Difficulties after leaving TANF: inner-city women talk about reasons for returning to welfare.
Anderson, Steven G. ; Halter, Anthony P. ; Gryzlak, Brian M. 等
As state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs
have implemented five-year time limits and other restrictions on welfare
use, the importance of fostering sustainable welfare exits has grown.
This task is most daunting in large inner cities, in which the
debilitating effects of concentrated poverty often militate against economic mobility (Jargowsky, 1997; Wilson, 1996). Although most states
have initiated program evaluations to ascertain basic outcomes for
people who leave TANF, less is known about the experiences of inner-city
leavers in post-TANF welfare environments. Also, research has not
focused on the reasons why one-fifth to one-third of TANF leavers return
to welfare within one year (Acs & Loprest, 2001; Loprest, 1999).
Based on focus groups conducted in five high-poverty neighborhoods
in Chicago, this article explores the problems faced and strengths used
by women who are poor as they attempted to achieve self-sufficiency
after leaving TANF. Because our sample included primarily women who left
but then returned to TANF, study findings provide unique perspectives on
why TANF exits often fail in poor inner-city areas. Such unsuccessful
results often have been overlooked, because early studies have focused
on average outcomes (Moffitt & Roff, 2000). Study participants'
observations about their experiences with public bureaucracies also
provide valuable information about how program implementation issues can
powerfully affect success after leaving TANF.
Early TANF Results, Welfare Exits, and Inner-City Poverty
Welfare caseloads have declined dramatically since the 1996
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA) (P.L. 104-193) established TANF programs. Early state studies
have found that about 50 percent to 70 percent of TANF leavers are
employed immediately after exiting (Acs & Loprest, 2001; Tweedie,
Reichert, & O'Connor, 2000). However, average earnings are
usually below the poverty level (Acs & Loprest; Parrot, 1998).
Furthermore, job instability is common, because leavers typically are
employed in temporary or low-skilled jobs (Anderson, Halter, Julnes,
& Schuldt, 2000). Studies also have shown that public supports like
the earned income tax credit (EITC), transitional Medicaid, and child
care are underused (Anderson, Halter, & Schuldt, 2001).
There is little information available concerning the principal
reasons that those who leave TANF often return. However, pre-TANF
studies found that welfare returns resulted largely from structural
employment problems (Harris, 1996; Pavetti, 1993). Edin and Lein (1997)
reported that those who left welfare often concluded they were worse off
after leaving, because of both work disincentives and the tenuous
employment available to poor women with limited education.
The problems faced by those who leave TANF may be especially
difficult in large cities, because of the high concentrations of
recipients, limited job opportunities, and city fiscal constraints (Kahn
& Kamerman, 1998; Quint et al., 1999). Wilson (1996) argued that the
decline of manufacturing jobs in large cities, when coupled with the
"out migration" of middle-class members of ethnic minority
groups and the related disintegration of community institutions, has
resulted in dense poverty areas characterized by lack of businesses, few
successful role models, and limited job networks. Therefore, Wilson
contended that welfare reform must combine education and training,
income support, and job creation strategies if it is to improve the
well-being of the inner-city poor population.
Others researchers have suggested that long-term poverty results
primarily from the dysfunctional behaviors of people who are poor.
Welfare recipients are seen as being mired in a "culture of
poverty," reinforced by welfare policies that make not working
relatively attractive (Mead, 1992). This perspective is reflected in
TANF policies such as time limits and forced work searches, which assume
people will choose welfare over work unless precluded from doing so.
Qualitative studies preceding TANF cast doubt on the accuracy of
these behavioral arguments. For example, several researchers argued that
discouragement about work opportunities results from long-term effects
of structural constraints, such as unstable jobs, limited education, and
weak government support services systems (Jarrett, 1994; Wilson, 1996).
In addition, people living in poverty were found to share mainstream
aspirations regarding work and to exhibit strengths as they struggled
with material deprivation (Edin & Lein, 1997; Seccombe, 1999).
Qualitative researchers also found that poor people were dissatisfied
with their economic position and were stigmatized by welfare receipt
(Dodson, 1998; Jarrett).
Because TANF fundamentally changed the welfare system, it is not
clear how these arguments may explain welfare exits and returns in
evolving state and local programs. The TANF program placed little
emphasis on job development, so the structural problems observed in
pre-TANF research studies may continue to undercut successful welfare
exits. Likewise, if behavioral problems consistent with arguments about
the culture of poverty are prominent, those who leave may have
difficulties coping with work expectations and may return to welfare to
escape work stresses.
