A Profile of Low-Income Working Immigrant Families

An Urban Institute New Federalism Program to Assess National Survey of America’s Families Changing Social Policies

THE URBAN INSTITUTE Series B, No. B-67, June 2005

A Proﬁle of Low-Income Working Immigrant Families

Randy Capps, Michael Fix, Everett Henderson, and Jane Reardon-Anderson

Immigrants are a large and growing part of While children of immigrants exhibit high America’s labor force. They accounted for levels of need for public benefits and ser- half the growth in the U.S. workforce dur- vices, current laws restrict immigrant ing the 1990s (Sum, Fogg, and Harrington eligibility for many major federal and state- 2002). In 2001, immigrants were 11 percent funded programs. Undocumented immi- of the U.S. population, but 14 percent of all grants are generally ineligible for all public workers and 20 percent of low-wage work- benefits except emergency health services. Like other low-income ers in the U.S. economy (Capps, Fix et al. The 1996 welfare reform law restricted 2003).1 Immigrants are overrepresented many legal immigrants’ eligibility for these working families, among all U.S. workers but especially programs as well (Fix and Passel 2002). immigrant families among lower-paid workers. Despite significant benefit restorations Many Americans work hard yet strug- in 1997 and 2002, most legal immigrants need income, food, and gle to pay bills and provide for their chil- with less than five years of residency in the dren (Acs, Ross Phillips, and McKenzie United States are ineligible for cash wel- housing assistance, as 2000). Immigrant families are no exception, fare, food assistance, public health insur- well as health coverage since such a high share of immigrant work- ance, housing assistance, and other major ers earns low wages. In 2001, one-quarter federal benefits (National Immigration Law and child care. of all children living in low-income families Center 2002).3 Although over three-quarters had one or more foreign-born parents (Fix, of children in immigrant families are U.S. Zimmermann, and Passel 2001). Almost citizens and therefore not subject to these half (47 percent) of all low-income immi- eligibility bars (Capps 2001), their access to grant families fit our definition of working benefits may be affected by their parents’ families, where adults on average worked lack of citizenship, as well as other factors at least part-time (1,000 hours) in 2001.2 including language barriers, cultural mis- For low-income native families, this rate understandings, and fear of interaction is 40 percent. These figures suggest that with government agencies (Rodriguez, unemployment, underemployment, and Hagan, and Capps 2004). episodic employment are common for In previous studies, we profiled immi- low-income families headed by both immigrant workers. In this brief we extend that grants and natives. analysis to benefit and service use among Despite similar levels of work effort families of immigrant workers with chil- among their parents, children of immi- dren. Our analyses are based on data from grants are substantially more likely than the 2002 National Survey of America’s children with U.S.-born parents to be Families (NSAF).4 The benefits examined poor, have food-related problems, live in here include the Earned Income Tax Credit, crowded housing, lack health insurance, cash welfare, food stamps, housing and be in fair or poor health (Capps 2001; assistance, health insurance coverage, Reardon-Anderson, Capps, and Fix 2002). and child care.

