Executive Nurse Fellow Jerry Mansfield explains why the University Hospital and the Richard M. Ross Heart Hospital do not have a BSN-only hi...
In 19972001, researchers at the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, New York, examined the effects of welfare reform on the lives of low-income families, the neighborhoods in which they live and the institutions that serve them, and analyzed how welfare reform strategies were implemented.
Legislation enacted in 1996 ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the country's major safety net program for low-income families, and replaced it with the state-administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
The new program imposes time limits on eligibility for welfare, adds work requirements for recipients and establishes incentives and sanctions to help recipients make the transition from welfare to work.
Researchers used welfare and employment records, health and social indicators, surveys and interviews to conduct five qualitative and quantitative studies targeted on welfare reform in the counties that incorporate the cities of Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami and Philadelphia. They reported findings in the following broad categories:
Among the findings are:
Manpower researchers and subcontractors communicated findings in 15 reports, a number of journal articles and more than 75 presentations to policy-makers, including the U.S. Senate Finance Committee at its first hearing on Welfare Reform reauthorization. See the Bibliography.
The project received $18 million in funding from 11 foundations and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) provided $1,998,995 in grant funding from August 1997 to December 2001 used solely to assess welfare reform's effects on health and health service systems in these counties.
After the Grant
The researchers continue to analyze data, and plan to issue additional reports, including in-depth analyses of each city's experience with welfare reform.
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (known as welfare reform) profoundly changed America's welfare system. It eliminated Aid to Families with Dependent Children the country's major cash assistance program for low-income families and replaced it with a time-limited block grant program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
Welfare reform also imposed tough work requirements on welfare recipients, established incentives to help people find work and penalties for those who did not comply with work rules and gave states broad flexibility to design and operate their welfare programs. In turn, many states have "devolved" much of the responsibility for their welfare programs to local governments.
Supporters of welfare reform predicted that the new approach would spur innovation and policy changes that would help welfare recipients to become self-supporting, thereby reducing welfare dependence and costs. Critics expressed concern that the changes would pose risks to the health and well being of poor families and to state and local government budgets that would be required to respond to social dislocations created as a result of a weakened social safety net. Following passage of welfare reform, the number of families receiving welfare benefits dropped significantly, from 4.4 million families in 1996 to 2 million families in December 2001.
People who receive welfare often receive Medicaid and Food Stamps as well. Together, the cash benefits, Medicaid and Food Stamps provide low-income families with basic financial, health and nutritional support. RWJF established a national program office Supporting Families After Welfare Reform: Access to Medicaid, SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program) and Food Stamps to help states and large counties solve problems in eligibility processes that make it difficult for low-income families to access and retain Medicaid, SCHIP or Food Stamps, particularly families moving from welfare to work.
This project was funded as part of a three-part investment to better understand welfare reform's impact on health. All three RWJF investments built on larger research efforts: one by Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, the P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale three city study (Irving B. Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, ID# 032102) that resulted in an article in Science, and the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study by Princeton University (ID# 043407).
Additionally, RWJF provided partial funding for a number of other studies that tracked the impact of welfare reform on families and agencies. These studies include: "Assessing the New Federalism in New Jersey," the Urban Institute (see Grant Results on ID# 030554); "Children, Families and Welfare Reform: A Multi-City Study," Northwestern University, ID# 037218; "Assessing the Implementation of Health-Related Provisions of the Welfare Reform Act," George Washington University, ID# 030734; and "Incorporating Substance Abuse Treatment into Welfare Reform Programs," the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, ID#s 034776 and 044772.
The Project on Devolution and Urban Change described here targets welfare reform in large cities, based on the assumption that the effects of welfare reform would be most evident in urban areas, where poverty and welfare receipt are concentrated and where unemployment tends to be higher than average. In addition, cities face unique challenges in managing and implementing new welfare programs, including greater numbers of long-term welfare recipients, more people of color and immigrants who often encounter discrimination in the workplace, and limited low-skill job opportunities in cities with stagnant economic growth. See Appendix 3 for a short profile of each county included in the study.
Manpower is a nonpartisan organization that designs and evaluates policies and programs to improve the self-sufficiency and well being of low-income people, and has worked in 40 states and over 400 communities.
