Aid To Families With Dependent Children Recipients Research Articles

Welfare Crises, Penal Solutions, and the Origins of the “Welfare Queen”

This article contributes to the scholarship on mass incarceration by highlighting the ways penal expansion intervened in the history of other state institutions. It argues that the increasing criminalization of welfare fraud was instrumental in undermining political support for key social welfare programs, particularly Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In the 1970s, lawmakers and welfare administrators enlisted law enforcement’s expanding authority to contain growing welfare costs and counter demands from the welfare rights movement. It was from these anti-welfare fraud campaigns that the racialized caricature of the “welfare queen” entered the political lexicon. Recruiting the criminal justice system further stigmatized AFDC recipients by positioning them as criminally suspect, financially secure, and morally unworthy. I argue that while increased penalties for welfare fraud did not swell the penal system to the same extent as initiatives like the War on Drugs, they shaped popular knowledge about poor families and undermined faith in the state’s capacity to mitigate inequality.

Nixon's New Deal: Welfare Reform for the Silent Majority

Utilizing recently opened politically sensitive materials at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, this article shows how welfare reform became increasingly important to the Nixon administration's political ambitions for a new conservative majority, consisting of southern white conservatives and northern working‐ and middle‐class white voters. Welfare reform rose to the top of the president's domestic policy agenda for a number of reasons, but the president selected the Family Assistance Plan (FAP) over more conservative alternatives in keeping with his political aims: the FAP would redistribute federal welfare to the white working poor in northern metropolitan areas, while simultaneously increasing federal welfare spending in southern states. As the 1970 midterm elections approached, however, the predominant political focus for the FAP became the effort to appeal to blue‐collar, northern white‐ethnic voters. In the aftermath of the disappointing results from those elections, President Nixon and his political team became convinced that a New Deal–style redistributive strategy was ineffective in appealing to conservative voters in the “silent majority,” especially southern conservatives who were opposed to any expansion of federal welfare, even when they would benefit directly. Instead, Nixon began to emphasize the FAP's value as a platform for launching strong rhetorical attacks on welfare. While the president subsequently pulled back from pushing for FAP's legislative enactment, offering an important explanation for the measure's failure, his antiwelfare rhetoric was politically successful, providing subsequent national conservative leaders with a political formula for utilizing antiwelfare rhetoric to build support among white working‐ and middle‐class voters.

After the Revolution: Welfare Patterns since TANF Implementation

Welfare programs changed dramatically in 1996. Caseloads dropped by more than 9 million recipients over an eight-year period, and millions entered the labor market in the wake of these changes. Since the start of the revolution, research has emerged to document the ways former welfare recipients are using federal entitlement programs as they navigate and negotiate the post-AFDC era. In this article, the authors examine patterns of participation in TANF, the Food Stamp program, and Medicaid in Wisconsin. Very distinct patterns of participation emerged among the three programs: a single short period of receipt was common for TANF cycling was typical for food stamps, and a long spell was the standard for Medicaid. The authors also explored multiple program participation over a three-year period. Analysis revealed interactions and transitions not normally considered in this line of research. One key finding was the high number of transitions on and off benefits during these three years when the three programs were considered simultaneously. Policy implications are discussed. KEY WORDS: poverty; single mothers; social policy; TANF; welfare ********** In the 1990s the main cash welfare program for single-parent families, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), faced widespread criticism. An oft-cited concern was that the structure of welfare meant that working did not pay. Because most AFDC recipients would have received a fairly low wage had they entered the labor market, and because they would have been ineligible for some ancillary benefits had they worked, the total package of support provided to many women on welfare was often higher than the income they might have earned in the labor market. Those receiving AFDC typically also received Medicaid, food stamps, and benefits through other programs. These incentives may have encouraged women to turn to welfare and use it long term. Working without these additional benefits might have fostered greater poverty among women and children. There were several policy responses as AFDC increasingly came under attack in the political campaigns of the mid-1990s. Some policy changes were designed to move women off welfare altogether. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) eliminated AFDC, replacing it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF instituted time limits for receiving federal cash assistance and required most participants to work. Other policy changes in the late 1990s were designed to increase income when women were in the labor market. For example, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was increased substantially, providing considerable benefits, but only to those with earnings. Funding for child care assistance was also increased. Moreover, some of the support programs were decoupled from AFDC, so that families could receive Medicaid (and later the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP) even when not receiving cash assistance. In addition, in the rollout of TANF states were allowed to design and implement policies and programs, and they responded with a wide array of innovations. Many of these programs were designed to move families off cash assistance and into work quickly but to provide them with other supports such as child care subsidies, access to health insurance, and transportation services. Have these policy changes affected welfare use? We know that there were dramatic declines in the AFDC/TANF caseloads throughout the 1990s, from 14.4 million individuals in March 1994 to 5.0 million in September 2002. We know relatively little, however, about the dynamics and correlates of program participation in the new world of welfare. Perhaps more important, in light of the interest in the interactive effects of multiple programs, we know even less about how families may use several programs simultaneously, even when they are not receiving cash. …

