FindArticles > Journal of Social Issues > Winter, 2000 > Article > Print friendly
An Insider View: Knowledge and Opinions of Welfare From African American Girls in Poverty - Statistical Data Included
Rebekah Levine ColeyRebekah Levine Coley [*]
This article presents African American adolescent girls' views of welfare and welfare reform at the cusp of welfare legislation in 1996. Interview data from a random sample of poor and low-income families indicate that adolescents have a limited knowledge of basic welfare rules. Low-income girls see welfare as an important safety net, yet they also have negative views of welfare recipients and the effects of welfare on recipients. The vast majority express agreement with work requirements, and about half believe that a discontinuation of welfare would change adolescent sexual and childbearing behaviors. These results raise the possibility that adolescents are responding to the rhetoric and "signals" of welfare reform; alternatively, they may simply be expressing typical adolescent egocentrism and optimism.
Two of the central reasons for the 1996 reform of the nation's welfare laws were the linked beliefs that welfare encourages a life of unmarried childbearing and dependency for poor teenage girls, and that public policy should be altered to dissuade adolescent and unwed childbearing and to encourage maternal employment as a means to support poor children in single-parent families. These concerns, and indeed a good portion of the energy behind the recent welfare changes, were predicated on a set of assumptions about poor teenage girls and young women. Namely, such girls, living in welfare-reliant communities, are seen by many as submerged in a "welfare culture," and, as such, savvy about the welfare system, knowledgeable about welfare rules and regulations, and planful and accepting of the role that welfare receipt will play in their own futures. In other words, many believe that poor, especially urban and African American, young women see welfare receipt as their rightful means of having and supporting childr en.
In this article, we use a unique data set of extensive interview information from urban African American adolescent girls to address these common perceptions and to explore the views held by this population concerning welfare and welfare reform. This descriptive portrait will help policymakers and researchers interpret the meaning of welfare reform for the targeted population and understand postreform data addressing changing views and behaviors among this population.
Background Literature
Whereas researchers are aware that scientific evidence of welfare's effects on nonmarital childbearing and youth development is rather weak and often contradictory (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 2000; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Duncan & Hoffman, 1988; Moffitt, 1998), many in political and public arenas believe otherwise. National poll data indicate growing support throughout much of the past 2 decades for claims that welfare negatively affects women and children, encourages dependency, decreases job preparation among poor youth, and encourages adolescent and nonmarital childbearing (see Weaver, Shapiro, & Jacobs, 1995, for a summary of poll data from various sources). Public portrayals of welfare recipients often depict a life of irresponsibility and disorganization (e.g., the series in the Washington Post in September 1994 written by Leon Dash), encouraging public opinions of the negative effects of welfare. Other research claims that racism and classism may play a role in many of these beliefs, based on finding s that discriminatory feelings about African Americans predict Whites' views of welfare (Gilens, 1995) and that Whites with higher incomes hold more negative views of welfare than lower income Whites or than African Americans of any socioeconomic standing (Gilens, 1995; Innis & Sittig, 1996; Rexrout, 1993).
In addition to these opinions on the detrimental effects of welfare, there also appear to be concomitant assumptions concerning how the availability of welfare influences such complex issues as sexual behaviors, childbearing, and marriage decisions. Many appear to believe that poor girls and young women, especially inner-city African Americans, see welfare as an ever-available and obvious source of support for nonmarital childbearing (Mead, 1992). This view holds that African American adolescent girls who are steeped in welfare-reliant communities and families are quite knowledgeable and savvy about welfare rules and regulations, that they know how much monetary support welfare provides and the rules one must follow to receive it and that they hold positive or at least accepting views of welfare receipt as a way to support one's children. Presumably, then, such girls will also hold negative views about tightening eligibility, time limits, and other provisions suggested in the welfare reform debates through t he early 1990s. There is little evidence, however, to support these claims. We know of no research to date that directly assesses the knowledge and views of poor African American adolescent girls, a population at high risk of nonmarital childbearing, low educational and job attainment, and long-term welfare receipt.
Some information is available, however, on the views and knowledge of adult welfare recipients. Recent qualitative work, primarily from focus group interviews, finds that many adult welfare recipients agree with some of the basic provisions of welfare reform, for example, that welfare recipients who are able-bodied should be expected to work, and that welfare should be time limited (Burton et al., 1998). Many also express concerns about these provisions, however, and cite the need for exceptions and for extra supports for mothers making the transition from welfare to work. In addition, many welfare recipients see at least some portions of the welfare reform debate and the new laws as punitive, developed by people in power who view welfare recipients as lazy and irresponsible (Jarrett, 1996). Recipients often dissociate themselves from these perceptions, admitting that abuses of the welfare system occur, but by others, not themselves (Burton et al., 1998). Overall, the picture from this limited body of work o n welfare recipients' views of welfare receipt and reform reflects not only their desire to move themselves out of the welfare system and into the world of employment but also their acknowledged need for extensive support from both formal public and informal familial sources.
