Factors Influencing Welfare Participation Rates among Vietnamese, Other Asian Immigrants and Native-born Caucasians and African Americans from 1980-2008
Using the 1980-2000 U.S. Census and 2006-2008 American Community Survey (ACS) data among Vietnamese, other Asians (Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Indian) and native-born Caucasians and African-Americans, this article examines how education and length of time in the U.S. affect welfare participation rates. The author conducted a study that examined whether length of time in the U.S. is negatively associated with welfare participation rates among Vietnamese and Asian immigrants. The effect of education on welfare participation was assessed for all groups. Cross-sectional data were obtained from 5% Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS-USA) in the U.S. assessed in 1980, 1990, and 2000. The sample included 968,000 Caucasians and 95,000 African-Americans, and 68,000 immigrant households from Asia (11,200 Vietnamese). Additional data from the ACS 2006-2008 included 213,303 Caucasians, 19,087 African-Americans, and 33,442 immigrant households from Asia (n = 5116 Vietnamese). The study findings showed that length of time in the U.S. was significantly associated with lower welfare participation rates for Vietnamese in the 1980-2000 Censuses. Education had the most significant effect on Vietnamese and African-Americans. Implications for social work education, practice and policy are discussed.
Keywords: Vietnamese, Asian, Social welfare, refugees, native-born Caucasian and African-American, social work education
Contents
The History of Immigration and Welfare
Immigration is an integral part of the United States (U.S.), and immigrants are not only a significant proportion of the U.S. population but are also significant contributors to the growth and economy throughout the U.S. history. The U.S. has a long history of immigration, dating back to the 18th century during the colonial period when immigrants mostly came from Europe. From 1820 to 1932, about 55 million Europeans (representing about 92 percent of Europeans who migrated overseas) and about 2.5 million Asians immigrated to the U.S. Immigrants from Latin American countries account for over half of the immigrant population in the U.S.; and those from Mexico account for 31% of all immigrant families (Capps & Passel, 2004). The majority of immigrants live in the 6 largest states- California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. During the 1990s the number of immigrants grew more rapidly in 22 other states across the West, Midwest, and Southeast than in the aforementioned traditional destination states (Capps & Fortuny, 2006)
In 2005, a total of 12% of the total U.S. population was made up of foreign born immigrants and children of immigrants represented 1/5 of all children under 18 (Capps & Fortuny, 2006). Additionally, the number of undocumented residents in the U.S. continues to increase annually. In 2005, there were about 11 million undocumented residents; of these, approximately 1.7 million are children under 18 years (Passell, 2005). Although the immigrant population is increasing by many folds over the past several decades, the exact number of immigrant children involved with the child welfare system is not known as this information is not collected uniformly at the local, state, or national levels. Immigrant children and families face a multitude of challenges including access to social services. Furthermore, existing laws and policies may hinder the ability of child welfare agencies to provide effective services to immigrant children and families (Dettlaff, De Haymes, Velazquez, Mindell & Bruce, 2009).
Immigration policy has been debated throughout the American history. Changes in U.S. immigration policy both influence and are affected by majority opinions on whether the level of immigration should be maintained, increased, or decreased. The overall immigration rate, however, has not been consistent with Americans' attitudes toward immigration or with restrictive policies on immigration (Finch, 1990; Moore, 1986; Schuck, 1998). Many Americans take pride in the ethnic diversity of the country. However, most Americans believe that the level of immigration should be decreased, and this has been the dominant trend since the first settlers arrived in the 18th century (Espenshade & Hempstead, 1996). There is also a growing concern that immigrants are a drain on the economy because of high welfare use and the societal perceptions that they take jobs away from U.S.-born citizens as well as reduce wages. Immigration policies have gone through several reformations often in response to the societal sentiment about the increasing number of immigrants entering the U.S. particularly in regards to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Policy makers have attempted to restrict immigration as the public's opinion has become increasingly opposed to immigration except when an expanded workforce was needed. However, this has not slowed down rates of immigration to the U.S.
The History of Immigration and Welfare
A Brief History of U.S. Immigration
The U.S. has continued to reassess and adjust its immigration policy in order to control the number of immigrants entering the country. The U.S. has experienced five significant periods of immigration since the 18th century. During the first period, from the 18th through the late 19th centuries, the majority of immigrants came from the British Isles and Western Europe, and the economy was primarily agricultural (Martin & Midgley, 1999). The open-immigration policy during this period helped increased the country's population. Between 1800 and 1890, the U.S. population grew from 5.3 million to 62.6 million, largely due to immigration (Brunner & Colarelli, 2010). The open-immigration policy was generally supported by the nation's elite, who viewed immigration as beneficial to businesses and the economy (Martin & Midgley, 1999).
During the second period, from the late 19th century to 1921, the open immigration continued with some restrictions. Coinciding with the political and economic disruptions that arose in many parts of Europe, strong economic growth led to increased demand for labor, which was met by a large supply of potential immigrants (Martin & Midgley, 1999). This led to a surge in immigration from southern and eastern Europe in the late 19th century to early 1920s, and came to be known as the First Great Migration (Hatton & Williamson, 1994). Congress passed legislation to exclude some immigrants based on individual characteristics (e.g., prostitutes and convicts in 1875; paupers and those with mental defects in 1882) but not based on racial, national, or ethnic identity, with the exception of Chinese. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first such restriction enacted based on racial or ethnic identity. Opponents of Chinese immigration argued that the Chinese could not be assimilated and feared that they would overwhelm the country and its dominant culture, others in California feared that new Chinese immigrants would adversely affect the wages of those native-born (Brunner & Colarelli, 2010, p. 390).
The third period, from 1921-1965 reduced the number of immigrants and immigrants were restricted by ethnicity and nationality. In 1921, Congress mandated a quota system that restricted the number of immigrants annually allowed to enter the U.S. to preserve the existing proportions of ethnic groups in the country with the exception of highly talented individuals and refugees. During this period, people who immigrated came primarily from western Europe. The restrictive immigration policy during this period also reflected concerns with assimilation, economic difficulties, and the cultural characteristics of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe (Martin & Midgley, 1999), and denied citizenship to naturalized Asian immigrants.
The fourth period began in 1965 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (hereafter referred to as the 1965 Act) and continues to the present (Martin & Midgley, 1999). This Second Great Migration consisted primarily of Asians and Latinos arriving during the 1980s and 1990s (Borjas, 1999). Asian immigrants came primarily from Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, and China. Additionally, immigration from Asia greatly increased with the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-212), which gave legal status to refugees and asylees (Rolph, 1992). Latin American immigrants came primarily from Mexico and El Salvador; other Spanish-speaking immigrants came from the Dominican Republic (Rolph, 1992). By far, the largest group of immigrants in the United States is from Mexico, representing over one-fifth (22 percent) of the foreign-born population (Borjas, 1994). Before the 1960s, Mexicans composed only 11.9% of all immigrants (Borjas, 1994). Additionally, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) (P.L. 99-603) resulted in the legalization of 2.7 million long-term undocumented workers. The vast majority of these workers were from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean (Padilla, 1997).
The 1965 Act resulted in four major changes to the existing policy. It eliminated the quota system, placed limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, put a cap of twenty thousand per year on the number of immigrants from any one country, and extended the family reunification provision to include parents of citizens. The final version of the 1965 Act emphasized family reunification. Spouses, unmarried children, and parents of U.S. citizens were exempted from preference and numerical requirements. This change in immigration policy led to a large influx of both legal and undocumented Hispanic as well as legal Asian immigrants. The fifth period of immigration in the U.S. took place following the terrorist attacks in September 2001 and the subsequent war on terrorism that resulted in greater concerns about and scrutiny of immigrants (Brunner & Colarelli, 2010).
Currently, the immigration process to the U.S. falls under three main categories: (1) family reunification, (2) immigrants with professional skills in high demand for the country's economic growth, and (3) refugees or asylees. While the first two groups either have the support from intermediary family members living in the U.S. or the ability to participate in the new country, the last group usually is the most likely to struggle since they often come from an oppressed society or they do not have the language and skills to find a job.
Vietnamese Immigrants
Vietnamese immigrants are the largest refugee group the United States had ever admitted following the Vietnam War. They are one of the most recent immigrant groups to settle in the United States and also one of the fastest growing ethnic groups. According to the U.S. Census in 2000, the Vietnamese population in the U.S. has increased from 593,213 in 1990 to 1,122,528.
Prior to 1970, there were fewer than 5,000 Vietnamese living in the United States (U.S. Census Data, 2000). The first large group of Vietnamese immigrants came to the United States in the mid-1970s after the fall of South Vietnam in 1975. Massey (1995) argued that because of the failure in the United States' foreign policies regarding Southeast Asia, the U.S. opened its doors to over 300,000 immigrants from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Approximately 145,000 Vietnamese immigrated to the United States in 1975 after the fall of Saigon. This group of refugees was made up primarily of South Vietnamese government officials, U.S. related personnel, and members of the Vietnamese elite. More than a quarter of these individuals had a university education and over 40% had at least some secondary education (Zhou & Bankston, 1998).
