Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New York City
Submitted by:
Randy Capps, Leighton Ku and Michael Fix
Chris Furgiuele, Jeff Passel,
Rajeev Ramchand, Scott McNiven, Dan
Perez-Lopez
[The Urban Institute]
Eve Fielder, Michael Greenwell and Tonya Hays
[Survey Research Center, University of California at Los Angeles]
Submitted to:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services
March 4, 2002
This report is available on the Internet at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/immigrants-faring02/
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Part I. A Profile of the Los Angeles and New York
Immigrant Population Following Welfare Reform
Part II. Food Assistance and Food Insecurity
Appendices
References
List of Tables
- 1.1 Detailed Immigration Status of Focal
Family Members, 1999-2000
- 1.2 Benefits Program Participation among
Low-income Immigrant Families
- 1.3 Immigrant Understanding of Program
Eligibility Rules and Consequences (Individual Items in LANYCIS Survey)
- 1.4 Immigrant Understanding of Program
Eligibility Rules and Consequences (Composite Score on Items in LANYCIS
Survey)
- 1.5 Poverty among Immigrant Families, with
Comparison to Native Citizen Families in California and New York State.
- 1.6 Labor Force Characteristics of
Immigrant Adults, with Comparison to Native Citizen Families in California and
New York State.
- 1.7 Food Security Problems among Low-income
Immigrant Families, with Comparison to Native Citizen Families in California
and New York State
- 1.8 Housing Affordability Problems among
Low-income Immigrant Families, with Comparison to Native Citizen Families in
California and New York State
- 1.9 Health Status among Immigrants with
Comparison to Native Citizen Families in California and New York State
- 1.10 Health Insurance Coverage among
Immigrants, with Comparison to Native Citizens in California and New York
State
- 2.1 Poverty among Immigrant Families, by
Citizenship and Legal Status
- 2.2 Poverty among Immigrant Adults, by
Country of Birth
- 2.3 Poverty among Immigrant Adults, by
English Proficiency
- 2.4 Poverty among Immigrant Adults, by Year
of Arrival to the United States
- 2.5 Poverty among Immigrant Families, by
Family Composition
- 2.6 Food Security among Immigrant Families,
by Citizenship and Legal Status
- 2.7 Food Security among Immigrant Families,
by English Proficiency
- 2.8 Food Security among Immigrant Families,
by Family Composition
- 2.9 Logistic Regression on Odds of Food
insecurity and Moderate Hunger for Immigrant Families
- 2.10 Food Stamp Receipt among Low-income
Families in the March 1999 Current Population Survey
- 2.11 Food Stamp Receipt among Low-income
Immigrant Families, by Family Composition
- 2.12 Food Stamp Receipt among Low-income
Immigrant Families, by Other Program Receipt
- 2.13 Food Stamp Receipt among Low-income
Non-elderly Immigrant Families, by Citizenship and Legal Status
- 2.14 Food Stamp Receipt among Low-income
Non-elderly Immigrant Families, by Year of Arrival to The United States
- 2.15 Food Stamp Receipt among Low-income
Non-elderly Immigrant Families, by English Proficiency
- 2.16 Food Stamp Receipt by Food Security
among Non-elderly Immigrant Families
- 2.17 Food Stamp Receipt among Food
Insecure Non-elderly Immigrant Families, by Citizenship and Legal Status
- 2.18 Food Stamp Receipt among Food
Insecure Non-elderly Immigrant Families, by English Proficiency
- 2.19 Food Stamp Receipt among Food
Insecure Immigrant Families, by Family Composition
- 2.20 Logistic Regression on Odds of Food
Stamp Receipt in the Year Prior to the Survey
List of Figures
In 1996, debates about welfare reform and immigration converged and
reshaped federal policies about the eligibility of legally admitted immigrants
for means-tested public benefits programs, including the Food Stamp Program
(FSP), Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF). Before the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was enacted in 1996, legal immigrants
were eligible for benefits on terms similar to those of native-born citizens.
The new law significantly limited the eligibility of legally-admitted
immigrants for means-tested federal benefit programs, particularly immigrants
entering the United States after the welfare reform law was passed in August
1996.
In early 2002, as this report was going into publication, these debates
were being revisited within the context of TANF's reauthorization. Legislators
had introduced versions of a bill to restore Medicaid to all legal immigrant
children and pregnant women (the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act)
in 2001. Several bills to restore food stamp eligibility to immigrants had been
proposed. For instance, President Bush's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget (Office of
Management and Budget 2002: 68) would restore food stamp eligibility to legal
immigrants who had been in the country for five years. Another proposal,
reported out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry, (1) would restore
eligibility to all legal immigrant children and elders, as well as adults who
could prove they had worked at least four years in the United States.