Such information on welfare recipients' views and knowledge of welfare reform at the cusp of the new system will aid our ability to interpret data that will soon be available from a number of large, multisite studies of the effects of welfare reform. But information on the knowledge and views of young people are missing. Do adolescents residing in highly welfare-reliant communities see welfare as an available and obvious source of support, or has the public attention to the issues of reform created more skeptical views? Do adolescents understand the basic provisions of welfare rules, the supports that are offered, and the obligations that are demanded of recipients, or are they uninformed? Do they agree with proposed restrictions on welfare and with the hypothesized effects of such new laws?
In this study, we listen to the voices of African American girls from poor urban neighborhoods as they share their views and knowledge of the welfare system and proposed reforms. These girls are at high risk of becoming part of the next generation of welfare recipients. Will their views lead them to pathways different from those of women in their families and communities? Or will added stresses or misplaced adolescent optimism lead to the same poverty and need for public assistance experienced by many of their mothers and neighbors? This information on the attitudes of youth will help us to address these issues now and in the future.
Methods
Overview of the Study
The data used in this research come from the Families in Communities (FIC) study, a survey study of African American families with adolescent daughters in three impoverished neighborhoods in the south side of Chicago conducted during the summer and fall of 1996. The FIC study set out to explore the stresses facing African American families in impoverished neighborhoods and the strengths and strategies that families bring to bear in raising healthy children under these circumstances. A secondary purpose of the FIC study was to explore mothers' and daughters' knowledge and views of the welfare system in the midst of local and national debates concerning major reforms. Targeted families included households with an adolescent girl aged 15--18 and a primary female caregiver.
Welfare policy had been the subject of discussion for years preceding the FIC study. In 1995, Illinois passed legislation for substantial changes to welfare policies through a state waiver. These changes previewed many of the reforms later adopted in the national welfare reform bill, including residence requirements for adolescent mothers, paternity establishment, and family caps. The public debate and rhetoric leading up to the Illinois legislation matched that which was heard in the federal debate that came to a head in 1996: concerns about long-term welfare dependency and the need to instill a work ethic among the poor--again, particularly targeting urban adolescent girls. In August 1996, while the survey was in the field, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. In short, welfare policy had been a headline public policy debate both locally and nationally in the years and months immediately preceding the fielding of the FIC study.
Sampling
The sample was derived through a randomized block quota technique designed to create a sample that is representative of adolescent African American girls living in the targeted impoverished urban neighborhoods. Eighteen census blocks within the study area were randomly selected with probability proportional to the size of the African American female population aged 15--18 (according to 1990 U.S. census figures). Because of concerns about changes in population since the 1990 census, a door-to-door enumeration was completed of households and qualified respondents within these census blocks. Eighty-three percent of the households in the designated census blocks were successfully screened, 0.5% of households refused the screener, and 16% were presumed vacant after at least four unsuccessful attempts to screen, neighbor verification, and census data examination. [1] This screening process produced 491 households (8.4% of the total) with qualified respondents. The sampling plan called for the inclusion of 300 fami lies.
As the sampling plan detailed, interviews were completed with 302 daughter/mother pairs (62% of the qualified families). Either the adolescent or the mother refused to participate in 4% of the households, and the remaining 35% of the identified daughter/mother pairs were not available to participate prior to the completion of fielding. [2]
Data Collection
Interviews were conducted in respondents' households during the summer and fall of 1996 by trained professional interviewers. Data collection consisted of separate face-to-face interviews of approximately 75 min each with daughters and mothers and self-administered mail-back paper-and-pencil questionnaires (SAQs; 95% of the adolescents completed SAQs) for the daughters. Mothers were paid $20 for a completed interview, and adolescents were paid $20 for the interview and $10 for the SAQ.
In the section of the interview on welfare receipt, all respondents, whether on welfare or not, were asked an extensive series of open- and closed-ended questions concerning their exposure to welfare, their knowledge of welfare rules and eligibility guidelines, and their understanding and views of proposed changes to welfare rules. These will be discussed in detail in the Results section. In addition to presenting the views of the sample as a whole, we also consider whether adolescents in welfare households, defined as those in which either the mother or the adolescent (or both) reported receiving welfare at the time of the interview, differ from their peers in nonwelfare households.
Respondents
Girls in the sample averaged 16 years of age, and most (90%) were still in high school, primarily in the 9th through 11th grade. Seven percent had dropped out (25% of whom had received a GED), and 3% had already graduated. Seventeen percent of those in school were not at their expected grade level, although the average reported grades were Bs and Cs. Seventeen percent were employed at the time of the survey in the formal economy (e.g., restaurant work), and an additional 27% held informal (e.g., babysitting, doing hair) positions. Twenty-eight percent of the girls had ever been pregnant, including 5% who were pregnant at the time of the interview and 19% who already had at least one child.