The second wave of Vietnamese immigrants, which became known as the crisis of the boat people, fled Vietnam in overcrowded and leaky boats in late 1970s and early 1980s. It was reported that almost half of the estimated 400,000 Vietnamese (boat people) perished at sea. Those who survived ended up in refugee camps in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, and other countries in Southeast Asia (Chan & Loveridge, 1987; Tran, 1991).
The third wave of Vietnamese immigrated to the United States in the early 1980s under the U.S. Orderly Departure program. In late 1989, a distinct group - Amerasian children and families entered the United States under the U.S. Homecoming Act Program. The most recent Vietnamese group came to the United States in the early 1990s under the U.S. Humanitarian Operation Program (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, 2000). These families were mostly South Vietnamese political and military personnel who had spent years in the re-education camps after the Vietnam War (Zhou & Bankston, 1998).
As the Indochinese immigrants had lower education, lower proficiencies in English, and lacked labor market skills, President Gerald Ford signed the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act in 1975 to grant immigrants from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia refugee status (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000). Vietnamese immigrants are one of several Southeast Asian groups coming to the U.S. as refugees. Under this Act, the new immigrants from these countries did not have to wait three years from the day they came to the United States in order to be eligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid and other social services. Furthermore, public assistance under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program was aid for which most Vietnamese immigrants qualified because of their large family sizes.
As refugees, the Vietnamese generally arrived in the United States under the guidance of governmental or voluntary agencies; they could not choose their places of resettlement unlike most immigrants, who are sponsored either by close families or by U.S. employers who can make decisions about where to settle in the United States. Furthermore, in the case of the Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian refugees with no previously established ethnic communities to assist them, the U.S. government-sponsored resettlement agencies, known as VOLAGs (Volunteer agencies), usually made the decision about their settlement location (Lanphier, 1983; Montero, 1979). The VOLAGs were also charged with implementing the policy. These agencies receive annual funding from the Office of Refugee Resettlement to provide services such as job training, cultural preservation programs, language classes, and a variety of social services (Zhou & Bankston, 1998).
Vietnamese refugees have endured severe exit conditions (e.g., the traumatic flight combined with poor human capital and economic resources) and unfavorable contexts of reception (e.g., a lack of pre-existing community ties, high levels of dependency, and an ambivalent and sometimes hostile public). Over the course of a decade or so of adjustment, they have made progress in assimilating into American society. Despite significant improvements, the Vietnamese still lagged behind their American counterparts economically. It is reported that more Vietnamese families are still struggling below the poverty line compared to the average American families. Their economic gains have come by virtue of hard work and cooperation. The 1990 Census reported that more than 1 out of every 5 Vietnamese families contained three or more workers (Zhou & Bankston, 1998).
A Brief History of Public Assistance in the United States
Public assistance is provided under different programs, from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) through 1996, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and General Assistance (GA) for cash payments to Medicaid, food stamps, access to health care services and food. The Housing Assistance Program was added later in a number of states as part of public assistance for the low income family.
The AFDC program was funded and administered by both federal and state governments to provide cash assistance for needy families with dependent children. Prior to 1996, in order to be eligible for this program, a native born or refugee family must have at least one child under the age of 18 and their family income must fall within the state's low income range level. An immigrant family, on the other hand, had to wait for three years from the day they arrived to the U.S. to be eligible for AFDC with the exception of immigrants exempted through the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act passed in 1975. Congress established Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in 1972 (www.socialsecurity.org). This was a federally supplemented program designed to help blind, permanently disabled, and elderly people age 65 and above. This program was administered at the federal level and funded by federal tax revenues. General Assistance (GA) is a county program to help those who are not qualified for ADFC or SSI programs and it usually provides food stamps and cash assistance for rental housing (www.urban.org).
Many of the current social policies implemented have affected the most disenfranchised populations, women and children. President Clinton's declaration to end welfare has created social change and has affected the poor (Vobejda, 1996). Clinton created a policy to respond to society's disapproval of how the welfare system was being "abused." In response to society's outcry, the government implemented a legislative policy that would change welfare forever. That policy is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996.
The PRWORA Legislation
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) (1996), also known as 'welfare reform,' was introduced on August 22, 1996 mainly to reduce the use of public assistance and to set a smooth transition for welfare recipients to exit the welfare system. PRWORA replaced AFDC with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which ended the entitlement program of AFDC. Unlike AFDC, TANF provides block grants to each state. The program also redefined public assistance for current and future immigrants coming to the U.S. (Zimmermann & Tumlin, 1998).
According to Chambers and Wedel (2009), public policies generally are not designed with the needs of individuals in mind; rather they are designed for groups of people who share a common social problem (p. 2). Although the implementation of welfare reform is for the greater good, it has some adverse effects on the underprivileged of society. There are many rules and regulations to which individuals must adhere in order to be eligible to receive the benefits. Welfare recipients now have a 5-year time limit, restrictions on education, and increased work hour requirements. Although higher education has been determined to be an important path to economic security, the PRWORA did not consider education to be a work activity. Thus, welfare reform has negatively affected the pursuit of higher education for welfare mothers since 1996 (Scarbrough, 2001).
The PRWORA program distinguished naturalized citizens, and older resident aliens from new immigrants who immigrate after this new law was enacted. Legal immigrants who arrived after August 22, 1996 were barred completely from TANF, SSI, and CHIP programs unless they have lived in the U.S. for 5 years. The new TANF program put a time limit of 60 months on benefits for recipients compared to the indefinite time allotted under the AFDC program. The TANF program also requires the recipients to enter a job training program within 24 months in order to stay in the program. Other programs were expanded to help the welfare-dependent family start new employment and to continue with it. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provides additional cash for families due to their low paying jobs. The Healthy Family Program provides health insurance for those who do not have insurance coverage from their jobs or who were unemployed with a working history. Food assistance and child care subsidies were also provided for eligible families to help them with their finances and to make it easier to keep their employment (Zimmermann & Tumlin, 1998).
Federal Policy Factors Affecting Services for Immigrants
Immigration involves a resettlement process that requires support to enrich and maintain cultural traditions as well as strengthen networks of social support (Light & Bonacich, 1988; Moore & Pinderhughes, 1993) in addition to meeting their basic needs. Federal immigration policies have not included significant provisions for resettlement assistance. Many of the services for immigrants are provided through private voluntary agencies rather than public agencies, either through contractual agreements with government entities or through private and religious donations (Le-Doux & Stephens, 1992).
Social welfare policy was first linked to immigration policy with the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (Tienda & Liang, 1994). This act provided for cash, medical, and educational assistance to refugees. Currently, specific policies for many social welfare provisions are limited to refugees under the 1980 Refugee Resettlement Program and to newly legalized people under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 severely cut federal services to immigrants. Additionally, state programs for immigrants vary widely depending on the state's political characteristics, economy, and immigrant composition (Zimmermann & Fix, 1994).
There are numerous studies on the social, economic, political and health care issues associated with immigration. Recent research on immigration has focused on the impact of welfare reform. Researchers also studied the impact of both legal and illegal immigration on the U.S. job market. Borjas and Trejo (1991) examined the costs associated with legal immigrants' participation in the welfare system, using the 1970 and 1980 U.S. Censuses and compared it with that of the native-born citizens, using the household as a unit of study. They reported an increase in the use of welfare for both native-born and immigrant families. However, the immigrants' welfare participation rate grew much faster than their native-born counterparts. Furthermore, the immigrant welfare participation rate varied widely among different immigrant groups, ranging from 2.3% to 29.3%. They also reported that immigrant's welfare participation increased with age by a greater amount than those of the native-born citizenry. Based on the empirical results, they concluded that the main factor that caused the welfare participation rate of immigrants to surpass the native-born welfare participation rate was the high rate of Indo-Chinese refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
Prior studies have also reported that the new waves of immigrants, mostly from developing nations were considerably less skilled than earlier immigrant populations from Europe (Borjas & Trejo, 1991; Bean, Chapa, Berg, & Sowards, 1994), and tend to have significantly lower educational and occupational skills compared to U.S. groups (Fix & Passel, 1994; Padilla, 1997). As a result, they are more likely to seek welfare compared to the first wave from Southeast Asia or European countries. Subsequently, Borjas (1994) studied the economics of immigrants using additional 1990 Census data, and documented the high rate of welfare participation in the refugee group, of which 25.8% were Vietnamese.
Borjas and Trejo's (1991) study indicated that the effect of aging on immigrants' welfare participation rate was much higher than that of native-born older adults in a 10-year interval. Hu's (1998) study on the determinants of immigrants' welfare participation decisions reported that immigrants who arrive after age 55 are significantly more likely to use welfare than the typical immigrant who arrives during prime working years. He also reported while the welfare participation rate of the elderly native-born decreased the participation rate for the elderly immigrant counterparts increased significantly in the 1980-90s period. His analyses suggested that the immigrant's age at arrival in the U.S. was the main factor in determining the participation in welfare for elderly immigrants. A 20-percentage point difference in participation rate was reported for immigrants who immigrated at a younger age compared to those who immigrated at the age of 55 or above. However, the age-at-arrival effect was not explained by differences in social security benefits. Hu (1998) argued that because of the high welfare usage among immigrant older adults, the overall participation rate of immigrants' use of welfare surpassed that of the native born.
