Immigrants' TANF Eligibility, 1996–2003: What Explains the New Across-State Inequalities?

Abstract

Why did some states adopt stringent TANF‐eligibility policies toward immigrants, while others implemented more lenient rules throughout the post‐1996 welfare reform period? We use immigrant‐specific welfare rule measures to examine predominant theoretical frameworks for understanding state stringency in welfare policy. Analysis, utilizing a simultaneous equations modeling (SEM) strategy, uses annual data for all states. Results show consistent support for the median voter (primarily, the percent of liberal voters) theoretical explanation for less stringent state welfare eligibility rules regarding immigrants. While the size of the Social‐Security‐recipient population (tax capacity indicator) and perhaps unacceptable reproductive behavior (teen birth rate) relate to more stringent rules, key state economic and fiscal characteristics (i.e., per capita welfare expenditures, per capita personal income) explain less stringent TANF eligibility rules. Importantly, recent immigrant population concentration patterns (in new and traditional destination states) add to the theoretical explanation of less stringent state TANF immigrant eligibility policies.

Social Distrust and Immigrant Access to Welfare Programs in the American States

“…Some states attach citizenship requirements to welfare boundaries, statutorily denying immigrants access to public assistance (Filindra ; Fix, Capps, and Kaushal 2009; Graefe et al . ; Hero and Preuhs ; Monogan ; Tichenor ).…”

“…Third, the economic situation of the state can increase the demand for generous social programs among the public and influence the generosity of the legislature to fund social spending programs by providing a means to increase funding (Graefe et al . ; Plotnick and Winters 1985; Tweedie 1994). We control for the state's unemployment rate and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.…”

Welfare reform and immigrant fertility

“…The evidence from these other studies has been, however, quite mixed (see Blank, 2002 for a review of these studies). Notably, although Hispanic women -many of whom were immigrants, had the highest rates of teenaged and non-marital childbearing of any major racial or ethnic group in the United States before welfare reform (Graefe et al, 2008), 3 none of the studies examined how immigrant fertility was impacted by PRWORA and the state provisions. In fact, we only know of one study examining the fertility of Hispanic immigrants (i.e.…”

“…Early work on this question indicated that the size of the state's noncitizen population was unrelated to program generosity toward immigrants in the first years following PRWORA (Zimmerman and Tumlin, 1999). However, states with strong immigrant advocacy groups and a liberal voting public were more consistent predictors of state generosity towards immigrants (Graefe et al 2008). Kalil and Ziol-Guest (2009) use SIPP data to examine, instead, the effect of PRWORA on the health of the children of immigrants.…”

“…those immigrants who arrived after PRWORA as a result of the federal requirement that any funding of benefits for that group must not be paid for with federal monies (Fix and Passel, 2002). Yet, although TANF is the most expensive benefit for states to provide, many states continued to support recent immigrant families using their own state funds (Graefe et al, 2008;Bitler and Hoynes, 2011). 4 Because states had the option to extend welfare benefits to immigrants who arrived after August 22, 1996, and virtually all states extended benefits to pre-enactment immigrants (Fix and Zimmermann, 1998), there was some uncertainty over who was eligible for benefits.…”