We selected Chicago as an important city in which to re-explore
these and other concerns about life after leaving welfare in the new
TANF program environment. Earlier research had shown that 33 percent of
TANF leavers in Cook County, in which Chicago is located, returned to
TANF within one year (Julnes et al., 2000). Cook County leavers also had
less education and job experience, had longer earlier spells on welfare,
were more likely to be African American or Hispanic, and were more
likely to never have been married than other Illinois TANF leavers.
Method
The perspectives of social program participants generally receive
minimal attention in assessing social programs (Chapin, 1995). These
exclusions have serious implications, because the social distances
between analysts and recipients are great, and the frames of reference
used to assess programs differ (Tickamyer, Henderson, White, &
Tadlock, 2000). For example, although policy analysts apply analytic
skills to program descriptions and data, welfare recipients are uniquely
positioned to describe direct experiences that reflect on the
implementation of services.
Focus groups are one useful method for obtaining unfiltered perspectives from program participants. These groups include a small
number of people who share common experiences. Group facilitators
encourage the expression of participant ideas, but discussions generally
are unstructured (Greenbaum, 1993). It also is assumed that group
dynamics result in insights that may be unobtainable through individual
interviewing (Lederman, 1990).
The focus groups for this study were arranged with the assistance
of tire agencies serving poor people in different Chicago neighborhoods.
Staffs from these agencies recruited participants by distributing flyers
about the project, as well as through existing contacts with TANF
recipients. For four groups, participants were screened to ensure that
they had left welfare and then returned. People in these groups were
back on TANF when interviewed, so a priority was to learn why their TANF
exits had been unsuccessful. The final group consisted of people who had
left TANF and remained off at least six months at the time of the group
meeting; this group was added to ensure that client strengths after
leaving TANF were considered.
We conducted the focus group meetings between August 1999 and
September 2000. Each participant in the five focus groups was paid $40
for a two-hour session. The participants in the four focus groups that
returned to welfare met in sponsoring community agencies, and the fifth
group, those participants who remained off TANF, met in a public housing
project. Participants typically lived in high-poverty areas near the
focus group sites and had received TANF and related services from a
variety of local offices of the Illinois department of human services.
Two members of our research team moderated the focus groups.
Because we were from outside the community, staffs from the sponsoring
agencies introduced the moderators and expressed their support. Given
concerns about participant distrust of TANF agencies and caseworkers,
the moderators stressed their independence from the state human services
department.
We developed an interview guide designed to capture various aspects
of participants' work and welfare experiences, but the content of
the sessions was flexible based on participant concerns. The topics
explored in all sessions included participants' reasons for TANF
exits and returns; experiences with work and support services;
assessments about their relative well-being when on and off TANF; and
the problems and strengths that either hindered or facilitated
successful exits. Discussions also led to broader participant
assessments of the welfare system, including perspectives on caseworker
performance and the success of welfare reform implementation.
Fifty-one people participated in the focus groups. Forty-three of
them had left TANF but then returned, and the remaining eight remained
off TANF. Seventy-five percent were African American, 20 percent were
Hispanic, and 5 percent were white. All study participants were women,
and nearly all were in their 20s and 30s. Participants had an average of
2.8 children, with the number of children ranging from one to nine.
Each focus group session was audiotaped and transcribed. Project
staffs then coded participant comments thematically based on analysis of
response content (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), and selected quotes that
best illustrated various themes. To maintain the integrity of
participant responses, these quotes are presented verbatim in the
following sections.
Findings
Marginal Employment after Leaving TANF
Focus group participants indicated that their inability to maintain
work that paid a living wage most often led to their returns to TANF.
All study participants had worked after leaving TANF, and employment had
played an important role in most TANF exits. However, the jobs they
found paid low wages and often did not last. Generally having little if
any savings and often having lost health care benefits, the costs of job
loss for these women were high and immediate. Job losses sometimes
resulted from health, performance, or support services issues, but
participants more often spoke of the structural characteristics of the
jobs. Many of the jobs were temporary or seasonal, but the women did not
always understand this when they began working. As one respondent said,
"They hire you seasonal but they don't tell you that when they
hire you. They hire you full-time and then as soon as the season is over
you are out the door."