These girls lived in predominantly mother-led poor or low-income households. Ninety-six percent lived with their primary female caregiver, and most of the caregivers (84%) were biological mothers (others were grandmothers, aunts, sisters, or unrelated adults). Sixteen percent of the caregivers were married, and 17% were cohabiting with a partner. They averaged 41 years in age, 65% had a high school degree or GED, and 39% were employed. Most of the families were poor; 61% reported total household incomes below the poverty line (27% reported incomes less than half of the poverty line), and only 8% had incomes greater than twice the poverty line.
The adolescents had extensive exposure to welfare, both within their own families and through broader social networks. At the time of the interview, 50% of the caregivers reported receiving welfare, as did 6% of the adolescents. Because of overlapping receipt in some families, 51% of the girls were classified as living in "welfare households," defined as those in which the mother, daughter, or both received welfare. Eighty-three percent of the caregivers had a history of welfare receipt. Girls also reported extensive welfare exposure through their friends and neighbors: 55% reported that half or more of all the families they knew received welfare, whereas 21% reported that half or more of their friends did so. Only 4% of the adolescents reported no welfare receipt within their immediate social networks.
Census data provide further information on the adolescents' environments. In the neighborhoods under study, 40% of the households received welfare, and less than half of the adults were employed or had a high school degree. Seventy-eight percent of the children resided in female-headed households, and 48% of all people and 64% of all children lived below the poverty line. Thus, these adolescents clearly fit the risk profile of living in disadvantaged neighborhoods and households, with ample models of welfare receipt and single motherhood and fewer models of employment.
Results
Knowledge of Welfare Rules
Given the high levels of family welfare receipt and girls' exposure to welfare from friends and neighbors, one would expect that most of the adolescents in this sample would have a fair amount of knowledge and understanding of welfare and its basic rules and regulations. Our interviewers opened the discussion about welfare by asking the adolescent, "Have you heard of the program called public assistance--some people call it welfare or AFDC?" Virtually every adolescent was able to identify Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC); only one said that she did not know the program. Girls were then asked to explain in their own words, "What is welfare, what does it do?" [3] Table 1 presents the frequencies of response categories for the group as a whole and for girls from welfare and nonwelfare households. [4] Essentially all girls (99%) stated that welfare was a program that helped people. Many noted that welfare was particularly targeted to children, as did a 16-year-old whose family does not receive welf are: "They help people to eat and raise their children." A 16-year-old whose mother receives AFDC for her and her sister said: "Welfare is money that people give us to help us take care of our kids." A second very common theme involved employment, with girls defining welfare as a program for unemployed parents, such as 15-year-olds who stated "When you can't get a job, the government gives you money until you can" and "It helps people a lot. It gives them money when they don't have a job."
A minority of adolescents emphasized the stopgap nature of the program. One 17-year-old explained, "They give you money to help you until you get back on your feet." Finally, a few adolescents emphasized the low level of assistance, as did a 15-year-old whose mother works and does not get welfare: "It's a joke, it helps you with child care, but the money is a joke," a sentiment echoed by a 17-year-old daughter of a welfare recipient, "It's a small amount of money given to people who are unable to work." A small proportion of girls took a more disparaging view of the program and its recipients. A 17-year-old with a job said, "It takes money from people who have jobs and gives it to people who don't," and one 16-year-old saw a direct link between welfare reform and the irresponsible practices of recipients: "They are going to stop [welfare] because young Black teens have all these babies."
Overall, girls from welfare and nonwelfare households were equally aware of welfare as a program, and they used very similar constructs to define welfare. One exception was that girls in nonwelfare households were marginally more likely to mention that welfare was particularly targeted to helping children.
Not surprisingly, given their widespread exposure to welfare receipt, these girls exhibited a broad familiarity with the general purpose of welfare. One might assume that they would also be quite sophisticated about welfare requirements and benefits, understanding what they need to do to get a check and how much money they would receive. We explored adolescents' knowledge of welfare further by asking them about the following six basic program rules and about grant amounts:
To get welfare, or to stay on welfare, is it a rule that a person must:
* Get a job or always be looking for a job?
* Identify the father of her child/children?
* Be single and unmarried?
* Leave welfare after two years, no matter what?
For a teen to receive welfare herself, is it true or false that:
* She must live with her mother/guardian?
* She must stay in school?
How much money per month does welfare pay to:
* A woman with 1 child?
* A woman with 2 children?