1 ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies

Defining Low-Income Poverty in Working low-income working immigrant fami- Working Immigrant Families Immigrant Families lies were significantly less likely than native families to have heard about Our focus in this brief is on families In 2001, one-quarter of all low- the EITC or to have received it in the that include working adults, specifi- income working families were immi- past three years (figure 2).7 Seventy- cally those with family incomes grant families. Working immigrant nine percent of native families had below twice the federal poverty level families were about twice as likely as heard about the EITC, about three (FPL) in 2001 and with adults who on working native families to be either times the share for immigrant fami- average worked at least part-time low-income (under 200 percent of lies (26 percent). Native families were (1,000 hours) during 2001.5 Our def- FPL) or poor (under 100 percent of about four times as likely as immi- inition of working families includes FPL). Forty-two percent of immigrant families to report receiving the four groups: grant families were low-income, com- EITC during 1999–2002 (57 versus pared with 21 percent of native 14 percent). single-parent families in which the families, and 12 percent of immigrant These figures do not tell the families were poor, compared with whole story, however. Many low- parent worked at least part-time 5 percent of native families (figure 1).6 income working families may have for 1,000 hours; received the EITC without being able two-parent families in which both Public Benefit Participation to identify the program by name, par- parents worked part-time for a ticularly if someone else (such as a total of 2,000 hours or more; Despite higher levels of economic community organization worker or a two-parent families in which one hardship, low-income working im- paid tax preparer) filled out their tax parent worked full-time (at least migrant families are less likely than return.8 If we assume that all families 2,000 hours) and the other parent native families to report receiving receiving assistance in preparing their did not work at all; and public benefits in four major areas: tax return also received the EITC, a small number of families with tax credits, income assistance, food then the gap between immigrants 9 three or more working adults, in assistance, and housing subsidies. and natives narrows considerably. In which the adults on average 2002, 83 percent of low-income native worked at least 1,000 hours in families either had their taxes pre- 2001. Earned Income Tax Credit pared for them or received the EITC within the past three years, com- As a result of policy changes over the pared with 68 percent of immigrant We classify families where the past 15 years, the Earned Income Tax families. In other words, our upper highest earner was born outside the Credit (EITC) has grown from a rela- bound estimate of working immi- United States as “immigrant” families tively small program into one larger grant families’ EITC receipt com- and those where the highest earner than TANF, food stamps, or SSI bines those who reported receiving was U.S.-born as “native” families. (Blank and Schmidt 2001). In 2002, the benefit and those who used tax preparers. Our upper bound estimate is FIGURE 1. Low-Income and Poverty Rates for Working Families, 2001 close to overall EITC receipt levels found in recent studies. For instance, Burman and Kobes (2003) show that between 80 and 86 percent of eligible families with children took advantage Immigrant families 30 12 42 of the EITC from 1990 to 1999, and Berube and Tiffany (2004) conclude that about 15 to 20 percent of tax fil- ers who are eligible for the EITC did not claim it in 2001.10 Income100%–200% Regardless of how EITC receipt is Native families 165 21 of FPL measured, our findings show a signif- Income below 100% of FPL icant gap between low-income working immigrant and native families. 0 1020304050Lower EITC receipt among immi- Percent grants is explained in part by legal status, as 29 percent of immigrant Source: Authors’ calculations using the 2002 National Survey of America’s Families. workers are undocumented and Notes: Working families are families with children in which adults worked at least 1,000 hours on average in 2001. Low income is income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) or the sum of the light and dark gold sec- therefore ineligible for the EITC tions of the bars. All differences between immigrant and native families are statistically significant at the p < .05 level. (Capps, Fix et al. 2003).11 Lower EITC

2 An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM

(Capps 2001), but many of their par- FIGURE 2. Earned Income Tax Credit Receipt among Low-Income Working Families, 2002 ents are undocumented or legal immigrants who are ineligible for these Immigrant families beneﬁt programs. Food stamp use 26 Native families Heard about EITC by noncitizens and their children is 79 lower than for the total eligible population: in 2001, only 40 percent of eli- Heard about and 14 gible noncitizens and 34 percent of received EITC within citizen children living with noncitizen past three years 57 adults participated in the Food Stamp Program, compared with 62 percent Had taxes prepared or 68 received EITC within of all eligible individuals (Cunnyng- past three years 83 ham 2003).