Even when these women did not lose jobs involuntarily, wage levels
sometimes resulted in returns to TANF. Low wages led some to compare
their economic status before and after leaving public assistance. When
these comparisons led participants to conclude that work did not
increase economic well-being, disillusionment was evident:
I went to a job as an assistant teacher, and I
thought I really was going to make some
money and do very well. I got off of public
welfare, because I knew I could not make it
that way. And so, what happened was, I waited
five whole weeks on a check. And when I got
my first check and I began to calculate my
week's pay against what I was getting per
month on public aid, including my benefits, I
was getting $80 a month less. Even though I
was struggling on public aid, now I was working
very hard every single day, and I was getting
$80 a month less by working.
I had left public aid and went and got a job. I
was making maybe $5 or something an hour.
And when the deal came down and I added it
up, I was doing better with public aid. Because
they had took my medical card, then cut my
food stamps so short I had to put cash with
that to go shopping, and when you're dealing
with five kids and they're teenagers, well, that
wasn't enough food. So I said, I might as well
quit this job and go back to public aid.
Caseworkers were seen as contributing to these problems, because of
the jobs to which they referred TANF recipients. As one woman said,
"The only trouble is the jobs she [caseworker] sends me on.
They're like government funded. One might last six months, one
might last nine months ... it really doesn't last." Some
participants also indicated that employers took advantage of public
incentives for hiring welfare recipients. According to another woman:
"Some of these people are getting employed in hospitality and
hotels and work a little while. Those places get that money that public
aid is paying them and then they let those people go."
Participants recognized that having poor job skills or limited
experience contributed to their low pay. Many questioned the
"work-first" philosophy of placing recipients in the first
available job, because they thought this resulted in job placements that
were insufficient to remain off TANF. Several focus group members said
TANF instead should provide more extensive skills training and education
and develop linkages to better jobs:
Before they kick them off, be sure they're educated.
You can't take a person off and put them
on a job without a high school diploma. It's
easy to go out and get a $5 job, but you need
your GED or high school diploma--some type
of schooling to keep moving forward. Because
if you do that [send people to low-paying
jobs], they're gonna be back on aid.
But the mistake they're doing is limiting our
education ... we go to work, but what happens
is we are still falling back into the system
no matter what. Because we are not educated
enough, we don't have the proper training,
and we are not going to advance in our job,
which makes us fall back where we started
from--back into the system.
Even those few who obtained better-paying and more stable jobs
faced tenuous circumstances. Because of the shortage of jobs in poor
neighborhoods, participants often commuted long distances. This created
child care difficulties in addition to transportation problems, as child
care providers were not always available for women leaving early for, or
returning late from, work. The unavailability of child care for
irregular shift times resulted in similar problems. For example, one
participant quit a well-paying job after being moved to a later shift
simply because she could not find child care for that time period.
Difficulties in Obtaining Supportive Services
Problems in obtaining support services also contributed to TANF
returns. Participants emphasized the lack of medical insurance offered
through the jobs that they found. The jobs that did provide coverage
required employees to first serve probationary periods, which could be
problematic given the previously mentioned job instability.
Employer-based health plans also generally required employee premiums
and co-payments, which compromised affordability.
Illinois offers transitional Medicaid coverage for working TANF
leavers for up to one year and extended coverage for low-income
children. However, many participants were unaware of the availability of
this coverage or were confused by program rules. They consequently did
not always receive medical benefits for which they were eligible, which
contributed to decisions to return to TANF so that Medicaid coverage
would be available.
Obtaining child care services presented similar difficulties.
Illinois has a program that provides non-time-limited child care for
low-income children based on a sliding-fee scale. Although recognizing
that this help was intended, participants encountered problems in
gaining access to it. Such difficulties led to returns to TANF, which
provided unintended signals about policy to recipients:
I applied [for child care] when I was off and
they said I made too much money. So when I
quit my job and went on [TANF] they paid for
it. [Moderator: Because you're going to
school?] Exactly ... you all don't want to do
this when I'm trying to work, O.K., so I'll go
to school.