Borjas and Trejo (1991) reported that the immigrant length of time in the U.S. had a negative impact on the welfare use among the immigrants; the longer they stayed in the U.S., the greater likelihood they had of participating in the welfare system. The empirical results captured a 2 percent increase for those whose length of residence is 6 to 10 years, compared to those with 5 or less years of residence in the U.S. One explanation for this behavior is that the triggered time fell right into the threshold at which immigrants were eligible for welfare. That is, in the first five years of immigration, they are not eligible for receiving public aid. After that restricted period, eligible households can participate in the welfare system, and that is when the rate started to increase. In conjunction with his work, Hao and Kawano (2001) tested their human and social hypotheses, finding that length of residence in the U.S. was positively correlated with higher levels of welfare participation. Hu (1998) noted that the refugee immigrants, including the Vietnamese, experienced a substantial decrease in welfare usage after 10 years of residence.
Economic Model
According to Hu (1998), while younger immigrants may come to the United States to improve their economic condition, that is not necessarily the case for older adults which may explain the higher rates of welfare participation rate among older adults. The younger groups of immigrants use welfare only if they failed to find a job or adequately paid job in the United States; that is, when their salary was far less than the welfare benefits offered by the welfare system. Because job opportunities and salaries for immigrants depend on their skills, there are a number of factors that could prevent immigrants from obtaining employment such as: (1) Immigrants lack the skills required for the U.S. job market or immigrants may be required to have a license or degree issued in the U.S. (e.g., a college degree or years of experience in the U.S. market), (2) immigrants may enter the job search with little information related to the job and lack the skill to perform the job, and (3) human capital resources obtained in the U.S. are vital for immigrants to obtain a well-paying job since skills and knowledge sometimes are not transferable to the host country especially for those who immigrated from non-English speaking countries.
The human capital theory (Becker, 1993; Chiswick, 1978) mainly emphasized the labor market return to human capital. Investment in human capital can be captured under many different forms, especially education. Workers who enter the work force with higher education usually receive a higher salary and are less likely to be unemployed compared to those who have less education as unemployment rate is negatively associated with education and skill level. Workers can also secure their employment by improving their knowledge through on-the-job training programs offered by their employers. Becker (1993) also noted that the time at which workers obtained their education and training plays an important role in their career and their financial well-being. The earlier they invest in human capital, the longer they can benefit from it. As their income exceeds the amount of money offered by welfare, immigrants will continue to work and stay out of the welfare program.
The participation rate was also dependent on other household characteristics, such as the number of children in the family. The more children in a household, the higher the chance that the household receive assistance since the welfare income was paid based on the number of people in the household. In addition, the cost of raising a big family could be a burden for the immigrant head of household. The number of children younger than 5 years old is also one of many factors that contribute to the welfare participation rate since AFDC and TANF were designed to assist families with dependent children. Therefore, we can expect a household with children less than 5 years of age to receive welfare for a longer duration than families that do not have children less than 5 years old. The PRWORA of 1996 allows state governments to cap benefits for women who have additional children, provide financial incentives for recipients who marry, and require work from women with children younger than age 1 (Primus, Rawlings, Larin & Porter, 1999).
The Current Study
One of the most sensitive issues or questions is whether immigrants drain public resources. Although prior studies have included Asian immigrants' participation in the U.S. welfare system, they tend to study Asian immigrants as a group and seldom have they addressed patterns of welfare use in particular Asian ethnic groups. Moreover, prior studies (Borjas 1999, 2003; Borjas & Trejo, 1991; Hao, 2003) have not examined in detail the use of public assistance by Vietnamese immigrants in the past three existing Censuses (1980-2000).
The current study examined Vietnamese immigrants who mostly immigrated to the U.S. as refugees and compared the welfare participation rate with other Asians and native-born Caucasians and African-Americans in California using 1980 through 2000 Census data, and the American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2006-2008. We singled out Vietnamese immigrants in California from other Southeast Asian groups for this study for the following reasons. First, the number of Vietnamese immigrants living in the U.S. has increased significantly in the 1990 to 2000 Census from 593,213 in 1990 to 1,122,528 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990-2000). Second, California had the largest population of Vietnamese immigrants with over 450,000 Vietnamese in 2000, a 67% increase from the previous decade.
We hypothesized that: 1) the head of household demographic characteristics predicts the immigrant's welfare participation, 2) the younger the Vietnamese immigrants were at entry into the U.S. the less likely they were to participate in the welfare system, 3) the longer the Vietnamese immigrants stayed in the U.S., the less likely they were to participate in the welfare system, 4) the more educated the Vietnamese immigrants were the less likely they were to participate in the welfare system, and 5) education is expected to predict less of a likelihood for welfare participation among native-born Caucasians and African-Americans.
Cross-sectional data was obtained from 5% Integrated Public Use Micro Data Series (IPUMS-USA), assessed in 1980, 1990, and 2000 for the state of California (Ruggles, Alexander, Genadek, Goeken, Schroeder, & Sobek (2010). The ACS 2006-08 data was used in lieu of the 2010 census data not currently available until 2012 (IPUMS-USA; Ruggles et al, 2010). The Census Bureau collects American Community Survey data every year from a sample of the population in the United States and Puerto Rico, rather than from the whole population. The ACS provides up-to-date information about the social and economic needs of a community. Data are combined to produce 12 months, 36 months or 60 months of data. These are called 1-year, 3-year and 5-year data. Our study used the 3-year data. The 3-year ACS data provides most current information available about the social, economic, and housing characteristics using a representative sampling of 20,000 or more (http://www.census.gov).
One of the main benefits of using these data sets is the large sample size and the availability of several immigrant characteristics of interest. The IPUMS-USA data consisted of over 1 million household units from both native-born Caucasians and African-Americans, and selected families from Vietnamese and other Asian groups over 3 different Censuses (1980-2000). However, this data set had a number of disadvantages. Firstly, it did not provide a fixed sample of Vietnamese immigrants' data over time to examine the duration of welfare spells, or to determine the cause and effect when a household enters or exits the welfare system. Secondly, in the 1980 and 1990 Census, the welfare income combined Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and General Assistance (GA). The SSI was removed from welfare income and assigned to a new variable, supplemental income (Incsupp) in the 2000 Census. We used this data set to study the combined 3 sources of income; we cannot examine each source of income separately. The welfare income does not include other public aid such as food stamps and Medicaid.
The unit used for this study is the household, defined as 1 or more persons living in the same unit of housing. We chose the household unit over an individual unit given that eligibility for welfare is based on the combined income of all members in a household. A household is defined to be on welfare if anyone in the household received public assistance income in the calendar year prior to the Census. In this study, a foreign-born household is classified as such if the head of the household was born outside of the United States; the immigrant's country of origin is categorized based on their birthplace. This method of defining household immigrant status is considered straightforward and ensures comparability with previous analyses of immigrant welfare participation (Borjas & Trejo, 1991, p. 197). The age variable reports the age for the head-of-household at the time the poll was conducted. For ethnicity and nativity, besides the birthplace variable that is used to define the immigrants' original countries, the variable citizen is used to distinguish between naturalized citizens, non-citizens. Year immigration is used to obtain the year in which an immigrant first entered the U.S. We constructed two more variables for the immigration study:
Immigration length (Im_length) = Census year - Year entered the U.S.
Immigration age (Im_age) = Age at the Census year - Immigration length.
Data Analysis
We conducted descriptive analyses to describe the various characteristics of our study variables. Next, we conducted dprobit regression analyses to examine whether length of time in the U.S. predicts welfare participation rates among Vietnamese and Asian immigrants. Second, whether education predicts welfare participation rate for native-born Caucasian, African-American, Asian and Vietnamese.
For dprobit regressions, categorical variables were created to demonstrate the degrees in an immigrant's ability to speak English: No English, SomeEnglish, and GoodEnglish. Similarly, educational level was categorized as NoEducation, Elementary, MiddleSchool, HighSchool, and CollegeGrad group. Dummy variables were created for number of children <5years old was set = 1 (if the household has at least one child less than 5 years old), and for gender where male =1 if head of the household is male.
For dependent variables, a tassist variable and a dummy variable received were added. Tassist represented the total cash amount a household received through the AFDC program in the 1980 and 1990 Censuses, and the sum of AFDC and SSI income for the 2000 Census, and 2006-2008 ACS data. Received variable indicated the household's welfare status. It is set to '1' if the household participated in the welfare program and '0' otherwise.
Due to the linear dependency among age at the Census Year, age at arrival to the U.S., and the duration of immigration, for testing this model one variable must be eliminated. Therefore, we decided to forego the age at the Census Year because immigration age and immigration length are the specific data that represented the immigrants' characteristics and differentiated them from U.S.-born citizens. We tried to offset this flaw by looking at the impact of immigrant and U.S.-born citizen's aging effect on the use of welfare separately.
Dprobit Regression Model
A dprobit regression test is used to analyze the effect for the number of children, children less than 5 years old, head of household's age, marital status, gender, education, and immigrant variables such as immigrant age, duration of immigration on the probability of that household receiving public assistant.