This report provides findings from a survey of immigrants in Los
Angeles County and New York City that was designed to yield new insights about
the status of immigrants in the context of welfare reform. The report
summarizes data from a survey of 3,447 immigrant families (i.e., families with
at least one foreign-born adult), including detailed data on 7,843 people in
those families. The survey was conducted in late 1999 and early 2000 by the
Survey Research Center of the University of California at Los Angeles. Data
from the survey offer a rich source of information about immigrant families,
particularly low-income ones, in the two largest urban areas of the country.
The survey describes the living conditions of about 4.8 million people in Los
Angeles County and 3.5 million people in New York City who live in immigrant
families. Unlike other household surveys with large samples, LANYCIS includes
information on immigration status. The survey was conducted in five languages
and had a strong response rate of 69 percent.
We augmented this survey in three ways. First, we conducted follow-up,
in-person interviews with 100 households in each city. Second, we analyzed data
about families of native-born citizens in Los Angeles and New York City, using
the annual Current Population Survey (CPS), collected by the U.S. Census
Bureau. Third, for comparison data on native citizen families in California and
New York State, we analyzed the Urban Institute's National Survey of America's
Families (NSAF).
Organization of the Report. The report is set out in two sections.
The first gives an overview of the demographic composition of immigrant
families, and analyzes trends in immigrants' labor force participation, income,
poverty, program use, and health insurance coverage. The second section of the
report hones in on immigrants' food insecurity and food stamp use. Appendices
follow that describe the survey's methodology, strategies for imputing and
editing data, measurement of food insecurity, and analysis of food stamp
participation.
- United States citizens make up more than half of the members of the
immigrant families included in the survey, which was conducted in late 1999 and
early 2000. About one-third are native citizens, and most of them are the
U.S.-born children of immigrants. Additionally, roughly a quarter of family
members are naturalized citizens. (In this report, we use the term "immigrant"
broadly to include all foreign-born people, including legal permanent
residents, refugees, naturalized citizens, undocumented aliens and other
foreign born persons. Because these groups have differing legal statuses,
benefit eligibility, and socioeconomic characteristics, this report also
provides more detailed estimates by immigrant category.)
- About one-sixth of the members of immigrant families in Los Angeles
County and one in 12 in New York City appear to be undocumented aliens.
- As of early 2000, there were about 123,000 legal permanent residents
(LPRs) and refugees who entered the United States since August 1996 in Los
Angeles County and about 210,000 in New York City.
- The Los Angeles sample includes adults born in 75 countries, and the
New York sample includes adults from 109 countries.
- Thirty-one percent of immigrant families in Los Angeles are poor
(with incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level), and 61 percent
have low incomes (below 200 percent of the poverty level). In New York City, 30
percent are poor and 53 percent have low incomes. These poverty rates are more
than twice as high as rates for native citizen families in California and New
York State.
- Legal immigrants who entered the country since 1996 are poorer than
those who arrived earlier, despite new policies requiring their sponsors to
demonstrate incomes over 125 percent of the federal poverty level. The share of
legal permanent residents (LPRs) entering after August 1996 with incomes below
poverty is 30 percent in Los Angeles and 40 percent in New York City, compared
to 27 percent and 29 percent in the two cities, respectively, for LPRs entering
before August 1996.
- The 1996 welfare reform law imposed the most severe eligibility
restrictions for federal benefits such as welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid on
legal immigrants entering after the law was enacted; yet, these immigrants are
poorer than those entering before enactment.
- Over three quarters of immigrant adults in Los Angeles (about 1.9
million people) and nearly two thirds in New York (1.1 million) are limited
English proficient (LEP), using a conventionally accepted definition (not
speaking English very well). Using a more conservative, restrictive definition
(not speaking English well or at all), 51 percent of immigrant adults in Los
Angeles (1.3 million) and 38 percent in New York City (670,000) are LEP. The
large share of LEP respondents may be partially attributable to the fact that
the survey was conducted in five languages.
- Limited English proficient adults are also poorer than immigrant
adults overall: their poverty rate is 33 percent in Los Angeles and 34 percent
in New York City, compared to 13 and 14 percent in the two cities,
respectively, among immigrant adults speaking only English or speaking English
very well.
- Immigrants tend to have lower incomes despite high labor force
attachment. Overall, labor force participation rates among immigrant adults in
both New York and Los Angeles (nearly 80 percent) are comparable to those among
native-born adults. But labor force participation is higher among low-income
immigrants (73 percent in both cities) than among their low-income native-born
counterparts (64 percent in California and 58 percent in New York State). Since
immigrants often take low-wage jobs, however, their incomes are generally lower
than those of native citizens in the labor force.