The overall goal of the project is to understand how low-income families are affected by fundamental changes to the system that helps them meet basic financial, food and health needs. Specific objectives of the project were to examine and document the effect of welfare reform on:
The project focused on low-income neighborhoods in four urban areas the counties incorporating the cities of Cleveland (Cuyahoga County, Ohio), Los Angeles (Los Angeles County, Calif.), Miami (Miami/Dade County, Fla.), and Philadelphia (Philadelphia County, Pa.). These counties reflect different regions of the United States from the industrial Rust Belt to the Sun Belt and they provide different levels of welfare benefits. For example, in 1997 the maximum welfare grant for a family of three was $303 in Miami-Dade County, $341 in Cuyahoga County, $403 in Philadelphia County and $565 in Los Angeles County.
Eleven foundations and the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture provided $18 million in funding for the project as a whole (see Appendix 1). RWJF funds were targeted at assessing the effects of welfare reform on the health of current and former welfare recipients living in these four counties.
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation staff worked in collaboration with six university researchers under subcontracts (see Appendix 2). Researchers conducted five studies:
As of January 2003, these five studies have resulted in a total of 15 reports covering the effects of welfare reform on families, agencies and communities, and one additional report describing the research methodology for the project. Most of the reports blended insights gained from several of the studies. (See Appendix 4 for a matrix that lists all of the reports and the studies that informed each one.)
Appendix 5 presents a short description and key findings of all the major reports, and the Bibliography presents publication information regarding each report. The findings summarized below represent some of the major insights gained from the project.
Findings Regarding Families and Family Perceptions of Welfare Reform
Findings Regarding Welfare Agency Implementation of Welfare Reform
Findings Regarding Effects on Neighborhoods and Institutions The Cleveland Study. (From Welfare Reform in Cleveland: Implementation, Effects, and Experiences of Poor Families and Neighborhoods, September 2002.)
The research team communicated findings from each of the study components in 15 reports published by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation and a number of papers published elsewhere. Manpower disseminated some 6,500 reports by mail; visitors to Manpower's Web site have downloaded an additional 40,000 copies. Researchers have given more than 75 presentations to a wide range of policy audiences.
Project co-director Gordon Berlin used findings from the project in his March 2001 testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee at its first hearing on welfare reform reauthorization. During the first half of 2002, project staff gave a number of briefings to state and federal policy organizations and individuals working on welfare reform. See the Bibliography for details about communications activities.
The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation continues to analyze data from the studies undertaken for this project. A number of additional reports are forthcoming, including an in-depth analysis of the impact of welfare reform in Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Miami. In November 2002, Manpower requested funds from RWJF to extend the study of welfare reform another two years in order to understand the impact of time limits and the softening economy.
Study of the Effects of Welfare Reform on the Health of Urban Families
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (New York, NY)
University Research Subcontractors
Claudia Coulton, Professor
Case Western Reserve University
Designer, Neighborhood Indicators Study
Principal Investigator, Cleveland Study
Reviewer, neighborhood indicators work in Miami, Los Angeles and Philadelphia
Kathryn Edin, Professor
Designer, Ethnographic Study
Lead ethnographer for Philadelphia
Andrew London, Associate Professor
Ellen Scott, Assistant Professor
University of Oregon
Lead ethnographers in Cleveland
Alex Stepick, Professor
Florida International University
Lead ethnographer in Miami
Abel Valenzuela, Professor
University of California at Los Angeles
Lead ethnographer in Los Angeles
Demographic and Welfare-Related Characteristics of the Urban Change Sites
|Characteristic||Cuyahoga Cty.||Los Angeles Cty.||Miami-Dade Cty.||Philadelphia Cty.|
|% of state living in county, 1997||12.4||28.3||14.0||12.1|
|Ethnicity (%) 1990 Hispanic
Black non Hispanic
White non Hispanic
Other non Hispanic
|% foreign born 1990||5.6||32.7||45.1||6.6|
|% living in poverty 1993 estimates||18.1||23.8||25.4||26.5|
|Avg. monthly number of welfare cases 1997||38,049||294,502||39,454||73,586|
|% of welfare cases living in county 1997||21.7||35.0||25.3||42.7|