Many participants argued that transitional income assistance was
needed to help with short-term cash flow problems associated both with
employment start-up costs and delays in receiving initial paychecks. In
addition, transitional assistance was viewed as a safety net in case of
job loss. This concern was elevated by the delays participants had
experienced when trying to get back on TANF after losing jobs:
Then when you do find a job, you've got probation
periods of 90 days. I think they should
not cut you off right away, to make sure that
this is a steady job, and this is a job for you,
and this is a company that wants you. Because
if its not and it doesn't work out, then you got
to go through channels all over again.
I think in my case what would have made the
most difference is a transitional period. If I am
fortunate enough to get a job, let me keep my
food stamps and my benefits for six months
... six months is a relatively good time for me
to say that people should be able to get on
their feet ... and don't mind me saving $200
in the bank.
Interactions with Caseworkers
Focus group participants often made reference to the power
caseworkers had in decision making: "This is your life ... and
these people got you on a string and you're their puppet."
Participants spoke of two principal dimensions when discussing
caseworker interactions. First, caseworkers were seen as critical in
determining whether TANF leavers could obtain medical care, child care,
and other services, and many participants thought that caseworkers had
not helped them get benefits to which they were entitled. This was
attributed to a lack of competence in some instances, but also to
deliberate withholding of benefits: "We have some caseworkers that
know information, but they won't give information."
Participants also indicated that systemic problems such as high
caseloads or caseworker turnover complicated their efforts to learn
about services:
And with the caseworkers, the turnover, the
turnover, the turnover. You have one caseworker
for four months, then you get another
caseworker--it's set up so you can't even build
a relationship.
A second important concern was the interpersonal dynamics between
caseworkers and TANF recipients. Although some talked of good personal
relationships with their caseworkers, participants more commonly
expressed anger over perceived mistreatment. Caseworkers'
tendencies to stereotype and look down on recipients especiaLly offended
many group members:
She [the caseworker] stereotyped every
woman in there. She told us that, now, the
days of selling your body, and selling your
food stamps, and getting high with your
money and all kinds of other junk, she said
that it was over.
To me their job is to downgrade us. They
don't like us, they don't respect us as human
beings, they feel that we are the ones that are
in need--not them--and that they can treat
us like low people that are in poverty.
Ironically, negative recollections about case-worker interactions
appeared to inhibit returns to TANF, because participants often viewed
the experience as so demeaning. As one woman said, "I really
don't want to go through the hassle anymore [of getting TANF]
." Such caseworker-induced stigma is an important issue for social
work.
Strengths after Leaving TANF
Participants described positive experiences that reinforced their
efforts. The most notable strength observed was the high value that
participants attached to working, even in jobs that policy analysts
generally consider marginal. Three factors contributed to such positive
attitudes. First, contrary to popular stereotypes, these women
paralleled the general population in deriving psychological benefits
from employment. Working served both as a source of pride in
accomplishment and as a place to form new friendships:
To get up and go out and make a start, makes
you feel better about yourself. So I think it's
[welfare reform] a good idea, and I know a lot
of people now that were on public aid and
they're off now. And they have a job, and they
feel much better about themselves.
After my first child, I started working at
Wendy's in Chicago--I worked there for three
years. I felt very good about myself.
Second, some group members spoke of the improved economic
circumstances they enjoyed when working. Although low wages often
undercut these rewards, those who obtained higher wage jobs spoke of
tangible benefits they could not enjoy when on TANF:
I'm buying my first house--I'm proud of myself.
I never had made that kind of step--I
think it's a good step to make. So I enjoy every
week--I don't care if it's $200 a week--I enjoy
seeing that check.
When I was on public aid, there was times that
I wanted to take the kids to certain restaurants
to eat or shows or buy them something special--working,
I can do that. I found myself. I've got
a little piggy bank, and every time I get paid, I
put $10-$15 in that bank. And it's just adding
up. It's going to be a little Christmas money. I
never was able to do that. It just feels good.
Third, several participants said that working or going to school
sent a positive message to their children. As one woman said,
"Since I've been working, my children see me really trying,
and they try harder too." Some also indicated that they had better
conversations with their children after they began work or training,
partly because these activities provided them with experiences to share.
Despite their concerns that TANF provided inadequate job
preparation, participants described positive experiences with some
job-training programs. Among the benefits noted were receiving basic
information about self-presentation and job searches, as well as the
camaraderie derived from sharing experiences with people in similar
circumstances. These benefits seemed particularly important to women
with very limited skills and social networks:
They taught you how to fill out applications
correctly--be professional when you go to job
interviews, and to just feel good about yourself.
