Open Road or Blind Alley?:

Welfare Reform, Mothers and Children with Disabilities

Barbara W. LeRoy, Ph.D.; Donna M. Johnson, M.Ed.; 

and Sharonlyn Harrison, Ph.D.

 Skillman Center for Children

College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs

Occasional Paper Series 2000, No. 4

November 2000

FOREWORD

The Skillman Center for Children in the College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs, created by a Skillman Foundation endowment to Wayne State University, serves as a central resource for information about best practices and model service delivery programs for urban children and families. The mission of the Skillman Center for Children is to support the work of existing agencies, citizen/parent groups, organizations and governmental units concerned with needs of urban children and youth. To implement this mission, the Center

• identifies a critical problem or issue every other year and conducts a comprehensive search for models or policies that promise effective solutions. The results are published in a monograph issued every other year.

• prepares and releases reports on the status of children in metropolitan Detroit. These reports are published every other year.

• conducts workshops, forums, summits and conferences as a means to disseminate information.

• develops information and strategies that address contemporary issues facing urban children and their families through service on public policy committees and work groups.

• prepares and releases issue/occasional papers on specific topics of interest to policymakers or practitioners.

• operates the Resource Center, which collects and makes available to policymakers, practitioners, interested persons, faculty and students information on a multiplicity of issues relevant to urban children and their families.

This paper is the second published by the Skillman Center focusing on welfare reform and families with disabilities. The expanded research examines welfare reform policies and their impacts on families that include children with significant health, intellectual, or behavioral problems. At the center of the discussion is how to assist the heads of household of these families to move from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency given their unique barriers to employment. The issue is important as these families represent a large percentage of the families considered "hard to serve." Examining the impact of these barriers in an individual and additive sense contributes to a better understanding of welfare reform and potential policy improvements.

Barbara W. LeRoy, Ph.D. is the director of the Developmental Disabilities Institute.

Donna Johnson , M.Ed. is a research assistant at the Developmental Disabilities Institute.

Sharonlyn Harrison, Ph.D. is the associate director for research at the Developmental Disabilities Institute.

If you would like more details about this report, please contact the authors or Kristine B. Miranne, Associate Director, Skillman Center for Children at (313) 872-7166.

We welcome your comments.

OPEN ROAD OR BLIND ALLEY?

WELFARE REFORM, MOTHERS, and CHILDREN with DISABILITIES

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) ushered in a new era in welfare reform. Under PRWORA, states receive block grants of money known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF differs from its predecessors, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS), in that it is a temporary cash assistance program with an emphasis on work as the primary route to self-sufficiency. TANF grants to families are contingent upon recipients fulfilling mandatory work requirements.

Demographic studies of welfare caseloads indicate that the majority of recipients are women in their twenties who have minimal education and few job skills, are supporting several children, and who experience some form of disability, either personally or within their families. National estimates indicate that up to 60 percent of welfare recipients have disabilities and an additional 10 to 20 percent of recipients have a dependent family member with a disability (National Council on Disability, 1997). Caseload statistics in Michigan indicate that 10.95 percent of welfare families have children with disabilities (LeRoy, Harrison & Johnson, 1999). Additionally, 31.5 percent of child supplemental security income (SSI) recipients live in TANF households. While there are numerous studies on the effects of welfare reform on its typical service recipients, few studies have examined the effects on families who have children with disabilities. Inconsistent implementation of state policies on how to serve these families has left families with few systemic supports to assist them in meeting the requirements of welfare reform. This group of women with disabled children represents a silent, though large, minority of the population hoping to move from poverty to self-sufficiency.

The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to present a descriptive picture of families who receive welfare support and who have children with disabilities, and second, to examine the effects of welfare reform on these families. In order to describe the families and their children, three specific questions were addressed:

• What are the characteristics of families within welfare reform whose children have disabilities?

• Historically, what welfare supports and services have these families received?

• What is the nature and incidence of disabilities among children in these families?

In order to examine the effects of welfare reform on these families, three additional questions were asked:

• What are the systemic barriers to self-sufficiency among these families?

• What is the impact of employment on these families?

• What welfare reform improvements do these families recommend to help them to become self-sufficient?

METHOD

Respondents were 39 families (24 urban and 15 rural) who received welfare support and had children with disabilities. Participants were recruited through advertisements posted in community sites in Detroit (urban) and the Upper Peninsula (rural) of Michigan. The advertisement invited families to participate in extended interviews within their homes. The research team completed initial screenings of interested families to determine if they met the two criteria of participation (receive welfare support and have a child with a disability). Subsequently, individual interviews were completed in each participant's home. Informed consent was obtained from each participant following the rules and guidelines of the Wayne State University Investigative Review Board. Each participant was paid a stipend upon completion of the interview.