Rethinking Women, Work, and Welfare in Postwar America: The Liberal Origins of Contemporary Welfare Reform

According to a host of politicians, policymakers, and pundits, reformers finally got it right in 1996. With the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), Congress replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a capped block grant (Temporary Aid to Needy Families, or TANF), imposed two-year consecutive and fiveyear lifetime limits on receipt, and significantly expanded welfare-towork requirements. Commentators hailed the reform as a break the past, a revolution that promised to replace a permissive system that rewarded indolence with a work-based program that would promote wage labor and personal responsibility. New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani summed up prevailing opinion when he praised lawmakers for abandoning a perverted social philosophy under which from 1960 to 1994 the ethic was under attack and reawaken[ing] the respect for work (p. 171). Historical scholarship closely parallels Giuliani's understanding of history (though not his celebratory attitude toward AFDC's demise). In most narratives, aid to single-mother families remained largely uncontroversial its inception in the Progressive Era through the 1960s. But in the 1960s, federal antipoverty programs and civil rights/welfare rights activism pushed AFDC rolls upward, prompting journalists to declare a welfare crisis. Fueled by rising and increasingly regressive taxes and a broader backlash against African American demands, anti-welfarism became a significant political force. In response, conservative politicians invented workfare, a way to cut government spending, reward low-wage employers, and inculcate a ethic into poor, mostly minority Americans suffering a culture of poverty. The drive to push AFDC recipients into the labor market resonated with a public-particularly workingand middle-class whites-

A Longitudinal Analysis of the Welfare-Homicide Relationship

Drawingon the social altruism and social threat hypotheses, the present investigation challenges prior macro-level studies that assume that there is a nonrecursive relationship between welfare transfers and the aggregate level of homicide. The bivariate autoregressive integrated moving average analyses of the number of individuals receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits and total and disaggregated counts of homicide reveal no evidence of simultaneity bias. However, as predicted by social altruism theory, the results support the conclusion that prior research is probably tainted by offense aggregation bias. That is, the number of AFDC recipients is, as predicted, negatively associated with the level of familial homicides but is not associated with either the level of nonfamily, felony-related, nonfelony-related, or total homicides. The implications of these findings for the welfare-crime relationship are discussed.

Employment Outcomes among AFDC Recipients Treated for Substance Abuse in Washington State

In 1996, Congress passed sweeping welfare reform, abolishing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Each state now administers its own welfare-to-work program under broad federal guidelines, which require eligible adult recipients to work or perform community service. High-risk welfare recipients, especially those with chemical dependency problems, face significant obstacles in their efforts to achieve greater self-sufficiency under the new welfare-to-work programs. State databases were used to track employment outcomes for AFDC clients admitted to treatment for chemical dependency in Washington State during a two-year period. Exposure to treatment was associated with a greater likelihood of becoming employed and with increased earnings for those who became employed. Ensuring that welfare recipients with substance abuse problems have access to appropriate treatment and vocational services is critical if welfare-to-work programs are to promote greater economic self-sufficiency.