I wound up meeting people in the classroom
that I still have a rapport with. We had a
chance to talk about the struggles we went
through in life. And the program motivated
me to want to go out there and go to work.
Finally, participants emphasized that families and other informal
supports were critical to their success after leaving TANF. Mothers,
husbands and former husbands, boyfriends, siblings, and children all
were mentioned as sources of strength that provided both tangible and
psychological support. Informal help in caring for children was
considered especially important. Because most group members had returned
to TANF, we cannot tell whether those who remained off generally had
greater supports than those who returned. This is an important area for
further research, as is experimentation with program models that
systematically assess TANF recipients' strengths and that develop
case plans accordingly.
Discussion and Implications
In considering the lessons that emerged from these focus groups,
one striking feature was how infrequently participants spoke of
returning to TANF as a strategic choice. Popular myths and some research
have portrayed decisions to go on or to leave welfare as resulting from
careful cost-benefit calculations (Edin & Lein, 1997). Yet,
participants in these groups more commonly simply returned to TANF after
their exit experiences negatively deviated from expectations. The need
to return often resulted from an unexpected job loss or a medical
emergency. In other instances, it simply reflected learning by people
with little previous job experience:
Once I finished school, I got off public aid and
got a job. I wasn't anticipating child care--I
didn't realize it cost so much.
When you first take the job
you think "yeah, this is going
to be something that's going
to be there for me," but then
you learn after you're on it for
a while that its not quite what
you figured.
As evidenced by the focus group comments on caseworker
interactions, returning to TANF was not a welcome decision after a
casual "testing" of the job market. Rather, it was viewed as
an unpleasant but necessary alternative, borne much more from
desperation than calculation.
This experiential emphasis points to distinctions about welfare
returns under TANF compared with Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The TANF program raised expectations among poor women, because
its marketing heavily emphasized that they would be better off by
leaving welfare for work. Most focus group members appeared to embrace
this rhetoric. However, when actual experience deviated from TANF
rhetoric and resulted in returns to welfare, cynicism about the intent
of welfare reform often resulted:
It [welfare reform] was needed, but the way it
is set up now, it's just a bunch of hype and it's
just a farce. When I think of welfare reform
today, it's just something that they put on
television to show white collar or possibly
even blue collar people that you don't have to
pay tax money for these women to have any
more kids.
The purpose is to help you find a low-paying
job and have you live check to check. They
don't help you. I think reform should be to
help you find a higher paying job so that you
will never have to return.
In many jurisdictions, returns to TANF also may be less welcome
than under AFDC. These focus group members had managed to return to
TANF, but some indicated that caseworkers questioned their need to do
so. More research is needed on whether those who leave face obstacles to
re-entry when TANF returns become necessary. It also would be useful to
determine if concerns about time limits affect considerations about
whether to return to TANF.
The recipient perspectives presented here suggest that both
TANF-related policy revisions and improvements in the implementation of
existing policies could enhance the stability of TANF exits. Consistent
with pre-TANF research on welfare returns (Edin & Lein, 1997;
Harris, 1996), study participants emphasized that low wages and job
instability caused returns to TANF. These employment constraints are
more consistent with structural than culture-of-poverty explanations of
welfare dependency. The high level of job satisfaction expressed by
participants also casts doubt on hypotheses that emphasize behavioral
deficiencies among welfare recipients. This suggests that jobs typically
viewed as unfulfilling may be rewarding to many people if accompanied by
sound income and support services policies.
The continuing difficulty that low-income inner-city women
experience in finding stable jobs should not be surprising, because
PRWORA neither focused on job creation issues nor on improving job
skills. Rather, it promoted immediate labor force attachment, under the
assumption that work experience would stimulate sustainable employment.
Resulting work-first program models have demonstrated government cost
savings and have contributed to caseload reductions. However, research
on these programs has shown only marginal short-term effects on economic
well-being (Acs & Loprest, 2001; Parrot, 1998), and the long-term
effects are unclear.