0204060 80 100 Percent Housing Assistance

Source: Authors’ calculations using the 2002 National Survey of America’s Families. Low-income immigrant families were Notes: Low-income working families are families with children, incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, also less likely to have received hous- and adults who worked at least 1,000 hours on average in 2001. EITC = Earned Income Tax Credit. All differences between immigrant and native families are statistically significant at the p < .05 level. ing assistance from public sources in 2002 (15 versus 24 percent, as shown in figure 3). The NSAF asked respondents whether the government pays receipt among immigrants may also and state child care subsidies. While their rent, they live in public housing, be a function of lower awareness, many low-income children of immi- or an agency gives them a voucher to which could be addressed through grants may be eligible for child care help pay rent. We consider anyone outreach and community-based tax subsidies, they are unlikely to gain who answered “yes” to any of these assistance. access to them in those states that three questions to have received Our analysis also suggests that reserve most subsidies for TANF housing assistance. Some immigrant working immigrant families are families. families include undocumented im- highly dependent on tax preparers Although we did not estimate migrants and therefore may be ineli- for their EITC benefits. Many profes- TANF or food stamp eligibility, many gible for housing assistance or afraid sional preparers charge high fees members of immigrant families were of the consequences of seeking assis- (Maag 2005) or offer refund anticipa- likely ineligible due to lack of citizen- tance. Welfare reform barred undoc- tion loans with interest rates as high ship. Over three-quarters of children umented immigrants from receiving as several hundred percent (Annie E. of immigrants are themselves citizens housing assistance and required Casey Foundation 2003). Nationally in 1999, low-income families lost an estimated $1.75 billion in EITC bene- FIGURE 3. Public Benefit Participation among Low-Income Working Families, 2002 fits to tax preparers through fees and refund anticipation loans (Berube 2003). Receives housing 15 assistance 24 Temporary Assistance for Needy 14 Families and Food Stamps Received food stamps last year Low-income working immigrant 26 families were only about half as likely as their native counterparts to receive Received Temporary 4 Assistance for Needy Immigrant families Temporary Assistance for Needy 7 Families last year Native families Families (TANF) (4 versus 7 percent) or food stamps (14 versus 26 percent) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 during 2001 (figure 3). Beyond in- Percent come support, TANF use among low- income immigrant families may Source: Authors’ calculations using the 2002 National Survey of America’s Families. Notes: Low-income working families are families with children, incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, also affect their child care arrange- and adults who worked at least 1,000 hours on average in 2001. All differences between immigrant and native ments by limiting access to federal families are statistically significant at the p < .05 level.

3 ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies

public housing authorities to report FIGURE 4. Health Insurance Coverage of Children in Low-Income Working Families, 2002 undocumented residents to the immigration authorities.

28 Health Insurance Coverage No health insurance 13 Children of immigrants for Children and Adults Children of natives 23 In low-income working families, Employer-provided most children are covered by either health insurance 42 employer-provided or public health insurance. Yet a sizable share of chil- 47 dren lack health insurance altogether. Public health insurance (Medicaid, SCHIP) Children in low-income working 42 immigrant families were more than 0 1020304050 60 twice as likely as those in comparable Percent native families to lack health insurance coverage in 2002 (28 versus Source: Authors’ calculations using the 2002 National Survey of America’s Families. 13 percent, see figure 4). This gap in Notes: Low-income working families are families with children, incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, uninsurance is entirely explained by and adults who worked at least 1,000 hours on average in 2001. All differences between children of immigrants and children of natives are statistically significant at the p < .05 level. low employer coverage: children in immigrant families were only about half as likely as those in native families to be covered under an employer- In 2002 more than half of foreign- income natives to be covered by provided health plan (23 versus born adults in low-income working Medicaid or another public program 42 percent). At the same time, chil- families were uninsured, almost (10 versus 17 percent). Low coverage dren in immigrant families were more twice the level for comparable native- of immigrant adults under Medicaid likely to have received public health born adults (56 versus 29 percent, as and other public programs owes to insurance coverage through Medicaid shown in figure 5). Only about one- the fact that the eligibility expansions or the State Children’s Health Insur- third of foreign-born adults (32 per- and outreach efforts during the 1990s ance Program (SCHIP) (47 versus cent) had employer-provided health were aimed mostly at children. That 42 percent). When comparing the insurance, compared with almost half said, important noncitizen eligibility 2002 and 1999 NSAF data, we found (49 percent) of natives. Unlike chil- restrictions remain in place for both improvements in the coverage of dren of immigrants, foreign-born adults and children—most notably low-income citizen children with adults were less likely than low- eligibility bars for all undocumented noncitizen parents under Medicaid and SCHIP (Capps, Kenney, and Fix 2003).12 Uninsurance among children of FIGURE 5. Health Insurance Coverage of Adults in Low-Income Working Families, 2002 immigrants has been associated with restricted access to a usual source of health care (Capps 2001). Addi- 56 No health insurance tionally, lack of insurance may lead to 29 lower use of preventive health care, and to a higher incidence of acute 32 and chronic health problems (Brown Employer-provided health insurance et al. 1999). 49 The share of immigrant adults in low-income working families without Public health insurance 10 health insurance is double the share (Medicaid, Medicare) 17 Foreign-born adults of uninsured children in these fam- Native-born adults ilies. While adults are more likely 0 10203040506070 than children to be covered under Percent an employer-provided health plan, they are far less likely to be covered Source: Authors’ calculations using the 2002 National Survey of America’s Families. Notes: Low-income working families are families with children, incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, through Medicaid or another public and adults who worked at least 1,000 hours on average in 2001. All differences between foreign-born and native- program. born adults are statistically significant at the p < .05 level.