Domestic Violence Among AFDC Recipients: Implications for Welfare-to-Work Programs

This article reports on a 1996 prevalence study of domestic violence and other partne and family-related problems among 404 female aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) recipients in the Kansas City, Missouri, metropolitan area. Almost one third of the women had been abused sometime in their lives, and 10% had been abused in the past year. The women stated that abuse or lack of support reduced their ability to work, but not as often as did lack of child care and transportation. Thus, domestic violence may affect women's success in finding and keeping jobs.

Substance abuse and the course of welfare dependency.

New provisions in welfare reform target recipients with addictions, even though there is limited research on how substance abuse affects people's experiences on welfare. This prospective study examined substance abuse as a determinant of subsequent welfare dependency. Representative samples of clients on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and general assistance in a California county were interviewed while applying for services in 1989 and were reinterviewed in 1995. Among AFDC recipients, substance abuse was not a significant determinant of long welfare stays, repeat welfare use, or the total time a person remained on welfare during the 6-year period. However, substance abuse was a strong predictor of repeat welfare use among general assistance recipients. Alcohol and drug problems have played dramatically different roles in welfare dependency within the AFDC and general assistance populations. Under welfare reform, local general assistance programs will be the final safety net for recipients removed from federal entitlement programs. These programs will probably be confronted with clients with more complex disabilities related to addiction, as well as with greater family needs for cash assistance.

A longitudinal perspective on entitlement income among homeless adults.

Sources of entitlement income were examined in a sample of homeless adults to determine whether certain subgroups more consistently obtain entitlement income and are more likely to continue receiving it over time. From a baseline sample of 564 homeless residents of Alameda County, California, 397 were interviewed at both five- and 15-month follow-ups. Information was obtained on income received from public sources in the 30 days before each interview, including general assistance, Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Security Income, or Social Security Disability Insurance. Data were also obtained on psychiatric diagnosis, race, marital status, education, duration of homelessness in adulthood, household status, and reported disability. At baseline fewer than half of the respondents were receiving any entitlement income. The benefits of almost half of the AFDC and general assistance recipients were terminated during the 15-month period. Respondents who continued receiving entitlement income over the 15-month period were more likely to be black, to be women alone or with children, to have a family history of receiving welfare, and to report a disability. Respondents with dual disorders were six times more likely than others to have their benefits terminated. Entitlement income is tenuous for many homeless adults, particularly those with dual diagnoses.

Welfare Reform: Discussion

Welfare has been a controversial policy issue for several decades. Consequently, it is not surprising that welfare reform has been difficult to achieve. Schiller (p. 228) refers to it as eternal quest of social policy. Proposals introduced in the 1970s, namely the Family Assistance Plan and the Program for Better Jobs and Income, were not adopted by Congress. A decade later, reached agreement on welfare reform, and the Family Support Act of 1988 was signed into law. It was heralded as a fundamental rethinking of the welfare (Barnhart, p. 13). This act emphasized self-sufficiency through employment, improved the system for establishing and collecting child support payments, provided supportive services (e.g., child care, transportation) for persons participating in programs to improve their human capital, and provided transitional benefits (i.e., child care, Medicaid) for persons exiting the program due to employment. A centerpiece of the 1988 act was the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program, which was based on welfare-to-work experiments in various states. Following enactment of the Family Support Act, Gramlich observed, Perhaps the country is at long last on the road to developing a transfer system that will become popular with taxpayers and beneficiaries alike (pp. 195, 196). Yet, much dissatisfaction remained regarding the welfare system. McFate indicated that educational programs and supportive services for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients were more expensive than originally anticipated. According to Schiller, funding limitations hampered the effectiveness of the 1988 act. He argues that Congress appropriated relatively little money for the [JOBS] program and many services were dependent on cost-sharing by the states. When the economy slipped into the 1990-91 recession, the states could not afford their share of program costs (p. 234). Moreover, many rural counties did not offer the JOBS program' because of local labor market conditions and the relatively small number of AFDC recipients (Whitener). These factors run counter to Barnhart's insights regarding steps necessary to achieve reform of the welfare system. She contends, We will change the character of the welfare system only if we involve AFDC recipients in activities that reduce dependence, ranging from job search to intensive education, thereby making the need for cash assistance temporary (p. 13). McFate was prophetic in assessing welfare refor beyond the 1988 act. She stated, If politicians and the general public come to believe that inability to move into the labor force stems from a lack of motivation on the part of the poor themselves, rather than from the limited opportunities available to them, the stage could be set for a more punitive approach in the next round of welfare reforms (p. 7).

Welfare reform: Unanticipated but inevitable consequences for health insurance coverage for the poor

Whether by design or by unintended consequence, the new welfare reform law will have a major impact on the nature and extent of Medicaid coverage for children, women, disabled persons, and the elderly. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 was signed into law on August 22, 1996. This column explores the linkage between welfare and Medicaid and the inevitable consequences for Medicaid of changing the structure and operation of the underlying welfare programs on which it rests. The new welfare law ends the 61-y federal guarantee of cash assistance for children in poor families and cuts $54 billion from social welfare programs, including child nutrition and food stamps, for other poor and near-poor families. The new welfare reform law also scales back public benefits to noncitizens. While these welfare reforms were intended by the drafters of the legislation, changes brought about by the law may go well beyond those that have been anticipated. These unanticipated effects result from the complex relationship between Medicaid and welfare. Medicaid is the major source of public financing for health insurance and long-term care for low-income persons. In 1994, 34.2 million persons (1 in 10 Americans) were covered by Medicaid. Historically, Medicaid was designed to pay for the health care of recipients of federal cash assistance. To a large extent this continues to be true today. In 1993,60% of the individuals who received Medicaid also received cash assistance. Poor families with children have received income support through a meanstested entitlement, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The new law replaces AFDC with a cash welfare block grant, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) . In 1993, AFDC provided cash assistance to nearly 5 million families, including 9.8 million children. Previously, families who received AFDC were automatically eligible for Medicaid. Because the new TANF block grant eliminates the entitlement to assistance for any parent or child, the new law could have resulted in a significant loss of Medicaid coverage among former AFDC recipients. To prevent this result, the new law contains specific provisions requiring states to provide Medicaid to any individual who meets the state’s July 16, 1996, AFDC eligibility rules. While it may appear that the new welfare reform law makes few changes to the Medicaid program, we anticipate that the new welfare law will have major direct and indirect effects on Medicaid eligibility and enrollment for perhaps millions of women, children, disabled persons, and the elderly. There are three core aspects to Medicaid’s relationship with welfare, each of which is essential in assessing the effects of the new welfare reform law on the Medicaid program: eligibility, operations, and administration. Traditionally,

The Medicaid managed care policy consensus for welfare recipients: a reflection of traditional welfare concerns.

An Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)-Medicaid managed care policy consensus has emerged in the American states. Although there are two main organizational forms--primary care case management and risk-based capitation models--states are converging on the risk-based approach for their AFDC recipients. Risk-based Medicaid managed care for AFDC recipients assumes a distinct purpose and meaning. The reform is not just about cost control and improving access but about enduring welfare concerns: deservingness, need, and empowerment. Despite recent federal policies that have essentially severed the eligibility link between AFDC and Medicaid, state policy elites still conceive of poor families on Medicaid as a "welfare" group. Assumptions about the need for behavior modification and the need to integrate this group into "mainstream" America shape perceptions about why Medicaid managed care is appropriate for AFDC-Medicaid recipients.