We examined, at a given census point, the probability for a family to obtain welfare based on the number of children, children less than 5 years old, head of household's age, marital status, gender, and education. The model can be derived as: Pr [Pit =1 | Xit] = F [ß0 + ß1*Xit]. We used the Stata dprobit command to estimate the above probit regression model (Stata Manual Version 10).
Vietnamese Immigrants
On average, Vietnamese immigrants had more than one child (M = 1.66, SD = 1.58), and a higher number of children less than five years old (M = 0.3, SD = 0.61). Vietnamese immigrants who came to the U.S. in the decade preceding 2000 Census were younger than those who immigrated to the U.S. in the decade preceding 1980 and 1990 Censuses, respectively (M = 28, SD = 14.60 years old versus M = 36.52, SD = 12.30 and M = 31.7, SD = 12.33, respectively). Vietnamese welfare participation rate decreased from 28.3% to 23.97% from 1980 to 1990 Census Data, and to 15.6% in 2000 Census (see Table 1). The mean age for Vietnamese immigrants in the 2006-08 ACS data was 47.78 (SD = 12.84). On the human capital disadvantages, Vietnamese immigrants had the lowest level of education, the poorest ability to speak English, and the highest poverty index compared to other Asian immigrants.
TABLE 1.
The welfare participation rate (%) and welfare income for native-born Caucasians and African Americans, and immigrant Vietnamese and other Asian households (1980-2000 Censuses, 2006-2008 ACS)
| 1980 | 1990 | 2000 | 2006-2008 | |||||
| Ethnicity | Welfare Rate (%) | Welfare Income ($) | Welfare Rate (%) | Welfare Income ($) | Welfare Rate (%) | Welfare Income ($) | Welfare Rate (%) | Welfare Income ($) |
| Caucasian | 5.25 | 134.54 | 4.60 | 233.81 | 4.00 | 236.65 | 3.27 | 248.51 |
| African American | 18.20 | 565.45 | 16.75 | 928.77 | 14.55 | 819.73 | 11.75 | 799.10 |
| Vietnamese | 28.30 | 974.60 | 23.97 | 1915.59 | 15.60 | 930.56 | 8.15 | 660.53 |
| Chinese | 7.45 | 203.50 | 9.62 | 507.59 | 9.04 | 562.15 | 4.76 | 351.42 |
| Filipino | 4.85 | 130.52 | 3.71 | 188.78 | 4.02 | 221.61 | 3.10 | 217.79 |
| Indian | 1.87 | 42.63 | 1.41 | 61.64 | 1.34 | 80.75 | 1.45 | 87.55 |
| Japanese | 4.63 | 115.12 | 3.10 | 151.10 | 2.11 | 118.91 | 1.53 | 91.50 |
| Korean | 4.70 | 138.35 | 6.29 | 381.62 | 6.04 | 377.24 | 5.31 | 436.51 |
| Asian* | 5.29 | 142.55 | 5.22 | 277.77 | 4.98 | 297.16 | 3.57 | 261.73 |
| Immigrants** | 7.64 | 216.64 | 6.92 | 394.25 | 6.50 | 369.10 | 4.27 | 322.74 |
| Native Born*** | 6.55 | 179.80 | 5.84 | 307.30 | 4.92 | 287.70 | 3.97 | 293.73 |
| All Households | 6.68 | 184.10 | 6.10 | 322.07 | 5.18 | 301.40 | 4.09 | 296.11 |
Note:
* Asian immigrants exclude Vietnamese
**Immigrants includes Vietnamese
***Includes Caucasians and African Americans
The Welfare Participation Rate for U.S. Born and Immigrant Households
A summary of welfare participation rates for the native-born Caucasians and African-Americans, and immigrant Vietnamese and other Asian immigrant households in California are listed in Table 1. The empirical data indicated that native-born household's welfare participation rates decreased from 6.55% in the 1980 Census to 4.92% in 2000, and to 3.97% in ACS 2006-2008 data; the immigrant household rate decreased from 7.64% to 6.5% in 1980 and 2000 Censuses and decreased to 4.27% in ACS 2006-2008 data. Vietnamese immigrants showed the largest decrease, from 28.30% to 15.60%, and to 8.15%, respectively, for the same period.
Table 1 shows a considerable dispersion in welfare participation rates among different immigrant ethnicities in the 3 Censuses, from a high of 20% to a low of under 2 %. In the 1980 Census, Asian immigrant households excluding Vietnamese had an average of 5.30% participation rate; East Indians composed 1.87%, the lowest rate among all ethnic groups. There was a 13 percentage point difference in participation rate among native-born African-Americans and native born Caucasians in the 1980 Census (18.20 vs. 5.25, respectively).
During 1980-1990, the welfare participation rate in California decreased by approximately 0.50 percentage points. In the 1990 Census, native-born Caucasian and African-American households reported 4.60% and 16.75% for their participation rates, a decrease from 5.25% and 18.20% rates in 1980, respectively (see Table 1). The average participation rate for the Asian group excluding Vietnamese slightly decreased from 5.29% to 5.22% from 1980 to 1990, respectively (see Table 1). During this period, the Vietnamese's participation rate decreased from 28.30% to 23.97% (see Table 1).
The welfare usage rate for all households continued to decline further during the 1990-2000 period from 6.10 % to 5.18%, respectively (see Table 1). Native-born Caucasian households dropped a little over half point to 4%; native-born African American households' welfare participation rate decreased by 2.20 percentage points to 14.55%. Asian households excluding Vietnamese had approximately 5% welfare participation rate in the 2000 Census. Vietnamese immigrants had the biggest decrease during this period, an 8.40 percentage point drop (from 23.97% to 15.60%) and their cash income from welfare decreased by more than 50% ($1915.59 to $930.56). Even though Vietnamese households had the biggest decrease from the 1980-2000 Censuses, they still held the highest welfare rate followed by African-Americans. The African-Americans welfare participation rate exceeded that of Vietnamese immigrants' welfare participation rate in the 2006-08 ACS data. Additionally, the welfare participant rate in the state of California continues to decrease in the 2006-2008 ACS data with more than 1 percentage point for native born, and over 2 percentage points for immigrants. Vietnamese immigrant rates show a significant decrease (15.60% to 8.15%), more than 3.5 percentage points lower than native-born African Americans.
From the data presented in Table 1, it is evident that immigrants used more welfare assistance than those native born regardless of the Census year. However, when we examined immigrants by ethnicity, there is a huge variation in welfare participation among different ethnicities, and some of these immigrants used even less welfare than native-born (See table 1, lower panel). For example, immigrants from India had less than a 2% rate in all Census Years studied whereas Vietnamese had the highest welfare participation rate among immigrants in this study. Although Vietnamese started with a high participation rate, the trend shows that their welfare participation rate significantly decreased over time from 28.30 in 1980 Census to 8.15 in 2006-08 ASC data; 3.6 points less than African-American in the 2006-08 ACS data (8.15 versus 11.75).
The Aging Effect and Welfare Participation Rates
The welfare participation rate for the U.S. born and Vietnamese households were converted to 6 age groups: <25 years old, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 54-64, and 65 and above years old across three Census Years (1980-2000). Figures 1(a, b, c, and d) indicate that participation rates for the native-born Caucasian households were lower for all age groups except for groups aged 65 and above; for native-born African-American households, the welfare participation rate was higher for ages <25, and 65 and above, respectively in all Census Years. For Caucasian and African-Americans aged 65 and above, this may reflect SSI benefits and the use of TANF. The Vietnamese immigrant households' welfare participation rate on the other hand showed higher rates for all age groups but spiked for age group 65 and above in all Census Years as well as in the 2006-2008 ACS data. The findings confirmed that Vietnamese immigrants' use of welfare was highest among ages 65 and above. A similar pattern on the aging effect was noted by Borjas (1991) and Hu (1998) for aged 65 and above; higher rates of welfare participation were found among native-born Caucasian and African-American households.
Figure 1(a). The effect of age at census year (1980) on welfare participation rate for native-born Caucasian and African American, and Immigrant Vietnamese and Asian households
Note. VN = Vietnamese immigrant
Figure 1(b).The effect of age at census year (1990) on welfare participation rate for native-born Caucasian and African American, and Immigrant Vietnamese and Asian households
Figure 1(c). The effect of age at census year (2000) on welfare participation rate for native-born Caucasian and African American, and Immigrant Vietnamese and Asian households
Figure 1(d). The effect of age at ACS 2006-2008 on welfare participation rate for native-born Caucasian and African American, and Immigrant Vietnamese and Asian households
The Effect of Household Characteristics and Human Capital on Probabilities to Receive Welfare
Household characteristics (age, number of children, number of children age 5 and below, gender, and marital status) and human capital (educational level and the ability to speak English) showed a significant influence on the native-born and immigrants' probabilities of receiving welfare. For instance, a native-born Caucasian household would have approximately a 0.79 percentage point higher probability of using welfare for each additional child in the 1980-2000 Censuses and 0.34 percentage point in 2006-2008 ACS, while a native-born African-American household would have 2.69 and 1.60 percentage point effect in the same periods (see Table 2 & 3). On average, for each additional child, the probability of using welfare among Asians (excluding Vietnamese) increased by 0.04 and 0.02 percentage point. For Vietnamese immigrants this effect is reflected by a 4.39 and 0.53 percentage point increase (see Table 2 & 3).
