Issuu

THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN PUERTO RICO

L .

FOOD CVUPOIv DO NOT FG.. L

651720004;

Npt~iPr.vgcER+.OiF

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN PUERTO RICO

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of Social Services Food Stamp Program Office of Research and Statistics

PARIMAL CHOUDHURY Project Director

This study may not be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of the Department of Social Services, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 1

PREFACE

This is the third major study of the Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico conducted under the auspices of the Commonwealth Department of Social Services.

The two previous stud-

ies were conducted jointly with Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S.D.A.

The first study, The Food Distribution Svs-

tern and Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico, published in December 1975, predicted the size and outcome of the Food Stamp Program and measured the capability of food wholesalers and retailers to accommodate the additional demand for food that was likely to be generated by the Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico.

The second study, The Impact of the Food Stamp

Program in Puerto Rico, published in November 1977, made a detailed analysis of the actual impact of the Food Stamp Program on the food distribution system and upon consumer behavior once the program was put into operation. The growth of the Food Stamp Program has raised doubts within Puerto Rican society that the program may be instrumental in creating work disincentive among the participants. The present study signifies an endeavor on the part of the

iii

Commonwealth Department of Social Services to quantitatively assess the true impact of the program upon employment and unemployment.

This assessment has been based on a survey

with a representative sample encompassing the entire island. The sample size consisted of 1,772 households distributed in 17 municipalities. A summary and conclusion is presented at the outset. This is followed by an introductory section including the definition of the problem, objectives, hypothesis, and a complete description of the methodology.

The second part

summarizes general attributes dealing primarily with the socio-economic profile of the respondents.

The third part

examines the specific attributes of the respondents, including employment and unemployment characteristics and labor force participation.

A cross variable analysis is presented

in the fourth part of the study.

The study concludes with

an analysis of the income of the respondents. It would have been virtually impossible to complete this study had it not been for the active and enthusiastic participation of various individuals.

First among them is

Hon. Ramón Garcia Santiago, former Secretary of Social

Services, who provided the required facilities and offered valuable suggestions and encouragement throughout the duration of the study.

I am also very grateful to Hon. Jenaro

Collazo-Collazo, Secretary, Department of Social Services, for his continued support and help in terminating the study. Within the Office of Research and Statistics of the Department of Social Services my sincere gratitude is due to the following present and former employees.

Ms. Amabel

Garcia and Ms. Ana Luz Sánchez devoted painstaking effort to supervising the analysis of data and preparation of tables.

Mr. Eli Tilén supervised the field survey with end-

less patience and Ms. Mercedes Solís was extremely helpful in analyzing the data.

Mr. Luis Del Toro made invaluable

contributions in the overall supervision of the project. Special thanks are due to Dr. Luz M. Torruellas for valuable suggestions and for her endless patience and tenacity in editing the manuscript.

Special thanks are also

due to Dr. Stephen J. Hiemstra of the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S.D.A. for his valuable comments which added substantially to the improvement of the presentation of the results.

Finally, special appreciation is extended to our secretaries, Myrna Aponte Torres for typing and retyping the bulk of the manuscript and Maria Schwarz Moorehead for typing many of the complicated tables.

Parimal Choudhury

San Juan, Puerto Rico May 1978

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface List of Tables List of Figures SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS PART I: INTRODUCTION Introduction Methodology The Sample PART II: GENERAL ATTRIBUTES: THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE General Socio-Economic Characteristics Place of Residence Household Composition 1. Size 2. Age 3. Sex 4. Education 5. Income PART III: SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES: LABOR FORCE TRENDS, EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT Labor Force Participation of Food Stamp Participants in Puerto Rico Effect of Gain and Loss of Employment upon Participation in the Food Stamp Program IV: INTERRELATED ATTRIBUTES: CROSS PART VARIABLE ANALYSIS OF THE EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED Characteristics of the Employed Types of Occupation Employment, Age and Sex

vii

iii x xv 1 18 19 22 23 31 33 33 36 36 38 41 41 44

73 75 75 86

Page

PART

Employment and Education Full-time vs. Part-time Employment Transportation and Employment Characteristics of the Unemployed Unemployment and Education Unemployment, Age and Sex Reasons for Unemployment Reasons for Failure to Find a Job INCOME AND RELATED VARIABLES ANALYSIS Income Level Food Stamp Recipients who Received Other Income 1. Food Stamp Program participants who received income from gainful employment only 2. Food Stamp Program participants who received income exclusively from non-work sources 3. Food Stamp Program participants who received income from both work and non-work sources 4. Combination of Groups 1, 2, & 3. Households who Discontinued their Participation in the Food Stamp Program

viii

95 101 107 115 115 119 121 124 143 145 145

146

148

151

153

Page

APPENDIX

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Food Stamp Recipients Reporting no Income Other than Food Stamps Relationship of Inc ane to Other Variables Income and Education Income and Occupation Income and Household Size SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

153 155 158 159 160 165 165 168 171 177

LIST OF TABLES Page

I. l: I. 2: II. 1: II. 2: II. 3: II. 4: II. 5: II. 6: II. 7:

III. 1: III. 2: III. 3: III. 4: III. 5: III. 6:

III. 7:

Selected Sample Number of Households, by Size and Geographic Area Place of Residence of Sample Households, by Type of Geographic Area Number of Sample Households and Household Members, by Household Size Age Distribution of Household Heads and Other Household Members Sex Distribution of Household Heads and Other Household Members Educational Level of Household Heads and Other Household Members Educational Level of the Adult Population in Sample Households Relative Income Distribution of All Food Stamp Program Participants and of the Sample Households Labor Force Participation and Employment Status: All Household Members Employment Situation of All Household Members, by Age Level Employment Situation of Household Heads, by Age Group Employment Situation of Household Members, by Age Group All Household Members not in the Labor Force, By Category Household Heads and Other Household Members Not in the Labor Force, by Category and Educational Level Labor Force Participation and Employment Status of Household Heads and Other Household Members

27 29 34 37 39 42 43 45

47 52 53 57 58 59

Page

III.

III. 10:

IV. IV.

1: 2:

IV.

IV. IV.

6: 7:

IV.

IV. 10: IV. 11: IV. 12:

Change in Unemployment Status From Entrance to Time of Interview, Household Heads and Other Household Members Change in Employment Status From Entrance to Time of Interview, Household Heads and Other Household Members Employment Status at Entrance to Program of Employed Household Members at Time of Interview, by Length of Time in Program Job Classification of Household Heads Job Classification of Other Household Members Job Classification of Household Heads and Other Members, by Sex Percentage Distribution of Employed Persons, by Major Occupational Group: in Survey Population as Compared with Puerto Rico as a Whole Employed Household Members, by Industry Classification and Educational Level Age Distribution of Employed Persons Sex Distribution of Employed Household Heads and Other Household Members Employed Persons, by Major Occupational Group and Sex: Puerto Rico, June 1976 Families Receiving Income from Work Sources, by Number of Family Members Working and Status in Food Stamp Program at Time of Survey Employment of Household Heads, by Educational Level Employment of Other Household Members, by Educational Level Employed and Unemployed Household Heads and Other Household Members, by Educational Level

III.

71 76 77 79

81 82 88 89 90

94 94 96 98

Page

IV. 13: IV. 14:

IV. 15: IV. 16: IV. 17: IV. 18:

IV. 19:

IIV. 20:

IV. 21:

IV. 22:

IV. 23: IV. 24: IV. 25:

IV. 26: IV. 27: IV. 28:

IV. 29:

Employed and Unemployed Adults, by Educational Level Employed and Unemployed Household Heads and Other Household Members, by Educational Level Educational Level of Employed Persons Weekly Hours Worked by Household Heads and All Household Members Type of Work Schedule, by Level of Education Distance of Employee's Residence to Place of Work, by Type of Work Schedule, All Household Members Means of Transportation Used by Household Heads, by Distance to Place of Work Means of Transportation Used by Household Heads and Other Members, by Type of Work Schedule Means of Transportation to Place of Work Used by Household Heads, by Type of Work Schedule Means of Transportation to Place of Work Used by Other Household Members, by Type of Work Schedule Unemployed Persons, by Educational Level Unemployed Persons, by Educational Level and as Percentage of Labor Force Unemployed Persons, By Educational Level: Comparison of Survey with Puerto Rico as a Whole Age Distribution of Unemployed Persons Sex Distribution of Unemployed Persons and Sex Unemployment Rates Sex Distribution and Unemployment Rates of Unemployed Household Heads and Other Household Members Months Unemployed, by Reason for Unemployment

xii

100

102 103 105 106

109

110

111

113

118 120 120

122 123

Page

IV. 30: IV. 31: IV. 32: IV. 33: IV. 34: IV. 35:

IV. 36: IV. 37: IV. 38:

IV. 39:

IV. 40: V.

Household Heads and Other Household 125 Members Who Quit their Jobs,by Reasons 126 Difficulties in Finding Employment Minimum Salary Unemployed Household Heads 128 Were Willing to Accept Type of Jobs the Unemployed Would Be 131 Willing to Take Willingness to Be Trained, According 132 To Time Unemployed Registration of Unemployed Household Heads and Other Household Members with the 134 Department of Labor Unemployed Persons, By Periód of Unemploymeat and Registration with Labor Department 136 Reasons for Non-Registration with the 137 Labor Department Unemployed Persons Registered with the Department of Labor, by Period of Unemployment and Whether Called for 138 Labor Department Interview Unemployed Persons Called for Interview, by Period of Unemployment and Attendance at Labor Department 140 Interview Type of Job Search Activity and Registration 141 with the Labor Department Distribution of Households Participating in the Food Stamp Program at the Time of 147 the Survey, by Level and Source of income Distribution of Households Participating in the Food Stamp Program at the Time of Survey, by Level of Bonus and Source 149 of Income Distribution of Households (Food Stamp Program Participants), by Level of Income from Work, Non-Work, and Bonus 154 Sources Distribution of Households (Who Left the Food Stamp Program), by Level and 156 Source of Income

Distribution of Households With No Reported Income, by Level of Bonus Percentage Distribution of Employed Persons, by Level of Income Employed Persons, by Occupation and Level of Monthly Earnings Number of Households Receiving Income from Work, Non-Work, and Combined Work and Non-Work Sources, by Household Size and Income Level (Active Cases) Number of Household Heads and Other Members who Received Income from Work, Non-Work, and Work Plus Non-Work Sources, by Household Size and Income Level (Active Cases)

xiv

161 166 169

173

175

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

I. 1: III. 1:

V. 1:

V. 2:

Sample Survey Areas Unemployment in Puerto Rico, by Months, July 1974 to June 1976 Distribution of Income From Combined Work and Non-Work Sources, Not Including Bonus, All Participant Households, Lorenz Diagram Distribution of Income From Work of Non-Participant Households, and Total Income, Including Bonus, of Participant Households, Lorenz Diagram

163

164

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report gives the findings of a survey of recipients of food stamps in 17 municipalities throughout Puerto Rico.

The households were selected from comput-

erized data of the Food Stamp Program on participating households.

Households were interviewed in late May and

early June, 1976, almost two years after the Food Stamp Program was initiated in Puerto Rico.

A total of 1,772

questionnaires were processed and analyzed for the purpose of the study.

While focussed on the impact of the

Food Stamp Program upon employment and unemployment, the study has provided considerable data on the socio-economic characteristics of the households surveyed. 1.

The data show that the un employment situation of par-

ticipants has improved since the initiation of the Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico, which indicates that the Program has not created unemployment.

The high level of

unemployment among Food Stamp Program participants is not a consequence of the Program, but rather of Puerto Rico's socio-economic problems such as the low educational at-

tainment of the population; lack of employment opportunities, especially in rural areas; low wages in many occupations; family size and dependency of family members; age distribution; poor health and disability; and cultural factors related to the participation of women in the labor force. Food stamp recipients had a higher rate of participation in the labor force than the comparative rate for Puerto Rico as a whole.

However, the percentage of those

working in part-time or sporadic employment was below the level for Puerto Rico.

An important conclusion is that

the Food Stamp Program does not take participants away from the labor market, but has made some of the participants more selective in their search and less willing to accept part-time or sporadic employment. 2.

The socio-economic characteristics were obtained from

the 1,772 households surveyed. a.

The geographic distribution of the sample house-

holds was about three-fifths in rural and two-fifths in urban areas. b.

The average size for sample households was four

members (4.11) which is close to the average household size for all food stamp recipients in fiscal 1975 (4.31), and is also close to the average size of households under the poverty threshold according to the 1970 Census of Population.

The percent of households increased up to

the five member size and decreased in the size groups of 6 or more members. c.

The age distribution of food stamp recipients indi-

cates that the population is young.

Almost three-fifths

of all household members were under 25 years of age. Heads of households, however, were found to be over 25 years of age with less than ten percent in the 18-24 year age group, and none below 18 years of age.

Little more than one-

third of the other household members were in the employable age group, (18 to 64 years). d. The sex distribution of the sample population indicates that slightly over one-half were female, consistent with the 1970 Census of Population.

About three-fourths

of household heads and two-fifths of other household members were male. e.

Educational levels of the sample population were

found to be very low with over three-fifths having only completed 6th grade or less.

Of the adult food stamp

recipients almost one-third had less than four years of formal education; less than five percent had completed high school and had some technical and/or vocational training or college education. f.

The income distribution of the sample households is

similar to that of all Food Stamp Program participating households, except that in the sample less concentration of households was observed in the lower half of the income scale. 3.

Labor force, employment, and unemployment data were

obtained for the sample population of food stamp recipients in the 1,772 households surveyed, including household heads and other household members. a.

About one-fourth of the food stamp recipients were

labor force participants.

An analysis of the character-

istics of the respondents who were not in the labor force (over three-fourths) indicated that the majority were either too young or too old to participate in the labor force.

The percentage of persons in the labor force be-

tween 14 and 64 years old in the sample corresponded to the percentage in the total civilian population (about two-fifths) according to June 1976 data from the Department of Labor_

1`he initiation of the Food Stamp Program

in Puerto Rico has not had a negative impact upon labor force participations but,on the contrary, there was a small increase in the participation of sample respondents from the time of entrance to the Program and the time of the interview. b.

The low rate of labor force participation was

partly due to the age distribution of food stamp participants, thus reflecting demographic factors.

While not

feasible or desirable to encourage labor force participation by pre-school children, students, and senior citizens (almost three-fourths of those outside the labor force), it might be feasible to increase labor force participation of some of the handicapped and housewives. c.

Statistics for the sample of food stamp recipients

interviewed show that employment as well as labor force ation has increased rather than decreased from participation the time of entrance to the Program and the time of interview.

Labor force participation increased by 4.2

percent (from 1,628 to 1,696 persons), employment by 7 percentage points (from 51.5 to 58.5 percent of the respective labor force), while unemployment decreased by 11 percent (from 790 to 704 persons) in this period.

is important to note that the increase in employment among food stamp recipients occurred at a time of generally high unemployment in Puerto Rico. d.

The unemployment rate for food stamp recipients

(about 40 percent) was still more than twice as large as the rate for the Island population (about 20 percent in June 1976) despite the decline from time of entrance to the program and the interview. e.

Relating the growth of employment to participa-

tion in the Food Stamp Program, a number of unemployed persons at the time of entrance to the Program (60) who obtained employment had stopped receiving food stamps at the time of the interview.

Of the persons who were

employed at the time they entered the Program (683), 105 had left the Program at the time of the interview, after finding better jobs.

These people apparently pre-

ferred to work even at the risk of losing their food

stamp benefits. 4.

A cross variable analysis of characteristics of the

employed and unemployed Food Stamp Program participants yields further data important for program planning. a.

The vast majority of food stamp recipients were

employed in occupations which are generally associated with low wage levels and lack of prestige.

Professionals,

semi-professionals, farmers and farm managers encompassed only 6.9 percent of the employed food stamp recipients in the sample, while these occupations accounted for about one-fourth (23.5 percent) of total persons employed in Puerto Rico. b.

An analysis of the place of work of the 992 persons

who were gainfully employed in the households surveyed shows that the government (insular and federal) has been the largest single employer, consistent with Island wide statistics of the Department of Labor (more than onefifth of total employment).

The second largest provider

of employment was agriculture (including forestry and fisheries), followed by personal services (including domestic), commerce, textile and clothing manufacturing, and construction.

These categories account for almost all of the 7

employed. c.

Almost all of the employed persons in the sample

were in the 18 to 64 age bracket.

No one under 14 years

and only 6 under 17 were employed.

Most of the employed

parsons were quite young, almost three-fourths were in the age group 18 to 44.

There was a small number of em-

ployed persons over 65 years. d.

The rate of employment was quite low among the

women who received food stamps, little more than onefourth were employed.

Less than one-fifth of the em-

ployed household heads were women while three-fifths of the other household members employed were women. e.

Among food stamp recipients little more than two-

fifths of other household

members were employed.

The

tendency to rely solely on the income of the household head, and the low rate of female employment may be important factors in the persistence of poverty among food stamp recipients. f.

A high positive correlation exists between em-

ployment and educational levels among people interviewed. Among all household members those with vocational

university training had the highest employment rates and 8

those with less education, lower employment rates. g.

Full-time jobs (35 hours or more per week)

were held by three-fourths of the employed, part-time jobs (15 to 34 hours per week)

by almost one-fourth of the

employed, and the remaining group worked less than 14 hours weekly. h.

A positive correlation was evident between level

of educational achievement and full-time employment, with the percentage of persons with full-time employment rising steadily with the educational level.

More than 90 per-

cent of those with technical and/or vocational training and almost 90 percent of those with a college education had full-time employment, whereas less than three-fifths of those employed who had no schooling had full-time jobs. i.

Food stamp recipients with full-time jobs general-

ly traveled longer distances to reach their place of work than those with part-time or sporadic employment and were much more likely to use private cars (almost half).

Greater

distance was a discouraging factor for those who could only get part-time or sporadic work.

Rural recipients

of food stamps would find it difficult to take advantage of opportunities for part-time work unless the place of 9

work was very close to home. j.

The great majority of the unemployed had less

than ten years of schooling, with over three-fifths having no schooling.

The pattern of inverse correlation between

education and unemployment is the same for food stamp recipients and the general population, the major differences being the higher rates of unemployment at all educational levels for food stamp recipients. k.

The age distribution of the unemployed shows that

the unemployment problem had the most serious impact on young people under 35 years of age, who accounted for almost three-fifths of the unemployed food stamp recipients surveyed.

Almost half of the women recipients in the la-

bor force in the sample were unemployed. 1.

Among the reasons given for unemployment, the most

commonly cited were the closure of the place of employment and lack of skills or training to get a job.

Other reasons

cited, in the order of frequency mentioned, were sickness or handicap, fired from the job, resignation from the job, distance of the job from home, change of residence, problems with the boss, and low salary. m.

Reasons given for failure to find a job were 10

dispersed among a variety of answers but the most frequent was "no jobs available" and the next most frequent, "lack of experience or skill". n.

Salary expectations of the unemployed were some-

what unrealistic but awareness of their lack of training and skills was greater.

Those unemployed more than two

years showed markedly less interest in receiving training than those unemployed for a shorter period of time. o.

Efforts to find employment were made by the major-

ity of the unemployed but roughly close to 15 percent appeared to be apathetic, discouraged, or disinterested. Most of the persons in this group had been unemployed more than two years and there was no evidence that the imple'mentation of the Food Stamp Program had affected their attitudes.

