This chapter presents findings from the LBP Survey regarding how families came to be on the LBP and their experiences while on the LBP. These findings are based on descriptive analysis of survey data and quotes from survey respondents' replies to open-ended questions. The chapter highlights five issues relating to the LBP experience: (1) PROMISE JOBS requirements, particularly the FIA, (2) entering the LBP, (3) experiences after entering the LBP, (4) personal plans for leaving welfare, and (5) the loss of FIP benefits. It also presents messages from survey respondents to state politicians regarding the LBP.
As part of welfare reform in Iowa, FIP clients who are mandatory participants in PROMISE JOBS are required to develop, sign, and carry out an FIA.(1)
Clients are also required to contact PROMISE JOBS to arrange an appointment to initiate this process. Those who fail to arrange or keep the PROMISE JOBS appointment, to develop and sign an FIA, or to carry out the FIA are assigned to the LBP. Here, we describe the extent to which LBP Survey respondents met these requirements and their understanding of the consequences of failure to meet them.
More than half of the respondents (57 percent) reported that they had arranged and kept the required appointment with PROMISE JOBS (Table VI.1). The rest did not meet this requirement. About 26 percent said that they had arranged the appointment but did not keep it, and 17 percent said they did not even arrange the appointment.(2)
Of those who did not arrange the PROMISE JOBS appointment, most respondents cited lack of understanding of program requirements as the reason (70 percent). Some individuals who were employed or looking for a job did not understand that they still had to participate in PROMISE JOBS. One respondent said, "I was working full-time. I thought that was enough." Other reasons cited by at least 10 percent of those who had not arranged the appointment were transportation problems (17 percent), child care problems (13 percent), and health problems (13 percent).
Of those who arranged the PROMISE JOBS appointment but did not keep it, the most common reason for not keeping the appointment was transportation problems (31 percent). Other reasons included personal or health problems (28 percent), problems with child care (22 percent), and work or school schedules (14 percent). One respondent, whose fiancé died soon after she had scheduled an appointment with PROMISE JOBS, commented, "I was in a severe depression. I couldn't even leave my house."
Approximately 56 percent of LBP Survey respondents reported that they fulfilled the requirement of signing an FIA (Table VI.2); 19 percent reported that they had not signed one, and 25 percent were uncertain.(3) Of the respondents who said they had not signed an FIA, 50 percent said that the reason for this was that they had never been given an FIA to sign. Another common reason respondents gave for not signing an FIA was that they did not know anything about the FIA (39 percent). Twenty-three percent reporting that they did not sign an FIA because they were employed, which suggests that they misunderstood the FIA requirement.
Respondents who either did not sign an FIA or did not know whether they had signed an FIA were asked about their understanding of the consequences of not signing an FIA. When asked simply whether they understood what would happen if they did not sign an FIA, 38 percent said that they did understand. When asked to describe what they understood those consequences to be, 37 percent said that FIP benefits would end. However, some (8 percent) said they thought FIP benefits would continue. One respondent said, "I thought I could meet with my worker [even after I didn't sign my FIA]. I thought I'd keep getting my checks." Others reported that their caseworkers did not tell them about the consequences of not signing an FIA (23 percent), or that they had no understanding about the consequences at all (47 percent).
The FIA is developed through a process in which the welfare client and the PROMISE JOBS caseworker meet to specify the goals and activities to be included in the plan. Most survey respondents who signed an FIA indicated some degree of ownership of the activities included in their FIA (Table VI.3). Nearly half of those who signed an FIA reported that they had selected the activities themselves, and 16 percent said they had mutually selected them with their caseworker.
Employment was the most common FIA goal. Almost 70 percent of respondents who had signed an FIA reported this as a goal. Education and economic self-sufficiency were also quite common goals: 46 percent of those who had signed an FIA had completing an educational degree as a goal, and 38 percent had achieving self-sufficiency as a goal. A considerably smaller share identified specific short-term goals, such as finding a child care provider, paying off debts, volunteering, or acquiring legal assistance.