These are fairly basic questions about AFDC as it operated in Illinois in 1996, reflecting both federal requirements and state waivers. With few exceptions, Illinois required recipients to develop and implement a plan to secure a job and to cooperate with paternity actions and child support collection. Marital status was not relevant to eligibility, and there was no 2-year time limit on receipt (except for women whose youngest child was age 13 or above). Adolescent mothers were required to live with a parent and to stay in school to receive assistance. Finally, the standard welfare payments were $278 for a woman with one child and $377 for a women with two children; responses to these items were considered correct if they were within a defined $50 range surrounding the actual amount. [5]
Table 2 shows the proportions of adolescents who answered each question correctly. For each of the basic rules, between 50% and 72% of the adolescents answered correctly. [6] Girls' knowledge of the rules pertaining specifically to adolescents, that is, whether teens must attend school and live with a parent, was not greater than their knowledge of the more general welfare regulations pertaining to paternity establishment, marital status, work requirements, and time limits. Girls were much less knowledgeable about the benefit levels, with only 26% to 31% knowing the approximate amount welfare pays to mothers and children. Interestingly, girls who gave incorrect answers to these items generally thought that payment levels were lower than the actual benefits, not higher; on average, girls thought that a mother with one child would receive just under $200 and a mother with two children just over $300. In addition, it is noteworthy that girls from welfare households did not exhibit significantly greater knowledg e than their peers from nonwelfare households.
Given that half or more of the adolescents gave the correct answer for each of the rules, we hypothesized that there might be a group who was very well informed and one that was significantly less knowledgeable. Figure 1 presents summary results for adolescents' knowledge of basic welfare rules, showing the proportion of girls who answered specific numbers of the welfare rules questions correctly. The data indicate that few girls, about 20%, knew little about basic welfare rules, answering two or fewer items correctly; half of the girls had fair knowledge, answering three or four items correctly; and 30% had more extensive knowledge, knowing all or nearly all of the basic rules. On average, girls answered fewer than four of the basic six rules correctly. When we include the two items concerning grant amounts, the pattern of knowledge does not change significantly (data not shown); most girls in this sample appear to have a fair but not an extensive knowledge of the basic rules and grant amounts of welfare.
Causes of Welfare Receipt
The second area of inquiry concerns why people receive welfare: What are the primary causes of welfare receipt among girls' social networks? We assessed girls' views by reading nine statements and asking them to respond "yes" or "no" as to whether each described why some people they know go on welfare. These proposed explanations encompass common structural and behavioral explanations for poverty and welfare receipt, that is, the paucity of available jobs, child care, or skills to secure a living-wage job or the desire to stay home with children or the lack of a work ethic. After responding "yes" or "no" to each of these statements, adolescents were then asked to select the main reason that people they know go on welfare. The nine reasons offered as choices were as follows:
* They don't have the skills or education to get a job.
* They are sick or disabled.
* They lost their job.
* They don't have anyone to watch their children if they work.
* They are too lazy to work.
* They want to stay home and raise their children.
* They get medical insurance on welfare.
* There aren't any good jobs.
* Employers don't give Black people good jobs.
Table 3 presents the proportion of girls agreeing with each proposed reason and indicates that the majority agreed with most of the proposed explanations, including both structural and behavioral reasons for going on welfare. The only explanations that were not endorsed by the majority of adolescents were the lack of good jobs and employer racial discrimination. Several of the explanations showed differing patterns of endorsement from girls from welfare and nonwelfare households. Girls in nonwelfare households were more likely to believe that people go on welfare because of laziness or a need for medical insurance and were less likely to think that a lack of good jobs in the local economy was a primary causal mechanism.
A different pattern emerges when we consider the girls' views of the most important or primary reason that people they know go on welfare. A large minority of girls, 43%, endorsed laziness as the primary cause of welfare receipt. One 15-year-old stated that welfare is "a cheap way of not working; you just sit and collect money and food stamps," and a 17-year-old daughter of a welfare recipient noted, "I never want to be on it. It's for lazy people who don't want to work." Fully half (50%) of the girls from nonwelfare households and 37% from welfare households agreed that this was the primary reason for welfare receipt. The second most common response, endorsed by 15% of the adolescents, was a lack of adequate education or job skills, a response that was more frequent among girls from welfare versus nonwelfare households. For example, one girl defined welfare as "income for people who are out of work or disabled or who can't find a job," and another stated, "they give it to people with kids also they don't ha ve an education to work." None of the other responses received nomination by more than a handful of adolescents as being the primary explanation for welfare receipt.
Effects of Welfare on Recipients and Children
Next, we asked girls about their views concerning the effects of welfare on recipients and children using three questions that tapped into common political rhetoric and beliefs:
* Do you think that having welfare available makes people lazy and not want to work?
* Do you think that welfare should force people to find a job after a certain amount of time?
* Do you think welfare makes children learn that they won't have to work when they grow up?
Consistent with the prevalent view that personal deficiencies are a primary cause of welfare receipt, adolescents also appear to believe that welfare discourages personal productivity, decreasing employment and increasing laziness among recipients. As seen in Table 4, 77% of the adolescents agreed that welfare leads to laziness, slightly more from nonwelfare versus welfare households. An even greater proportion, 86%, endorsed work requirements for welfare recipients. Interestingly, however, far fewer adolescents extended these negative behavioral effects to their own generation: Only 38% agreed that welfare inculcates a poor work ethic in children.
