Advertisement

Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 353–368 | Cite as

Work disability and migration in the early years of welfare reform

  • Deborah Roempke Graefe
  • Gordon F. De Jong
  • Dee C. May
Original paper

Abstract

The inter- and intra-state migration of American families with work-disabled members is a neglected area of empirical study. Longitudinal migration and health status data from the 1996 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) are merged with state-level welfare policy indicators to investigate migration behavior under welfare reform’s emphasis on requiring work and encouraging reliance on social support networks. We use a nested discrete-choice event history model that incorporates the departure decision and interstate destination choice in a single model that tests the effects of state-level welfare policy and economic opportunity characteristics, with state fixed effects, plus family sociodemographic characteristics and social networks, as the basis for comparing migration of families with and without work disabilities. The results show that although families with disabilities and illnesses are less likely to migrate than other families generally, they are “pushed” to migrate if they live in states that do not exempt them from TANF activities requirements. Furthermore, in-migration is inhibited by stringent state welfare illness exemption rules and high state unemployment rates. Intrastate migration is more likely among families who received family and community social support, regardless of work-disability status.

Keywords

Migration Work disability TANF illness exemptions Social support 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project acknowledges support by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development grant No. 1 R01 HD041489, the National Science Foundation Grant No. SES-0241848, and the Pennsylvania State University Population Research Institute Grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (No. 1 R24 HD1025).

