A REPORT ON A TELEPHONE SURVEY OF AFDC RECIPIENTS AND NON-RECIPIENTS

INTRODUCTION

At the request of the PPC Foundation, Dieringer Research Associates designed a two-step research project on the subject of Aid To Families with Dependent Children. The PPC Foundation is interested in understanding the welfare issue from the point of view of both current AFDC Recipients and individuals who are in the lower income bracket, but not receiving AFDC. Recently, the issue of "welfare reform" has prompted a lot of discussion in Milwaukee, and Wisconsin, with a number of solutions proposed by individuals in both the private and public sectors.

It is the belief of PPC that "user oriented" input is crucial in defining the problem and solutions. The question could be asked, "Why look to a population, possibly in distress financially and personally, for insight into the welfare problem?" The answer is, many lower income individuals have been in, or have been exposed to crisis situations; they are in a unique position to help identify and substantiate potential solutions to the welfare problem. The information from this research is offered in the hope of representing lower income individuals, and to create a dialogue on what they have to say.

In December of 1991, Dieringer Research Associates conducted two focus groups, one with AFDC Recipients, and one with lower income individuals who were not on AFDC. This qualitative research was used as background information to understand the issues and design a telephone questionnaire that could be used to survey a larger population group. This report summarizes the results of a telephone survey with four hundred individuals, all of whom are either on AFDC or who would qualify for AFDC, according to their monthly income.

Volume I of this report contains the background of the study, the major findings, graphic presentations, statistical reliability and limitations information, and the survey questionnaire. Volume II contains the data tables generated from this study.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of the research were to:

  •  

Given a group of individuals who are all lower income, explore the differences between the AFDC Recipient and the Non-AFDC Recipient.

  •  

Determine the circumstances which cause people to apply for AFDC, or to turn down AFDC.

  •  

Explore how lower income individuals react to the stereotypes associated with people on welfare.

  •  

Gain an understanding as to whether or not lower income individuals think there is a problem with the present welfare system, and if so, what they see as the solutions.

  •  

Assess respondents' feelings toward a community service requirement for people receiving assistance.

  •  

Explore attitudes toward the proposed "two tier" welfare system, where individuals coming into Wisconsin could not receive more benefits than the state from which they came.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In order to address the above research objectives, Dieringer Research Associates conducted a telephone survey of 400 individuals in Milwaukee County, 200 with AFDC Recipients, and 200 with Non-AFDC Recipients. All respondents were female, between the ages of 18 and 50. Respondents were randomly called using Bresser's Directory. Bresser's Cross-index Directory, providing Census Tract information, was used to select the calling areas. Telephone calls were made to individuals living in "D" and "E" areas. Using U.S. Census Data, Block Canvassing, and Real Estate Valuations, each census tract is rated according to the average for all the family residences in the tract. The "Family Wealth Ratings for Census Tracts" divides areas into:

  •  
 $A - Highest Wealth Zone
  •  
 $B - Medium High
  •  
 $C- Medium
  •  
 $D - Medium Low
  •  
 $E-Low

Telephone calls were made to "D" and "E" tracts within the following zip codes: 53202, 53204, 53205, 53206, 53207, 53208, 53209, 53210, 53212, 53215, 53216, 53218, and 53233. An attempt was made to include respondents in the survey with both listed and unlisted telephone numbers. A "Plus 1" method was used to uncover numbers which may be unlisted.

Looking at the ethnic breakout of the resulting sample reveals remarkable similarities to profile information provided by the Wisconsin Department of Social Services regarding who receives aid in Milwaukee County:

ETHNIC BREAKOUT:

  

WDSC CASES

  

DIERINGER SAMPLE

Black

 

54.5%

 

56.5%

White

 

30.4%

 

33.7%

Hispanic

 

6.6%

 

7.8%

All Other

 

2.5%

 

2.0%

Don’t know

 

6.0%

 

    -

Total

 

55,031 CASES
100.0%

 

400 RESPONDENTS
100.0%

In order to qualify for the survey, each individual either had to be on AFDC, or potentially qualify for AFDC. AFDC eligibility requirements - "Monthly Income Limits" - were used to recruit the Non-AFDC sample.1 In order to be included in the Non-AFDC sample, respondents could not be on AFDC at the present time, but had to meet the following monthly income range:

NUMBER OF PEOPLE
IN FAMILY

MONTHLY INCOME
BEFORE DEDUCTIONS

1

 Less than $ 580

2

 Less than $ 1,000

3

 Less than $ 1,200

4

 Less than $ 1,400

5

 Less than $ 1,600

6

 Less than $ 1,800

7

 Less than $ 1,900

8

 Less than $ 2,000

Following project authorization and finalization of research objectives, Dieringer Research Associates pretested and then finalized the survey questionnaire. Interviewing was conducted centrally from Dieringer Research offices, in the name of Dieringer Research; interviewing was conducted between January 6 and 15, 1992. The project was managed by Pamela Renick-Mayer, Vice President of Research and Development.

Upon completion of interviewing, all qualified respondent questionnaires were edited and coded by Dieringer Research personnel for computer tabulation and cross-tabulation according to marketing research industry standards. Data was cross-tabulated by the following banner points:

TOTAL

    

BY AFDC USE:

  

AFDC Recipients
Non-AFDC Recipients

BY ETHNIC ORIGIN:

  

Black
White
All other ethnic groups

BY AGE:

  

18 – 29
30-39
40-50

BY NUMBER OF PEOPLE
AT ADDRESS:

  

1 – 2
3-4
5+

BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS:

  

Employed
Not employed

BY EDUCATION:

  

No college
Some college, or more

BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN:

  

0 - 1 children
2 + children

After completion of data tabulation, statistical analysis was performed on the data and this report was prepared. The reader is encouraged to examine the Data Tables and Survey Questionnaire found in the Data Tables Volume of this report.

When looking at the difference between numbers, it is important to keep in mind the error range on a sample of 400 is +/- 4.9% and on a sample of 200 is +/- 6.9%.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

Profile of Respondents
  •  

When looking at AFDC Recipients and Non-Recipients, differences in profile emerge. The average AFDC Recipient in this sample tended to be that of a younger Black female, who has no college experience and is not employed. If she does work, she is more likely to have a part-time job, than a full-time job.

  •  

The Non-AFDC Recipient, on the other hand, is as likely Black as White, is older, may have some college, and is employed full-time.

  •  

Approximately one out of every four AFDC Recipients (23.0%) in this sample said she had received AFDC in another state.

Perceptions about People on Welfare
  •  

All respondents were asked what they thought were some of the personal circumstances which caused people to apply for AFDC. On average, respondents mentioned about two causes per person. Examining the list of causes reveals that approximately 34% are job related, 20% are problems related to being a single parent, 13% fall into the category of "no money" and 9% are "a lack of education." Clearly, individuals in the lower income brackets see unemployment as the major cause behind the need for AFDC.

  •  

Approximately one out of every five individuals said that the feeling people have about being on welfare is one of being "ashamed" and "embarrassed." This was true of both AFDC Recipients and Non-Recipients.

  •  

Respondents were given a list of statements and asked how much they agreed or disagreed with each, as it applies to welfare and people on welfare. Some of the statements were loaded descriptions like "people on welfare are lazy." (Statements were generated from focus group discussions.) Respondents were most likely to agree that "people from other states come to Wisconsin for higher welfare benefits" - 78.5% agreed with statement, either "strongly" or "somewhat." (This high level of agreement could reflect some of the press the issue was given during the same week interviewing was taking place.)

Present Welfare System - Definition of Problems and Solutions
  •  

Approximately two-thirds of the respondents said they believed there is a problem with the present welfare system. Sixty-three percent of AFDC Recipients and 72% of Non-Recipients believe there is a problem. AFDC Recipients were more likely than Non-Recipients to say there is no problem (30.0% versus 12.5%).

  •  

When specifically asked what the problem was with the welfare system, respondents were most likely to answer "welfare fraud" and "welfare abuse" (18.9%). Non-Recipients (23.6%) were more likely than AFDC Recipients (13.5%) to say "welfare fraud/abuse."

  •  

In addition to describing the problem, respondents were asked on an unaided and aided basis what they thought possible solutions were. The question was: "if you were in charge of people on AFDC, what would you do to help them get off AFDC?" Most of the solutions (41.9%) related to jobs. However, it is important to keep in mind, respondents see a number of steps involved in the process of getting a job. They believe people on AFDC need help in:

  •  

Looking for a job (writing a resume, using want ads, networking).

  •  

Assessing their present skill level (employment/job service programs).

  •  

Getting the skills required for a job (job training).

