Economic Hardship On American Indian Reservations: Did Time Limit Affect Economic Hardship?

Purpose: The 1996 welfare reform legislation resulted in greater economic hardship experience among families exiting welfare following the five-year time limit. Welfare reform may have cause greater suffering among welfare recipients on tribal reservations than other welfare recipients, but few studies have examined predictors of hardship among reservation-based families (Pandey et al., 2003; 2002). This study used data from perhaps the only longitudinal survey launched to monitor the effect of welfare reform on reservation-based families following passage of welfare reform. Because traditional income-poverty measures do not capture all individuals at risk of material hardship (Mayer & Jencks, 1989), this study used hardship measures to identify families suffering most from welfare reform.

Method: Using a longitudinal survey of families from three reservations—Navajo (n = 72), San Carlos (n= 164), and Salt River (n = 209)—in Arizona, this study used logistic regression to examine the hardship that families experienced following welfare reform legislation. Tribal councils of these reservations granted permission to implement the study, which continued from 1998 to 2002. Family hardship experience was measured through 11 questions, nine of which measured housing conditions, one that measured inability to purchase needed food during the previous three months, and one that asked if gas or electricity was turned off at any time in the last three months due to inability to pay the bill. Answers to these questions were recoded to form a binomial hardship variable (0=no material hardship, 1= at least one material hardship). Time limit for welfare assistance was measured through a dummy coded time-limit variable (1=Salt River, 0=Navajo or San Carlos), as Salt River reservation had to abide by time limits immediately whereas Navajo and San Carlos were exempted from it due to their high unemployment rate. The effects of time limit were examined after controlling for individual, family, human capital, assets, and welfare receipt status on hardship.

Results: Results indicate that odds of experiencing hardship after four years increased among divorced, widowed or separated women compared to never married women (OR=2.99, 95%CI=1.59-5.60, p<.001). Respondents who received welfare at Wave 1 were less likely to experience hardship at Wave 4 than women who were not receiving welfare at Wave 1 (OR=.43, 95%CI=.22-.85, p<.05). Women with high school and beyond were less likely to experience hardship at Wave 4 than women without a high school degree (OR=.30, 95%CI=.09-.94, p<.05). Also, five-year life time limit increased economic hardship (OR=2.71, 95%CI=1.21-6.03, p<.01). The probability of experiencing hardship for women residing on reservations with five-year life time limit was 2.71 times higher than for women residing on reservations where five-year life time limit was waived.

Implications: The five-year lifetime limit contributed to hardship among reservation-based families even after controlling for baseline characteristics, suggesting that welfare exit increased hardship among tribal welfare recipients. Investing more in their post-high school education and developing policies that are sensitive to the needs of divorced, widowed and separated respondents may reduce material hardship among these families.