Knowledge of Welfare Reform Changes
As a final area of inquiry, we discussed welfare reform proposals with the adolescents. We first asked the teens what they knew about proposed welfare reforms being discussed at both the state and national levels: whether they had heard of proposed changes and what these changes were. At this point in the political process, debate was centered on the final bill, which was signed in the summer of 1996 by President Clinton. The main aspects of this bill include a discontinuation of the entitlement to welfare, a 5-year lifetime limit, work requirements after 2 years, residency and school requirements for adolescent mothers, and restrictions on immigrant eligibility. Results of adolescents' knowledge of the proposed reforms are presented in Table 5.
The majority (75%) of adolescent respondents had heard about proposed changes to welfare rules, with a somewhat higher level of awareness among girls in welfare households. The accuracy of their knowledge of proposed reforms, however, varied widely. One third of the teens thought that welfare was ending completely. A 17-year-old whose mother receives welfare said, "Next year there will be no welfare." A 15-year-old daughter of a recipient reported, "After October no more people will get welfare. It will be cut off." These views may reflect a misunderstanding of President Clinton's promise to "end welfare as we know it" or the 1995 Illinois law that stated a deadline to phase out (but replace) AFDC in Illinois. A few adolescents wrongly stated, as did a 15-year-old, that "they are going to stop giving it to teenagers." A small minority of respondents, about 15%, mentioned family caps ("If you have another baby you won't get any more money"), time limits ("They are shortening the length of time a person can rec eive welfare"), or work requirements ("They're cutting young girls and older people off if they don't get a job"). Almost none of the respondents mentioned teen residence requirements or paternity establishment, perhaps because these provisions were already in place in Illinois at the time of the survey (although only half of the girls knew these rules; see Table 1). Overall, although most of the girls had heard that significant changes in welfare policy were on the horizon, they often displayed grossly incorrect knowledge of the specifics.
Views on Welfare Reform Effects
Finally, we asked adolescents whether they thought elimination of welfare eligibility for adolescent mothers would alter adolescent sexual and childbearing behaviors (see Table 6). Overall, half of the girls thought that welfare's discontinuation would produce significant change. When asked whether they themselves would change their sexual behaviors if welfare were ended for teenagers, 47% of the girls concurred, with the vast majority of this subgroup stating that they would be "more careful" about sexual intercourse and the use of contraception. Only 5% stated that they would stop having sexual intercourse. The other 53% of girls said they would not change their behaviors, with nearly 40% offering their abstinence as an explanation, and 14% stating that a lack of welfare availability simply would not change their sexual practices. A significantly greater proportion of girls in welfare versus nonwelfare households stated that they would change their behavior. As more of these girls are sexually active and t hus at risk for childbearing, they may be more likely to see a greater need to reevaluate their vulnerability to pregnancy in the face of welfare discontinuation.
Similarly, half of the girls believed that ending welfare eligibility for adolescents would alter childbearing or sexual practices for adolescents in general. Explanations for these beliefs were diverse. Nearly one quarter (23%) of the adolescents argued that welfare income was a significant incentive for childbearing, such as the view of an 18-year-old, "All they want is the check. If no money, no babies," or a similar statement by a 17-year-old, "A lot of them have babies just to get the free money." Another quarter (23%) argued that a lack of financial resources for child rearing would lead to a decrease in births, such as the explanation from a 17-year-old mother, "There would be no money to take care of the children."
In contrast, the other half of the adolescents did not connect welfare and adolescent childbearing, providing a variety of explanations, like a 15-year-old who stated: "Welfare is not birth control. That does not stop people from having babies." A 16-year-old asserted, "Welfare has nothing to do with it. It's about sex and boys." Others offered their views on alternate means of support, as did a 15-year-old mother who suggested that "they would just work" and a 17-year-old who is currently pregnant, and whose mother receives welfare, who stated, "They would still have [babies] if they have to beg [to get money]." Another 17-year-old, a teen mother from a welfare family, commented: "Welfare was not helping anyway." None of these explanations differed in prevalence between girls from welfare and nonwelfare households.
Discussion
A number of strong themes emerged in the views and opinions of urban adolescents who have been widely exposed to welfare receipt within both their families and their social networks: These girls demonstrated only moderate knowledge of welfare rules and reforms, placed a strong value on work to support one's family, and portrayed a disdain for the reasons people receive welfare. Opinions of adolescents who reside in welfare families were not markedly different from those of their nonwelfare peers, perhaps because of the widespread exposure to welfare shared by nearly all the adolescents in this sample.