  •  

They also suggest the creation of new jobs and an increase in wages (minimum wage).
  •  

Approximately 21% of the solutions revolved around the issue of education.  Respondents believe more education can help people get off welfare, and that education should be stressed as a way to get off welfare.
  •  

Ten percent of solutions (on an unaided basis), were comments regarding the need for quality child care.
  •  

When examining what lower income individuals see as the causes behind the need for AFDC, and the solutions to getting people off AFDC, common themes run throughout their comments. IT is as if respondents are saying:

 

   NO JOB/NO MONEY,

   JOB/TRAINING,

+ BEING A SINGLE PARENT,

AND

+ MORE EDUCATION,

+ LITTLE EDUCATION

+ CHILD CARE

= NEED FOR AFDC

= GETTING OFF AFDC
Reactions to Proposed Solutions
  •  

After respondents were given the opportunity to volunteer their own solutions to getting people off AFDC, they were given a list of solutions and asked how much they agreed or disagreed each could be used to help people get off AFDC. Respondents were most likely to agree (combined "strongly agree" and "somewhat agree") that "making affordable day care available" (92.0%), "job training" (91.3%), "employer offered apprentice programs" (91.3%), and "affordable health care" (90.0%) all could be used to help people get off welfare.

  •  

Approximately three-fourths of the respondents also agreed that education in money management and education on birth control would be helpful.
  •  

One interesting difference between AFDC Recipients and Non-Recipients was reaction to "a business whose purpose is employing AFDC recipients." While almost 60% of the AFDC Recipients "strongly" agreed this could be used to help people get off welfare, only 46% of the Non-Recipients "strongly" agreed with this solution.

  •  

Respondents were asked whether or not they felt society has the right to require welfare recipients (in good health) to perform some kind of community service to work off the aid. A high of 65.8% said "yes," society has the right to make this demand of welfare recipients.

  •  

Respondents also caution that requiring people to perform community service, without dealing with the child care issue (14.7%) would be a counterproductive measure. The community service requirement and potential penalty for non-compliance would only "push more people into poverty" (8.8%).

Preferred Way to Handle Individuals Who Move to Wisconsin for AFDC Benefits
  •  

Because of the interest in the subject of the best way to handle individuals who come to Wisconsin and need AFDC, respondents were asked their opinion on how to handle these situations. They were a given a choice of three solutions:

  •  

A residency requirement of 3 months before eligibility for AFDC

  •  

A residency requirement of 6 months before eligibility for AFDC

  •  

No residency requirement, but could not receive more benefits in Wisconsin than in former state for six months

  •  

Respondent answers reveal preference for no residency requirement, with benefits equal to the former state's level (52.2% of respondents). However, 22% of the respondents also felt that a residency requirement of six months would be preferable.
CONCLUSIONS

WHAT SOME PEOPLE ASSUME ABOUT LOWER INCOME INDIVIDUALS:

THE FACTS, ACCORDING TO THE LOWER INCOME INDIVIDUALS D.R.A. INTERVIEWED:

"People in lower income brackets are similar, think and act similarly."

Differences exist, by ethnic origin.
Differences exist, by level of education.
Differences exist, in employment status.
Differences exist in attitudes toward welfare.

"A lot of poor people are just lazy."

40% are employed.
40% have attended college.
25% presently are in school.

“Poor people have a lot of young children."

67% of lower income individuals in this sample had only 1 - 2 young children (under 18 years of age).

"People on welfare feel good about being on welfare."

People on Welfare say they feel "ashamed" and embarrassed.

"People go on AFDC because they don't have a job."

People may go on AFDC because they don’t have child care, or medical insurance.

"People on welfare don't understand what caused their problem."

AFDC Recipients describe their problem as no job/no money + lack of education + no child care = need for AFDC.

"People on welfare can't articulate solutions."

AFDC Recipients describe solutions as jobs/job training, more education and child care.

"The only difference between poor people on welfare, and poor people not on welfare is laziness."

Poor people not on welfare appear to have more resources: more likely to have education, a job, own their home, and a family offering financial assistance.

Welfare recipients would be against a community service requirement to work off aid."

60% of AFDC Recipients favored requirement, but worried that a penalty would "only hurt children."

"Welfare recipients would oppose a two tier system."

52% of AFDC Recipients in support of solution, but 21% prefer 6 month residency requirement.

"Everybody's coming to Wisconsin to take advantage of the higher welfare benefits."

78% of AFDC Recipients in this study have only received AFDC in Wisconsin.

Companion Documentation Includes:

Topic * Format File Size
Phone Survey (Executive Summary) PDF 406 KB
Phone Survey Graphs (Only) PDF 178 KB
Phone Survey Findings PDF 5,192 KB
Phone Survey, Appendix A PDF 96 KB
Phone Survey, Appendix B PDF 222KB
* Note: All files are scanned versions of the original documents
[1] Dieringer Research Associates recognizes the Department of Social Services has additional qualifiers for AFDC.  However, the intent of this study is to include individuals who fall within the general category of lower income.