Barriers to Employment for Welfare Recipients

This article was downloaded by: [University of Georgia]On: 18 December 2014, At: 05:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Ethnic And CulturalDiversity in Social WorkPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wecd20

Barriers to Employment forWelfare RecipientsJohn A. Garcia PhD a & Randall D. Harris PhD ba Master of Social Work Programb Department of Management, Operations &Marketing , California State University , Stanislaus,Turlock, CA, 95382, USAPublished online: 13 Aug 2009.

To cite this article: John A. Garcia PhD & Randall D. Harris PhD (2001) Barriers toEmployment for Welfare Recipients, Journal of Ethnic And Cultural Diversity in SocialWork, 10:4, 21-41, DOI: 10.1300/J051v10n04_02

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J051v10n04_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wecd20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J051v10n04_02

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J051v10n04_02

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Barriers to Employmentfor Welfare Recipients:

The Role of Race/Ethnicity

John A. GarcíaRandall D. Harris

ABSTRACT. With the passage of the Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, there has been an increase in re-search attention devoted to barriers to workforce participation for wel-fare recipients. However, much research conducted to this point tends toview the welfare population as a homogeneous group. This study exam-ined eight commonly identified work related barriers in an ethnically di-verse sample of 4014 active TANF cases. The results indicated thatdifferent ethnic groups face different barriers to workforce entry, withethnic minorities facing the greatest number of barriers. In this sample,the Asian sub-population, comprised largely of Laotian and Hmong ref-ugees, were at the greatest risk for failure. Implications for service deliv-ery and intervention strategies are discussed. [Article copies available fora fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mailaddress: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>© 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Barriers, ethnicity, welfare, employment, skills

INTRODUCTION

Recently, considerable attention has been given to the challenges of prepar-ing social workers for practice in the new millennium. This dialogue has given

John A. García, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Master of Social Work Program.Randall D. Harris, PhD, is Assistant Professor in the Department of Management,

Operations & Marketing, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock, CA 95382.

Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, Vol. 10(4) 2001http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=J051

2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

rise to both optimism and concern regarding the profession’s pursuit forachieving social justice for disenfranchised groups. It is somewhat ironic andtimely that as we witnessed the end of the 1900s, we simultaneously broughtclosure to nearly a half-century approach (experiment) to social welfare policyrelated to the poor, and we have begun the process of ushering in a new era ofwelfare policy with a new experimental design. It is plausible that what the So-cial Security Act of 1935 was to social policy for the poor in the twentieth cen-tury, the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 will beto welfare and the poor in the twenty-first century.

In 1934 while advocating for the passage of the Social Security Act, Presi-dent Roosevelt stated:

People want homes to live in; they want to locate them where they canengage in productive work; and they want some safeguards against mis-fortune which cannot be wholly eliminated in this man-made world ofours. . . . The complexities of great communities and of organized indus-try . . . (compel us) to employ the active interest of the nation as a wholethrough government in order to encourage a greater security for each in-dividual who composes it. (as cited in Day, 1989, p. 287)

Since the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935, social advocates havecontinued to espouse and expand Roosevelt’s philosophy and have champi-oned the argument that in order to address the needs of the disadvantaged, fed-eral support in the form of social programs is required as a centerpiece ofintervention/prevention strategies (Karger & Stoesz, 1990). Nevertheless,with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Recon-ciliation Act, the rules of the game have changed dramatically for welfare re-cipients. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the JobOpportunities and Basic Skills training program, two primary federal socialwelfare programs for the poor, have been eliminated. In their place, the newlaw offers block grants to states in order to establish a Temporary Assistancefor Needy Families (TANF) program. The law provides the state with flexibil-ity regarding the type of “safety-net” to be put into place for low-income fami-lies in need of services, while also including a number of program mandates inan attempt to transition the more than sixty year-old AFDC program into awork-oriented transitional program (Pavetti, 1998).

Consistent with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Recon-ciliation Act’s emphasis on work requirements, a substantive knowledge baseregarding barriers to transitioning welfare recipients into employment is de-veloping. Considerable attention has been directed at the limited basic workskills and poor educational preparation which are likely to serve as significant

22 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC & CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN SOCIAL WORK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

barriers to employment for the welfare population. A serious limitation to the“barriers” knowledge base is that the vast majority of research conducted tothis point tends to view the welfare population as a relatively homogenousgroup. However, conventional wisdom suggests that this is hardly the case.Johnson and Tafoya (1999) contend that welfare recipients in California tendto have significantly lower basic skills than their counterparts in the rest of thenation. As such, they argue that California will experience greater obstacles incomparison to other states in transitioning recipients from welfare to work.Eberts (1997) argues that there is significant variance among welfare recipi-ents and job readiness skills, ranging from those who are ready and able towork to those who face numerous barriers to gaining and maintaining employ-ment. Nevertheless, few studies have attempted to disaggregate potential bar-riers to work in order to identify those persons likely to encounter the greatestobstacles.

