Skip over navigation

Journal Issue: Welfare to Work Volume 7 Number 1 Spring 1997

Turning Job Finders into Job Keepers
Authors: Alan M. Hershey LaDonna A. Pavetti

Endnotes

  1. Spalter-Roth, R., Burr, B., Hartmann, H., and Shaw, L.B. Welfare that works: The working lives of AFDC recipients. Washington, DC: Institute for Women's Policy Research, 1995. This study, based on the nationally representative Survey of Income and Program Participation, included 1,181 women who were single mothers for at least 12 of 24 survey months and received AFDC for at least 2 of the 24 months. They accounted for 80% of all adults receiving AFDC.
  2. Edin, K.J. The myths of dependence and self-sufficiency: Women, welfare, and low-wage work. Focus (Fall/Winter 1995) 17,2:1–9. As a part of this study researchers interviewed welfare mothers in four cities. Although the study may not represent AFDC recipients in general, it includes recipients in states with divergent benefit levels, never-married and divorced mothers, and long- and short-term recipients.
  3. U.S. House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee. Overview of entitlement programs: 1994 green book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994.
  4. Ellwood, D., and Bane, M.J. Understanding welfare dynamics. In Welfare realities: From rhetoric to reform. M.J. Bane and D.T. Ellwood, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994, pp. 67–123.
  5. Pavetti, L.A. The dynamics of welfare and work: Exploring the process by which women work their way off welfare. Cambridge, MA: Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, Harvard University, 1993.
  6. Gritz, R.M., and McCurdy, T. Patterns of welfare utilization and multiple program participation among young women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, June 1991.
  7. Harris, K.M. Work and welfare among single mothers in poverty. American Journal of Sociology (September 1993) 99,2:317–52.
  8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. Quarterly public assistance statistics, fiscal years 1992 and 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995.
  9. Weeks, G.C. Leaving public assistance in Washington State. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Evergreen State College, 1991.
  10. Thornton, C., and Hershey, A. After REACH: Experience of AFDC recipients who leave welfare with a job. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, October 1990.
  11. Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., and Schochet, P. The dynamics of AFDC spells among teenage parents. Working paper. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, January 1995.
  12. Harris, K.M. Life after welfare: Women, work, and repeat dependency. American Sociological Review (1996) 61,3:407–26.
  13. Olson, L., Berg, L., and Conrad, A. High job turnover among the urban poor: The Project Match experience. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University, 1990.
  14. Nightingale, D.S., Wissoker, D., Burbridge, L.C., et al. Evaluation of the Massachusetts Employment and Training (ET) Choices Program. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1990.
  15. Herr, T., Halpern, R., and Wagner, S.L. Something old, something new: A case study of the Post-Employment Services Demonstration in Oregon. Chicago, IL: Project Match, Erikson Institute, 1995.
  16. Ellwood, D. Understanding dependency. In Welfare realities: From rhetoric to reform. M.J. Bane and D.T. Ellwood, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994, pp. 67–125. Quoted material is from p. 100.
  17. Brandon, P. What happens to single mothers after AFDC? Focus (Fall/Winter 1995) 17,2:13–15.
  18. Riccio, J.A., Friedlander, D., and Freedman, S. GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, September 1994. Results cited are for members of the evaluation control group, which was unaffected by the GAIN intervention.
  19. Levitan, S.A., and Shapiro, I. Working but poor: America's contradiction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.
  20. See note no. 2, Edin, p. 7.
  21. Haimson, J., Hershey, A., and Rangarajan, A. Providing services to promote job retention. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, December 1995.
  22. Quint, J.C., Musick, J.S., and Ladner, J.A. Lives of promise, lives of pain: Young mothers after New Chance. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1994.
  23. Rangarajan, A., Burghardt, J., and Gordon, A. Evaluation of the Minority Female Single Parent Demonstration: Technical supplement to the analysis of economic impacts (Volume II). Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, October 1992. Calculations are based on p. 194, Table E.1B, Reasons for the Most Recent Job Termination, including both treatment and control groups.
  24. Danziger, S., and Gottschalk, P. Unemployment insurance and the safety net for the unemployed. Discussion Paper No. 808-86. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, 1986.
  25. Berg, L., Olson, L., and Conrad, A. Causes and implications of rapid job loss among participants in a welfare-to-work program. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University, October 1991.
  26. See note no. 22, Quint, Musick, and Ladner, p. 61.
  27. Moffitt, R., and Wolfe, B. The effects of Medicaid on welfare dependency and work. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, June 1989; see also, Hill, S.C., and Wolfe, B.L. The effect of health on the work effort of single mothers. Journal of Human Resources (Winter 1995) 30,1:42–62.
  28. Raphael, J. Domestic violence: Telling the untold welfare-to-work story. Chicago: The Taylor Institute, 1995; see also, Lloyd, S. The effects of domestic violence on female labor force participation. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy and Management. Washington, DC, November 1995.
  29. Job losses reported in the Minority Female Single Parent Demonstration evaluation were attributed to personal problems in about 8% of all cases. In the New Jersey REACH evaluation, the figure was about 5%.
  30. See note no. 21, Haimson, Hershey, and Rangarajan, p. 77.
  31. See note no. 21, Haimson, Hershey, and Rangarajan, p. 59.
  32. Ebb, N. Child care tradeoffs: States make painful choices. Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund, January 1994.
  33. U.S. General Accounting Office. Welfare to work: Implementation and evaluation of transitional benefits need HHS action. GAO/HRD-92-118. Washington, DC: GAO, September 1992.
  34. JOBS case managers and supervisors in Chicago; San Antonio; Portland, Oregon; and Riverside, California. Personal communications, fall 1994.
  35. Herr, T., and Halpern, R. Changing what counts: Re-thinking the journey out of welfare. Chicago: Project Match, Erikson Institute, 1991.
  36. Mathematica Policy Research is evaluating the Post-Employment Services Demonstration (PESD) through an experimental design evaluation and expects preliminary impact estimates before early 1997.
  37. Greenwald, Richard. Development Manager, America Works. Telephone conversation, January 19, 1996.
  38. Shellenbarger, S. Flexible workers come under the umbrella of family programs. Wall Street Journal. February 8, 1995, at B1.
  39. See note no. 35, Herr and Halpern, p. 10.