 |
 |
|
|
Immigrants and Welfare Use
By Amanda Levinson
Migration Policy Institute
|
|
Would you like to see more articles on this topic?
|
|
|
August 2002
Overview
Immigrant Participation and
Eligibility
Geographic Distribution of
Benefits
Impact of Welfare Reform on Immigrant
Families
Characteristics of Immigrant Welfare
Recipients
Overview
This Spotlight examines the eligibility of immigrants for welfare as provided for in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of
1996. These rules were subsequently modified (see "Immigrants, Welfare Reform, and the Coming Reauthorization Vote" by Audrey Singer), but the significant changes made under the PRWORA make it worth examining in detail.
The PRWORA was
passed with bipartisan support under the Clinton administration, and
dramatically reformed
the nation's welfare system. A specific provision, Title IV, changed the
eligibility of
noncitizens for public assistance. In addition to income, eligibility for
major federal
benefits was linked to immigration status and whether the applicant arrived
before Aug.
22, 1996, which was the date the law was enacted. Specifically, PRWORA
provides for the following:
Legal permanent residents (LPRs) who were residents of the
United States as of Aug. 22, 1996, are barred from receiving food stamps and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Each state, however, is allowed
to offer LPRs Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.
Since 1997, states have been mandated to provide State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage to immigrant children legally in the US
before Aug. 22, 1996.
LPRs entering after Aug. 22, 1996 are not eligible
for food stamps or SSI. However, they can apply for Medicaid and TANF benefits
five years after entering the country legally, and are then allowed benefits at
each state's discretion. States may use the maintenance of effort requirement
to serve post-1996 legal immigrants who would be eligible for TANF if not for
the five-year bar. In addition, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 restored immigrants' access to food stamps.
Refugees and asylees are eligible for benefits seven
years after their date of entry.
Nonimmigrants and undocumented immigrants are barred
from receiving benefits. They are eligible, however, for public health,
emergency services, and programs identified by the attorney general as
necessary for the protection of life and safety.
(Sources: Richardson and Wassem 2002, National Conference of
State Legislators).
Immigrant Participation and Eligibility
Approximately 935,000 noncitizens lost benefits
due to the passage
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) of 1996.
Half of immigrant families were poor in 1999. (Fix and Passel 2002).
Under PRWORA, three populations of
noncitizens are eligible for public assistance: refugees during their first five
to seven years in
the US; immigrants with 40 quarters of work history; and noncitizens who
have served
in the US military. (Fix and Passel 2002).
Between 1994 and 1999, legal immigrants' and
refugees' use of
welfare benefits declined significantly. This decline was not accounted for
by an increase in the number of naturalizations or by rising incomes within
immigrant families. (Source: Fix and Passel 2002).
For LPRs, the percentage of reductions in usage were:
TANF: -60%
Food stamps: -48%
Social security insurance: -32%
Medicaid: -15%
For refugees, the declines were as follows:
TANF: -78%
Food stamps: -53%
Medicaid: -36%
At the time of PRWORA's passage in 1996,
immigrants
represented 15 percent of all welfare recipients in the US. By 1999, that
number dropped to 12 percent. (Fix and Passel 2002, US Department of Health and Human
Services).
In 1994, 7.1 percent of households headed by a
foreign-born person
received AFDC cash assistance (later incorporated into TANF) and 12.6 percent
received food stamps;
in 1999, 3.2 percent received TANF cash assistance and 6.7 percent received
food stamps.
(Fix and Passel 2002, Fremstad 2002).
Under a 1997 congressional revision to PRWORA,
elderly and
disabled immigrants were made eligible for Social Security, Medicaid and food
stamp benefits. Legal immigrant children are also eligible for food
stamps. The revision excludes adults of working age (18-64) who account for
approximately three-quarters of the 935,000 noncitizens who lost benefits. (Fix and Passel 2002).
Geographic Distribution of
Benefits
After PRWORA was enacted, the majority of
states continued to
provide federally funded benefits to immigrants if they had the option to do
so.
All states chose to continue TANF benefits for LPRs who entered before the
law's enactment, and all states except Wyoming provide Medicaid benefits. Five
states (Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas) do not provide
TANF for legal immigrants entering after the law's enactment and who have been
living here for five years, and seven states (Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi,
North Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming) do not provide Medicaid benefits.
(Source: Fremstad, 2002).