|Max. monthly TANF grant for 3 person household in county, 1997||$341||$565||$303||$403|
|Ranking of state's maximum TANF grant among all states 1997||32||6||36||22|
|Welfare reform administration||County||County||State/local coalition||State|
Reports and Studies
|Title of Report||Impact Study||Implem. Study||Ethno. Study||Instit. Study||Neighb. Study|
|Big Cities andWelfare Reform (4/99)||X||X|
|Food Security and Hunger in Poor, Mother Headed Families in 4 U.S. Cities (5/00)||X|
|Post-TANF Medicaid and Food Stamp Benefits: Factors That Aid or Impede Their Receipt (8/00)||X|
|Social Services and Welfare Reform (2/01)||X|
|Monitoring Outcomes for Cuyahoga County's Welfare Leavers (4/01)||X||X|
|The Health of Poor Urban Women: Findings from the Project on Devolution and Urban Change (5/01)||X||X|
|Is Work Enough? The Experiences of Current and Former Welfare Mothers Who Work (11/01)||X|
|Unstable Work, Unstable Income: Implications for Family Well Being in the Context of Welfare Reform (12/01)||X||X|
|My Children Come First: Welfare Reliant Women's Post-TANF Views (12/01)||X|
|Juggling Low Wage Work and Family Life: What Mothers Say About their Children in the Context of Welfare Reform (12/01)||X|
|Readying Welfare Recipients for Work: Lessons from Four Big Cities as They Implement Welfare Reform (3/02)||X|
|Welfare Reform in Cleveland (9/02)||X||X||X||X||X|
|Welfare Reform in Philadelphia (2003, forthcoming)||X||X||X||X||X|
|Assessing the Impact of Welfare Reform on Urban Communities: The Urban Change Project and Methodological Considerations (11/00)|
Methodology of and Key Findings from Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation Published Reports
This Appendix presents a short description of the research methodologies used for each of the 12 substantive reports and for the report describing methodological considerations, and a discussion of major findings from each report. Reports are presented in chronological order according to the date they were published except for the methodological report, which is presented at the end.
Big Cities and Welfare Reform: Early Implementation and Ethnographic Findings from the Project on Devolution and Urban Change was published in April 1999. This report is based on in-person interviews with welfare staff, surveys of 1,000 welfare staff and observations of client-worker interactions. It also draws from annual semi-structured interviews with from 120 to160 welfare recipients living in the four counties. Although the data for this report were collected soon after passage (within 10 to 20 months) of welfare reform legislation and the story has continued to unfold since that time, the four counties are still grappling with many of the issues and dilemmas identified in the early round of research.
Within the context of fundamental changes in welfare, administrators devoted considerable effort to ensuring that recipients heard the message that welfare is temporary and that they needed to find a job. Staff began requiring all recipients to prepare for work unless they were specifically exempt from this requirement (exemptions generally include incapacity, being required at home to care for a disabled family member, or receiving disability payments). All the sites adopted a work-first approach, usually requiring recipients to look for work (called "job search") before they could participate in other work preparation programs. As of 1999, other common work-first activities such as work experience or community service jobs had not been widely implemented. Cuyahoga and Miami-Dade Counties developed new institutional structures to help them implement new welfare programs.
In 1997, many details of the welfare changes remained unclear to welfare workers and recipients. In particular, staff did not communicate clearly to recipients that they should weigh the tradeoff between supplementing low earnings with welfare or conserving months of eligibility for another time when their need might for assistance might be greater. Similarly, staff did not clearly explain to recipients that they might remain eligible for Food Stamps, Medicaid and childcare if they left welfare for employment.
Food Security and Hunger in Poor, Mother-Headed Families in Four US Cities was published in May 2000. This report is based on first-round survey interviews of recipients and data from ethnographic interviews collected shortly after welfare reform was implemented in 1996. Researchers conducted in-person survey interviews with women who, in May 1995, had been single mothers aged 1845 who were receiving welfare and/or food stamp benefits and who were living in neighborhoods characterized by high rates of poverty or welfare receipt. The women to be interviewed were randomly selected from administrative records of 1995 food stamp and/or cash recipients who lived in census tracts where the poverty rate exceeded 30 percent or the rate of welfare receipt exceeded 20 percent. Of the 4,000 women selected for interviews, 3,960 were interviewed.
