| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correspondence: Address correspondence to Yunju Nam, PhD, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, #1196, Saint Louis, MO 63130. E-mail: ynam{at}wustl.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Key Words: PRWORA • Eligibility restrictions • Household composition • Citizenship status • Federal and state policy
Considering this high welfare program participation rate, strict eligibility restrictions toward noncitizens imposed by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) may have had adverse effects on older immigrants. When passed in 1996, PRWORA terminated noncitizens' eligibility for the federal Food Stamp Program (FSP) and Supplemental Security Income, prohibited states from providing federally funded Medicaid and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families to noncitizens who immigrated after welfare reform (postenactment immigrants) for their first 5 years in the United States, and granted states the right to determine Medicaid and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families eligibility for immigrants who had immigrated before welfare reform (pre-enactment immigrants). Eligibility after PRWORA is thus determined by citizenship status and date of entry into the United States (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2003; Zimmermann & Tumlin, 1999).
Recognizing the harsh conditions imposed by PRWORA, some states provided state-funded FSPs and other public benefits to ineligible noncitizens. Congress also relaxed federal eligibility rules through subsequent legislations. First, it restored federal FSP eligibility for older (aged 65 years or older at the time of welfare reform), minor (younger than age 18), and disabled immigrants in 1998. Then it reestablished working-age noncitizens' eligibility in 2002 if they had lived in the United States for more than 5 years. However, citizenship status, date of entry, and state of residence remain issues for noncitizens regarding FSP benefits because most postenactment immigrants remained ineligible under the federal rules during the 5-year ban (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2003; Zimmermann & Tumlin, 1999).
Existing studies have shown that public assistance program participation rates have decreased more rapidly among immigrants, even those who have remained eligible, after welfare reform than have those of U.S. natives (Borjas, 2004; Fix & Passel, 1999). However, how much of the decline is attributable to the chilling effects of PRWORA (e.g., immigrants' fear of being accused of being a public charge; Fix & Passel, 1999), improved macroeconomic conditions (Haider, Schoeni, Bao, & Danielson, 2004), or increased naturalization rates (Van Hook, 2003) is unclear.
Despite a sharp decline in welfare program participation, only a limited number of studies have examined the effects of welfare reform on immigrants' lack of well-being, specifically food insecurity. In fact, only two studies have focused on food insecurity among immigrants (Borjas, 2004; Van Hook & Balistreri, 2006). Borjas (2004) showed that generous state welfare eligibility rules significantly reduced noncitizens' risk of food insecurity. Van Hook and Balistreri (2006) reported a higher level of food insecurity among children of noncitizens than among children of naturalized citizens, after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics.
Invaluable as they are, studies in the literature have limitations. First, except for a small number of descriptive analyses (Fix & Passel, 1999; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999), no study has conducted separate analyses on older immigrants. Findings from previous studies therefore may not reflect the unique position of older immigrants in the welfare system and labor market. On one hand, older immigrants may have had a more difficult time responding to eligibility changes than their younger counterparts (e.g., because of increased challenges in learning English, unfamiliarity with American culture; Treas & Mazumdar, 2002). On the other hand, at times, the welfare system has treated older immigrants more favorably than their working-age counterparts. For instance, Congress restored pre-enactment older noncitizens' federal FSP eligibility sooner than it did their younger counterparts'. Some states have provided welfare benefits and naturalization process assistance only for older noncitizens (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2003; Zimmermann & Tumlin, 1999).
Second, previous studies have paid little attention to household composition in studying the effects of welfare reform on immigrants. Most studies relied solely on the immigration status of heads of households (Borjas, 2004; Haider et al., 2004), even though many households are composed of individuals with different citizenship statuses (Fix & Zimmermann, 2001). Furthermore, a household is a critical institution for survival among immigrants; resources are collected and consumed communally, and adapting to structural changes created by the host society is eased (Kibria, 1993). Reflecting this reality, older immigrants are more likely than their native counterparts to live in extended families and in larger households (Glick & Van Hook, 2002). In addition, living arrangement is correlated with older immigrants' eligibility and participation in welfare programs (Van Hook, 2000). Accordingly, household composition is a critical factor in analyzing welfare program participation among older immigrants.