THE RESEARCH PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to examine more closely potential barriers toemployment faced by welfare recipients. Similar to the positions of Eberts(1997) and Johnson and Tafoya (1999), a fundamental assumption underpin-ning this study is that the welfare population is heterogeneous in nature. How-ever, we further delineate our position by arguing that different ethnic groupsface different barriers to job entry and that ethnic minorities, in particular, facethe greatest challenges with regard to job entry.

Our decision to use ethnicity as the filter variable for the disaggregationprocess is rooted in the social science knowledge base and previous researchrelated to the subject. There is an enduring legacy of racism, discrimination,and structural inequities in our society which poses serious threats to the healthand well-being of ethnic minority groups (Thomas & Quinn, 1991). It is welldocumented that ethnic minority children and families are at greatest risk forand experience disproportionate levels of poverty, unemployment, under-ed-ucation, inadequate housing, racism, and classism (Kirschenman &Neckerman, 1991; Lewis, 1991; Segal, 1991). Turner, Fix, and Struyk (1991)found that African Americans and Latinos are less likely to receive job offersthan their White counterparts with comparable work experience. In a study ofAfrican American women in Los Angeles, Bobo (1995) found that almost halfof the participants reported experiencing job-related discrimination. Finally,viewed in the context of research findings which overwhelmingly indicate thatthose at the bottom of the social stratification system experience mental healthproblems disproportionately (Rogler & Cortes, 1993) and coupled with the

John A. García and Randall D. Harris 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

growing literature base which indicates that mental health problems are a sig-nificant obstacle to employment for welfare recipients (Kalil et al., 1998), itappears evident that the contention that ethnic minorities are likely to experi-ence a greater and more intense panoply of barriers to workforce participationwarrants attention.

According to Cheng (1995), ethnicity has been frequently used in socioeco-nomic research to examine participation in and exiting from AFDC programs;however, the results are mixed. A number of studies have suggested that ethnicminorities are less likely to exit and tend to stay longer on welfare than theirWhite cohorts (e.g., Coe, 1981; Bane & Ellwood, 1983; Piskulich, 1993).Other studies have concluded that ethnicity did not affect recipients’ likeli-hood of exiting the program (Plotnick, 1983; Cheng, 1995). In addition to thediscrepancies in the findings suggesting the need for further research, thesestudies did not directly examine the connection between ethnicity and barriersthat potentially impact the exiting (transitioning) process in relation to the newwork requirements. As such, the role that ethnicity is likely to play in thetransitioning of recipients from welfare to work remains unclear.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There is a rapidly developing knowledge base specifically related to barriersto work for the welfare population. Considerable attention has been directed atlimited basic job skills and poor educational preparation as significant barriersto employment for welfare recipients (Johnson & Tafoya, 1999). A number ofstudies have revealed that nearly 50% of welfare recipients do not possess ahigh school diploma or a GED (Harris, 1993, 1996; Bane & Ellwood, 1994).Burtless (1995) found that 52% of 25-year-old women who have been on wel-fare for more than a year have less than four years of high school education.Further, Olson and Pavetti (1996) show that nearly a quarter of welfare moth-ers have only a grade school education. Pavetti (1998) reports that nearlythree-fourths (70%) of welfare recipients had scores on the Armed ForcesQualifying Test (a measure of basic skills) that fell in the bottom quartile. Inaddition, the National Institute for Literacy (1996) reports that, on average,welfare recipients read at a sixth-grade level.

The consequences of a person without basic skills looking for a job can bedevastating. Holzer (1996), in a study of entry-level job pre-requisites, foundthat most employers required a considerably higher skill level than mostrecipients possessed. Fully 75% of the employers they surveyed required ahigh school diploma, previous (recent) work experience and references, andmore than half required the applicant to pass a written test. However, even if a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

job is secured, the prospects are also bleak. Johnson and Tafoya (1999) reportthat the jobs held by people with basic skills similar to welfare recipients arecharacterized by low wages, intermittent employment, and less than full-timehours.

The barriers likely to be encountered in transitioning recipients from welfareto work certainly do not stop at job skills and educational preparation. A grow-ing number of studies have focused on multiple children (number of depend-ents), childcare, medical care and family structure (single parent families) asbarriers to employment (see Olson & Pavetti, 1996). For instance, a study byDanzinger and Lehman (1996) revealed that one third of welfare mothers havethree or more children compared to one in six non-welfare recipients. Thehigher number of dependents for welfare recipients has raised concerns andquestions regarding the ability of welfare recipients to meet work requirementsand care for their children or find affordable childcare. As Finegold (1998)points out, the difficulties experienced with juggling work and childcare arenot exclusive to welfare recipients. However, welfare mothers often have theadded responsibility of caring for children who have serious health or behav-ioral problems and are hampered by the fact that they are raising the childrenwithout the assistance of another adult residing in the household. Olson andPavetti (1996) estimate that 15 to 25% of the children on AFDC have a physi-cal or learning disability that could negatively impact the parent’s ability toparticipate in the workforce.