The interviews were completed between March 1998 and March 1999. They covered topics including the mothers' employment and income, household structure and living conditions, health and health care coverage for themselves and their children and their families' material hardship and hunger. For the purposes of this report, only women who had received cash welfare benefits at some point in their lives (95.2 percent of the overall sample) were included in the analyses.
The ethnographic study involves annual, in-depth, in-person interviews conducted over a three-year period (with contact with families between the annual interviews) with approximately 120 families. The sample of people to be interviewed was drawn from three high-poverty areas per site. The ethnographic interviews cover many of the topics covered in the survey interviews, but they yield richer, narrative data about how families are coping with new welfare rules and policies. The first round of ethnographic interviews was completed in late 1998, and for the purposes of this report, ethnographic data from interviews with 67 families in Cleveland and Philadelphia were analyzed.
Post-TANF Food Stamps and Medicaid Benefits: Factors That Aid or Impede Their Receipt was published in August 2000. Researchers drew from 67 interviews with agency line staff and their supervisors, 28 observations of worker-client meetings, and quantitative data from a 2000 survey of 608 line staff members at all sites except Los Angeles. Researchers also analyzed the contents of in-depth interviews with 50 welfare recipients in Cuyahoga County that were conducted as part of the project's ethnographic study.
Researchers offered recommendations to increase the likelihood that former cash recipients continue to receive Medicaid and food stamp benefits:
Social Services and Welfare Reform was published in February 2001. This report is based on interviews conducted between March 1998 and March 1999 with key personnel at 106 nonprofit and for-profit agencies, and with personnel from nonwelfare public agencies. These included staff from school and youth agencies, childcare agencies, health agencies, employment agencies and agencies that helped families with basic needs. Eighty percent of those interviewed were from nonprofit agencies and 20 percent were from for-profit agencies or nonwelfare public agencies.
Monitoring Outcomes for Cuyahoga County's Welfare Leavers: How Are They Faring? was published in April 2001. This report focused on the experiences of two groups of Cleveland families who left welfare: one group that was receiving welfare before welfare reform and left welfare at the time TANF took effect in 1996; and another group that was receiving benefits after TANF had been implemented and left welfare in the third quarter of 1998. Researchers used administrative records to track both groups for nine quarters: four quarters before they left, the quarter in which they left, and four quarters after they left.
The Health of Poor Urban Women: Findings from the Project on Devolution and Urban Change was published May 2001. This report describes the health and health care needs of current and former welfare recipients. It is based on analyses of 3,771 first-round survey interviews of recipients, and data from ethnographic data were collected from 171 women. Researchers conducted in-person survey interviews with women who, in May 1995, had been single mothers aged 1845 receiving welfare and/or food stamp benefits and who were living in neighborhoods characterized by high rates of poverty or welfare receipt. Through this process, 4,000 women were selected to be interviewed. The report compares the health of four groups of women: those who had left welfare and were working, those who were working and also receiving welfare, those who were receiving welfare and were not working, and those who were neither working nor receiving welfare.
Health status was determined based on responses to the Short Form 12 Health Survey, a 12 item scale used in numerous health studies. Scores from this survey place respondents into health categories of Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good or Excellent. Other measures of health were gathered based on women's reports of limitations in activities, and on reports of pain.
Women's health problems and those of their children likely constrain women's entry into the workforce and their ability to remain there. Additionally, health problems compromise women's ability to comply with participation requirements, which raises questions about current sanctioning policies. Given the health care needs identified in this study, an especially critical policy challenge is to develop mechanisms to ensure that women who leave welfare maintain health insurance.
Is Work Enough: Experiences of Current and Former Welfare Mothers Who Work was published in November 2001. This report focuses on 2,759 women who had worked at some point during the two years prior to the interview, which took place in 1999. Interviewers asked women about their experiences with work and welfare and about their family's well-being. The women to be interviewed were randomly selected from administrative records of 1995 food stamp and/or cash recipients who lived in high poverty neighborhoods. Through this process, 4,000 women were selected to be interviewed. This report also draws from in-depth ethnographic interviews conducted with 40 women in each city.
Unstable Work, Unstable Income: Implications for Family Well-Being in the Era of Time-Limited Welfare was published in December 2001. This report is based on in-depth ethnographic interviews with 75 welfare recipients living in six neighborhoods in Cleveland and Philadelphia. In each city, investigators selected three neighborhoods: two classified as having a "moderate" level of poverty concentration (3039 percent), one African American and one predominately white; and one African American neighborhood where poverty was highly concentrated (40 percent or more of residents were poor). Investigators recruited from 10 to 15 welfare recipients in each neighborhood, using a variety of methods such as referrals from grassroots community organizations or other study participants, flyers and "street" and door-to-door contacts. They screened potential participants to insure variability in age, number of children, educational attainment, work backgrounds and welfare histories. When first recruited, all respondents were receiving welfare benefits. Between 1997 and 2000, investigators conducted yearly in-depth interviews as well as interim interviews during the course of each year. This report uses the first two rounds of those interviews.
My Children Come First: Welfare-Reliant Women's Post-TANF Views of Work-Family Trade-Offs and Marriage was published in December 2001. This report is based on in-depth ethnographic interviews with about 80 female welfare recipients living in six neighborhoods in Cleveland and Philadelphia. In each city, investigators selected three neighborhoods: two classified as having a "moderate" level of poverty concentration (3039 percent), one African American and one predominately white; and one African American neighborhood where poverty was highly concentrated (40 percent or more of residents were poor). Investigators recruited from 10 to 15 welfare recipients in each neighborhood, using a variety of methods such as referrals from grassroots community organizations or other study participants, flyers and "street" and door-to-door contacts. They screened potential participants to insure variability in age, number of children, educational attainment, work backgrounds and welfare histories. When first recruited, all respondents were receiving welfare benefits. This report draws from baseline interviews that lasted from 3 to 8 hours (often conducted over several visits).
Data from the interviews were coded and analyzed to understand how mothers who received welfare think about the potential costs and benefits of moving from welfare to work or marrying, or the ways they think they will resolve trade-offs that the choices they face entail.
Juggling Low-Wage Work and Family Life: What Mothers Say About Their Children's Well-Being in the Context of Welfare Reform was published in December 2001. This report is a companion to My Children Come First and draws from the ethnographic interviews to provide greater detail about the work-family trade-offs welfare-reliant women face.
Readying Welfare Recipients for Work: Lessons from Four Big Cities as They Implement Welfare Reform was published in March 2002. This report draws on interviews and observations conducted at the county welfare offices between January 2000 and March 2001, a survey of welfare office staff that was administered in 19992000, and a review of documents and participation and expenditure data supplied by the counties and the states.
All four counties made important policy and operational changes directed at moving welfare recipients into the workforce. Three shifted from an emphasis on education and training to a "work first" approach (Los Angeles had already moved in this direction before welfare reform was enacted). All four also made substantial strides toward increasing the percentage of welfare recipients who were employed or participating in welfare-to-work activities. These changes did not always proceed smoothly. For example, state and local policy-makers clashed over program objectives, and case managers sometimes struggled to fulfill their increasingly complicated responsibilities.
Despite falling caseloads, spending on welfare-to-work programs increased dramatically in all of the counties. Supplementary funds for serving hard-to-employ recipients were available through the U.S. Department of Labor's Welfare-To-Work grant program, but only Philadelphia made extensive use of them. All of the counties continue to search for effective strategies for working with the hard-to-employ.
Welfare Reform in Cleveland: Implementation, Effects, and Experiences of Poor Families and Neighborhoods was published in September 2002. This report is based on field research, surveys and interviews of current and former welfare recipients, analyses of state and county welfare and employment records, and indicators of social and economic trends in Cleveland. Researchers draw from these sources to assess how TANF was implemented in Cleveland and its effects on families and neighborhoods. Ohio's TANF program, called Ohio Works First (OWF) features one of the country's shortest time limits (36 months) and has a strong emphasis on moving welfare recipients into employment. Because of the strong economy and ample funding for services that was available in the late 1990s, this report captures welfare reform in the best of times, while it also focuses on Cleveland's poorest families and neighborhoods.