To fill in gaps in previous studies and facilitate future policy debates, we examined FSP participation and food insecurity among older immigrants after welfare reform, paying special attention to the interaction between eligibility rules and household composition. Due to the fact that older pre-enactment immigrants became eligible for FSP in 1998 under the federal rules, they have equal access to FSP regardless of their state of residence. Thus, we did not expect that state generosity, or a lack thereof, toward working-age noncitizens would affect an older immigrant if the individual's eligibility was the only marker of food-related outcomes. If that were not the case, and if eligibility of other household members also played a role, state eligibility rules would likely affect older immigrants' FSP participation and food insecurity. To investigate the relations among immigration status, household composition, and FSP-related outcomes among older noncitizens after welfare reform, we attempted to answer the following questions with three different measures of immigration status: Do state FSP eligibility rules affect FSP participation and food insecurity of older people on the basis of (a) their individual immigration status or (b) their household immigration status? and (c) Does the percentage of FSP-eligible people in a household explain older people's FSP participation and food insecurity?
We focused on FSP because, as previously mentioned, the change in federal eligibility rules treats noncitizens of different ages unequally. Accordingly, FSP is an ideal program to study to determine whether household composition is one of the mediating factors through which eligibility rules influence the target population.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The CPS has advantages over other national data sets. It has a better measure of immigration status than the Health and Retirement Study, which does not include information on citizenship status. Furthermore, the CPS has a much larger sample than the Survey of Income and Program Participation. We chose the 1999 CPS data over the data reported in other years because of the time period covered (March 1998 to April 1999), when federal FSP eligibility rules began to discriminate working-age noncitizens from older noncitizens.
We used state-level data based on two sources: (a) Zimmermann and Tumlin (1999) for policy variables related to state-funded food assistance programs for noncitizens and (b) the Bureau of Labor Statistics for state unemployment rates. We merged these state-level data into individual data, extracted from the CPS.
The sample used for this study consisted of older adults (aged 65 or older) included in both the ASEC and the FS supplements. Following previous studies on food insecurity (Gundersen & Oliveira, 2001), we included only those living in low-income households (income-to-needs ratio less than 2) and those without missing values for the food security variable in the sample. We excluded eight cases of postenactment immigrants from the sample because they remained ineligible for FSP under the federal rules. We also excluded 32 American Indians because their position in the welfare system was different from that of other populations, especially if they lived on reservations (Stromwall, Brzuzy, Sharp, & Andersen, 1998). The final sample consisted of 3,175 older adults (2,886 natives, 186 naturalized citizens, and 103 noncitizens).
To check the robustness of our findings, we ran separate analyses with a sample after excluding 13 cases of likely refugees (those from refugee-sending countries as defined in Passel & Clark, 1998). Analyses based on this sample produced results similar to those reported in this study.
Variables and Measures
We used three dependent variables: (a) FSP participation, (b) per capita food stamp benefit amount, and (c) food insecurity indicator. We created the last variable, food insecurity indicator, based on the Food Security Scale Summary Status developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Bickel, Nord, Price, Hamilton, & Cook, 2000), whose validity was confirmed for both the general population (Ohls, Radbill, & Schirm, 2001) and the older population (Nord, 2003). (See Table 1 for a more detailed description of the variables.)
|
Analysis
We ran three types of analyses. The first two sets of analyses used the first measure of FSP eligibility policy (state generosity toward noncitizens), and the third set of analyses used the second measure (the percentage of eligible household members). The first two sets of analyses took a differences-in-differences approach, as have many existing studies that have evaluated policy effects (Borjas, 2004). Differences-in-differences analyses compare outcome measures between the target and nontarget populations. We took this approach because unobserved factors may correlate with both states' generosity toward noncitizens and outcome measures. For example, if states with generous FSP eligibility rules happen to have simpler FSP application and recertification procedures in general, analyses comparing the target population's outcomes between generous and nongenerous states would overestimate the effect of states' eligibility rules. A differences-in-differences approach would produce more accurate estimations in the presence of these types of unobserved variables.
A model specification of the differences-in-differences analyses was as follows:
|
|
i is random error. The parameters of interest were the elements in the vector β3, coefficients of the interaction term between immigration status and state FSP eligibility rules. These coefficients estimated whether and how the FSP participation and food insecurity of older adults with different immigration statuses reacted differently to state eligibility rules.
To test whether an older individual's eligibility was the only marker of food-related outcomes or whether other household members' eligibility also played a role, we ran two sets of analyses with two different measures of immigration status. We based the first measure on an individual's immigration status. We categorized older adults into three groups: naturalized citizen, noncitizen, and native citizen (reference group). We created the second measure at the household level while taking into account every household member's immigration status. This measure had three categories: all-noncitizen household, consisting solely of noncitizens; mixed household, consisting of both citizens and noncitizens; and all-citizen household (reference group).