4 An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM immigrants and, in many states, for When we look in more detail at babysitters) in the home (1.7 versus legal immigrants during their first child care arrangements for low- 3.3 percent). There is no difference in five years in the United States. income working families, 19 percent the share of immigrants’ and natives’ of children of natives under age 6 are children cared for in another home by in center-based care (which includes a non-relative (6 percent). These find- Child Care Arrangements day care centers, Head Start, nursery ings show that immigrant families’ for Young Children school, preschool and pre-kinder- lower use of child care is not confined of Immigrants garten), compared with only 12 per- to center-based care. Weaker social cent of children of immigrants. The networks, ineligibility for child care Child care arrangements for quality of center-based child care subsidies, or other access barriers preschool-age children (ages 0 to 5) may be uneven and not necessarily may help explain why these non- vary widely between low-income higher than that provided by other parental child care arrangements are working immigrant and native fami- sources (such as parents, relatives, less common in low-income working 13 lies. Overall, children of immigrants or nannies and baby-sitters). There is immigrant families than native fami- are significantly less likely to be in evidence, though, that high-quality lies. Different preferences may also any regular nonparental child care child care centers enhance school be part of the explanation. arrangement (37 percent versus readiness, especially among 3- and 57 percent of children of natives, as 4-year-olds (Capizzano and Adams Conclusion shown in table 1). This gap may be 2003). As a result, lower use of center- explained in part by family structure based care among children of immi- Immigrants compose a large and and preferences for different care grants may slow development of the growing share of all U.S. workers, arrangements. Low-income working English language and other skills and of low-income working families. In 2001, immigrants were one-fifth of immigrant families are more likely to needed to prepare for school. Addi- all low-wage workers, and immigrant include two parents than native fam- tionally, child care centers are an families were one-quarter of all low- ilies, but the second parent in immi- important site for interaction between income working families. Like other grant families is less likely to work children of immigrants and children low-income working families, immi- than in native families (Reardon- and adults from other backgrounds, grant families face economic hard- Anderson et al. 2002). Immigrants’ suggesting that higher use of child ship; they need income, food, and lower use of child care may be the care centers by working immigrant housing assistance, as well as health result of the higher share of second parents could speed their children’s coverage and child care for their chil- parents in immigrant families— long-term integration (Brandon 2004). dren. According to our data, however, usually mothers—who stay at home Children living in low-income low-income working immigrant fam- and provide child care rather than working immigrant families are also ilies are less likely than comparable work. However, the gap in child care significantly less likely to be in child native families to receive these arrangements may also result from care provided by other relatives than needed benefits and services. access barriers such as language, are children in native families (17 ver- Working immigrant families are legal status, and limited availability sus 28 percent) or in care provided by less likely to receive the EITC than of nearby care. non-relatives (such as nannies and are native families. Moreover, they appear to depend more on tax preparers to receive the EITC and may receive lower net tax gains as a result. TABLE 1. Child Care Arrangements for Children Age 0 to 5 in Low-Income Working Families, Some immigrant families are ineligi- 2002 (percent) ble for the EITC because the workers in the family are undocumented. Yet, Children of Children of since only about a quarter of low- natives immigrants income working immigrant families have even heard of the EITC, more Parental care/no care arrangement 37.3 56.8 outreach about the program in immi- Any type of regular arrangement 56.7 36.5 grant communities is clearly needed. Center-based care 18.6 12.2 The heavy use of paid tax preparers Relative care 28.3 16.6 by immigrants—and other low- Non-relative care outside the home 6.5 6.0 income workers—also suggests a role Nanny/baby-sitter care inside the home 3.3 1.7 for community-based organizations to provide free or inexpensive tax Source: Authors’ calculations using the 2002 National Survey of America’s Families. preparation assistance. Notes: Excludes children age 5 enrolled in kindergarten. Low-income working families have children, incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and adults who worked at least 1,000 hours on average in 2001. All In the case of public benefits— differences between children of immigrants and children of natives are statistically significant at the p < .05 level. TANF, food stamps, and housing