The FIA must also include specific activities for achieving the larger goals of the plan. Job Club or other job search activities were included as activities by 39 percent of the respondents who had signed an FIA. Educational activities were also common. Thirty-six percent of respondents with an FIA included enrollment in postsecondary education in their FIA, and 30 percent included completing high school or a GED. Other FIA activities included volunteering, finding a child care provider, and acquiring an automobile.
Most respondents who reported signing an FIA were satisfied with its content (results not shown) and understood the consequences of failure to follow through with the FIA (Table VI.3). The most common reason given for not being satisfied with the FIA was limited ownership. One parent said, "My worker told me to write that I was going to get a job, but I wanted to go to school." Some dissatisfaction also stemmed from a lack of understanding. One respondent explained, "I didn't know what I was signing. They gave me a paper and [I was] told to sign it." However, overall there was a high degree of understanding of the FIA reported by survey respondents. Approximately 91 percent of respondents who had signed an FIA said they knew what would happen if they did not follow through on the goals and activities specified in their FIA.
Many of the LBP Survey respondents who had signed an FIA reported barriers to achieving the goals of their FIA.(4) In total, 73 percent of survey respondents who had signed an FIA reported one or more barriers that prevented them from fulfilling it (Table VI.4). The three most frequently reported barriers were (1) a serious personal or health issue (30 percent), (2) lack of transportation (28 percent), and (3) lack of child care (20 percent). One respondent explained, "I keep looking for work, but I can't find anything that pays enough so I can afford a babysitter."
Of the survey respondents who reported that barriers had interfered with their fulfillment of their FIA, approximately one-third had not discussed these barriers with their caseworker. Some of these respondents said they did not talk to their caseworker because they thought the caseworker would consider the issue unimportant, because they were embarrassed, or because they considered the problem to be a private issue (results not shown). Of those who did inform their caseworkers about the barriers, just over two-thirds reported that their caseworker had not helped them resolve the barriers (Table VI.4). Of those who did receive help from their caseworker, the assistance usually took the form of advice or information.
Modification of the FIA was rare. Only 11 percent of the respondents who had signed an FIA said that they had subsequently attempted to modify it (Table VI.4). Half of them wanted to change the goals or activities in their FIA; the other half wanted to extend the time line for fulfilling their FIA. The motivation for seeking to modify the FIA was typically a change in the respondent's health status or the inability of the respondent to fulfill the requirements of the original FIA (results not shown). For example, one respondent said, "I couldn't stay in school full-time. There were problems at home, and I wanted to go to school part-time." Three of the eight respondents who had attempted to modify their FIA reported that they were successful.
The LBP Survey included several items designed to measure respondents' perceptions of how and why they came to be on the LBP. Approximately 78 percent of respondents reported that they had been assigned to the LBP, 20 percent reported that they had voluntarily entered the LBP, and 2 percent did not remember why they entered (Table VI.5).
Among the respondents who said they were assigned to the LBP, the dominant reason they gave for the assignment was noncompliance with PROMISE JOBS; this was cited by 71 percent of those assigned to the LBP. Respondents most often described their noncompliance in terms of missing PROMISE JOBS appointments or generally "not cooperating" with PROMISE JOBS. Some explained that they were working full-time and could not miss work to meet with their caseworkers. One respondent said, "I guess I missed too many appointments and then I got a letter saying that I was on the LBP."
Fifteen percent of those assigned to the LBP reported that problems with their caseworkers or paperwork had precipitated their assignment. An even smaller share (8 percent) cited problems with transportation or child care arrangements as barriers to meeting PROMISE JOBS requirements, which thus led to their assignment. Finally, approximately 20 percent said that they felt they had no choice about being assigned to the LBP, suggesting that they did not fully understand the policies or the reason for the DHS action.