- Almost one-fifth of low-income immigrant families in Los Angles and
over one quarter in New York reported problems paying their rent, mortgage, or
utilities during the prior year. High housing costs in both cities contributed
to this finding.
- One-third of all immigrant families in Los Angeles and 31 percent in
New York are food insecure. Just over 10 percent experience food insecurity
with moderate hunger. Food insecurity and hunger rates are higher for
noncitizens than naturalized citizens. The U.S. Current Population Survey
reports much lower food insecurity rates for families composed of native-born
citizens: 12 percent in Los Angeles and 11 percent in New York.
- In Los Angeles the rate of food insecurity is twice as high among
limited English proficient families (i.e., those in which no adults speak
English very well) as among proficient families (40 versus 21 percent). In New
York the rate is one and a half times as high for LEP families (36 percent) as
it is for proficient families (24 percent). About half of families where adults
speak no English at all are food insecure in Los Angeles, and in New York that
figure is 57 percent.
- Thirty-eight percent of immigrant families with children experience
food insecurity in both Los Angeles and New York, and about 12 percent
experience moderate hunger. In New York half of all single-parent immigrant
families with children are food insecure, compared to only about 35 percent of
two-parent families. In Los Angeles comparable figures are 45 and 36 percent,
respectively, for one and two-parent families.
- In 1999-2000, relatively small shares of low-income immigrant
families (those with incomes below twice the poverty level) reported receiving
benefits like food stamps, TANF, or Medicaid. For instance, 13 percent of
low-income noncitizen families in Los Angeles and 22 percent in New York City
received food stamps, compared with 34 percent of low-income native citizen
families in each state.
- Among immigrant families, those with naturalized citizens tended to
have higher participation rates for these benefit programs than did families
composed of noncitizens, including legal permanent residents. This was
especially true in New York City (where, for instance, 24 percent of
naturalized families but only 14 percent of LPR families reported receiving
food stamps), but in Los Angeles benefits use varied less by citizenship and
legal status. Differences in food stamp participation between naturalized
citizen and noncitizen families may be narrower in Los Angeles because
post-enactment LPRs retain eligibility due to California's replacement program.
- A large fraction of the noncitizen families receiving food stamps
before the welfare reform law was implemented reported that they had not
received benefits during the years since. About half of the families receiving
food stamps in 1996 or 1997 were not receiving benefits at the time of the
interview, in 1999 or 2000. Roughly half of those respondents whose families
were still receiving benefits at the time of the interview said that their food
stamp allotments had been reduced. The reported reasons for reduced or lost
benefits were generally unrelated to immigration status.
- Large proportions of immigrant families experiencing food insecurity
do not receive food stamps, indicating that there is substantial unmet need for
food stamps in both cities. About four-fifths of food insecure families (82
percent in Los Angeles and 78 percent in New York) did not receive benefits
during the year before the survey.
- Nonetheless, benefits appear to be targeted to families most in
need. Single-parent families with children are more than twice as likely and
those with LEP adults three times as likely to receive food stamps than other
families, when controlling for poverty and immigration status.
- Receipt of other benefit programs appears to improve access to food
stamps. TANF recipients and refugees in New York City have the highest rates of
food stamp receipt.
- Most respondents losing food stamps since welfare reform cited
employment, income improvements and family composition changes as the reason
for benefits loss. Fewer than 10 percent cited policy changes, bureaucratic
problems or errors. One reason these results differ from some nationwide
studies may be that immigrant families in Los Angeles benefited from
California's seamless replacement of lost federal food stamp benefits.
- Immigrants and their children tended to report somewhat poorer
health status than members of native citizen families. Other research, however,
suggests that part of the difference might be caused by cultural differences in
reporting and perceptions, rather than due to clinical differences.
- In Los Angeles, 40 percent of noncitizen children and 22 percent of
citizen children in immigrant families are uninsured, compared with about 6
percent in native citizen families in California. In New York City, 28 percent
of noncitizen children and 8 percent of citizen children in immigrant families
are uninsured, compared with 6 percent of children in native citizen families
in New York State.
- Noncitizen children with legal permanent resident parents are more
likely to be uninsured than citizen children in LPR families (55 versus 22
percent in Los Angeles and 32 versus 15 percent in New York City).
- A key factor in the difference in children's insurance profiles
between the two cities is that immigrant children are far more likely to have
coverage through New York's State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
than through California's SCHIP Program, Child Health Plus. Both states extend
coverage to legal immigrant children in their programs, but the New York
program was established several years earlier and has much larger overall
enrollment levels that include immigrant children.
