32 | 2 3 | 4 3 | 8 3 | 17 | 25 | ||
Could not afford food/food didn't last (often or sometimes) |
47 | 44 | 38 | 55 | 25 4 | 26 4 | 27 4 | ||||
Food insecure |
29 | 40 | |||||||||
Behind on Rent/Housing Costs |
28 | 27 | 25 | 25 | 29 | 54 | 21 5 | 37 5 | 25 5 | 31 | 35 |
Behind on Utility Payments |
33 | 24 | 48 | 49 | |||||||
Went Without Utilities |
5 6 | 6 6 | 34 | 46 | 12 | 17 | 10 6 | 14 6 | |||
Used homeless shelter |
1 | 6 | 4 7 | 11 7 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 3 | |||
Did not get medical care when needed |
8 | 9 | 25 | 39 | 8 | 14 | |||||
1Results are for all cases, not just
single-parents. |
|||||||||||
Iowa, Illinois and South Carolina generally find that leavers who are working have lower levels of food, housing, and health care related problems. Further, in Missouri, those currently employed have fewer experiences of food and housing hardships than those who have never worked. Those who have worked at some point since exit but are not currently employed report more food hardships than those who are working at the time of the interview, but less than those who have never worked since exit. Interestingly, however, this group of families that have worked reports a higher incidence of being unable to pay rent, mortgage, or utilities than either workers or those who never worked. This group of intermittent workers also reports greater hardships on other measures not included here.
DC finds more mixed results than the other studies. Those not working have similar rates of hardship in all areas compared with those who are working with one exception: behind on utilities. Employed leavers in DC are more likely to report that they are behind on their utilities payments than non-working leavers (33 v. 24 percent). These mixed results may reflect that a larger number of leavers who are not employed have returned to TANF, to provide their families with some cushion of income, rather than remain both unemployed and off TANF. However, this does not seem to be the case in any of the other studies.
Another subgroup comparison of interest is those who left TANF due to sanctions or time limits versus those who did not leave for these reasons. Three studies allow us to examine this question. Arizona reports results for both sanctioned and non-sanctioned leavers and Massachusetts reports results for both those who left due to time limits and other leavers. South Carolina reports results separately for families who left due to sanctions, time limits, earned income, and other reasons.44
The available evidence on whether sanctioned and time-limited families experience greater material hardships is mixed (Table VI.8). In Arizona, sanctioned and non-sanctioned families have similar experiences of hardship on all but two measures. A greater percentage of sanctioned families had utilities turned off (16 percent) than non-sanctioned families (11 percent). And a smaller percentage of sanctioned families report they were unable to get medical attention when needed (17 percent) compared with non-sanctioned families (25 percent).
Hardship |
AZ | MA2 | SC2,3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanction | Non- Sanction | Time-Limited | Non Time-Limited | Sanctions | Time Limits | Earned Income | Other | |
Not enough to eat at times |
25 | 24 | ||||||
Ate less because not enough money |
21 | 16 | 22 | 25 | ||||
Hungry but didn't eat because couldn't afford |
10 | 6 | 9 | 14 | ||||
Food Insecure |
42 | 43 | ||||||
Food Inscure with Hunger |
24 | 21 | ||||||
Received Emergency Food Services |
||||||||
Food from religious, community or charitable organization |
12 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
Food pantry/food kitchen/shelters/food banks |
22 | 21 | 33 | 26 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
Behind on Rent/Housing Costs |
36 | 37 | 31 | 33 | 35 | 29 | ||
Behind on Utilities |
51 | 48 | 47 | 48 | ||||
Utilities turned off/Went without |
16 | 11 | 26 | 26 | 15 4 | 17 4 | 9 4 | 12 4 |
Phone disconnected |
36 | 39 | 33 | 36 | ||||
Forced to move because of housing costs |
19 | 17 | 13 | 20 | 11 | 15 | ||
Used homeless shelter |
3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
Did not get medical attention when needed |
17 | 25 | 13 | 7 | 8 | 14 | ||
1Results are for all cases, not just
single-parents. |
||||||||
In Massachusetts, the difference between families who left because they reached the time-limit and those who left for other reasons is somewhat mixed. The biggest difference is that more time-limited families report using emergency food services (33 percent) than non-time-limited families (26 percent). However, for most of the other measures shown in Table VI.8, as well as for other measures not shown here, Massachusetts finds relatively little evidence of difference between the two groups in hardship.
South Carolina also shows mixed results across these measures of material hardship. While those who left due to earned income experience the lowest levels of hardship on four out of five housing measures, they are most likely to be behind on rent/housing costs. In addition, on all of the food-related measures shown here and on reports of inability to obtain medical attention when needed, leavers whose cases were closed due to time-limits have the lowest experience of hardship of all the leaver subgroups. Indeed, none of these studies present consistent evidence that sanctioned or time-limited cases have higher levels of material hardship.
[Go To Contents]
There are a number of measures that can be used to assess the well-being of families leaving welfare beyond employment and income. The ASPE grantees report a variety of different measures on leavers experiences with food, housing, and medical hardships. Across these varied measures, most studies report a quarter or more leaver families are experiencing food hardships and similar percentages are experiencing trouble paying rent or utilities. A smaller percentage report trouble accessing and affording health care. While some studies show that leavers experience the same or lower levels of food-related and housing hardship after exit relative to when on TANF, other studies shows that hardships increase after exit. In general, medical hardships tend to increase after exit.
37All statistics reported in this chapter come
from survey data.
38Arizona, Illinois, and Washington use a 6-month
window for their questions (e.g. "have you experienced this problem in the
past 6 months? Before the past 6 months?"). South Carolina uses a 12-month
window. These windows roughly correspond to pre- and post-exit time periods.
The District of Columbia and Massachusetts ask about the time while on TANF
and the time since leaving TANF, about 10 months for Massachusetts and 12
months for DC. All of these studies compare leavers' experiences before and
after exit except Washington. Washington compares leavers experiences to
a separate group of TANF recipients. The remaining studies that do not present
comparisons, generally report experience of the specific hardship since exit.
This varies by the timing of the survey interview relative to exit.
39The studies used the six-item short form of
this scale.
40A number of these questions are part of the
six-question USDA scale described above, but these studies did not ask all
six questions. South Carolina asked all 6 questions but did not compute food
insecurity.
41Only a subset of all available measures are
included in Table VI.2.
42We do not discuss here whether these differences
are statistically significant, which is not reported in most studies.
43Illinois also reports separate results for
those who are continuously employed, intermittently employed, and never employed
since exit. We do not show these results here.
44All of these categories are based on reasons
for leaving as reported in administrative data rather than on self-reported
information from surveys, although the hardship measures are based on survey
responses.
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)