5 ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies

assistance—low use levels may be citizens or to sponsor family mem- under age 65 and their families; it also pro- the result of restrictions on noncitizen bers (Holcomb et al. 2003). vides state-representative data for 13 states. For more information on the survey meth- eligibility (i.e., bars on all undocu- Finally, the relatively small share ods and data reliability, see Abi-Habib, mented immigrants and most legal of children in low-income working Safir, and Triplett (2004). immigrants without five years of resi- immigrant families in child care, 5. Poverty was measured using income dency). Uninsurance rates are higher especially center-based care, may figures from the year before the survey for low-income working immigrants point to access barriers. While immi- (i.e., 2001). In 2001 the federal poverty and their children than for compara- grant parents may prefer to provide threshold was $17,650 for a family of four, ble natives and their children, despite their own child care, doing so reduces and slightly higher for larger families and lower for smaller families. Low-income the successful enrollment of many family incomes since one of the par- here refers to incomes twice this threshold. eligible children of immigrants in ents must forgo work. The lower Hours of work were also measured for the Medicaid and SCHIP. Eligibility bar- share of children of immigrants in year before the survey. For more details on riers for legal immigrants are still in center-based care may also be prob- our definition of low-income working families, see Acs et al. (2000). place in many states with large im- lematic if it slows their school readi- migrant populations, limiting the ness. Possible access barriers to child 6. All differences between children in work- potential of Medicaid and SCHIP to ing immigrant families and those in native care include cost, availability, lan- families—as well as differences between close these uninsurance gaps. guage, and cultural competence. children and parents—are statistically sig- Efforts to restore federal benefits Head Start and other programs that nificant at p < 0.05 unless noted otherwise. to all legal immigrants could increase subsidize child care are therefore 7. The NSAF first asks respondents if they participation in these programs, both important forms of support for low- have heard about the EITC, and then asks directly for ineligible adults and indi- income working immigrant families. them if they have ever received it. All those rectly for children in families with answering “yes” to both questions are then ineligible adults. The Immigrant asked if they received the EITC over the past three years. Children’s Health Improvement Act, Notes 8. The NSAF first asks if respondents filed a which has been debated over several 1. We define low-wage workers as those earn- federal tax return, and for all those who ing less than twice the minimum wage. In years in Congress, would restore filed, asks them if they received help in 2001 the minimum wage (set by the fed- Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility to all completing their tax return from a “com- eral government at $5.15 an hour) was munity service group or paid preparer legal immigrant children, regardless effective in all but 11 states, which set min- such as H&R Block.” of their length of residency in the imum wage levels higher than the federal United States. The 2003 Farm Bill has standard. 9. A substantial share of families who had their taxes prepared may not have received already restored food stamp eligi- 2. This includes families where both parents bility to all legal immigrant children. the EITC, but we have no way of knowing worked part-time as well as those in which for sure whether they received it, since the But undocumented adults and one parent worked full-time and the other NSAF only asks about EITC receipt when children—as well as legal immigrant parent did not work at all. the respondent has heard of the EITC. It is adults in the country for less than 3. Currently, eligibility for Temporary more likely, however, that the vast majority five years—will likely remain Assistance for Needy Families and for of families who used tax preparers received the EITC even if they didn’t hear about it. ineligible. Medicaid/State Children’s Health Insurance Program is limited to legal immi- Even with eligibility restorations, 10. Our measure of low-income—twice the grants who have been in the United States FPL—is slightly higher than the cutoff for some other barriers to immigrant par- for at least five years or fit into certain EITC eligibility. In 2002, the maximum ticipation in public benefit programs exempt groups, including refugees and income for EITC receipt was $33,200 may remain. Many immigrants do asylees. In 2003 food stamps eligibility was (Berube 2003), or about 183 percent of the not speak English well and find it dif- restored to all legal immigrant children poverty level for a four-person family regardless of length of U.S. residency, but ($18,100). ficult to understand eligibility re- legal immigrant adults must be in the quirements and to communicate with country for at least five years or fit into an 11. Some of these undocumented workers, workers in social service agencies. exempt group to be eligible for food stamps. however, may live in families with legal immigrant or citizen workers who are eli- Many state and local governments As of spring 2005, a limited number of state and local governments provided compara- gible for the EITC. have made progress in accommo- ble cash assistance, food assistance, and/or 12. Trends in health insurance coverage for dating non-English speaking immi- health insurance to some legal immigrants noncitizen children between 1999 and 2002 grants, but expanding access has ineligible for federal benefits. None of these were inconclusive, based on a comparison proven more difficult for speakers state or local programs extend eligibility to between NSAF and U.S. Current Pop- of less common languages and for undocumented immigrants, with the excep- ulation Survey data for the same period. tion of undocumented children, who are immigrants in areas with less ex- eligible for health insurance in New York 13. The child care arrangements referred to perience communicating with new- and some California counties. here are the “primary” forms of child care comers. Immigrants also often fear used by these families; families may also be 4. The NSAF provides information on a using other forms of child care on an irreg- that receipt of benefits might influ- nationally representative sample of the ular or less frequent basis. We exclude ence their applications to become U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population 5-year-old children enrolled in school from