Most seemed to need guidance as to what jobs

to look £or, what type of salary to expect, and how to go about searching for employment. 5.

Household income of Food Stamp Program participants

was analyzed in three broad categories:

(1) those who also

received income from other sources, (2) those who left the Food Stamp Program, and (3) those who received food stamps but had no other reported income. 11

The households who were gainfully employed and

were active participants in the Food Stamp Program had the second highest monthly income, including the food stamp bonus.

Their average monthly income from employ-

ment was $318.19; including the food stamp bonus their average monthly income was $441..60. Food stamp recipients who received income exclu-

sively from non-work sources, such as Social Security and pensions, had an average monthly income of $217.80 from these sources; with the food stamp bonus they had an average income of $245.71. c.

Food Stamp Program participants receiving income

from both work and non-work sources had an average monthly income from these sources of $379.22; including the monthly bonus, the average income was $509.72. d.

The average monthly income of working households

that dropped out of the Program increased sharply in comparison with working households that remained in the Program.

The average monthly income of this group was

$451.61. e.

The households who received income from gainful

employment and also participated in the Program were in 12

a much better economic situation than those who did not receive income from gainful employment and received food stamps.

This necessarily means that there are no strong

economic reasons to abstain from working in order to receive food stamps. f.

The food stamp recipients reporting no income

other than food stamps totaled 160 households.

Since

these households did not have any reported income, it was expected that they would not have

the cash for the pur-

chase requirements for their stamps.

It was revealed by

the respondents, however, that half of the households received their stamps free while the remainder had to pay for their stamps at an average monthly rate of $32.35. The purchase requirement for the households without reported income could be due in part to asset holdings, but may also be attributable to lack of veracity in providing information. g.

The correlation between income and education was

positive.

As the level of education increased more per-

sons were concentrated in the upper income brackets. h.

Income and educational levels were also found to

be positively correlated. 13

Income level rose with edu-

cational level, from an average monthly income of $187.40 for those with no formal education up to $332.28 for those with a university education, with the exception of those with vocational and/or technical training whose average monthly income was the highest ($344.31). i.

Income level and occupation were examined for

thirteen job codes.

The largest number of persons were

in low paying job classifications.

About three-fifths of

those employed were engaged in the following occupations (in descending order of frequency):

laborers and related;

artisans, foremen, and stewards; service workers except domestic; and agricultural laborers.

The other occupations

were scattered diffusely. j.

Income level and household size were positively

correlated.

The mean household size increased consistently

with the level of income, beginning from 2.8 persons for the monthly income level of $50.00 or less to 5.7 persons for the cash income level of $401.00 or more. 6.

The computerized data now available through the imple-

mentation of the Food Stamp Program makes it possible to analyze many of the variables related to the impact of the

Food Stamp Program in greater depth.

Since about half

of Puerto Rico's population participates in the Food Stamp Program, more detailed information may be obtained on the socio-economic characteristics of a large portion of Puerto Rico's families in the lower part of the income scale.

Of special interest for further study are the

following topics:

Relationship between income level

and education with specific reference to technical, vocational, and university educational levels to develop public policy towards educational planning.

Employment

of women and the handicapped; urban-rural patterns and cultural aspects.

Impact of the Program on salary

levels in Puerto Rico; its cost impact on the production level.

The long run impact on the educational level

of participating households and the possible impact on the future job market.

Impact of the Food Stamp Pro-

gram on employment through food stamp expenditures and its multiplier effect.

The impact of the Food Stamp

Program on household expenditures for non-food goods and services.

The impact of the Food Stamp Program on

attitudes of recipients for an in depth analysis of the psychological and sociological impact of the 15

Program.

Continuous monitoring of the changes in the consump-

tion patterns of food and non-food goods and services for public policy and planning directed toward local production and imports.

Research in order to develop a clearing

house to facilitate availability of all the public services directed towards the family as a package instead of in isolation, since many of the families who need services are not even aware of their availability.

PART I INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

The Food Stamp Program was introduced in Puerto Rico in July 1974 although it was in force in the United States since 1964. stages.

The Program was introduced in three

The first stage of implementation was initiated

on July 3, 1974 in five municipalities western part of the Island.

in the north-

The second stage encompassed

36 additional municipalities and commenced on September 1, 1974.

The third and last stage started on November 1,

1974 when the whole Island came under the auspices of the Food Stamp Program. The rate of implementation has been the fastest in the nation.

Within the course of less than six months

all interested eligible households

received their stamps.

There are 78 municipalities in Puerto Rico. A household is defined, for the purposes of the Program, as a group of individuals who are living as one economic unit sharing common cooking facilities or an individual living alone, or with any other person or persons not members of the economic unit, who purchases and prepares food for home consumption. Elderly persons living alone or with a spouse who participate in a delivered meals

This accomplishment is even more striking when viewed in terms of its magnitude.

About half of all families on

the Island received food stamps as contrasted with about

J nine percent in the United States. Food stamp recipients in Puerto Rico received food stamps during fiscal year 1976 with a total value of $754,905,404, for which they paid $185,515,334, leaving a net bonus of $569,390,070.

The size and pervasive na-

ture of this relatively new welfare program in Puerto Rico, make it imperative to investigate its long and short run effects on the households receiving food stamps, on Puerto Rican society, and on the Puerto Rican economy as a

whole.

It is of paramount importance to study the socio-

program or a communal dining program, as well as narcotic addicts and alcoholics residents of treatment and rehabilitation programs and receiving meals through such programs, are also considered as households. Unrelated individuals, such as roomers, boarders, attendants or housekeepers, who are not part of the household economic unit are excluded. The concept although similar does not correspond exactly to the Census one. LI United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Food Stamp Program Statistical Summary of Operations, November 1975; and United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population ReOctober, 1976.

economic characteristics of participating households, their place in the economic system, and their future potential, in order to maximize the positive effects of the Food Stamp Program and minimize its negative consequences. Since the Program has been in operation in Puerto Rico for over two years, it is now feasible to compare certain socio-economic characteristics of selected participating households at present with their position at the time of their initial certification of eligibility for food stamps. One of the most disturbing questions raised about the Food Stamp Program is the effect of the Program on employment.

It has been frequently alleged in local news-

paper articles that the Food Stamp Program has had a pernicious effect on employment, since it supposedly removes incentives to work.

Although these allegations have been

made without reference to scientific analysis of data, the question raised with regard to the effect of food stamps on employment has very serious repercussions on both economic and welfare planning.

The present study, therefore,

focuses upon the impact of the Food Stamp Program upon employment and unemployment, though the data generated has yielded considerable information about other socio-economic 21

characteristics of participating households as well.

METHODOLOGY The primary objective of the study is to assess quantitatively if the Food Stamp Program is in any way creating a work disincentive in Puerto Rico.

The secon-

dary objective is to prepare a socio-economic profile of Food Stamp Program participants.

This was accomplished

through a field survey among the participating households. The sample was representative from the statistical standpoint.

The hypothesis was that the Food Stamp Program

provided disincentive to work because of increased purchasing power on two counts.

The first is the receipt of

the Food Stamp Program bonus, which averages about $125 per month.

The second is the generation of additional pur-

chasing power through savings.

In other words, the ex-

penditure on food in the absence of the Food Stamp Program was higher than purchase requirements, therefore, the difference (expenditure on food before the Program minus purchase requirement) could be used by the household to purchase non-food goods and services.

This means that a

household participating in the Food Stamp Program was bet-

ter off both in terms of food and non-food purchases. Therefore, it was only likely that such a household would have a reduced work incentive. The Sample The municipalities and the households within these municipalities were selected on the basis of statistical probability sampling.

This was possible because of the

availability of crucial refined data from the participating households including income, number of persons in the household, and the exact location of the residence. To determine which municipalities were to be included in the sample they were analyzed on the basis of average income, size distribution of participating households, the ratio of participating households to all households,and rural-urban characteristics.

In order to dimin-

ish bias from the variance, larger municipalities (in terms of population and income) such as San Juan, Ponce, Mayaguez, Aguadilla, Bayamon, and Arecibo were separated first.

From the remaining 72 municipalities a statisti-

cal sample of 14 was drawn on a 95 percent probability basis.

The 72 municipalities were listed alphabetically

and 14 municipalities were selected randomly with the aid 23

of a random numbers table.

Since a larger degree of var-

iation of the characteristics among the six large municipalities was observed, 50 percent, or three of the six municipalities, were selected randomly thus making a total of 17 municipalities in the sample (see Figure I.1). Having selected the municipalities, we proceeded to select the households to be interviewed.

Income and house-

hold size were considered as major criteria for the selection of households since the food stamp purchase requirement varies with income for a given household size, and the food stamp quota varies with household size.

A dis-

tribution of income was prepared for each household size from one to 12 members and for 13 or more members.

Vari-

ances were calculated for each of these 13 size groups dividing them in urban and rural groups.

The statistical

sample was drawn on a 95 percent probability basis from each of these size and income groups, cell by cell, by varying tolerable errors from 0.1 to 3, depending on the case. Thus, it was assured that all household sizes and all income classes within each size were adequately represented. The sum of the samples of all these cells (income class and household size group coordinates) constituted the to24

Figure I.1:

SAMPLE SURVEY AREAS

Puerto Rico ATLANTIC

OCEAN Catai'io

7O 7e 7W

Culebra

N Hormigueros

CARIBBEAN

Sample Survey Areas

C,_ Other Municipalities

SEA

tal household sample.

A total of 1,935 households distrib-

uted in the 17 municipalities selected was finally chosen for the sample.

It was assumed that all these households

could not be reached and that all questionnaires could not be completed for reasons beyond the control of the interviewers.

Therefore, an additional 11.4 percent or 220

households, proportionately representing each size and income group and class, were added to the sample, thus making a total of 2,155 households.

A list of all food stamp re-

cipients was prepared for each income group and household size from which corresponding sample households were chosen randomly.

Table I.1. shows the sample distribution by mu-

nicipalities. The questionnaire was designed (see Appendix), 54 interviewers were trained, and field surveys were made during a two week time spanthe last week of May and first week of June 1976.

As was surmised correctly, completed

questionnaires could not be obtained from 383 households, either because they could not be reached or inadequate information provided rendered them unsuitable for processing. A total of 1,772 questionnaires were processed and analyzed for the purpose of this study.

Table I.2 shows

Table 2.1:

Municipalities

SELECTED SAMPLE

Total of Households

Percent

Sample Households

Percent

Aguada

5,058

5.0

134

6.3

Bayamón

22,245

22.0

247

11.5

Cabo Rojo

5,920

5.8

155

7.2

Comerlo

3,809

3.8

104

4.8

Florida

1,601

1.6

1.9

Guánica

3,560

3.5

3.9

Guayanilla

3,813

3.7

106

4.9

Hatillo

4,878

4.8

106

4.9

Lajas

3,608

3.6

Las Marías

1,572

1.6

2.0

Loíza

3,679

3.6

4.2

Luquillo

2,182

2.2

2.9

Mayaguez

15,735

15.6

197

9.1

San Juan

13,706

13.6

397

18.4

Toa Alta

4,591

4.5

154

9.1

Vieques

1,470

1.5

2.6

Villalba

3,622

3.6

101

4.7

101,049

100.0

2,155

100.0

Total

Based on the geographical distribution of the households participating in the Food Stamp Program.

the distribution of the sample by household size and geographic area.

The geographic distribution (57.3 percent

rural and 42.7 percent urban) and the size distribution of households is fairly consistent with the statistics of the Department of Labor, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as discussed elsewhere in this report.

Table 1.2:

Household Size

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS,SY SIZE AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA

Rural Number Percent

Urban Percent Number

Total Number Percent

107

10.5

105

13.9

212

12.0

148

14.6

117

15.5

265

14.9

147

14.5

134

17.7

281

15.9

207

20.4

146

19.3

353

19.9

142

13.9

125

16.5

267

15.1

9.5

8.5

161

9.1

5.6

3.8

4.8

4.2

1.3

3.0

2.7

1.7

2.3

1.6

1.0

1.3

0.9

0.5

0.7

0.8

0.1

0.5

13 or more

0.8

0.1

0.5

1,016

100.0

756

100.0

1,772

100.0

42.7

100.0

Total Percent of total

57.3

PART II GENERAL ATTRIBUTES The Socio -Economic Profile

GENERAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

The data collected for sample households provide a wealth of information about the socio-economic characteristics of food stamp recipients.

In addition to employ-

ment patterns, the primary concern of this study, valuable information was also gained on patterns of residence, family composition, age, sex, educational and income levels. Place of Residence The geographic distribution of the place of residence of the sample households was 43 percent in urban areas and 57 percent in rural areas (see Table 11.1).

This is in

contrast with what the 1970 Population Census indicates According to the Census, 58

for Puerto Rico as a whole.

percent of the population in 1970 lived in urban areas and 42 percent in rural areas.

The larger concentration in

rural areas of the survey population is explained by the fact that the Food Stamp Program is focused to low income families, and these, according to the Census, are to a larger extent concentrated in rural areas. According to the sample of the urban area residents,

Table II.1:

PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS, BY TYPE OF GEOGRAPHIC AREA

Type of Geographic Area

Rural Num- Perber cent

Lots given by government

339

33.4

"Barriadas"

236 4

Urban Percent

Number

Percent

3.3

364

20.5

23.2

129

17.1

365

20.6

0.4

3.2

1.6

Public housing projects

195

25.8

195

11.0

Private urbanizations

208

27.5

208

11.7

Midtown or town street

120

15.9

120

6.8

0.9

407

22.9

5.4

2.3

Slums

Private farms or lots

400

39.4

Suburban areas Other, not elsewhere classified Total Percent of total families

Number

Total

3.6

0.9

2.5

1,016

100.0

756

100.0

1,772

100.0

43.0

---

100.0

57.0

only 3.2 percent lived in true slums while 17.1 percent lived in smaller clusters of poor houses known as "barriadas"; more than a quarter, or 25.8 percent, lived in public housing projects, while 3.3 percent of the urban residents lived in lots given to them by the government. Those living in private urbanizations or housing developments accounted for 27.5 percent; 15.9 percent lived in midtown or town streets; and 5.4 percent lived in suburban areas.

Of the people living in rural areas, 33.4

percent lived in lots given by the government, 23.2 percent lived in rural "barriadas", and 39.4 percent on private farms.

Although the great majority of the families

receiving food stamps was not living in out-right slums, as did the impoverished families of a generation ago, a large number were dependent on the government for their housing.

If we include the slums, urban "barriadas",pub-

lic housing projects,and midtown streets as areas in which there is a concentration of poor families, it is obvious that 65 percent of the food stamp recipients sampled in urban areas lived in poverty stricken districts, presumably with few opportunities for social contacts outside their own income group. 35

The relative disadvantage of those living in rural areas, public housing, or slums in terms of access to educational opportunities, employment, and other basic services has been recognized in some recent Planning Board studies.

One of these studies found that in rural areas

dependent on agricultural activities, the jobs available offered very low wages and the hours worked were less than 35 per week; the average weekly wage was $27.00 According to the 1970 Census, 78.4 percent of all families residing in rural areas in Puerto Rico had incomes below the poverty level.

The lack of access to

full-time, higher paying jobs in rural areas is an important factor in the perpetuation of poverty. Household Composition 1.

Size A vast majority of the sample households (87 percent)

had six or less members.

The average household size turned

out to be 4.11 members (see Table II.2).

The average

size for all food stamp recipient households was 4.31 per-

Puerto Rico Planning Board, Recursos Humanos Dentro del Marco de la Nueva Estrategia, October 1975,pp. 223-247.

Table II.2:

Household Size

Households Number Percent

Household Members Number Percent

212

12.0

212

2.9

265

15.0

530

7.3

281

15.9

843

11.5

353

19.9

1,412

19.4

267

15.1

1,335

18.3

161

9.1

966

13.2

4.8

602

8.3

3.0

424

5.8

2.2

360

4.9

1.3

230

3.2

0.7

143

2.0

0.5

108

1.5

13 or more

0.5

122

1.7

1,772

100.Q.

7,287

100.0

Total

NUMBER OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS, BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE*

The average household size is 4.11.

sons for fiscal year 1975.

The 1970 Census showed an av-

erage size of 4.2 persons for all households in Puerto Rico, and an average size of 4.27 persons for households below the poverty level. sistent with the

The sample data are thus con-

universe according to other official

published sources.

In the sample households, there was a

total of 7,287 persons: 1,772 household heads and 5,515 other household members. Table 11.2 also

yields further information on the

size distribution of households.

It is interesting to

note that the percent of households increased consistently up to the 5 member size and decreased consistently in the size groups of 6 members or larger. 2.

Age The majority of the persons in the sample was rather

young as shown in Table II.3.

The last column of the table

shows that 47 percent of all persons in the sample were less than 18 years old, while the majority (58 percent) were less than 25 years old.

About 30 percent were 35

years or more and only 8 percent were 65 years or older. Forty-five percent of the sample population fell within the age group of 18 to 64 years and thus were potential 38

Table II.3:

Age

Less than 5

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Household Heads NumPerber cent

Other Members NumPerber cent

All Members NumPerber cent

975

17.7

975

13.4

785

14.2

785

10.8

- 13

842

15.3

842

11.6

- 17

795

14.4

795

10.9

- 24

108

6.1

740

13.4

848

11.6

- 34

382

21.6

474

8.6

856

11.7

- 44

349

19.7

307

5.6

656

9.0

- 54

292

16.5

206

3.7

498

6.8

- 64

275

15.5

166

3.0

441

6.1

65 and over

358

20.2

211

3.8

569

7.8

Not reported

0.5

0.3

1,772

100.0

5,515

100.0

7,287

100.0

Total

or active participants of the labor force.

'These statis-

tics thus demonstrate that Food Stamp Program participants are fairly young with a large number having the potential to play a productive role in society.

The Food

Stamp Program is keeping many of these young people out of the labor force by permitting them to maintain their present status, primarily as students.

The Program thus

is an important factor in keeping this group from entering the labor force and thereby not increasing unemployment. Otherwise these younger persons would be forced to seek employment without adequate academic training or skill to earn sufficient income to keep their families economically afloat. The age composition differed significantly when we divide participants in separate groups- household heads and other members.

There were no household heads below

the age bracket of 18 to 24 years, with only 108 or 6.1 percent pertaining to this category.

Household heads were

fairly evenly distributed in all other age groups above that bracket, except that eight,or 0.5 percent,provided no information about their age.

A glance at the age dis-

tribution of household members other than heads reveals

that 61.6 percent fell below the age of 18 years and 3.8 percent fell above 65 years.

This means that only 34.3

percent were in the employable age group (18 to 64 years). 3.

Sex Almost three-fourths of the household heads (71.2

percent)and about two-fifths of the other household members (40.8 percent) were male (see Table 11.4).

When we

consider all members together, 51.8 percent were females and 48.2 percent males.

This is also fairly consistent

with the 1970 Census which indicates that 51 percent of the population was female and 49 percent, male. 4.

Education The educational levels achieved by all household

members in the sample were very low.

As can been seen

from Table 11.5, 62 percent of the total population had a sixth grade education or less.

Only three percent had

a college education and 0.5 percent had vocational or technical training.

The situation among household heads,

who are ordinarily expected to be the chief breadwinners, was only slightly better with regard to educational levels. Fifty-six percent of the household heads had not gone beyond the sixth grade, and 75 percent had not progressed

Table II.4:

Sex

Male Female Total

SEX DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Household Heads NumPerber cent

Other Members NumPerber cent

All Members NumPercent ber

1,262

71.2

2,249

40.8

3,511

48.2

510

28..8

3,266

59.2

3,776

51.8

1,772

100.0

5,515

100.0

7,287

100.0

Table II.5:

Grade Level Achieved

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Household Heads Percent Number

Other Members Number Percent

All Members Number Percent

223

12.6

1,284

23.3

1,507

20.7

Kindergarten - 3

345

19.5

1,113

20.2

1,458

20.0

4 - 6

431

24.3

1,122

20.3

1,553

21.3

7 - 9

337

19.0

982

17.8

1,319

18.1

10 -12

339

19.1

824

14.9

1,163

16.0

Vocational and/or technical training

0.9

0.4

0.5

University

4.0

154

2.8

225

3.1

Not reported

0.6

0.3

1,772

100.0

5,515

100.0

7,287

100.0

None

Total

beyond the ninth grade.

Moreover, only four percent of

the household heads had some college training and an insignificant 0.9 percent had received vocational or technical training. In order to provide a more accurate picture of the educational levels of the adult population, the 3,542 respondents in the sample who were students or pre-school children were subtracted from the total. As shown in Table II.6, 73.9 percent of the adult population of food stamp recipients had completed less than 10 years of schooling. A total of 55 percent had only achieved 6 years, and 31 percent had less than four years of formal education.

On-

ly 4.2 percent had completed high-school and had some college education or vocational and/or technical training. Thus, adult food stamp recipients are characterized by very low educational levels which we would expect to be correlated with low paying jobs and unemployment. 5.

Income The income distribution of the sample households is

quite similar to that of all food stamp recipients.

comparison has been made between the distribution of income

of all Food Stamp Program participants and the sample 44

Table II.6:

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF THE ADULT POPULATION IN SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS

Grade Level Achieved

Number

None

491

13.1

Kindergarten - 3

671

17.9

4 - 6

881

23.5

7 - 9

726

19.4

10 -12

802

21.4

0.8

126

3.4

0.5

3,745

100.0

Vocational and/or technical training University Not reported Total

Percent

households.

A small positive deviation from the

income

distribution for all participant households was observed up to the income level of $250 per household per month. A negative deviation followed consistently thereafter leaving a net deviation of 0.0 (see Table II.7).

This means

that the income distribution of sample households is similar to that of all Food Stamp Program participating households except that in the sample, less concentration of households was observed in the lower half of the income scale.

This also vouches for the representativeness

of the sample.

Table II.7:

Monthly Gross Income $

RELATIVE INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF ALL FOOD STAMP PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AND OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS

Col. 1

Col. 2

All Participating Households (Percent)

Sample Households (Percent)

Col. 3 Difference in Percentage Points (Col.l - Col.2)

50 or less

17.7

14.0

3.7

- 100

13.4

13.2

0.2

101

- 150

13.7

11.8

1.9

151

- 200

11.2

9.6

1.6

201

- 250

9.5

8.4

1.1

251

- 300

7.0

7.4

-0.4

301

- 350

7.4

10.3

-2.9

351

- 400

7.4

7.6

-0.2

12.7

17.7

-5.0

100.0

0.0

401 or more Total

PART III SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES Labor Force Trends, Employment, and Unemployment

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION OF FOOD STAMP RECIPIENTS IN PUERTO RICO

About one-fourth of the food stamp recipients surveyed were labor force participants.

Table 111.1 shows

that 1,696 out of 7,287 persons in the sample, or 23 percent, were part of the labor force at the time of the interviews.

In other words, only one out of every 4.3 per-

sons in the sample was in the labor force, whether employed or unemployed.

Moreover, only 992 persons or 14 percent

of those interviewed were actually employed, or one out of every 7.4 persons in the sample. Since the average household size was 4.11 persons, these statistics indicate that many households did not have a single member in the labor force. A careful analysis of the characteristics of the 77 percent of the respondents who were not in the labor force, shows that the majority where either too young or too old to normally participate in the labor force.

According to

Table III.2, sixty percent of the persons not in the labor force were less than eighteen (18) years old, 9.6 percent were sixty-five (65) years or over, thus leaving only 30 51

Table III.1:

Concept

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS: ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Upon entrance to Food Stamp Proqram./ Number Percent

At time of _.// interview 2 Number Percent

Change Number Percent

Sample Size

7,287

100.0

7,287

100.0

Not in Labor Force

5,659

77.7

5,591

76.7

-68

-1.2

In Labor Force

1,628

22.3

1,696

23.3

4.2

Employed

838

11.5

992

13.6

154

18.4

Unemployed

790

10.8

704

9.7

-86

-10.9

Employed as Percent of those in Labor Force

51.5

58.5

Unemployed as Percent of those in Labor Force

48.5

41.5

When certified as eligible to receive food stamps.

June 1976

Table III.2:

Age Level

01 w

EMPLOYMENT SITUATION OF ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS,BY AGE LEVEL

Employed NumPerber cent

Unemployed NumPerher cent

Other NumPerher cent

Total Mum- Perber cent

5 or under

975

17.4

975

13.4

6 -

785

14.0

785

10.8

10 - 13

842

15.1

842

11.6

14 - 17

0.6

8.7

728

13.0

795

10.9

18 - 24

153

15.4

241

34.2

454

8.1

848

11.6

25 - 34

308

31.0

161

22.9

387

6.9

856

11.7

35 - 44

259

26.1

12.2

311

5.6

656

9.0

45 - 54

157

15.8

11.1

263

4.7

498

6.8

55 - 64

8.4

7.5

305

5.5

441

6.1

65 or more

2.2

1.4

537

9.6

569

7.8

Not reported

0.4

2.0

0.1

0.3

992

100.0

704

100.0

5,591

100.0

7,287

100.0

Total

percent in the age group of 18 to 64 who were not in the labor force.

Of the total persons interviewed in that

age group (18 to 64 years), 48 percent were in the labor force, 61 percent being employed.

In the age group 14 to

17 years, only 67 persons out of 795 interviewed were in the labor force and only six (or less than 1 percent) were employed.

Most of those interviewed in the age group 14

to 17 were still in school, and those seeking work did not have enough training or job experience to enable them to find employment easily. The labor force participation among food stamp recipients (23 percent) seems extremely low at first glance. However, if we eliminate the children under 14 from the sample (2,602 persons, as shown in Table III.2), it can be shown that 1,628 out of 4,685 persons 14 and older, or 34 percent, were in the labor force upon entrance to the Food Stamp Program.

This figure rose to 1696, or 36 percent,

at the time of the interviews.

According to June 1976

statistics of the Puerto Rico

Department of Labor,941,000

persons out of a total civilian population of 2,170,000 (which includes only those persons 14 years and over), or 43 percent, were in the labor force. 54

Thus, labor force

participation among food stamp recipients was 7 to 9 percentage points below participation among the civilian population as whole.

This difference in labor force partic-

ipation rates may be partially explained by the slightly greater percentage of persons 65 and over in the sample (7.8 percent) as compared with the population as a whole (6.6 percent according to the 1970 population census). Another demographic factor which could partially account for low labor force participation of the sample population is the slightly greater percentage of pre-school children which could make it more difficult for en to enter the labor force.

adult wom-

Children under 5 accounted

for 13.4 percent of the sample compared to 11.7 percent among the population as a whole, according to the 1970 Census. The initiation of the Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico has not had a negative impact upon labor force as was anticipated by some observers.

On the contrary, in our

sample labor force participation rose from 1,628 persons at the time they entered the Program to 1,696 at the time of the interview, a 4.2 percent increase (see Table 111.1 and III.7). 55

Table III.3 demonstrates that 768 out of the total number of household heads (1,772) were outside the labor force.

If those household heads within the 18 to 64 age

bracket are considered, only 432 out of 1,406, or 31 percent, were not classified as part of the labor force.

the 69 percent of household heads within the labor force, 71 percent were employed and 29 percent unemployed.

total of 50 percent of household heads were either unemployed

or not participating in the labor force.

It can

be deduced from Table III.4 that only 32 percent of the other members of the household in the 18 to 64 age group were in the labor force and only 44 percent of those in the labor force were employed.

The higher number of

housewives with pre-school children and of students no doubt account for the lower labor force participation of this group. Of the 5,591 persons who were not classified as labor force participants, 45.8 percent were students, 17.6 percent were pre-school children, 19 percent were housewives, 8.5 percent were senior citizens (65 years and older), and 9 percent were mentally or physically handicapped (Table III.5). 56

Table III.3:

Age Group

EMPLOYMENT SITUATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS, BY AGE GROUP l/

Employed NumPerbar cent

Unemployed Num- Perbar cent

Other Num- Perher cent

Total HumPerbar cent

5 or under

6 -

10 - 13

14 - 17

18 - 24

7.2

12.3

2.7

108

6.1

25 - 34

220

30.6

29.8

10.0

382

21.6

35 - 44

214

29.8

19.3

10.4

349

19.7

45 - 54

135

18.8

20.7

12.8

292

16.5

55 - 64

10.4

15.4

156

20.3

275

15.5

65 or over

2.9

1.8

332

43.2

358

20.2

0.3

0.7

0.5

0.4

719

100.0

285

100.0

768

100.0

1,772

100.0

Not reported Total

1 'Includes disabled, housewives with children under 18, students, persons 65 or over, and pensioned and/or retired persons not in the labor force.

Table III.4:

Age Group

EMPLOYMENT SITUATION OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS, BY AGE GROUP

Employed NumPer ber cent

Unemployed Hum- Perher cent

Other ?/ Hum- Perber cent

Total NumPerber cent

5 or under

975

20.2

975

17.7

6 -

785

16.3

785

14.2

10 - 13

842

17.5

842

15.3

14 - 17

2.2

14.6

728

15.1

795

14.4

18 - 24

101

37.0

206

49.2

433

9.0

740

13.4

25 - 34

32.2

18.1

310

6.4

474

8.6

35 - 44

16.5

7.4

231

4.8

307

5.6

45 - 54

.8.1

4.5

165

3.4

206

3.7

55 - 64

2.9

2.1

149

3.1

166

3.0

65 or over

0.4

1.2

205

4.2

211

3.8

Not reported

0.7

2.9

0.3

273

100.0

419

100.0

4,823

5,515

100.0

Total

100.0

Does not include household heado.

Includes disabled, housewives with children under 18, students, persons 65 or over, babies, and pensioned and/or retired persons not in the labor force.

Table III.5:

ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE, BY CATEGORY

Categories

Number

Percent

503

9.0

Housewives

1,061

19.0

Students

2,558

45.8

Pre-school children

984

17.6

Persons 65 or over

478

8.5

Pensioned and/or retired

0.1

5,591

100.0

Disabled

Total

These statistics show that the low rate of labor force participation is closely tied to the age distribution of food stamp recipients. recipients not

Thus, the large percentage of

in the labor force reflects demographic

forces, which do not fall within the scope of short-run social remedies.

It would not be feasible, or in most

cases desirable, to encourage labor force participation by pre-school children, students, and senior citizens who account for 71.9 percent of the total number who were 59

outside the labor force.

Increased labor force parti-

cipation among the handicapped and some of the

house-

wives (these two categories account for 28 percent of those outside the labor force) might be feasible for the households involved. When we look at the educational level of the various categories of persons outside the labor force, it becomes obvious that it would be exceedingly difficult for the majority of these people to find employment if they were to enter the labor force.

According to Table III.6, 72.4

percent of the handicapped in our sample had less than 7 years of school.

Strenuous efforts must be made to improve

the educational opportunities for the handicapped to enable them to assume a productive role in society.

The persons

over 65 in our sample are not only handicapped by their advanced age, but also by their very low educational level (87.2 percent had completed less than 7 years of schooling). With the exception of students, the persons most likely to find employment, should they enter the labor force,are the housewives.

Only 54.2 percent of the housewives had

less than 7 years of schooling and 24 percent had completed 10 years or more; this latter group would be more likely 60

Table III.6:

Grade Level Achieved

None

Disabled NunPerber cent

Housewives MumPerber cent

123

24.5

8.0

Students NunPerber cent

Pre-school children NunPerher cent

65 and Over Nun- Perber cent

1.4

981

99.7

161

33.7

Pensioned and/or Retired Nun- Percent her

Total NunFerber cent

1,385

24.8 22.3

128

25.4

190

17.9

784

30.6

0.3

142

29.7

14.3

1,248

113

22.5

300

28.3

672

26.3

114

23.8

42.8

1,202

21.5

14.1

231

21.7

593

232

8.4

14.3

936

16.7

10.9

225

21.2

361

14.1

2.7

14.3

655

11.7

Kindergarten

HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE, BY CATEGORY AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

vocational and/ or technical

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.3

University

1.0

2.0

3.9

0.2

14.3

127

2.3

Not reported

1.2

0.3

0.2

1.3

503

100.0

1,061

100.0

2,558

100.0

478

100.0

Total

984

100.0

0.4

5,591

100.0

to obtain employment. Contrary to popular belief, statistics for the sample interviewed show that employment as well as labor force

participation among food stamp recipients has in-

creased rather than decreased over time. Of the 1,628 persons in the sample that were in the labor force when they entered the Food Stamp Program,838 were employed when they began receiving the food stamps. The number of persons in the labor force increased to 1,696 and the employed increased to 992 at the moment of the interview, increasing the rate of employed persons in the labor force from 51.5 to 58.5 percent from the time of entrance to the Food Stamp Program to the moment of the interview, an increment of 7.0 percentage points.

The net

gain in the number of persons employed was 154, an improvement

of 18.4 percent in relation to the total number of

employed persons at the time of entrance to the Program. (see Table III.7). This net increment (154) reflects improvement not only in the employment situation of the household heads but also of other members of the household, implying a general improvement in the

income situation of many house-

Table III.7:

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Upon entrance to Food Stamp Program/

At time of interview

Change NumPerher cent

Households Heads 953 637 316 66.8

1,004 719 285 71.6

51 82 -31

-•

In Labor Force Employed Unemployed Employed as percent of Labor Force

5.4 12.9 -9.8 4.8

Other Members In Labor Force Employed Unemployed Employed as percent of Labor Force

675 201 474 29.8

692 273 419

17 72 -55

2.5 35.8 -11.6

68 154 -86

4.2 18.4 -10.9

39.5

Total In Labor Force Employed Unemployed Employed as percent of Labor Force

1,628 838 790 51.5

1,696 992 704 58.5

When certified as eligible to receive food stamps. June 1976.

holds.

The number of employed household heads increased

from 637 to 719, an increment of 82 persons or 12.9 percent.

The number of other household members who were

employed increased from 201 to 273, an increase of 72 persons, reflecting a growth of 35.8 percent in the number of persons employed in this category. In absolute terms the total number of persons unemployed decreased from 790 persons at the moment of their entrance to the Food Stamp Program to 704 at the moment of the interview, a decline of 86 persons in the total number of persons unemployed. unemployed

The number of persons

decreased in every case both in the number of

household heads and in the number of other household members.

In the first case, the number of unemployed house-

hold heads

decreased from 316 to 285, a decrease of 31

persons or 9.8 percent.

The number of other household

members who were unemployed was reduced from 474 to 419, an 11.6 percent decrease (see Table III.7). It is important to note that the increase in employment among food stamp recipients occurred at a time of generally high unemployment in Puerto Rico.

During

the time span between the full scale initiation of the

Food Stamp Program and the interviews (November 1974 to June 1976), the unemployment index rose from 13.7 to 20.6 percent, peaking in January 1976 at 21.9 percent (see Figure III.1).

It must be remembered that reduction of

unemployment among food stamp recipients was concurrent with a rise in labor force participation of 4.2 percent. The simultaneous rise in employment and labor force participation gives additional weight to the conclusion that the Food Stamp Program has not had a negative impact on employment in Puerto Rico. At the time of the interview, 704 persons out of a labor force of 1,696 were unemployed, an overall rate of 42 percent, which represented a decline from the rate of unemployment upon entrance to the Food Stamp Program of 49 percent.

In spite of this improvement, the unem-

ployment rate for food stamp recipients was still more than twice as large as the rate for the Island population as a whole.

According to Puerto Rico's Labor Department

statistics for June 1976, 193,000 persons out of a labor force of 941,000 were unemployed (20.6 percent).

Figure III.I:UNEMPLOYMENT IN PUERTO RICO, BY MONTHS, JULY 1974-JUNE 1976

Unemployment

18 16

6 4

0 N

.-i h

Source:

\. \ . 0' 4-'

\. \. a >

\\. .

\. \. \. \

u5 ui' ui .h uS uS r r r n r r r r \ \ . \. \. \. \. \ \ . .

U K

Á h

a .-1 CO

O Ñ

tr• +' + O ~ Ó

U g y Ll h

A 5 G.

\. \. \. \

Department of Labor, Labor Force Statistics Division, Empl2yment Status of Civilian Noninstitutional Population.

EFFECT OF GAIN AND LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT UPON PARTICIPATION IN THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

The decrease in the unemployment rate could have been much greater, except that 155 persons who were employed at the time of entrance into the Food Stamp Program, reported that they had lost their jobs when they were interviewed (see Table 111.8).

In addition, 49

persons in the sample entered the labor force in the period between their entrance into the Program and the interview, but were unable to find work.

The fact that

101 out of the 155 persons who lost their jobs were household heads, underlines the unfortunate plight of these households. The 155 persons who lost their jobs were counterbalanced by a total of 309 persons who obtained jobs after entering the Program (see Table III.9).

Of the 309

persons

newly employed, 290 had been employed previously and 19 had entered the labor force and found jobs.

Of the 290 unem-

ployed who obtained employment, 170 or 59 percent were household heads.

Table III.8:

CHANGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT STATUS,FROM ENTRANCE 1/ TO TIME OF INTERVIEW,/ HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Unemployment Status

Household Heads

Other Household Members

146

354

500

101

155

285

419

704

Persons who were unemployed at entrance and at time of interview. Persons who were employed at entrance and unemployed at time of interview. Persons out of the labor force prior to entrance, had not found employment at time of interview Total unemployed at time of interview

To Food Stamp Program. June 1976.

Total

Table III.9: CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT STATUS FROM ENTRANCE 1/ TO. TIME OF INTERVIEW,./ HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Employment Status

Household Heads

Other Household Members

Total

Persons who were employed at entrance and at time of interview.

536

147

683

Persons who were unemployed at entrance and were employed at time of interview.

170

120

290

719

273

992

Persons out of the labor force prior to entranced who entered the labor force and were employed at time of interview. Total employed at time of interview.

To Food Stamp Program.

2/ June 1976. 69

It is important to relate the growth of employment Table III.10

to participation in the Food Stamp Program.

shows that 60 of the 290 unemployed persons (21 percent) who had found jobs by the time of the interview had stopped receiving food stamps.

This is indicative that the income

they received from their new jobs was sufficient to disqualify them for the Food Stamp Program or that, if they did qualify, the marginal utility of continuing to obtain food stamps was too low to make it worth the effort.

Ta-

ble III.10 also indicates that those who moved from unemployed to employed status had been dependent on the Food Stamp Program for a slightly shorter time than those who had been continuously employed.

While 60.91 percent of the

continuously employed had received food stamps for 12 months or more, only 53.79 percent of those who had found jobs had been in the Program for 12 months or more.

It is also in-

teresting to note that of the 683 persons who were employed at the time they entered the Program, 105 (15 percent) had left the Program at the moment of the interview.