References

  1. Allison, P. D. (1995). Survival analysis using the SAS system, a practical guide. Cary NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Angel, J. L., De Jong, G. F., Cornwell, G. T., & Wilmoth, J. (1995). Diminished health, non-metropolitan residence, and premature institutionalization: Evidence from the longitudinal study of aging. National Journal of Sociology, 9, 31–57.Google Scholar
  3. Borg, V., & Kristensen, T. S. (2000). Social class and self-rated health: Can the gradient be explained by differences in life style or work environment? Social Science and Medicine, 51, 1019–1030. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Jong, G. F. (1999). Choice processes in migration behavior. In K. Pandit, & S. D. Withers (Eds.), Migration and restructuring in the United States (pp. 273–293). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  5. De Jong, G. F., Graefe, D. R., & St. Pierre, T. (2005). Welfare reform and interstate migration of poor families. Demography, 42, 469–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Jong, G. F., Graefe, D. R., Irving, S. K., & St. Pierre, T. (2006). Measuring state TANF policy variations and change after reform. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 755–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Jong, G. F., Wilmoth, J., Angel, J. L., & Cornwell, G. T. (1995). Motives and the geographic mobility of very old Americans. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 50B, S395–S404.Google Scholar
  8. Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Work, welfare, and single mothers’ economic survival strategies. American Sociological Review, 62, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ell, K. (1996). Social networks, social support and coping with serious illness: The family connection. Social Science and Medicine, 42, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evers, A. W. M., Kraaimaat, F. W., Geenen, R., Jacobs, J. W. G., & Johannes, W. J. B. (2003). Pain coping and social support as predictors of long-term functional disability and pain in early rheumatoid arthritis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1295–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frey, W., Liaw, K.-L., Xie, Y., & Carlson, M. (1996). Interstate migration of the U. S. poverty population: Immigration “pushes” and welfare magnet “pulls.” Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 17, 491–533.Google Scholar
  12. Hayward, M. D., Crimmins, E. M., Miles, T. P., & Yang, Y. (2000). The significance of socioeconomic status in explaining the racial gap in chronic health conditions. American Sociological Review, 65, 910–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2003). Welfare, women, and health: The role of temporary assistance for needy families. Issue Brief, An Update on Women’s Health Policy (April).Google Scholar
  14. House, J. S., Lepkowski, J. M., Kinney, A. M., Mero, R. P., Kessler, R. C., & Herzog, A. R. (1994) The social stratification of aging and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuh, D., & Ben-Schlomo, Y. (Eds.) (1997). A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kwakkel, G., Wagenaar, R. C., Kollen, B. J., & Lankhorst, G. J. (1996). Predicting disability in stroke—a critical review of the literature. Age and Aging, 25, 479–489.Google Scholar
  17. Lantz, P. M., Lynch, J. W., House, J. H., Lepowski, J. M., Mero, R. P., Musick, M. A., & Williams, D. R. (2001). Socioeconomic disparities in health change in a longitudinal study of U. S. adults: The role of health-risk behaviors. Social Science & Medicine, 53, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. (1995). Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior Extra Issue, 80–94.Google Scholar
  19. Litwak, E., & Longino, C. F. Jr. (1987). Migration patterns among the elderly: A developmental perspective. The Gerontologist, 27, 266–272.Google Scholar
  20. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. MacKenzie, E. J., Morris, J. A. Jr., Jurkovich, G. J., Yasui, Y., Cushing, B. M., Burgess, A. R., DeLateur, B. J., Andrew, M. P., & Swiontkowski, M. F. (1998). Return to work following injury: The role of economic, social, and job-related factors. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1630–1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marmot, M. G., Smith, G. D., Stansfeld, S., Patel, C., North, F., Head, J., White, I., Brunner, E., & Feeney, A. (1991). Health inequalities among British civil servants: The Whitehall II Study. The Lancet, 337, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., & Pellegrino, A. (1998). Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, J. W., & Speare, A. Jr. (1985). Distinctive elderly mobility: Types and determinants. Economic Geography, 61, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, M. E., Longino, C. F. Jr., Anderson, R. T., James, M. K., & Woley, A. S. (1999). Functional status, assistance, and the risk of a community-based move. The Gerontologist, 39, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moffitt, R., & Cherlin, A. (2002). Disadvantage among families remaining on welfare. Joint Center for Poverty Research Policy Brief, 3(12).Google Scholar
  27. Moore, D. E., & Hayward, M. D. (1990). Occupational careers and mortality of elderly men. Demography, 27, 31–53.Google Scholar
  28. Parrott, S., Primus, W., & Fremstad, S. (2002). Administration’s TANF proposal would limit—not increase—state flexibility. Washington DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (April).Google Scholar
  29. Polit, D. F., London, A. S., & Martinez, J. M. (2001). The health of poor urban women: Findings from the Project on Devolution and Urban Change. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation [MDRC].Google Scholar
  30. Public Policy Institute of California [PPIC]. (2000). Disabled children in low-income families: Private costs and public consequences. Research Brief (October).Google Scholar
  31. Rahimian, A., Wolch, J. R., & Koegel, P. (1992). A model of homeless migration—homeless men in skid-row, Los Angeles. Environment and Planning, 24, 1317–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ross, C. E., & Wu, C. (1995). The links between education and health. American Sociological Review, 60, 719–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1999). Refining the association between education and health: The effects of quantity, credential, and selectivity. Demography, 36, 445–460.Google Scholar
  34. SAS Institute, Inc. (n.d.). Chapter 15, The MDC procedure. Documentation for the 8.2 Release of the MDC procedure (pdf). Available at: http://support.sas.com/rnd/app/papers/mdc.pdf (last accessed 8/28/06).Google Scholar
  35. Schachter, J. P. (2004). Geographic mobility: 2002–2003. Washington DC: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P20–549.Google Scholar
  36. Schram, S., Nitz, L., & Krueger, G. (1998). Without cause or effect: Reconsidering welfare migration as a policy problem. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 210–230.Google Scholar
  37. Schram, S., & Soss, J. (1999). The real value of welfare: Why poor families do not migrate. Politics and Society, 27, 39–66.Google Scholar
  38. Silverstein, M., & Zabolotsky, D. L. (1996). Health and social precursors of later life retirement—community migration. Journal of Gerontoloty: Social Science, 51B, 150–S156.Google Scholar
  39. Speare, A. Jr., Avery, R., & Lawton, L. (1991). Disability, residential mobility, and changes in living arrangements. Journal of Gerontology: Social Science, 46, S133–S142.Google Scholar
  40. U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] (2001a). Welfare reform: More coordinated federal effort could help states and localities move TANF recipients with impairments toward employment. GAO-02-37, October. Washington DC: U. S. General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
  41. U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] (2001b). Welfare reform: Outcomes for TANF recipients with impairments. GAO-02-884, July. Washington DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
  42. Wiseman, R. F. (1980). Why older people move—theoretical issues. Research on Aging, 2, 141–154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Roempke Graefe
    • 1
  • Gordon F. De Jong
    • 1
  • Dee C. May
    • 1
  1. 1.Population Research InstituteThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations