How does CIS define 'welfare' and which programs are included in that 59% figure?

1. What CIS means by “welfare” — a narrow, means‑tested definition

CIS explicitly follows the Census Bureau’s approach in treating “welfare” as means‑tested anti‑poverty programs rather than broader social insurance: they exclude programs that are not income‑tested (such as Social Security or Medicare) and instead count benefits that target low‑income households ^[4]. In later CIS pieces the organization reiterates that its cash, food, housing, and medical categories are all means‑tested benefits for purposes of its welfare tallies ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Which programs are included in the 59% figure

CIS’s public materials and follow‑ups list four broad program groups included in the 59% calculation: cash programs (TANF, SSI, the EITC, state general assistance), food assistance (SNAP, WIC, free/reduced school meals), Medicaid, and housing assistance (public and subsidized housing) ^{[1] [5] [2]}. CIS sometimes cites specific program examples in methodological notes — e.g., naming TANF, SSI, EITC for cash and SNAP/WIC/school meals for food — to show what falls into each category ^[1].

3. CIS’s numeric breakdown behind the headline 59%

CIS has published more granular figures: summaries and media reports using CIS data state roughly 48% of illegal‑headed households use food assistance, 39% use Medicaid, 18% use cash programs, and 4% use housing programs; together those program uses produce the headline estimate that about 59% of illegal‑headed households use one or more means‑tested programs ^{[3] [2]}. CIS’s technical writeups based on the 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) report an estimate of 59.4% for illegal‑headed households ^[5].

4. How CIS calculates “household” use and the role of U.S.‑born children

CIS measures welfare use at the household level: if any household member receives an included benefit, the household counts as a welfare‑using household. CIS highlights that some welfare receipt counted for immigrant‑headed households is on behalf of U.S.‑born children (for example, citizen children receiving Medicaid, school meals, or WIC), and CIS argues that this matters for interpretation of immigrant welfare rates ^{[1] [2]}. CIS states that even when excluding some programs (e.g., certain school lunch measures) immigrant use remains noticeably higher ^[6].

5. Methodological context and CIS’s institutional perspective

CIS relies on the Census Bureau’s SIPP for its estimates and stresses that SIPP is a detailed source for program participation ^[6]. Independent observers note CIS’s institutional stance — CIS is an anti‑immigration think tank that produces analyses to support lower immigration levels — a fact others have used to contextualize its findings and motivations ^[7]. CIS’s framing emphasizes fiscal costs and program access as policy levers, which aligns with its advocacy priorities ^[8].

6. Competing views and limitations in reporting

Other analysts and critics question comparisons that mix all immigrant households with all native households without controlling for income, education, family composition, or citizen children — points CIS’s reports acknowledge to varying degrees ^{[9] [6]}. CIS notes differences by education and state and that no single program fully explains the higher immigrant household rates, but available sources do not provide a full correctional analysis controlling for income or household structure in the CIS materials supplied here ^[6].

7. What is not covered in the supplied sources

Available sources do not mention independent replications of CIS’s 59% figure using alternative datasets or the Census Bureau’s own reanalysis addressing CIS’s exact methodology; they also do not provide a comprehensive counterestimate adjusting for household income and child citizenship status within the same SIPP sample in the materials supplied here (not found in current reporting).