Gender and marital status had more impact on native-born African-American than on native-born Caucasian households' probability to receive welfare. The test results from 1980-2000 U.S. Census indicate that a native-born African-American female head of household had 11.46 percentage points higher probability of using welfare than a native-born African-American male head of household, compared to 2.57 percentage points for the native Caucasian counterpart (see Table 2). The results for 2006-2008 ACS are 5 percentage points versus 0.92 percentage points for these native born (see Table 3). Native-born African-American single parent households had 10.44 percentage points higher probability of using welfare than two parent native-born African-American household. For native-born Caucasian households, the dprobit test result shows a 3.46 percentage point difference for 1980-2000 Census (see Table 4). This trend continues to show in the 2006-2008 ACS with 7.71 percentage point difference for native-born African-American and 2.74 percentage point difference for native-born Caucasian (see Table 4)
For the 1980-2000 Census data, Asian immigrants excluding Vietnamese had a significant effect with 1.03 percentage point lower probability of using welfare if the head of household was male and a 1.67 percentage point higher probability if the head of household was single. In the same period, gender had more influence on Vietnamese probability of receiving welfare than marital status. A Vietnamese male head of household had a 7 percentage point lower probability to receive welfare than a Vietnamese female head of household, while a Vietnamese single parent has 4.95 percentage point higher probability of receiving welfare than a Vietnamese two parent household (see Table 2). Similar patterns on the effects of gender and head of household's marital status were observed in the 2006-2008 ACS (See table 3).
The effect of human capital for native-born Caucasians and African-Americans and immigrant groups is consistent with prior studies. The dprobit estimates on educational variables showed a higher negative coefficient for each higher level of education, implying that the more education a head of household had, the less likely that household participated in the welfare system. For the native-born, the dprobit result indicated that education has a more positive effect on African-American than on the Caucasian households' probabilities to receive welfare. A native-born African-American household without education (no schooling or only preschool level) has a 13.92 percentage point higher probability of using welfare compared to a native-born African-American household with high school education; a native-born Caucasian household had only 4.94% probability for welfare participation for Census Years 1980-2000 (see Table 2).
Education had significant impact on Vietnamese heads of household. A Vietnamese immigrant who had a high school educational level would have 15.92 percentage point lower probability of using welfare than an immigrant without education for the 1980-2000 Census (see Table 2) and 4.70 percentage point lower probability of using welfare for 2006-2008 ACS (see Table 3).
TABLE 2. Dprobit estimates of the effect of household characteristics and human capital on the probabilities to receive welfare for native-born Caucasians and African Americans, and Immigrant Vietnamese, and other Asian (1980-2000 Censuses)
| Caucasian | African American |
Vietnamese | Asian | |
| Age | -.0004 ** (0.00006) |
-.0012 ** (.00005) |
.0011 ** (.0003) |
.0018 ** (.00004) |
| Nchild | .0079** (.0001) |
.0269** (.0008) |
.0439** (.0022) |
.0004 (.0004) |
| #child < 5yr | .0150 ** (.0003) |
.0542 ** (.0022) |
.0376 ** (.0059) |
.0127 ** (.0052) |
| Male | -.0257 ** (.0005) |
-.1146 ** (.0026) |
-.0700 ** (.0105) |
-.0103 ** (.0019) |
| Married | -.0346 ** (.0003) |
-.1044 ** (.0024) |
-.0495** (.0101) |
-.0167 ** (.0020) |
| Elementary | -.0058** (.0015) |
.0147 (.0109) |
.0308* (.0143) |
-.0073 ** (.0017) |
| MiddleSchool | -.0343 ** (.0014) |
-.0612 * (.0093) |
-.0733 ** (.0094) |
-.0158 ** (.0015) |
| HighSchool | -.0494 ** (.0013) |
-.1392 ** (.0077) |
-.1592 ** (.0085) |
-.0234** (.0015) |
| CollegeGrad | -.0617 ** (.0012) |
-.1484 ** (.0032) |
-.1877 ** (.0065) |
-.0434 ** (.0025) |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.1501 | 0.1882 | 0.2316 | 0.2490 |
| Log likelihood | -153752 | -34468 | -4248.11 | -8682 |
| # Observation | 968294 | 95089 | 11263 | 57272 |
In Table 4, the study findings showed that the head of household's ability to speak English reduced the immigrant's probability of participating in welfare significantly for Vietnamese compared to other Asians head of household. A Vietnamese head of household who could not speak English had higher probability of using welfare compared to those who speak some English in 1980-2000 Census (by 1.06 percentage point) and for 2006-2008 ACS (by 2.20 percentage point). Whereas, a Vietnamese head of household who speaks fluent English was less likely to use welfare compared to those who could not speak English in 1980-2000 Census (by 12.40 percentage points) and less likely to use welfare in the 2006-2008 data (by 6.78 percentage points) (see Table 4). However, the probability of other Asian immigrants' head-of-households receiving welfare was less impacted by their ability to speak English compared to Vietnamese head-of-household. This shows that proficiency in English varies among the different Asian groups, and more importantly, may lead to different outcomes as well.
Table 3 Dprobit estimates of the effect of household characteristics and human capital on probabilities to receive welfare for native-born Caucasians and African Americans, and Immigrant Vietnamese, and other Asian (2006-2008 ACS)
| Caucasian | African American | Vietnamese | Asian | |
| Age |
.0001 * (0.000018) |
.0001 (.0001) |
.0033*** (.0003) |
.0011*** (.00005) |
| Nchild | .0034*** (.00036) |
.0160*** (.0020) |
.0053* (.0022) |
.0002** (.0007) |
| #child <5yr | .0071 *** (.0009) |
.0280*** (.0054) |
.011 (.0067) |
.0118*** (.0017) |
| Male | -.0092*** (.0007 |
-.050*** (.0043) |
-.0208 *** (.0067) |
-.0023 (.0013) |
| Married | -.0274*** (.0008) |
-.0771*** (.0041) |
-.0263*** (.0076) |
|
| Elementary | -.0082** (.0024) |
-.0118 (.0186) |
-.013 (.00968) |
-.0029 (.0019) |
| MiddleSchool | -.0279*** (.0022) |
-.0587*** (.0160) |
-.0322*** (.006) |
-.0112*** (.0013) |
| HighSchool | -.0358 *** (.0018) |
-.1097*** (.0135) |
-.047*** (.0057) |
-.0145*** (.0013) |
| CollegeGrad | -.065*** (.0032) |
-.1402 *** (.0080) |
-.0832 ** (.0073) |
-.0462*** (.0048) |
| Pseudo R2 | .0940 | 0.1214 | 0.2591 | 0.2915 |
| Log likelihood | -27844 | -6067 | -1070 | -3090 |
| # Observation | 213303 | 19087 | 5116 | 28326 |
Table 4. Dprobit estimates of the effect of household characteristics and immigrant factors on the probabilities to receive welfare for Vietnamese and other Asians
| Vietnamese | Asian | |||
| 1980-2000 census | 2006-2008 ACS | 1980-2000 census | 2006-2008 ACS | |
| Nchild | .0342 ** (.0021) |
.0033 (.0021) |
.0006 (.0005) |
-.0016** (.0006) |
| #child <5yr | .0347 ** (.0056) |
.011 (.0064) |
.0128** (.0014) |
.0107*** (.0016) |
| Male | -.0698 ** (.0103) |
-.0174** (.0063) |
-.0076 ** (.0017) |
-.0015 (.0012) |
| Married | -.0340 (.0096) |
-.0262*** (.0074) |
-.0196 ** (.0020) |
-.0128*** (.0018) |
| Im_age | .0046 ** (.0003) |
.0028*** (.0002) |
.0020 ** (.00005) |
.0012*** (.00006) |
| Im_length | -.0024** (.0005) |
.0016*** (.0003) |
.0009 ** (.00004) |
.0006*** (.00005) |
| SomeEnglish | -.0106 (.0112) |
-.0220*** (.0061) |
-.0085 ** (.0014) |
-.0037* (.0013) |
| FluentEnglish | -.1240 ** (.0152) |
-.0670*** (.0146) |
-.0217 ** (.0030) |
|
| Elementary | .0130 (.0127) |
-.0147* (.0059) |
-.0029 (.0017) |
|
| MiddleSchool | -.0554 * (.0093) |
-.0219*** (.0059) |
-.0073 ** (.0017) |
-.0077*** (.0013) |
| HighSchool | -.1073 ** (.0091) |
-.0302*** (..0059) |
-.0125 ** (.0017) |
.0093*** (.0013) |
| CollegeGrad | -.1373 ** (.0074) |
-.0569*** (.0071) |
-.0280 ** (.0024) |
-.0282*** (.0038) |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.2819 | 0.2893 | 0.2930 | |
| Log likelihood | -3969 | -1026 | -2897 | |
| # Observation | 11263 | 5116 | 57272 | 28225 |
The Effect of Immigrants' Age on Welfare Participation Rate
The effect of Vietnamese and other Asian head-of-households' age at the time of immigration to the U.S. (Im_Age ) and their welfare participation rates from 1980-2000 Censuses & 2006-2008 ACM are presented in Figure 2(a) and Figure 2(b). The age categories have the same interval as described in the previous section: <25 years old, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and above. The Dprobit estimates on immigrant age showed that the coefficient on Im_Age for Vietnamese was positive and statistically significant from 1980 to 2000 Censuses and 2006-2008 ACS data. That is, for every additional year, the increase in age for a Vietnamese head of household at immigration is associated with a 0.46 and 0.28 percentage point increase in their probability to receive welfare versus a 0.20 and 0.12 percentage point for other Asian immigrants (see Table 4).