These

people who were continuously employed, evidently received pay raises or changed to better paying jobs.

They obviously

had no hesitation in looking for and accepting better paying 70

Table III.10:

Period Receiving Food Stamps (months)

One month

EMPLOYMENT STATUS AT ENTRANCE TO PROGRAM OF EMPLOYED HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS AT TIME OF INTERVIEW, BY LENGTH OF TIME IN PROGRAM

Employed Num- Perber cent

Unemployed Num- Perber cent

Not Reported Mum- Perber cent

Total PerMumber cent

1.02

0.35

0.81

0.73

1.03

0.81

4.69

4.48

4.54

7 - 12

118

17.28

19.66

31.58

181

18.24

12 or more

416

60.91

156

53.79

68.42

585

58.97

Not receiving food stamps U

105

15.37

20.69

165

16.63

Total

683

100.00

290

100.00

992

J N

100.0

Persons not receiving food stamps at the time of the sample survey interview.

jobs even if this meant that they and their families no longer qualified for food stamps.

These people obviously

preferred to work even at the risk of loosing their food stamp benefits.

PART IV INTERRELATED ATTRIBUTES Cross Variable Analysis of the Employed and Unemployed

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EMPLOYED

Type of Occupation The

vast majority of food stamp recipients were em-

ployed in occupations which are generally associated with low wage levels and lack of prestige.

Of the 719 family

heads employed, 21.3 percent were classified as operatives anal kindred workers, 18.1 percent as artisans, foremen, or stewards; 17.2 percent in service jobs, except domestic; 11.7 percent as agricultural laborers; 7.5 percent as office clerks, secretaries, etc.; and 6.1 percent as salesmen or saleswomen.

An even larger percentage of the other

household members were classified as operatives and kindred workers (24.9 percent) and as doing clerical work (16.5 percent); while a smaller percentage were classified as agricultural laborers (9.9 percent), and artisans and foremen (5.9 percent). Tables IV.l and IV.2 give a complete breakdown of the number of household heads and other household members under different job classifications.

Table IV.l:

JOB CLASSIFICATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS

Present Occupation

Craftsmen, Foremen, and Kindred Workers Operatives and Kindred Workers Clerical and Kindred Workers Private Household Workers Other Service Workers (not domestic) Salesmen Agricultural Workers Laborers (not farm and mining) Professionals Technicians, and Kindred Workers Farmers and Farm Managers Proprietors and Managers (not farm) Not Classified Other Occupations Not Reported Total

Number

Percent

130 153 54 28 124 44 84 10

18.1 21.3 7.5 3.9 17.2 6.1 11.7 1.4

35 8 5 7 32 5 719

4.9 1.1 0.7 1.0 4.4 0.7 100.0

Table IV.2:

JOB CLASSIFICATION OF OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Present Occupation

Craftsmen, Foremen, and Kindred Workers Operatives and Kindred Workers Clerical and Kindred Workers Private Household Workers Service Workers (other than private household) Salesmen Agricultural Workers Laborers (not farm and mining) Professionals, Technicians, and Kindred Workers Farmers and Farm Managers Proprietors and Managers (not farm) Not Classified Other Occupations Not Reported Total

Does not include household heads.

Number

Percent

16 68 45 9

5.9 24.9 16.5 3.3

34 21 27 8

12.4 7.7 9.9 2.9

15 4 2 21 3 273

5.5 1.5 0.7 7.7 1.1 100.0

When we look at the breakdown of the occupational categories, classified by sex, it may be observed that a much smaller percentage of women works as eraftsmen and foremen and as agricultural laborers, and a much higher percentage holds clerical and domestic service jobs (see Table IV.3).

It is also interesting to note that the per-

centage of women in professional and technical occupations was significantly higher, although the absolute

number

of men (25)and women (25) engaged in these more prestigious occupations was exactly the same. As is shown in Table IV.3, the great majority of persons was employed as operatives (22 percent); service workers not in private household (16 percent); craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers (15 percent); agricultural laborers (11 percent); and (10 percent).

office clerks or related workers

Only 5 percent of all persons employed were

professionals or technicians.

Farmers, agricultural ad-

ministrators, other administrators and managers comprised only

2 percent.

If the occupations of food stamp recip-

ients are compared with the occupational distribution of the Puerto Rican population as a whole, it becomes obvious

Table IV.3:

JOB CLASSIFICATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER MEMBERS, BY SEX

Present Occupation

Craftsmen, Foremen,and Kindred Workers Operatives and Kindred Workers Clerical and Kindred Workers Private Household Workers Service Workers (not in private household) Salesmen Agricultural Workers Laborers (not farm and mining) Professionals, Technicians, and Kindred Workers Farmers and Farm Managers Proprietors and Managers (not farm) Not Classified Other Occupations Not Reported Total

Female Number Percent

Male Number Percent

Total Number Percent

3.2

137

19.4

146

14.7

76 48 31

26.7 16.8 10.9

145 51 6

20.6 7.2 0.8

221 99 37

22.3 10.0 3.7

55 11 6

19.3 3.9 2.1

103 54 105

14.6 7.6 14.9

158 65 111

15.9 6.6 11.2

2.5

1.8

25 3

8.7 1.1

25 9

3.5 1.3

50 12

5.0 1.2

1 15 5 285

0.4 5.3 1.7 100.0

6 7 38 3 707

0.8 0.9 5.4 0.4 100.0

7 7 53 8 992

0.7 0.7 5.3 0.8 100.0

•

that food stamp recipients are clustered around low paying

jobs.

The most striking difference, as revealed in Ta-

ble IV.4, is the low proportion of food stamp recipients employed in high salary occupations as compared with the total population.

Professionals and semi-professionals,

proprietors and managers (including farm) encompassed only 6.9 percent of the total number of employed food stamp recipients, while these occupations accounted for 23.5 percent of all persons employed in Puerto Rico.

Like-

wise, clerical and sales occupations accounted for only 16.5 percent of food stamp recipients as compared to 20.7 percent of the employed population as a whole.

In the

aggregate, the above occupations provided 44.2 percent of total employment in Puerto Rico and only 23.4 percent among food stamp recipients (see Table IV.4). An analysis of the place of work of 992 persons (719 household heads + 273 other members) who were gainfully employed shows that the government (insular and federal) has been the single largest employer, as shown in Table IV.5. This is consistent with Island wide statistics of the Department of Labor indicating that 21.6 percent of the labor force or 23.1 percent of total employment was provided

Table IV.4:

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYED PERSONS, BY MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUP, IN SURVEY POPULATION AS COMPARED TO PUERTO RICO AS A WHOLE (JUNE, 1976)

Major Occupational Group

Professionals, SemiProfessionals,and Kindred Workers Farmers and Farm Managers Proprietors and Managers, (not farm) Clerical, Sales, and Kindred Workers Craftsmen, Foremen,and Kindred Workers Operatives and Kindred Workers Private Household Workers Other Service Workers (not domestic) Farm Laborers and Foremen Laborers (not farm and mining) Not Classified Total

Source:

Puerto Rico PerNumber cent (000)

Sample Survey PerNumber cent (000)

12.2

5.0

2.1

1.2

9.2

155

20.7

164

16.5

12.0

146

14.7

144

19.3

221.

22.3

1.2

3.7

13.0

158

15.9

3.9

111

11.2

48 748

6.4 100.0

18 68 992

1.8 6.8 100.0

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Department of Social Services and Department of Labor.

Table IV.5,

EMPLOYED HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS, BY INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

Industry

Government (United States and P.R.)

of ^~

None Nun- Perber cent

Kindergarten-3 Nom- Perbar cent

4 - 6 Bum- Perher cent

7 - 9 HumPerber cent

10 - 12 Hum- Perher cent

5.4

25.0

114

5.4

25.0

9.5

7.9

5.9

7.1

1.3

6.9

0.1

1.3

7.1

1.3

0.6

1.8

0.6

1.3

0.9

0.6

10.3

9.1

7.1

1.3

7.4

0.5

0.6

1.3

0.5

26.1

24.1

23.2

5.6

6.5

4.4.

8.7

7.1

Construction

4.3

3.6

11.1

Mining

0.5

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate.

1.8

Furniture, Accessories

2.2

11.5

Wholesale, Retail Trade

6.3

22.9

21.4

227

19.2

6.3

50.0

3.1

16.4.

55.3

14.4

Textile and Apparel

21.4

2.2

14.4

Total RumFerher cent

Not Rep. Num- Perbar cent

19.6

Pharmaceutical

Univ. Num- Perher cent

22.9

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing

Petrochemical

Voc. and or Tech. Nun- Perber cent

Table ;Y.5:

(CON'S)

None Nun- Perber cent

Food Processing

Findergarten-3 Nun- Perher cent

4 - 6 Num- Perher cent

7 Nunher

2.2

6.3

3.4

Alcoholic Beverage

0.9

Paper, Allied

0.9

1 2

0.9

Products

Electronic

2.2

Cement

2.2

Plastic

Containers

Shoe

Tobacco

4.3

Iron and Steel Lumber, Allied

Products

0.9

Percent

10 - 12 PerNuncent her

4.7

0.5

Voc. and or Tech. Nun- Perber cent -

3.1

0.9

Univ. Sum- Perher cent

Not rep. Nun- Perher cent

Total SumPerber cent

3.6

0.4

1.3

0.4

1.3

2.1

1.8

3.8

0.5

1.4

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.1

1.6

0.8

0.5

0.9

1.6

7.1

0.3

0.7

Teble IV. 5:

(CONY.)

Industry

EMPLOYED HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS, BY INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

Nunber

None Percent

Kinderqarten-3 Per. Numcent her

4 - 6 NunPerher cent

7 - 9 Per. Nunber cent

10 - 12 NunPercent ber

Voc. and or Tech. NunPer. cent bar

Univ. NunPer. ber cent

Dairy Products

2.2

0.5

0.9

Sugar Refining

1.9

0.5

Not. Rep. Per. Nunher cent

Total NomPerber cent

0.6

0.5

0.1

Metal, not specified

0.9

1.9

2.6

1.0

Manufacturing, not classified

1.8

0.9

1.8

2.8

7.1

2.6

2.0

Services, Canmercial and Repair

0.9

4.9

6.1

6.3

2.6

4.6

Services, Profesaional and Related

2.3

1.3

14.4

3.9

1.4

Services, Personal

15.2

16.1

11.1

10.3

6.6

7.1

3.9

9.6

Services, Entertaiment and Recreation

2.2

0.9

0.5

0.3

0.4

Ceramic, Tile, Pottery

Table IV. 5: (CONY.) EMPLOYED HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS, BY INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

Industry

None -NonPercent ber

Transportation. Communicaticn.and Other Services

Hardware Manufacture

Kinder 9arten-3 SumPer. her cent

4 - 6 NunPer. her cent

7 - 9 Nomper. bar cent

10 - 12 NumPerher cent

Voc. and or Tech. MumPerher cent

Univ. NunPerber cent

Not Rep. SumPer. her cent

Total HumPerber Cent

5.2

0.3 2.8

4.4

3.9

8.4

5.6

7.1

0.5

0.6

2.6

Industry, not specified

4.3

5.3

2.4

4.2

1.3

2.6

Not Reported

4.3

0.9

0.5

1.4

1.9

2.6

1.5

Total

100.0

112

100.0

207

100.0

214

100.0

319

100.0

992

100.0

Includee household heads and MORSE hcueehold members.

by the government as of 1976.

The second largest job pro-

vider was agriculture, including forestry and fisheries, with half as many jobs (11.5 percent).

This was followed

by personal services (domestic or otherwise), 9.6 percent; commerce, 9.5 percent, textile and clothing manufacture, 7,4 percent; and the construction industry, 6.9 percent. In the rest of the industries, transportation and commercial and repair services were of some importance with 5.2 and 4.6 percent, respectively.

The rest of employment

was scattered thinly among a host of other industries. All these findings are consistent with the Department of Labor statistics discussed below. Employment, Aqe and Sex Almost all persons employed within our sample fell within the expected age group, 18 to 64.

No one under 14

years of age was found to be employed and only 6 young people between 14 and 17 years were employed.

Thus, it

appears that families did not need to take children under 14 out of school nor had to depend on their labor.

Suffi-

ciently detailed data was not available to determine the small number of youngsters between the ages of 14 and 17 that had part-time jobs or full-time jobs which prevented

school attendance.

Further research will be necessary to

determine what effect the Food Stamp Program has had on child labor and school retention rates.

Twenty-two per-

sons 65 years or older in our sample had continued working, but 960 out of the 992 persons employed, or 97 percent, were in the 18 to 64 age bracket.

Most of these employed

persons were quite young; of the total employed, 720 or 73 percent were between 18 and 44 years of age (see Table IV.6) The rate of employment was quite low among the women who received food stamps.

Only 285 out of the 992 persons

employed, or 29 percent were women (see Table IV.7); this is five percentage points less than for the population of Puerto Rico as a whole (see Table IV.8).

This fact may

be correlated with the previous finding that there was a low proportion of office clerks and professionals among the food stamp participants, since it is precisely in those groups that female participation is higher in Puerto Rico. According to Table IV.8, 48.4 percent of the total professional and semi-professional (technicians, nurses, etc.) workers

and 52.9 percent of clerical, sales, and kindred

workers in Puerto Rico are females.

The slightly greater

Table IV.6:

Age Level

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYED PERSONS

Number

Percent

10 - 13

14 - 17

0.6

18 - 24

153

15.4

25 - 34

308

31.0

35 - 44

259

26.1

45 - 54

157

15.8

55 - 64

8.4

65 or more

2.2

Not reported

0.4

992

100.0

5 or less 6 -

Total

Table IV.7:

Sex

SEX DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYED HOUSEHOLD HEADS HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Household Heads Number Percent

Other Household Members Number Percent

AND OTHER

Total Number Percent

Male

604

84.01

103

37.73

707

71.27

Female

115

15.99

170

62.27

285

28.73

Total

719

100.00

273

100.00

992

100.00

Table IV.8:

EMPLOYED PERSONS, BY MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUP AND SEX, PUERTO RICO, JUNE 1976

Major Occupational Group

Total Number Percent (000)

Male Number Percent (000)

Female Percent Number (000)

Professional and SemiProfessional Workers

100.0

51.6

Farmers and Farm Managers

100.0

Proprietors, Managers, and Officials (except farm)

100.0

82.6

17.4

Clerical, Sales, and Kindred Workers

155

100.0

47.1

52.9

Craftsmen, Foremen, and Kindred Workers

100.0

96.7

3.3.

Operatives and Kindred Workers

144

100.0

56.9

43.1

100.0

Other Service Workers (non domestic)

100.0

57.7

42.3

Farm Laborers and Foremen

100.0

96.6

3.4

Laborers (except farm)

100.0

97.9

2.1

748

100.0

255

34.1

Private Household Workers

Total

Source:

493

65.9

Puerto Rico Labor Department, Labor Force Statistics Division. Employment and Unemployment in Puerto Rico, June 1976.

48.4

percentage of food stamp recipients who were employed as domestics (3.7 percent of our sample as compared to 1.2 percent of the employed population of Puerto Rico as a whole, as shown in Table IV.4), was not sufficient to counterbalance the lack of clerical and professional employment among female food stamp recipients. The low rate of female employment among food stamp recipients may also be related to cultural factors; it is quite possible that the concept of the woman as housewife is stronger in the rural and poor areas of Puerto Rico than in other segments of our society.

The data collected

shows a greater disparity between the employment rates of household heads and other members of the household among food stamp recipients than for Puerto Rico as a whole, suggesting that among food stamp recipients, women are less likely to work, unless an adult male is not present and the woman is the sole provider of income for her family.

As shown in Table IV.7 household heads constitute

72 percent of all persons employed, and other household members account for only 28 percent of the total employed. Sixteen percent of the employed household heads were women, and 62 percent of the other household members employed

were women.

Other household members, most of whom were

women thus had a very low employment rate among food stamp recipients.

In the Puerto Rican population as a whole,

41 percent of the total employed were classified as other household membersl compared with only 28 percent among food stamp households.

The tendency to rely solely upon

the income of the family head and the low rate of female employment may be important factors in the persistence of poverty among food stamp families. A study prepared for the Puerto Rico Planning Board by Fernando Dones in 1974-1 analyzed the main characteristics of Puerto Rican families according to the number of persons they had in the labor force.

He divided the

families in four categories: (1) families with all members 14 years or older outside the labor force; (2) families with members in the labor force but unemployed and nobody working; (3) families with only one person working; and

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Department of Labor, Employment and Unemployment in Puerto Rico, June 1976, P.9. Fernando Dones, Estudio Sobre Desempleo Familiar, Junta de Planificación, 7972.

(4) families with two or more persons working. In our sample, a total of 849 families reported necessary income from work sources (see Table Iv.9).

these, 732 had only one member employed, in most cases this one was the household head, and 117 had more than one member employed.

Thus, of the families receiving income from

work sources, only 13.8 percent had more than one member working.

In the case of families receiving food stamps at

the time of the survey, this percentage was even lower, 10.9 percent.

Of the families that had dropped from the

Food Stamp Program and, thus, were not receiving food stamps at the time of the survey, 27.0 percent had more than one member working.

In Puerto Rico as a whole, 340,000 fam-

ilies had one member employed and 171,000 had more than one member employed as of November 1974, according to Dones' study.

Thus, for the Island as a whole, 33 percent

of families with earned income had more than one member working.

The educational level and income of families with

more than one member working were generally high.

Including one member households.

Table IV.9:

FAMILIES RECEIVING INCOME FROM WORK SOURCES, BY NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS WORKING AND STATUS IN FOOD STAMP PROGRAM AT TIME OF SURVEY

Number of Families

All families Only one person working More than one working Active in F.S. Program Only one person working More than one Working Inactive in F.S. Program Only one person working More than one working

Percent

849

100.0

732 117

86.2 13.8

697

100.0

621 76

89.1 10.9

152

100.0

111 41

73.0 27.0

Employment and Education A high positive correlation exists between employment and educational levels among persons interviewed. For household heads, the highest percentages of employment were found among those who had tenth to twelfth grade education, vocational training, or college education (employment rates among these groups varied

between 59 and 63

percent,as shown in Table Iv-10)Y Those with 7th to 9th grade education had a 47 percent

employment rate which

was slightly higher than the 41 percent employment rate of household heads

as a whole.

The employment rate for

those with less than seven years of schooling dropped consistently, from 39 percent for those with 4th to 6th grade to 26 percent for those with

only kindergarten to third

grade, and 17 percent for those with no schooling. Hoasehold members other than heads with technical training or a college education had significantly higher employment rates (20 and 22 percent,respectively) than

The slightly higher rate of employment of household heads with some college education, as compared with those with tenth to twelfth grade education, is cause for concern and merits further investigation.

Table IV.10: EMPLOYMENT OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS,BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

Grade Level Achieved

Household Heads

Employed Number

Percent

None

223

16.59

Kindergarten - 3

345

26.09

431

168

38.98

337

157

46.59

- 12

339

212

62.54

Vocational and/or technical training

62.50

University

59.16

Not reported

0.30

1,772

719

40.58

Total

those with less education (see Table IV-11).

Among those

who had less than ten years of schooling, the employment rate varied from one to six percent, while those with tenth to twelfth grade education registered an employment rate of 13 percent.

The general level of

employment a-

mong other household members was alarmingly low, as mentioned in the previous section. Among all household members, the same general correlation between education and employment holds true (see Table IV-12).