In sum, many of the views of these girls run contrary, in almost all respects, to what one would expect given the rhetoric and assumptions of the welfare reform debates. Contrary to expectations of poor girls' expertise in the rules and regulations of welfare, most of these girls had only a fair knowledge of the basic requirements and grant amounts of welfare in their state. They also lacked information on proposed reforms of welfare policy, and some of their assumptions were blatantly misguided. It is possible that the knowledge of these girls is more extensive than that of a population with much less direct exposure to welfare, such as youth from middle-class and wealthy communities. No data exist at this time, however, that would allow one to compare knowledge and views between these two groups.
More significant, perhaps, was the negative, even harsh view that many girls had concerning the reasons for welfare receipt. When given rein to define welfare, most girls offered a neutral or positive description, often mentioning that welfare was a safety net for children and unemployed mothers. When asked to explain the causal factors that led individuals to access welfare, however, girls' views were much more negative. Although most adolescents acknowledged that structural factors, such as a weak job market or lack of child care services, or personal characteristics, such as a disability or low educational preparation, were important causes of welfare receipt, nearly half of the girls saw personal laziness as the primary cause. Moreover, most believed that welfare receipt encouraged irresponsibility in parents and that policymakers should require welfare recipients to work.
In contrast to their views of adult behavior, adolescents' opinions on welfare's effects on children and youth were less severe. Only a minority believed that welfare instills a weak work ethic in children. They appeared to see a stronger link, however, between welfare availability and adolescent sexual behaviors. Half of the girls believed that drastic limitations to welfare availability would significantly alter their own or other adolescents' sexual and childbearing behaviors, discouraging adolescent births or encouraging the use of contraception or "more careful" sexual behavior.
At first glance these views might seem contradictory: Welfare is an important safety net but is due to and encourages irresponsibility in parents while having fewer effects on children; thus work requirements and other restrictions are reasonable. Yet these views can actually be seen as quite similar to popular political beliefs. Although many legislators state a continued need for a short-term safety net, they also agree that for the most part welfare should be a stepping stone to employment and self-sufficiency, which should be encouraged through work requirements and related policies.
Summary and Implications
One of the main goals of welfare reform policies is not simply to change the behaviors of current recipients, but rather to dissuade coming generations from initiating a life of long-term welfare receipt. By changing the focus away from welfare as a way of life and toward its role as a stepping stone on the path to employment and "responsibility," many hope that these "signals" will divert young people from entering the welfare system in the first place. In fact, some believe that these signaling effects--the psychological effects of new rules on discouraging entry into welfare by new cohorts of young women--will have the most important long-term impacts of welfare reform, rather than the actual time limits and work requirements (Nathan & Gais, 1998). In some respects, the results presented here might offer encouragement to those who hope that poor urban girls, a primary population at high risk of long-term welfare dependency, will receive and incorporate the "signals" of welfare reform. One could argue that these adolescents are professing the very views that reformers would wish them to hold. Although they see welfare as having a place in society as a safety net for women and children, they also express disdain for many welfare recipients and support for work requirements, and half believe that the discontinuation of welfare might change adolescent sexual and childbearing behaviors.
Comparing these findings to accounts of adult welfare recipients shows us that these youth hold more negative views of welfare recipients and possibly more optimistic views of reforms than comparable samples of adults (e.g., see Burton et al., 1998; Jarrett, 1996). These adolescent views may reflect acceptance of the consistent public criticism of welfare that characterized the welfare reform debate, or they may simply indicate typical adolescent egocentrism or optimism. They might reflect girls' desires to achieve and gain social and financial independence, or rather may imply a lack of understanding of the challenges faced by many single mothers in their disadvantaged neighborhoods. We will need more extensive and longitudinal data in order to determine whether such views will play out in increased self-sufficiency in adulthood for these impoverished urban girls.
REBEKAH LEVINE COLEY is an Assistant Professor of Developmental and Educational Psychology at Boston College's School of Education and a Research Associate of the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research. A developmental psychologist, Coley specializes in urban families, father-child relationships, child care, and welfare and poverty. She is currently involved in research addressing the role of fathers and father figures in urban families and in studying the influence of federal welfare changes on the development of children and adolescents in the longitudinal project "Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three City Study."
ANN M. KUTA has research interests that focus broadly on the effects of community and family resources on family functioning and adolescent development. She has studied at the doctoral level at the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago.
P. LINDSAY CHASE-LANSDALE is a Professor in the School of Education and Social Policy and a faculty fellow in the Institute for Policy at Northwestern University. She is also a Faculty Associate of the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research. A developmental psychologist, she conducts research on social issues and how they affect family functioning and the development of children, including such topics as poverty, welfare reform, family structure, adolescent parenthood, and employment of mothers. Chase-Lansdale is Co--Principal Investigator of a large research project entitled "Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City Study." This project examines the impact of welfare reform on 2,400 families with children in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio over 4 years and involves an embedded developmental study focusing on how young children are affected by changes in welfare policies. Chase-Lansdale serves on the board of directors of the Foundation for Child Development and Jobs for Youth and is a member of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Network on the Family and the Economy.