6 An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM

the sample because they spend a large Capps, Randy. 2001. “Hardship among Sum, Andrew, Neeta Fogg, and Paul share of their time during parents’ working Children of Immigrants: Findings from Harrington. 2002. “Immigrant Workers hours in school. We do not examine after- the 1999 National Survey of America’s and the Great American Job Machine: The school child care arrangements for these Families.” Assessing the New Federalism Contributions of New Foreign Immigration children. Policy Brief B-29. Washington, DC: The to National and Regional Labor Force Urban Institute. Growth in the 1990s.” Boston: Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern References Capps, Randy, Michael Fix, Jeffrey S. Passel, University. Jason Ost, and Dan Perez-Lopez. 2003. “A Abi-Habib, Natalie, Adam Safir, and Timothy Profile of the Low-Wage Immigrant Triplett. 2004. “Survey Methods and Data Workforce.” Immigrant Families and Workers About the Authors Reliability.” 2002 NSAF Methodology Brief No. 4. Washington, DC: The Urban Report No. 1. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Randy Capps is a Institute. Capps, Randy, Genevieve Kenney, and Michael senior research associ- Acs, Gregory, Katherin Ross Phillips, and Fix. 2003. “Health Insurance Coverage of ate in the Center on Daniel McKenzie. 2000. “On the Bottom Children in Mixed-Status Immigrant Fam- Rung: A Profile of Americans in Low- Labor, Human Income Working Families.” Assessing the ilies.” Snapshots of America’s Families III, No. Services, and New Federalism Policy Brief A-42. 16. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Population at the Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Cunnyngham, Karen. 2003. “Trends in Food Urban Institute. He is Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2003. “The High Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1999 to a demographer with expertise in U.S. Cost of Being Poor.” Essay in Kids Count 2001.” Washington, DC: Mathematica immigration policy, immigrant popu- Databook 2003 (10–33). Baltimore, MD: Policy Research, Inc. Available at http:// Annie E. Casey Foundation. www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/ lations, and the integration of immi- Published/FSP/FILES/Participation/ grant families and children. Berube, Alan. 2003. Rewarding Work through Trends1999-2001.pdf. the Tax Code: The Power and Potential of the Earned Income Tax Credit in 27 Cities and Fix, Michael, and Jeffrey S. Passel. 2002. “The Michael Fix, a former Rural Areas. EITC Series. Washington, DC: Scope and Impact of Welfare Reform’s The Brookings Institution. Immigrant Provisions.” Assessing the New principal research associate at the Urban Berube, Alan, and Thacher Tiffany. 2004. The Federalism Discussion Paper 02-03. Wash- “State” of Low-Wage Workers: How the EITC ington, DC: The Urban Institute. Institute, is currently Benefits Urban and Rural Communities in the Fix, Michael, Wendy Zimmermann, and Jeffrey vice president and 50 States. EITC Series. Washington, DC: The S. Passel. 2001. “The Integration of director of studies at Brookings Institution. Immigrant Families in the United States.” the Migration Policy Blank, Rebecca M., and Lucie Schmidt. 2001. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Institute in Washington, D.C. He is an “Work, Wages and Welfare.” In The New World of Welfare, edited by Rebecca Blank Holcomb, Pamela, Robin Koralek, Karen expert on immigration policies and Ron Haskins (70–102). Washington, Tumlin, Randy Capps, and Anita Zuberi. worldwide, U.S. civil rights issues, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 2003. “The Application Process for TANF, and the integration and incorporation Food Stamps, Medicaid, and SCHIP: Issues of immigrants in the United States. Brandon, Peter. 2004. “The Child Care Arrange- for Agencies and Applicants, Including ments of Preschool-Age Children in Immigrants and Limited English Speakers.” Immigrant Families in the United States.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of International Migration 42:1. Everett Henderson is Health and Human Services, Assistant a research associate in Brown, E. Richard, Roberta Wyn, Hongjian Yu, Secretary for Policy Evaluation. Abel Valenzuela, and Liane Dong. 1999. the Center on Labor, Maag, Elaine. 2005. “Paying the Price? Low- “Access to Health Insurance and Health Human Services, and Care for Children in Immigrant Families.” Income Parents and the Use of Paid Tax Population. In Children of Immigrants: Health, Ad- Preparers.” Assessing the New Federalism justment, and Public Assistance, by the Policy Brief B-64. Washington, DC: The Committee on the Health and Adjustment Urban Institute. of Immigrant Children and Families, National Immigration Law Center. 2002. Guide Donald J. Hernandez, editor (126–86). to Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs. Jane Reardon- Board on Children, Youth and Families, 4th ed. Los Angeles: National Immigration Anderson is a former National Research Council and Institute of Law Center. Medicine. Washington, DC: National research assistant at Academy Press. Reardon-Anderson, Jane, Randy Capps, and the Urban Institute. Burman, Leonard, and Deborah Kobes. 2003. Michael Fix. 2002. “The Health and Well- “EITC Reaches More Eligible Families than Being of Children in Immigrant Families.” TANF, Food Stamps.” Tax Facts. Washing- Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief ton, DC: The Tax Policy Center. B-52. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Capizzano, Jeffrey, and Gina Adams. 2003. Rodriguez, Nestor, Jacqueline Hagan, and “Children in Low-Income Families Are Less Randy Capps. 2004. “The Effects of Recent Likely to Be in Center-Based Child Care.” Welfare and Immigration Reforms on Im- Snapshots of America’s Families III, No. 12. migrants’ Access to Health Care.” Inter- Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. national Migration Review 38:1.