Welfare Stigma among Low-Income, African American Single Mothers

This article conceptualizes the stigmatization process that is associated with the use of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs. A symbolic interactionist perspective that delineates the dynamics of stigma is used to frame the experiences of impoverished African American women who participate in such programs. Findings from a series of qualitative focus group interviews are used to assess current discussions of stigma and to inform efforts to reduce stigma. Past research documents that social stigma is associated with the use of public assistance programs (Rank, 1994). Participation in such programs is sometimes used as evidence that recipients hold deviant work orientations and that they should be labeled with a discredited status (Nichols-Casebolt, 1986). In recent years, relative to other public assistance programs, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) has been the most stigmatized of all (Block, Cloward, Ehrenreich, & Piven, 1987). At its inception, the AFDC program primarily served widows and their children. However, over the past three decades, it has shifted from a focus on divorced and separated women and their children to include never-married, African American women and their children (Quadagno, 1994). The inclusion of unmarried women has paralleled the view that AFDC increasingly serves the undeserving poor (Katz, 1989; Kelso, 1994; Mead, 1986; Murray, 1984). Quantitative and qualitative studies provide important insights into the relationship between social stigma and public assistance programs, including AFDC. Quantitative studies have identified key correlates of stigma and their relationship to economic, social, and psychologi cal outcomes (Horan & Austin, 1974; Kerbo, 1972; Lowenberg, 1981; Murray, 1984; Nichols-Casebolt, 1986). Qualitative research has described how AFDC recipients manage imputed stigma in their daily lives (Jeffers, 1967; Rank, 1994; Rogers-Dillon, 1995; Rosier & Corsaro, 1993; Stack, 1974; Valentine, 1978). These bodies of research address important substantive issues in the study of social stigma and public assistance programs, yet the correlational and descriptive nature of their analyses obscure more general dynamics. In light of the increasing denigration of impoverished African American women who use AFDC programs, a broader understanding of the stigmatization process is needed. The primary goal of this study is to conceptualize the stigmatization process that is associated with the use of AFDC programs. Expanding upon existing studies that are largely correlational and descriptive in nature, this article uses a symbolic interactionist perspective to frame the experiences of African American women who use such programs. Four research questions guided this study: 1. How do women perceive social stigma as it relates to their status as AFDC recipients? 2. What have been women's experiences of discriminatory treatment as AFDC recipients? 3. What strategies do women use to manage stigmatized perceptions and treatment? 4. How do women's perceptions and experiences as AFDC recipients affect their attitudes toward government reform efforts? I address several points in the discussion. First, I review qualitative and quantitative studies on stigma and public assistance programs. Second, I discuss how a symbolic interactionist perspective addresses the limitations of existing studies. Third, I describe the sample and research methods. Focus group interviewing procedures are discussed as they were conducted with a sample of African American single mothers who received AFDC. Next, I present findings from the qualitative group interviews using verbatim quotes that highlight women's perceptions and experiences of welfare stigma, as well as resulting coping strategies. I then discuss the implications of the research findings and consider how they inform current theoretical discussions of stigma and efforts to reduce stigma. …

Programs and Policies for Working Poor Families: Major Trends and Some Research Issues

Major welfare reform proposals focus on moving recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) from economic dependency to self-sufficiency through employment. Success in reaching this goal depends on whether recipients can secure adequately paying, permanent employment. This seems unlikely for many in that, even if they find jobs, they may well join the ranks of the working poor. This article provides a critical overview of studies concerning the working poor and recent federal legislation that seeks to reduce their problems. Further legislation, research, and careful consideration of welfare reform self-sufficiency goals for AFDC recipients are proposed.