(*.) The research discussed in this article was funded through generous support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, and the Harrison Steans Foundation. An earlier version of this article was presented at a symposium at the 1998 biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Adolescence, San Diego, CA. The authors thank the families involved in the FIG study for their time and insights. Helpful comments were provided by William Julius Wilson.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rebekah Levine Coley, Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, School of Education, Boston College, Campion Hall, 140 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 [e-mail: coleyre@bc.edu].
(1.) Although it is very difficult to soundly verify household vacancy, we used numerous methods to access all occupied dwelling units. At least four personal attempts were made at different times of day, in addition to neighbor contacts. Census data reveal a strong correlation between census rates of unoccupied dwelling units and the proportion of households unscreened by census block, thus supporting our presumption of vacancy for these households.
(2.) These included cases in which the household was approached but no one was at home, the teen or caregiver was not at home or not available, or an appointment was made but then broken and not rescheduled prior to the completion of the fielding.
(3.) Responses to all open-ended questions were coded into categories by a team of two coders who had first been trained to 90% reliability using pilot data. Each of the coders independently coded each response; they then compared codes and discussed and came to consensus on any disagreements. Interrater reliability for all of the open-ended items reported here averaged 95%.
(4.) In four cases, welfare receipt status could not be determined because of missing data.
(5.) So, for example, the correct welfare grant amount for a woman with one child was $278; any adolescent who answered between $251 and $300 was considered correct. Similarly, a range of $351 to $400 was considered correct for a woman with two children.
(6.) Given that these were yes/no questions, one would expect 50% of the girls to answer correctly simply by chance. Thus, only when more than 56% of the sample answered the question correctly did this represent a greater proportion than one would expect by chance.
References
Burton, L., Cherlin, A. J., Francis, J., Jarrett, R., Quane, J., Williams, C., & Cook, N. M. S.(1998). What welfare recipients and the fathers of their children are saying about welfare reform. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Coley, R. L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2000). Welfare receipt, financial strain, and African American adolescent functioning. Social Service Review, 74(3), 380-404.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Guno, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage.
Duncan, G. J., & Hoffman, S. D. (1988). The use and effects of welfare: A survey of recent evidence. Social Service Review, 62 (June), 238-257.
Gilens, M. (1995), Racial attitudes and opposition to welfare. Journal of Politics, 57, 994-1014.
Innis, L., & Sittig, J. (1996), Race, class, and support for the welfare state. Sociological Inquiiy, 66, 175-196.
Jarrett, R. L. (1996). Welfare stigma among low-income, African American single mothers. Family Relations, 45, 368-371.
Mead, L. (1992). The new politics of poverty: The non-working poor in America. New York: Basic.
Moffitt, R. A. (1998). The effect of welfare on marriage and fertility. In R. A. Moffitt (Ed.), Welfare, the family, and reproductive behavior: Research perspectives (pp. 50-97). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nathan, R. P., & Gais, T. L. (1998). Overview report: Implementation of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996. New York: Rockefeller Institute of Government.
Rexrout, C. (1993). Race, work and welfare: Attitudes toward the required employment of young mothers who use welfare. Population Research and Policy Review, 12, 123-138.
Weaver, R. K., Shapiro, R. Y., & Jacobs, L. R. (1995). The polls-Trends: Welfare. Public Opinions Quarterly, 59, 606-627.
Adolescents' Open-Ended Definitions on Welfare
Nonwelfare
Entire sample households
"What is welfare, what does it do?" N = 302 n = 143
Helps people 98 99
Helps the unemployed 45 44
Helps children 40 46 [+]
Helps families 20 20
Link to other government programs 11 11
Short-term 11 12
For families without a 1 1
father/husband
Derogatory comment about welfare 4 6
Provides inadequate help 3 2
Welfare households
"What is welfare, what does it do?" n = 155
Helps people 98
Helps the unemployed 46
Helps children 36
Helps families 20
Link to other government programs 12
Short-term 11
For families without a 1
father/husband
Derogatory comment about welfare 3
Provides inadequate help 3
Note. Numbers are percentages. Open-ended responses were coded categorically into nine nonexclusive categories; thus, each response could be coded as more than one category.
(+.)p [less than].10 difference between girls in welfare versus nonwelfare households.