This result supports the hypothesis that age at immigration plays an important role in the likelihood of welfare participation. As expected, Vietnamese who immigrated to the United States at a younger age would be able to accumulate the necessary skills required for the U.S. labor market and be more financially independent compared to those who came at an older age.
Figure 2(a). The effect of immigrant age at arrival on welfare participation rate for Vietnamese households (1980-2000 Censuses, and ACS 2006-2008)
Figure 2(b). The effect of immigrant age at arrival on welfare participation rate for Asian households (1980-2000 Censuses, and ACS 2006-2008)
Note: 2008 is ACS 2006-2008. VN = Vietnamese immigrant
The Effect of Immigration Length and Welfare Participation Rate
Immigration length variable, denoted as Im_length, was used in this study to examine the relationship between welfare participation rate and the time since immigration. Im_length was defined by the difference between the most recent Census year and the year in which the head of household immigrated to the United States. We grouped the data for this variable by 5-year intervals. The participation rate for each group is plotted in Figure 3. Vietnamese households showed a high rate of welfare use during their first 5 years in the U.S.; 30.40% in 1980, 44.10% in 1990, and 24.50% in 2000 Census (see Figure 3). There was a significant decrease after the first five years in the 1980 and 1990 Censuses; over 23 and 15 percentage points, respectively. The participation rate for the Vietnamese households in the 2000 Census did not decline until ten years from the time they immigrated to the United States and this rate continued to drop with the increase in time since immigration.
The regression test results on the immigration length variable showed a statistically significant impact on the Vietnamese welfare participation rate. Vietnamese households reduced the probability of participating in welfare by 0.24 percentage point for every extra year of residence in the U.S. compared to 0.09 percentage point increase for Asian households in 1980-2000 Census. However, regression analyses for 2006-2008 ACS data showed an inverse relationship for length of residence and welfare participation for Vietnamese and Asian immigrants. That is, for each year of residence in the U.S., the welfare participation rate increased by 0.16 percentage point for Vietnamese and 0.06 percentage point for Asian immigrants (see Table 4).
Figure 3. The effect of immigrant length in the U.S. on Vietnamese and Asian householdsÕ welfare participation rate (1980-2000 Censuses)
Prior studies have examined the economic contributions made by growing waves of new immigrants to the U.S. (Greenwood & McDowell, 1986; Borjas, 1985; Borjas, 1986) and the impact of immigrants on native earnings and employment opportunities (Borjas, 1986; Card, 1990; Altonji & Card, 1991). On the other hand, there has been widespread perception that unskilled immigrants are more prone to enter the welfare system and thereby increasing the burden on taxpayers (Borjas & Trejo, 1991). The present study sought to determine the factors that influence the trends in welfare participation rates specifically among Vietnamese immigrants in California as historically Vietnamese immigrants have high rates of welfare participation compared to other Asians and native-born Caucasian and African-American. This study specifically examined the effect of age at immigration, length of residence in the U.S., education, and language (English) proficiency on welfare participation rates for Vietnamese and other Asians using the 1980, 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Data, as well as ACS 2006-08 data to compare their welfare participation rates with that of the native-born African-Americans and Caucasians.
We have presented systematic empirical analysis of Vietnamese and other Asian immigrants' participation in the welfare system using the 1980-2000 censuses and 2006-08 ASC data; 4 findings of our study stood out. First, there is a consistent downward trend in welfare participation for native-born African-American and Caucasian, and for Vietnamese and Japanese immigrants in all censuses, including in the ASC 2006-08 data. This finding contradicts the evidence in the existing literature that more recent immigrant waves are less skilled than previous waves (see Borjas & Trejo, 1991). Second, the 1980-2000 Censuses indicate that the longer a Vietnamese immigrant resided in the U.S., the less likely he/she was to receive welfare. However, the 2006-08 ASC data does not mirror this trend. Third, although the findings reaffirm that household characteristics and human capital were significant predictors of the probability of welfare use among immigrants and native-born, Asian American groups differ in terms of immigration history, language, foreign-born population, educational level, family income, and exposure to war trauma. Even among Vietnamese immigrants there are variations among the different waves of immigrants to the U.S. For example, after the Vietnam War ended in 1975, a large number of Southeast Asian refugees arrived; these were mostly educated Vietnamese. The subsequent waves that came to the U.S. to escape persecution or for family reunification varied in their levels of education (Lee, 1997).
Although data suggests that Asian Americans as a group have the highest average family income in the United States, Southeast Asian immigrant and refugee groups (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Lao) are still struggling with language and cultural barriers as well as facing economic difficulties (Lee, 1997). For example, according to the 1990 Census estimates, the percentage of foreign-born Vietnamese was 92% compared to 57% Asian Indians, 56% Chinese, and 33% Japanese (Lee, 1997). These differences may reflect why Vietnamese head of household's English proficiency has more significant impact on Vietnamese immigrant's lower probability for welfare participation compared to other Asians.
The common factor for welfare participation among natives and non-natives are first and foremost due to low education. The immigration history showed that most immigrants come to the U.S. for better economic prospects, others for religious and political asylum/refugees status, and more recent immigrants come for family reunification as a result of U.S. immigration policy reform. Welfare participation among immigrants varies based on refugee status. Immigrants who came to the U.S. as refugees often lacked education or employment skills unlike non-refugee immigrants from other Asian countries where many have at least 4 years of college and employment skills. This is a plausible reason for the vast difference in the welfare participant rates among Vietnamese and other Asian groups from India, China, Korea or Japan. Older Vietnamese, many of whom came as a result of family reunification, were more likely to depend on welfare as their ability to find gainful employment was diminished by language barriers and lack of education. As Vietnamese immigrants obtained education and found gainful employment, their dependence on welfare decreased over time.
The decrease effect of language proficiency on welfare participation as observed in 2006-08 data needs further investigation to understand whether similar patterns would reflect in the 2010 Census or not. Borjas (1999) reported that immigrants who speak English are more likely to assimilate more quickly and less likely to remain in ethnic enclaves. However, there is lack of information on whether these immigrants have greater access to financially rewarding employment (albeit low paid jobs) in ethnic enclaves due to low education and lack of English proficiency.
The availability of three separate cross-sections allows us to identify cohort effects and provide a meaningful description of the patterns of Vietnamese and Asian immigrants' participation in the welfare system and make a comparison with those of native-born Caucasian and African-American welfare participants. The dprobit regression analyses based on the 1980, 1990, 2000 Census data (see Table 2), and 2006-08 ASC data (see Table 3) clearly showed that Vietnamese immigrants are more likely to participate in welfare compared to other Asian and native-born Caucasian and African American regardless of the household head status and the Census year. Household characteristics and education showed a statistically significant effect on Vietnamese welfare participation rates. In addition, consistent with our hypothesis, immigration age has a positive influence on Vietnamese welfare participation rates. The younger the Vietnamese immigrants were when they immigrated to the United States, the less likely they were to participate in the welfare system.
In Table 4, length of residence in the U.S. showed mixed effect on the immigrants' probability to receive welfare. Findings from the 1980-2000 Censuses showed that the longer Vietnamese immigrants have lived in the U.S., the less likely they were to participate in welfare. However, findings from the 2006-08 ASC data showed an inverse relationship for length of residence in the U.S. and welfare participation. For Asian immigrants, the longer the head of household have lived in the U.S., the more likely it is that they participate in the welfare program as shown in the 1980-2000 Censuses and 2006-08 ASC data. This finding is consistent with Borjas and Trejo's (1991) study which reported that the longer an immigrant household had resided in the U.S., the more likely they were to receive welfare. The length of residence in the U.S. may capture different things at different time periods, at least for head of households. For example, the data in 1980-2000 censuses may capture the households where the longer the household head has lived in the U.S., the more likely they have successfully entered the work force. The 2006-08 ACS may be capturing the head of households as they age/retire/exit the workforce. If exiting from lower wage employment, they may not have sufficient income from SSA/pension sources, so they may be more likely to depend on SSI.
Education was found to have the most positive impact on welfare participation rate on both native-born and immigrant head of household. This stressed the implication for policy on the welfare system wherein emphasis on education to reduce welfare participation rate cannot be ignored. For both natives and immigrants, exiting welfare is only a short term goal; the long term solution lies in assisting them to maximize their economic and social assets for long term gain. Further study is required to confirm or modify this conclusion.