Of the seven largest immigrant-receiving states
which account for
three-quarters of the nation's foreign-born population (California, New York,
Texas, Florida,
Illinois, New Jersey, and Arizona), California provides the most extensive
benefits in the areas
of health, cash assistance, and nutrition to immigrants. Whereas
pre-enactment immigrants are subsidized by federal funds, the benefits of
post-enactment immigrants are financed solely through state funds. (Source: Fix
and Passel 2002).
Nine states (New York, Florida, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, Maryland,
Washington, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wyoming) still allow undocumented immigrants to
access their state health
insurance programs after welfare reform. Only one state (Maine) that had
previously covered undocumented immigrants before the passage of the reform
withdrew benefits after PRWORA was enacted. (Source: Zimmerman and Tumlin 1999).
In 1999-2000, 13 percent of low-income,
noncitizen families in Los
Angeles, California and 22 percent in New York City received food
stamps, compared with
34 percent of low-income native citizen families in each of these states.
(Source: Capps et. al 2002).
Impact of Welfare Reform on Immigrant
Families
In the 23 states that provide the least amount
of support
for immigrants, food insecurity within immigrant households increased between
1994 and 1998. In 1993-1994, 11.3 percent of households headed by
immigrants were food insecure (meaning that the household had members who were
hungry or had to either skip or cut back on meals because of lack of income),
compared to 16.3 percent in 1997-1998. In these same states, the percentage of
food-insecure households headed
by native-born persons fell. (Fremstad 2002).
By 1997, noncitizen families with incomes below 200
percent of
poverty had welfare use rates that were significantly lower than citizens'
rates?14.5 percent versus
17.9 percent. (Fix and Passel 1999)
Between 1995 and 2000, the number of noncitizen
children and
noncitizen parents receiving Medicaid fell by seven to eight percentage points.
At the same time,
the percentage of low-income, noncitizen children and parents who lack health
insurance, including
job-based insurance, increased by six to seven percentage points. (Fremstad 2002).
Between 1994 and 1999, low-income LPR families
with children
receiving TANF decreased by 53 percent, and refugee families receiving TANF
decreased by 78
percent.
(Fix and Passel 2002).
While the number of naturalized citizen
families increased by
480,000 between 1994 and 1999, the number participating in TANF dropped by
300,000.
There were only 16,000 new enrollments. At the same time, the foreign-born
population
grew from 24.5 million in 1995
to 28.4 million in 2000. (Fix and Passel 2002).
Characteristics of Immigrant Welfare
Recipients
Sixty-nine percent of foreign-born adult TANF recipients
do not have a high
school diploma or GED (General Education Development high school equivalency diploma), compared with 37 percent of native-born
adult recipients. (Fremstad 2002).
In two of the largest immigrant-receiving cities in the
country,
New York City and Los Angeles, immigrants with limited English proficiency are
poorer than
immigrant adults overall. In Los Angeles, the poverty rate is 33 percent
for immigrants with
limited English language proficiency versus 13 percent for those who speak
English well, while in New York City the poverty rate is 34
percent versus 14 percent. (Capps et. al 2002).
Sources
Capps, Randy et.al., "How are Immigrants Faring After Welfare Reform?:
Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New York City," (Washington, D.C.:
The Urban Institute, 2002).
Fix, Michael and Jeffrey Passel, "The Scope and Impact of Welfare Reform's
Immigrant Provisions," (Washington, D.C: The Urban Institute, 2002).
Fix, Michael and Jeffrey Passel, "Trends in Noncitizens' and Citizens' Use of
Public Benefits Following Welfare Reform: 1994-97," (Washington, D.C. : The
Urban Institute, 1999).
Fremstad, Shawn, "Immigrants and Welfare Reauthorization," (Washington, D.C.:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 4, 2002).
Richardson, Joe and Ruth Ellen Wasem, "Noncitizen Eligibility for Major Federal
Public Assistance Programs: Policies and Legislation" (Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Research Service, 2002).
US Department of Health and Human Services, "Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families Program," report to Congress, Washington, D.C. August 2002.
Zimmermann, Wendy and Karen Tumlin, "Patchwork Policies: State Assistance for
Immigrants Under Welfare Reform," (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute,
1999).
Back to the top
|
|
Press
Room
Need an interview?
Go straight to The Source. |
Archives
Missed a story?
Find it here. |
Links
External resources
and data sites. |
Site
Map
Find your way to the news you need. |
Copyright @
2009 Migration Policy Institute.
All rights reserved.
MPI · 1400 16th St. NW, Suite 300 · Washington, DC 20036
ph: (001) 202-266-1940 · fax: (001) 202-266-1900
source@migrationpolicy.org
|
|
 |