Those with the highest rates of employment

had vocational or university training (38.9 percent and 33.8 percent, respectively) and those with less education demonstrated declining rates of employment.

If we subtract

the total number of students and pre-school child'en from our sample of 7,287 persons leaving a total of 3,745 adults, the correlation between education and employment becomes even more strikingly evident.

As shown in Table IV.13, the

percentage of those employed rises steadily from 9.4 percent for those with no education, 16.7 percent for those with kindergarten to third grade, 23.5 percent for those with fourth to sixth grade, 29.5 percent for those with seventh to ninth grade, 39.9 percent for those with tenth

Table IV.11:

Grade Level Achieved

EMPLOYMENT OF OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

Other Household Members

Employed Number Percent

None

1,284

0.70

Kindergarten-3

1,113

1.98

4 -

1,112

3.51

7 -

982

5.80

10 - 12

824

107

12.99

20.08

154

22.08

6.25

5,515

273

4.95

Vocational and/or technical training University Not reported Total

Table IV.12:

Grade Level Achieved

None Kindergarten-3

EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS,BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL (HORIZONTAL PERCENTAGES)

Employed NumPerber cent

Unemployed NumPerber cent

Other PerNumber cent

Total MumPerber cent

3.1

5.0

1,385

91.9

1,507

100.0

112

7.7

6.7.

1,248

85.6

1,458

100.0

207

13.3

144

9.3

1,202

77.4

1,553

100.0

214

16.2

169

12.8

936

71.0

1,319

100.0

10 - 12

319

27.4

189

16.3

655

56.3

1,163

100.0

Vocational and/or Technical Training

38.9

13.9

47.2

100.0

33.8

9.8

127

56.4

225

100.0

University

15.4

3.8

80.8

100.0

Not reported

992

13.6

704

9.7

5,591

76.7

7,287

100.0

Total

j/ Includes housewives with children under 18, students, pre-school children, disabled, persons 65 and over, and retired or pensioned persons not in the labor force.

Table IV.13:

EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED ADULTS, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

Employed Mum- Perber cent

Unemployed Mum- Perber cent

Other PerMumcent ber

Total Num- Percent ber

None

9.4

15.5

369

75.1

491

100

Kindergarten - 3

112

16.7

14.6

461

68.7

671

100

207

23.5

144

16.3

530

60.2

881

100

214

29.5

169

23.3

343

47.2

726

100

319

39.9

189

23.5

294

36.6

802

100

Vocational and/or Technical Training

50.0

17.9

32.1

100

University

60.3

17.5

22.2

126

100

Not reported

20.0

5.0

75.0

100

992

26.5

704

54.7 3,745

100

Total

18.8 2,049

to twelfth grade, 50 percent for those with vocational or technical training, and 60.3 percent for those with university education.

This positive correlation between

education and employment suggests that an auxiliary study should be made of the impact of food stamps on school retention rates, which have long-run implications for employment trends. Although the rate of employment was higher for those with the highest levels of education, the bulk of employed food stamp recipients had low levels of education compared with the employed population of Puerto Rico as a whole. Table IV.14 demonstrates that 75 percent of employed food stamp recipients had completed 4 to 12 grades of school and only 9 percent had technical or Puerto Rico as a whole,

university training.

on the other hand, 23 percent of

the total number of employed persons had more than 12 years of schooling (see Table IV•15).

Food stamp recipients were

obviously dependent, to a greater degree than the population as a whole, on jobs with low educational requirements. Full-time vs. Part-time Employment Almost 75 percent of employed food stamp recipients worked thirty-five hours or more and can thus be classified.

101

Table IV.14:

EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS,BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL (Vertical Percentages)

Unemployed MumPerber cent

Grade Level Achieved

Employed PerMumber cent

Others MumPerber cent

Total MumPerber cent

None

4.6

10.8

1,385

24.8

1,507

20.7

Kindergarten - 3

112

11.3

13.9

1,248

22.3

1,458

20.0

207

20.9

144

20.4

1,202

21.5

1,553

21.3

214

21.5

169

24.0

936

16.7

1,319

18.1

- 12

319

32.2

189

26.9

655

11.7

1,163

16.0

Vocational and/or Technical Training

1.4

0.7

0.3

0.5

University

7.7

3.1

127

2.3

225

3.1

Not reported

0.4

0.1

0.4

0.3

992

100.0

704

100.0

5,591

100.0

7,287

100.0

Total

1/ Includes housewives 'pith children under 18, students, pre-school children, disabled, persons 65 and over,retired and/or pensioned persons, not in the labor force.

Table IV.15:

Grade Level Achieved

None

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF EMPLOYED PERSONS

Percent Distribution Puerto Rico Sample Survey June 1976 1" June 1976

Difference

2.9

4.6

1.7

8.2

11.3

3.1

4 -

13.5

20.9

7.4

7 -

15.3

21.5

6,2

10 - 12

37.0

32.2

4.8

13 or more

23,1

9.1

- 14.0

100.0

Total

As recorded by the Labor Force Statistics Division of the Puerto Rico Department of Labor.

103

as fully employed.

Of the remaining 25 percent, 3.7 per-

cent worked less than 14 hours in what is considered sporadic work, and 21 percent worked from 15 to 34 hours in what is considered part-time employment (see Table IV. 16) Household heads had a slightly higher rate of full-time employment in comparison to other household members, but the ratio between part-time and full-time employment was approximately the same.

On the Island as a whole, 209,000

persons had part-time jobs (less than 35 hours ) according to June 1976 statistics of the Department of Labor, which represented

10 percent of the total labor force

(2,170,000) and 28 percent of the total number employed (748,000).

Among the food stamp recipients interviewed

245 persons worked part-time, which represented 14 percent of the labor force and 25 percent of those employed. A large majority of the persons with sporadic or partial employment in our sample had less than ten years of schooling.

As shown in Table IV.17, 84 percent of

those who worked sporadically had less than ten years of school, and 75 percent of those with part-time employment had received less than ten years of schooling.

104

The table

Table IV.16:

WEEKLY HOURS WORKED BY HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Household Heads

All Household Members

Weekly Hours Worked

Number

Percent

Num ber

Percent

14 or less

3.5

3.7

11.7

119

12.0

3.0

2.7

6.2

6.3

or more

539

75.0

739

74.5

0.6

0.8

719

100.0

992

100.0

Not reported Total

Includiaag heads.

105

Table IV.17;

TYPE OF WORK SCHEDULE, BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION

1/ Grade Level Achieved

None

6.2

27.7

0.9

18.3

34.5

9.2

61.8

37.5

4.4

26.9

27.3

139

18.8

67.8

12.5

6.5

24.0

23.5

148

20.0

69.5

12.5

10.8

1.2

21.2

13.6

275

37.8

84.9

2.7

7.1

1.8

92.9

3.4

9.3

9.1

89.3

2.7

25.0

0.3

50.0

100.0

3.7

208

100.0

21.0

739

100.0

74.5

2.7

24.3

37.8

- 12

Vocational 1 or Technical University

Total

14.9

Not reported 1 37

Part-Time Not Specified Full-Time Total Percent Number Percent Percent Percent Number Number Number Employed Part-Time Persons Employed Persons Employed Full-Time Persons Employed Hours Total Persons Employin Grade in Grade Not in Grade Employin Grade Employmeet Level Level Specified Level ment Level meet 13

18.9

Kindergarten to 3

Sporadic Number Percent Employed Sporadic Persons Employin Grade Level ment

14 hours or less (weekly)

15 - 34 hours

35 or more hours (weekly

(weekly)

3.6

57.4

4.7

100

2.7

110

11.1

100

0.5

205

20.7

100

0.5

213

21.5

100

12.5

0.3

324

32.7

100

1.4

100

12.5

1.3

7.6

100

12.5

25.0

0.4

100

100.0

0.8

992

100.0

100

demonstrates that the percentage of persons with full-time" employment rises steadily with educational level.

While

only 57 percent of those employed who had no schooling had full-time jobs, the rate for those who had schooling, tenth grade or less, varied from 62 percent to 70 percent. Eighty-five percent of those employed who had completed tenth to twelfth grade were employed full-time, 89 percent of the college educated and 93 percent of those with technical education and/or vocational training had full-time employment.

It is evident that there is a positive corre-

lation between level of educational achievement and opportunities for full-time work. Transportation and Employment Food stamp recipients with full-time jobs generally traveled longer distances to reach their place of work than those with part time or sporadic employment.

Forty-

five percent of those with full-time employment traveled more than 4 kilometers to their jobs, while only 31.7 percent of those with part-time employment and 18.9 percent of those with sporadic employment came from a distance of more than 4 kilometers.

Nineteen percent of those who

held full-time jobs traveled more than 10 kilometers, while

107

only 13 percent of those with part-t

job .

5.4 percent. of those with sporadic tance of more than to kilometers

S_≥

rr.aot:' and .?o f ron

r1is--

(see Table IV.]? ~ .

Greater distance increases the need for rapid transportation.

Ninety-two percent of the persons who walked

to their jobs and 91 percent of those who used bicycles, traveled less than 5 kilometers.

Approximalety 40 percent

of those using buses, public cars, car pools, and private cars traveled more than 6 kilometers to work, as shown in Table IV-19.

Those with full-time work were much more

likely to use private cars for transportation to their pl ace of Ampiºymerat..

Forty-

ix percent ,o f the people with

full-time employment used private cars percent of these with part-time

wh.Lle only thirty

'ieL

those with sporadic work could afford to »se private

ars.

Only 14 percent of those with full-time jobs walked to work, but 30 percent of those with sporadic jobs and 35 percent of those with part-time work went on foot (see Table IV-20).

Great distances between the home and place

of work was a discouraging factor for those who could only get part-time or sporadic work, while those who could obtain full-time jobs were much more willing to travel greater

108

Table IV.18:

Distance (Kilometers)

Less than 1

DISTANCE OF EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE TO PLACE OF WORK, BY TYPE OF WORK SCHEDULE, ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Part-Time Num- Perber cent

Full-Time Num- Perber cent

Not Specified Sporadic Num- PerNum- Perber cent ber cent

Total NumPerber cent

15.4

9.6

16.2

25.0

111

11.2

1 -

27.9

146

19.8

32.4

216

21.8

3 -

16.8

133

18.0

5.4

12.5

171

17.2

5 -

9.6

11.9

8.1

111

11.2

7 - 10

9.1

13.2

5.4

12.5

120

12.1

11 - 15

3.9

8.0

2.7

6.9

16 - 25

4.8

4.9

4.6

26 or more

4.3

6.5

2.7

5.9

Not specified

4.3

4.2

10.8

4.4

Not reported

3.9

16.2

50.0

4.7

208

100.0

739

100.0

992

100.0

Total

•Ksoaa 3o ao21d o; amoq mold

0001

61L

0001

0001 64

171

0001

971

0001

O001

£b£

I2;oy

L'4

6£

S'L£

b'1

£'S

pa;lodal ;0N

b'S

6£

S'LE

811

I'6

i'6

b'b

pal;l0ads ;0N

8't4

5'4Z

b'b

£'L

SE - 91

Si - SI

L'11

Z'9

E'Z1

6'S

e10m

10 9Z

£'01

4'b

581

L'9

Z'SI

01 - L

8'Z

8'L1

0'OZ

6'E1

- 5

L•'0

951

Zü

Z'9

811

951

Z'8i

6'IZ

Z£

1'i1

6'EI

- E

0'1Z

151

6'6Z

0'6£

9'E9

151

0'OZ

S'SI

- 1

8'Oi

S'ZI

9'L1

6'9E

L'0

b'b

6'b

LS -

;uso saq -,lad -WON le;o,L

;ueo 1aq -1ed -WON pa;lodalt ION

1eq -led -WON 1eg;0

;uaJ

;uao iag -lad -WON ;oo; u0

iag ;uaO iag ;uao -lad -WON -lad -WON alOAol8 120 0ilg0 d 10 008

;ueo 1ag -led -WON load 120

;ua0 1aq -sad -WON alalgaA a;eAlld

JiliOM d0 30H'Id 01 30NFLLSIQ .L8 'SQHBH QiOH3SROH [8 QHSO NOLLFZS2i0dSNK8J, 30 SNYBW

1 u2 fl ssa4

(sla;amollN) / _aou2;s1Q

'61'AI alq2y

ti ~

Table IV.20:

Means of Transportation

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION USED BY HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER MEMBERS; BY TYPE OF WORK SCHEDULE

Part-Time Num- Perber cent

Full-Time Num- Perber cent

Sporadic Num- Perher cent

Not Reported Total Num- PerNumPerher cent her cent

Private car

29.8

346

46.8

21.6

12.5

417

42.0

Car Pool

10.6

6.9

5.4

7.6

Bus or Public car

19.7

190

25.7

8.1

12.5

235

23.7

Bicycle

1.4

1.8

2.7

1.7

On foot

34.6

105

14.2

29.7

37.5

191

19.3

Other

2.4

2.8

8.1

2.9

Not reported

1.4

1.8

24.3

37.5

2.8

208

100.0

739

100.0

992

100.0

Total

distances because they had access to better methods of transportation.

Recipients of food stamps in the rural

areas, where distances are greater and transportation less available, would no doubt find it difficult to take advantage of opportunities for part-r.i:ae work unless the place of wúik was very close to horse household treads .:et

L;J

use private ce;rs

than other members of the famUy (sec Table IV.21).

the household heads with full-time jobs, 53 percent used a private car; of those with part-time jobs, 34 percent; and 32 percent of those with sporadic work.

On the other

hand, among other household members only 32

percent with

full-time

jobs and 19 percent with part-time jobs used

private cars.

No one in this group had access to a pri-

vate car for transportation to a sporadic job.

The prin-

cipal means of transportation for other household members with part-time jobs was walking; 33 percent of this group went to work on foot (see Table IV.22).

Most of the sur-

veyed food stamp recipients apparently had only one car which was generally used by the head of the household for transportation to work, thus making it more difficult for other members to avail themselves of work opportunities far from home. 112

Means of Transportation

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO PLA OF WORK USED BY HOUSEHOLD HEADS, BY TYPE OF WORE: SCHEDULE r

Table IV.21:

Part-Time Num- Perber cent

Full-Time Num- Percent ber

Sporadic Num- Perber cent

Not Reported Num- Perber cent

Total Num- Perber cent

Private Vehicle

33.8

283

52.5

32.0

25.0

343

_. .7

Car pool

8.6

5.9

6.2

Bus or public car

18.5

115

21.3

12.0

146

20.3

Bicycle

0.7

1.7

4.0

1.5

On foot

35.1

14.3

36.0

50.0

141

19.6

Other

1.3

2.8

2.4

Not reported

1.9

1.5

16.0

25.0

2.2

151

100.0

539

100.0

719

100.0

r N W

Total

Table IV.22: MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO PLACE OF WORK USED BY OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS, BY TYPE OF WORK SCHEDULE

Means of Transportation

Part-Time Num- Perber cent

Full-Time Num- Perber cent

Sporadic Not Reported Mum- Per- Num- Perber cent ber cent

Private vehicle

19.3

31.5

27.1

15.8

9.5

16.6

10.9

22.8

37.5

25.0

32.6

Bicycle

3.5

2.0

2.2

On foot

33.3

14.0

16.6

25.0

18.3

Other

5.3

3.0

25.0

4.4

Not reported

2.5

41.7

50.0

4.4

Total

100.0

200

100.0

273

100.0

Car pool F,

Bus or public car

Total MumPerber cent

I-.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UNEMPLOYED

Unemployment and Education The great majority of the unemployed had less than ten years of schooling.

According to Table IV.23, 69 per-

cent of the total number of unemployed persons had no more than nine years of education.

Although persons with tenth

to twelfth grade education accounted for a large percentage of the unemployed (27 percent), only four percent of the unemployed had university or technical education.

we look at the ratio of unemployed to the total number of persons in the labor force at each level of education, the disadvantage of those with less education becomes more apparent.

According to Table IV.24, 62 percent

of the unem-

ployed in the labor force in the sample survey had no education, between 41 and 47 percent had kindergarten to ninth grade education, 37 percent had completed the tenth to twelfth grade, 26 percent had technical and/or vocational training and only 22 percent had some college level education. Among the Puerto Rican population as a whole, the

115

Table IV.23:

Grade Level Achieved

UNEMPLOYED PERSONS, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

Unemployed Percent Nunher

None

10.8

Kindergarten - s

13.9

4 -

144

¿0.4

169

24.0

10 - 12

189

26.9

Vocational and/or Technical Training

0.7

University

3.1

Not reported

0.1

704

100.0

Total

Table IV.24s

Grade Level Achieved

UNEMPLOYED PERSONS, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND AS PERCENTAGE OF LABOR FORCE

Persons in Labor Fore e

Unem»ioynent

Unemployed as Percentage Of Labor Force

None

1.22

62.3

Kindergarten - 3

210

46.7

351

144

41.0

383

169

44.1

10 - 12

508

189

37.2

Vocational and/or Technical Training

26.3

University

22.4

Not reported

20.0

1,696

704

41.5

Total

117

Table IV.25:

Grade Level Achieved

None

UNEMPLOYED PERSONS, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL: COMPARISON OF SURVEY WITH PUERTO RICO AS A WHOLE

Puerto Rico Unemployment Unemployment Distribution Rate (Percent of (Percent of Total) Labor Force)

Sample Survey Unemployment Unemployment Distribution Rate (Percent of (Percent of Labor Force) Total)

2.1

16.1

10.8

62.3

8.5

21.2

13.9

46.7

16.6

24.3

20.4

41.0

24.9

29.6

24.0

44.1

10 - 11

17.4

35.7 26.9

37.2

21.7

16.3

13 or more

8.8

9.0

3.8

23.1

100.0

20.6

100.0

41.5

Total

Data for June 1976 as recorded by the Labor Force Statistics Division of the Puerto Rico Department of Labor.

unemployment rate generally decreases as educational levels increase as shown in Table IV.25, although the unemployment rates for those with 7 to 11 years of schooling are unexpectedly high.

The pattern of inverse correlation

between education and unemployment is the same for food stamp recipients and the general population.

The major

difference between these groups is that food stamp recipients have higher rates of unemployment at all levels of educational achievement. Unemployment, Aqe and Sex The great majority of unemployed persons in our sample was between 18 and 34 years of age, which accounted for 57 percent of the total unemployed.

As shown

in Table IV-26 the largest group of unemployed fell between the ages of 18 and 24 (34 percent of the total unemployed). Thus, the unemployment problem had the most serious impact on young people less than 25 years of age. Unemployment was generally higher for females than males among food stamp recipients.

Forty-seven percent of

the women in the labor force were unemployed, while thirty_ nine percent of the men were unemployed (see Table IV. 27).

119

Table IV.26: AGE DISTRIBUTION OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS

Age Group

Unemployed Persons Number

Percent

5 or under 6 - 9 10 - 13 14 - 17 18 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 or more Not reported

61 241 161 86 78 53 10 14

8.7 34.2 22.9 12.2 11.1 7.5 1.4 2.0

Total

704

100.0

Table IV.27: SEX DISTRIBUTION OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS AND SEX UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

Sex

Male Female Total

Persons in Labor Force

Unemployed

Unemployed As Percent Of Labor Force

452 252 704

39.0 46.9 41.5

1,159 537 1,696

120

How-.car, .a1.. >u we> 1 oo1

at specific figures for household

heads and other household members, the unemployment rate for males other than household heads was higher than that It is likely that many of

for females (see Table IV.28).

the males who were not household heads fell into the 18 to 24 age group in which unemployment was quite high. Reasons for Unemployment The survey found that the most commonly cited reasons for unemployment were the closing of the place of employment and the lack of the skills or training necessary to get a job (see Table IV.29).