7 THE URBAN INSTITUTE Nonproﬁt Org. 2100 M Street, NW U.S. Postage Washington, DC 20037 PAID Permit No. 8098 Ridgely, MD

Address Service Requested

For more information, call Public Affairs: This series presents ﬁndings from the 1997, 1999, and 2002 rounds of the National 202-261-5709 Survey of America’s Families (NSAF). Information on more than 100,000 people was gath- or visit our web site, ered in each round from more than 42,000 households with and without telephones that http://www.urban.org. are representative of the nation as a whole and of 13 selected states (Alabama, California, To order additional copies Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New of this publication, call 202-261-5687 York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin). As in all surveys, the data are subject to sam- or visit our online bookstore, pling variability and other sources of error. Additional information on the NSAF can be http://www.uipress.org. obtained at http://newfederalism.urban.org.

The NSAF is part of Assessing the New Federalism, a multiyear project to monitor and assess the devolution of social programs from the federal to the state and local levels. Olivia A. Golden is the project director. The project analyzes changes in income support, social services, and health programs. In collaboration with Child Trends, the project studies child and family well-being.

The Assessing the New Federalism project is currently supported by The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and The Ford Foundation.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reﬂect those of the Urban Institute, its board, its sponsors, or other authors in the series. THE URBAN INSTITUTE 2100 M Street, NW Permission is granted for reproduction of this document, with attribution to the Urban Institute. Washington, DC 20037 Copyright © 2005 This policy brief was prepared for the Assessing the New Federalism project with additional support provided by the Hitachi Foundation. The authors would like to thank Greg Acs, Jeff Phone: 202-833-7200 Fax: 202-293-1918 Capizzano, Olivia Golden, Elaine Maag, and Kelly Rader for their advice in framing the issues and analyzing the data, as well as their helpful comments on drafts of this brief.