- Forty-two percent of immigrant adults in Los Angeles and 38 percent
in New York City lack health insurance coverage. These rates of uninsurance are
roughly triple those for native citizens in New York State and California. The
primary reason for this gap is that immigrants are less likely to have
job-based health insurance coverage. They are, however, as likely as natives to
be enrolled in Medicaid.
- About two-thirds of elderly immigrants are covered by Medicare.
While Medicare has brought almost universal insurance coverage to most native
citizen elders, a significant share of elderly immigrants are not eligible
because of residency rules or because they do not have enough years of credited
work experience in the United States. Thus, elderly immigrants are more reliant
on Medicaid.
- Almost 40 percent of survey respondents (and 50 percent of
low-income respondents) gave incorrect answers to at least two out of three
questions about program eligibility and the impact of benefits receipt on their
ability to legalize or naturalize. Yet, respondents with wrong answers to these
questions were only slightly less likely to be enrolled in Medicaid, and they
were no more or less likely to participate in the Food Stamp Program. Responses
to the in-depth survey component suggest immigrants are reluctant to use
benefit programs, but will do so when experiencing sufficient need.
These survey data indicate that many immigrants in Los Angeles County
and New York City, particularly those who are not citizens, live in families
experiencing economic hardship. We examined an array of hardship measures,
including poverty, food insecurity, moderate hunger, housing problems, and lack
of health insurance. When compared with native citizen families, the immigrant
families in the survey have consistently lower incomes and higher hardship
levels, despite relatively high employment rates. About 80 percent of the
children in these immigrant families are native-born citizens, and they share
economic hardship with their immigrant parents and siblings.
These data were collected in 1999 to 2000, roughly three years after
welfare reform was enacted and implemented and several months to a year after
the federal government issued guidance about the public charge implications of
benefits participation. Since these data are cross-sectional and the analyses
are primarily descriptive, these findings should not necessarily be interpreted
as the effects of welfare reform or other state and federal policy changes.
Indeed, immigrants faced many hardships before the laws were enacted. The
findings outlined in this report, however, show reduced benefit use and
substantial levels of need among immigrant families in program areas directly
affected by welfare reforms' immigrant eligibility restrictions. In addition,
our findings are consistent with other research indicating declines in public
benefits use by immigrant families since 1996.
1. "Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural
Enhancement Act of 2001," S. 1731, reported out of committee in November 2001.
For more information see
http://agriculture.senate.gov/Briefs/2001FarmBill/2001farmbill.html.
This report was supported by a cooperative agreement between
the Urban Institute and the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation (ASPE) of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS). A number of other federal agencies also
contributed support and guidance to this project, including the Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA) and the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) from HHS, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the Economic
Research Service (ERS) from the Department of Agriculture, and the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) from the Department of Justice. The lead
federal project officer was David Nielsen of ASPE. Support for the research and
writing was also provided by the Ford and Andrew W. Mellon Foundations.
The survey was conducted by the Survey Research Center, which is part
of the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of California at
Los Angeles (UCLA). The survey was led by Dr. Eve Fielder, with further
management by Tonya Hays and Michael Greenwell. Other key UCLA staff included
Chris Corey, Mark Herwick, and Daniel Yu. Jay Sumner was UCLA's sampling
statistician. A great number of interviewers worked hard to help collect these
data.
Several Urban Institute colleagues and former colleagues made important
contributions to the design of this project, the implementation, and the
analyses in this report, including Maria Enchautegui, Leticia Fernandez, Alyse
Freilich, and Wendy Zimmermann. John Coder of Sentier Research helped with data
imputations. One of the report's principal authors, Leighton Ku, was on the
staff of the Urban Institute when this report was first drafted, but is now
affiliated with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Numerous federal agency staff provided helpful comments on draft
versions of this report, including: David Nielsen, Caroline Taplin, and
Jennifer Tolbert (ASPE), Girley Wright (ACF), Penelope Pine (HCFA), Karen
Hamrick and William Kandel (ERS), Jenny Genser (FNS), and Lisa Roney (INS).
Most important of all, we are grateful to the thousands of respondents
in Los Angeles County and New York City who made the survey possible and to the
local officials who work with them on a day-to-day basis.
The opinions expressed in this report should be interpreted as those of
the authors and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of the Urban
Institute, its trustees, or any of the federal agencies that helped fund this
project.
You may obtain a printed copy of this report by sending or faxing your
name and mailing address along with the title of the report to:
Human Services Policy, Room 404E
Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation
200 Independence Av, SW
Washington, DC 20201
Fax: (202) 690-6562
You may also print the PDF version of this
report (2.2MB).
Where to?
Top of Page | Contents
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS)
Last updated: 03/04/02