Limitations and Future Directions
Although one of the strengths of this study is the assessment of welfare trends from the 1980, 1990, 2000 U.S census, and ACS 2006-2008 data, this study has some limitations. For example, data from other public assistance sources such as food stamps and Medicaid could be integrated to provide a more accurate picture of total public assistance to immigrants. Additionally, a comparison study with native-born households of Vietnamese in the U.S. could be added to help us understand this particular immigrant group's welfare participation overtime.
Future studies could focus on the impact of welfare reform (The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996; PRWORA) on immigrants and examine if there is a correlation between the welfare reform and the decrease of over 15.80 percentage points in welfare use by the Vietnamese immigrants for the 1990 Census and 2006-2008 ACS data. Several studies that compared the effectiveness of welfare reform proposals for single-parent and two-parent AFDC households have reported higher levels of employment and income from work in primarily male-headed AFDC for unemployed two-parent households than among single-mother households (Brasher, 1994; Gueron & Pauly, 1991; Rank, 1994). One of the major limitations of the regulations of the PRWORA of 1996 was that it prevented most types of job training and educational services from being counted toward the 35-hour work requirement. This limited the ability of welfare recipients to develop the skills needed to find permanent jobs at adequate wages. The new work requirements, in effect, increase the marginalization of low-income people (Riemer, 1997), and further marginalizing single-mothers (Hardina, 1999).
Despite these limitations, this study has important implications for social work education and practice on how immigrant and human capital characteristics can impact welfare participation among Vietnamese immigrants, native-born African-Americans and Caucasians in California.
Implications for Social Work Practice, Education, and Policy
Prior studies have demonstrated that certain groups of immigrants, especially those who have low education, lack of English proficiency, and low skills for employment, experience significant barriers that impede their ability to adjust to living in the U.S. In addition to the legislative initiatives that restrict access to basic safety net services based on immigration status (documented versus undocumented), they are also reported to experience increasing economic, social, and psychological stress and family problems (Capps, Passel, Perez-Lopez, & Fix, 2003; Capps, Ku, & Fix, 2002; Reardon-Anderson, Capps, & Fix, 2002; Siegel & Kappaz, 2002). Children of immigrants are reported to more likely live in poverty than children of native parents, and are at greater risk of poor outcomes in a number of areas (Dettlaff et al., 2009). According to the 2002 National Survey of America's Families, 29% of children of immigrants have parents with less than a high school education compared to 8% of children of natives, and 58% of children of immigrants have at least one parent with limited English proficiency (Capps, Fix, Ost, Reardon-Anderson, & Passel, 2004). These factors affect the immigrant family's wages, and result in the fact that 52% of children of immigrants are living below the poverty level compared with one-third of children of native parents (Capps et al., 2004).
More new immigrants and their children are coming to the attention of state child welfare services providers, however, both private and public child welfare services providers' lack of understanding on how immigration status affects eligibility for public benefits often lead to inappropriate referrals or failure to assist immigrant parents by not helping them access other options (Earner, 2007). Prior studies (Earner, 2007; Altman & Goldberg, 2008; Padilla, 1997; Dettlaff et al., 2009) have reported the need for research on evidenced-based practice with immigrants as well as the need for advanced culturally competent training in child welfare agencies on the issues affecting immigrant children and their families involved in the child welfare system.
Social work has had a long history of involvement with public assistance in the U.S. by taking an active role to solve the problems and at times relinquishing its role to the government. In the late 19th century the Charity Organization Society (COS) began as welfare reformers and attempted to reduce dependence on public relief by providing interpersonal services to alleviate the personal inadequacies thought to cause the need for assistance. Then, during the post-war period, social workers were said to disengage from the poor and re-engaged in the 1960s with the 1962 Amendments to the Social Security Act (Altman & Goldberg, 2008). Altman and Goldberg (2008) stressed that it is not enough to reduce the number of welfare recipients or emphasize self-sufficiency, but called for innovative, expansive ideas of what role social workers can play in meeting our ethical obligations to the poor and vulnerable populations of our society. They also called for more professional dialogues on the goals of public assistance and clients' capacities for economic independence.
Prior studies revealed that social work students in the U.S. prefer the provision of direct services to individuals and families over social planning, policy formulation or development, community organization, social service administration, case advocacy, brokerage, and case management (Aviram & Katan, 1991; Bogo, Raphael & Roberts, 1993; Weiss, Gal, Cnaan & Maglajlic, 2002). Critics assert that social work and social work education have distanced themselves from the profession's social mission and its commitment to social change (as cited in Weiss, 2003, p. 132). There is a need for the social work profession to integrate personal caring with a commitment to social justice (Healy, 2001; Hokenstad, Khinduka & Midgley, 1992), and to take an active role in influencing social welfare policy.
Social work practice with refugees and immigrants is influenced by relevant national, regional, and local political attitudes towards migration (Lyons & Huegler, 2011). Since the 1960's the U.S. immigration policy has given priority to family reunification and has been considered a moral advancement from previous racially-based criteria for granting citizenship. However, the welfare reform in 1996 and the growing political debates surrounding undocumented immigrants increased the anti-immigrant sentiment when politicians and scholars constructed arguments that welfare was the primary magnet attracting immigrants to the United States (Neubeck & Cazenave, 2001).
The move to end welfare entitlement for non-citizens operated from a discourse that characterized immigrants as "undeserving foreigners, abusing the system and taking resources from hard-working Americans" (Fujiwara, 2005, p. 79). Fujiwara (2005) argued that the notion of morality, which became a prominent force in the immigrant rights movement to restore benefits, resulted in a campaign that characterized the elderly, disabled, and refugee communities as victims of a social policy that would lead to destitution, and in some cases even death (p. 82). This campaign led to the successful restoration of a specific portion of benefits that affected the most vulnerable immigrants at that time, and most importantly the shift in the re-framing the immigrant as "victim" of social policy rather than as an "enemy" (p. 97). Fujiwara (2005) also pointed out the on-going dilemmas and controversies in grassroots organizing and the challenges of acquiring political traction in the midst of increasing political conservatism.
It is important for the social work profession to understand the diversity within the refugee and immigrant populations, and to become more actively involved in discourse that shape national and regional policies and advocate for the marginalized members of our society that reflects our profession's values for social justice and human rights.
Altman, J.C., & Goldberg, G.S. (2008). Rethinking social work’s role in public assistance. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 35(4), 71-94. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jrlsasw35&div=44&id=&page=
Altonji, J.G., & Card, D. (1991). The effects of immigration on the labor market outcomes of less-skilled natives. In J.M. Abowd, R.B. Freeman (Eds.), Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market (pp. 201Ð234). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11773.pdf
Aviram, U., & Katan, J. (1991). Professional preferences of social workers: Prestige scales of populations, services, and methods in social work. International Social Work, 34(1), 37-55.
Bean, F.D., Chapa, J., Berg, R., & Sowards, K.A. (1994). Educational and sociodemographic incorporation among Hispanic immigrants to the United States. In B. Edmonston, J.S. Passel (Eds.), Immigration and ethnicity: The integration of America's newest arrivals (pp. 73-100). Washington,DC: Urban Institute Press.
Becker, G. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Bogo, M., Raphael, D., & Roberts, R. (1993). Interests, activities and self-identification among social work students: Toward a definition of social work identity. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(3), 279Ð292.
Borjas, G.J. (1985). Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of Immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics 3(4), 463-489.
Borjas, G.J. (1986). Immigrants and the U.S. labor market. In W.E. Susan Poza (Ed.), Essays on Legal and Illegal Immigration. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research (pp. 7-20). Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://research.upjohn.org/up_press/193/
Borjas, G.J. (1994). The economics of immigration. Journal of Economic Literature, 32(4), 1667-1717.
Borjas, G.J. (1999). Immigration and welfare magnets. Journal of Labor Economics, 17(4), 607-637.
Borjas, G.J. (2003). Welfare reform, labor supply, and health insurance in the immigrant population. Journal of Health Economics, 22(6), 933-958.
Borjas, G.J., & Trejo, S. (1991). Immigrant participation in the welfare system. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44(2), 195-211.
Brasher, C.N. (1994). Workfare in Ohio: Political and socioeconomic climate and program impact. Policy Studies Journal, 22(3), 514-527. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1994.tb01485.x/abstract
Brunner, L., & Colarelli, S.M. (2010). Immigration in the twenty-first century: A personnel selection approach. The Independent Review, 14(3), 389Ð413. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_14_03_05_brunner.pdf
Capps, R., Fix, M., Ost, J., Reardon-Anderson, J., & Passel, J.S. (2004). The health and well-being of young children of immigrants. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311139_Childrenimmigrants.pdf
Capps, R., & Fortuny, K. (2006, January). Immigration and child and family policy. In O. Golden, & K.A. Moore (Moderators), Roundtable on Children in Low-Income Families. Symposium conducted at the meeting of The Urban Institute and Child Trends, Washington, DC. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311362_lowincome_children3.pdf
Capps, R., Ku, L., & Fix, M.E. (2002). How are immigrants faring after welfare reform? Preliminary evidence from Los Angeles and New York (Final Report). Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/410426_final_report.pdf
Capps, R., & Passel, J. (2004). Describing immigrant communities. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Capps, R., Passel, J.S., Perez-Lopez, D., & Fix, M.E. (2003). The new neighbors: A user's guide to data on immigrants in U.S. communities. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/310844_the_new_neighbors.pdf
Card, D. (1990). The impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami labor market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43(2), 245-257. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/mariel-impact.pdf
Chambers, D., & Wedel, K. (2009). Social policy and social programs: A method for the practical public policy analyst (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chan, K.B., & Loveridge, D. (1987). Refugees in transit: Vietnamese in a refugee camp in Hong Kong. International Migration Review, 21(3), 745-59.