Of the 20 percent of survey respondents who reported that they voluntarily entered the LBP, most indicated that they did so because they were "tired" of the public assistance system and wanted to be free of the hassles associated with it (results not shown). One respondent remarked, "I wanted to be in control. I knew I could get a job, so I just didn't sign my FIA." Another said, "I was ready to be off welfare. I wanted to be a good role model for my kids." Some reported that they thought the LBP was the only program available to them in Iowa. One of these respondents said, "I didn't know I had a choice. I picked it because I thought it was part of the new program where everyone [receiving FIP benefits] was on the LBP."
This section describes two distinct aspects of survey respondents' experience after they entered the LBP: (1) efforts they made to comply with PROMISE JOBS requirements and (2) well-being visits by local public health officials.
The LBP in effect at the time of this survey provided clients who entered the LBP prior to signing an FIA with two opportunities to reconsider and begin complying with PROMISE JOBS requirements after entering the LBP: (1) during the first 45 days of the LBP and (2) during the fifth and six months of the LBP. As shown in Table VI.6, roughly two-thirds of survey respondents did not attempt to work with PROMISE JOBS after entering the LBP. The other one-third of respondents who reported that they tried to work with PROMISE JOBS after entering the LBP were asked about the outcome of that effort. Forty-four percent of the respondents who had contacted PROMISE JOBS reported that they were told to "wait out the LBP." One respondent said: "I called my worker and she told me to get a job. She couldn't help me." Another respondent said, "My worker told me to call back in six months," presumably referring to the end of the FIP ineligibility period. Other common outcomes were the scheduling of an appointment with PROMISE JOBS (37 percent) and being told to attend required PROMISE JOBS activities (24 percent).
One component of the LBP is a "well-being" visit. These visits are conducted by registered nurses or social workers in local public health agencies through a contractual agreement involving those agencies, the Iowa Department of Public Health, and DHS. The purpose of the visit is to inquire about the status of children, to ask parents whether they require information regarding their rights and responsibilities, and to provide referrals to community agencies. Attempts are made to contact all LBP families to conduct a well-being visit in the family's home or by telephone in the fifth month of the LBP and again in the seventh month, if the family is still on the LBP. Despite the intent to visit all families, internal DHS analysis indicates that visits are completed for only approximately 40 percent of families.(5) Reasons for this low completion rate include inability to contact the families and refusal of the (voluntary) visit by contacted families.(6)
LBP Survey respondents were asked about the well-being visits. Fifty-four percent reported that a well-being visit was conducted either in their home or by telephone (Table VI.7). Most of those who were visited reported that the nurse or social worker spoke only to the respondent during the visit (78 percent). In terms of the content of the visit, 34 percent of those who were visited reported that the nurse inquired about the children, and 31 percent reported that they were given information regarding their rights and responsibilities. The average length of a well-being visit was approximately 15 minutes.
The LBP Survey asked respondents about personal plans, other than the FIA, that they had for leaving welfare prior to the termination of cash assistance. As shown in Table VI.8, about 61 percent of respondents indicated that they had such a plan. The most common type of plan identified by these respondents was finding employment (70 percent); it is possible, of course, that this was also an FIA goal of those who had an FIA. Of those with a personal plan, 38 percent had planned to find a job and had succeeded, while 32 percent had planned to find a job and had not succeeded.
After employment, education was the next most common personal plan for leaving welfare (26 percent). Nearly 17 percent of those with a personal plan had planned to attend college. About half of these respondents had succeeded in doing so, while the other half had not succeeded either due to lack of tuition assistance or a change in their health status.
The termination of FIP cash benefits affected LBP families in a variety of ways. The analysis of the effects of terminated benefits is based on responses to a series of open-ended survey questions, which asked respondents to describe the overall impact of the loss of FIP benefits, the difficulties and successes they had following benefit termination, and their plans for meeting their financial needs in the next two months.
1. Overall Effect of the Loss of FIP Benefits
The overall effect of the loss of FIP benefits varied widely. Negative effects were most commonly reported, but nearly 24 percent of respondents reported positive effects, and 14 percent reported that their lives had not been affected one way or the other (Table VI.9).
The most common effect of the loss of FIP cash benefits was chronic worrying, which was reported by 52 percent of respondents. According to one parent, "I worry all the time. Every month it gets harder and harder trying to make ends meet."(7) Forty-four percent of respondents cited financial problems as an effect of the loss of FIP benefits. Many of these individuals worried about paying their rent and feared the possibility of being evicted from their homes. One parent explained, "I don't know what will happen next month [about paying the rent]. I've asked all of my friends and family for money." Another theme was insufficient resources to purchase groceries. One parent stated, "We have Food Stamps, but that isn't enough to feed two growing teenagers." Some respondents commented that they were unable to provide clothes or shoes for their children, or to pay for automobile expenses such as gas, registration, and insurance.
About one quarter of respondents reported that the loss of cash benefits had positive effects, particularly in the form of increased independence and self-esteem. Some had become more independent through employment or increased earnings. One respondent said, "I really like working. I like being able to provide for my family. It is better for my kids that they see me working." Others experienced an increase in their self-esteem as a result of no longer relying on welfare and the consequent removal of the stigma associated with welfare receipt. One respondent remarked, "It was hard being on welfare. Neighbors and people at stores look down on you. Now, I don't feel so ashamed."
The two greatest difficulties facing families following the termination of FIP cash benefits were meeting household expenditures and providing for children. Over half of the respondents reported that meeting household expenditures--rent, bills, car expenses, food, clothes--was one of their greatest difficulties (Table VI.9). One respondent said, "It's hard to pay my bills on time. I only pay some [bills] each month." Another explained, "I try to borrow enough money from my friend every month to make sure the bills are covered. It's a lot of stress."
After household expenditures, providing for children was the next most common difficulty. This was cited by nearly 40 percent of survey respondents. One parent said, "My son wants to join the school band, but I don't have the money for that." Another parent explained, "I don't have enough [money] to buy gym shoes for my two kids." Smaller shares of respondents reported that some of their greatest difficulties after benefit termination were securing child care and transportation (9 percent), the loss of health insurance (8 percent), obtaining employment (6 percent), and loss of independence (2 percent).
Nearly one-fifth of the respondents commented that they had not experienced any difficulties since losing FIP cash benefits. One of these respondents said, "Things really haven't changed. I'm working now, so I'm doing OK."
The two greatest successes of respondents after losing their FIP cash benefits were greater personal independence and keeping families intact. Over half of the respondents (Table VI.9) reported increased personal independence and self-sufficiency as one of their greatest successes. Some noted an increased sense of accomplishment and pride because they were "making it on their own" without government assistance. One respondent said:
Things are going OK. It makes me feel good about myself to work and earn money rather than getting money for nothing. I have a sense of accomplishment now. I'm more independent. I'm out doing something for my family. I hope I'll keep working or get a better job.
After increased independence, the success that respondents most commonly reported was keeping their families intact in the face of adversity (20 percent). One respondent said, "At least we are together as a family." Another said, "My kids are still with me." Still another noted, "My husband and I are staying together. We made it through this."
While many families did experience successes after their FIP benefits were terminated, 42 percent of survey respondents stated that they had experienced no successes during this time. One said, "It's been really hard. There hasn't been one good thing." Another remarked, "I can't think of any successes. We're just doing the best we can to get by." Comparing this to the number of respondents that reported no difficulties following benefit termination, we find that reporting no successes was more than twice as common as reporting no difficulties.
Respondents' plans for meeting financial needs in the next two months without FIP cash benefits most often took the form of employment, their partner's employment, or child support payments. Employment was by far the dominant strategy (Table VI.10), cited by nearly 70 percent of respondents.(8) Those who were unemployed intended to find employment; those who were employed intended either to remain at their current jobs or to find new jobs providing higher wages and benefits. One respondent explained, "I'll keep working. Everything will be fine if I don't lose my job." Another parent noted, "I'm working now, but I need to work more hours to get full [fringe] benefits. After another six months, I'm up for a raise, too."
After their own employment, respondents most often cited increased income through their partner's employment or through regular child support payments as part of their plan (21 percent). Only a few respondents identified government assistance as the means to achieving financial stability over the next two months. Seven percent stated that their plan was to reapply for FIP benefits,(9) and one percent planned to apply for SSI.
When asked what they would like to tell state politicians about their experience with the LBP, respondents most often commented on the importance of FIP benefits to their families, highlighting how benefits are helpful and how difficult it is to make personal changes without these benefits (TableVI.11). One respondent noted, "When I got FIP, I paid my rent right away. I always paid that bill first. Now, I never know how I am going to pay it." Another stated:
I was doing everything right. I was working full-time and going to school 15 hours a week. Things were getting better, but I still needed the [FIP] check to get by. It doesn't make sense to me that people like me are punished for trying to improve and other people who don't do anything still keep their check.
After the importance of FIP benefits, respondents most frequently wanted to tell politicians that LBP needed to be a more transitional program--that the current program was too harsh. Twenty-seven percent of respondents expressed this concern.
There was also evidence that respondents wanted better information about the LBP and the requirements. Approximately 12 percent of respondents wanted to tell politicians that the FIA and LBP needed to be explained more thoroughly. One respondent remarked, "I didn't know that I could change my FIA after I signed it. If I had known that, I would have done it. I thought that once I had one, that was it." In addition, 13 percent wanted to convey that they found contradictions in the welfare program's goals and rules. One parent said, "I was told to go to school, but there was not any assistance for child care or transportation."
On a positive note, approximately 16 percent of respondents wanted to tell politicians that the LBP was a good program, saying that it pushed them to be more independent. These individuals noted that they were employed and had not faced hardships as a result of the loss of cash benefits. They reported that the LBP was "working out just the way they had planned it."
A number of key findings emerge from this chapter's analysis of the LBP experiences of survey respondents:
1. The Family Investment Agreement (FIA) specifies the clients' plan for becoming self-sufficient in a specified amount of time. For more detail on the FIA, refer to Chapter II, Section A.3 of this report.
2. Administrative data from Iowa DHS provides a very different picture. For the LBP Survey respondents, administrative records suggest that only 18 percent arranged and kept the appointment, while 61 percent arranged but did not keep the appointment, and 22 percent did not arrange the appointment. These differences may suggest that respondents are unclear about specific program participation requirements and the importance of the PROMISE JOBS appointment.
3. For the LBP Survey respondents, administrative records suggest that fewer signed the FIA (26 percent compared with the survey results of 56 percent).
4. This finding is not surprising since most of these individuals signed the FIA before entering the LBP (rather than during a reconsideration period, see Section C.1 of this chapter) and, presumably, if they had faced no barriers to fulfilling their FIA they would not have entered the LBP.
5. January 1997 Well-Being Visit Report, Iowa Department of Public Health, March 5, 1997.
6. DHS recently asked local public health staff to restructure the well-being visit process so as to improve the quality of the data.
7. In Table VI.9, the percentages allowing for multiple responses are reported in the first column. The second column shows whether the item was mentioned first by the survey participants. For example, "chronic worrying" was the first response for 47 percent of the survey participants.
8. In Table VI.11, the percentages allowing for multiple responses are reported in the first column. The second column shows whether the item was mentioned first by the survey participant. For example, "respondent's employment" was mentioned first by 67 percent of the survey respondents.
9. This may underrepresent the number who plan to return to FIP after the LBP since some survey respondents were interviewed when they had more than two months remaining on the LBP; hence, reapplying for FIP was not an option during the period in question.