Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)

Background and Purpose: PRWORA replaced the AFDC program with TANF, which has resulted in dramatic declines in welfare caseloads. The federal government's reduced commitment to low-income households highlights the importance of this study. We identify the types and combinations of public (e.g., TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid) and private assistance (e.g., from social networks and nonprofit/charitable organizations) that low-income households access to meet their basic needs. Very few studies have used national samples to examine how different types of low-income households combine public and private assistance. To address this important area, we examined three research questions: What types of public and private assistance do low-income households (with children and non-elderly and elderly households without children) use and does this vary by household type? What factors are associated with receipt of any public and any private assistance? Do low-income households combine public and private assistance, and do patterns vary by household type?

Method: We used data from the 1996 and 2001 panels of the SIPP, a longitudinal survey on nationally representative samples of non-institutionalized U. S. households. Data for this analysis came from interviews conducted between August and November 1998 and June and September 2003 when the wave 8 welfare reform data were collected. Respondents who were at least 18 years old and whose family income was less than 185% of the federal poverty line were included in the study (N=23,168). Weighted frequency distributions and multivariate logistic regression were used.

Results: A large percent of low-income households rely on public assistance, and receipt of private assistance is uncommon. Approximately 7% of the sample uses both types of assistance, and different household types combine public and private assistance in various ways. Some significant differences in factors that determine receipt of public and private assistance are evident. Our examination of the exclusive use of public, private, and both types of assistance confirms the importance of public assistance for all households, but particularly for households with children (61.6% use public assistance only). Although using only private assistance is more important for non-elderly households without children, exclusively using private assistance is uncommon. A small percent of low-income households access both types of assistance; households with children have the largest percent (9.7%).

Conclusions and Implications: Because different types of households use various types and patterns of assistance, policy makers and practitioners need to consider these different needs, but they must understand the importance of public assistance for all low-income households. Furthermore, the assistance accessed by low-income households is frequently insufficient to protect them from the consequences of their precarious financial situations, suggesting the need for social policies that increase, not decrease, public benefits. Our findings also highlight the importance of increasing access to public and private assistance. Practitioners can educate clients on public programs and engage in outreach work, paying particular attention to the needs of non-citizens and the most economically disadvantaged. Social workers also can assist clients in assessing and accessing social networks and other private assistance.