Because older pre-enactment immigrants became eligible for FSP under the federal rules regardless of their citizenship status in 1998, we expected the coefficients of the interaction term between individual immigration status and state generosity (β3) to be insignificant if only older individuals' eligibility mattered. The coefficients of the same variable (β3) should, however, have been statistically significant if working-age noncitizens' eligibility affected older noncitizens' (or naturalized citizens') FSP participation and food insecurity. Using the second measure of immigration status at the household level was another way to examine whether older noncitizens' FSP participation and food insecurity were affected by household composition. If the state's eligibility rules distinctly influenced older people living in different types of households, the coefficients of the interaction term between household immigration status and state generosity (β3) should have been statistically significant.
The last set of analyses used the second FSP eligibility measure, the percentage of household members eligible for FSP. As described, this measure considered both household composition and state and federal eligibility rules. Model specification of this type of analysis was as follows:
|
|
i is random error. In this type of analysis, we expected the coefficient of the percentage of eligible household members (β1) to be significantly positive for food stamp receipt and food stamp amount and to have a significantly negative coefficient in the food insecurity analysis if household eligibility affected older adults' FSP participation. We controlled for individual immigration status in case unobservable differences among native citizens, naturalized citizens, and noncitizens existed. The model without an individual immigration status dummy variable produced the same results as those reported in this study.
We used probit regressions for the two dichotomous dependent variables (food stamp receipt and food insecurity) and tobit regressions in analyzing food stamp amount because a substantial proportion of the sample reported a zero value for this variable. Considering that some sample households had multiple observations when they included more than one older person, we estimated our models with robust standard errors (Greene, 2003).
As shown in Equations 1 and 2, each model incorporated demographic and household characteristics, immigration-related variables, and state unemployment rates as control variables. Table 1 briefly describes these control variables. To check the robustness of the analysis model, we ran several models with additional control variables: (a) a model including a household income variable in addition to the control variables in the original model, (b) a model with additional state-level variables (the percentage of foreign-born people in the state of residence in 1990, changes in the percentage of foreign-born people in the state between 1990 and 2000, and state supports to noncitizens' naturalization process), (c) a model including the interaction between state unemployment rate and immigration status, and (d) a model with state dummy variables. We also ran analyses on a sample that excluded California residents, in order to check whether special conditions in California explained rapid declines in welfare program participation among noncitizens, as Borjas (2001) argued. The results from these analyses did not differ substantially from those reported in this study. As the U.S. Census Bureau (2001, 2006) instructed, we weighted our data with the adjusted individual weight variable included in FS supplemental data. The Census Bureau developed this weight variable to obtain representative estimates when analyzing the sample limited to those with valid values for Food Security Scale variables.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
|
|
Results from Model 2 showed that household immigration status was significantly associated with older adults' likelihood of receiving food stamps, supporting the hypothesis that state generosity affects older noncitizens through its interaction with household composition. The interaction term between mixed household and state generosity was significantly positive at the.1 level, implying that states' generous FSP eligibility rules may have increased FSP participation among older adults living in mixed households. The interaction term between an all-noncitizen household and state generosity, however, was not statistically significant, although the direction of the relation was as expected. This may be explained by the fact that households consisting solely of noncitizens are mainly composed of older people and therefore are not constrained by the citizenship requirement. According to our data, the percentage of households with at least one working-age person was 76.48% among mixed households, whereas it was estimated as only 21.37% among households composed solely of noncitizens.
Model 3 also produced results indicating the significant role of household composition in FSP participation. The percentage of eligible individuals in the household variable, which captured both FSP eligibility rules and the household composition, had a significantly positive coefficient at the.05 level. This result suggested that, after controlling for relevant factors, the higher the percentage of eligible household members, the more likely older adult households were to receive food stamps.
Food Stamp Benefit Amount
The associations between eligibility restrictions on noncitizens and food stamp benefit amount were not as consistent across models as those observed in the FSP participation analyses. The results from Models 1 and 2 showed that none of the interaction terms between immigration status and state generosity had a significant association with the value of food stamps received for the preceding 12 months. The percentage of eligible household members variable in Model 3, however, showed a significantly positive relation with food stamp benefit amount at the.05 level, even after individual immigration status was controlled for. This result indicated that the higher the percentage of household members eligible for FSP, the higher the per capita FSP benefit that older adults' households received.