Implementing JOBS: From the Rose Garden to Reality

On October 13, 1988, President Reagan signed the Family Support Act (P.L. 100-485) into law at a ceremony in the White House rose garden. his remarks, the president portrayed the act as bringing a message of hope to parents who are poor - that there is an alternative to life on welfare. Like many others, the president viewed the act as landmark legislation that would bring about a major redirection of the welfare system (Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 1988). The act was also viewed as constituting a new social contract between government and welfare recipients. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) (1990), a chief architect of the legislation, noted, In the act, Congress laid down a set of mutual obligations. Society owed single mothers support while they acquired the means of self-sufficiency; mothers owed the society the effort to become self-sufficient (p. C1). To foster the economic self-sufficiency of welfare recipients, the act authorized increased child support enforcement and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, a welfare employment program that provides education, training, and employment services. Although accompanied by high expectations, the act was not a radical departure from previous Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) legislation; rather, it consolidated and extended earlier legislation that provided child support enforcement and authorized state welfare-to-work initiatives for AFDC mothers. These initiatives were first introduced under the Work Incentive program in 1967 and were altered significantly under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35). New under the Family Support Act of 1988 was a recognition that all parents, regardless of income, have an obligation to financially support their children. For AFDC mothers, the legislation sent a message that even mothers with preschool children are expected to work if child care is available. Subject to the availability of state resources for the JOBS program, all AFDC recipients are required to participate if child care is available unless they are exempt (because of illness, incapacity, or other specific reason) or the JOBS program is not available in their political subdivision. a significant departure from previous legislation, mothers with children age three or older (or age one or older at state option) are required to participate in the JOBS program if child care is available. Mothers younger than 20 who have not completed high school or its equivalent are required to participate in educational activities regardless of their children's ages. addition to requiring that all states operate Unemployed Parent Program of AFDC, the legislation also introduced targeted services to those at high risk for long-term welfare dependency, provided federal funds for educational services in welfare employment programs, and provided health care and child care benefits during the transition from welfare to work. States must also meet overall participation rates in their JOBS programs; 7 percent of nonexempt clients were required to participate in 1990 and 1991, and 20 percent must participate by 1995. (For further analysis of the Family Support Act of 1988, see Abramovitz, 1988; Chilman, 1992; Gueron, 1987; [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] Gueron & Pauly, 1991; Hagen, 1992; Miller, 1989; Nichols-Casebolt & McClure, 1989; Stoesz & Karger, 1990). Although built on prior legislation as well as state experience in operating welfare employment programs, the JOBS legislation and associated child care provisions have presented a new series of opportunities and challenges to state and local governments as they implement the program. Recognizing the importance of the implementation process, we conducted a three-year, 10-state (Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas) study of JOBS implementation. …

An evaluation of a gerontological training program for nursing assistants.

A gerontological training program for nursing assistants has been developed by the New England Gerontology Academy to (1) improve the quality of care delivered to the institutionalized elderly, and (2) provide training and assistance on a gerontology career ladder to displaced homemakers, AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) recipients, unemployed immigrants, and other disadvantaged groups. The program successfully produced a cadre of committed paraprofessionals but was not suited for those whose removal from the labor market had been long-term.

The Family Support Act: Reinventing the Wheel?

On October 13, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Family Support Act, which established the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS). The act requires that states provide education, training, and employment activities for employable individuals who have children over three years of age and who are receiving benefits from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The activities may include participation in basic or remedial education, high school education, instruction in English as a second language, job readiness preparation, vocational education, on-the-job training, job search assistance, work experience, or postsecondary education. Additional supports include child care for participants' dependents and, for those who find work, Medicaid coverage and transitional child care for 12 months after employment. The goal of JOBS is to enable these individuals to improve their employment opportunities and to become self-sufficient. This new initiative may be less than revolutionary. Neustadt and May (1986) stressed that the historical relevance of past programs should be evaluated by policymakers and legislators when planning new programs, because comparing past with present strategies provides an opportunity to learn from previous successes and failures and therefore to develop realistic plans. Aspects of JOBS are similar to some components of the Work Incentive Program (WIN), which preceded it. WIN applied to employable AFDC recipients who had children over the age of six and included training, education, and work experience activities. A study completed by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO, 1973) indicated that limited employment opportunities and unwieldy caseloads hampered the effectiveness of WIN. A more recent GAO study (1988) reinforced the finding that state welfare department caseworkers had large caseloads, allowing them insufficient time to serve their clients. Although WIN emphasized the need for training and education to promote self-sufficiency, the emphasis changed when it became clear that recipients were not obtaining jobs in sufficient numbers and that the welfare rolls had not diminished (Goodwin, 1989). As a result, priority was given to placement in jobs rather than to education or training programs (Glantz & Byrne, 1981). However, less than 2 percent of the total AFDC population became employed through WIN because the program failed to tailor its activities to existing labor market conditions (Schiller, 1973). Most of the jobs found were temporary ones, requiring minimal skills and paying only slightly more than the minimum wage (Garvin, Smith, & Reid, 1978; Sulvetta, 1978). Because of the experiences of WIN, it is apparent that caseload size, placement in educational and training activities, and the type of job a participant obtains are important considerations when evaluating JOBS. This article presents findings from an exploratory study of JOBS, examines and analyzes information received in response to a survey of state JOBS programs, and discusses whether JOBS shares the same problems faced by WIN. Methodology The survey sought the following information: * average caseload size for caseworkers actively involved in education, training, and employment activities for JOBS * types of activities (training, education, and employment) available for JOBS participants * percentage of JOBS participants who obtained employment * average earned hourly income of JOBS participants who obtained employment * occupational areas in which employment was found for JOBS participants. In March 1991, the survey and a descriptive cover letter were sent to directors of JOBS programs in all 50 states. Names and addresses were obtained from the Annual Directory of the American Public Welfare Association (Weinstein, 1991). Forty states responded (80 percent response rate). …