Assessing the Impact of Welfare Reform on Urban Communities: The Urban Change Project and Methodological Considerations was published November 2000. This report describes how researchers analyzed administrative data from welfare and other agencies. The study uses a "multiple cohort" design to infer impacts of the new welfare policies on employment, earnings, and welfare receipt. In this design, a cohort, or group, of people receiving or at risk of receiving welfare will be followed over time, and their outcomes will be compared. If patterns of behavior for cohorts who pass through reform differ markedly from patterns for those who are subject to the defunct rules of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, this will be taken as evidence that welfare reform has had an impact. This report describes the multiple cohort design, investigates the power of the technique using data from a variety of sources and discusses analytical issues that remain to be addressed.
Using the universe of people who ever received Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children or TANF from 1992 through 2002, the individual impact study will assign individuals to cohorts of welfare recipients. By defining and following many of these cohorts over time, the non-experimental analysis offers many of the advantages of time-series analyses, particularly the ability to adjust for complicated pre-reform trends and the ability to determine how much variation from time to time is normal. By following cohorts of individuals, the analysis also offers many of the advantages of studies that compare several cross-sections over time, namely, the ability to adjust for demographic changes in the population and to correct for maturation.
Although the multiple cohort design is the best alternative for analyzing the impacts of devolution, it is not foolproof. For example, using data from Manpower's evaluation of Project Independence Florida's JOBS program a multiple cohort analysis produces estimates of the impacts on earnings and Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits that are off by more than $100 in some quarters, and impacts on employment rates and Aid to Families with Dependent Children receivership rates that are off by 3 to 4 percentage points in some quarters.
To probe further for bias, two other sources of data were used: individuals from an evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act and cohorts of new welfare recipients in Cleveland. Across Job Training Partnership Act cohorts, monthly earnings differ by as much as $40 per month, or $120 for a quarter of such months, while employment rates differ by as much as 5 percentage points per month. Across the Cleveland cohorts, variation in earnings is more than $400 in some quarters, while variation in employment and Aid to Families with Dependent Children receivership rates are nearly 15 percentage points in some quarters.
Together, these three sets of results imply that the natural variation over time might be as high as $400 per quarter; the natural variation in employment rates, as high as 15 percentage points; the natural variation in Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits, as high as $100; and the natural variation in Aid to Families with Dependent Children receivership rates, as high as 15 percentage points. Thus, if the Urban Change impact analysis finds lesser effects, one could not be sure that they resulted from devolution and not from random chance.
(Current as of date of this report; as provided by grantee organization; not verified by RWJF; items not available from RWJF.)
Childcare and Inequality: Rethinking Carework for Children and YouthLondon AS, Scott EK and Hunter V. "Health-Related Carework for Children in the Context of Welfare Reform." In Childcare and Inequality: Rethinking Carework for Children and Youth, F Cancian, D Kurz, A London, R Reviere and M Tuominen (eds.). New York: Routledge Press, 2002.
Scott EK, Edin K, London AS and Mazelis JM. "My Children Come First: Welfare-Reliant Women's Post-TANF Views of Work-Family Trade-Offs and Marriage." In For Better and For Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of Children and Families, GJ Duncan and PL Chase-Landsdale (eds.). New York: Russell Sage Press, 2002.
Scott EK, London AS and Meyers N. "Living With Violence: Women's Reliance on Abusive Men in their Transitions from Welfare to Work." In Families at Work: Expanding the Bound, N Gerstel, D Clawson and R Zussman (eds.). Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press. 2002.
Bowie SL, Stepick CD and Stepick A. "Voices from the Welfare Vortex: A Descriptive Profile of Urban, Low-Income African American Women on the Eve of Devolution." Race, Gender and Class, 7(4): 3659, 2000.
London AS, Scott EK, Edin K and Hunter V. "Juggling Low-Wage Work and Family Life: What Mothers Say About Their Children's Well-Being in the Context of Welfare Reform." Working Paper No. 6, 2001. To obtain a copy of this paper, contact Andrew S. London at (330) 672-3712.