Transportation has also been an issue that has been addressed within theliterature as a barrier to workforce participation for welfare recipients. Ongand Blumenberg (1998) examined geographic separation as a barrier to em-ployment and found that welfare usage declines as geographic job access in-creases. Yet, they have also found that many welfare recipients reside in “jobpoor” communities, which requires them to travel extensively (commute) tofind employment for which they are qualified. As such, reliable transportationbecomes a pivotal issue related to employment for many welfare recipients.Danzinger et al. (1999) found that about half of the welfare recipients in theirsample lacked access to a vehicle and/or did not have a driver’s license.

In one of the more extensive reviews of the research literature on obstaclesto employment for welfare recipients, Kalil et al. (1998) identified a set ofnine barriers to employment that are inclusive of an encompassing list ofboth vocational and pre-vocational skills and aptitudes. Vocational barriersincluded: (1) low-schooling, (2) little work experience, (3) lack of job skillsand credentials employers’ value, and (4) lack of work readiness. Pre- voca-tional barriers were identified as: (1) worries about employer discrimination,(2) mental health problems, (3) alcohol and drug dependence, (4) physicalhealth problems and family stress, and (5) experiences of domestic violence.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Danzinger et al. (1999), using a representative sample of single motherswho were receiving welfare in one urban Michigan county, conducted re-search which examined an array of potential workforce barriers similar tothose identified by Kalil et al., including education, work experience, transpor-tation, perceived discrimination and mental health issues. However, unlikemost “barrier” studies, they directly examined the relationship between bar-riers and employment. Their findings revealed that only 15% of the welfarerecipients had none of the potential employment barriers, while almosttwo-thirds had two or more potential workforce barriers, and over one-quarterhad four or more. In addition, the results revealed that there was a strong asso-ciation between barriers and later employment–the more barriers the recipientexperienced, the less likely she was to be employed.

METHODS

With the rich knowledge base as a foundation, the focus of this study wasto examine three major categories of barriers to workforce participation,which are operationalized by a total of eight variables that have been dis-cussed both in the literature and among human service providers as obstaclesin transitioning recipients from welfare to work. Category one encompassesjob preparedness and includes an examination of four variables: (1) recentwork experience, (2) educational attainment, (3) vocational training, and(4) English language deficits. Category two focuses on family structure as abarrier to employment and includes two variables: (1) number of dependentsin the household and (2) family composition (single parent households versustwo parent households). Category three examines transportation as a barrier toemployment and includes two variables: (1) driver’s license status and (2) ve-hicle status.

Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis One: Different ethnic groups of welfare recipients face dif-ferent barriers to workforce entry. That is, significant differences will beobserved among the various ethnic groups and the eight barriers underinvestigation.

Hypothesis Two: Ethnic minority welfare recipients face a greater num-ber of barriers to workforce entry than White/Non-Hispanic welfare re-cipients.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Research Setting

The data utilized in this study pertain to persons in receipt of services fromone human service agency located in Merced County, California. Merced isone of 58 counties in the State of California and is geographically located inthe heart of the Central Valley also known as the San Joaquin Valley. Mercedis a rural and agricultural county that covers an area of just over 2,000 squaremiles and has a total population which slightly exceeds 200,000. The majorsource of employment in the region is agricultural related industries, alongwith food processing, retail, and light manufacturing. Of the 58 counties inCalifornia, Merced ranks second with regard to the highest number of welfarerecipients (13,794) per 100,000 population (RAND California, 1999).

Data Sources

The data examined in this study came from two existing databases. TheMerced Automated Global Information Control System (MAGIC) providedmost of the basic demographic data on the TANF population, including informa-tion such as race/ethnicity, country of origin, language(s) spoken, gender, anddriver’s license status. The GAIN Employment Maintenance System (GEMS)was the database utilized to glean work related information such as length oftime out of workforce, educational attainment, and vocational training, alongwith other useful demographic data such as family composition and number ofdependents.

Sample

The subjects in this study were all active adult (over age 18) TANF recipi-ents in Merced County, California, in August of 1998. This information wasobtained from the Human Services Agency of Merced County, the primary ad-ministrator of Merced County’s TANF and CALWORKS programs. In Au-gust of 1998, there were 5392 active adult TANF cases. However, this numberwas inclusive of persons who were classified as exempt from work require-ments due to “special circumstances.” In order to focus our attention solely onthose persons who must meet work requirements under the new federal guide-lines, only non-exempt cases were included in the analysis. In addition, asthese databases were not originally developed for this research purpose, theauthors encountered missing data. When the two data sets were merged, it be-came evident that workforce participation data (contained in the GEMS data-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

base) were not available for all welfare recipients meeting work requirements(non-exempt cases). As such, the analysis was conducted on a total sample of4014 active status cases.