Job supply issues and the limited education and experience of
inner-city TANF recipients cast doubt on the wisdom of relying on
work-first program models in poor neighborhoods. Focus group members
stressed that skill deficits consigned them to low-wage jobs with little
chance of advancement and that additional training was needed to improve
prospects for better jobs. This position is consistent with evidence
indicating the need for the least-skilled recipients to increase
education if they are to compete for stable jobs (Jargowsky, 1997;
Wilson, 1996). A more balanced approach to TANF program development
would allow education and training as alternatives to work. States such
as Illinois, Kentucky, and Maine have moved in this direction by
allowing TANF recipients to meet work activity requirements by attending
college, junior college, or vocational training (Sweeney et al., 2000).
It also is difficult to envision long-term employment success for
inner-city TANF leavers without economic reinvestment strategies to
increase the supply of inner-city jobs. For example, enterprise zones
are being tested as a mechanism for stimulating private investment.
Because of the deterioration of many cities, public jobs programs also
are needed. Such strategies may include infrastructure redevelopment,
neighborhood clean ups, and human services jobs such as child care aides
and playground supervisors (Danziger & Gottschalk, 1995; Wilson,
1996). Although these programs primarily offer jobs of last resort, they
can provide stable employment and related job experience if accompanied
by reasonable support services.
This raises the question of the adequacy of support services for
those who leave TANF for work. Study participants pointed both to
deficiencies in the implementation of existing services and to the need
for additional supports. For example, Illinois policies stipulate that
TANF leavers ate entitled to extended Medicaid and child care benefits,
but focus group members often were unaware of or confused about these
benefits. They also expressed the opinion that services receipt depended
on caseworker attitudes and inclinations.
This seeming discretionary nature of benefit distribution
represents a radical departure from intended TANF-related policies and
from public administration norms concerning the dispassionate delivery
of benefits. However, it is consistent with studies that have
interviewed and observed caseworkers (Brodkin, 1997; Iverson, 2000).
Additional research is needed to examine how support services
implementation varies under differing administrative arrangements, as
well as with improved worker training and information dissemination
approaches.
The adequacy of existing income and services supports, even if well
implemented, is another concern. With limited additional expansion of
EITC, full-time workers could be ensured incomes of at least the poverty
level without food stamp receipt (Wilson, 1996). In addition, at least
11 states have implemented state EITC supplements, so the precedent for
state action to support low-income workers is well established (Sweeney
et al., 2000).
The lack of health care coverage for working poor people is perhaps
the greatest remaining disincentive to leave TANF. Although incremental
expansions have dramatically improved public medical benefits for
low-income children, adults who leave TANF generally do not receive
health insurance through their jobs and receive only transitional
coverage through Medicaid. Consequently, health care coverage tends to
be better on TANF than off (Julnes et al., 2000). Although universal
health care coverage should remain an important advocacy goal for social
workers, more incremental expansions of coverage for low-income workers
also merit attention. For example, many states have extended
children's health care coverage available through Children's
Health Insurance Programs or Medicaid for their parents (Sweeney et al.,
2000).
Child care coverage for TANF leavers generally is even weaker than
medical coverage. Although available federal child care resources have
expanded since PRWORA was enacted, TANF programs are not required to
provide even time-limited child care. Ensuring the availability of such
subsidized care, therefore, is an important goal for TANF.
As the mix of work and training options, income assistance, and
support services evolves, social workers have important roles to play in
services delivery and in advocacy. One overarching issue concerns
caseworker-recipient interactions involving TANF-related requirements
and benefits. There is no evidence that well-designed case planning
processes have been established in most TANF programs, and both the
findings presented here and in earlier studies suggest suboptimal case
planning implementation at best (Brodkin, 1997; Iverson, 2000).
A social work perspective on case planning suggests the need for a
mutually negotiated services plan and expectations tailored to
individual needs and strengths. At a minimum, TANF case planning should
include the careful assessment of recipient employment skills and
deficits, clear discussion of TANF work and training requirements and
options, and the provision of information about services and benefits.
Although public assistance caseworkers have become increasingly
deprofessionalized in recent years, the new emphasis on time-limited
assistance and employment provides an opportunity to advocate for these
principles.
Many opportunities exist for social workers to advocate for
policies designed to enhance the success of TANF exits. Because TANF
devolved most welfare decision making to the states, effective social
work advocacy related to TANF requires the development and maintenance
of coalitions at the state and local levels. Schneider and Netting
(1999) have developed specific process recommendations for social
workers interested in developing TANF advocacy strategies, which are
broadly applicable in advocating for various substantive
recommendations.