Food Insecurity
In the food insecurity analyses, state generosity did not make a significant difference in food insecurity among older adults with different immigration statuses measured at either the individual or the household level. None of the interaction terms between state generosity and immigration status had a significant coefficient in either Model 1 or Model 2. Results from Model 3, however, illustrated that a high percentage of eligible household members significantly reduced an older adult's risk of food insecurity.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We examined the effects of these changes in welfare rules on older immigrants' FSP participation and food insecurity, adding important new insight into understanding the effects of welfare reform on older immigrants. Specifically, we considered the role of household composition in FSP participation and food insecurity. Our findings suggest that relaxation of the federal FSP eligibility rules of 1998 may not have benefited older noncitizens equally because older adults' FSP participation is affected by the eligibility of other household members. As such, we expanded researchers' understanding of immigrants' welfare program participation and their well-being in the period since welfare reform by adding household composition to the list of mediating factors in addition to the chilling effects (Fix & Passel, 1999), shifts in naturalization rates (Van Hook, 2003), and macroeconomic conditions (Haider et al., 2004) discussed in existing literature.
What is not clear, however, is why eligibility of other household members affects FSP participation by eligible older immigrants despite the fact that eligible individuals can apply for FSP and receive benefits. We may explain this by the low level of benefits available when only a small number of household members is eligible. Existing studies on FSP participation in the general population have shown that eligible households often decide not to apply for FSP when the expected benefit levels are low, because they view it as not being worth the time and effort (McConnell & Ponza, 1999). It is understandable, then, that an immigrant household would decide not to apply for FSP when only older and minor members are eligible, and therefore the expected benefit level seems too low to bother applying. In addition, households with ineligible members, especially those including working-age noncitizens, may be reluctant to apply for public benefits for fear of complicating their future citizenship applications. This explanation is, however, speculative and requires further investigation.
Older noncitizens experience food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than older native and naturalized citizens, despite their higher FSP participation rates and higher benefit levels. This finding illustrates the dire economic conditions of older noncitizens; they have a difficult time meeting their basic dietary needs even when FSP is available. This situation reflects their economic and social disadvantages (e.g., low level of education and asset ownership).
This study is not free of limitations. First, we utilized a cross-sectional data set and were therefore unable to trace changes in FSP participation and food insecurity of individual immigrants over time. In particular, we were unable to test whether mediating effects of household composition were attributable to differences in living arrangements that had existed before welfare reform (Glick & Van Hook, 2002) or to immigrant households' rearrangement of their composition as a response to eligibility restrictions.
Second, data limitations did not allow us to completely resolve the issue of unobserved covariates. For example, it was not possible to determine whether different state eligibility rules reflected the attitudes of state food stamp offices toward noncitizens or the work of active immigrant advocacy groups. Further research is needed to sort out these potentially confounding factors from eligibility rules.
Third, we cannot rule out the possibility that the CPS's own limitation in collecting information from non-English-speaking populations may have affected our results. The CPS data were collected without any specific and systematic guidelines for field interviewers when using interpreters to interview non-English-speaking households (Pan, 2005). Considering that immigrants are more likely to be non-English speakers than are natives, CPS's inattention to interview language issues may have affected analysis results.
Finally, we were unable to study postenactment immigrants who still remained ineligible for FSP and other public program benefits in most states during the 5-year ban. The small number of postenactment immigrants in the data (n = 8), however, made reliable analysis impossible to conduct. The lack of empirical studies calls for future studies on this vulnerable population.
This study has several implications for future policy development and research. The findings urge the consideration of household composition and living arrangements of older immigrants when developing social policies. The study also confirms that the household plays an important economic role in the lives of immigrants. Policies based on a nuclear family model therefore may not work effectively with older immigrants.
At the same time, experts should reconsider current restrictions on the welfare program participation of postenactment immigrants. Immigrants often help extended kin in need and incorporate newly immigrated family members into their homes (Kibria, 1993), even if such action results in economic hardship.
Our results also have implications for future gerontology research. First, they show the importance of contextual factors, such as household composition and living arrangement, in studying older immigrants. Future research should recognize the importance of contextual factors and conduct household-level analyses as well as individual-level analyses, when needed.
Second, developing policy measures that reflect various aspects of a given policy is important. Different measures often produce distinct results and help researchers understand issues from various perspectives. State generosity toward noncitizens succeeds in capturing only the effects on older noncitizens' FSP participation, whereas the percentage of eligible household members variable illustrates policy effects on all three outcome measures. This result suggests that using various policy measures may help capture diverse aspects of a policy and expand knowledge of policy effects by broadening perspectives.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
1 George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, MO.
Decision Editor: William J. McAuley, PhD
Received for publication February 15, 2007. Accepted for publication June 29, 2007.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