The sample was comprised of 2909 women (72.5%) and 1105 men (27.5%).The average age of the TANF recipient was 32.33 years (standard deviation of8.6 years). The ethnic composition of the sample included 1613 (40.2%) His-panics, 1221 (30.4%) White/Non-Hispanics, 777 (19.4%) Asian or Pacific Is-landers, 386 (9.6%) African Americans, and 17 (.4%) American Indians. Itshould also be pointed out that the Asian or Pacific Islander group was largelycomprised of Laotian and Hmong refugees. Forty-six percent (n = 358) of thepersons identified as Asian or Pacific Islander were classified as having refu-gee status.

Relative to their percentages in the general population of Merced County,Hispanics and American Indians were proportionately represented in this sam-ple of active TANF welfare recipients, while White/Non-Hispanics were un-der represented. Asian/Pacific Islanders and African Americans were overrepresented. The percentages of both Asians and African Americans in thewelfare sample are nearly double their percentages in the general population ofthe County.

Data Analysis

The data analysis plan was organized into two parts. First, a series ofChi-square cross tabulation tests and a one-way Analysis of Variance testwere conducted in order to address the first hypothesis: There will be signifi-cant differences among the various ethnic groups with regard to the eight po-tential workforce barriers. Specifically, the dependent variables under studyincluded seven dichotomous variables (0 = not a barrier, and 1 = a barrier)and one continuous variable (see Table 1). As such, seven Chi-square testsand one analysis of variance test (a one-way ANOVA) were performed.Given the fact that the analysis called for multiple tests to be generated, in or-der to minimize concerns over alpha inflation (the error term increasing ex-ponentially with each additional test), the rejection level was set at .001 foreach outcome.

The second research hypothesis was tested using a one-way Analysis ofVariance. This test was specifically conducted in order to determine if therewere significant differences among the various ethnic minority groups and thenon-ethnic minority group (White Non-Hispanic) with regard to the averagenumber of employment barriers encountered.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 1

Variable Codes

Dichotomous Variables:

1) Recent Work Participation: Has participant worked in the past 24 months?

0 = not a barrier (has worked in past 24 months)

1 = a barrier (has not worked in past 24 months)

2) Vocational Training: Has participant received (participated in) vocational training?

0 = not a barrier (has received vocational training)

1 = a barrier (has not received vocational training)

3) Educational Attainment: Does the participant have a High School Diploma or GED?

0 = not a barrier (has a High School Diploma or GED)

1 = a barrier (does not have a High School Diploma or GED)

4) English Language Deficit: Does participant speak English?

0 = not a barrier (English is a language that is spoken)

1 = a barrier (English is not a language that is spoken)

5) Family Composition: Is the participant the head of a single parent household?

0 = not a barrier (is not the head of a single parent household)

1 = a barrier (is the head of a single parent household)

6) Driver’s License Status: Does the participant have a driver’s license?

0 = not a barrier (participant has a driver’s license)

1 = a barrier (participant does not have a driver’s license)

7) Vehicle Status: Does the participant own/have a vehicle?

0 = not a barrier (participant has a vehicle)

1 = is a barrier (participant does not have a vehicle)

Continuous Variable:

1) Number of Dependents: Total number of dependents in the household

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

FINDINGS

Overall Sample and Workforce Barriers

The findings related to the sample as a whole are somewhat similar to theresults from previous research. With regard to the job preparedness variables,52% of the sample of the active TANF recipients were not employed in thepast 24 months, 51% did not have a high school diploma or GED equivalent,85% reported having no vocational training, and 30% had an English languagedeficit. Similarly, the family structure variables revealed that 59% of therecipients were from single parent households, and 36% of the recipients had 3or more dependents. With regard to the transportation variables, 38% of thesample did not possess a driver’s license, and 79% reported not having avehicle.

As a unit, welfare recipients in Merced County had an average of nearly 4(3.7) workforce barriers. Less than 10% of the sample had only one or noworkforce barriers, while 59% of the sample encountered between two andfour barriers, and 32% of the participants had between five and eight barriers.Nevertheless, in isolation, these findings mask the significant differences inworkforce barriers present within the sample of welfare recipients.

Employment Barriers by Ethnicity

The presentation of the findings based on the filter variable “ethnicity” isorganized according to the three major barrier themes under examination:Job Preparedness, Family Structure, and Transportation. Eight tests wereconducted in order to examine differences among the various ethnic groups.