Twenty-two percent of the

responses given by the 704 unemployed persons interviewed refer to these two problems.

The other reasons cited, in

the order of frequency in which they were mentioned were: sickness or handicap, fired from the job, resignation from the job, distance of the job from home or change of residence, problems with the boss, and low salary.

Thirty-one

percent of those interviewed gave no information.

Those

who had been unemployed for a short time were more likely to attribute their unemployment to the closing of their place of work than those who had been unemployed for long periods of time.

On the other hand, those who had been

121

Table IV.28:

SEX DISTRIBUTION AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Family Heads

SEX

Number of Persons in Labor Force

Number of Persons Unemployed

Unemployed as percent of Labor Force

Other Family Members Number Unemployed Number of Persons as percent of Persons of in Labor Labor UnemForce ployed Force

Male

840

236

28.1

319

216

67.7

Female

164

29.9

373

203

54.4

Total

1,004

285

28.4

692

419

60.5

•uoT;ewzo;uT Ou aneb oqn, asoq; sapnToxg ¡ •pa;;Twzad azan suoseaC aazq; o; dn /T

Z'OZ

6"II

Z"8

6UTUTeC; Co/pue uOT;eonpa 3o Xoe'1

8'b

T'L

goC 3100

b'Z

T"£

CaAoTdwa aq; g;?n+ ssiaigozd

b'Z

0'T

aouapcsaC 30 a6uego Co asioq woC3 aOue;s?0

Z'I

0"T

sa6EM MoT ñlaA

T'LT

O'61

Z'6

zañoldwa Aq passTsis?p aarColdwg

E"8

Z"OT

d;?TTqe -sTp Co/pue ssauTTI

6'TZ

8'6Z

L'Z£

Z£

a;Ts ;uasi -doldwa 30 aznsoTO

Iaq ;uao -wns -zad ZT 6

;aao -zad

zaq -sins b

;uao -Iad

zaq -wnN

8'S5

6'6Z

S£

L'9Z

6'Z£

L"LS

£TI

£'S£

L"E1

881

601

0'ii

b"T

b'E

0'Z

£1

0"Z

6"T

T'6

9'Z

8'ST

9"ST

8'S

Z'ZZ

6'ES

891

LOT

£'I

b"SI

611

;uao -Cad

Caq -wnN sAeroTY

;uao

zaq -WON -zed / Z Te;oy

0001

Caq -WON -Cad + 4Z

;uao -Cad £Z -

TOT

Caq -wnN £T

0001

Z'T

0001

Se;oy

9'LZ

OZZ

951

0"OOI

0001

8£9

S'b£

0001

LIT

0001

(sq;uow) ;uawhoidsiaun ;o

yNBW.[0idW3Nn iIOd NOSK32i [B

suoseaC Iaq;O

/1 ;uauuioidwaun zo; UOSea2j

po?Cad

'QB.iO'IdWBNn sFLLNOW

=6Z'AI aige.L

unemployed over a year were more likely to mention sickness or lack of training than those who had been unemployed for shorter periods of time.

Thus, it seems that those

unemployed due to closing of factories and other businesses are more likely to find their way back into the work force than those who see théir major problem as lack of training. The reasons given for unemployement indicate that both the economic recession, as reflected inthe closing of businesses, and structural unemployment due to lack of education and skills, were involved. The 38 persons who said that they had resigned from their jobs were asked to specify the reasons.

The reasons

cited, in the order of frequency reported were: health, distance from home or change of residence, problems with the boss, poor working conditions and/or low salary (see Table IV-30). Reasons for Failure to Find a Job The unemployed persons interviewed were fairly vague about the reasons why they could not find employment.

Ac-

cording to Table IV.31, the most frequent reason mentioned was that there were simply no jobs available.

The next

most frequent response was lack of training, followed by

124

Table IV.30:

HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS WHO QUIT THEIR JOBS, BY REASONS

Reasons

r N

Problems with employer Health Bad working conditions and/or low wages Distance from home or change of residence Other reasons Total

Number

Percent

6 11

14.6 26.8

9.8

7 13 41

17.1 31.7 100.0

Up to three reasons were permitted.

Table IV.31:

DIFFICULTIES IN FINDING EMPLOYMENT

Number

Percent

None

8.6

No jobs available

236

42.2

Poor health

5.4

Lack of education or training

15.4

Waiting to be informed

11.4

Lack of experience or skill

6.8

Distance or transportation

3.2

Too old or too young

2.3

Other difficulties

4.7

559

100.0

Total

to three replies were permitted.

126

waiting to be informed, lack of experience, poor health, transportation difficulties, and too old or too young to find a job. Unemployed household heads were also asked what minimum salary they would accept.

Of the 194 persons who

replied, 19.6 percent indicated that they would expect salaries of more than $400; 17.0 percent, salaries between $351 and $400; 23.7 percent wanted at least $301 to $350; 15.5 percent would accept salaries between $251 and $300, 10.8 percent would settle for $201 to $250; 6.2 percent, for $151 to $200; and only 1.6 percent for salaries less than $51 (see Table IV.32).

Sixty percent of the respond-

ents thus indicated that they would not be willing to accept salaries lower than $301 per month.

Although the min-

imum salary expectation expressed by household heads interviewed was more than reasonable, considering the cost of living in Puerto Rico, it is somewhat questionable whether their expectations were realistic in view of their lack of education and training.

As is shown in Table IV.25,1/

Supra, p. 118

127

Table IV.32:

Minimum acceptable salary

MINIMUM SALARY UNEMPLOYED HOUSEHOLD HEADS WFRE WILLING TO ACCEPT

Number of Household Heads

Percent of Total

Percent of Total who Provided Information

$ 50 or less

1.05

1.55

$ 51

to $100

1.75

2.58

$101

to $150

2.11

3.09

$151

to $200

4.21

6.19

$201

to $250

7.37

10.82

$251

to $300

10.53

15.46

$301

to $350

16.14

23.71

$400

11.58

17.01

$401 or more

13.33

19.59

No information

31.93

285

100.00

$351 to

Total

128

close to 70 percent of the unemployed had less than 10 years of schooling which makes it somewhat dubious that 60 percent could realistically expect to earn more than $300 a month.

As mentioned earlier, the total earned income of

food stamp recipients in the sample was $270,478.63 on a monthly basis.

If this amount is divided by the 992 per-

sons employed, the average salary is revealed to be $272.66. The majority of the unemployed household heads expected a higher salary than the average salary received by employed food stamp recipients, although the latter had slightly higher educational qualifications.

Thus, salary expecta-

tions, which are reasonable in terms of cost of living, but unrealistic in terms of education and training, may play a role in perpetuating unemployment.

However, the differ-

ence between the salary expectations of the unemployed, shown in Table IV.32,and the actual salaries of employed food stamp recipients indicate that the respondents are somewhat out of touch with the realities of their society. The 704 unemployed persons were also asked to indicate what type of work they would be willing to accept.

The

largest number of those who gave information indicated that they would like to be craftsmen or foremen (21.3 per-

129

cent) or operatives (19.0 percent), which are skilled jobs (see Table IV.33).

However, very few replies indicated

that the respondent aspired for professional or technical occupations (3.0 percent), showing a realistic appraisal of their lack of educational qualifications for these types of jobs.

The number of unemployed who were willing to enter

domestic service or private household work was very small indeed; only 1.4 percent of the replies indicated willingness to accept this type of work.

Large numbers of those inter-

viewed were either unwilling or unable to specify the type of job they would be willing to take, indicating that very few had thought deeply about their own skills in relation to employment opportunities, or had developed either longrun or short-run career plans. The vast majority of the unemployed food stamp recipients expressed interest in receiving training to equip them to find employment.

Of the 704 unemployed, 517 (73

percent) would be willing to receive training, 99 (14 percent) would not be interested in training, and 88 did not reply (see Table IV.34).

The percentage of persons willing

to be trained was positively correlated up to 24 months of unemployment.

Those interested in training included 86 per-

130

Table IV. 33;

TYPE OF JOBS THE UNEMPLOYED WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE

Number of Replies

Percent

Craftsmen, Foremen, and Kindred Workers

151

21.3

Operatives and Kindred Workers

135

19.0

Clerical

5.4

Private Household Workers

1.4

Other Non-Domestic Services

8.9

Sales

3.8

Farm Laborers and "Mayordomos o Capataces"

3.5

Laborers, except farm

3.8

Professionals, Technicians

3.0

5.2

Unspecified Occupation

175

24.7

Total

709

100.0

Farmers and Farm Managers Proprietors and Managers, except farm Other Occupations

Two replies were permitted.

131

Table IV.34

WILLINGNESS TO BE TRAINED, ACCORDING TO TIME UNEMPLOYED

Would Accept Traininq Time Jnemployed Immediately Number Percent

After a month Number Percent

Would not accept Percent Number

Not Reported Number Percent 2

Total Number Percent 94

100

3 months

8 months

100

12 months

100

- 24 months

100

108

100

In one to 3 weeks Percent Number

More than 2 years

Always

Not reported

439

Total

193

100

704

100

cent of those unemployed for less than 4 months, 90 percent of those unemployed for 4 to 8 months, 93 percent of those unemployed 9 to 12 months, and 91 percent for those unemployed for 13 months to 2 years.

The extension

of the period of unemployment apparently made these respondents more aware of the inadequacy of their training and more willing to learn new skills.

However, those

unemployed more than 2 years showed markedly less interest in receiving training than those unemployed for shorter periods of time.

Only 81 percent of those who had been

unemployed for more than two years expressed interest in training programs and only 56 percent of those perpetually unemployed were willing to be trained.

These statistics

suggest that those unemployed for long periods of time were either less interested in working or had become discouraged and apathetic over time. A majority of the unemployed registered with the Department of Labor in search of new jobs.

According to

Table IV.35, 198 out of 285 (69 percent) of the unemployed household heads had registered with the Department of Labor and 225 out of 419 (54 percent) of the other household members had done the same.

Sixty percent of the total number

133

Table IV.35: REGISTRATION OF UNEMPLOYED HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Registered

Not Not Registered Reported Number Percent Number Percent

Number

Percent

Family heads

198

69.5

17.5

Other family members

225

53.7

126

30.1

All members

423

60.1

176

25.0

Total Number

Percent

13.0

285

100

16.2

419

100

105

14.9

704

100

of unemployed persons registered with the Department of Labor as shown in Table IV.36.

The percentage of unem-

ployed registered rose up to one year of unemployment, but those employed more than one year were less likely to have registered with the Department of Labor.

Only

37 percent of those who had been perpetually unemployed registered with the Department of Labor and 80 persons or 41 percent of those perpetually unemployed did not register. When asked why they did not register with the Department of Labor, the respondents cited the following reasons, in the order of frequency mentioned: or training, 2.

lack of education

didn't wish to register, 3.

looking for

work on their own account, 4.

bad health, 5.

know they should register, 6.

age or studies prevented

them, 7.

lack of guidance, 8.

did not

engaged in sporadic work

(see Table IV.37) It is somewhat doubtful whether the Labor Department has been of much help in finding jobs.

According to Table

IV.38 only 240 of the 423 persons (57 percent) registered with the Department had been called for interviews.

the 240 persons who were called by the Department of Labor for interviews, 228 or 95 percent went to the interviews

135

Table IV.36

Period Unemployed

UNEMPLOYED PRRSONS,BY PERIOD OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND REGISTRATION WITH LABOR DEPARTMENT

Reqistered Per Number cent

Not Reqistered Per Number cent

Not Reported Per Number cent

Total Per Number cent

0-3 months

77.0

21.0

2.0

100.0

4-8 months

82.0

18.0

100.0

9-12 months

83.0

17.0

100.0

13-24 months

75.0

24.0

1.0

100.0

24 or more

72.0

24.0

4.0

108

100.0

Always

37.0

41.0

22.0

193

100.0

Not reported

12.0

2.0

86.0

100.0

423

60.0

176

25.0 105

15.0

704

100.0

Total

Table IV.37:

Reasons

REASONS FOR NON-REGISTRATION WITH THE LABOR DEPARTMENT

Number

Percent

Did not know that he (she) had to register

8.5

Illness and/or health condition

8.5

Age and/or student

7.7

Lack of orientation

6.9

Looking for work on his (her) own

10.5

Not interested

13.7

Lack of education and/or vocational training

14.9

Works sporadically

6.4

Other reasons

23.0

248

100.0

Total

Up to three reasons were allowed.

137

Table IV.38:

Period Unemployed

UNEMPLOYED PERSONS REGISTERED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BY PERIOD OF UNEMPLOYMENT AID WHETHER CALLED FOR LABOR DEPARTMENT INTERVIEW

Called for Interview PerNumcent ber

Not called PerNumcent ber

Total l~ PerNumcent ber

0 -

3 months

14.6

20.2

17.0

4 -

8 months

15.4

15.3

15.4

9 - 12 months

13.8

14.2

13.9

13 - 24 months

17.9

14.8

16.5

More than 2 years

20.8

15.3

18.4

Always

15.4

18.6

16.8

Not reported

2.1

1.6

1.9

240

100.0

183

100.0

423

100.0

aJ̀o

Total

Excludes those who did not report they had registered.

(see Table IV.39), but judging by the persistence of unemployment, the interviews were not successful. When the unemployed were asked what efforts they had made to obtain employment, about 24 percent of the replies indicated lack of interest in working.

Some of the persons

who expressed no interest in working had registered with the Department of Labor, suggesting that they merely registered in order to be eligible for food stamps or unemployment insurance.

Other respondents indicated that they

had gone directly to likely places of employment, or to the Department of Labor, and a few had gone to private employment agencies or were depending on the help of friends and relatives (see Table IV.40). When we consider that 99 persons out of the 704 unemployed (14 percent) indicated that they would not accept training, 25 percent did not register with the Department of Labor, and 24 percent

of the replies to a question

regarding efforts to find employment indicated lack of interest, it would appear that roughly 10 to 15 percent of the unemployed are apathetic, discouraged, or disinterested. Most of the persons in this group have been unemployed more than 2 years, and there is no indication that the implemen-

139

Table IV.39:

Period Unemployed

~ o

UNEMPLOYED PERSONS CALLED FOR INTERVIEW, BY PERIOD OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND ATTENDANCE AT LABOR DEPARTMENT INTERVIEW

Went to Interview NumPercent ber

Did not go to Interview PerNumber cent

ly Total PerNumcent ber

0 -

3 months

14.9

8.3

14.6

4 -

8 months

15.8

8.3

15.4

9 - 12 months

13.6

16.7

13.8

13 months-2 years

18.0

16.7

17.9

More than 2 years

20.6

25.0

20.8

Always

14.9

25.0

15.4

Not reported

2.2

2.1

228

100.0

240

100.0

Total

Excludes those who did not report that they had registered.

Table IV.40:

Job Search Activity JI

TYPE OF JOB SEARCH ACTIVITY AND REGISTRATION WITH THE LABOR DEPARTMENT

Reqistered Num- Perber cent

Not 2/ Registered Num- Perber cent

Total Num- perber cent

Not interested in finding a job

12.1

127

50.2

192

24.3

Department and/or other government office

179

33.3

7.1

197

24.9

Applied directly at job site

220

41.0

24.1

281

35.6

Waiting to be called by previous employer

2.6

1.6

2.3

Went to private employment office

5.0

6.7

5.6

Friends and/or relatives are looking for the job

0.7

5.5

2.3

Other

5.2

4.7

5.1

Total

537

100.0

253

100.0

790 100.0

Up to three job search activities were permitted.

Includes those who have not registered with the Labor Department and who have looked for jobs on their own.

141

tation of the Food Stamp Program has affected their attitudes one way or the other.

The vast majority of unemployed

food stamp recipients seemed to be genuinely interested in finding employment, but were severely handicapped by their lack of education and skills.

Most seemed to be in great

need of guidance in order to realistically assess what types of jobs are available for persons of their training, what type of salary to expect, and how to go about searching for employment.

142

PART V INCOME AND RELATED VARIABLES ANALYSIS

INCOME LEVEL

Since the households interviewed received monetary income from various sources, such as gainful employment, transfer payments, including Social Security and other wel~ fare programs, pensions, rent, and the food stamp bonus, and in various combinations, the analysis of household income is presented below for three broad categories of households:

(1) those who were participants in the Food

Stamp

Program at the time of the survey and also received income from other sources; (2)

those who left the Food Stamp Pro-

gram because of obtaining employment or for other reasons; and, (3) those who received food stamps but had no reported income from any other source. Food Stamp Recipients who Received Other Income Of the 1,772 households in the sample, whose completed questionnaires were analyzed for this study, 1,437 of those participating in the Food Stamp Program at the time of the

Though the households do not have any discretionary power while spending food stamps, for the purpose of this analysis, the bonus is treated as monetary income.

145

survey also received income from other sources.

For

purposes of analysis, these were divided in three groups: 1)

those who received income from work;

those who

received income from non-work sources; and, 3)

those

who received income from both work and non-work sources. These households account for 81 percent of the 1,772 questionnaires analyzed. 1. Food Stamp Program participants who received income from gainful employment only. Table V.1 shows that 552 households fell into this group.

None of the members of these households received

income from any other sources except work and the Food Stamp Program.

Their total non-food stamp income amounted

to $175,642 with an average monthly income of $318.19.11 As the table shows, these households were concentrated in the upper part of the income scale.

For instance, about

two-thirds (66.4 percent) of the households fell within the income brackets of $251 per month or more and they received almost nine-tenths (84.9 percent) of all income in this category.

The income in question refers to the month of May 1976.

146

Table V.I.:

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS PARTICIPATING IN TE FOOD S 7 MP PROGRAM AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY, BY LEVEL AND SOURCE OF INCOME J

Group 1 º/ Income Households Dollars PerPerNombar cent cent

Monthly Gross Income Level ($)

Dollars

Group 2 3/ Income Households PerPerHumcent bet cent

Dollars

Group 3 4/ Income Households PerHumPercent ber cent

Dollars

Group 4 / Income Households PerNomPercent ber cent

$50 or

less

575.00

0.3

4.0

5,582.24

6.0

196

26.5

123.50

0.2

2.1

6,280.74

2.0

221

15.4

100

3,130.50

1.8

7.4

13,277.66

14.0

165

22.3

157.75

0.3

1.4

16,565.25

5.1

208

14.5

101

150

3,759.47

2.1

5.4

17,533.75

18.5

140

18.9

565.50

1.0

2.8

21,858.72

6.7

174

12.1

151

200

6,270.70

3.6

6.5

16,538.10

17,5

12.8

2,058.65

3.7

8.3

24,873.45

7.6

143

10.0

201

250

12,901.85

7.3

10.3

13,426.28

14.2

8.1

2,538.15

4.6

7.6

28,866.28

8.9

128

8.9

251

300

15,357.62

8.7

10.1

9,614.60

10.2

4.7

4,378.60

8.0

11.0

29,350.82

9.0

107

7.4

301

350

35,397.50

20.2

108

19.6

7,323.19

7.7

3.1

9,133.19

14.8

17.2

50,853.88

15.6

156

10.9

351

400

26,334.10

15.0

12.7

4,852.76

5.1

1.8

6,733.23

12.2

12.4

37,920.09

11.7

101

7.9

401 or more

71,900.25

41.0

132

24.0

6,421.78

6.8

1.8

30,297.98

55.1

37.2

108,629.01

33.4

199

13.8

Total 2/

175,641.99

100.0

552

100.0

94,570.36

100.0

740

100.0

54,986.55

100.0

145

100.0

325,198.90

100.0

Average Income

318.10

Group 1: Group 3: Does not

Income from employment only; Group 2: Income from work and non-work sources; include

127.80

379.22

Income from non-work sources Group 4: Total cf Groups 1,

only, 2, and 3.

the Food Stamp Prooram cash bonus.