Chiswick, R.B. (1978). The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign-born man. The Journal of Political Economy, 86(5), 897-921. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.ifatunji.com/references/chiswick%201978%20the%20effect%20of%20americanization%20on%20the%20earnings%20of%20foreign-born%20men.pdf
Dettlaff, A.J., Vidal de Haymes, M., Velazquez, S., Mindell, R., & Bruce, L. (2009). Emerging issues at the intersection of immigration and child welfare: Results from a transnational research and policy forum. Child Welfare, 88(2), 47-67.
Earner, I. (2007). Immigrant families and public child welfare: Barriers to services and approaches for change. Child Welfare, 86(4), 63-91. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from Highbeam Business website: http://business.highbeam.com/435256/article-1G1-177019058/immigrant-families-and-public-child-welfare-barriers
Espenshade, T.J., & Hempstead, K. (1996). Contemporary American attitudes toward U.S. immigration. International Migration Review, 30(2), 535-570.
Finch, W.A. (1990). The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: A preliminary assessment. Social Service Review, 64(2), 244-260.
Fix, M., & Passel, J.S. (1994). Immigration and immigrants: Setting the record straight. Washington,DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/305184_immigration_immigrants.pdf
Fugiwara, L.H. (2005). Immigrant rights are human rights: The reframing of immigrant entitlement and welfare. Social Problems, 52(1), 79-101.
Greenwood, M.J., & McDowell, J. (1986). The factor market consequences of U.S. immigration. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(4), 1738-1772.
Gueron, J., Pauly, E., & Lougy, C.M. (1991). From welfare to work. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hao, L. (2003). Private support and public assistance for immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 36-51.
Hao, L., & Kawano, Y. (2001). Immigrants’ welfare use and opportunity for contact with co-ethnics. Demography, 38(3), 375-389. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from Highbeam Business website: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-78984871.html
Hardina, D. (1999). Employment and the use of welfare among male and female heads of AFDC households. Affilia, 14(2), 217-234.
Hatton, T.J., & Williamson J.G. (Eds.). (1994). Migration and the international labor market, 1850-1939. London, UK: Routledge.
Healy, L.Y. (2001). International social work: Professional action in an interdependent world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hokenstad, M.C., Khinduke, S.K., & Midgley, J. (1992). Profiles in international social work. New York, NY: NASW Press.
Hu, W.Y. (1998). Elderly immigrants on welfare. Journal of Human Resources, 33(3), 711-741.
Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat, 4978 (1990).
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Pub. L. No 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965).
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (1986).
Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-23, 89 Stat. 87 (1975).
Lanphier, C.M. (1983, November). Dilemmas of decentralization: Refugee sponsorship and service in Canada and the United States. In D.H. Webster (Ed.), The Southeast Asian Environment (pp.173-190). Ottawa, CA: University of Ottawa Press. Proceedings of the annual conference of the Canadian Council for Southeast Asian Studies at the Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Alberta, CA.
Lee, E. (1997). Overview: The assessment and treatment of Asian American immigrant families. In E. Lee (Ed.), Working with Asian Americans: A guide for clinicians (pp. 3-36). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Le-Doux, C., & Stephens, K.S. (1992). Refugee and immigrant social service delivery: Critical management issues. In A.S. Ryan (Ed.), Social Work with Immigrants and Refugees (pp. 31-45). New York, NY: The Haworth Press.
Light, I., & Bonacich, E. (1988). Immigrant entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles, 1965-1982. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
Lyons, K., & Huegler, N. (2011). Migration and refugees. In L.M. Healy, R.J. Link (Eds.), Handbook of international social work: Human rights, development, and the global profession (pp. 220-225). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Martin, P., & Midgley, E. (1999). Immigration to the United States. Population Bulletin, 54(2), 3Ð44. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.prb.org/Source/54.2ImmigrationToUS.pdf
Massey, D.S. (1995). The new immigration and ethnicity in the United States. Population and Development Review, 21(3), 631-652.
Moore, S. (1986). Social scientists’ views on immigrants and U.S. immigration policy: A postscript. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 487(1), 213-217.
Moore, J.W., & Pinderhughes, R. (1993). In the barrios: Latinos and the underclass debate. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundations.
Montero, D. (1979). Vietnamese Americans: Patterns of resettlement and socioeconomic adaptation in the United States. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Neubeck, K.J., & Cazenave, N.A. (2001). Welfare racism: Playing the race card against America's poor. New York, NY: Routledge.
Padilla, Y.C. (1997). Immigrant policy: Issues for social work practice. Social Work, 42(6), 596-606.
Passel, J. (2005, March). Estimates of the size and characteristics of the undocumented population (Research Report). Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193, 40 U.S.C. 1305 (1996).
Primus, W., Rawlings, L., Larin, K., & Porter, K. (1999). The initial impacts of welfare reform on the incomes of single-mother families. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.cbpp.org/archiveSite/8-22-99wel.pdf
Rank, M.R. (1994). Living on the edge: The realities of welfare in America. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Reardon-Anderson, J., Capps, R., & Fix, M. (2002, November). The health and well-being of children in immigrant families (Research Paper, Series B, No B-52). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310584_B52.pdf
Riemer, F. (1997). Quick attachments to the workforce: An ethnographic analysis of a transition from welfare to low-wage jobs. Social Work Research, 21(4), 225-232.
Rolph, E. (1992). Immigration policies: Legacy from the 1980s and issues for the 1990s (Research Report). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2007/R4184.pdf
Ruggles, S.J., Alexander, T., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Schroeder, M.B., & Sobek, M. (2010). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0[Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Scarbrough, J. (2001). Welfare mothers’ reflections on personal responsibility. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2), 261-276.
Schuck, P.H. (1998). The open society. New Republic, 218(15), 16-18. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/76212/the-open-society
Siegal W.L., & Kappaz, C.M. (2002, January). Strengthening Illinois’ immigrant policy: Improving health and human services for immigrants and refugees (Health and Human Services Immigrant Policy Working Group Report). Chicago, IL: Illinois Immigrant Policy Project. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.consultmillennia.com/images/stories/Strengthening20Illinois20Immigrant20Policy.pdf
Social Security Administration (2003). SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2002. Baltimore, MD:
Social Security Act of 1935, Pub. L. No. 74-271, 49 Stat. 620 (1935).
Social Security Administration Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2002/ssi_asr02.pdf
Tienda, M., & Liang, Z. (1994). Poverty and immigration in policy perspective. In S.H. Danziger, G.D. Sandefur, & D.H. Weinberg (Eds.), Confronting poverty: Prescriptions for change (pp. 330-364). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tran, T.V. (1991). Sponsorship and employment status among Indochine refugees in the United States. International Migration Review, 25(3), 536-50.
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2000). Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2000/Yearbook2000.pdf
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2011, April). A guide to naturalization (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Publication No. M-476). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/M-476.pdf
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (Various years). Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2010). Retrieved on November 11, 2011, from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/american_community_survey_and_2010_census/
Vobejda, B. (1996, August). Clinton signs welfare bill amid division. Washington Post. Retrieved on November 1, 2011, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082396.htm
Weiss, I. (2003). Social work students and social change: on the link between views on poverty, social work goals and policy practice. International Journal of Social Welfare, 12(2), 132-141. Retrieved on November 10, 2011, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00251/full
Weiss, I., Gal, J., Cnaan, R., & Maglajlic, R. (2002). Where does it begin? A comparative perspective on the professional preferences of first-year social work students. British Journal of Social Work, 32(5), 589Ð608.
Zhou, M., & Bankston, C.L. (1998). Growing up American: How Vietnamese children adapt to life in the United States. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Press.
Zimmermann, W., & Fix, M. (1994). Immigrant policy in the States: A wavering welcome. In B. Edmonston, J.S. Passel (Eds.), Immigration and Ethnicity (pp. 287-315). Washington, DC: UrbanInstitute Press.
Zimmermann, W., & Tumlin, L. (1998). Immigrants and public benefits: State policies and trends. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Martha Vungkhanching, Ph.D. is a faculty in the Department of Social Work Education at California State University, Fresno, CA 93740-8019. Her research areas include alcohol and substance use, traumatic brain injury and family caregivers, health and well-being, international social work education, and social entrepreneurship.
Vu P. Nguyen, M.S (Computer Engineering), M.A (Economics) is a senior engineer at Xyratex International, Inc. in Sacramento, CA.