Job Preparedness as a Barrier to Employment

Recent Work History. A Chi-square cross tabulation was conducted in orderto pinpoint the differences among the various ethnic groups regarding workparticipation in the past twenty-four months. The results indicated that therewere significant differences among the groups regarding recent work experi-ence, χ2(4, N = 4014) = 85.06, p < .001.

The most glaring difference regarding workforce participation and absentee-ism over the past twenty-four months involved the Asian population in con-trast to the other groups. At least half of all of the American Indian, Hispanic,African American, and White/Non-Hispanic recipients had worked at somepoint during the past two years. Furthermore, American Indian, Hispanic, Af-rican American, and White/Non-Hispanic recipients had nearly identical re-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

cent workforce participation rates. However, slightly more than two-thirds(68%) of the Asian TANF recipients had not worked in the past two years. Ta-ble 2 highlights the workforce participation rates for each group and clearly il-lustrates that while a significant portion of the TANF recipients face a barrierto employment (having not worked in the past two years), this “job prepared-ness” barrier is particularly prominent for the Asian TANF recipients.

Educational Attainment. A Chi-square cross tabulation was conductedin order to determine if there were differences among the various ethnicgroups regarding educational attainment (possessing a high school diplomaor GED). The results indicated significant differences between the educationalattainment levels of Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Native AmericanTANF recipients in comparison to White-Non-Hispanic and African Ameri-can TANF recipients, χ2(4, N = 4014) = 423.39, p < .001. As illustrated in Ta-ble 3, educational attainment as a barrier to employment is considerably moreproblematic for three of the five groups, as more than half of the Hispanic andAmerican Indian TANF recipients and over four-fifths of Asian TANF popu-lation did not possess a high school diploma or GED.

Using a one-way Analysis of Variance, a closer examination of the averagelevel of educational attainment further highlighted the significant differencesamong the groups regarding years of formal education, F (4, 4010) = 532.16,p = .001. The Hispanic cohort, with an average level of education of 9.78years, had a significantly lower average level of educational attainment in com-parison to White (11.40 years), African American (11.38 years), and American


TABLE 2. Ethnic Status and Workforce Participation in Past 24 Months

Worked in the past 24 months?

Ethnic Group Yes No

Hispanic 53.4% 46.6%

African American 51.7% 48.3%

White/Non-Hispanic 50.4% 49.6%

American Indian 50.0% 50.0%

Asian or Pacific Islander 31.5% 68.5%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Indian (11.25 years) TANF recipients. However, again the most glaring differ-ence was related to the significantly low levels of educational attainment of theAsian welfare recipients who averaged 3.86 years of formal education.

Vocational Training. The third “job preparedness” variable under study in-volved an examination of the TANF recipients’ participation in vocationaltraining. The results of the Chi-square cross tabulation, χ2(4, N = 4014) =21.13, p < .001, again revealed significant differences among the ethnicgroups. As revealed in Table 4, while all of the groups had a low level of partic-ipation in vocational training, Hispanic and White/Non Hispanic recipientshad the lowest participation rates while American Indian and African Ameri-can recipients had the highest.

English Language Deficits. The final “job preparedness” variable as a bar-rier to workforce participation that was examined involved language. Spe-cifically, a Chi-square cross tabulation was conducted to examine differencesamong the ethnic groups with regard to English as a “primary” language spo-ken. As with the other job preparedness variables, the results of the Chi-squareanalysis indicated significant differences among the groups with regard to lan-guage as a barrier for workforce participation, χ2(4, N = 4014) = 2133.52, p <.001.

While the data provided did not directly examine the participants’ ability tospeak or not speak English, the results suggest that the Asian cohort, more thanother groups (particularly in comparison to Hispanic recipients, for whomSpanish is often considered to be the native language), are likely to have


TABLE 3. Ethnic Status and Educational Attainment

High School Diploma or GED?

Ethnic Group Yes No






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

greater English language deficits. That is, only 7% of the Asian welfarerecipients indicated that English is a primary language spoken. Table 5provides the breakdown for each ethnic group related to English as a primarylanguage spoken.

Family Structure as a Barrier to Employment

Number of Dependents. In the sample of Merced County welfare recipi-ents, the average number of dependents was 2.2. Upon first glance, the dataon number of dependents do not appear to be highly meaningful. Again,however, a one-way Analysis of Variance indicated that there were signifi-cant differences among the various ethnic groups in the average number of de-pendents, F (4, 4009) = 212.21, p � .001. As indicated in Table 6, the resultsrevealed that Asian or Pacific Islanders, with an mean of 4.05 dependents,have on average more dependents than the other ethnic groups. A further ex-amination of the Asian/Pacific Islander group revealed that 31% of the partici-pants had two dependents or fewer, while some 55% had between four andseven dependents, and 13% had between eight and thirteen dependents.

Single Parent Households. The second family structure variable as a barrierto workforce participation under study involved single parent households.Again, the results of the Chi-square analysis revealed significant differencesamong the ethnic groups regarding single parent household status, χ2(4, N =4014) = 441.59, p < .001. As revealed in Table 7, African American and

John A. Garcia 33

TABLE 4. Ethnic Status and Vocational Training/Schooling

Vocational Training?

Ethnic Group Yes No




White/Non Hispanic 15.0% 85.0%


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

White/Non-Hispanic recipients have the highest number of single parenthouseholds, while Asian TANF recipients have the fewest. The number oftwo-parent households for Asian welfare recipients far exceeded the numberof single parent households, indicating that this family structure variable is nota barrier for workforce participation for the vast majority of Asian TANF re-cipients, but is a barrier for most African American, White/Non- Hispanic,American Indian, and Hispanic TANF recipients.


TABLE 5. Ethnic Status and English Language

English as a “Primary” Language?

Ethnic Group Yes No

White/Non-Hispanic 100.0% 0%

American Indian 100.0% 0%

African American 100.0% 0%



TABLE 6. Ethnic and Status Number of Dependents

Ethnic Group Average Number of Dependents

American Indian 1.63

White/Non-Hispanic 1.67

African American 1.88

Hispanic 1.97

Asian or Pacific Islander 4.05

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Transportation as a Barrier to Employment

Driver’s License Status. The Chi-square analysis for the first transportationvariable (possessing a driver’s license) as a barrier to employment revealedsignificant differences among the ethnic groups, χ2(4, N = 4014) = 222.44,p � .001. As indicated in Table 8, transportation concerns as a result of nothaving a valid driver’s license appear particularly problematic for the Asianand Hispanic welfare recipients. Conversely, White/Non-Hispanic recipientsare more likely than recipients from the other ethnic groups to possess a validdriver’s license. Over one quarter of the recipients from each of the ethnic mi-nority groups did not possess a valid driver’s license.

Vehicle Status. Regarding the second transportation barrier under study, theresults of the Chi-square analysis also pinpointed considerable differences be-tween and among the ethnic groups with regard to vehicle status, χ2(4, N =4013) = 56.07, p � .001. Over two-thirds of all TANF recipients did not pos-sess a vehicle. As such, transportation appears to be a serious barrier forworkforce participation for most recipients. Nevertheless, as presented in Ta-ble 9, American Indian and African American recipients are even more likelythan recipients from the other ethnic groups to not possess a vehicle, as nearlyall American Indian TANF recipients (94.5%) indicated that they did not pos-sess a vehicle, and more than four out of five (88.6%) African American recip-ients indicated that they did not possess a vehicle. As a cohort, White/Non-Hispanics were more likely than all the other groups to report having a vehicle.

John A. Garcia 35

TABLE 7. Ethnic Status and Single Parent Households

Household Status

Ethnic Group Single Parent Two-Parents






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Number of Barriers by Ethnic Status

In order to test the second research hypothesis–ethnic minority welfarerecipients face a greater number of barriers to workforce entry thanWhite/Non-Hispanic welfare recipients–a one-way Analysis of Variancewas conducted. The results of the one-way ANOVA, F (4, 4005) = 187.05,p � .001, revealed that there were significant differences among the


TABLE 8. Ethnic Status and Possessing a Driver’s License

Do you have a driver’s license?

Ethnic Group Yes No






TABLE 9. Ethnic Status and Vehicle Status

Do you have a vehicle?

Ethnic Group Yes No


Asian American 22.9% 77.1%




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

groups with regard to the average number of workforce barriers encountered.White/Non-Hispanic recipients encountered significantly fewer barriers thanthe ethnic minority groups, with the exception of American Indians.

White/Non-Hispanics and the small sample of American Indians had anaverage of three workforce barriers. For both groups, the most frequentlyoccurring (modal) number of barriers was two. However, African Americanrecipients averaged 3.5 barriers. The number of barriers encountered by theAfrican American cohort ranged from 0 to 7, and the modal number of barriersencountered was three. Hispanic welfare recipients averaged four workforcebarriers. The number of barriers for Hispanic recipients ranged from 0 to 8,with the modal number of barriers being four. Finally, Asian welfare recipientsaveraged 5 workforce barriers. Again, the number of barriers ranged from 0 to8, but the most frequently occurring number of barriers for the Asian recipientswas six.

DISCUSSION

The overall conclusions regarding this sample of California welfare recipi-ents are not encouraging. The findings reveal that there are significant obsta-cles that will be encountered by most recipients as they attempt to transitionfrom welfare to work. The results indicate that a large number of the partici-pants (from each of the five ethnic groups) have been out of the workforce forat least two years, have educational levels of less than 12 years, and have highrates of single parent (female-headed) households. Furthermore, the data alsosuggest that transportation is likely to be a barrier for many of the welfare re-cipients in the sense that only small percentages actually have a vehicle and adriver’s license.