INTERVIEW QUESTONNAIRE

The design of the interview questionnaire followed a three-step process. First, a review of the literature was conducted to identify existing research variables and to identify family disability issues related to self-sufficiency. Second, three focus groups (n = 21) were held with mothers who receive welfare support and have children with disabilities. Eight questions were posed to the focus group participants addressing welfare policy, welfare program changes, and family needs and supports.

Third, an extensive interview questionnaire was developed based on outcomes from steps one and two. The interview consisted of eight sections:

• participant demographics

• child with disabilities

• child care

• welfare benefit status and history

• work history

• self-sufficiency

• future aspirations

• perceptions of the welfare reform program.

The questionnaire contained 49 questions overall, 23 were multiple choice in format and the remaining 26 questions were open-ended. The questionnaire was field tested with three mothers to ensure ease of administration and completeness of design. Approximately two hours were required for the administration of each interview.

RESULTS

All data were analyzed by means of SPSS for the personal computer (PC). Significance tests on relevant variables were tested at the .05 alpha level. Results for the six research questions are presented below.

Family Characteristics

All participants in this study were women, which is consistent with national data that indicate that more than 90 percent of welfare recipients are female. This study group, however, did vary from other national characteristics in that they were older and more ethnically diverse, as presented in Table 1 (National Emergency TANF Data file, 1999).

Table 1

Participant Characteristics by Group

Table 2 presents the participants' family characteristics by group. The families in the urban and rural groups were very similar on all characteristics, except living arrangements. The majority of women rented their homes and a smaller but equal proportion of women owned their own homes. However, urban mothers also lived with their parents as a third option, while no rural mothers identified that arrangement.

Table 2

Family Characteristics by Group

Table 3 presents participant welfare history for each group. These two groups were similar across all dimensions of welfare history except for their reason for using welfare supports. Rural mothers were significantly more likely to use welfare for personal reasons (their own disability, poor health) while urban mothers were more likely to use it because they had a child with a disability (93.3 percent, p <.001).

Table 3

Participant Welfare History by Group

^aOverlapping Categories. ^b p < .001

Table 4 presents the participant use of public benefits and services by group. Less than one third of all mothers used any public services that were nominally available to them. The majority of mothers indicated that they were not aware of the availability of services such as early intervention, visiting nurses, or respite care. Interestingly, 40 percent of the mothers in the rural group used visiting nurse services while only 32 percent of urban mothers did. These statistics are noteworthy in that the urban mothers had significantly more children with health concerns while the rural mothers had children with mild intellectual concerns. Only in the case of special education did mothers indicate that they either were aware of or used the service.

Table 4

Participant Use of Public Benefits and Services by Group

^aData not collected for 14 urban area participants.

These 39 families had a total of 45 children with disabilities. Characteristics of the children for each group are presented in Table 5. Consistent with other child disability data (Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 1998), two thirds of the children were male. As a cohort, these children had a lower rate of intellectual disability, but a higher rate of behavioral concerns than their typical special education counterparts (Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services, 1998). Within the two groups, the children were similar on all demographic characteristics, with the exception of age. The children in the rural group were significantly older than the children in the urban group (M= 10.6, p <.05).

Table 5

Child Characteristics by Group

^ap<.05.  ^bOverlapping Categories.

In order to determine the level of severity by disability for these children, a severity index was calculated by combining the child's age with functioning level on eight developmental tasks (e.g., feeding self, dressing, walking, talking, and toileting).

Table 6 presents the children's type of disability by level of severity. As the Table indicates, the majority of children in the urban families had significant physical and/or mental health disabilities, while the majority of children in the rural families had mild intellectual disabilities. However, those rural children also had significant behavioral concerns as reported by their mothers and verified by school records.

Table 6

Child's Type of Disability by Level of Severity

Systematic Barriers To Self-Sufficiency

Families identified three systemic barriers to their self-sufficiency: poorly trained welfare caseworkers, limited public transportation, and inadequate child care. With regard to welfare caseworkers, families reported that workers do not have an understanding of the complexities involved in raising a child with disabilities. The majority of participants (51.4 percent) felt that caseworkers focused only on the work aspects of welfare reform and were not able to address their unique support needs. Further, they did not seem to recognize that addressing the support needs of families would facilitate those families being able to work. More than 80 percent of mothers indicated that caseworkers did not know about what services and supports were available in the community to assist them in meeting the needs of their child. Finally, they felt that caseworkers were not motivated to obtain information and to share it with them.

When discussing access to transportation, families indicated that service was non-existent (rural areas) or unreliable, inaccessible, and limited in range (urban areas). Accessible buses would allow mothers to take their children to a child care arrangement on their way to work. Buses often do not maintain posted schedules or one of the few handicapped accessible buses for the route is in repair, so mothers can wait for extended periods for a bus, causing them to become penalized at work for tardiness. Further, many mothers chose to work during nonstandard hours, between 11:00 pm and 6:00 am, in order to provide maximize support to their children and therefore to reduce their anxiety about childcare. Mothers reported that they found little available public transportation at those times. Finally, mothers reported that the city buses did not provide services to the suburbs where the majority of jobs were to be found.

Among the three barriers, child care was the most significant obstacle for these families. The majority of families (71.8 percent) indicated that availability, cost, quality of care, and knowledge and skills of the providers were barriers to their being comfortable with seeking employment. Only 23 percent of the mothers stated that they received public child care assistance (7.7 percent received subsidy; 12.8 percent received respite care). In response to care concerns and the lack of public funding, 53.8 percent of these mothers indicated that they relied on relatives and/or neighbors to assist them with their child care needs. Specifically, with regard to accessing public child care, mothers reported that child care services were not available when needed, not in close proximity to either their homes or work sites, and not accessible for children with disabilities.

Due to the unique needs of these children with disabilities and the increased availability of nontraditional jobs, more mothers need child care at non-standard hours. Few mothers (15.4 percent) have found evening or 24-hour child care in their communities. When mothers did find child care arrangements, they also found that often the closest child care program did not have ramp access and the programs were housed in multi-story buildings without elevators. Further compounding the availability issue is the fact that child care options became very limited as the children age, even though their disabilities required on-going care and support. While Michigan does fund public child care for children with disabilities up to age 16 years, few mothers or care providers were aware of that policy.

With regard to cost, mothers reported that they were not able to augment the public child care subsidy, as required by providers, to support the unique needs of their children. In Michigan, the state-allotted subsidy for child care is $2.95 per hour, with no increase for children with disabilities. The state's average hourly rate for specialized child care, however, is $4.80 per hour (Michigan League for Human Services, 1998).

The majority of mothers (53.6 percent) expressed their strongest concern and reservation about the quality of care and the knowledge and skills of care providers. All mothers indicated that training is needed to help child care providers to understand disabilities. Specifically, they indicated that training should address sensitivity, awareness, and how to care for special needs children. Given that the majority of these children had behavioral concerns, these mothers were particularly worried that providers would not know how to address these needs.

Impact Of Employment

While the majority of participants were unemployed (51.3 percent), one third of the participants were employed to some extent. Another 15.4 percent of the women were unemployed due to their own disabilities. Table 7 presents the employment characteristics by employee.

Table 7

Employment Characteristics of Employees

* Note: one of 13 held a job working over 30 hours per week after cash benefits ended.

For the women who were employed, the mean length of employment was 12.8 months (SD = 13.3), the mean hours per week were 25.1 (SD = 12.3), and the mean hourly wage was $6.77 (SD = .98). None of the women received benefits through their employers (e.g., health coverage, vacation, medical leave).

For those women who were not employed, Table 8 presents the characteristics of their unemployment status by geographic group. Most women had not been employed for several years and listed caring for their child with a disability as being the primary reason for unemployment. Between the groups, rural women were more likely to cite personal health as the reason for unemployment, while urban women cited their children with disabilities. Slightly less than one half of the mothers indicated that they were currently seeking employment.

Table 8

Characteristics of Unemployment Status by Group

^aOverlapping categories

Table 9 presents the means and standard deviations for a set of demographic characteristics of employed versus unemployed participants.

Table 9

Characteristics of Employed and Unemployed Participants

^ap < .05.

The two groups only differed significantly on the age of their child(ren) with disabilities. Employed participants had significantly older children (M = 10.9, p <.05).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WELFARE REFORM IMPROVEMENT

In responding to a series of open-ended questions on how the welfare reform system could be improved to assist them in moving toward self-sufficiency, these mothers made the following recommendations:

• Modify work requirements. Under the Michigan TANF program, individualized service plans are developed for welfare recipients. This plan is called the Personal Responsibility Plan and Family Contract (PRPFC). It is designed to specify the TANF recipient's and the agency's responsibilities in moving the welfare participant to self-sufficiency. Mothers of children with disabilities felt that the care of their children should be considered as partial fulfillment of the work requirements in these plans.

• Expand child care subsidies. Mothers felt that that they would be able to work if both the amount and the age range of child care subsidy were expanded. They recommended that the subsidy for children with disabilities reflect market rates and should not be a flat rate based on the care of typical children. Additionally, these mothers required child care beyond age 12 or 16 years of age (as currently allowed for children with disabilities).

