Citation URL: http://www.urban.org/KarenCTumlin

Key findings, based on case studies of New York, Los Angeles, and Houston, show that: immigrants and limited English speakers make up a significant share of those on welfare; many have significant barriers to work including less education and work history than natives; and immigrants on welfare are less likely to be working and more likely to be working in dead-end jobs. Job training programs often have English language requirements, limiting immigrants' access. The authors conclude that combining part-time work and language training can help immigrant welfare recipients move into jobs and off the welfare rolls.

This report explores the application and eligibility determination process for immigrants and limited-English speakers for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in six localities across the country. In general, the application process is easiest for Medicaid and SCHIP. There are more points of access for these programs, and outreach for them is more widespread and effective. The complexity of the application process, however, varies greatly across states and within states by locality. Social service agencies use a combination of strategies to provide interpretation for limited English speakers, including: bilingual staff, contracted interpreters, telephone language lines, and reliance on applicants' friends and family members.

State child welfare agencies investigated reports of abuse and neglect involving more than 3 million children in 1996. Many more children, however, were and continue to be initially referred to child welfare agencies for child maltreatment1 allegations. State agencies assess each such referral to determine how best to respond and if the referral merits investigation. Child welfare agencies receive many referrals that clearly do not constitute abuse or neglect or that provide so little information that the agency has no way to locate the alleged perpetrator and conduct an investigation. Referrals are screened, and such screening serves a gate-keeping function, allowing child welfare agencies to determine which families are investigated and, by extension, which families may eventually receive more intensive agency services. In this process, some child maltreatment allegations are screened out before an in-person investigation is conducted.

The authors conclude that over the past 30 years, the demands facing the nation's child welfare system have increased, not only in scale but also in scope. As a result, the system is now by default being asked to serve families with a wide array of problems, a role it was never designed to play. State child welfare systems are also being harshly criticized for not adequately protecting vulnerable children. In response to these challenges, child welfare agencies have begun to rethink their overall mission, to seek out strategies to improve service delivery, and to focus more on accountability.

This supplement to Patchwork Polices: State Assistance for Immigrants under Welfare Reform provides a summary of each state’s immigrant eligibility rules for cash, food, and health assistance programs.

There are two Highlights for each state. The income support and social services Highlights look at basic income support programs, employment and training programs, child care, child support enforcement, and the last-resort safety net. The Highlights capture policies in place and planned in 1996 and early 1997.

This supplement to the main report The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children: Understanding Federal, State, and Local Child Welfare Spending (Occasional Paper 20) provides state-by-state data on spending for child welfare services in state fiscal year 1996. Charts detail sources of funding for child welfare services and spending by type of service, type of out-of-home placement, and type of child welfare expenditure.

Despite significant federal benefit restorations and considerable assistance provided by states, the social safety net for immigrants remains weaker than before welfare reform. Although many states stepped in to help immigrants, few fully replaced lost federal benefits and state variation in available safety net services has increased. This report, based on a survey of state officials in all 50 states, found that most states that created substitute programs placed conditions on program eligibility rendering many immigrants ineligible, often targeted only specific groups of immigrants, or provided lower benefits than the federal programs which they replaced. The paper ranks states according to the availability of their safety net to immigrants.

The state reports describe the safety net and health care programs in place for low-income people on the eve of welfare reform. The reports also analyze the particular circumstances that are shaping the state's response to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The state reports are based on case studies in the respective state.

There are two Highlights for each state. The income support and social services Highlights look at basic income support programs, employment and training programs, child care, child support enforcement, and the last-resort safety net. The Highlights capture policies in place and planned in 1996 and early 1997.

Return to list of authors