Individually, each of the eight barriers examined has its own implicationsand will confront human service providers and their clients with serious ob-stacles to overcome in an attempt to match the client with a job. As these fac-tors are combined (for example, lack of recent employment experience withlow levels of educational attainment), the task will become particularly chal-lenging. However, when these factors converge into a tripartite, quadruple, orquintuple system, it is likely that the chances for successful employment tran-sition are greatly diminished.

The results presented in this study also revealed that there are significantdifferences among the various ethnic groups with regard to potential barriersto employment, and closer inspection of the data revealed that consistently it isthe ethnic minority groups that appear to face the greatest obstacles. On alleight variables examined, at least one ethnic minority group had a significantly


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

higher percentage of individuals facing the particular barrier to employmentthan White/Non-Hispanic recipients. Furthermore, with the exception of thesmall sample of American Indians, White/Non-Hispanic recipients faced fewerbarriers to employment than ethnic minorities. These results support both re-search hypotheses and strongly suggest that ethnic minority groups face thegreatest challenges to workforce entry.

While the sample is not representative of the “national” welfare popula-tion regarding ethnic composition, and the results highlighting the barriersthat each ethnic group is facing are not generalizable to welfare recipients na-tionally, the implications from this study have national significance whichthe authors believe merit serious consideration and attention. This study high-lights the need for local level (county) research that allows service providers tohave a clearer understanding of the potential barriers likely to be encounteredby their consumers. Specific to the county under study, the findings suggestthat special attention and assistance, as well as creative intervention strategies,will need to be directed at each group. In this sample, the Asian population,which is comprised largely of refugees, poses a unique and multifaceted chal-lenge. On a larger scale, the results suggest that the intervention strategies nec-essary for assisting persons in moving from “dependency to independence” aregoing to need to be multidimensional and tailored to meet the special needs ofthe client.

The terms cultural sensitivity, cultural awareness, and cultural competencyhave become a natural and enduring part of social workers’ nomenclature andfundamental to practice. At minimum, culturally competent practice involvesbeing aware of and sensitive to the unique needs and issues facing clients, aswell as designing intervention strategies that are consistent with those needsand the clients’ world view. Nevertheless, concepts such as cultural awarenessand cultural competence have rarely been discussed in association with thenew welfare legislation and work requirements. This might in large part beattributable to the punitive nature of the legislation and the emphasis onterms such as sanctions and penalties. The underlying assumption of the Per-sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act is that welfarerecipients will be motivated by the consequences of non-participation and thatparticipation in the workforce will reduce dependency. As Loprest (1999)observed, one of the purposes of PRWORA is to “end dependency of needyparents on government benefits by promoting job preparedness, work, andmarriage” (p. 1).

The results from this study reveal that even if the negative consequences ofnon-participation serve as a source of inspiration or motivation to welfare de-pendent recipients, many face a serious array of barriers that are likely to serveas legitimate obstacles that will not be easily overcome. Olson and Pavetti


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

(1996) argue that the presence of one workforce barrier may not be an insur-mountable obstacle to overcome in obtaining and maintaining employment;however, in the face of multiple barriers, chances for employment are greatlydiminished. In the study sample, each of the five ethnic groups faced a mini-mum of three workforce barriers.

Phillips and Leff (1999) argue that with the new welfare reform legisla-tion, states now have a greater responsibility for assuring the delivery of “fairand equitable” services. They further contend that in order to accomplish thistask, service delivery systems must undertake a closer examination of cli-ents’ culture, race, and ethnicity and adapt traditional services to adequatelymeet consumers’ needs. With a clearer understanding of the variance in jobreadiness among welfare recipients and the factors which are most likely toserve as barriers to employment for some but not others, service providers willbe better informed to help construct service plans that are likely to address theunique needs of welfare recipients. “Providing a variety of services to wel-fare-to-work recipients, instead of the ‘one size fits all’ system that is typicallyin place, could improve the employment rates of welfare-to-work programswithout increasing the total resources devoted to the program” (Eberts,1997, p. 1).

As we transition into the twenty-first century, the country is moving into anew era with a new and untested social policy approach with the poor. As thenew legislation continues to take hold, it is critical that human service provid-ers understand the complexity of the problems facing those who are served.The new work requirements are certain to impact groups of people in differentways.

REFERENCES

Bane, M., & Ellwood, D. (1983). The dynamics of dependence: The routes of self-suffi-ciency. Cambridge, MA: Urban Systems Research and Engineering.