Coordination and Welfare Reform: The Quest for the Philosopher's Stone

In ancient times alchemists believed implicitly in the existence of a tone, which would provide the key to the universe and, in effect, solve all of the problem of mankind. The quest for coordination is in many respects the twentieth-century equivalent of the medieval search for the stone. If only we can find the right formula for coordination, we can reconcile the irreconcilable, harmonize competing and wholly divergent interests, overcome irrationalities in our government structures, and make hard policy choices to which no one will dissent. In an attempt to reform Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the major intergovernmental program providing public assistance to the poor in the United States, Congress approved the Family Support Act (FSA) in 1988 (PL. 100-485). This act included the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program, which established a new set of employment and training services targeted at AFDC recipients.(1) JOBS, which became operational in October 1990, has been initiated in a complex organizational and policy environment composed of pre-existing programs that are open to the same target group. The involvement of multiple state, local, and other organizations is characteristic of this new program, as it was of some of the pre-existing programs. In recognition of the multiple possible linkages, the Family Support Act imposes several requirements intended to foster the coordination of services delivered by the different agencies and organizations to JOBS participants. The multiagency, multiprogram framework and the welfare reform legislation mandates for coordination raise questions about how effectively the JOBS program can be administered. Although state welfare departments are designated as the lead agencies, cooperation of other public agencies is required. Activities of the state agencies need to be linked to not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. Success of the welfare reform effort might well turn on the degree to which the diverse organizations and programs integrate their efforts. That coordination was already a problem in the social service arena can hardly be questioned. The categorized, fragmented nature of the welfare system has seriously constrained effective delivery of human services, as several national commissions noted in 1991 (National Commission for Employment Policy, 1991; National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality, 1991; National Commission on Children, 1991). We know, however, that coordination is hard to achieve. Seidman (1970) has called coordination the philosopher's stone' of public administration, suggesting that it is an illusive, magical ingredient that will transform flawed systems of administration. Agranoff's (1991) recent review of service integration efforts of the past 20 years indicates that coordination continues to be extraordinarily difficult to attain in the mosaic of American social services. Thus we ask: What practices have managers used to blend together the essential ingredients of the JOBS program? Have the wizards of the social service organizations overcome their specialized concerns and been able to amalgamate the diverse elements into a functioning system? What barriers to coordination fell to their magic or resisted their alchemy? The answers to these questions will tell us something about the potential for the long-term success of JOBS and similar programs. They will also tell us about factors that shape the success of intergovernmental program implementation and interorganizational policy activity. The Barriers to Coordination Previous research suggests that coordination barriers are of several types: organizational, legal/technical, and political. Organizational barriers are rooted in the differing missions, professional orientations, structures, and processes of the agencies. Mission defines an organization's purposes, and differences in mission can lead to conflicts over goals, directions, and activities. …

Prevalence of alcoholism and drug abuse among female AFDC recipients.

