On Wednesday December 18, 1991, Dieringer Research Associates conducted two focus groups at the request of the PPC Foundation, regarding the issue of AFDC. The purpose of the groups was to explore the "make-up" of a person receiving AFDC and to compare AFDC recipients to non-recipients, who have similar levels of income. The PPC Foundation is interested in understanding the welfare issue from the point of view of AFDC recipients and lower income individuals, in order to create dialogue on the subject that will result in user oriented solutions. This is the first part of a two phase research study, designed to provide input into the Phase II telephone survey. Some of the specific questions for the focus group research were:

The first group consisted of women, ages 18-50, who currently receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children; while the second group included women of the same age group who do not receive AFDC, but whose income would qualify them for AFDC (according to AFDC eligibility requirements):

Additionally, both groups were ethnically mixed, with no more than 50% representation by any one group. The following is a summary of reaction from the two groups. Throughout the report direct quotes will be used to illustrate certain points. Group numbers will be cited following each quote for ease of reference:

Group I refers to AFDC recipients, Group II refers to non-recipients.

SOME OF THE AFDC RECIPIENTS WERE NOT AWARE OF PROGRAMS (AND PROGRAM SERVICES) AVAILABLE FOR FAMILIES IN NEED. ALTHOUGH THEY WERE ABLE TO NAME PROGRAMS, THEY DID NOT ALWAYS UNDERSTAND WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAMS AND WHAT EACH PROGRAM HAD TO OFFER.

When asked what kind of assistance is available for people in need, group members listed the following programs:

Although it is not realistic to expect that everyone concerned will have the correct information about all programs, it was clear that some of the AFDC recipients were not aware of, or did not always have the correct information about assistance programs. For example, some women said AFDC is available to single parents, while others argued that it was also for married people. There is additional confusion over when and if the AFDC gets paid back. The following comments reflect respondents' understanding of AFDC:

Many respondents have "heard of" other programs like GATES or WEOP which they reported are to help needy people find jobs and get off of welfare. However, some women have "heard stories" about programs that are supposed to be helping, but are a "waste of time."

THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ONE SINGLE REASON FOR GOING ON WELFARE, INSTEAD COMBINATIONS OF PROBLEMS TEND TO EXIST AMONG AFDC RECIPIENTS.

Respondents discussed the personal circumstances which can lead to people going on welfare. In most cases, what causes a person to go on welfare is not one problem, but a combination of different problems.

The following list summarizes respondents' opinions concerning what causes people to go on welfare:

Not surprisingly, respondents pointed out that the lack of a job tends to be one major reason why people go on welfare. However, along with unemployment, may be problems like insufficient education or training, depression and alcohol or drug abuse. In some cases, having a child with no husband in the picture is the reason for a woman to go on welfare. There may be no income coming in, a mother with no job skills, no health insurance, and no place to live. Repeatedly, respondents tried to explain that one of the reasons they could not get themselves out of the welfare trap was because "I don't even know where to start, I have so many problems." Respondents agreed that it was often the combination of problems that turned a person to welfare:

Interestingly, several respondents explained that because they could not find affordable, quality day care, welfare was their only option. They went on welfare because they were not "comfortable" leaving their children in the day care that was available. One woman said she made a "quality of life" decision about her kids - that it would be better if she took care of them rather than someone else.

The following are selected "case studies" from the focus groups demonstrating the combination of problems. (The names of respondents have been changed to protect identities).

It should be pointed out that among the group of non-AFDC recipients exists a group of women who work in low paying jobs and appear to be "one step away" from economic hardship. Although these women are managing to "keep their heads above the water," it would only take one "crisis" like a husband losing a job or walking out on them to push them over the edge and into economic hard times.

BOTH AFDC RECIPIENTS AND NON-RECIPIENTS WERE AWARE OF THE STEREOTYPES ASSOCIATED WITH PEOPLE ON WELFARE. HOWEVER, WHEN LISTENING TO RESPONDENTS' STORIES IT WAS APPARENT THAT NO WAY OUT SITUATIONS DO EXIST AND THE STEREOTYPES ARE UNTRUE IN MANY CASES.

Group members mentioned the following stereotypes associated with people on welfare:

According to respondents, welfare recipients are regarded by others as "lazy" people who "drive expensive cars," "eat lobster" and "have babies to get on welfare." Some respondents agreed that these stereotypes are true "about 10% of the time." But many of the AFDC recipients objected to the stereotypes, claiming a multiplicity of problems and arguing for disbelievers to "walk around in my shoes." Again they explain difficult situations where welfare seemed like the only alternative:

AFDC recipients point out that they do not like being on welfare and wish they "had a way out." Many are worried about their children and the message that they are giving to their children by being on welfare.

Within the group of AFDC recipients, there were four or five women who are currently going to school to try and get off of welfare.

When listening to the situations of the AFDC recipients and non-recipients, in some instances, their predicaments seem similar. Some of the non-recipients married young and had children, had little education and no job skills. But there were differences. One woman, a Polish immigrant, came to this country pregnant, with no money and a husband who could not find a job. She ended up getting support from a church and an "international agency" and managed to avoid going on welfare. Another woman was so "turned off" by how she was treated at the welfare office that she swore she would "never go back to that building."