Bane, M. & Ellwood, D. (1994). Welfare realities: From rhetoric to reform. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bobo, L. (1995). Surveying racial discrimination: Analyses from a multiethnic labormarket. (Working Paper #75). Cambridge, MA: Russell Sage Foundation.

Burtless, G. (1995). The employment prospects of welfare recipients. In The work al-ternative: Welfare reform and the realities of the job market, D. Nightingale and R.Haveman, Eds., Washington DC: Urban Institute Press.

Cheng, T. (1995). The chances of recipients leaving AFDC: A longitudinal study. So-cial Work Research, 19(2), 67-76.

Coe, R. (1981). A preliminary empirical examination of the dynamics of welfare use.In M. Hill & J. Morgan (Eds.). Five Thousand American Families: Patterns of Eco-nomic Progress (Vol. 1, 251-276). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Danzinger, S., Corcoran, M., Danzinger, S., Heflin, C., Kalil, A., Levine, J., Rosen, D.,Seefeldt, K., Siefert, K., & Tolman, R. (1999). Barriers to the employment of wel-fare recipients. University of Michigan: Poverty Research & Training Center.

Danzinger, S., & Lehman, J. (1996). How will welfare recipients fare in the labor mar-ket? Challenge, 44, 30-35.

Day, P. J. (1989). A new history of social welfare. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall Inc.

Eberts, R. (October, 1997). The use of profiling to target services in state wel-fare-to-work programs: An example of process and implementation. Kalamazoo,MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Finegold, D. (1998). Is the Fair Labor Standards Act fair to welfare recipients? Journalof Labor Research, XIX (2), 245-262.

Harris, K. M. (1993). Work and welfare among single mothers in poverty. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 99, 317-352.

Harris, K. M. (1996). Life after welfare: Women, work and repeat dependency. Ameri-can Journal of Sociological Review, 61, 407-426.

Holzer, H. (1996). What employers want: Job prospects for less-educated workers.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Johnson, H., & Tafoya, S. (1999). The basic skills of welfare recipients: Implicationsfor welfare reform. San Francisco, CA: The Public Policy Institute of California.

Kalil, A., Corcoran, M., Danzinger, S., Tolman, R., Seefeldt, K., Rosen, D., & Nam, Y.(1998). Getting jobs, keeping jobs, and earning a living wage: Can welfare reformwork? Discussion Paper no. 1170-98. University of Wisconsin-Madison: Institutefor Research on Poverty.

Karger, H., & Stoesz, D. (1990). American social welfare policy: A structural ap-proach. White Plains, New York: Longman.

Kirschenman, J., & Neckerman, K.M. (1991). “We’d love to hire them but . . . ”. Themeaning of race for employers. In C. Jencks and P. Peterson, Eds., The UrbanUnderclass. Washington DC: Brookings.

Lewis, K. G. (1991). Introduction: Family systems applications to social work. Journalof Independent Social Work, 5(3-4), 1-7.

Loprest, P. (1999). Families who left welfare: Who are they and how are they doing?Washington DC: Urban Institute.

National Institute for Literacy (August, 1996). Policy Update.Olson, K., & Pavetti, L. (1996). Personal and family challenges to the successful tran-

sition from welfare to work. Washington DC: Urban Institute.Ong, P., & Blumenberg, E. (1998). Job access, commute, and travel burden among

welfare recipients. Urban Studies, 35(1), 77-93.Pavetti, L. (1998). Against the odds: Steady employment among low-skilled women.

Washington DC: Urban Institute.Phillips, D., & Leff, S. (1999). What do we know about measuring cultural competence

in mental health systems? A paper presented at the National Association for Wel-fare Research and Statistics, 39th Annual Conference.

Piskulich, C. (1993). Toward a Comprehensive Model of Welfare Exits: The Case ofAFDC. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 165-185.

Plotnick, R. (1983). Turnover in the AFDC population: An event history analysis.Journal of Human Resources, 18, 63-81.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

RAND, California (1999). Statistics Summary. URL <http://ca.rand.org/>.Rogler, H. L., & Cortes, D.E. (1993). Help-seeking pathways: A unifying concept in

mental health care. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 554-561.Segal, L. (1991). Brief therapy: The MRI approach, In Handbook of Family Therapy,

A. Gurman & D. Kniskern, Eds., New York: Brunner/Mazel.Thomas, S.B., & Quinn, S.C. (1991). Public health then and now: The Tuskegee syphi-

lis study, 1932 to 1970: Implications for HIV education and AIDS risk educationprograms in Black communities. American Journal of Public Health, 81(11),1498-1505.

Turner, M., Fix, M., & Struyk, R. (1991). Opportunities denied, opportunities dimin-ished; racial discrimination in hiring. Washington: Urban Institute.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eorg

ia]

at 0

5:14

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Barriers to Employment for Welfare Recipients