Percentage of Adolescents Who Correctly
Answered Questions Concerning Basic Welfare
Rules and Grant Amounts
Nonwelfare
Entire sample households Welfare households
N = 302 n = 143 n = 155
Get a job 53 57 50
Identify father 50 52 48
Be single 72 76 69
2-year time limit 70 70 70
Teens live with mother 56 55 55
Teens stay in school 70 66 74
Grant amount for 1 child 31 28 35
Grant amount for 2 children 26 24 27
Number correct out of 6 rules 3.71 3.77 3.66
Number correct Out of rules
and amounts 4.52 4.57 4.49
Note. Numbers in all but the last two rows are the percentage answering that item correctly. The first six items were in a yes/no format, thus 50% correct is expected by chanee, and greater than 56% correct is statistically different from chance. Grant amount items were open-ended and were coded as correct if they were within a specified $50 range of the actual amount. The last two rows contain the average number of items correct out of the six basic rules and the eight basic rule/grant questions, respectively.
Adolescents' Opinions on Why
People They Know Go on Welfare
Proportion of teens
agreeing with reason
(%) yes)
"Do some people you Entire Nonwelfare Welfare
know go on welfare sample households households
because..." N = 302 n = 143 n = 155
No skills or education 70 69 71
Sick or disabled 63 66 61
Lost their job 70 71 68
No child care 59 59 59
Too lazy 73 80 [*] 68
Want to stay home 65 63 68
Need medical 52 59 [*] 45
insurance
No good jobs 40 34 [*] 45
Discrimination 20 21 20
against Blacks
Proportion of teens
naming item as
most important reason
(% main reason)
"Do some people you Entire Nonwelfare Welfare
know go on welfare sample households households
because..." n = 302 n = 143 n = 155
No skills or education 21 15 [*] 25
Sick or disabled 3 3 3
Lost their job 8 7 9
No child care 7 8 7
Too lazy 43 50 [*] 37
Want to stay home 8 8 9
Need medical 2 4 [+] 1
insurance
No good jobs 6 6 7
Discrimination 1 0 [+] 2
against Blacks
Note. Numbers in columns 1--3 represent the percentage of adolescents who agreed that each item represents a reason some people they know go on welfare. Numbers in columns 4--6 represent the percentage of adolescents who stated that each item was the main reason people they know go on welfare.
(*.)p [less than].05
(+.)p [less than].10 difference between girls in welfare versus nonwelfare households.
Adolescent Agreement With Proposed Effects of Welfare
on Recipients and Children
Nonwelfare Welfare
Entire sample households households
"Do you think that welfare..." N = 302 n = 143 n = 155
Makes people lazy 77 82 [+] 74
Should require work 86 88 85
Instills weak work ethic in children 38 43 35
Note. Numbers are the percentage of adolescents who agreed with
each item (percentage answering yes).
(+.)p [less than] .10 difference between girls in welfare versus
nonwelfare households.
Adolescents' Knowledge of Pending
Welfare Changes
"Have you heard anything about these Nonwelfare Welfare
changes [to welfare rules]? What are Entire sample households households
these changes you've heard of?" N = 302 n = 143 n = 155
Heard about proposed changes (% yes) 75 71 [+] 80
Ending welfare 32 29 35
Decreasing payments 1 3 [*] 0
Time limits 15 14 15
Work requirements 14 14 14
Family cap 16 13 19
Teenagers ineligible 4 5 4
Teen residence requirements 0 0 1
Father identification requirements 1 0 1
Ending of cuts in other programs 10 11 9
Changing other programs 6 5 7
Other limits 3 2 3
Note. Numbers in the first row represent the percentage of adolescents who had heard about pending welfare changes. Open-ended responses to what the changes entailed were coded into 11 nonexclusive categories; the final 11 rows include the percentage of adolescents who mentioned each category.
(*.)p [less than] .05
(+.)p [less than] .10 difference between girls in welfare versus nonwelfare households.
Adolescents' Views on Whether
Discontinuing Welfare for Adolescent
Mothers Would Change Their Own and Other
Teens' Sexual and Childbearing Behaviors
Nonwelfare Welfare
Entire sample households households
N = 302 n = 143 n = 155
If welfare ended, would change sexual 47 41 [*] 52
behaviors (% yes)
Yes: would not have sex 5 4 6
Yes: would use contraception 19 15 [+] 23
Yes: would be more careful 22 20 23
Yes: would get an abortion 1 1 0
Yes: other 1 0 1
No: don't have sex 39 44 35
No: wouldn't care 14 15 13
If welfare ended, would decrease teen 50 52 49
births (% yes)
Yes: no way to support baby 23 22 23
Yes: would no longer get money 23 25 21
Yes: other 5 4 5
No: would still have sex 12 13 12
No: would still want baby 5 6 5
No: welfare is not cause of having baby 12 12 12
No: will get other financial support 6 5 7
No: immaturity/irresponsibility is cause 3 3 3
No: other 12 11 14
Note. Open-ended explanations for why respondents and other teens would or would not change their sexual and childbearing behaviors in the face of a discontinuation of welfare, coded into exclusive categories. Numbers represent the proportion of adolescents mentioning each explanation.
(*.)p [less than] .05
(+.)p [less than] .10 difference between girls in welfare versus nonwelfare households.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group