There are 1°0 households who reported receiving no income except bonus making a total of 1,597 households reporting.

for

the

food stamp

226.30

1,437 100.0

The distribution of the bonus received by participating households is shown in Table V.2, following the same group and income distribution as in Table V.1 to facilitate comparison.

The concentration of households

in lower bonus levels is obvious.

It can be seen that

89.9 percent of all bonus was received by 96.0 percent of the households with monthly bonus income of $250 or less. This inverse relationship between income and bonus apparently is a result of the distribution of income from gainful employment received by these households.

The

average monthly income of this group including bonus was $441.60, trailing the group of households who have dropped out of the Food Stamp Program with gainful employment. This finding leads to the conclusion that there is no economic incentive to drop out of employment in order to derive full benefit from the Food Stamp Program. 2. Food Stamp Program participants who received income exclusively from non-work sources. The level of income of the households in this group is shown in Table V.1 under group 2.

The concentration

of households in the lower income brackets is apparent. About nine-tenths (88.6 percent) of the households, reg-

148

Table V.2:

Group 1 J Income Households Dollars PerNUBPercent bee cent

Bonus Dollars

$50 or less

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS PARTIC1PATING IN THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY, BY LEVEL OF BONUS ANO SOURCE OF INCOME

Dollars

Group 2 J Income Households PerNunPercent ber cent

Group 3 J Income Households Dollars PerHumPercent her cent

Dollars

Group 4 J Households Income PerNam Percent ber cent

2,202.00

3.2

9.6

6,440.00

7.4

157

21.2

421.00

2.1

7.6

9,063.00

5.2

221

15.4

100

13,070.00

19.2

168

30.4

16,031.00

18.4

214

28.9

3,239.00

16.1

29.7

32,340.00

18.4

425

29.6

101

150

23,195.00

34.0

189

34.2

20,515.00

23.5

165

22.3

4,831.00

24.0

26.2

48,541.00

27.7

392

27.3

151

200

12,903.00

19.0

13.8

19,013.00

21.8

109

14.7

4,877.00

24.3

19.3

36,793.00

21.0

213

14.8

201

250

9,856.00

14.5

8.0

9,933.00

11.4

5.9

3,373.00

16.8

10.3

23,162.00

13.2

103

7.2

251

300

3,572.00

5.2

2.4

8,457.00

9.7

4.2

1,397.00

7.0

3.4

13,426.00

7.7

3.4

301

350

971.00

1.4

0.5

4,597.00

5.3

2.0

5,560.00

3.2

1.2

351

400

1.511.00

2.2

0.7

2.271.00

2.6

0.8

401 or more

842.00

1.2

0.4

68,122.00

100.0

552

100.0

Total Average

Group 1: Group 3:

JI D

123.41

Income from employment only; Group 2: Income from work and non-work sources,

s not include income from any other source.

87,257.00 100.0

740

100.0

729.00

3.6

1.4

4.511.00

2.6

1,227.00

6.1

2.1

2,069.00

1.2

0.3

20,094.00

100.0

145

100.0 175,473.00 100.0

1,437

100.0

117.91

Income from nn -work s only; Group 4: Total of Groupu1Ce2. and 3.

130.50

122.11

istered having monthly non-food stamp income of $250 or less and they earned about three-fourths (70.2 percent) of all income in this category,

about the reverse of what

we have seen in the case of the first group.

The average

monthly non-food stamp income of these households was $127.80; the first group (gainfully employed), on the average, earned about two and a half times more per month than those receiving income from non-work sources. The distribution of the bonus received by these households is shown in Table V.2 under group 2.

The in-

verse relationship of bonus and income from other sources is again obvious in this case but the situation once again is about the reverse of what we have seen in the case of group 1.

It can be seen that 93.0 percent of the house-

holds received a monthly bonus of $250 or less and they earned 82.5 percent of the total bonus in this category. The average

monthly income of group 2, including bonus,

was $245.71, group 1 having 1.8 times the combined monthly income of group 2.

Obviously, the people who worked and

received food stamps were much better off than those who did not work and received food stamps even though the latter received some income from non-work sources.

150

Food Stamp Program participants who received income from both work and non-work sources.

There were 145 households in this group (Group 3, Table V.1).

In each household in this group at least one

of the members worked and one or more received income from non-work sources.

Because of the influence of income

from gainful employment, households were

:oncentrated more

towards the upper income brackets as in the first group. Close to four-fifths (77.8 percent) of the households in this group received monthly income of $251 or more from combined sources and they earned nine-tenths (90.1 percent) of all non-food stamp income in this group; their average monthly income was $379.22 which was higher than that of Group 1. The distribution of the food stamp bonus received by these households is shown in Table V.2 under Group 3. In this group the distribution of bonus is also similar to

Group 1.

About 93.1 percent of the households earned

a monthly bonus of $250 or less and they received 83.3 percent of all bonus payments in this group.

The average

monthly income, including bonus, of the 145 households in this group was $509.72, the highest among the three groups.

151

This means that Group 3 households were better off than those in Group 1 as they received income from work and non-work sources and at the same time received food stamps. 4.

Combination of Groups 1,2, and 3

The three groups of households discussed thus far are combined in a single group presented as Group 4 in Table V.1. group.

There were 1,437 households in this combined

The combined income distribution of this group

was still biased toward the lower income brackets, for 60 percent of these households earned $250 or less per month from sources other than food stamps, and only 30.3 percent of all income in this group was earned by 60 percent of the households. The distribution of bonus received by the households in this group is shown under Group 4 in Table V.2.

reported by these households, the average income per household, including bonus, was $348.41 which is lower than that of Groups 1 and 3 but higher than that of Group 2. This result is obvious.

There are more households in

Group 2 than in Group 1 and 3 combined, thereby lowering the income per household because of the increased weight provided by Group 2.

The distribution of total income

152

including bonus of Group 4 households is shown in Table v.3. Households who Discontinued their Participation in the Food Stamp Program Thus far we have accounted for 1,437 households of the 1,772 households in the sample whose completed questionnaires were analyzed for this study.

The remaining 335

households were divided in two categories: (1)

those

who received income from various sources but no longer participated in the Food Stamp Program (162 households), and (2) those who participated in the Food Stamp Program but reported that they did not receive income from any other sources (160 households).

These households, com-

bined with 13 others, who did not provide information in connection with their income, account for the 335 households (162 + 160 + 13 = 335). The first category of these households, i.e. the ones who no longer participated in the Food Stamp Program, were in turn divided into four groups similar to those presented earlier in this part, i. e. Group 1, those households with income only from gainful employment, Group 2, those with income only

from non-work sources,

Group 3, those with income from both sources, and finally

153

Table V.3:

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS (FOOD STAMP PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS), BY LEVEL OF INCOME FROM WORK, NON-WORK, AND BONUS SOURCES

MONTHLY GROSS INCOME LEVEL ($)

50 or less

Income Dollars Percent

50.00

Households Number Percent

0.1

100

6,163.25

1.2

6.0

101

150

13,665.79

2.7

108

7.5

151

200

29,590.11

6.0

167

11.6

201

250

35,787.23

7.1

159

11.1

251

300

34,977.00

7.0

126

8.8

301

350

44,526.61

8.9

137

9.5

351

400

48,580.52

9.7

129

9.0

401 or more

287,331.39

57.4

524

36.5

Total

500,671.90

100.0

1,437

100.0

Average

348.41

0.01

154

Group 4, a combination of the first three groups. Group 1 There were 93 households in this group, as shown in Table V.4.

Of these, 60 households left the Food Stamp

Program voluntarily after one or more members had obtained employment in the individual households, as discussed elsewhere in the report.

The remaining 33 households had

to leave the program because their high income rendered them ineligible.

The average income of these working

households that dropped out of the Food Stamp Program increased sharply registering the highest monthly average income among all groups. The distribution of income of these 93 households shows that a vast majority was concentrated in the upper income brackets, to a much a greater extent than Group 1 of Table V.1.

As Table V.4 shows, 82.9 percent of these

households had a monthly income of $251 or more and they earned 93.5 percent of all income of their group.

There

were no households in the income level $50 or less.

the next income level , i.e. $51 to $100, there were only 2, or 2.2 percent of the households, as opposed to 41 households, or 7.4 percent, among those who worked and re-

155

J Table V.4:

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS (WHO LEFT THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM , BY LEVEL AND SOURCE OF INCOME

Group 2 Income Households PerRumPercent her cent

Group 3 Income Households PerHumPercent ber cent

Group 4 Income Households PerRuinPercent cent ber

J Monthly Gross Income Level ($)

Group 1 Income Households RumPer$ Percent her cent

$50 or less

22.66

0.3

7.0

3.4

189.50

20.7

135.50

0.8

5.0

433.90

0.6

3.1

0.6

2.5

1,519.40

2.1

7.4

100

151.00

0.4

2.2

93.40

1.4

101

150

627.50

1.5

5.4

756.40

11.3

151

200

351.00

0.8

2.2

365.80

5.4

7.0

187.50

0.8

2.5

201

250

1,579.00

3.8

7.5

1,556.67

23.2

24.1

22.66

1.2

904.30

1.2

3.1

3,135.67

4.4

8.6

251

300

1,653.00

3.9

6.5

864.10

12.9

10.3

2,517.10

3.5

5.6

301

350

3,280.00

7.8

10.8

1,244.40

18.5

13.8

4,254.40

6.4

8.6

351

400

4,481.50

10.7

12.9

360.00

5.4

3.4

1,846.60

8.2

12.5

6,688.10

9.4

11.1

401 or more 29,877.50

71.1

52.7

1,448.00

21.6

10.3

20,091.73

89.5

77.5

51,416.23

72.3

51.2

42,000.50 100.0

100.0

6,711.43

100.0

22,450.83

100.0

71,162.26

100.0

162

100.0

J Total Average

J /

J 2/

451.61

231.42

561.27

Group 1: Income from employment only; Group 2: Income from non-work sources only; Group 3: Income from work and non-work sources; Group 4: Total of Groups 1, 2, and 3. 0.03 Former recipients of the Food Stamp Program in the Sample Survey. There were 13 households who did not report receiving income from employment or non-work sources,making a total of 175 in Group 4.

439.27

ceived food stamps in Table V.1.

The average monthly

non-food stamp income of these households was $451.61 which, compared with the average monthly income of the households participating in the Food Stamp Program (see Table V.1), was about one and a half times higher (]..4) than that of the households receiving income solely from work, three and a half times (3.5) higher than that of households receiving income solely from non-work sources, and 1.2 times higher than that of households receiving income from combined work and non-work sources. On the other hand, if we compare the income of these households with the combined income of the households participating in the Program, we find that this is 83.8 percent greater than that of the households who received income from non-work sources and food stamps.

However, it

is slightly less than that of the households who received combined income from work and non-work sources as well as food stamps.

This demonstrates that the households who

receive income from gainful employment and participate in the Program are in a much better position than those households who do not receive income from gainful employment and receive food stamps.

157

This means that there are no economic reasons for the household to abstain from working in order to receive food stamps.

The results become even more striking when

we consider the income of those households who receive income from work and non-work sources and do not at present participate in the Food Stamp Program. Group 2 None of the members of these households either worked or received food stamps but did receive income from nonwork sources. It is interesting to note, however, that the average income received by these households ($231.42) was much higher (1.8 times) than the average income of those households who received income from non-work sources and participated in the Food Stamp Program.

Since all these

households once participated in the Food Stamp Program and still are eligible to do so, the interviewers asked them the reason for their discontinuance. were cited by them:

Two main reasons

The first and foremost reason was that

they could not make the necessary cash outlay to buy food stamps which was excessive; and, the second reason was that they were contented with the income they have been receiving from non-work sources, particularly Social Security and

158

pensions. Group 3 The third group, as before, consists of those households, each one of whom received income from mixed sources (work and non-work) and was not participating in the Food Stamp Program at the time of the interview. 40 such households in this group.

There were

They were clustered in

only a few income classes, particularly in the highest class ($401 or more per month),with 31, or 77.5 percent, of the households in this class, and they earned 89.5 percent of all income of this group.

The average monthly income of

this group was $561.27, by far the highest of all groups. The average income of these households was one and a half times higher than the households with similar sources of income and participation in the Food Stamp Program (see Table V.1, Group 3). Group 4 This group combines the previous three groups 1,2, and 3, and, therefore, represents the distribution of income of all households (162) not participating in the Food Stamp Program at the time of interview (see Table V.4). Because of the increased weight of the first and third group,

159

the concentration of households was in the upper income classes indicating the overall improvement of the distribution of income.

For example, over three-fourths (76.5

percent) of all households in this group belonged to the income classes of $251 and up and they earned over ninetenths (91.6 percent) of all income of the households in this category.

The average monthly income for all house-

holds in this group was $439.27 which was 26.1 percent higher than the average monthly income and average bonus put together of all households who received income from work and other non-work sources as well as food stamps. Food Stamp Recipients Reportinq No Income Other Than Food Stamps As mentioned earlier, there were 160 households who reported not having any income from any sources and, therefore, depended exclusively on the Food Stamp Program for their survival.

The distribution of their bonus

shows that 95 percent of the households in this category received the bonus at a rate of $250 per month or less and they received 85.8 percent of all bonus in this category, as shown in Table V.5. Since these households did not have any income, it

160

Table V.5

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH NO REPORTED INCOME, BY LEVEL OF BONUS

Monthly Bonus ($)

Monthly Income Total Per($) cent

Households Number Percent

Average Monthly Income ($)

50 or less

1,689.00

8.6

22.5

46.92

51 - 100

2,909.00

14.9

23.1

78.62

101 - 150

5,154.00

26.4

25.6

125.71

151 - 200

5,391.00

27.6

19.4

173.90

201 - 250

1,614.00

8.3

4.4

230.57

251 - 300

830.00

4.2

1.9

276.67

301 - 350

836.00

1.7

0.6

336.00

351 - 400

1,138.00

5.8

1.9

379.33

460.00

2.4

0.6

460.00

19,521.00 100.0

160

100.0

122.01

401 or more Total

J The 160 households include 80 households who receive coupons without having to pay. Their monthly bonus totals $10,344.00, an average of $129.30 per household; and 80 households who receive food stamps with a total monthly value of $11,765.50 for which they pay $2,588.00, receive a bonus of $9,177.80, with an average value of $147.06 for the food stamps, an average payment of $32.35 and an average bonus of $114.71.

161

was expected that they would not have the cash required for the purchasing of their stamps.

It was revealed by

the respondents, however, that 80 households received their stamps free and the remaining 80 had to pay for their stamps at an average rate of $32.35.

The bonus per house-

hold was $129.30 for those who did not pay for stamps and $114.71 for those households, in this category, who had to pay.

The purchase requirement for the households with-

o., t reported income could be dui in part to their asset ho~diags but may also be attributable to lack of veracity of the respondents in providing information. The Lorenz Diagram of the distribution of income from work and non-work sources of households actively participating in the Food Stamp Program, is shown in Figure V.1.

The income distribution of income from gainful em-

ployment of the non-participating households and the distribution of the total income, including bonus of the actively participating households, is shown in Figure V.2. It is interesting to note that household income from work sources of participating households (Figure V.1) is more equitably distributed than household income from non-work sources.

At the same time the income from gain-

162

FIGURE V.1:

Percent of Income

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME FROM COMBINED WORK AND NON-WORK SOURCES, NOT INCLUDING BONUS, ALL PARTICIPANT HOUSEHOLDS, LORENZ DIAGRAM

^crccnt of Households

163

FIGURE V.2:

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME FROM WORK OF NON-PARTICIPANT HOUSEHOLDS AND TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING BONUS OF PARTICIPANT HOUSEHOLDS, LORENZ DIAGRAM

Percent of Income 100

90'

80 -

70-.

5o'

40-

10-

~ 10

i 30

1 40

~ 50

1 70 Percent

164

1 80

1 90

of Households

i 100

ful employment of the non-participant households (Figure V.2) is more equitably distributed than all income, including bonus, of the households who were actively participating in the Food Stamp Program.

This once again demonstrates

that the people who are gainfully employed and left the Food Stamp Program are better off economically than all other households.

RELATIONSHIP OF INCOME TO THE OTHER VARIABLES

Income and Education Previous studies stressed the positive relationship of academic preparation of persons with the income that they earn. this study.

Once again this notion is confirmed in

Table V.6 demonstrates the relationship of

educational achievement of 992 persons (729 heads of households and 273 other household members) who were engaged in gainful employment and the monthly income they claimed.

It is apparent from the table that as the level

of education increased more persons were concentrated in the upper income brackets.

For a more precise demonstra-

tion of this postulation, the percentage of all persons who were earning above $250 per month was calculated and pre-

165

•buTpunoi ;o asneoag 001 o9 A19oexa ppe 1ou Au swnioo 3uaozad iiy

0 . 001

8Z'Z££$

T£'bb£$

£T'40£S

E8'8SZS

E8'TSZS

ST'EEZ$

Ob'L8T$

b'68

L'58

0'SL

Z'29

b'LS

L'bb

8' 9 E

0001

0002

000T

O001

0001

0'OOT

($) awooui ATqyuow abºzany Aitt3now OSZS zano buluzea suoszad ;o abºqvaozad Tº3oZ

SOT

1'£

L'b

£'b

8'T

S'9

paazodaz 1oN

L'8b

9'8Z

O'1Z

9'11

1'L

S'b

azow 10 tOb

0 . 51

8'S2

b'IZ

691

O'b1

O'ET

E'9

OOb

TSE

0'SZ

S'O1

9'8Z

b'OZ

T'OZ

691

E'bT

0'E2

OSE

TO£

0• SE

6'£

1'L

8'£1

9'ZS

911

Z'SS

0'£T

00£

TSE

9'Z

1'L

L'11

901

881

6'01

OSE

TOE

L'8

O'8

9'61

OOZ

1S1

O• SE

£'T

L'b

9'S

1'OT

S'Z1

0'£T

051

20I

I'L

6'L

E'9

b'£1

£'b

OOT

Z'ST

SSaT 10 OSS

ua;zeb -zapuTH

auON

pa9zodaa TON

A928zaniu0

•goag zO/puº•ooA

L'b OT

89 L

£-

(g) Tana'I awoouI ssoz0 A1qTuOW

'I 3Afl'I 3Qy80 81vOONI 30 g3A3'I AS

SNOSüBd Q3A0'IdW3 30 NOIJ.OSIBSSIQ 30y.LN3Ji13d

'9'A a1qºJ.

o 'o .-1

sented in the last but one row of Table V.6.

It is very

revealing to note that the percentage of persons in each successively higher level of education was increasing steadily without any exception, beginning from 36.8 percent of the persons with no education to 89.4 percent of those with university education.

The average monthly

earnings (without bonus) of the employed by their levels of education is presented in Table V.6.