Researchers have identified barriers to self-sufficiency of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (Ballou, 1977; Chrissinger, 1980; Sanger, 1979; Zuravin & Greif, 1989) and welfare programs (Ballou, 1977; Glass, 1982; Miller, 1989). However, no study has investigated the scope of substance abuse among the female AFDC population to determine an association between substance abuse and the achievement and maintenance of independence from public assistance. The study described in this article investigated the prevalence of alcoholism and drug abuse among female AFDC recipients. PREVIOUS RESEARCH Three studies examined alcohol and drug use in populations that included AFDC recipients. Zuravin and Greif (1989) found significantly higher binge drinking (of two days or more) and hard drug use among AFDC recipients with contact with child protective services (CPS) compared to mothers without CPS contact. Using toxicologic screening, Chasnoff, Landress, and Barrett (1990) found that 16.3 percent of pregnant women who used public clinics compared to 13.1 percent of pregnant women who used private clinics tested positively for alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, or opiate use or some combination. A comparison of alcohol and drug dependence of male and female recipients of General Public Assistance (GPA) and AFDC found that 16 percent of male recipients and 5 percent of female recipients were alcohol dependent and that 32 percent of males and 13 percent of females were drug dependent (Schmidt, 1992). METHOD The study employed a cross-sectional survey design with a nonprobability convenience sample to measure the prevalence of alcoholism and drug abuse in female AFDC recipients enrolled in Project Independence, a welfare-to-work program in Montgomery County, Maryland. A 50-item Health Habit Questionnaire was administered to all literate English-speaking AFDC recipients who enrolled in Project Independence from January 29, 1990, through May 4, 1990. Two highly reliable and valid standardized instruments, the 13-item Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST) (Selzer, Vinokur, & van Rooijen, 1975) and the 20-item Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) (Skinner, 1982), were embedded in questions on smoking, weight, mental health status, and physician and hospital use. RESULTS Sample Of the 206 female subjects, 68 percent were African American; 78 percent were single. The mean age of the sample was 30.1 years (SD = 7.26). The mean grade achievement of subjects was 11.4 (SD = 1.44); 63.4 percent of the sample were high school graduates. The mean number of children per subject was 1.9 (SD = 1.07); 42.2 percent of the sample had one child, and 36.4 percent had two children. The sample included 58.7 percent long-term recipients (36 of the last 60 months on AFDC), and 22.8 percent were potential long-term recipients (teenage parents without a high school diploma). Mandatory Project Independence participants formed 66.5 percent of the sample. Instruments Prevalence of substance abuse in the sample was estimated based on two operationalizations of SMAST and DAST scores. SMAST scores indicated that 11.4 percent were identified as alcoholics and 14.7 percent as possible alcoholics (possible alcoholics had experienced an alcohol-related social problem such as work sanction, an arrest for drunk driving, relationship problems, neglect of family responsibilities, and hospitalization or counseling because of drinking). DAST scores indicated that 9.4 percent of the sample were identified as drug abusers and 16.7 percent as drug users (drug users had used illicit drugs or had experienced a drug-related social problem such as work sanction, an arrest for illegal activities, a physical fight, relationship or family problems, medical illness, or withdrawal symptoms). Table 1. SMAST and DAST Scores Diagnosis Frequency % SMAST (N = 184) Not alcoholic 136 73. …

Does Subsidized Child-Care Availability Promote Welfare Independence of Mothers on AFDC

This article examines the degree to which the expanded availability of publicly subsidized child care in local communities may promote, through employment, the welfare independence of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with preschool-aged children. An experimental group of 300 AFDC recipients with preschool children were offered, by mail, relatively immediate, guaranteed, subsidized child care for all their children under 12 should the casehead secure full-time, unsubsidized employment. A control group of 302 was not made such an offer; members of this group were subject to the normal conditions for obtaining sub sidized, employment-contingent child care. Both aggregate AFDC, Medicaid, and Food Stamp Program expenditures and AFDC participation were subsequently tracked for all participants over a 12-month time frame. The results suggested that the special child care offer had no statistically significant effects either an reducing aggregate welfare expenditures or in promoting client independencefrom the welfare system. Implications for practice andfurther research are suggested.