Scott EK, Edin K, London AS and Kissane RJ. "Unstable Work, Unstable Income: Implications for Family Well-Being in the Era of Time-Limited Welfare." Working Paper No. 5, 2001. To obtain a copy of this paper, contact Ellen K. Scott at (541) 346-5075.
Scott EK, London AS and Edin K. "Looking to the Future: Welfare-Reliant Women Talk About Their Job Aspirations in the Context of Welfare Reform." Journal of Social Issues, 56(4): 727746, 2000.
Scott EK, London AS and Myers NA. "Dangerous Dependencies: Domestic Violence in the Context of Welfare Reform." Gender & Society, 16(6): 878897, 2002.
Brock T, Coulton C, London A, Polit D, Richburg-Hayes L, Scott E and Verma N. Welfare Reform in Cleveland: Implementation, Effects and Experiences of Poor Families and Neighborhoods. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, March 2002.
Brock T, Nelson L and Reiter M. Readying Welfare Recipients for Work: Lessons from Four Big Cities as They Implement Welfare Reform. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, March 2002.
Fink B and Widom R. Social Service Organizations and Welfare Reform. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, February 2001.
Michalopoulos C, Bos JM, Lalonde R and Verma N. Assessing the Impact of Welfare Reform on Urban Communities: The Urban Change Project and Methodological Considerations. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, November 2000.
Michalopoulos C, Fink B, Edin K, Richburg-Hayes L, Polyne J, Landriscina M, Seith D and Verma N. Welfare Reform in Philadelphia: Implementation, Effects, and Experiences of Poor Families and Neighborhoods. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2003. Available online.
Polit D, London A and Martinez J. Food Security and Hunger in Poor, Mother-Headed Families in Four U.S. Cities. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, May 2000.
Polit D, London A and Martinez J. The Health of Poor Urban Women: Findings from the Project on Devolution and Urban Change. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, May 2001.
Polit D, Widom R, Edin K, Bowie S, London A, Scott E and Valenzuela A. Is Work Enough? The Experiences of Current and Former Welfare Mothers Who Work. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December 2001.
Quint J, Edin K, Buck ML, Fink B, Padilla YC, Simmons-Hewitt O and Valmont ME. Big Cities and Welfare Reform. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, April 1999.
Quint J and Widom R. Post-TANF Food Stamp and Medicaid Benefits: Factors That Aid or Impede Their Receipt. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, January 2001.
Scott EK, Edin K, London AS and Joyce-Kissane R. Unstable Work, Unstable Income: Implications for Family Well-Being in the Era of Time-Limited Welfare. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December 2001.
Verma N and Coulton C. Monitoring Outcomes for Cuyahoga County's Welfare Leavers: How Are They Faring? Prepared for Cuyahoga Work and Training and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, April 2001.
Report prepared by: Kelsey Menehan
Reviewed by: Mary Nakashian
Reviewed by: Marian Bass
Program Officer: James R. Knickman
Executive Nurse Fellow Jerry Mansfield explains why the University Hospital and the Richard M. Ross Heart Hospital do not have a BSN-only hi...
We create new opportunities for better health by investing in health where it starts—in our homes, schools, and jobs.
The What's Next Health series features leading thinkers and visionaries. Stanford social scientist & innovator BJ Fogg discusses his model f...
RWJF Nurse Faculty Scholar Jennifer Bellot writes about losing her grandmother to complications from a medical error.
Developing small community homes as alternatives to nursing homes, this radical, new national model for skilled nursing care returns control...
Helping us understand what’s driving high health care costs is why we need more transparency in the prices, costs and quality of health care...
Patrick M. Krueger recently co-authored a study that examines the characteristics and mortality risks of nondrinker subgroups to explain why...
America is not getting good value for its health care dollar. These resources explore issues of cost and value of health care.
A new study finds healthier school meals standards could mean lower obesity rates among lower-income children. Read a Q&A with the author.
Judith Halstead, president of the National League for Nursing, writes about the role of nursing education in realizing a transformed health ...
When companies invest in employee wellness, it’s good for health, productivity ... and the bottom line.
RWJF established the Future of Public Health Nursing initiative to identify and implement strategies to increase the skills and ability of p...