Chapter I identified three sets of objectives for the LBP Study. The second set of objectives represents the core of the study--that is, to describe the experiences of cases that lose cash assistance under the LBP and document their status shortly before and after the loss of cash assistance. DHS administrative files provide little information relevant to these objectives. The measures in these files are limited in both their content and timing; they provide only a small amount of information on client characteristics and no information on client perceptions or on the transitions that they may experience with the termination of cash assistance. To address these limitations, MPR and ISED designed and fielded a survey of welfare recipients who had had their FIP benefits terminated in month seven of the LBP and were in midst of the LBP's six-month FIP ineligibility period. This chapter describes the survey methodology, and the next two chapters present empirical findings from the survey.
The sampling frame for the LBP Survey consisted of individuals in active welfare cases in three PROMISE JOBS service delivery areas (SDAs) in central and eastern Iowa who, in November or December of 1995, or in January of 1996, entered month seven of their initial assignment to the LBP. These SDAs were selected to minimize the cost of field interviews, which ISED coordinated out of its Iowa City headquarters office in eastern Iowa. They accounted for 54 percent of all individuals statewide who entered month seven of the LBP during the sampling period.(1)
Two exclusionary criteria were applied to the sampling frame on the basis of administrative data. First, individuals in cases that did not receive cash assistance in LBP month six or that did receive cash assistance in month seven were excluded from the final sample. This resulted in a survey sample that included only individuals in cases that received cash assistance in LBP month six but not in month seven. Second, when two or more individuals from the same case were present in the sampling frame, only the case-name person was selected into the sample. All 172 individuals in the sampling frame who satisfied these two criteria were selected into the survey sample.
The LBP Survey was a mixed-mode survey. Initial efforts were made to complete an interview by telephone; if this was unsuccessful, then an in-person interview was attempted. The telephone phase of the survey began in early February 1996 and continued until the end of March 1996. The in-person phase began in mid-March and lasted for one month. All interviews were completed during the respondents' six-month FIP ineligibility period of the LBP. More specifically, the interviews were completed during LBP months eight through twelve, with most (92 percent) being completed during LBP months nine through eleven.
A letter was sent to the last known address of each sampled individual explaining the survey, encouraging participation, and offering a $50 incentive payment to survey participants. The letter instructed the individual to call MPR's toll-free number to complete an interview or to schedule an interview for a convenient time. MPR attempted to telephone those sampled individuals who did not call the 800 number. Contact was attempted without regard for whether the sampled individual had moved either within or outside of the state.(2) These methods yielded a high telephone interview completion rate.
When an interview could not be completed via telephone, responsibility for interviewing the sampled individual was transferred to ISED, which attempted to contact and interview the individual in person. ISED used on-call survey field staff in each of the three PROMISE JOBS SDAs to conduct the in-person interviews.
Sample members who were successfully contacted and who agreed to participate in the survey were administered a brief sequence of screener questions to confirm that the FIP case to which the individual belonged had experienced the expected pattern of cash assistance (positive in LBP month six; zero in month seven). Individuals who indicated that this pattern of cash assistance did not apply to their cases were deemed ineligible for the remainder of the interview if they also reported having received cash assistance in the survey month. Ten of the 172 sampled individuals were excluded from the full interview for this reason. Thus, the sample eligible to be interviewed consisted of 162 individuals and their associated FIP cases.
Of the 162 sampled individuals who were eligible to be interviewed, interviews were actually completed with 137 people, or 85 percent (Table IV.1). All of these respondents confirmed that they had received cash assistance in LBP month six but not in month seven. Most of the interviews were completed by telephone (121 interviews) rather than in person (16 interviews). Interview completion times ranged from 25 to 117 minutes, with a mean completion time of 44 minutes. Interviews could not be completed with 25 sampled individuals for the following reasons:
Data on a limited number of characteristics of all sampled individuals (both survey respondents and nonrespondents) and their associated FIP cases were available in DHS administrative files. These data are used in Table IV.1 to profile the 162 survey-eligible individuals and the subset of 137 survey respondents. Survey respondents are somewhat more likely to be male and somewhat less likely to be minorities than all survey-eligible individuals. For the other five selected individual and case characteristics (marital status, case size, cash benefit amount in LBP month six, birth year of respondent, and birth year of youngest child in case), there are no notable differences between the survey respondents and the broader group of survey eligibles.
The high survey response rate and the relatively small differences between the survey respondents and all survey-eligible individuals suggest that the LBP Survey results reliably represent the experiences of all individuals and their associated FIP cases in SDAs 9, 10, and 11 that entered LBP month seven in late 1995 and early 1996. The principal limitation of the survey data derives from the small number of persons who were eligible for the survey, implying that descriptive statistics generated from the data may have large confidence intervals.
The LBP Survey collected data on a broader range of characteristics than is available in DHS administrative files. Table IV.2, which displays individual-level characteristics as reported by the survey respondents, shows that the typical respondent to the LBP Survey was:
The LBP survey instrument was designed to elicit the perceptions of respondents about how they came to be assigned to the LBP, the changes in their lives that coincided with the end of cash assistance, and their experiences coping without cash assistance. In responding to specific questions, survey participants were instructed to refer to one or more periods: the period leading up to the assignment to the LBP and continuing through the first six months of the LBP, the final month of cash assistance (LBP month six), the period following the termination of cash assistance and continuing to the date of the interview, and the interview month. For example, respondents reported on their experiences with FIP, PROMISE JOBS, and the LBP during the period leading up to assignment to the LBP and continuing for the first six months of the LBP. They reported on their household composition, housing arrangements, and economic status in LBP month six and in the interview month. For the period following the termination of cash assistance up to the date of the interview, they reported on the jobs that they held and on the assistance that they received from family, friends, and community organizations.
Findings from the LBP Survey are presented in the next two chapters. Chapter V presents findings on the status of respondents in LBP month six, in the interview month, and in the intervening period. Outcomes discussed include household composition, housing arrangements, employment, economic status, and assistance received from family, friends, and community organizations. Chapter VI presents findings on survey respondents' experiences in FIP, PROMISE JOBS, and the LBP. Reasons for entry into the LBP and the preparation of the FIA are the focus of the chapter.