Devolution In the Delta:
The Impact of Welfare Reform in Five Arkansas Delta Counties


George F. Lord, PhD, Associate Professor of Sociology

Richard K. Freer, PhD,  Associate Professor of Social Work

David R. Harding, Jr., PhD,  Associate Professor of Political Science

Gretchen J. Hill, PhD,  Assistant Professor of Sociology

With

Georgia D. Summitt,  Research Assistant

Research Report No. 02-0001
Center for Social Research
Arkansas State University

* This project was funded in part by the Children’s Defense Fund and a Faculty Development award from the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at ASU. Faculty members working with the Center for Social Research in the Department of Criminology, Sociology, Social Work and Geography at Arkansas State University, in conjunction with The Center for Regional & Community Development, completed this research. The Center for Regional and Community Development is an outreach service of Arkansas State University, and is funded in part by the U.S. Economic Development Administration’s University Center program. The Center provides technical assistance to communities throughout the Arkansas Delta region. The views expressed are those of the authors only and are not necessarily those of Arkansas State University. Please direct all questions and correspondence to George Lord, Arkansas State University, P. O. Box 2410, State University, AR 72467.

With passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 states received block grant funding to establish Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which replaced the existing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. While welfare roles in Arkansas were reduced by 60% between 1993 and March 1999, suggesting the success of TANF, the true impact of TANF on participants continues to be of concern. As part of the ongoing concern with this throughout the nation, the National Welfare Monitoring and Advocacy Partnership was created and began collecting information designed to monitor and make policy recommendations concerning TANF. This report is a summary of findings conducted by an independent research team affiliated with Arkansas State University utilizing the survey developed by this partnership.

Results reported here come from data gathered through self-administered questionnaires completed by 397 individuals and from focus group meetings with twenty-nine current and former recipients of TANF in five counties (Crittenden, Cross, Lee, Phillips, and St. Francis) located in the Arkansas Delta. The sample includes approximately one-third current recipients and two-thirds former recipients; this is consistent with the current population of interest in Arkansas. The sample has an average age of 30.9 years and is predominantly African American and female. The majority of those in the sample have at least a high school education or GED, though almost one-third have not completed high school. While a number have some college, less than one percent had completed a college degree. The respondents are from households that average 3.8 residents. Due to the sampling technique used the researchers are reluctant to make generalizations beyond this sample, however they believe the information is both valid and reliable.

In the findings, detailed discussion is offered concerning (1) current work status and barriers to work, (2) current benefits other than TANF being received and recent reductions and/or cessation of those benefits, (3) significant life events in the past six months and respondents attribution of the source of these changes, and (4) need for and availability of other services.

Only ten percent of current TANF recipients and forty-seven percent of former recipients, just over one-third of study participants, were employed at the time of the study. While the majority of those employed were working full-time, their wages were low. In fact, wages tended to be low enough to keep the majority of those working below federal poverty guidelines. The evidence from both the survey and focus groups suggests that overwhelmingly these individuals want to work and they are concerned about the well-being of their children and families. The most frequently cited reason for not working was not being able to find a job. The other major reasons given for not working were lack of job market skills, health problems (both physical and mental), transportation problems, and family and child-care needs.

While there is a wide range of other programs available to and used by the individuals in the study, food stamps and Medicaid were the major forms of support beyond TANF. Fewer that one in ten households had a member currently receiving some form of job training. When asked if any of these benefits had been stopped or reduced in the past six months, food stamps and Medicaid were the categories most frequently mentioned in reporting some diminution or cessation. When asked where they had turned for assistance during the past six months, overwhelming help was sought from friends and families rather than other institutional sources.

Study participants were also asked if they or anyone in their household had experienced any one of a number of life changes in the past six months, both positive and negative. Getting a job and feeling better about oneself were reported as occurring fairly frequently. A slightly higher percent reported increased difficulty in paying bills than that their bills were easier to pay. Many experienced difficulty in paying bills of one sort or another. About two-thirds of those who experienced difficulty paying rent or buying food attributed these difficulties to changes in the welfare reform. Examining these changes as either positive or negative, slightly less than half of the subjects experienced at least one of either type of change. Overall, changes both positive and negative were attributed to changes in welfare service slightly less than half of the time.

The most troubling finding of the study was that when asked if they had been offered a number of forms of assistance by their TANF caseworker, respondents report that they had not been given information on a wide range of programs that would have improved their quality of life and assisted them in making the transition from "welfare to work." Over forty percent of those needing help in finding work stated they had been offered none. This was the case for transportation and child-care assistance as well. Further, over ninety percent of those needing assistance with substance abuse and domestic violence were offered none.

Overall results are consistent with similar research conducted in other parts of the country. We can conclude that part of the welfare to work equation is in place; individuals are being moved off welfare. However, the "to work" half of the equation is incomplete. Individuals are not getting the needed assistance in finding work and when they do get a job they continue to be in poverty due the low wages and the part-time nature of what is available. Significant barriers to employment continue to be in place. The barriers of job market preparation persist, as do lack of transportation and child-care. TANF staff members are not dealing appropriately with the severe barriers associated with disabilities, both physical and mental (including substance abuse and domestic violence). While the subjects of this study report numerous positive outcomes associated with the current program, it is clear that as we move forward, TANF will be faced with the most difficult of cases.

Policy recommendations include:

• Job Training and Education. Increase training and education programs for TANF recipients. Provide direct assistance in job search.
• Economic development. Provide economic development assistance such as micro-enterprise development and entrepreneurial training.
• Accountability. Increase oversight to assure TANF staff provide consistent, appropriate, and extensive information and support services to recipients.
• Transportation. Provide a combination of public and private solutions to transportation, a necessity in the Delta region.

Childcare. Provide accessible quality childcare, including 24-hour availability and sick childcare for all activities in which participants are engaged that relate to their plan for moving from

# # #