• Identify a core of welfare caseworkers as disability specialists. While mothers understood that not all caseworkers could be experts in disability issues and related family needs, they did believe that a core of welfare caseworkers would facilitate their planning and supports. They felt that a specialized caseworker could better assist them with the realistic development of their individualized plans (PRPFC), with the identification of community supports, and could link them with other families of similar circumstances.

• Educate child care workers on disability issues. Mothers were not comfortable with the knowledge and skills of child care workers related to disability care and management. They consistently stated that the perceived care providers' skill deficit was their primary reason for not seeking employment. They further believed that such training should be linked to credentials and increased pay.

DISCUSSION

This study present a descriptive analysis of families who have children with disabilities that receive welfare support, and examines the impact of welfare reform on them. While there are many studies on the effect of welfare reform on recipients and families, few studies have examined this particular segment of the population. As a whole, these families are poor, with a single female head of household, raising an average of three children (at least one of whom has a disability). Furthermore, these families of children with disabilities have few public supports and services.

In this study, the child(ren) with disabilities in the urban families had significant health problems while the rural children had mild intellectual problems confounded by a high rate of behavioral concerns. Most families had been receiving welfare supports for more than seven years. Urban families attributed their need for welfare support to having a child with disabilities, while rural families attributed their need to their own personal disability or employment need. Most families received typical welfare supports such as cash subsidy, food stamps, and Medicaid. Few families received other supports such as emergency shelter, emergency cash assistance, or transportation. In identifying supports for their children with disabilities, only special education was used by the majority of families.

One third of the mothers in this study were employed to some degree. However, their employment tended to be temporary in nature with no benefits and extremely low wages. Interestingly, families with some employment income and families with no employment income essentially had the same level of yearly household income. Both types of families were living below the poverty level for a family of four. Mothers, who were able to leave the home to work, had older children with disabilities. These mothers relied heavily on their informal support system to be able to work, i.e., extended family members, neighbors, and friends.

Families of children with disabilities found few supports for, and little understanding of, their unique needs. They reported limited transportation, poorly trained welfare caseworkers, and inadequate child care as barriers to their attainment of self-sufficiency. Mothers of children with disabilities have found their welfare caseworkers to lack the sensitivity and skills that are needed to assist them in addressing their complex support needs. To remedy this, families recommend the development of a core of caseworkers as disability specialists. However, the welfare system does not appear to be headed in the direction of individualized services for these families. Under the revised welfare reform program, the role of typical caseworkers is to evolve into that of comprehensive case managers.

Previous researchers have indicated that securing child care is a critical task for families making the transition from welfare to work (Danziger, et al., 1998). For parents of children with disabilities, the child care problems are confounded by difficulties in securing appropriate, safe, and affordable child care. These families feel that family members provide the most trusted and qualified child care. Yet, the system does not give adequate support or funding for family members that are providers.

Many adaptations and new programs must be developed to truly enable mothers of children with disabilities to move from welfare to self-sufficiency. Modification of work requirements, expansion of the child care subsidy, and the education of child care providers on disability issues are some of the adaptations identified by families as potential systemic remedies necessary to improve support to families. New programs designed to improve outcomes of self-sufficiency would include improved job training, funding for organizations willing to provide alternative work schedules to employ these family members, and support for entrepreneurial businesses.

The findings of this study are consistent with other welfare research. That research is finding that it is not so much the power of any particular barrier that hinders self-sufficiency, as it is the additive effect of multiple barriers (Danziger, et al, 1998). Future research, examining the impact of these barriers in an individual and additive sense, would contribute to an extensive understanding of welfare reform and could inform policy improvements.

REFERENCES

Danziger, S. Corcoran, M., Danziger, S., Heflin, C., Kalil, A., Levine, J., Rosen, D., Seefeldt, K., Siefert, K., & Tolman, R. (1998). Barriers to the employment of welfare recipients. Ann Arbor: Poverty Research and Training Center, the University of Michigan.

LeRoy, B., Harrison, S., & Johnson, D. 1999. Welfare Reform and Families whose children have disabilities. Wayne State University, Skillman Center for Children.

Michigan Assemblies Project. 1998. Welfare reform: How families are faring in Michigan's local communities. Detroit: Groundwork for a Just World.

Michigan League for Human Services. 1998. Economic self-sufficiency: A Michigan benchmark. Lansing:Author.

National Council on Disability. 1997. National disability policy: A progress report, July 26, 1996 - October 31, 1997. Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Emergency TANF Data file. 1999.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. 1998. National child count data. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services. 1998. Michigan child count data. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education.