The table shows

that the average monthly income per person increased from $187.40 for those with no education to with a university education.

$332.28 for those

The only exception was that

the average income per person for those with vocational training was higher ($344.31) than for those with university education.

This may be partially explained in that the

latter probably attended university for a year or two but did not possess a formal degree; but it may also reflect the demand-supply situation for technical skills. Therefore, it is expected that their earnings will be less than those of persons with vocational training but higher than the earnings of those with lower academic preparation.

matter for further investigation is relative earnings for technical and other types of employment.

167

The high rate of unemployment among the food stamp participants, even though their relative position showed improvement, and their low monthly earnings can, therefore, be attributed to their lower level of academic preparation.

Income and Occupation The relationship between occupation and the level of monthly earnings is shown in Table V.7.

Since the

level of academic preparation of the persons was low (as discussed in Part III), a relatively larger number of persons was engaged in low paying occupations where sufficient skill or academic preparation was not required. Table V.7 shows that the largest number of persons (22 percent) were engaged in "laborers and related" jobs. The second most important occupation was "service workers, except domestic" (16 percent).

The next in importance

was "artisans, foremen, and stewards" (15 percent), followed by "agricultural laborers" (11 percent). Since these occupational classifications were similar to those used by the Commonwealth Department of

168

szaaoqet l5an;tnolzbVt uot;ednOOO

LO apo0

uam0ro:sates 10 ua01sa15S 3;;sa01op ;da0xa 'slaKsow aOIAzaS szaKaoM aoiAzas at;saiuo0 uoi;ednoOO

sX1oM pa;5ta1 pue sKsalO a3c;;O sgoC pa;elaz pue saasoge'Z spae.ea;s 10/pus 'ua01azo; 'suesl;zy uoi5O53OO

90 SO 9O pa o0

EO LO IO apo0

•,3utpunOl ;o asne3aq 001 0; Al;3exa ppe ;ou A5m 5uunt03 ;ua3sad L1Y

suoszad paAotdms ;0 ;ua3lad

001

Lit

OOI

001

8S1

001

OOI

IZZ

OOI

991

£Z

Z£

azom so I09

009

ISE

OSE

10£

00E

TSE

OSE

IOZ

OOZ

161

051

101

001

Ssa1 10 OS$

;ua3 -sad

saq -umN

0£

;aa3 -lad

saq -'SON

;¢a3 saq ;ua3 zaq ;ua3 saq -sad -01nN -sad -01008 -sad -ums 90 apOO £0 apo0 LO aPoO uoi;531;1s55tO leuoi;edn33O qor

qor

q0r

qor

90 aPOO

;LLa3 saq -sad -01nN SO apo3

IO aPOJ

qor

ZZ 01

qor

OZ 6

;uaD saq -sad -O1n8 apo3 LO

te;0y

If pa;zodaa ;oN

SDNIN21Y3 AlALNON 30 18A3'I QNVt NOISKd0000 A8 'SNOS2I8d 08AOidNB

IanaZ a01o3ul AIg;uOW 95O1O

'LA

alge,L

Table V.7; CONT'D

r J 0

Gross Monthly Income Level

Job Code 08 NUN- Percent ber

Occupational Classification Job Code 09 Job Code 10 Job Code 11 NUN- PerMum- PerNulo- Perber cent ber cent ber cent

Job Code 12 Rum- Perber cent

$50 or less

100

101

150

151

200

201

250

251

301

350

351

400

300

401 or more

100 5

Not reported Total

100

Percent of Employed Persons

Code O8 09 10

Occupation Other laborers, except farm and mine workers, Professionals, technicians, and related workers Patters and farm managers

Code 11 12 13

100

Job Code 13 NUN- Percent ber

Not Reported MumPercent ber -

Total NUNbar

Percent

123

178

134

163

100

992

100

Occupation Administrators, managers, proprietors, and managerial workers Unspecified occupations Other occupations

100

Labor in their monthly survey,

a comparison was made as

to the first four occupational categories.

During June

1976 (period of the sample survey), the concentration of persons in these four categories was as follows:

laborers

and related jobs, 6.4 percent; service workers except domestic, 3.2 percent; artisans, foremen, and stewards, 12.0 percent; and agricultural laborers, 3.9 percent.

The higher

concentration of Food Stamp participants in these categories is explained by the fact that these households mostly fall under the poverty threshold; therefore, no comparison of the Labor Department data on occupational distribution can be made with the survey data since they are not comparable. The higher concentration of participants in categories such as "laborers" indicated that the majority had low income levels due to their concentration in low paying occupations. Income and Household

Size

As indicated elsewhere in the report, 1,772 house-

commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,Employment and Unemployment in Puerto Rico. June 1976, Vol. 76-6.

171

holds were interviewed.

Among them, 175 were found to

be inactive cases (including 13 who did not provide any information) and 160 received income from no other sources except food stamps.

This leaves a total of 1,437 house-

holds who received income from sources other than food stamps.

Table V.8 presents the distribution of cash in-

come (not including bonus) of active participants by household size. There were 7,287 persons in the 1,772 households interviewed, for an average household size of 4.11 members. The average size for the 1,437 households with cash income was a little bit higher. It can be seen from the table that mean household size increased consistently with the level of income, beginning with 2.8 persons for the monthly income level of $50.00 or less to 5.7 persons for the cash income level of $401.00 or more.

Three-fourths

76 percent) of the

households fell within the size group of five or less members.

The majority of the households was concentrated

in the lower income brackets, about three-fifths reporting a monthly cash income of $250.00 or less. These findings are very similar to those of another study conducted by

172

Table V.B:

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING INCOME FROM WORK, NON-WORK, AND COMBINED WORK AND NON-WORK SOURCES, BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVEL (Active Cases) NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS, BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE

Income Level

Less than $50.00

13 or more

Percent

Mean Size

Mean Income

222

15.5

2.8

28.8

205

14.3

3.8

79.9

175

12.2

3.3

126.0

145

10.0

4.0

174.2

124

8.6

4.7

224.9

112

7.7

4.8

274.8

155

10.8

4.9

325.2

106

7.5

4.9

374.9

100

101

150

151

200

201

250

251

300

301

350

351

400

401

or more

3 3

Total

4 -

11 -

Total

158

209

229

282

220

133

Percent

11.0

14.5

15.9

19.6

15.3

9.3

5.1

3.5

2.6

1.3

Mean Income

65.4

137.9

224.9

253.9

282.4 283.5 240.1

2(8.2

307.9

287.9

486.9

298.7

193

13.4

5.7

541.9

1437

4.2

225.4

100.0

808.5

225.4

the Commonwealth Department of Social Services in collaboration with the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. ~ Department of Agriculture. Within the households interviewed there were 2,087 members (28.6 percent) who received cash income either from work or non-work sources (excluding bonus).

The rest of

the household members (5,200) were dependents with no cash income.

The distribution of income of all household mem-

bers who received cash income from work and/or non-work sources (excluding bonus) is given in Table V.9, by household size.

The percentage distribution of income for these

household members differs somewhat from that of the households (Table V.8).

Whereas three-fifths (60.6 percent) of

the households reported monthly cash income of $250 or less, three-fourths (74.1 percent) of earning members in the households surveyed reported monthly cash income of $250 or less.

In other words, the percentage distribution of

earning members in the various income brackets by household size differed somewhat from that of households.

j/ The Impact of the Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico, (Parimal Choudhury, Project Director), San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 1977.

174

Table V.9,

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER MEMBERS WHO RECEIVED INCOME FROM WORK, NON-WORK, AND WORK PLUS NON-WORK SOURCES, BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND MONTHLY INCOME LEVEL (ACTIVE CASES)

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND OTHER MEMBERS,BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE Income Level

Less than $50.00

100

13 or more

Total

% Distribution

Mean Size

627

30.0

1.0

25.3

385

18.4

1.1

80.6

1L6

1.1

121.7

Mean Income

101

150

242

151

200

159

7.6

1.1

174.5

201

250

136

6.5

1.2

224.3

300

134

6.4

1.2

274.9

162

7.7

1.3

325.1

251 301

350

351

400

108

5.2

1.3

375.7

401

or more

124

6.0

1.5

469.6

Income not reported

0.4 1.1

155.2

Total

158

272

331

381

317

188

135

114

2087

Percent

7.6

13.0

15.9

18.3

15.1

9.0

6.5

5.5

4.1

2.0

1.1

1.2

107.2 154.7

188.5

195.2

202.2

130.8

115.3

134.0

133.4

263.7

112.0

323.4

155.2

Mean Income *

65.4

* Not reported income cases excluded.

100.0

APPENDIX SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO Departamento de Servicios Sociales Programa de Cupones para Alimentos

estudio de las Familias Participantes en el Proqrama de Cupones para Alimentos

y trabajo con el Departamento de Yo soy (Nombre del Entrevistador) Servicios Sociales.

Estamos tratando de conseguir aquella información

que nos pueda ayudar a mejorar las condiciones generales de la familias participantes en el Programa de Cupones para Alimentos.

Esta información

le permitirá al gobierno desarrollar planes más efectivos para resolver los problemas de las familias más necesitadas.

Su cooperación resultará

eventualmente en una mejor situación económica tanto para usted como para sus conciudadanos. La información que usted nos suministre será mantenida confidencial y será usada única y exclusivamente para los propósitos de este estudio.

Número del Cuestionario

Fecha de la entrevista

Número de Seguro Social del JUF

Nombre que aparece en la solicitud de cupones

Parentesco de la persona entrevistada con el JUF

Municipio:

Area Geográfica:

Día

1. Rural 2. Urbana S.

Area residencial especifica: 1. Parcelas 2. Barriadas 3. Area de arrabal

179

Mes

Año

4. Residencial público (caserío) 5. Urbanización privada 6. Calle o centro de pueblo 7. Finca o terreno privado 8. Area sub-urbana 9. Otro, menciónelo

¿Dónde nació el jefe de la unidad familiar? 1. Puerto Rico 2. Estados Unidos 3. República Dominicana 4. Cuba 5. Centro América 6. Sur América 7. Otro, menciónelo

10.

Incluyéndose a usted, pero excluyendo pupilos o huéspedes, ¿cuántas personas viven en la casa?

ATENCION ENTREVISTADOR: Las preguntas de la 11 a la 20 recogen información general de todos los miembros de la familia.

Favor de hacer éstas preguntas para cada uno

de los miembros; recuerde que el jefe de la unidad familiar a utilizarse debe ser el que corresponde con la definición que aparece en el manual de instrucciones.

180

(01 o.03mnu e}un6eJd l ep le 1enól JeS eq p sag.op ep 1e}o} il ZL lt 0l 60 80 !o 0 90 0A

Io to to

3~3L to enulpu) (0 e"aW) uª1.e}JodsOe.0¿ ap olpey O

('•p ? Selle o(eqeJ} le 0003 ns .p epeqmoJdo e1Joe4S10 e OZ

(oldlopony) o(eqeJ} ne aP uop.xqoo3 Y

ON •¿ ope}810.09 (9 "°1D) e3 4ldY 00 'Y lan}IgaH 1om43Y (Y e"010) e(eq0J} (g a" 10) o(OqeJ} e3lpeJodS3 •E Is '1 .0010003 epuop yopeald.3 op0J0 8P uó pedno0 04010003 •¿ 04083003 4e13Jed •1 e4g4 8ñPu1 ?403 epeU3OC J0d lensue. op od41 . 0}n.0q 3S.Juul 61

81 -

oeTcfiu3 ep en~e;S

[.i

POPO

y •Z !'l 3nf LOP o3s8}uued oº.g

£I

s e1U'03 0l Op SOJg.ely º01 op e.0g.oN

IezauaO u9i3emio;ul

4iYIZIWY3 QYQIN(1 Y7 3O SO2I8W3IW SO'I 3O 'IY2i3Íg39 NOIJVWÜO3NI

ATENCION ENTREVISTADOR: Este anexo sólo aplica a los miembros de la unidad familiar que están empleados. Es decir, aquellos que en la columna número 16 contestaron Si (o un número 1). Favor de asignarle a los miembros el núsro que le did en el página #3.

Núm. del Miembro

1 Horas trabajadas en la semana

2 Si trabaja menos de 35 horas a la semana: Si usted pudiera trabajar más horas, ¿estarta dispuesto a hacerlo? 1. Si, 2. No

3 Si contesta No en la pregunta anterior: ¿Por qué no estaría dispuesto a trabajar más horas?

ATENCION ENTREVISTADOR:

Todas las personas de 14 años o más que aparecen en la columna 16 de la página 3 deben contestar ésta pregunta.

Las personas que contes-

taron con el Número 1 en la columna 16 en la página 3, deben contestar en la columna a

y las personas que contestaron el Número 2 en la

misma columna deben contestar en la columna b .

Col. a Número del Miembro de la Unidad Familiar

¿Estaban empleados los miembros de la unidad familiar al manento de solicitar los cupones?

1. Si 2. No

NOTA*

22.

1. Si 2. 80

En esta parte no se incluyen estudiantes, incapacitados, ancianos y amas de casa con uno o más hijos menores de 18 años.

¿Qué gestiones han hecho para mejorar su empleo, el JUF y los demás miembros de la unidad familiar?

23.

Col. b Los miembros que no estaban trabajando, ¿lo estaban seis meses antes?

¿Cuánto tiempo hace que reciben cupones? 1. Un mes 2. De dos a tres meses 3. De 4 a 6 meses 4. De 7 meses a un año

¿Cuánto reciben en cupones? $

25.

¿Cúantos pagan por sus cupones? $

5. Más de un año 24.

183

ATENCION ENTREVISTADOR: El siguiente

conjunto de preguntas (preguntas 26-40) se refiere

exclusivamente a los miembros de la familias

desempleados que tienen

14 años o más estén o no buscando trabajo.

Favor de identificar

miembros con el número correspondiente En esta

clasificación

incapacitados

según la tabla

no se incluyen aquellos

de la página 3.

que son estudiantes,

o ancianos y amas de casa con uno o más hijos

de 18 años de edad.

184

los

menores

... ...._ 26

2N1j

1/ 29

Nd., dal Nie.Nro

yie.os deºe.ol..do (Cl.ve E) -

N.zones D.r. deº-

N.zonaº D.ra rr (Cl.vel)

.Dl.o

(Cl.ve f)

30a1 ¿Se regio8,6 e el 0.080. dot Trºb.jo4 1. Sy 2. No

31 ¿N. ºido ll...do

entroi,t.? 1. Sr 2. No

_. ....,,~ ..~.,._.. `32

¿Aºiºtió . 1. eot.eiºt.a 1. Sr 2. No

f08ió • 1. eotrevi•t.. Si no -¿oorgudpp •oi.tió.

JF~ 02 03-------'-----_-----_

—

--..

._ _.—._.

o•

05 06.--

1/ En

nota sort. lp º. mola yen .ºtudi.nteo. inu00ci tOdo.. .oc naos y.... de e.... 500 uno o .h

17 Repon-do gu

an estos casos un4 oar son• needo dar ato de un. re ºooeot..

` 7 Si sa e0ntest.ci on so NO y•vor d. n.s.. . 1. o egunt•

3.,

S j.º ..nora, da 18 .So º.

Si o regiºtró. ¿sor gadalp 0e regi.tró4

-_. .

Continu.cldnl

SOLAMENTE PA A LOS MIEMBROS DESEMPLEADOS a~

6 NO.. del Mi..bra

LQoé oer., gestione, be hecho por. consegoir tr.b.joi

LQué d)Efculted<, loro n.r. conteguir eeoleoT

e lE,l~/r de -

yQué ojete Áe tr.b.jo ett.rr. di.00e,to . re.lis.rT

Sueldo •rni.o que n— { rr.ef Cl.r. C)

d. .di , t~.éo p.r. e.oleae4 yCuéndo7 (Cl.re N)

ni JEFE

En esto n.rte NO

o. incluyen .,tuditnte.e iocupo. todo.. Mecieses y .... de

ceo. son une o .d. hi joe

de 58 MRO..

LQué r.edo O tlene o . no bosc.r tr.b.jol•r

ATENCION ENTREVISTADOR

El siguienta grupo de preguntas (#41 a lo .%O) recoge información sobre los ingresos que reciban los miembros de le unidad familiar por algún concepto gua no sea trabajo. Favor de becar estas preguntas para todos los miembros de la familia y especificar la cantidad gua reciben mensualmente bajo la fuente de Ingresos correspondiente. Es probable que una persona reciba más un tipo de ayuda. Recuerde gue la cantidad que reciben en cupones no se tomará en cuenta en este caso. Es importante gue se identtfique correctamente ml miembro utilizando el misma número gua le asirnd en la página 0. 41. Recibe algún miembro de la familia ingreso mensual por otra concepto que no sea trabaja? Si

Número del Miembro N

Senuro Social

($) O1

Na CANTIDAD DE DINERO RECIBIDO MENSUAL POR OTRO CONCEPTO QUE NO SEA TRABAJO 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Ayuda de Asistontta Pensión por Compensación Pensión de Familiares Fono d de l Económica Jubilación por Veterano y/o y/o partí colares Seguro del Estado y/o Retiro Desempleo Gohi orno Federal Otros, menci ene lbs Secos •($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) (s)

(Si contesta no favor de pasar a la pregunta número 52)

JEFE

02 07 04

06 O7 DR

0; 10 11 12

I i

Total

(S)

52.

Si el JUF es casado (a) y vive con su esposa (o), ¿trabajaba su esposa (o) al mauento de solicitar los cupones? (Si

contesta

no, favor de pasar a la pregunta #57) 1. Si 2. No 53.

Si contestó la pregunta anterior afirmativamente, ¿dejó de trabajar al recibir los cupones? 1. Si 2. No

54.

Si contestó la pregunta anterior afirmativamente, ¿por qué dejó de trabajar? 1. Cerraron el centro de trabajo (fábrica, tienda, oficina, etc.) 2. Enfermedad, incapacidad 3. Al recibir los cupones, su ingreso no era necesario 4. Despido del empleado 5. Otros, (menciónelas)

55.

Al dejar de trabajar, ¿mejoró la situación de la familia? 1. Si 2. No

56.

Si contesta afirmativamente, ¿en qué forma ha mejorado la situación? (Puede haber más de una respuesta) 1. Puede darle mejor atención a los niños 2. Puede darle mejor atención a los asuntos de la familia. 3. Hay mucha más unión entre los miembros de la familia, por lo tanto estamos más contentos. 4. Otras, (menciónelas)

188

ATENCION ENTREVISTADORES:

Las preguntas (57 y 59) se refieren exclusivamente a las personas autorizadas a buscar los cupones, que son la esposa, esposo y/o representantes autorizados.

57.

La persona que va a buscar los cupones, ¿trabaja? (Si contesta negativamente puede terminar aquí la entrevista). 1. Si 2. No

58.

Si estas personas están empleadas ¿cuánto tiempo tienen que coger de su trabajo para ir a buscar los cupones? 1. De una a dos horas al día 2. Medio día de trabajo 3. Un día de trabajo completo 4. Más de un día de trabajo

59.

Si la persona tiene que coger tiempo de su trabajo para ir a buscar los cupones, ¿en qué forma ésto le afecta en su trabajo? (Puede haber más de una respuesta) 1. Me descuentan este tiempo del sueldo. 2. Me descuentan este tiempo de las vacaciones. 3. Me ha causado problemas con el patrono (Ej: le llaman la atención) 4. Otros, (menciónelos)

189