References
Acs, G., & Loprest, P. (2001). Initial synthesis report of the
findings from ASPE's "leavers" grants. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Anderson, S. G., Halter, A. P., Julnes, G., & Schuldt, R.
(2000). Job stability and wage progression patterns among early TANF
leavers. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 27(4), 39-58.
Anderson, S., Halter, A. P., & Schuldt, R. (2001, Fall).
Support service use patterns by early TANF leavers. New Directions for
Evaluation, 91, 87-99.
Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and
accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review,
71, 1-33.
Chapin, R. K. (1995). Social policy development: The strengths
perspective. Social Work, 40, 506-514.
Danziger, S. H., & Gottschalk, P. (1995). America unequal.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dodson, L. (1998). Don't call us out of name: The untold lives
of women and girls in poor America. Boston: Beacon Press.
Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How mothers
survive welfare and low-wage work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Greenbaum, T. L. (1993). The handbook of focus group research. New
York: Lexington Books.
Harris, K. M. (1996). Life after welfare: Women, work, and repeat
dependency. American Sociological Review, 61, 407-426.
Iverson, R. R. (2000). TANF policy implementation: The invisible
barrier, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 27(2), 139-159.
Jargowsky, P. A. (1997). Poverty and place: Ghettos, barrios, and
the American city. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Jarrett, R. L. (1994). Living poor: Family life among single
parent, African-American women. Social Problems, 41, 30-49.
Julnes, G., Halter, A., Anderson, S., Frost-Kumpf, L., Schuldt, R.
L., Staskin, F., & Ferrara, B. (2000). Illinois study of former TANF
clients: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Kahn, A. J., & Kamerman, S. B. (1998). Big cities in the
welfare transition. New York: Columbia University, School of Social
Work.
Lederman, L. C. (1990). Assessing educational effectiveness: The
focus group interview as a technique for data collection. Communication
Education, 38, 117-127.
Loprest, P. (1999). Families who left welfare: Who are they and how
are they doing? Assessing the new federalism (Discussion Paper No.
99-02). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Mead, L. M. (1992). The nonworking poor in America: The new
politics of poverty. New York: Basic Books.
Moffitt, R., & Roff, J. (2000). The diversity of welfare
leavers. In Welfare, children, and families: A three city study (Policy
Brief 00-2). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Parrot, S. (1998). Welfare recipients who find jobs: What do we
know about their employment and earnings? Washington, DC: Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.
Pavetti, L. A. (1993). The dynamics of welfare and work: Exploring
the process by which women work their way off welfare. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996, P.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.
Quint, J., Edin, K., Buck, M. L., Fink, B., Padilla, Y. C.,
Simmons-Hewitt, O., & Valmont, M. E. (1999). Big cities and welfare
reform: Early implementation and ethnographic findings from the project
on devolution and urban change. New York: Manpower Demonstration
Research Corp.
Schneider, R. L., & Netting, F. E. (1999). Influencing social
policy in a time of devolution: Upholding social work's great
tradition. Social Work, 44, 349-357.
Seccombe, K. (1999). "So you think I drive a
Cadillac?"--Welfare recipients' perspectives on the system and
on its reform. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative
research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Sweeney, E., Schott, L., Fremstad, S., Goldberg, H., Guyer, J.,
Super, D., & Johnson, C. (2000). Windows of opportunity: Strategies
to support families receiving welfare and other low-income families in
the next stage of welfare reform. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities.
Tickamyer, A. R., Henderson, D. A., White, J. A., & Tadlock, B.
L. (2000). Voices of welfare reform: Bureaucratic rationality versus the
perceptions of welfare recipients. Affilia, 15, 173-192.
Tweedie, J., Reichert, D., & O'Connor, M. (2000). Tracking
recipients after they leave welfare. Washington, DC: National Conference
of State Legislatures.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new
urban poor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Steven G. Anderson, PhD, is assistant professor, School of Social
Work, University of Illinois, 1207 West Oregon, Urbana, IL 61801;
e-mail:
[email protected]. Anthony P. Halter, DSW, is associate
professor emeritus, School of Social Work, University of Illinois, and
Brian M. Gryzlak, MSW, is research assistant, Department of
Epidemiology, University of Iowa, Ames. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the Joyce Foundation for grant funding that supported this
research.
Original manuscript received October 10, 2000
Final revision received December 3, 2001
Accepted August 6, 2002