The women who currently are not receiving AFDC, differ from those who receive AFDC in sometimes subtle ways. Non-recipients seem to have gotten support (not just financial, but "emotional") from somewhere - a parent, church, network of friends or organizations. The value of a supportive network of family or friends may be the major difference between AFDC recipients and non-recipients. AFDC recipients appear to have little or no support. In the AFDC group there was little mention of parents able to help out financially, or church or friends who offered the kind of deep support or advice to enable them to stay off welfare.

Additionally, when comparing personalities between the two groups, it appears some non-recipients seem to have more "pluck," more confidence to push their way through difficult times. They seem more confident about pushing their way "through the system, " to sort out their affairs. This ability could be viewed as a skill.

Non-recipients speak about having "pride," self-determination and self-esteem that pushes them to reject welfare and "acquire the skills necessary to 'make it."' The following represent personal situations from the focus group, demonstrating the choices made by non-recipients. (Names have been changed to protect identities.)

MANY AFDC USERS ASK THE QUESTION: ·WHY SHOULD I TAKE A MINIMUM WAGE JOB THAT PAYS ME LESS THAN WELFARE AND DOESN'T OFFER ANY HEALTH INSURANCE FOR MY KIDS?·

AFDC recipients claimed that people often ask why they do not take "any" job, just to get off of welfare. According to group members, "if you work a minimum wage job, you walk away with the same amount of money (or less) as you would get being on welfare." But more significantly, they claim, being on AFDC entitles them to medical coverage, which a minimum wage job does not. This is a major consideration since they all have young children.

Both groups discussed how the crisis in health care is swelling the welfare ranks. Cutbacks in health insurance for the employed, and no insurance for part-time workers forces people into welfare so they can get Title 19.

Respondents who currently receive AFDC discussed another problem with taking a job. According to respondents, many jobs have a "probationary" period which is an uncertain time for the AFDC recipient. The company is checking her out and she does not know if the job will be permanent. But, according to respondents, the AFDC recipient has to notify AFDC immediately, or the aid is "cut off." These respondents feel they should be allowed to receive their AFDC until the probationary period is over and their situation is more definite.

RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS BELIEVE THE PROBLEMS WITH THE PRESENT WELFARE SYSTEM ARE: 1.) AFDC RECIPIENTS WHO DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MANAGE THEIR LIVES, AND 2.) CASEWORKERS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT FILLING OUT REPORTS, THAN HELPING RECIPIENTS GET OFF WELFARE.

Non-AFDC recipients were asked to explain the problems with the present welfare system. Their list included the following problems:

Both AFDC recipients and non-recipients mentioned "caseworkers" as a part of the problem. Respondents feel that there are not enough "good" caseworkers to adequately handle the amount of people on welfare. According to some respondents, this results in lack of supervision of existing cases, and caseworkers who are so "burned out" by the amount of cases and the paperwork involved, that they lose sight of what their job really should be and "don't care anymore."

The non-AFDC recipients discussed other problems with the welfare system. Some respondents feel that recipients may be "paid too much," and that the timing of the payments are poor. They said AFDC recipients receive their checks at the beginning of the month, resulting in "Mother's Day at the malls." This is described as the first day of the month where AFDC mothers go to the malls and "blow" their checks. They are left with little money for food and rent for the rest of the month. Non-recipients believe recipients need money management skills and complain that "nothing is being done to reverse" the lack of skills.

Non-recipients also feel that there are not enough incentives to encourage recipients to get off of welfare. Although programs appear to exist which help recipients if they return to school, as was previously mentioned, many people are unclear or unaware of the programs and what they offer.

ACCORDING TO RESPONDENTS, SOLVING THE WELFARE PROBLEM WOULD REQUIRE ONGOING EDUCATION FOR RECIPIENTS, BETTER DAY CARE ALTERNATIVES AND A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF HELP AND COOPERATION FROM EMPLOYERS.

Group members listed the following possible solutions to the problem of welfare:

Respondents in both groups discussed possible solutions to the "welfare problem." According to respondents, welfare recipients need "educating"; not only in terms of being encouraged to go back to school, but education in the basics of "life in general." This includes education on how to parent, how to feed your family properly, how to manage money, how to find a decent job and how to practice birth control.

Respondents would like to see better day care options available. Many of the women are uncomfortable with current day care alternatives and say this is the reason they are at home and not working. Employer sponsored day care was mentioned as a possibility. In addition to employers offering day care, they could offer free transportation to employees to help those who have no means of transportation. Additional help from employers could come in the form of training and apprentice programs which would allow employees to be paid while they are learning. (One respondent even suggested a "factory" where AFDC recipients could work, that was dedicated to educating and training AFDC recipients.) Additionally, there was mention of employers who might reward AFDC recipients who do a good job, show up on time and perform well. One respondent described what is done as an incentive at her place of employment.

Overall, the tone of the groups was one of frustration and in some cases, anger. Most women who are currently receiving AFDC are unhappy with their situations and "pray for a way out." Some of these women see welfare as a temporary situation which they are working to overcome, while others see little hope for a change in their current predicament. One woman described welfare as "a big trap that you can never get out of. As soon as you start to climb out of the drain, they pour more water on you to push you back down." The tone in the group of non-recipients tended to be critical of AFDC recipients, and more upbeat and "hopeful" about their own lives. They may be frustrated by their situations, but believe that their current $6.00 an hour job might eventually be an $8.00 an hour job. These women look to the future for a more rewarding life and the chance to better their standard of living.